|
On April 19 2012 06:46 TheAngryZergling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:12 mcc wrote:It seems like you missed my point in both parts. On April 19 2012 05:18 TheAngryZergling wrote: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. My point was not only how to relate the information. That was actually less important. It was how to even understand the question and the answer properly you need some previous advanced knowledge of the subject. That it is not as easy as just looking the answer up. I picked "hard" sciences in my previous post not by accident. Sorry if I missed your point on this one. Was trying to agree. Regardless, I also agree with your clarified point; that being able to understand the question (and preferably the thought process leading to the asking of the question) is definitely important and, yes, it precedes knowing the answer to the question, which precedes the appropriate presentation of the answer. All are needed to teach most effectively. Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 05:18 TheAngryZergling wrote: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. I used age as good enough approximation of maturity for most. But you are correct. But I made no point about ostracization. That was not my point when I said separating them is not greatest solution. My point was that at that point in their lives the academic part of education is not really the most important part. That being with as many different peers as possible (in non-parent controlled environment) is important. I did not really deal with ostracization as that is pervasive in public schools anyway. Although it might be another plus, to actually experience some kind of ostracization/other pervasive negative social phenomena might be good for preparing the kid for adult non-sheltered life. Of course with reason, schools should reasonably combat all those things, but they will still happen as they happen after the child enters the "adult" world. Whether or not education or character development through social interactions is more important seems likely to be different for each and probably unknowable by teachers, parents, or even the kid themselves. The vagaries of the rest of their life answer that. Both are super important. As long as you don't sequester them away I think life does a pretty darn good job of exposing kids to those formative situations. Personal opinion. I have enjoyed our discussion but since we have fallen off topic perhaps its best continued in PMs (he says after his 5th such post) if you wish to continue it.
I think we clarified the positions enough and are as close as possible to consensus. The differences now are in things that cannot be really cleared with logic or data as of now due to lack of empirical data and complexity of the topic. We would be running in circle around each others opinion 
|
for people who are having problems with unmanageable student loan debt (and especially students who are about to graduate), you should definitely look into loan consolidation. here is what i used and i have a 1.5% interest rate on my loans because of them (down from 3-5% originally). dont consolidate private loans with government loans.
http://www.graduateleverage.com/student-loan-debt-education.aspx
|
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? EDIT: I think, after rereading your last paragraph, that we basically agree... the root of the problem is the insane costs of undergraduate education.
The real problem is that way too many people go to college that don't need to. (And as a result, many job openings that don't need a college degree only accept those with college degrees.) Colleges are in competition for students, and as such spend a lot of money on making their campus look attractive to incoming students. We can sit here all day and say college "should" cost less, but we know that unless the demand decreases, there is no reason for universities to lower the tuition, and they will just keep spending to try and attract the best students.
The people who are getting their loans forgiven are ones who (by definition) overpaid for their education. This means it was a bad investment in something they didn't need. If we forgive loans for these bad investments, do we extend this to other investments as well? Do we forgive loans of small businesses that over invest in their future? What about people who invest parts of their savings in stocks of companies that go bankrupt? I just don't see why its the government's place to make up for your bad decision.
edit: I guess I wasn't clear here. My conclusion here is that less people should go to college, specifically, those who get degrees that can't pay off their loans.
|
On April 19 2012 07:18 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:14 FabledIntegral wrote: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.
I dunno, it worked out quite well for me. Being a student qualified me for every single one of the 10 or so interview requests I've gotten in the past year, and also qualified me for one of the two jobs I had during college. I also simply couldn't afford living in the dorms, as yes they are expensive as shit, so I commuted to school in a drive that was over 1 hour during rush hour traffic... would have to wake up at 6:20AM to make it to my 8:00AM class on time. Not to mention that meant I didn't have a meal plan all the other freshman had. You know what I ate 5 days a week for lunch for 3 weeks straight when I only had one job that didn't have a ton of hours? Chili and caesar sald from Wendy's. Was $2.15 every single day for lunch. I think it was $0.50 to add cheese, which I did occasionally if I had money.
|
On April 19 2012 07:17 dAPhREAk 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? 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.
I can agree with you on that. But I kind of take issue with your use of " taking advantage of cheaper alternatives." I'd only be saving money in the short term while harming my chances at good graduate and doctoral programs later. Or if I planned on stopping at a BA, I'd have even lower earning potential. (Obviously a Rutgers grad can get into a Yale graduate program, but its a hell of a lot more difficult road than the Cornell grad faces) But I do agree that just forgiving loans isn't really solving the issue and is probably just increasing debt.
