|
United States43480 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:32 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
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. I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines. Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education. Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence... Show nested quote +
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.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote:
Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future. All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't." What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
You can follow "they should have worked harder" with "I don't think they deserve it" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're blaming them for their situation. Such a confusion over the meaning of your own words is to be expected from a man whose solution to the problem of there being too few jobs and only the very top applicants finding work is "everyone outperform everyone and then everyone gets the most exclusive and highly competitive jobs".
|
On April 19 2012 06:44 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:37 Jisall wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:I haven't seen anything on the forums about this topic. I used the search function, but alas nothing. Basically, a rep from Michigan has come forward to recognize the student debt problem and has drafted a solution. You can find it here : Sign the PetitionBasics: -The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years. View Full: Full BillWhat do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well. This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it. Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security.
|
On April 19 2012 06:42 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:12 omnic wrote:On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt. Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job. then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility. edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage. Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!) I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly) Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs. It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being. Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly?
i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years.
i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me .
i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!).
i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go.
there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways.
edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument.
|
On April 19 2012 06:44 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:37 Jisall wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:I haven't seen anything on the forums about this topic. I used the search function, but alas nothing. Basically, a rep from Michigan has come forward to recognize the student debt problem and has drafted a solution. You can find it here : Sign the PetitionBasics: -The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years. View Full: Full BillWhat do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well. This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it. Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
The housing bubble started when lenders reduced the standards for giving loans. They would allow people to get a loan without documenting their income. Student loans are in the same field. Students do not have income, or if they do it is minimal. Student loans are bets on the future earnings of the students. These sub-prime mortgages that caused the housing bubble was based on the future value of the houses. No-one expected housing prices to decline, just like no-one expects the value of a degree to go down.
If your interested House of Cards can give you more information then I can. Here is the link. It is not on youtube so unfortunately I do not know how to make the video show in TL.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/59026/cnbc-originals-house-of-cards
I see the same thing happening when you make it easier to pay off student loans at a loss to the lender. People will pass the bill to the next investor until the defaults start happening and people lose all there money. A dangerous game of hot-potato it will become.
|
United States804 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:52 Timerly wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:44 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:37 Jisall wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:I haven't seen anything on the forums about this topic. I used the search function, but alas nothing. Basically, a rep from Michigan has come forward to recognize the student debt problem and has drafted a solution. You can find it here : Sign the PetitionBasics: -The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years. View Full: Full BillWhat do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well. This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it. Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>) He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security.
Right, but it's root was partially caused by the government in terms of passing legislation that allowed under qualified people to have a chance at purchasing homes, it's analogous to what's happening right now in education, and would likely be exacerbated further by this legislation. After all, who won't be trying to offer shitty loans to students if they know that they'll be paid back no matter what? It's essentially the same thing that helped the housing bubble burst.
|
I don't know much about the current situation in america, but from what i am hearing people dont like it because they have paid their debt off so they think its unfair the next gen dont have to pay (as much) ? if that is the case, then have a heart <3
|
On April 19 2012 06:56 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:52 Timerly wrote:On April 19 2012 06:44 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:37 Jisall wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:I haven't seen anything on the forums about this topic. I used the search function, but alas nothing. Basically, a rep from Michigan has come forward to recognize the student debt problem and has drafted a solution. You can find it here : Sign the PetitionBasics: -The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years. View Full: Full BillWhat do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well. This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it. Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>) He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security. Right, but it's root was partially caused by the government in terms of passing legislation that allowed under qualified people to have a chance at purchasing homes, it's analogous to what's happening right now in education, and would likely be exacerbated further by this legislation. After all, who won't be trying to offer shitty loans to students if they know that they'll be paid back no matter what? It's essentially the same thing that helped the housing bubble burst.
Your reasoning is correct. Your packaging a risky investment as a safe one, with the help of company with the goverments support. Like the movie I linked says, your creating a house of cards made out of student loans.
|
United States804 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:58 firehand101 wrote:
I don't know much about the current situation in america, but from what i am hearing people dont like it because they have paid their debt off so they think its unfair the next gen dont have to pay (as much) ? if that is the case, then have a heart <3
No, what's troubling is the fact that people are being forced to foot the bill for people that (often through their own decisions) have landed themselves in a bad situation.
|
United States804 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:59 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:56 Pillage wrote:On April 19 2012 06:52 Timerly wrote:On April 19 2012 06:44 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:37 Jisall wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:I haven't seen anything on the forums about this topic. I used the search function, but alas nothing. Basically, a rep from Michigan has come forward to recognize the student debt problem and has drafted a solution. You can find it here : Sign the PetitionBasics: -The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years. View Full: Full BillWhat do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well. This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it. Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>) He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security. Right, but it's root was partially caused by the government in terms of passing legislation that allowed under qualified people to have a chance at purchasing homes, it's analogous to what's happening right now in education, and would likely be exacerbated further by this legislation. After all, who won't be trying to offer shitty loans to students if they know that they'll be paid back no matter what? It's essentially the same thing that helped the housing bubble burst. Your reasoning is correct. Your packaging a risky investment as a safe one, with the help of company with the goverments support. Like the movie I linked says, your creating a house of cards made out of student loans.
