EPTStudent Loan Forgiveness Act - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg. You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote: This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg. You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets. You are aware that bankruptcy cannot free you from student loan debts, right? | ||
|
omnic
United States188 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote: This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg. You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets. You can't use bankruptcy to clear student loans... | ||
|
TheAngryZergling
United States387 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote: The problem is not actually looking for an answer, but knowing what to look for and understanding it to properly dumb the answer down to appropriate level. That is hard to do without having some level of knowledge already. I agree that relating information in a way that is digestible for the student is necessary, but its also secondary to the requirement of having that information in the first place. The incompleteness of knowledge even for highly educated teachers of a subject is the issue I described. If one lacks the ability to present information in an appropriate way for your audience, then no, they probably shouldn't teach. On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote: As for basic schools and wasting time. For most children there is "age-appropriate" knowledge and thus the speeding up the process is not really possible/wanted. And for children that could go faster it would mean separating them from their peers and that is also not the greatest solution. Here we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not acknowledge age appropriate knowledge. I believe that there is cognitive and maturity appropriate knowledge. While I had a standard education, none of the dozens of people I know of who were homeschooled were ostracized in any way shape or form. There are a million reasons kids torment and isolate each other and being homeschooled doesn't really carry the sting that so many others can. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:18 shinosai wrote: You are aware that bankruptcy cannot free you from student loan debts, right? No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On April 19 2012 02:48 mcc wrote: I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case. Wait, one-on-one private tutoring by their own parent(s) is terrible? And, you think all, or even most, k-12 teachers have college-level comprehension of all subjects? I would be doing my child a disservice to raise him myself instead of letting a stranger? Hahahahaha. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:19 v3chr0 wrote: No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution. There's a reason it was prevented in the first place. Since student loans are basically guaranteed by the government, anyone can take them out. Spending $100k on your education w/ loans and then declaring bankruptcy was actually a pretty good idea. No credit, but hey, that's $100k that you don't have to pay back. It's highly unlikely that we will return to being able to declare bankruptcy on student loans because of that. The solutiosn proposed in this bill at least to some degree have some additional requirements to be met. | ||
|
omnic
United States188 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:19 v3chr0 wrote: No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution. From what I understand lawyers and doctors were using that to clear out the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt without even attempting to pay it off. That's why you're not allowed to do it anymore. | ||
|
EnterpriseE1701E
37 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:08 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Who is this `they`and how did they put you in this hole? Were you forced at a gun point to borrow all that money? The problem is systemic, as many areas of society have build up the myth (but there's still a good deal of truth behind it) that you need a college degree. The government subsequently built up a system around the lenders to make them have every last card in college lending (lack of Bankruptcy protection, and a variety of other safeguards to protect those in power). Indeed, the gun that they were forced by was far stronger than any sort of literal gun-- these people were conned into believing that they'd have shit lives if not for a college degree. Here's a radical claim: it doesn't matter why students are under crushing debt, increasingly screwed by a system that should serve them. The fact remains that there exists a structure designed to screw them over, and all parties involved understand this. The task at hand should be to figure out what the most effective way is to help the students who are screwed by this while simultaneously helping the society that these students/lenders emerge from. Currently, it is only the lenders and students as individual actors that benefit in this equation. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:19 v3chr0 wrote: No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution. I *think*, and I want to emphasize the fact I'm unsure of the matter, that the reason is because it was feared people would willingly declare bankruptcy after graduating. I saw someone just earlier say they have 300k+ debt... well, before you have a house, anything settled, you'd simply declare bankruptcy, be in the shitter in terms of credit yes, but have 300k+ less money to pay back, which is definitely worth it if you can get away with it (say you already found a job). On April 19 2012 05:26 EnterpriseE1701E wrote: The problem is systemic, as many areas of society have build up the myth (but there's still a good deal of truth behind it) that you need a college degree. The government subsequently built up a system around the lenders to make them have every last card in college lending (lack of Bankruptcy protection, and a variety of other safeguards to protect those in power). Indeed, the gun that they were forced by was far stronger than any sort of literal gun-- these people were conned into believing that they'd have shit lives if not for a college degree. Here's a radical claim: it doesn't matter why students are under crushing debt, increasingly screwed by a system that should serve them. The fact remains that there exists a structure designed to screw them over, and all parties involved understand this. The task at hand should be to figure out what the most effective way is to help the students who are screwed by this while simultaneously helping the society that these students/lenders emerge from. Currently, it is only the lenders and students as individual actors that benefit in this equation. The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job. For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni). I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:54 FabledIntegral wrote: You tried getting a job anywhere at all and you couldn't with a bachelors? How many interviews did you go to, and how many places did you apply to senior year? Maybe you should have taken some time off before getting your masters? Talking to your counselor is usually something you do your junior year, when you're looking for internships, not senior year. What it sounds like to me is that all the people who can't find jobs, or even get interviews, are in this situation because they didn't work hard enough during school, or didn't do the research needed. I don't go to an ivy league school, I didn't have any internship (because I worked two jobs during college), and got plenty of interviews, and I honestly didn't even apply to THAT many (maybe 100 total). I'm not going to deny it, the process was fairly brutal, considering how selective they can be due to only hiring a few people, but my god, if you had at least a 3.4 GPA in a non-worthless major and you can't get any interviews... it's either the school you attended or you're doing something wrong. There's this thing called being overly qualified for a