Many sectors of the economy, from banking to insurance to manufacturing, have all received extremely sizable public assistance in order to repair their damaged businesses. To be clear, these "bailouts" are actually offsetting the losses from disastrous decision-making or failed business models. If the economy were not being affected en masse, these same businesses would probably be allowed to fail, because every indication is that they have failed.

What, then, about those who used debt to create real value? What about the companies that leveraged their debt and invested wisely? What about the individuals who used debt to pay for education? This line of reasoning is loaded, because it takes as a presupposition that "Education is Valuable." With the caveat that some people might argue over the true value of education, Student Loan Bubble will take it as a given that college usually does increase an individual's capacity to be a productive member of society.

At what point did we collectively decide that our public funds would be used to reward failed businesses? When did we decide we would use public money to send people to school, only to leave them with crippling debt repayments? As Student Loan Bubble has previously speculated, it is entirely possible that the public financing of education has driven tuition prices up at a rate much faster than inflation.

As a nation, are we entirely satisfied to punish the most productive members of our society with debt that is impossible to discharge, when it was probably a public policy error that inflated tuition prices in the first place?

Certainly, this line of reasoning is not without consequence. This is the perfect storm that would trigger the Student Loan Bubble, which would create a new "dark ages" for US colleges and universities who rely on inflated tuition, and would bankrupt even more lending companies. Those securities that are backed by student loan debt would suddenly become "toxic assets" in exactly the same manner as housing mortgages. Government purchase of those newly-toxic assets would, in fact, be a bailout for the student lending industry.

At this point, Student Loan Bubble is not willing to articulate a formal position on the topic, but there are extremely compelling arguments to be made for both sides of the issue. Consider the following article from banks.com...

Excerpt from: http://www.banks.com/blogs/mortgages/2009/03/13/wo...

In a way, it makes sense. How many of us graduated from school with student loan debt? What would we be able to buy if we didn't have it? How much more would we be able to borrow if we weren't making student loan payments? The stated goals of our leaders, since the issue of financial crisis reared its head, have all been connected with getting us to spend more money. So why not make it possible?

Student loan forgiveness would be costly, though. The government would have to buy all the loans from the folks it subsidizes to offer low cost student loans, and then forgive the loans. It could work, though, as part of the effort to cut out the "middle man" when it comes to student loans. If the government began making the loans directly to students, rather than paying others to do so, the government could make money on it. And it might go toward reducing the horrendous deficit we're in.

The housing bubble, and the consequent credit crisis, is a very complex system that is elegantly and lucidly explained in the following video, created by Jonathan Jarvis.

There is at least one element missing from the video, which is mentioned but not expanded upon: Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which explain how insurance companies are also included in the flowchart. The Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) are partially insured by CDSes, which is a guarantee that if the CDO stops earning money, the insurance company will pay the difference. Because the CDO market was actually the business of reselling housing mortgages (and we all know how that went) the CDS contracts are now in effect. Now, insurance companies must pay out sums of money that are a large portion of the total mortgage defaults.

Nevertheless, this video is fantastic, and it is a useful tool for learning more about the student loan bubble. In the same way that bankers created CDOs out of mortgages, student loan debt has also been packaged and resold to other bankers and investors. Unlike mortgages, students are not able to default on their loan repayments.

Excerpt from: http://vimeo.com/3261363

The goal of giving form to a complex situation like the credit crisis is to quickly supply the essence of the situation to those unfamiliar and uninitiated. This project was completed as part of my thesis work in the Media Design Program, a graduate studio at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California.

In a recent article for Forbes Magazine, Kathy Kristof writes about "The Great College Hoax," which debunks the premise that student debt will be offset by higher lifetime earnings. Kristof discusses the census finding that, on average, college-educated individuals earn $25,900 more per year than high school graduates, pointing out the fallacy of inferring too much about the reasons for this income discrepancy.

Student Loan Bubble sees a much more serious statistical error in this reasoning: recent graduates earn less at the beginning of their careers, and average (also called "mean") earnings are a distorted representation of actual earnings. A few individuals (so-called outliers) who earn much more than the rest will distort the mean, while the median will be resistant to this problem. Wikipedia provides the following explanation of median versus mean:

The median is primarily used for skewed distributions, which it represents differently than the arithmetic mean. Consider the multiset { 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 9 }. The median is 2 in this case, as is the mode, and it might be seen as a better indication of central tendency than the arithmetic mean of 3.166.

Calculation of medians is a popular technique in summary statistics and summarizing statistical data, since it is simple to understand and easy to calculate, while also giving a measure that is more robust in the presence of outlier values than is the mean.

The following table, entitled "Earnings By Occupation and Education," presents median yearly earnings for individuals aged 21-24, broken down by educational attainment. Click on the image for the full-size version. The original census data are available from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/call1usboth.html

Students cannot expect to earn an "average" amount of money; in this case, the median is a much more accurate picture of reality. Among recent graduates, the median income discrepancy between college and high school grads is a mere $7,415, which is accompanied by tens of thousands in student debt repayment. Later in life, a college degree is "worth more," but student debt repayment usually begins when the student is 21 or 22 years old; student lenders are not content to wait until the debtor earns a higher annual income.

It is the conclusion of Student Loan Bubble that the median income statistic deserves more attention, and that lifetime earnings are a misrepresentation of what recent graduates can expect to earn. Between college and high school graduates, loan debt uniquely affects the former, who do not earn dramatically more than the latter. College graduates in their early 20s are at unique risk of not earning enough to repay their student debts. The risk inherent in managing student loans as a young professional may not be offset by future earning potential.

Excerpt from: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060.html

Census figures show that college grads earn an average of $57,500 a year, which is 82% more than the $31,600 high school alumni make. Multiply the $25,900 difference by the 40 years the average person works and, sure enough, it comes to a tad over $1 million.

But anybody who has gotten a passing grade in statistics knows what's wrong with this line of argument. A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college. To cite the extreme and obvious example: Bill Gates is rich because he knows how to run a business, not because he matriculated at Harvard. Finishing his degree wouldn't have increased his income.

All the while students have been lulled into thinking of the extra $1 million that will be theirs, they have been forced to disgorge an ever larger fraction of it in pursuit of the degree. While the premium that college grads earn over high schoolers has remained relatively constant over the past five years, the cost of acquiring a degree has risen at twice the rate of inflation, dramatically undermining any value a sheepskin adds.

Offsetting that million-dollar income discrepancy is the $46,700 four-year cost of tuition, fees, books, room and board at a public school and $99,900 at a private one--even after financial aid, scholarships and grants. Add all this to the equation and college grads don't pull even with high school grads in lifetime income until age 33 on average, the College Board says. Even that doesn't include the $125,000 in pay students forgo over four years.