how does Zaloom discuss the American middle class, especially in relation to planning and taking on student debt? How are decisions around student loans informed by specific moral norms and expectations?
Zaloom explains her definition of the middle class as being people who have too much money to qualify for federal aid and not enough money to pay full tuition at most schools. She highlights that the middle class has to start planning and taking on debt as soon as their children are born, by setting money a side for their children to go to college. Families also move to the suburbs to make sure their children get into good public schools to prepare them for good colleges. Families also use investment and debt to fund their children's education. "Families lives are organized in critical ways around the problem of paying for college", as Zaloom says. Getting a 4 year degree has become a staple of the middle class. Zaloom also talks about the importance of an "open future" in determining how much middle class families will invest into their children's education. Children are brought up to eventually become independent from their parents and to create a future of their own, so teaching children that they would need to invest in their own education was a big cultural concept that many parents used to distill into their children. However, that is no longer the case any more as college tuition has risen and there are less financial grants being dispersed, parents feel as though its their obligation to help support their children in investing into their educational future.
Families that conform to the outdated nuclear family ideal are the ones who are more likely to get financial aid and grants from the state and the college. This is due to the family being checked through the standards of FASFA rather than the student applying for the aid themselves. So, if one has a family structure that does not follow the nuclear family order than they are least likely to qualify for financial aid benefits. Therefore, families are pressured into following identical familial norms with only 2 biological parents as the main supporters instead of the possible, just as important family members of grandparents and aunts and uncles. They are also expected to help support their children by filling out the the big portion of the FASFA that requires parental information regarding their finances, instead of just focusing on the child who is going to the chosen college.
Zaloom offers a new definition of the middle-class that she uses throughout the work, which is especially imperative as the definition relies on an understanding of the material she is understanding. Zaloom suggests that the middle class can be defined as families with too much money to qualify for higher education grants (like the Pell Grant, for example), but not enough money to actually pay for their children's education, thus inserting themselves directly into the line of fire for student indebtedness. Without grants, or the ability to pay for college education, the middle class are the people who found themselves stuck with the brunt of federal student loans and private loans. College itself is a huge way to define the middle class. A middle class family's position in the middle class is not always secure, and a college degree is viewed as the way to maintain their economic status, or perhaps move upwards.
An interesting point Zaloom makes about why it's the middle class especially feeding into this is because of a certain cultural norm. Middle class parents believe it is their duty to ensure that their children can make it on their own and become independent, and in a way, these parents want to be able to guarantee their children a place in the world, both economically and socially, which they only really deem possible with a Bachelors degree. This is how their children will have earned their "open future" (Zaloom 8).
An important norm of the middle class that influences their entwinement with student debt is their already interconnected nature with finance, banks, and investment. Zaloom talks largely about the cultural norm of this connection between finance and the middle class family in chapter one. The middle class, whether they're aware of it are not, are seemingly preyed upon by the Department of Education for the large amount of young adults attending university. This is done by appealing to the middle class norm of aspiring to do better. This is also done by pushing the model for awarding aid to look like most middle class families: a nuclear family.
She describes the American middle class as being too wealthy to qualify for much financial aid, but not wealthy enough to be able to pay for a college through savings. It is a social norm and standard for these middle class families to send their children to college in order to give them the ability to reach their full potential. There is a huge expectation and pressure around them needing to be able to provide this for their children, including a huge pressure for middle class children to go on and receive a degree. Because of this, the American middle class resorts to taking out loans. Zaloom talks about how these parents are faced with the decision of either taking out another mortgage to pay for their children’s education or making their children take out loans under their own names. Both of these options are a financial risk as it is not promised that an education will lead to a financial stable future. Also, undergraduate degrees aren’t as impressive as they used to be due to the expectation that every middle class person needs to obtain one, and they are also way more expensive with tuition prices continuing to rise. Yet, people still are willing to try and pay for it because it is considered the moral thing to do. Due to the fact that the price of tuition keeps increasing, could it ever get so ridiculously high that middle class families decide that it isn’t even worth the financial risk anymore? What would happen to universities if middle class families stopped taking out these massive loans to pay for education and only the small percentage of extremely wealthy people were able to get an education? Can we consider this a financial bubble, and will it ever pop?
Zaloom begins the book describing what the middle class once was and how it has changed. In the 1950s-60s,college meant economic security and a prosperous future. However, she says this is no longer the case because an overwhelming majority of the middle class today is indebted due to the extreme cost of higher education. She discusses the American expectation of an "open future" for all, one where no one is bound by social position, which dates back to the American Revolution. It is a parent's responsibility to not only their children, but also their democracy to ensure that their child has access to any opportunity they choose to pursue. This responsibility conflicts with the moral standard of the middle-class to be frugal, keep a tight budget, save/invest, and keep finances private. Middle-class parents are stuck risking their financial security in order to provide higher education for their children. She notes that planning for student debt begins minutes into a baby's life.