Seriously though people, go watch that video. It'll do a better job of explaining the motives behind everything that caused it to crumble than reading wikipedia will ever do.
|
I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
|
medical school. 190k. i went to a state school, where tuition went from 21k -> 32k during my 4 year stay. people who graduated 5 years earlier have <100k loans, which is much more manageable. i don't plan to be a rich spoiled doctor driving a lambo (i drive a beaten up civic as a 4th year med student), but i have to mention that it's definitely putting pressure on a lot of my classmates. i want to stay in academic medicine, which halves my salary, but this "average" amount of loans is really making me reconsider. I might just sell myself out to a private lab group (im going into pathology), who will give me 300k salary but will work my butt off for maximum profit. no room for innovation.
Plus, graduate loans are stuck at 6.8%~7.9%. my residency salary will be 52.7k in NYC. minium loan payment for my next 5-6 years of training while interest accrues.
i really want to help change the whole healthcare system from the medical informatics approach, but loans are really becoming an hindrance to any kind of creative ventures. i might be reading colon and stomach biopsies all day just to pay my loans first.
|
On April 19 2012 07:02 Playguuu wrote:
I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
That is my fear.
Any loan based on future activity is a risky one.
|
On April 19 2012 06:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
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. I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines. Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education. Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
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.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote:
Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future. All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't." What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.) You can follow "they should have worked harder" with "I don't think they deserve it" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're blaming them for their situation. Such a confusion over the meaning of your own words is to be expected from a man whose solution to the problem of there being too few jobs and only the very top applicants finding work is "everyone outperform everyone and then everyone gets the most exclusive and highly competitive jobs".
I'm not saying that's the solution. But I'm saying that there are still jobs out there, they aren't AS bad as people are making them sound. Many are those who didn't even search for jobs until after they graduated, many without internships, many without minors, or previous work experience. Sure, they might have gotten a 3.0, but those are they people that can only blame themselves for the situation they put themselves in. They didn't put in the extra effort to get an A. In this shitty economy, people are going to suffer, no one deserves it, but IF people are going to suffer, it's going to be the people that couldn't perform as well in college.
Like I've said before, I didn't even have a fucking internship and I got a job and countless interviews. There's nearly 2,500 job listings on the UCI career website, and there have been thousands more throughout the year. I've been to multiple career fairs, there are PLENTY of recruiters there. One job I went to, nice entry level position for finance, I only got the interview because I talked to the recruiter and no one else did. You know how many people applied to the position? SIX. Everyone who applied got interviews as a result. The starting pay for this entry level position, open to ALL majors, with NO prior experience in the field necessary, was $52,000. I got to the final round of the interview before losing out to someone from UCLA. I would have taken the job if I could have gotten it, as it was with Liberty Mutual, a company that ranked 82 on the Fortune 500 list last year.
Every single damn person I know that's applied themselves has gotten a job. Not ONE person I know (relatively well) hasn't. Even the people in my major that I thought were fucking up got jobs. One who couldn't find a job got an internship after he graduated with Experian (largest credit bureau rating company), which six months later they hired him. And the internship was paid. He got it immediately after he graduated during summer. He was a 3.0 GPA student who didn't do shit during the year. It might be anecdotal evidence, but I don't know ANYONE who I can say actually applied themselves during their undergrad and didn't get at least a $40k job upon graduation. One of my roommates who didn't apply himself whatsoever, in the sense he didn't apply to a single job until after he graduated, got a job 2 weeks afterwards because he hired a person to recruit and find a job for him. His recruiter had interviews lined up for him in the 28k-38k range. He got a job for 36k, which he's using to build up money BEFORE he goes to law school. You know, because he's planning it out, instead of jumping into it...
P.S. He was a poli sci major.
|
On April 19 2012 07:02 Playguuu wrote:
I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
Is it bad that I really hope it bursts soon? Not for any schadenfruede reasons but because we're pressuring kids to waste 4 years of their life on a degree that qualifies them to be little more than a barista. And in many cases we're flat out lying to them about how much that degree is worth.
I want the bubble to burst so that lie isn't nearly as believable as it is now.
|
On April 19 2012 06:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
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. I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines. Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education. Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
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.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote:
Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future. All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't." What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.) You can follow "they should have worked harder" with "I don't think they deserve it" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're blaming them for their situation. Such a confusion over the meaning of your own words is to be expected from a man whose solution to the problem of there being too few jobs and only the very top applicants finding work is "everyone outperform everyone and then everyone gets the most exclusive and highly competitive jobs".
