学生债务危机源于过去60年的一系列事件和决策。然而,在2007年至2009年的经济萧条期以及随后的恢复期,这个危机突然被激化。2012年,美国学生贷款债务总额突破1万亿美元大关,超过了信用卡债务和车贷。
这一时期恰逢美国第一位黑人总统贝拉克·奥巴马的任期。奥巴马对高等教育在改善家庭环境以及美国经济方面所发挥的重要作用深信不疑,即便在谈论学生债务给家庭造成的负担时亦表达了同样的观点。
美国当时正处于转型期,这里不仅仅涉及政治和经济领域,同时还包括文化,尤其是高等教育领域。这一时期,为了追逐向上层进军的美国梦,美国人的债务水平达到了前所未有的高度。不过在奥巴马第二任期结束时,美国人已经不再像之前那样,将高等教育看作是通往财务自由的必经之路。
尽管学生债务在所有人群中都出现了激增,但本世纪增速最快的莫过于黑人家庭,至少在那些通过借贷来接受高等教育的家庭存在这种情况。不妨看看我的新书《债务陷阱:学生贷款如何成了国家灾难》(The Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe)(西蒙与舒斯特公司出版),其中有一个章节便通过霍华德大学(Howard University)一位年轻黑人大学生的经历,刻画了这一现实,而霍华德大学是美国历史上最知名的黑人大学。
*****
2006年8月,一个阳光明媚的周五下午,布兰登敬畏地看着霍华德大学的砖砌门柱,这所坐落于华盛顿特区的黑人大学有着悠久的历史。自孩提以来,他便将这里视为圣地。如今,他即将跨入校园,成为该校的一名学生。
这天,布兰登专为支付大学一年级的学费而来。就在他满怀憧憬跨入校园大门时,心头闪过一丝疑虑。他不禁自问道,“我真的属于这里吗?”自己所站立的地方正是瑟古德·马歇尔、佐拉·尼尔·赫斯顿、托妮·莫里森和肖恩·康布斯曾经走过的地方。想到这里,他再次拾回了信心。
他对自己说,我走到了这里,我成功了。
布兰登来自于一个普通家庭。他与三个兄妹在弗吉尼亚州匹兹堡和佐治亚州奥古斯塔长大,一直由在军队服役的单身母亲及其祖母抚养。他的哥哥姐姐向他灌输了上帝、家庭和教育的重要性。虽然家境贫寒,但他当时对此并没有什么感觉。
由于不善社交和语言障碍,他自小便十分有礼貌,而且十分谦逊,似乎连自我价值感都没有。他每周去三次教堂,而且在高中拿到了A等和B等成绩。毕业时,他渴望成为一名军人,因此加入了海军。他当时驻扎在俄克拉荷马市,负责通讯工作,就是在两扇装有密码锁的大门后看守密闭控制室,每12小时倒一次班。
在海军的服役经历让他感到愈发虑和孤独。布兰登担心自己在紧急情况下会因为语言障碍而无法正常使用麦克风进行交流,他也因此而出现了惊恐发作症。两年后,他光荣退伍,并决定尝试去考大学。他的曾祖母是一名退休的医院清洁工,她在高中时辍学了,随后拿到了美国高中同等学历证书(GED)。曾祖母从小便敦促布兰登一定要去上大学。布兰登说:“很多人认为,如果你上大学,那么你就会获得各种机会,我的曾祖母便是其中之一。”
对于美国的众多黑人家庭来说,就神秘性而言,没有学校能够与霍华德大学相比。该校由传教士于1867年成立,是美国内战后设立的数百所致力于培养黑人的学校之一,很多美国黑人都因为其肤色而被其他大学拒之门外。在成立的第一个五年期间,霍华德大学教授了数万名获得自由的奴隶。2006年,在美国排名约前100位有着悠久历史的现存黑人大学中,霍华德大学名列榜首。
尽管布兰登在高中拿到了不俗的成绩,但他深知他被霍华德大学选中的几率依然十分渺茫。在每年申请的数万名学生中,仅有约30%被学校录取。当他拨打招生办电话后,一位女士告诉他已经被学校录取,他不敢相信自己的耳朵,还请这位女士又重复了一遍。
布兰登在学生债务增长伊始进入了大学。在他第一学期结束之际,美国学生债务总额已经达到了5000亿美元,是美国三年前水平的两倍。其规模迅速攀升至美国信用卡贷款和车贷同等水平。媒体和决策者也意识到了这个问题。作家安雅·卡门尼茨通过其书作《一代人的债务》(Generation Debt)挑明了这个问题。该书在布兰登就读大一时出版。
学生债务出现飙升的部分原因在于大量美国人都走入了大学校门。在布兰登入学时,大学毕业生工资溢价已经升至历史最高水平,因为雇主逐渐要求求职者必须持有学士学位,而数年前这些岗位并没有这一要求。2006年,美国本科生数量达到了1500万,布兰登只是其中之一。
像布兰登这样的学生是大学扩招的推手。他们的家庭条件极差,属于非洲裔或西班牙裔人,而且是家里第一个上大学的人。他们大多数都会就读招生门槛低或不设门槛的学校,例如社区大学、盈利性学校以及多所历史悠久的黑人大学,这些学校所面向的学生往往缺乏就读好大学所需的成绩或分数,但这些学校会为学生提供大量攀爬美国经济阶梯的机会。
其中的大多数学生都依靠举债上大学。大学学费在20世纪90年代的增速是通胀的三倍,而且始终高于家庭收入的增速。这对布兰登这样鲜有或毫无存款的赤贫家庭带来的冲击最大。那些可以就读最知名大学(比如常青藤学校)的贫困生通常能够免费求学,因为这些学校有着丰厚的家底,例如大型基金和校友捐赠,可以免除这些学生的学费。然而,大多数大学非但没有这些资源,还严重依赖于学费来支付各类开支,其中就包括来自于贫困生的学费。
与乔治华盛顿大学(George Washington University)和乔治城大学(Georgetown University)等华盛顿的其他学校相比,霍华德大学的学费算是便宜的了,但对布兰登来说,2.8万美元一年(含生活成本)的费用依然是一笔不小的数字。布兰登拿到了佩尔助学金(Pell Grants),而且能够享受《军人安置法案》(G.I. Bill)的部分福利。然而,这些计划提供的资金连支付就读众多州立大学所需的学费都不够,就更不用说霍华德大学这种私立学校了。为了填补学费缺口,布兰登同时借了近4万美元的联邦贷款以及6万美元的沙利美(Sallie Mae)私人贷款。在毕业时,受利率推动,其债务总额增长了数万美元。
在大二时,也就是2007年9月底,一位教授给布兰登及其同学布置了一项任务,出席在校园内举办的演讲。当演讲者走上讲台时,人们都从椅子上站了起来。贝拉克·奥巴马笑了笑,信心十足地站在讲台上,发表了一篇光鲜亮丽的演讲,布兰登感受到了人群中不绝于耳的崇拜声。
布兰登对这位来自于伊利诺伊州、将要参加总统竞选的参议员早有耳闻。与布兰登一样,奥巴马也是一个黑人,由单身母亲养大,而且通过一次又一次的借贷读完了大学和法学院。奥巴马在他的竞选活动期间来到了霍华德大学,希望借此活动重振因房产市场的崩塌而陷入了低迷的美国经济。奥巴马谈到了刑法的改革,并提到要让社会变得更加公平。最重要的是,他希望为社会上条件最差的人群创造机会,尤其是全球范围内像布兰登这样的学生。
2009年1月20日寒冷的日间,也就是那场霍华德大学的演讲过去一年多后,奥巴马在美国国会大厦西侧的露天平台上正式宣誓就任美国第44任总统。当时美国的经济一塌糊涂。房产泡沫的破灭(这个虚幻的时期,标志性现象就是房产价格的飙升)导致金融市场停滞不前,也让整个经济陷入了混乱。选民推选奥巴马带领美国走出这场大萧条之后最严重的危机。
房产危机源于宽松的信贷和法规以及人们对美国梦的向往。抵押贷款出借方认为房产价值只会一路上扬,他们多年来向借款人发放的贷款数额越来越多,而后者的信贷状况和收入却显示他们基本无力偿还。在2007和2008年,五分之一的贷款都流向了次贷领域。联邦监管方则对此视而不见。房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)这两家政府支持的住房抵押贷款公司购买了其中很多按揭贷款,继而为银行提供了廉价的现金。贷款机构使用复杂的金融工具遮盖了贷款的风险,并把房屋贷款以证券的形式出售给投资者。这场繁荣的背后存在着这样一个信念:房产对于穷人和中产阶级来说是一种不错的投资。
房产价格确实上涨了,而且借款人短时间内还有能力支付其月供,但好景不长。2006年,一批房主开始拖欠月供,银行意识到其账面存在一大堆无法得到偿还的债务。房屋价格上升的太高、太快。最终,美国国会出手救市,斥资数千亿美元用于为金融机构赎身,并稳定经济。
泡沫的破灭给民众带来了毁灭性的打击。数千万人无家可归,其中大多数都是因为抵押品赎回权的丧失。近900万人因为经济萧条而失去了工作。所有城市和城镇都受到了严重冲击。大银行、汽车公司以及小企业大量破产。股市一落千丈。
受冲击最严重的家庭莫过于黑人、西班牙裔家庭,尤其是父母没有念过大学的家庭。那些本应受到购房恩惠的民众却成为了受害者。当选领导人以及私营领域大肆鼓励美国民众购买房产的举措不仅没有降低不公平性,反而让其愈演愈烈。