She also points out that the middle-class has relied on debt and investment to acheive aspirations for decades, which began with mortgages. In order to grow a successful family, a house in suburbia is required, which can be expensive and require a bank loan. Also, a house served as an investment. Suburbia was preferred because of the good school districts that resided there. Parents are expected to be willing to invest however much into their childrens future. However, as prices of tuition rose, the tension between the responsibility to help children and the expectation to maintain financial prudence was only alleviated by taking out loans for school.
Today, after decades of the less federal funding to universities starting with Reagan's 'do-it-yourself' approach, tuition has skyrocketed. One way for universities to still allow lower-income children to get a higher education is to provide financial aid, both federal and through the university. One point of Zaloom's that I found interesting was that she stated that universities would often increase tuition so that the upper-class parents would pay the university enough to create grants to give to lower-income students. This left the middle-class in a sticky spot where they couldn't afford to pay the new high rates, but also didn't meet the requirements to get financial aid. Debt became the optimal way to pay for school.
Since this realization, a sort of science has developed to determine financial aid packages for families. Zaloom calls it "the student finance complex", which she defines as the financial policies and programs for higher education that link governments, banks, and universities. The FAFSA is filled out and interpretted by these three institutions to determine what funds a family will get and from where. The expected family contribution number (EFC) dictates whether the government or university should offer their aid/loans, and how much should be paid by personal finance. Basically, even from a federal perspective, college is expected to be paid for by parents, and their income is the deciding factor for aid. This fact diminishes the independence expectation for children.
Zaloom discusses middle families as losing their sense of autonomy as they become grossly entrapped in the student financial complex. This system's apparent promotion to financially uplift middle class families, hoping to support their children's journey toward higher education, in reality is exploiting their fiscal insecurities and instabilities. In doing so, middle class families are forced to take out loans that eventually limits their autonomy toward future decisions or planning. In a social normative sense, Zaloom highlights higher education as being an imperative step for families to boost their child's independence so that they can provide for themselves, but due to significant cuts back on financial aid policies universities have increased tuitions that have not only decreased the mobility of these families, but have seemingly subjected them to the vicious cycle of "enmeshed autonomy." This concept notes that "in taking out loans students are being told to trade dependence on their families for the 'independence' of relying on finance," in return subjecting them to floodgates of debt and limitations upon an open future. An important discussion that Zaloom provides is that there is a cultural imperative that is set when families make decisions to send their children to college or universities. This imperative signifies that families should be able to support themselves without asking for assistance from others, in order to pay for the succession of the next generation. These moral responsibilities maintain a disconnection between parents and their children, as parents are constantly having to keep silent about their financial struggles, so to not burden their children with the information, and not restrict their potential. In result, parents are conditioned into believing that monetary restraint is an immoral and selfish step for their child's future, thus the only logical step is toward risk taking and investments. These arguments set by the student financial complex, therefore consistently confines familial prospects and enhances inherited inequalities that eventually builds further class stratification and reduces the chances of gaining opportunity outside of universities.
For me, the introduction where Zaloom talks about the differences in thought between the generations really sets the mood for the book, especially as someone who is going through that right now. She then goes on to the parents and the family as a whole, which again resonated with me, as I am about to graduate and a family, on average, is only about five years away. The thought of dealing with all of the loans that I have taken out, possibly the loans of my significant other, plus a child is crazy. She says how parents view getting their child through college and trying to make the best fiscal decisions creates so much tension for the family as a whole, which is very true. The conversations about how everything will be paid for are very jarring for someone who is just coming out of high school, but that is the reality for many kids these days. The thought of money is always in the back of their minds, and it comes to a head as they are about to graduate, as that's when the debts must start being paid. The cost of college stays with families forever; it creates a ripple effect because it takes such a large percentage of family’s income that some just never recover fully. She mentions the three main arguments of her project, that family’s lives revolve around paying for college, parents have to figure out the moral conflicts of being a parent and paying for college, and whether or not it will even be worth it in the end. I speak to my parents about these topics occasionally, and it really is a lot of pressure on them, and in turn, me. I can't help but feel bad about putting my parents, and myself, into debt, and the third point, 'will it all be worth it/can I even pay back the loans', is a tough question to think about. The expectation that everyone needs a degree to even have a chance in this economy gives too much power to the colleges, who in turn, increase the price. What happens when the demand keeps increasing and people keep paying, the price goes up. The financial struggles of college are ever looming in the minds of millions of people, which to me, is not okay, but to many it's just one of the prices you have to pay to be American.