job. Graduating Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology with a 3.82 GPA and applying at department stores because you really need a job, they tend to think you aren't going to stick around very long. I also applied at places that were relevant to my field, but they went with people that had more hands on experience than I did as my experience at the time was all class room based. What's funny, is that for getting a graduate school internship, everyone wanted to interview me, problem is that it is still an UNPAID internship because LEGALLY you cannot be paid to do (non career) counseling until you have a license. Granted if you are extremely lucky you can get a stipend similar to a Graduate Assistantship. The problem is for some fields additional education is required to get a decent job, or to get the job you want you MUST get a Masters or Doctorate Degree and have state licensure. For these fields, students accumulate far more loans. I got lucky because I am getting my Masters from a state institution and paying half as much per credit hour as I did for my undergrad. Had I gone anywhere else to get my Masters I'd be looking at $100,000 or more in loans and I would have to have to wait several more months to test to get my license and pay substantially more money to do so. | ||
|
Diomedes7
67 Posts
| ||
Rfaulker
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
EnterpriseE1701E
37 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:22 danl9rm wrote: Wait, one-on-one private tutoring by their own parent(s) is terrible? And, you think all, or even most, k-12 teachers have college-level comprehension of all subjects? I would be doing my child a disservice to raise him myself instead of letting a stranger? Hahahahaha. Anddddd, this is how you just exposed yourself as knowing nothing about teaching others. It isn't merely mastery of whatever subject that the teacher has experience in. There is a lot of in-depth knowledge and experience that goes into learning how to teach others. There's literally been over 2k years of debate on what the best way to teach a student is, and teachers who get employed now (my understanding is that a Master's is the new base-level of required experience) need to understand not only the various theories on how to teach others, but how to adapt and modify these theories to suit any given classroom and student. The reason why homeschooling is awful, in the end, is as much as the parent wants to think they know their own child, there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child in any given subject. In this way, their background is lacking on two levels: the subject matter (the teacher probably knows more in several subjects than does this parent) and in how to deliver the education (which I am certain incredibly few parents know about). | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:29 Rfaulker wrote: It says it rewards for entering public service, like teaching and firefighting? I don't like them telling me I have to work in the public sector to pay off my loan... There also is a system that rewards you for being a counselor in the inner city as well. You know why? Because you make far less money counseling when all of your clients are paying on a sliding scale system. One "one hour" (actual time 50 minutes) counseling session at full price will run about $140. The only people that can afford that out of pocket live in affluent rich neighborhoods. As for payment on a sliding scale system, clients pay what they can afford, so with the exception of those covered by Medicaid (which will still only pay about $100 tops for a session and may take up to 6 months to pay you) you make about 50-70% less than what the going rate per hour is. I didn't choose counseling for the money, but I certainly would appreciate some help if I am going to get paid even less than I first expected simply because I want to work with those that need help the most. Furthermore, you cannot work with people that have insurance until you get your second level of licensure in the state of IL, which requires 1900 hours of work and 1 hour of supervision per week (which you pay for out of pocket). | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:26 NEOtheONE wrote: There's this thing called being overly qualified for a job. Graduating Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology with a 3.82 GPA and applying at department stores because you really need a job, they tend to think you aren't going to stick around very long. I also applied at places that were relevant to my field, but they went with people that had more hands on experience than I did as my experience at the time was all class room based. What's funny, is that for getting a graduate school internship, everyone wanted to interview me, problem is that it is still an UNPAID internship because LEGALLY you cannot be paid to do (non career) counseling until you have a license. Granted if you are extremely lucky you can get a stipend similar to a Graduate Assistantship. The problem is for some fields additional education is required to get a decent job, or to get the job you want you MUST get a Masters or Doctorate Degree and have state licensure. For these fields, students accumulate far more loans. I got lucky because I am getting my Masters from a state institution and paying half as much per credit hour as I did for my undergrad. Had I gone anywhere else to get my Masters I'd be looking at $100,000 or more in loans and I would have to have to wait several more months to test to get my license and pay substantially more money to do so. It's common knowledge that you don't put that you got a Bachelors if you're applying to a lessor job. I recall during college my boss instantly threw out all applications for administrative assistants if they put they had a bachelors on it. If you're just graduating, and you say you'll take any job (not necessarily the career you're looking into) then why didn't you apply to areas that don't require licensure? And I've found out that the majority of places that are entry level hire you on the expectation you'll get your licensure while working with them. For example, you want to go into an actuarial job? You need a license, but guess what, tons of firms hire you at entry level position, and you spend your entire first year learning about it without actually doing it, and in the meantime you get accredited. For accounting, you go work for a firm for 2 years THEN you get your CPA (certified public accountant) afterwards while working for them. Myself I plan on going back to grad school in 3-4 years, after I have a solid income and have paid off my existing debt. I'm not rushing into it senselessly. | ||
|
Hamdemon
United States348 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:32 EnterpriseE1701E wrote: Anddddd, this is how you just exposed yourself as knowing nothing about teaching others. It isn't merely mastery of whatever subject that the teacher has experience in. There is a lot of in-depth knowledge and experience that goes into learning how to teach others. There's literally been over 2k years of debate on what the best way to teach a student is, and teachers who get employed now (my understanding is that a Master's is the new base-level of required experience) need to understand not only the various theories on how to teach others, but how to adapt and modify these theories to suit any given classroom and student. The reason why homeschooling is awful, in the end, is as much as the parent wants to think they know their own child, there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child in any given subject. In this way, their background is lacking on two levels: the subject matter (the teacher probably knows more in several subjects than does this parent) and in how to deliver the education (which I am certain incredibly few parents know about). Lol. I exposed myself. Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school? You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..." You don't see a problem with that? I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."' I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class. | ||
| ||