奥巴马将这场危机看作是经济灾难与道德灾难的结合体。作为20世纪90年代末和21世纪初的伊利诺伊州参议员,他很早便开始批评这种巧取豪夺式的放贷行为,这种行为通常是指银行向不知情的借款人发放高风险贷款,而有鉴于这些借款人的收入或月供规模,他们偿还贷款的可能性并不高。参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦(马萨诸塞州民主党)曾经在2003年的一场政治筹资活动上见过奥巴马,当时他正在竞选美国参议员席位,而沃伦则是哈佛大学(Harvard University)消费融资领域的教授。在与沃伦交谈时,奥巴马使用了巧取豪夺式借贷一词。沃伦对《美国新闻与世界报道》(U.S. News & World Report)说:“他一直说个不停,我连插话的机会都没有。”
2009年2月,也就是奥巴马就任美国总统一个月之后,他在国会联席会议上发表首次讲话。期间,他介绍了让美国摆脱严重下滑并回归繁荣的计划。他说,美国将通过教育走出危机。他指出:“在这个全球化的经济中,人们可出售的最有价值的技能便是自身的知识,良好的教育不再只是通往机会的大门,而是前提。”
为了让美国拥有全球受教育程度最高的劳动力,他呼吁每一位美国民众至少都要在大学学习一年时间,不管是四年的人文科学学校还是社区大学,都是向这一宏伟目标迈进。20世纪90年代初,美国大学毕业生占其劳动力的比例在全球名列前茅,然而在新世纪,其他国家在这一方面已经超过了美国。就像林登·约翰逊担心俄罗斯在教育和全球领导地位方面会超越美国一样,奥巴马担心像韩国这样的国家在新世纪会出现同样的情况。他信誓旦旦地说:“到2020年,美国大学毕业生占劳动力的比例将再次跃居首位。”
奥巴马称其目标有助于让美国民众时刻心怀出人头地的美好愿望,与比尔·克林顿1995年提升私有房主数量的目标相呼应。奥巴马曾经在2008年的美国总统大选中通过传递充满希望和变革的信息,激励了数千万的追随者。在美国首位黑人总统的领导下,美国逐渐放弃了美国梦的一个基石——自有住房,并加倍押注另一个基石——高等教育,而这个基石依然得靠债务。
在奥巴马发表演讲数周之后,奥巴马的首要经济顾问拉里·萨默斯在一个多云的下午来到了波士顿的芬威球场(Fenway Park),坐到了看台席上。那时正值4月底,红袜队(Red Sox)正在与纽约洋基队(New York Yankees)打比赛。曾经在克林顿时期做过美国财政部部长的萨默斯负责执掌此届政府的相关举措,以帮助美国走出经济萧条。
他将目光投向了坐在他旁边的哈佛大学经济学家拉里·卡茨,并询问他是否有办法让更多的美国民众进入大学。卡茨想到了1300万失业工人,其中很多人都来自于建造、制造和挖矿这类蓝领行业。卡茨对萨默斯说:“先得看看钱从哪来。”
失业保险是资金来源的一个选择。大多数失业员工会从政府失业办公室领取失业金。卡茨说,得想个办法让他们进入大学。听到这一理念,萨默斯感到非常振奋。因雨延赛期间,他给奥巴马的幕僚长拉姆·伊曼纽尔打了个电话。数天后,为了让美国民众走入大学校园,美国政府推出了有史以来最有力的举措。
奥巴马政府敦促各州失业办公室官员给每位领取失业金的人员致信,告诉他们如果进入当地大学就读的话便能够拿到资助,例如佩尔助学金(Pell Grants)。其中一封信写道:“尽管经济有所恢复,但我们可以利用眼下这个好时机来改善自身技能,并为未来更强劲的经济复苏做好准备。有研究表明,受过更多教育和培训的员工能够获得更高的工资,而且工作也更有保障。”
奥巴马的顾问认为,让民众走进大学不仅有助于员工自身,还有助于经济,从短期和长期来看都是如此。美国严重依赖于消费支出来助推经济活动的开展,也就是购买各种物品,从汽车、百货一直到健康检查和教育。奥巴马的经济团队认为,大学生在学费方面的开支也是推动经济再次增长的方式之一。
奥巴马的高等教育领域白宫首席顾问詹姆斯·科瓦尔说:“首要任务是摆脱经济危机。如果我们为低收入学生发放奖学金,他们就会消费,继而惠及整个经济。我们正在寻找可以迅速花钱而不是存钱的项目,以及能够让人们迅速拿到这些钱的项目。”
这一大规模的举措需要大量的资金支持。股市的崩盘以及经济衰退让美国民众数万亿美元的财富蒸发殆尽,大多数家庭基本都没有可以用于支付学费的存款。尽管奥巴马希望调高针对贫困家庭的奖学金,但他的计划不可避免地将导致学生债务的激增。
2009年,由奥巴马支持、美国国会通过的大范围经济刺激法案将中等收入学生在一年之内可获取的佩尔助学金额度,从4700美元增至约5600美元。然而,这笔资金连支付公共社区大学的部分学费都不够,而社区大学是最便宜的高等教育机构。平均来说,在2010年,如果就读公立的两年学制大学,即便计算上到手的资助,一名学生仍然需要支付1.2万美元的学费和生活费,这个数字占到了普通家庭收入的约五分之一。
在就读法学院时,奥巴马自己也依赖于学生贷款,他曾经多次在竞选活动中提及这件事情。他与米歇尔·奥巴马在就读哈佛法学院(Harvard Law School)时每人都借贷了4万美元。二人在数年前通过一本书作交易才还完了这笔贷款。
与其前任的诸位总统一样,奥巴马发现自己受到了联邦赤字的拖累。在小布什政府时期,政府开支因为美国发动的两场战争而出现了飙升。用纳税人的钱救赎华尔街和汽车公司的举动引发了民粹主义骚乱,又称“茶党运动”(Tea Party movement),其宗旨就是反对庞大的政府开支。奥巴马本人也对不断上升的权利保障计划开支感到担忧。
而且他还有其他重要事情需要应对。尽管民主党控制着参议院和众议院,但奥巴马将其早期的政治资本用在了其他动议上,即经济复苏法案和大范围的医疗法案,因此并未大幅调高奖学金数额,以缓解美国民众对学生债的依赖。
奥巴马沿用了两党惯用的方式,将学生债作为为其他动议融资的工具。2010年,他对自己标志性的医疗法案《平价医疗法案》(Affordable Care Act)追加了一项条款,以取消《学生贷款担保》(Guaranteed Student Loan)计划,该计划自1965年以来便为私营出借人提供的学生担保提供保险服务。终止该计划将在未来10年内为纳税人节约600亿美元的资金,因为政府无需再向银行支付其借贷成本的差价。2010年以后的所有联邦贷款都将依据比尔·克林顿时期通过的《直接贷款》(Direct Loan)计划,由美国财政部发放。
奥巴马在2010年3月签署这一法案时说:“我们得向银行支付数十亿美元的费用,我们难以承担这种浪费。我们得把这笔资金投给学生。”然而,并非所有节省下来的费用都流向了学生,一些资金流向了奥巴马的全国性医疗法案。共和党指责奥巴马是在将学生贷款计划“国有化”。一些人认为,此举通过取消“核贷”环节(银行检查借款人信贷历史、收入和其他细节的流程,以确定他们是否有可能违约。),鼓励向学生无止尽的发放贷款。这是一个具有误导性的主张,因为它并没有明确贷款是由财政部还是银行发放。资质标准都是相同的,而且门槛极低。奥巴马的这一举措只不过是取消了中间环节。然而,该举措存在一个根本性的缺陷:在它所构建的这个体系中,大学每年无需任何条件便可获取数百亿美元的纳税人税金。这个体系让大学可以在20世纪八九十年代和本世纪00年代肆意地提升学费。通过鼓励所有美国民众去大学念书(如果需要的话可以使用贷款),奥巴马进一步打开了赤字的龙头。
放水举措即带来了机遇也带来了麻烦。此举让数千万学生走进了大学校门。例如布兰登就走进了霍华德大学的校门,其毕业生(其中很多都来自于贫困家庭)有望获得高薪工作。然而对布兰登以及数千万其他学生来说,它还意味着异常沉重的债务负担。
布兰德在霍华德大学一直处于焦虑之中。最令他感到担忧的便是其学生贷款债务。他每年会借数万美元,其中既有联邦贷款,也有沙利美的私人贷款,然后焦虑地看着债务因为应计利息而不断增加。
当布兰登入学时,他并未意识到自己不得不借如此多的钱。较早录取的学生每年有望获得来自于学校的资助,而像布兰登这样处于招生流程末尾(学校大多数奖学金已被发放)的学生往往不得不自付绝大部分或所有的学费,哪怕学生来自于贫困家庭亦是如此。这些学生及其家长唯一的出路就是举债。他们的还贷能力极差,但又是最需要贷款的人群。
尽管《军人安置法案》的助学金和佩尔助学金解决了布兰登的学费问题,但布兰登的很大一部分债务都被用于生活支出。霍华德大学的校内宿舍已经人满为患,因此布兰登并没有预定到。他在马里兰州的乔治王子郡租了一间公寓,月租金980美元,距离学校半个小时车程。他还得花钱买一辆汽车,并支付油钱、停车费以及维修费。