In order to clarify any confusions that the audience may have with who exactly the middle class is and what kind of people it contains since there are multiple definitions and understandings of the group, in the beginning of her book, Zaloom introduces her own concept of defining the middle class by their capacity to pay for college: if parents do not make enough money to pay tuition and if parents make too much money that they do not qualify for federal grants they are not considered to me middle class. According to Zaloom, higher education is supposed to shape young people's future possibilities, but instead it brings forth a world of debt and anxiety. This debt has "redefined the experience of being middle class" (Zaloom 2). Parents believe that their children are worth it, and sending their children to college "carries a significance.... Striving to help children achieve a better life has long been one of the values and practices that makes a family middle class" (Zaloom 3). However, talking about money, seems to be a taboo topic when it comes to discussion outside of the home, such as with neighbors or coworkers, which makes it more difficult to understand how many of these families and individuals are struggling through loans and debt. The privacy of the middle class, especially when it comes to speaking about finances, brings forth more independence, since, for example, we can apply for loans straight from our kitchen tables, instead of having to meet with a financial adviser to do so. Morally, it is usually not a problem for these families to take on student loans since there is typically an emphasis on working towards careers that will be can potentially provide a good income/salary to then pay back those loans. Zaloom explains how there are many moral mandates by society, such as in TV programming, on radio, in advertisements and etc that give advice on how families should prepare themselves for their futures and sending a child or multiple children off to college. Young students, and their parents, who are in the pursuit of freedom and independence typically are willing to spend more for college and take on more debt. People who are entering college in this age are more willing to speculate with their finances, such as relying on scholarships that have not yet been decided, as well as relying on money from a job that you may not have yet. For a middle class family, to come forth about the financial issues that they may be having would be "admitting to the fragile nature of their finances." (Zaloom 29)
Zaloom classifies the middle class in terms of their ability to secure student loans. She puts them in the awkward position of making too much money to secure government aid while not being able to afford the entire bill alone and making too little to afford the remainder of tuition after they have received minimal government aid. This puts the middle class in a situation that having a child go to college is an extreme financial risk and not something that can not be taken lightly. This forces parents to plan for their children's college education at the time of birth and in some cases before their birth. This need to plan in advance and already being in the middle class, with limited financial resources, this causes a large impact in the families financial situation for an extended period, sometimes long after the child is finished with their education. All of this strain and hardship with the intention of giving their children a chance to succeed in later life. These loans are informed by the government assigning an amount that the parents are intended to contribute based on their income. This is where the definition of middle class comes to make a college education so difficult to attain. If parents can not afford to pay what they are expected then this money needs to be sourced from loans, on top of the loans that are already necessary. The expectation of family contribution can, in some cases, significantly effect the finances of the college student because they are forced to take out additional thousands of dollars in loans which can take a long time to pay off.
In Zaloom’s book “Indebted” they describe the economic grey area that middle-class Americans inhabit when in comes to paying for college. According to Zaloom, the household income of these middle-class Americans would be too much to qualify their child for significant federal aid and not enough to pay for the cost of college outright. However, in an attempt to maintain the semi-comfortable life style of a middle American or even better their life, going to college and taking on student loan debt is seen as a necessary evil. To help ensure this debt is a risk worth taking, middle class Americans will seek out suburban areas with better public schools that prepare their children for college. These schools are also looking to reinforce the idea of a 4-year degree being the best insurance for at least maintaining the middle class life style theses families have raised their children in. Zaloom calls this “securing an open future”. The idea of going to college and receiving that bachelor’s degree becomes a social norm for middle class American’s and is seen as obtaining the ability to take care of one’s self financially. This may be the best business model ever produced. The price of education has been raised to a level so absurd that one must take on ten’s of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and they do it because of the fear that is perpetuated of what may happen to you if you don’t go off and obtain a 4-year degree. High schools of the middle-class act as a funnel into the four-year schools as well. Counselors and teachers push for the goal of college and rarely speak of alternative options, furthering the stigma of not attending a college or university.
When middle class families are looking into sending their children to college, there are a lot of questions to consider. “How much can they really pay? How much should they tell their children about the pressures those expenses will put on their own financial security? Where do their responsibilities to their children begin and end?” (102) Middle class families turn to financial aid programs that can help ease the cost of tuition, but in some cases, they have too much money to reap much benefit. FAFSA can provide students aid, but often times doesn’t account for all financial responsibilities that a family might have, such as taking care of older relatives. Other programs can be looked into though, such as The CSS Profile which allows for student’s to include “special circumstances” that affect their family’s expenses.