If everyone in the world worked harder in an attempt to outperform their peers then the economy as a whole would be producing more, allowing for the creation of more jobs. Eventually everyone could be employed this way. Look at it as a threshold of being profitable to hire, instead of as a competition. Unfortunately, we have yet to have the problem of too many people working hard.
|
On April 19 2012 06:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:42 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:12 omnic wrote:On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt. Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job. then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility. edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage. Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!) I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly) Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs. It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being. Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly? i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years. i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me . i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!). i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go. there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways. edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument.
Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc.
I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford)
But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans.
I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot.
Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best.
The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education?
EDIT: I think, after rereading your last paragraph, that we basically agree... the root of the problem is the insane costs of undergraduate education.
|
On April 19 2012 07:10 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:42 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:12 omnic wrote:On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt. Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job. then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility. edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage. Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!) I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly) Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs. It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being. Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly? i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years. i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me . i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!). i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go. there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways. edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument. Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc. I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford) But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans. I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot. Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best. The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education?
Whoa whoa whoa, now you're including housing into it? I don't think housing is a valid argument. You should be able to pay off housing completely with a part time job in the school year and a full time job during summer. If not, you should go to CC for your first two years to save money. Simple as that, CC is a completely valid solution to so many issues yet people simply refuse to go to them, despite them generally offering guaranteed transfers (at least in California) to University if you achieve X GPA and take Y classes. And you still get your degree from a university, which is all that counts. Not to mention CC teachers are infinitely better than the garbage professors you generally get at university...
I would like to say though what I have learned is that even if you're making a small income, apparently the loan payments still come at your relatively high. I'm not sure how this works exactly, or if it's only for the people that took out ridiculous loans, as I know my roommates GF is paying like $30 a month or something ridiculously low since she's unemployed (and her income is the reason she's paying so little). My roommate who makes 60k+ is having to pay significantly more, I think $300 ish. They both have ~$25-30k in debt.
|
On April 19 2012 07:10 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:42 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:12 omnic wrote:On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt. Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job. then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility. edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage. Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!) I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly) Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs. It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being. Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly? i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years. i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me . i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!). i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go. there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways. edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument. Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc. I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford) But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans. I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot. Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best. The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education?
i went to private schools for undergrad and law school. tuition was $35k, $45k, respectively. you and i both made the choice to go to overly expensive schools instead of taking advantage of cheaper alternatives. i do not regret my decision, and my loans are manageable.
like i said before, the cost of education is ridiculous. forgiving loans isnt going to fix that issue. and, i argue, that once the government starts subsidizing education loans even more then tuition will increase drastically. then we will be faced with a situation where the government is already subsidizing student loans but the students are still in heavy debt.
the government has no say in what private universities can charge. they can control public universities, which is why public universities (which are already subsidized by tax payers) are so cheap.
i dont claim to know how to solve the education cost crisis, but loan forgiveness is not the way.
|
On April 19 2012 07:14 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:10 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:42 stokes17 wrote:On April 19 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 06:12 omnic wrote:On April 19 2012 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 19 2012 05:55 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote:
So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything? I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however. how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt. Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job. then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility. edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage. Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!) I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly) Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs. It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being. Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly? i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years. i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me . i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!). i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go. there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways. edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument. Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc. I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford) But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans. I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot. Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best. The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education? Whoa whoa whoa, now you're including housing into it? I don't think housing is a valid argument. You should be able to pay off housing completely with a part time job in the school year and a full time job during summer. If not, you should go to CC for your first two years to save money. Simple as that, CC is a completely valid solution to so many issues yet people simply refuse to go to them, despite them generally offering guaranteed transfers (at least in California) to University if you achieve X GPA and take Y classes. And you still get your degree from a university, which is all that counts. Not to mention CC teachers are infinitely better than the garbage professors you generally get at university...
Housing is not included in my 54k a year tuition, I was simply including all the costs a student faces. Also I have no idea what CC is. I lived in dorms the first two years of school at 3.8k a year (i think) and an on campus apartment my 3rd year at ~4.5k a semester. This year and next year I'm off campus paying ~800 a month in rent+utilities. I wasn't saying that I can't afford to pay my housing, just that its an additional cost students face.
EDIT: OOO you mean community college. My university would let me take half of my non major courses (so like 45 credits, 15 courses) at community college. A bunch of people take a course or two over the summer. But my point is just that undergraduate education is insanely overpriced compared to the earning potential it gives you. I don't really wanna argue about housing or whatever, its not a big deal.
|
On April 19 2012 07:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:02 Playguuu wrote:
I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words. Is it bad that I really hope it bursts soon? Not for any schadenfruede reasons but because we're pressuring kids to waste 4 years of their life on a degree that qualifies them to be little more than a barista. And in many cases we're flat out lying to them about how much that degree is worth. I want the bubble to burst so that lie isn't nearly as believable as it is now.
Precisely. There is a glut of college educated people chasing too few specialized jobs and a breaking point between the available jobs in an area and the increasing cost of college education will make it so going to a technical school makes more sense. The poly-sci/sociology/library science/communication people will suffer most. They are told they need the degrees or need masters/doctorates to even begin making money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