如果家中的其他人也举债的话,那么布兰登唯一能负担的就只有学费了。他的曾祖母是沙利美私人贷款的联合署名人。在2011年夏季毕业时,包括利息在内,布兰登和她的曾祖母欠下了14.8万美元的学生贷款。在毕业典礼上,感到无比自豪的曾祖母流下了泪水。
当时,与布兰登一道毕业的大学生人数创下了美国历史新高,而这群毕业生亦背负了最大规模的学生债务。在那个时候,包括大学和研究生学校在内的高校录取人数,刚刚达到了2100万的峰值。有三分之二的大四学生都背负着债务,人均2.7万美元。像布兰登这样背负更多债务的学生虽然人数不多,但增速很快,而且人均债务都超过了5万美元。
这一局面是很多因素共同作用的结果,有一些是经济方面的,有一些与政策相关。其中一个是政府在20世纪90年代做出的调整——开始对很多学生的贷款征收利息,而当时很多借款人都在学校读书,此举使得其毕业时的负债总额大幅增长了20%。得益于数十年来的宽松法规,各个大学大肆调高了其学费。经济萧条还摧毁了家庭财富。在当时那个上大学有着重要意义的时代,美国人的学费支付能力似乎降到了最低水平。正因为如此,他们选择了贷款。
布兰登及其同学在毕业时赶上了最糟糕的就业环境。即便经济衰退在两年前便已经结束,但失业率依然居高不下。失业率在2011年的大部分时期均超过了9%,是大萧条之后的最高水平。很多足够幸运找到工作的年轻大学毕业生都处于大材小用的状态,从事那些传统上并不需要大学学历的工作岗位,而且拿着普通的薪资。
数百万美国青年在借贷时存在这样一个信念,大学学历是通往有保障中产阶级工作的门票。大批大批的青年出现了拖欠还款的情况。学生债务多年来一直被当作是一种投资,但却让大量的新毕业生心生怨恨。2011年9月,抗议者齐聚纽约的祖科蒂公园(Zuccotti Park),发起了占领华尔街(Occupy Wall Street)运动。抗议者斥责华尔街和大学的贪婪,并要求免去其学生债务。
2011年10月,一位名为史黛丝·巴顿的女士对《今日美国》(USA Today)说:“我认为这是一个有关经济公平性的运动。在我看来,人们抗议的问题是显而易见的,即贪婪、鲁莽、非法行为、房产止赎和不断增长的学生债务。我们找不到工作,但我们的学生债务在不断上升。”
学生债务在黑人中的增速最快,而对于在历史悠久的黑人大学读书的学生来说,这一增速更为迅猛。在美国社会的各个阶层中,黑人家庭的财富最少。相对于旗舰大学,黑人学生更有可能被那些获捐赠有限的大学录取。与众多同僚相比,这些学校更加依靠学费来支付学校开支。在历史悠久的私立黑人大学中,约四分之三的学生都不得不通过贷款来支付学费。
在大学期间,布兰登曾经在瑟古德·马歇尔大学基金(Thurgood Marshall College Fund)做过兼职工作,这是一家为历史悠久的黑人学院和大学做游说工作的非营利性机构。2011年获得学位证书后,他告诉了自己的导师兼基金负责人乔尼·泰勒自己欠了多少钱。泰勒叹了口气。他对布兰登说,他会给布兰登提供一份工作,帮他还债。布兰登一开始的年薪是5.5万美元,负责接电话、组织活动并协助泰勒,其工作地点并不在机构内部,倒是距离霍华德校园只有几个街区。
在从事新工作数月之后,布兰登开始接到来自于霍华德和其他黑人大学愤怒学生的电话。他们称令其感到意外的是,自己的父母被联邦父母PLUS贷款拒之门外。美国国会在1980年创建了这个计划,旨在将贷款成本转移给父母而不是学生,因为父母贷款的默认利率更高。其想法在于,相对于孩子,拥有稳定工作的父母更适合偿还债务。到本世纪00年代,贷款项目已经成为了很多黑人大学学生的生命线。
美国教育部(Education Department)2011年发现,根据担保学生贷款计划(Guaranteed Student Loan program),银行会错误地为不符合联邦贷款资质的父母发放贷款。如今,由于银行已经退出该计划,而且美国教育部已经强制推行这一标准,此举与其他规定一道,禁止向五年内宣称破产的父母提供贷款。数万名学生,很多都位于历史悠久的黑人大学,如今都因为这一调整而被贷款项目拒之门外。
除了自身的联邦学生贷款之外,学生还需要父母的PLUS贷款来支付学费。其学校的助学金官员对他们说,如果他们找不到其他的学费支付方式,那么他们就只能退学。布兰登也不知道该如何回应。
即便父母PLUS贷款出台了新标准,但政府依然会为具有高违约风险的父母提供贷款。很多父母鲜有或没有储蓄;一些处于失业状态;还有一些很快将退休,因此届时将失去工作。像这样的情况非常普遍,这只是其中的一部分。高风险借贷不仅仅存在于历史悠久的黑人大学,也不单单只是面向父母。(财富中文网)
节选自《债务陷阱:学生贷款如何成了国家灾难》(The Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe),作者乔什·米切尔。版权© 2021由乔什·米切尔所有。再版得到了西蒙与舒斯特公司(Simon & Schuster, Inc.)的许可。
译者:冯丰
审校:夏林
学生债务危机源于过去60年的一系列事件和决策。然而,在2007年至2009年的经济萧条期以及随后的恢复期,这个危机突然被激化。2012年,美国学生贷款债务总额突破1万亿美元大关,超过了信用卡债务和车贷。
这一时期恰逢美国第一位黑人总统贝拉克·奥巴马的任期。奥巴马对高等教育在改善家庭环境以及美国经济方面所发挥的重要作用深信不疑,即便在谈论学生债务给家庭造成的负担时亦表达了同样的观点。
美国当时正处于转型期,这里不仅仅涉及政治和经济领域,同时还包括文化,尤其是高等教育领域。这一时期,为了追逐向上层进军的美国梦,美国人的债务水平达到了前所未有的高度。不过在奥巴马第二任期结束时,美国人已经不再像之前那样,将高等教育看作是通往财务自由的必经之路。
尽管学生债务在所有人群中都出现了激增,但本世纪增速最快的莫过于黑人家庭,至少在那些通过借贷来接受高等教育的家庭存在这种情况。不妨看看我的新书《债务陷阱:学生贷款如何成了国家灾难》(The Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe)(西蒙与舒斯特公司出版),其中有一个章节便通过霍华德大学(Howard University)一位年轻黑人大学生的经历,刻画了这一现实,而霍华德大学是美国历史上最知名的黑人大学。
*****
2006年8月,一个阳光明媚的周五下午,布兰登敬畏地看着霍华德大学的砖砌门柱,这所坐落于华盛顿特区的黑人大学有着悠久的历史。自孩提以来,他便将这里视为圣地。如今,他即将跨入校园,成为该校的一名学生。
这天,布兰登专为支付大学一年级的学费而来。就在他满怀憧憬跨入校园大门时,心头闪过一丝疑虑。他不禁自问道,“我真的属于这里吗?”自己所站立的地方正是瑟古德·马歇尔、佐拉·尼尔·赫斯顿、托妮·莫里森和肖恩·康布斯曾经走过的地方。想到这里,他再次拾回了信心。
他对自己说,我走到了这里,我成功了。
布兰登来自于一个普通家庭。他与三个兄妹在弗吉尼亚州匹兹堡和佐治亚州奥古斯塔长大,一直由在军队服役的单身母亲及其祖母抚养。他的哥哥姐姐向他灌输了上帝、家庭和教育的重要性。虽然家境贫寒,但他当时对此并没有什么感觉。
由于不善社交和语言障碍,他自小便十分有礼貌,而且十分谦逊,似乎连自我价值感都没有。他每周去三次教堂,而且在高中拿到了A等和B等成绩。毕业时,他渴望成为一名军人,因此加入了海军。他当时驻扎在俄克拉荷马市,负责通讯工作,就是在两扇装有密码锁的大门后看守密闭控制室,每12小时倒一次班。
在海军的服役经历让他感到愈发虑和孤独。布兰登担心自己在紧急情况下会因为语言障碍而无法正常使用麦克风进行交流,他也因此而出现了惊恐发作症。两年后,他光荣退伍,并决定尝试去考大学。他的曾祖母是一名退休的医院清洁工,她在高中时辍学了,随后拿到了美国高中同等学历证书(GED)。曾祖母从小便敦促布兰登一定要去上大学。布兰登说:“很多人认为,如果你上大学,那么你就会获得各种机会,我的曾祖母便是其中之一。”
对于美国的众多黑人家庭来说,就神秘性而言,没有学校能够与霍华德大学相比。该校由传教士于1867年成立,是美国内战后设立的数百所致力于培养黑人的学校之一,很多美国黑人都因为其肤色而被其他大学拒之门外。在成立的第一个五年期间,霍华德大学教授了数万名获得自由的奴隶。2006年,在美国排名约前100位有着悠久历史的现存黑人大学中,霍华德大学名列榜首。
尽管布兰登在高中拿到了不俗的成绩,但他深知他被霍华德大学选中的几率依然十分渺茫。在每年申请的数万名学生中,仅有约30%被学校录取。当他拨打招生办电话后,一位女士告诉他已经被学校录取,他不敢相信自己的耳朵,还请这位女士又重复了一遍。