Also, when deciding what to go to school for, parents want their children to pick an option that will most likely provide their children with a job and steady income right after they graduate. This is so that their children are able to quickly gain autonomy in their lives and are less likely to move back home after graduation, which is often seen as a moral failing. Because of this, a lot of parents have a large say in what their children are and aren’t allowed to pick as a major. Parents often aren’t willing to help their child take out loans if they think that their child is pursuing a promising field.
Overall, different families face different difficulties when sending their children to school, and race can play a huge factor. It is estimated that African Americans are 70% more likely to be in debt than their white peers after graduating from college. Our country has a long history of wage discrimination which leaves African American families with weaker credit and limited assets (128). White college-educated families still make significantly more than college-educated black families, and the gap is continuing to grow. This makes it more likely that white graduates will obtain an inheritance that can get them out of debt. Because of this, African American families often times have to make consideration that white families don’t. Still, the ideals of providing one’s children with upward mobility which allows them to hopefully enhance their lives socially and economically is prevalent among all families.
The very first line of chapter four titled Enmeshed Autonomy, Zaloom states that helping children achieve autonomy is a guiding principle for American middle-class families. In order for children become autonomous, according to many of the parents that she discussed with, these children must be exposed to intimate connection, but also the extended financial assistance that middle-class children face when the time comes to pay for college. The term "Human Capital" means two things--that the person in question is a benefit to the family, as well as from the idea the recieving a college education makes you a more valuable person in society and help to create a more educated workforce for the nation. Since families are aware of the great financial burden approaching when they have a child, some will start saving money when the child is young, planning to later use that money to pay for tuition. The idea of Human Capital states that even though we are spending tons of money on university, families can assume to at least get some money in return after loans are paid back and the newly educated student gets a well-paying job. The great financial dependence that middle-class college students have on their families leads them to live at home with there parents longer than college students in other countries, where the cost to attend university is a lot cheaper. The idea that these students have to return home and live with their parents then raises the idea that there has been a failure somewhere along the line, since they are striving to reach autonomy but still have to live at home. Some of these students even feel that they are a burden on their parents for having them pay for them to attend college. Until now, Zaloom has mostly spoken about white middle-class families, but she brings up that on average, African-American parents hold twice as much debt that white parents in the US. This is because of the long history of wage discrimination that has not allowed many African-Americans to build wealth. The idea that college in the United States is supposed to allow for young adults to become independent is not always the case, Zaloom explains this simply in her conclusion. "Current policies undermine young adults and their families at a moment of vulnerability--when children are launching into their adult lives." Certain students are often limited in what they can achieve because of expensive and for-profit universities that deepen class-stratification, as well as the disproportionate amount of debt loan that African American parents have to deal with in order to get their children to the same place that white children are reaching for in university. In order to fix this and help students become truly independent and families and their children become overrun by debt, Zaloom suggests that the government rework how it treats public institutions, such as the Excelsor Program in New York, allowing low and middle-income students whose families make less than $125,000 per year to attend public colleges and universities for free. After finishing book, I feel that I have learned a lot about going to college in the US as someone who is already attending a university. I found that I agreed with and understood a lot of the points that Zaloom makes about the system here, and I believe that it could do with some change.
Chapter four is about the goal of financial and household freedom after college but the inability to unweave the parent’s and the child’s financial situation. She calls this enmeshed autonomy, and she explains that, “independence must be cultivated under conditions not only of intimate connection but also of extended financial assistance” (95). This results in what she calls the ‘accordion family’, which is where college students must return home after a brief stint of freedom due to the financial burden placed on the student and now the parents as well. The statistic that 70% of twenty-year olds have received money from their parents is very shocking but makes total sense. The problem then shifts to the parents for the money, impacting their future and retirement plans. The term ‘failure to launch’ is one I've heard before (being a psych major) and it is becoming more of an expectation rather than a taboo. With the down payment for ‘launching’ growing exponentially, with college, housing, groceries, and much more increasing at a higher rate than salaries, it is becoming harder on college kids and their parents to pay for everything. she mentioned how parents have to take out of what would become a retirement fund to help pay for their kids, and how some people advice against that; that it would be better in the long term, for both parents and kids, for the parents to just let the kids struggle in their twenties, as parents having no retirement fund is worse than the kids struggling in their twenties. She then writes that it goes against a parent’s role that parents play in their child’s life to leave them struggling; even though it makes sense financially, the moral mandates make it so hard on parents. This whole book has opened my eyes to what goes on behind scenes in a play that I'm acting in right now. Its sad that it has come to this, that parents have to ruin their financial security just to try to get their children started. I just hope that I can somehow repay my parents for what they have done for me.