布兰登在学生债务增长伊始进入了大学。在他第一学期结束之际,美国学生债务总额已经达到了5000亿美元,是美国三年前水平的两倍。其规模迅速攀升至美国信用卡贷款和车贷同等水平。媒体和决策者也意识到了这个问题。作家安雅·卡门尼茨通过其书作《一代人的债务》(Generation Debt)挑明了这个问题。该书在布兰登就读大一时出版。
学生债务出现飙升的部分原因在于大量美国人都走入了大学校门。在布兰登入学时,大学毕业生工资溢价已经升至历史最高水平,因为雇主逐渐要求求职者必须持有学士学位,而数年前这些岗位并没有这一要求。2006年,美国本科生数量达到了1500万,布兰登只是其中之一。
像布兰登这样的学生是大学扩招的推手。他们的家庭条件极差,属于非洲裔或西班牙裔人,而且是家里第一个上大学的人。他们大多数都会就读招生门槛低或不设门槛的学校,例如社区大学、盈利性学校以及多所历史悠久的黑人大学,这些学校所面向的学生往往缺乏就读好大学所需的成绩或分数,但这些学校会为学生提供大量攀爬美国经济阶梯的机会。
其中的大多数学生都依靠举债上大学。大学学费在20世纪90年代的增速是通胀的三倍,而且始终高于家庭收入的增速。这对布兰登这样鲜有或毫无存款的赤贫家庭带来的冲击最大。那些可以就读最知名大学(比如常青藤学校)的贫困生通常能够免费求学,因为这些学校有着丰厚的家底,例如大型基金和校友捐赠,可以免除这些学生的学费。然而,大多数大学非但没有这些资源,还严重依赖于学费来支付各类开支,其中就包括来自于贫困生的学费。
与乔治华盛顿大学(George Washington University)和乔治城大学(Georgetown University)等华盛顿的其他学校相比,霍华德大学的学费算是便宜的了,但对布兰登来说,2.8万美元一年(含生活成本)的费用依然是一笔不小的数字。布兰登拿到了佩尔助学金(Pell Grants),而且能够享受《军人安置法案》(G.I. Bill)的部分福利。然而,这些计划提供的资金连支付就读众多州立大学所需的学费都不够,就更不用说霍华德大学这种私立学校了。为了填补学费缺口,布兰登同时借了近4万美元的联邦贷款以及6万美元的沙利美(Sallie Mae)私人贷款。在毕业时,受利率推动,其债务总额增长了数万美元。
在大二时,也就是2007年9月底,一位教授给布兰登及其同学布置了一项任务,出席在校园内举办的演讲。当演讲者走上讲台时,人们都从椅子上站了起来。贝拉克·奥巴马笑了笑,信心十足地站在讲台上,发表了一篇光鲜亮丽的演讲,布兰登感受到了人群中不绝于耳的崇拜声。
布兰登对这位来自于伊利诺伊州、将要参加总统竞选的参议员早有耳闻。与布兰登一样,奥巴马也是一个黑人,由单身母亲养大,而且通过一次又一次的借贷读完了大学和法学院。奥巴马在他的竞选活动期间来到了霍华德大学,希望借此活动重振因房产市场的崩塌而陷入了低迷的美国经济。奥巴马谈到了刑法的改革,并提到要让社会变得更加公平。最重要的是,他希望为社会上条件最差的人群创造机会,尤其是全球范围内像布兰登这样的学生。
2009年1月20日寒冷的日间,也就是那场霍华德大学的演讲过去一年多后,奥巴马在美国国会大厦西侧的露天平台上正式宣誓就任美国第44任总统。当时美国的经济一塌糊涂。房产泡沫的破灭(这个虚幻的时期,标志性现象就是房产价格的飙升)导致金融市场停滞不前,也让整个经济陷入了混乱。选民推选奥巴马带领美国走出这场大萧条之后最严重的危机。
房产危机源于宽松的信贷和法规以及人们对美国梦的向往。抵押贷款出借方认为房产价值只会一路上扬,他们多年来向借款人发放的贷款数额越来越多,而后者的信贷状况和收入却显示他们基本无力偿还。在2007和2008年,五分之一的贷款都流向了次贷领域。联邦监管方则对此视而不见。房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)这两家政府支持的住房抵押贷款公司购买了其中很多按揭贷款,继而为银行提供了廉价的现金。贷款机构使用复杂的金融工具遮盖了贷款的风险,并把房屋贷款以证券的形式出售给投资者。这场繁荣的背后存在着这样一个信念:房产对于穷人和中产阶级来说是一种不错的投资。
房产价格确实上涨了,而且借款人短时间内还有能力支付其月供,但好景不长。2006年,一批房主开始拖欠月供,银行意识到其账面存在一大堆无法得到偿还的债务。房屋价格上升的太高、太快。最终,美国国会出手救市,斥资数千亿美元用于为金融机构赎身,并稳定经济。
泡沫的破灭给民众带来了毁灭性的打击。数千万人无家可归,其中大多数都是因为抵押品赎回权的丧失。近900万人因为经济萧条而失去了工作。所有城市和城镇都受到了严重冲击。大银行、汽车公司以及小企业大量破产。股市一落千丈。
受冲击最严重的家庭莫过于黑人、西班牙裔家庭,尤其是父母没有念过大学的家庭。那些本应受到购房恩惠的民众却成为了受害者。当选领导人以及私营领域大肆鼓励美国民众购买房产的举措不仅没有降低不公平性,反而让其愈演愈烈。
奥巴马将这场危机看作是经济灾难与道德灾难的结合体。作为20世纪90年代末和21世纪初的伊利诺伊州参议员,他很早便开始批评这种巧取豪夺式的放贷行为,这种行为通常是指银行向不知情的借款人发放高风险贷款,而有鉴于这些借款人的收入或月供规模,他们偿还贷款的可能性并不高。参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦(马萨诸塞州民主党)曾经在2003年的一场政治筹资活动上见过奥巴马,当时他正在竞选美国参议员席位,而沃伦则是哈佛大学(Harvard University)消费融资领域的教授。在与沃伦交谈时,奥巴马使用了巧取豪夺式借贷一词。沃伦对《美国新闻与世界报道》(U.S. News & World Report)说:“他一直说个不停,我连插话的机会都没有。”
2009年2月,也就是奥巴马就任美国总统一个月之后,他在国会联席会议上发表首次讲话。期间,他介绍了让美国摆脱严重下滑并回归繁荣的计划。他说,美国将通过教育走出危机。他指出:“在这个全球化的经济中,人们可出售的最有价值的技能便是自身的知识,良好的教育不再只是通往机会的大门,而是前提。”
为了让美国拥有全球受教育程度最高的劳动力,他呼吁每一位美国民众至少都要在大学学习一年时间,不管是四年的人文科学学校还是社区大学,都是向这一宏伟目标迈进。20世纪90年代初,美国大学毕业生占其劳动力的比例在全球名列前茅,然而在新世纪,其他国家在这一方面已经超过了美国。就像林登·约翰逊担心俄罗斯在教育和全球领导地位方面会超越美国一样,奥巴马担心像韩国这样的国家在新世纪会出现同样的情况。他信誓旦旦地说:“到2020年,美国大学毕业生占劳动力的比例将再次跃居首位。”
奥巴马称其目标有助于让美国民众时刻心怀出人头地的美好愿望,与比尔·克林顿1995年提升私有房主数量的目标相呼应。奥巴马曾经在2008年的美国总统大选中通过传递充满希望和变革的信息,激励了数千万的追随者。在美国首位黑人总统的领导下,美国逐渐放弃了美国梦的一个基石——自有住房,并加倍押注另一个基石——高等教育,而这个基石依然得靠债务。
在奥巴马发表演讲数周之后,奥巴马的首要经济顾问拉里·萨默斯在一个多云的下午来到了波士顿的芬威球场(Fenway Park),坐到了看台席上。那时正值4月底,红袜队(Red Sox)正在与纽约洋基队(New York Yankees)打比赛。曾经在克林顿时期做过美国财政部部长的萨默斯负责执掌此届政府的相关举措,以帮助美国走出经济萧条。
他将目光投向了坐在他旁边的哈佛大学经济学家拉里·卡茨,并询问他是否有办法让更多的美国民众进入大学。卡茨想到了1300万失业工人,其中很多人都来自于建造、制造和挖矿这类蓝领行业。卡茨对萨默斯说:“先得看看钱从哪来。”
失业保险是资金来源的一个选择。大多数失业员工会从政府失业办公室领取失业金。卡茨说,得想个办法让他们进入大学。听到这一理念,萨默斯感到非常振奋。因雨延赛期间,他给奥巴马的幕僚长拉姆·伊曼纽尔打了个电话。数天后,为了让美国民众走入大学校园,美国政府推出了有史以来最有力的举措。
奥巴马政府敦促各州失业办公室官员给每位领取失业金的人员致信,告诉他们如果进入当地大学就读的话便能够拿到资助,例如佩尔助学金(Pell Grants)。其中一封信写道:“尽管经济有所恢复,但我们可以利用眼下这个好时机来改善自身技能,并为未来更强劲的经济复苏做好准备。有研究表明,受过更多教育和培训的员工能够获得更高的工资,而且工作也更有保障。”
奥巴马的顾问认为,让民众走进大学不仅有助于员工自身,还有助于经济,从短期和长期来看都是如此。美国严重依赖于消费支出来助推经济活动的开展,也就是购买各种物品,从汽车、百货一直到健康检查和教育。奥巴马的经济团队认为,大学生在学费方面的开支也是推动经济再次增长的方式之一。
奥巴马的高等教育领域白宫首席顾问詹姆斯·科瓦尔说:“首要任务是摆脱经济危机。如果我们为低收入学生发放奖学金,他们就会消费,继而惠及整个经济。我们正在寻找可以迅速花钱而不是存钱的项目,以及能够让人们迅速拿到这些钱的项目。”
这一大规模的举措需要大量的资金支持。股市的崩盘以及经济衰退让美国民众数万亿美元的财富蒸发殆尽,大多数家庭基本都没有可以用于支付学费的存款。尽管奥巴马希望调高针对贫困家庭的奖学金,但他的计划不可避免地将导致学生债务的激增。
2009年,由奥巴马支持、美国国会通过的大范围经济刺激法案将中等收入学生在一年之内可获取的佩尔助学金额度,从4700美元增至约5600美元。然而,这笔资金连支付公共社区大学的部分学费都不够,而社区大学是最便宜的高等教育机构。平均来说,在2010年,如果就读公立的两年学制大学,即便计算上到手的资助,一名学生仍然需要支付1.2万美元的学费和生活费,这个数字占到了普通家庭收入的约五分之一。
在就读法学院时,奥巴马自己也依赖于学生贷款,他曾经多次在竞选活动中提及这件事情。他与米歇尔·奥巴马在就读哈佛法学院(Harvard Law School)时每人都借贷了4万美元。二人在数年前通过一本书作交易才还完了这笔贷款。
与其前任的诸位总统一样,奥巴马发现自己受到了联邦赤字的拖累。在小布什政府时期,政府开支因为美国发动的两场战争而出现了飙升。用纳税人的钱救赎华尔街和汽车公司的举动引发了民粹主义骚乱,又称“茶党运动”(Tea Party movement),其宗旨就是反对庞大的政府开支。奥巴马本人也对不断上升的权利保障计划开支感到担忧。
而且他还有其他重要事情需要应对。尽管民主党控制着参议院和众议院,但奥巴马将其早期的政治资本用在了其他动议上,即经济复苏法案和大范围的医疗法案,因此并未大幅调高奖学金数额,以缓解美国民众对学生债的依赖。
奥巴马沿用了两党惯用的方式,将学生债作为为其他动议融资的工具。2010年,他对自己标志性的医疗法案《平价医疗法案》(Affordable Care Act)追加了一项条款,以取消《学生贷款担保》(Guaranteed Student Loan)计划,该计划自1965年以来便为私营出借人提供的学生担保提供保险服务。终止该计划将在未来10年内为纳税人节约600亿美元的资金,因为政府无需再向银行支付其借贷成本的差价。2010年以后的所有联邦贷款都将依据比尔·克林顿时期通过的《直接贷款》(Direct Loan)计划,由美国财政部发放。
奥巴马在2010年3月签署这一法案时说:“我们得向银行支付数十亿美元的费用,我们难以承担这种浪费。我们得把这笔资金投给学生。”然而,并非所有节省下来的费用都流向了学生,一些资金流向了奥巴马的全国性医疗法案。共和党指责奥巴马是在将学生贷款计划“国有化”。一些人认为,此举通过取消“核贷”环节(银行检查借款人信贷历史、收入和其他细节的流程,以确定他们是否有可能违约。),鼓励向学生无止尽的发放贷款。这是一个具有误导性的主张,因为它并没有明确贷款是由财政部还是银行发放。资质标准都是相同的,而且门槛极低。奥巴马的这一举措只不过是取消了中间环节。然而,该举措存在一个根本性的缺陷:在它所构建的这个体系中,大学每年无需任何条件便可获取数百亿美元的纳税人税金。这个体系让大学可以在20世纪八九十年代和本世纪00年代肆意地提升学费。通过鼓励所有美国民众去大学念书(如果需要的话可以使用贷款),奥巴马进一步打开了赤字的龙头。
放水举措即带来了机遇也带来了麻烦。此举让数千万学生走进了大学校门。例如布兰登就走进了霍华德大学的校门,其毕业生(其中很多都来自于贫困家庭)有望获得高薪工作。然而对布兰登以及数千万其他学生来说,它还意味着异常沉重的债务负担。
布兰德在霍华德大学一直处于焦虑之中。最令他感到担忧的便是其学生贷款债务。他每年会借数万美元,其中既有联邦贷款,也有沙利美的私人贷款,然后焦虑地看着债务因为应计利息而不断增加。
当布兰登入学时,他并未意识到自己不得不借如此多的钱。较早录取的学生每年有望获得来自于学校的资助,而像布兰登这样处于招生流程末尾(学校大多数奖学金已被发放)的学生往往不得不自付绝大部分或所有的学费,哪怕学生来自于贫困家庭亦是如此。这些学生及其家长唯一的出路就是举债。他们的还贷能力极差,但又是最需要贷款的人群。
尽管《军人安置法案》的助学金和佩尔助学金解决了布兰登的学费问题,但布兰登的很大一部分债务都被用于生活支出。霍华德大学的校内宿舍已经人满为患,因此布兰登并没有预定到。他在马里兰州的乔治王子郡租了一间公寓,月租金980美元,距离学校半个小时车程。他还得花钱买一辆汽车,并支付油钱、停车费以及维修费。
如果家中的其他人也举债的话,那么布兰登唯一能负担的就只有学费了。他的曾祖母是沙利美私人贷款的联合署名人。在2011年夏季毕业时,包括利息在内,布兰登和她的曾祖母欠下了14.8万美元的学生贷款。在毕业典礼上,感到无比自豪的曾祖母流下了泪水。
当时,与布兰登一道毕业的大学生人数创下了美国历史新高,而这群毕业生亦背负了最大规模的学生债务。在那个时候,包括大学和研究生学校在内的高校录取人数,刚刚达到了2100万的峰值。有三分之二的大四学生都背负着债务,人均2.7万美元。像布兰登这样背负更多债务的学生虽然人数不多,但增速很快,而且人均债务都超过了5万美元。
这一局面是很多因素共同作用的结果,有一些是经济方面的,有一些与政策相关。其中一个是政府在20世纪90年代做出的调整——开始对很多学生的贷款征收利息,而当时很多借款人都在学校读书,此举使得其毕业时的负债总额大幅增长了20%。得益于数十年来的宽松法规,各个大学大肆调高了其学费。经济萧条还摧毁了家庭财富。在当时那个上大学有着重要意义的时代,美国人的学费支付能力似乎降到了最低水平。正因为如此,他们选择了贷款。
布兰登及其同学在毕业时赶上了最糟糕的就业环境。即便经济衰退在两年前便已经结束,但失业率依然居高不下。失业率在2011年的大部分时期均超过了9%,是大萧条之后的最高水平。很多足够幸运找到工作的年轻大学毕业生都处于大材小用的状态,从事那些传统上并不需要大学学历的工作岗位,而且拿着普通的薪资。
数百万美国青年在借贷时存在这样一个信念,大学学历是通往有保障中产阶级工作的门票。大批大批的青年出现了拖欠还款的情况。学生债务多年来一直被当作是一种投资,但却让大量的新毕业生心生怨恨。2011年9月,抗议者齐聚纽约的祖科蒂公园(Zuccotti Park),发起了占领华尔街(Occupy Wall Street)运动。抗议者斥责华尔街和大学的贪婪,并要求免去其学生债务。
2011年10月,一位名为史黛丝·巴顿的女士对《今日美国》(USA Today)说:“我认为这是一个有关经济公平性的运动。在我看来,人们抗议的问题是显而易见的,即贪婪、鲁莽、非法行为、房产止赎和不断增长的学生债务。我们找不到工作,但我们的学生债务在不断上升。”
学生债务在黑人中的增速最快,而对于在历史悠久的黑人大学读书的学生来说,这一增速更为迅猛。在美国社会的各个阶层中,黑人家庭的财富最少。相对于旗舰大学,黑人学生更有可能被那些获捐赠有限的大学录取。与众多同僚相比,这些学校更加依靠学费来支付学校开支。在历史悠久的私立黑人大学中,约四分之三的学生都不得不通过贷款来支付学费。
在大学期间,布兰登曾经在瑟古德·马歇尔大学基金(Thurgood Marshall College Fund)做过兼职工作,这是一家为历史悠久的黑人学院和大学做游说工作的非营利性机构。2011年获得学位证书后,他告诉了自己的导师兼基金负责人乔尼·泰勒自己欠了多少钱。泰勒叹了口气。他对布兰登说,他会给布兰登提供一份工作,帮他还债。布兰登一开始的年薪是5.5万美元,负责接电话、组织活动并协助泰勒,其工作地点并不在机构内部,倒是距离霍华德校园只有几个街区。
在从事新工作数月之后,布兰登开始接到来自于霍华德和其他黑人大学愤怒学生的电话。他们称令其感到意外的是,自己的父母被联邦父母PLUS贷款拒之门外。美国国会在1980年创建了这个计划,旨在将贷款成本转移给父母而不是学生,因为父母贷款的默认利率更高。其想法在于,相对于孩子,拥有稳定工作的父母更适合偿还债务。到本世纪00年代,贷款项目已经成为了很多黑人大学学生的生命线。