Zaloom explains her definition of the middle class as being people who have too much money to qualify for federal aid and not enough money to pay full tuition at most schools. She highlights that the middle class has to start planning and taking on debt as soon as their children are born, by setting money a side for their children to go to college. Families also move to the suburbs to make sure their children get into good public schools to prepare them for good colleges. Families also use investment and debt to fund their children's education. "Families lives are organized in critical ways around the problem of paying for college", as Zaloom says. Getting a 4 year degree has become a staple of the middle class. Zaloom also talks about the importance of an "open future" in determining how much middle class families will invest into their children's education. Children are brought up to eventually become independent from their parents and to create a future of their own, so teaching children that they would need to invest in their own education was a big cultural concept that many parents used to distill into their children. However, that is no longer the case any more as college tuition has risen and there are less financial grants being dispersed, parents feel as though its their obligation to help support their children in investing into their educational future.
ReplyDeleteFamilies that conform to the outdated nuclear family ideal are the ones who are more likely to get financial aid and grants from the state and the college. This is due to the family being checked through the standards of FASFA rather than the student applying for the aid themselves. So, if one has a family structure that does not follow the nuclear family order than they are least likely to qualify for financial aid benefits. Therefore, families are pressured into following identical familial norms with only 2 biological parents as the main supporters instead of the possible, just as important family members of grandparents and aunts and uncles. They are also expected to help support their children by filling out the the big portion of the FASFA that requires parental information regarding their finances, instead of just focusing on the child who is going to the chosen college.
Zaloom offers a new definition of the middle-class that she uses throughout the work, which is especially imperative as the definition relies on an understanding of the material she is understanding. Zaloom suggests that the middle class can be defined as families with too much money to qualify for higher education grants (like the Pell Grant, for example), but not enough money to actually pay for their children's education, thus inserting themselves directly into the line of fire for student indebtedness. Without grants, or the ability to pay for college education, the middle class are the people who found themselves stuck with the brunt of federal student loans and private loans. College itself is a huge way to define the middle class. A middle class family's position in the middle class is not always secure, and a college degree is viewed as the way to maintain their economic status, or perhaps move upwards.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point Zaloom makes about why it's the middle class especially feeding into this is because of a certain cultural norm. Middle class parents believe it is their duty to ensure that their children can make it on their own and become independent, and in a way, these parents want to be able to guarantee their children a place in the world, both economically and socially, which they only really deem possible with a Bachelors degree. This is how their children will have earned their "open future" (Zaloom 8).
An important norm of the middle class that influences their entwinement with student debt is their already interconnected nature with finance, banks, and investment. Zaloom talks largely about the cultural norm of this connection between finance and the middle class family in chapter one. The middle class, whether they're aware of it are not, are seemingly preyed upon by the Department of Education for the large amount of young adults attending university. This is done by appealing to the middle class norm of aspiring to do better. This is also done by pushing the model for awarding aid to look like most middle class families: a nuclear family.
She describes the American middle class as being too wealthy to qualify for much financial aid, but not wealthy enough to be able to pay for a college through savings. It is a social norm and standard for these middle class families to send their children to college in order to give them the ability to reach their full potential. There is a huge expectation and pressure around them needing to be able to provide this for their children, including a huge pressure for middle class children to go on and receive a degree. Because of this, the American middle class resorts to taking out loans. Zaloom talks about how these parents are faced with the decision of either taking out another mortgage to pay for their children’s education or making their children take out loans under their own names. Both of these options are a financial risk as it is not promised that an education will lead to a financial stable future. Also, undergraduate degrees aren’t as impressive as they used to be due to the expectation that every middle class person needs to obtain one, and they are also way more expensive with tuition prices continuing to rise. Yet, people still are willing to try and pay for it because it is considered the moral thing to do. Due to the fact that the price of tuition keeps increasing, could it ever get so ridiculously high that middle class families decide that it isn’t even worth the financial risk anymore? What would happen to universities if middle class families stopped taking out these massive loans to pay for education and only the small percentage of extremely wealthy people were able to get an education? Can we consider this a financial bubble, and will it ever pop?
ReplyDeleteZaloom begins the book describing what the middle class once was and how it has changed. In the 1950s-60s,college meant economic security and a prosperous future. However, she says this is no longer the case because an overwhelming majority of the middle class today is indebted due to the extreme cost of higher education. She discusses the American expectation of an "open future" for all, one where no one is bound by social position, which dates back to the American Revolution. It is a parent's responsibility to not only their children, but also their democracy to ensure that their child has access to any opportunity they choose to pursue. This responsibility conflicts with the moral standard of the middle-class to be frugal, keep a tight budget, save/invest, and keep finances private. Middle-class parents are stuck risking their financial security in order to provide higher education for their children. She notes that planning for student debt begins minutes into a baby's life.
ReplyDeleteShe also points out that the middle-class has relied on debt and investment to acheive aspirations for decades, which began with mortgages. In order to grow a successful family, a house in suburbia is required, which can be expensive and require a bank loan. Also, a house served as an investment. Suburbia was preferred because of the good school districts that resided there. Parents are expected to be willing to invest however much into their childrens future. However, as prices of tuition rose, the tension between the responsibility to help children and the expectation to maintain financial prudence was only alleviated by taking out loans for school.
Today, after decades of the less federal funding to universities starting with Reagan's 'do-it-yourself' approach, tuition has skyrocketed. One way for universities to still allow lower-income children to get a higher education is to provide financial aid, both federal and through the university. One point of Zaloom's that I found interesting was that she stated that universities would often increase tuition so that the upper-class parents would pay the university enough to create grants to give to lower-income students. This left the middle-class in a sticky spot where they couldn't afford to pay the new high rates, but also didn't meet the requirements to get financial aid. Debt became the optimal way to pay for school.
Since this realization, a sort of science has developed to determine financial aid packages for families. Zaloom calls it "the student finance complex", which she defines as the financial policies and programs for higher education that link governments, banks, and universities. The FAFSA is filled out and interpretted by these three institutions to determine what funds a family will get and from where. The expected family contribution number (EFC) dictates whether the government or university should offer their aid/loans, and how much should be paid by personal finance. Basically, even from a federal perspective, college is expected to be paid for by parents, and their income is the deciding factor for aid. This fact diminishes the independence expectation for children.
Zaloom discusses middle families as losing their sense of autonomy as they become grossly entrapped in the student financial complex. This system's apparent promotion to financially uplift middle class families, hoping to support their children's journey toward higher education, in reality is exploiting their fiscal insecurities and instabilities. In doing so, middle class families are forced to take out loans that eventually limits their autonomy toward future decisions or planning. In a social normative sense, Zaloom highlights higher education as being an imperative step for families to boost their child's independence so that they can provide for themselves, but due to significant cuts back on financial aid policies universities have increased tuitions that have not only decreased the mobility of these families, but have seemingly subjected them to the vicious cycle of "enmeshed autonomy." This concept notes that "in taking out loans students are being told to trade dependence on their families for the 'independence' of relying on finance," in return subjecting them to floodgates of debt and limitations upon an open future.
ReplyDeleteAn important discussion that Zaloom provides is that there is a cultural imperative that is set when families make decisions to send their children to college or universities. This imperative signifies that families should be able to support themselves without asking for assistance from others, in order to pay for the succession of the next generation. These moral responsibilities maintain a disconnection between parents and their children, as parents are constantly having to keep silent about their financial struggles, so to not burden their children with the information, and not restrict their potential. In result, parents are conditioned into believing that monetary restraint is an immoral and selfish step for their child's future, thus the only logical step is toward risk taking and investments. These arguments set by the student financial complex, therefore consistently confines familial prospects and enhances inherited inequalities that eventually builds further class stratification and reduces the chances of gaining opportunity outside of universities.
For me, the introduction where Zaloom talks about the differences in thought between the generations really sets the mood for the book, especially as someone who is going through that right now. She then goes on to the parents and the family as a whole, which again resonated with me, as I am about to graduate and a family, on average, is only about five years away. The thought of dealing with all of the loans that I have taken out, possibly the loans of my significant other, plus a child is crazy. She says how parents view getting their child through college and trying to make the best fiscal decisions creates so much tension for the family as a whole, which is very true. The conversations about how everything will be paid for are very jarring for someone who is just coming out of high school, but that is the reality for many kids these days. The thought of money is always in the back of their minds, and it comes to a head as they are about to graduate, as that's when the debts must start being paid. The cost of college stays with families forever; it creates a ripple effect because it takes such a large percentage of family’s income that some just never recover fully. She mentions the three main arguments of her project, that family’s lives revolve around paying for college, parents have to figure out the moral conflicts of being a parent and paying for college, and whether or not it will even be worth it in the end. I speak to my parents about these topics occasionally, and it really is a lot of pressure on them, and in turn, me. I can't help but feel bad about putting my parents, and myself, into debt, and the third point, 'will it all be worth it/can I even pay back the loans', is a tough question to think about. The expectation that everyone needs a degree to even have a chance in this economy gives too much power to the colleges, who in turn, increase the price. What happens when the demand keeps increasing and people keep paying, the price goes up. The financial struggles of college are ever looming in the minds of millions of people, which to me, is not okay, but to many it's just one of the prices you have to pay to be American.