美国教育部(Education Department)2011年发现,根据担保学生贷款计划(Guaranteed Student Loan program),银行会错误地为不符合联邦贷款资质的父母发放贷款。如今,由于银行已经退出该计划,而且美国教育部已经强制推行这一标准,此举与其他规定一道,禁止向五年内宣称破产的父母提供贷款。数万名学生,很多都位于历史悠久的黑人大学,如今都因为这一调整而被贷款项目拒之门外。
除了自身的联邦学生贷款之外,学生还需要父母的PLUS贷款来支付学费。其学校的助学金官员对他们说,如果他们找不到其他的学费支付方式,那么他们就只能退学。布兰登也不知道该如何回应。
即便父母PLUS贷款出台了新标准,但政府依然会为具有高违约风险的父母提供贷款。很多父母鲜有或没有储蓄;一些处于失业状态;还有一些很快将退休,因此届时将失去工作。像这样的情况非常普遍,这只是其中的一部分。高风险借贷不仅仅存在于历史悠久的黑人大学,也不单单只是面向父母。(财富中文网)
节选自《债务陷阱:学生贷款如何成了国家灾难》(The Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe),作者乔什·米切尔。版权© 2021由乔什·米切尔所有。再版得到了西蒙与舒斯特公司(Simon & Schuster, Inc.)的许可。
译者:冯丰
审校:夏林
Today’s $1.6 trillion student debt crisis was built on a series of events and policy decisions made over six decades. Yet the crisis exploded in a short time frame—during the 2007–09 recession and subsequent recovery. By 2012, Americans’ collective student debt tab had crossed $1 trillion, surpassing credit card debt and auto debt.
This period coincided with the tenure of the nation’s first Black President, Barack Obama, who believed in the power of higher education to uplift families and the U.S. economy, even as he spoke of the burden that student debt placed on households.
The nation was undergoing a shift, not just politically and economically, but culturally, particularly when it came to higher education. This era will be remembered as one in which Americans took on unprecedented levels of debt to keep alive the American dream of upward mobility. By the end of Obama’s second term, Americans’ view of higher education as a pathway to financial prosperity had dimmed.
While student debt soared among all demographic groups, it grew the fastest this century among Black households, at least among households that borrowed for higher education. The excerpt to follow from my new book, The Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe (Simon & Schuster), highlights this phenomenon through the story of a young Black college student who attended Howard University, among the nation’s most prestigious historically Black universities.
*****
On a sunny Friday afternoon in August 2006, Brandon stared in awe at the brick gateposts of Howard University, a historically Black university in Washington, D.C. Since he was a boy, he’d seen this place as a distant sanctum he would never reach. Now he was about to step onto the campus as a student.
Brandon had come to Howard that day to pay a bill before starting his freshman year. As he stood relishing the moment before he passed through the gates, self-doubt shivered through him. Do I really belong here? he thought. He was standing on the same ground that Thurgood Marshall, Zora Neale Hurston, Toni Morrison, and Sean “Diddy” Combs once walked. And then he shook off the shadow.
I’m here, he told himself. I did it.
Brandon came from a modest background. He and his three siblings were raised in Petersburg, Va., and Augusta, Ga., by a single mother in the Army and their great-grandmother. His elders taught him the importance of God, family, and education. He grew up poor, but at the time he didn’t know it.
Socially awkward and with a speech impediment, he grew up to be polite and humble, seemingly without an ego. His great-grandmother taught him to appreciate what he had and to strive for stability in life. He went to church three days a week and got A’s and B’s in high school. When he graduated, he craved structure, so he joined the Navy. He was stationed in Oklahoma City and specialized in communications, working 12-hour shifts behind two combination-locked doors in a windowless control room.