ReplyDeleteIn order to clarify any confusions that the audience may have with who exactly the middle class is and what kind of people it contains since there are multiple definitions and understandings of the group, in the beginning of her book, Zaloom introduces her own concept of defining the middle class by their capacity to pay for college: if parents do not make enough money to pay tuition and if parents make too much money that they do not qualify for federal grants they are not considered to me middle class. According to Zaloom, higher education is supposed to shape young people's future possibilities, but instead it brings forth a world of debt and anxiety. This debt has "redefined the experience of being middle class" (Zaloom 2). Parents believe that their children are worth it, and sending their children to college "carries a significance.... Striving to help children achieve a better life has long been one of the values and practices that makes a family middle class" (Zaloom 3). However, talking about money, seems to be a taboo topic when it comes to discussion outside of the home, such as with neighbors or coworkers, which makes it more difficult to understand how many of these families and individuals are struggling through loans and debt. The privacy of the middle class, especially when it comes to speaking about finances, brings forth more independence, since, for example, we can apply for loans straight from our kitchen tables, instead of having to meet with a financial adviser to do so. Morally, it is usually not a problem for these families to take on student loans since there is typically an emphasis on working towards careers that will be can potentially provide a good income/salary to then pay back those loans. Zaloom explains how there are many moral mandates by society, such as in TV programming, on radio, in advertisements and etc that give advice on how families should prepare themselves for their futures and sending a child or multiple children off to college. Young students, and their parents, who are in the pursuit of freedom and independence typically are willing to spend more for college and take on more debt. People who are entering college in this age are more willing to speculate with their finances, such as relying on scholarships that have not yet been decided, as well as relying on money from a job that you may not have yet. For a middle class family, to come forth about the financial issues that they may be having would be "admitting to the fragile nature of their finances." (Zaloom 29)
ReplyDeleteZaloom classifies the middle class in terms of their ability to secure student loans. She puts them in the awkward position of making too much money to secure government aid while not being able to afford the entire bill alone and making too little to afford the remainder of tuition after they have received minimal government aid. This puts the middle class in a situation that having a child go to college is an extreme financial risk and not something that can not be taken lightly. This forces parents to plan for their children's college education at the time of birth and in some cases before their birth. This need to plan in advance and already being in the middle class, with limited financial resources, this causes a large impact in the families financial situation for an extended period, sometimes long after the child is finished with their education. All of this strain and hardship with the intention of giving their children a chance to succeed in later life. These loans are informed by the government assigning an amount that the parents are intended to contribute based on their income. This is where the definition of middle class comes to make a college education so difficult to attain. If parents can not afford to pay what they are expected then this money needs to be sourced from loans, on top of the loans that are already necessary. The expectation of family contribution can, in some cases, significantly effect the finances of the college student because they are forced to take out additional thousands of dollars in loans which can take a long time to pay off.
ReplyDeleteIn Zaloom’s book “Indebted” they describe the economic grey area that middle-class Americans inhabit when in comes to paying for college. According to Zaloom, the household income of these middle-class Americans would be too much to qualify their child for significant federal aid and not enough to pay for the cost of college outright. However, in an attempt to maintain the semi-comfortable life style of a middle American or even better their life, going to college and taking on student loan debt is seen as a necessary evil. To help ensure this debt is a risk worth taking, middle class Americans will seek out suburban areas with better public schools that prepare their children for college. These schools are also looking to reinforce the idea of a 4-year degree being the best insurance for at least maintaining the middle class life style theses families have raised their children in. Zaloom calls this “securing an open future”. The idea of going to college and receiving that bachelor’s degree becomes a social norm for middle class American’s and is seen as obtaining the ability to take care of one’s self financially.
ReplyDeleteThis may be the best business model ever produced. The price of education has been raised to a level so absurd that one must take on ten’s of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and they do it because of the fear that is perpetuated of what may happen to you if you don’t go off and obtain a 4-year degree. High schools of the middle-class act as a funnel into the four-year schools as well. Counselors and teachers push for the goal of college and rarely speak of alternative options, furthering the stigma of not attending a college or university.
When middle class families are looking into sending their children to college, there are a lot of questions to consider. “How much can they really pay? How much should they tell their children about the pressures those expenses will put on their own financial security? Where do their responsibilities to their children begin and end?” (102) Middle class families turn to financial aid programs that can help ease the cost of tuition, but in some cases, they have too much money to reap much benefit. FAFSA can provide students aid, but often times doesn’t account for all financial responsibilities that a family might have, such as taking care of older relatives. Other programs can be looked into though, such as The CSS Profile which allows for student’s to include “special circumstances” that affect their family’s expenses.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when deciding what to go to school for, parents want their children to pick an option that will most likely provide their children with a job and steady income right after they graduate. This is so that their children are able to quickly gain autonomy in their lives and are less likely to move back home after graduation, which is often seen as a moral failing. Because of this, a lot of parents have a large say in what their children are and aren’t allowed to pick as a major. Parents often aren’t willing to help their child take out loans if they think that their child is pursuing a promising field.
Overall, different families face different difficulties when sending their children to school, and race can play a huge factor. It is estimated that African Americans are 70% more likely to be in debt than their white peers after graduating from college. Our country has a long history of wage discrimination which leaves African American families with weaker credit and limited assets (128). White college-educated families still make significantly more than college-educated black families, and the gap is continuing to grow. This makes it more likely that white graduates will obtain an inheritance that can get them out of debt. Because of this, African American families often times have to make consideration that white families don’t. Still, the ideals of providing one’s children with upward mobility which allows them to hopefully enhance their lives socially and economically is prevalent among all families.
The very first line of chapter four titled Enmeshed Autonomy, Zaloom states that helping children achieve autonomy is a guiding principle for American middle-class families. In order for children become autonomous, according to many of the parents that she discussed with, these children must be exposed to intimate connection, but also the extended financial assistance that middle-class children face when the time comes to pay for college. The term "Human Capital" means two things--that the person in question is a benefit to the family, as well as from the idea the recieving a college education makes you a more valuable person in society and help to create a more educated workforce for the nation. Since families are aware of the great financial burden approaching when they have a child, some will start saving money when the child is young, planning to later use that money to pay for tuition. The idea of Human Capital states that even though we are spending tons of money on university, families can assume to at least get some money in return after loans are paid back and the newly educated student gets a well-paying job. The great financial dependence that middle-class college students have on their families leads them to live at home with there parents longer than college students in other countries, where the cost to attend university is a lot cheaper. The idea that these students have to return home and live with their parents then raises the idea that there has been a failure somewhere along the line, since they are striving to reach autonomy but still have to live at home. Some of these students even feel that they are a burden on their parents for having them pay for them to attend college.
ReplyDeleteUntil now, Zaloom has mostly spoken about white middle-class families, but she brings up that on average, African-American parents hold twice as much debt that white parents in the US. This is because of the long history of wage discrimination that has not allowed many African-Americans to build wealth. The idea that college in the United States is supposed to allow for young adults to become independent is not always the case, Zaloom explains this simply in her conclusion. "Current policies undermine young adults and their families at a moment of vulnerability--when children are launching into their adult lives." Certain students are often limited in what they can achieve because of expensive and for-profit universities that deepen class-stratification, as well as the disproportionate amount of debt loan that African American parents have to deal with in order to get their children to the same place that white children are reaching for in university. In order to fix this and help students become truly independent and families and their children become overrun by debt, Zaloom suggests that the government rework how it treats public institutions, such as the Excelsor Program in New York, allowing low and middle-income students whose families make less than $125,000 per year to attend public colleges and universities for free.
After finishing book, I feel that I have learned a lot about going to college in the US as someone who is already attending a university. I found that I agreed with and understood a lot of the points that Zaloom makes about the system here, and I believe that it could do with some change.
Chapter four is about the goal of financial and household freedom after college but the inability to unweave the parent’s and the child’s financial situation. She calls this enmeshed autonomy, and she explains that, “independence must be cultivated under conditions not only of intimate connection but also of extended financial assistance” (95). This results in what she calls the ‘accordion family’, which is where college students must return home after a brief stint of freedom due to the financial burden placed on the student and now the parents as well. The statistic that 70% of twenty-year olds have received money from their parents is very shocking but makes total sense. The problem then shifts to the parents for the money, impacting their future and retirement plans. The term ‘failure to launch’ is one I've heard before (being a psych major) and it is becoming more of an expectation rather than a taboo. With the down payment for ‘launching’ growing exponentially, with college, housing, groceries, and much more increasing at a higher rate than salaries, it is becoming harder on college kids and their parents to pay for everything. she mentioned how parents have to take out of what would become a retirement fund to help pay for their kids, and how some people advice against that; that it would be better in the long term, for both parents and kids, for the parents to just let the kids struggle in their twenties, as parents having no retirement fund is worse than the kids struggling in their twenties. She then writes that it goes against a parent’s role that parents play in their child’s life to leave them struggling; even though it makes sense financially, the moral mandates make it so hard on parents. This whole book has opened my eyes to what goes on behind scenes in a play that I'm acting in right now. Its sad that it has come to this, that parents have to ruin their financial security just to try to get their children started. I just hope that I can somehow repay my parents for what they have done for me.
ReplyDelete