His time in the Navy exacerbated his anxiety and feelings of isolation. Brandon suffered panic attacks over his worry that his speech difficulties would prevent him from speaking through a microphone in an emergency. After two years, he left with an honorable discharge and decided to try college. His great-grandmother, a retired hospital housekeeper who had dropped out of high school and later got her GED, had urged him throughout his childhood to go to college. “She was one of those people who thought if you went to college, then the doors were opened for you,” Brandon says.
For many Black families across the U.S., no school held as mystical a status as Howard. Founded by missionaries in 1867, the school was one of hundreds that opened across the U.S. after the Civil War to educate Black Americans, many of whom were denied entry to other colleges because of the color of their skin. In its first five years, Howard taught tens of thousands of freed slaves. By 2006, Howard was the most prestigious of the nation’s 100 or so historically Black colleges still in existence.
Despite his strong high school grades, Brandon knew the odds of his being admitted to Howard were slim. Of the thousands who applied each year, only about three in 10 got in. When he called the admissions office and a woman told him he’d been accepted, he was in such disbelief that he asked her to repeat herself.
Brandon entered college at the onset of a student debt boom. By the end of his first semester, student debt across the U.S. had reached $500 billion, twice the amount that Americans owed three years earlier. That sum was quickly approaching that which Americans owed on credit cards and auto loans. The media and policymakers were waking up to the problem. Author Anya Kamenetz helped put the issue on the map with her book Generation Debt, released during Brandon’s freshman year.
Student debt was soaring in part because a greater share of Americans were going to college. The college-wage premium had reached an all-time high by the time Brandon enrolled, as employers increasingly demanded that job applicants hold a bachelor’s degree for jobs that several years earlier didn’t require one. Brandon was one of 15 million undergraduates across the U.S. in 2006.
The rise in college enrollment was driven by students like Brandon. They were disproportionately poor, Black, Hispanic, and the first in their families to go to college. They mostly attended schools with low or no admissions standards—community colleges, for-profit schools, and a number of historically Black colleges—schools that opened their doors to students who lacked the grades or test scores to get into more selective universities. The schools provided students a huge opportunity to move up on America’s economic ladder.
Most of those students relied on debt. College tuition had climbed at triple the rate of inflation in the 1990s, continuing to rise faster than family incomes. The increase fell hardest on the poorest families, such as Brandon’s, who had little to no savings. Poor students who could get into the most elite universities, such as Ivy League schools, often got free rides, because those schools had the resources—such as large endowments and alumni donations—to waive tuition for them. But most colleges lacked such resources and relied heavily on tuition dollars, including from poor students, to pay the bills.
For Brandon, Howard was a steal compared with Washington’s other schools, like George Washington University and Georgetown University. But it still cost a fortune—$28,000 a year after living costs were factored in. Brandon qualified for Pell Grants and partial benefits under the G.I. Bill. But neither program provided enough money to cover tuition at many state schools, let alone a prestigious private school like Howard. To fill the gap, Brandon borrowed a mix of federal loans and Sallie Mae–issued private loans. His total student debt tab: nearly $40,000 in federal loans and $60,000 in private loans. Interest pushed it thousands of dollars higher by the time he graduated.
During his sophomore year, in late September 2007, a professor gave Brandon and his classmates an assignment to attend a speech on campus. When the speaker stepped to the podium, the crowd rose to its feet. Quick to smile and at ease behind the podium, Barack Obama delivered a speech polished to a gleam, and Brandon could feel the waves of admiration washing over the crowd.
Brandon had heard of this senator from Illinois who was running for President. Like Brandon, Obama was a Black man raised by a single mother and had taken out loan after loan to attend college and law school. Obama had come to Howard on his campaign tour with a vision for revitalizing America’s economy, which was in distress as the housing market crumbled. He talked about criminal justice reform, and about making society more equal. Above all, he wanted to create opportunity for society’s most disadvantaged, particularly the Brandons of the world.
Just over a year after that speech, Obama stepped to a lectern outside the U.S. Capitol on a frigid day on Jan. 20, 2009, to be sworn in as the nation’s 44th President. America’s economy was in tatters. The housing bubble—and the illusory era of inflated real estate that defined it—had burst, bringing financial markets to a halt and sending the economy into a tailspin. Voters had elected Obama to steer the country out of the worst crisis since the Great Depression.
The housing crisis was created by loose credit, lax regulation, and a reach for the American dream. Mortgage lenders, believing the value of homes would only go up, had spent years lending bigger and bigger sums to borrowers whose credit histories or incomes indicated they had little hope of repaying. One in five loans in 2007 and 2008 was to borrowers with subprime credit. Federal regulators looked the other way. Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought up many of those mortgages, fueling banks with cheap cash. Lenders sold home loans to investors as securities, using intricate financial instruments that obscured the loans’ risk. Undergirding this boom was the belief that homeownership was a sound investment for the poor and middle class.
Home prices did rise, and borrowers for a while could afford their monthly payments—until they couldn’t. In 2006, a wave of homeowners fell behind on payments, and banks realized they had a pile of debt on their books that wouldn’t be repaid. Home prices had risen too high, too fast. Ultimately Congress came to the rescue, spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out financial institutions and steady the economy.
When the bubble burst, the human consequences were devastating. Ten million people lost their homes, most to foreclosure. Nearly 9 million lost their jobs over the recession. Entire cities and towns were decimated. Big banks, car companies, and small businesses failed. The stock market crashed.
The hardest-hit families tended to be Black, Hispanic, and headed by someone without a college degree. The very people who were meant to be helped by homeownership were harmed. Instead of reducing inequality, the aggressive push by elected leaders and the private sector to get Americans into homes increased it.
Obama viewed the crisis not just as an economic disaster but as a moral one. As a state senator in Illinois in the late 1990s and early 2000s, he’d been an early critic of predatory lending, which broadly refers to banks extending risky loans to unwitting borrowers who are unlikely to repay them, given their incomes or the size of the monthly payments. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recalled meeting Obama at a political fundraiser in 2003 when he was running for the U.S. Senate and she was a Harvard professor specializing in consumer finance. He greeted her with the words predatory lending. “On and on and on, and I never got a word in,” Warren told U.S. News & World Report.
A month after his inauguration, in February 2009, Obama delivered his first address to a joint session of Congress, in which he laid out his plan to pull the nation out of the severe downturn and return it to prosperity. The country would educate its way out of the recession, he said. “In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity—it is a prerequisite,” he noted.
He asked every American to spend at least one year in college—whether it be a four-year liberal arts school or a community college—to meet a bold goal: for the U.S. to have the world’s most educated workforce. The country had the world’s most college graduates as a share of its workforce in the early 1990s, but in the new century other countries had surpassed the U.S. Just as Lyndon Johnson had worried about Russia overtaking the U.S. in education and global leadership, Obama worried about countries like South Korea doing the same in the new millennium. “By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world,” he vowed.
Obama framed his goal as a way to help keep alive the U.S. ideal of upward mobility, echoing the goal of Clinton’s 1995 drive to increase homeownership. Under the nation’s first Black President, one who’d inspired millions of followers with a message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign, the country was turning away from one cornerstone of the American dream, homeownership, while doubling down on another, higher education, that also relied on debt.
A few weeks after Obama’s speech, Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers, settled into his seat at Boston’s Fenway Park under a gray afternoon sky. It was late April, and the Red Sox were playing the New York Yankees. Summers, a former Treasury secretary under President Clinton, was spearheading the administration’s efforts to dig out of the recession.
He turned to his friend sitting next to him, Harvard economist Larry Katz, and asked if he had any ideas on how to get more Americans into college. Katz thought of the 13 million unemployed workers, many from blue-collar industries like construction, manufacturing, and mining. “You need to go where the money is,” Katz told Summers.
“The money” was unemployment insurance. Most of those jobless workers drew checks from state unemployment offices. Find a way to nudge them into college, Katz said. Summers was so excited by the idea he called Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, during a rain delay. Days later, the government embarked on one of the biggest pushes ever to get Americans to go to college.
The administration urged state unemployment officials to send a letter to every person receiving jobless benefits, telling them they could get financial aid, such as Pell Grants, if they enrolled in their local college. “While the economy recovers, this is a great time to improve skills and lay the foundation for a stronger economy in the future,” one of the state letters read. “Studies have shown that workers with more education and training have more secure jobs and higher wages.”
Obama’s advisers believed getting people into college would help not only workers but the economy, in the short and long run. The U.S. economy relies heavily on consumer spending—Americans going out to buy stuff, from cars and groceries to medical checkups and education—to fuel economic activity, and Obama’s economic team envisioned college students’ spending on tuition as one way to get the economy growing again.
“The top priority was fixing the economic crisis,” says James Kvaal, Obama’s top adviser on higher education at the White House. “If we gave low-income students scholarship dollars, they would spend, and that would ripple through the economy. We were looking for projects where the dollars would be spent quickly, not saved, and the dollars could get in the hands of people quickly.”
This massive push would require huge sums of money. The stock market crash and recession had wiped out trillions of dollars in Americans’ wealth, leaving most families with little savings to pay tuition. While Obama wanted to increase scholarship money for the poor, his plan inherently relied on a surge in student debt.
The sweeping economic stimulus law that Obama championed and Congress passed in 2009 increased the maximum Pell Grant award that a modest-income student could receive over a year from $4,700 to about $5,600. But that sum wasn’t enough to cover a fraction of expenses even at public community colleges, the cheapest of higher education institutions. On average, attending a public two-year college—after grants were factored in—cost $12,000 a year in tuition and living expenses in 2010, or about a fifth of the typical household income.
Obama himself had relied on student loans to get through law school, as he had mentioned frequently on the campaign trail. He and Michelle Obama each owed $40,000 from their time at Harvard Law School, debt they had paid off only a few years earlier with the advance from a book deal.
Obama, like other Presidents before him, found himself hemmed in by the federal deficit. Spending had soared under George W. Bush as the nation fought two wars. The taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street and auto companies had stirred a populist uprising known as the Tea Party movement, which opposed big government spending. Obama himself had raised concerns about rising entitlement program spending.
And he had other priorities. While his Democratic Party controlled both chambers of Congress, Obama spent his early political capital on other initiatives—an economic recovery bill and a sweeping health care law—instead of pushing for a big increase in scholarship money to ease Americans’ reliance on student debt.
Obama continued a bipartisan tradition of relying on student loans as a way to finance other initiatives. In 2010, he attached a provision to the Affordable Care Act, his signature health care law, to eliminate the Guaranteed Student Loan program, which since 1965 had insured student loans originated by private lenders. Ending the program would save taxpayers $60 billion over 10 years since the government would no longer have to pay banks a spread over their own borrowing costs. All federal loans from 2010 onward would be originated by the Treasury Department, using Bill Clinton’s Direct Loan program.
“We can’t afford to waste billions of dollars on giveaways to banks,” Obama said as he signed the bill in March 2010. “We need to invest that money in our students.” Not all the savings went to students, though; some financed Obama’s national health care law. Republicans accused Obama of “nationalizing” the student loan program. Some suggested the move encouraged reckless lending to students by removing “underwriting”—the process of banks screening borrowers’ credit histories, incomes, and other details to determine whether they were likely to default. It was a misleading claim. It didn’t matter whether the loans were originated by the Treasury Department or banks. The eligibility criteria were identical, and minimal. Obama’s move merely cut out the middlemen. But his move had a fundamental flaw: It kept in place a structure that required nothing of colleges to gain access to tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money each year. That structure had enabled colleges to raise their prices with abandon in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. By encouraging all Americans to go to college, through debt if they needed to, he had opened the spigot up further.
That spigot created both opportunity and hardship. It enabled tens of millions of students to attend college. In Brandon’s case, it opened the doors to Howard, whose graduates—many of whom had grown up poor—tended to land high-paying jobs. But for Brandon, as well as for millions of other students, it also meant an unconscionably high debt burden.
Brandon continued to suffer from anxiety at Howard. His biggest source of worry was his student loan debt. He borrowed tens of thousands of dollars each year—a mix of federal loans and private loans from Sallie Mae—watching anxiously as the interest accrued.
Brandon hadn’t realized when he matriculated that he would have to borrow so much. Students accepted early each year are more likely to get financial aid from schools. Students like Brandon who come in late in the admissions process—after most of the school’s scholarship money has been doled out—are often left to pay most or all of the sticker price, despite their families’ lack of wealth. The only option for those students and their parents is to take on debt. They are in the worst position to repay debt but the ones most reliant on it.
While G.I. Bill funds and Pell Grants went toward Brandon’s tuition, much of Brandon’s debt went toward living expenses. Howard had overbooked its on-campus dorms, and Brandon didn’t get a room. Instead he rented an apartment for $980 a month in Prince George’s County, Md., a half-hour drive from the school. He needed a car, and money for gas, parking, and maintenance.
Brandon could only pay for school if other family members took out debt as well. His great-grandmother cosigned his private loans from Sallie Mae. By the time he graduated in the summer of 2011, Brandon and his great-grandmother owed $148,000 in student debt, including interest. At the graduation ceremony, his great-grandmother was so proud she wept.
Brandon was part of one of the biggest graduating classes nationwide in history—and also one of the most indebted. Higher education enrollment—college and graduate school—had just hit a peak of 21 million students. Two in three graduating seniors owed debt—$27,000, on average. A small but fast-growing share, like Brandon, owed large balances—$50,000 and up.
Numerous factors collided to make this happen, some economic, some policy-related. One was a change the government made in the 1990s to begin charging interest on many student loans while borrowers were in school, driving up their balances by as much as 20% by graduation. Decades of lax regulation had enabled colleges to raise tuition to excessive levels. The recession also had wiped out household wealth. At a time when college was most important, it seemed, Americans were least able to pay for it. So they borrowed.
Brandon and his peers were graduating at one of the worst possible times. Even though the recession had ended two years earlier, unemployment remained exceptionally high. For most of 2011, it was above 9%, among the highest levels since the Great Depression. Many young college graduates lucky enough to find work were “underemployed,” stuck in jobs that traditionally didn’t require a college degree and paid modest wages.
Millions of young Americans had taken out debt with the belief that it was the ticket to a secure middle-class job. They were falling behind on their bills in droves. Student debt—which had for years been seen as an investment—stirred resentment among the hordes of new grads, fueling a populist movement. In September 2011, protesters crowded Zuccotti Park in New York, launching the Occupy Wall Street movement. Protesters criticized the greed of Wall Street and universities and demanded that their student debt be forgiven.
“I think this is a movement about economic justice,” a woman named Stacey Patton told USA Today in October 2011. “I think it’s pretty obvious what people are protesting. They are protesting greed, recklessness, illegal behavior, home foreclosures, and rising student debt. We can’t get jobs, but we have mounting student debt.”
Student debt was rising fastest among Blacks, and particularly students at historically Black colleges. Black families had the least amount of wealth of any racial group in U.S. society. Black students tended to enroll at universities that had smaller endowments than flagship universities and selective private colleges. The schools relied on tuition for a greater share of funding than many of their peers. Roughly three in four students at private historically Black colleges had to borrow for tuition.
During college, Brandon had worked on the side at the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, a nonprofit group that lobbies for historically Black colleges and universities. After he got his diploma in 2011, he told his mentor and the head of the fund, Johnny Taylor, how much he owed. Taylor sighed. He told Brandon he was going to give him a job to help him pay it off. Brandon started out earning $55,000 a year answering phones, organizing events, and assisting Taylor, working out of the group’s office just a few blocks from the Howard campus.
A few months into his new job, Brandon started getting phone calls from frantic students at Howard and other Black colleges. They said their parents had unexpectedly been rejected for federal parent PLUS loans. Congress had created the program in 1980 to shift costs onto parents rather than students, who had been defaulting at high rates. The idea was that parents—with their well-established jobs—would be better positioned to repay debt than their children. By the 2000s, the loan program had become a lifeline for many Black college students.
The Education Department in 2011 had discovered that, under the old Guaranteed Student Loan program, banks mistakenly approved loans for parents who didn’t meet federal eligibility criteria. Now, with banks out of the program, the department enforced the criteria, which, among other rules, blocked loans from going to parents who had declared bankruptcy within the prior five years. Hundreds of thousands of students—many at historically Black colleges—were now being denied access to the program because of the change.
The students needed the parent PLUS loans on top of their own federal student loans to cover the schools’ tuition. Financial aid officers at their schools told them that unless they found another way to pay, they would have to drop out. Brandon had no idea what to tell them.
Even with the new criteria for parent PLUS loans, the government continued to give loans to parents at a high risk of default. Many had little or no savings; some were unemployed; others were close to retirement and thus would be out of work. This was part of a broader phenomenon. The risky lending wasn’t just at historically Black colleges, and it wasn’t just to parents.
From The Debt Trap: How Student Loans Became a National Catastrophe by Josh Mitchell. Copyright © 2021 by Josh Mitchell. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.