And when you say 35k you mean a year right? That's insane, you can't be more than 10 years older than me and your degree in the same field (which im assuming was a comparable school) was almost 80k cheaper than mine. That is literally the best example of my issue I can come up with!
|
On April 19 2012 07:27 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote: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? 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. I can agree with you on that. But I kind of take issue with your use of " taking advantage of cheaper alternatives." I'd only be saving money in the short term while harming my chances at good graduate and doctoral programs later. Or if I planned on stopping at a BA, I'd have even lower earning potential. (Obviously a Rutgers grad can get into a Yale graduate program, but its a hell of a lot more difficult road than the Cornell grad faces) But I do agree that just forgiving loans isn't really solving the issue and is probably just increasing debt. And when you say 35k you mean a year right? That's insane, you can't be more than 10 years older than me and your degree in the same field (which im assuming was a comparable school) was almost 80k cheaper than mine. That is literally the best example of my issue I can come up with!
I'm not sure what field you're in, but if you stop with an undergrad degree in an engineering field for example, you'll earn almost exactly the same amount of money no matter where you went to school. I go to a large public school, and I have friends with offers from Intel, Microsoft and just about anywhere else they might want to go work.
|
one other thing for consideration. before i graduated from law school, i maxed out all of my student loans (i.e., i took out as much money as was offered to me). not because i needed it, but because the interest rate on student loans is so much better than what i could get once i graduate (e.g., car loans, mortgages etc.). i then invested some of that money in other endeavors and made a profit off of it; the rest i used to travel around the world. so, is this the kind of thing that you as taxpayers want to pay for when you forgive my student loans (assuming i would even qualify)? because i was not the only one doing it. there was a group of us that abused the student loan system to our benefit. we saw an advantage and took it. then there are people who use their student loans to travel abroad (which is great and a huge plus for anyone, but has very little to do with academics usually). you want to pay for their travel plans as well?
|
I don't think the government should bail people out of private loans from private universities, it's not that I don't feel bad for people who signed into loans without fully understanding the details of those loans through no fault of their own, it's just a matter of my beliefs on owning up to mistakes. That said, changes to the loan system would be nice to see for people who are eligible for them IE kids with parents/grandparents who make money and have a decent credit score (not me) so when they get loans they know what they are getting themselves into.
With public universities loan debt being subsidized is fine in my opinion.
|
Help government I can't take care of myself 
And that ladies and gentlemen is how Liberty died.
|
On April 19 2012 07:27 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote: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? 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. I can agree with you on that. But I kind of take issue with your use of " taking advantage of cheaper alternatives." I'd only be saving money in the short term while harming my chances at good graduate and doctoral programs later. Or if I planned on stopping at a BA, I'd have even lower earning potential. (Obviously a Rutgers grad can get into a Yale graduate program, but its a hell of a lot more difficult road than the Cornell grad faces) But I do agree that just forgiving loans isn't really solving the issue and is probably just increasing debt. And when you say 35k you mean a year right? That's insane, you can't be more than 10 years older than me and your degree in the same field (which im assuming was a comparable school) was almost 80k cheaper than mine. That is literally the best example of my issue I can come up with!
you can go to community college to get your basic courses and then get your BA/BS from a named university. it is quite common in California, and does not hurt your graduate prospects since your degree will be from the university, not the community college.
i graduated from undergrad in 2002 and it was around $35k at that point. but comparing tuition alone really means very little since we both didnt go to the same college. i also had a lot of scholarships so I didn't pay the full amount.
|
On April 19 2012 07:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
one other thing for consideration. before i graduated from law school, i maxed out all of my student loans (i.e., i took out as much money as was offered to me). not because i needed it, but because the interest rate on student loans is so much better than what i could get once i graduate (e.g., car loans, mortgages etc.). i then invested some of that money in other endeavors and made a profit off of it; the rest i used to travel around the world. so, is this the kind of thing that you as taxpayers want to pay for when you forgive my student loans (assuming i would even qualify)? because i was not the only one doing it. there was a group of us that abused the student loan system to our benefit. we saw an advantage and took it. then there are people who use their student loans to travel abroad (which is great and a huge plus for anyone, but has very little to do with academics usually). you want to pay for their travel plans as well?
Very interesting, I was actually thinking about that on my walk to campus- if I could invest my loans and turn a profit. Yea I mean I don't like the idea of loan forgiveness, but I do like the idea of fixing the stupid prices for undergrad degrees, especially in contrast to the basically non existent cost of graduate degrees.
|
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,.....
|
On April 19 2012 07:52 windsupernova wrote:
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,.....
It is like saying. Here lets help people out by making sure they they don't have to pay back the loan in full.
Okay now who wants to give them money.... Nobody now?
|
On April 19 2012 07:17 dAPhREAk 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? 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.
This.... for people who are in support of this and like to attack those of us who are against it. we're not saying FUCK YOU YOU OWE MONEY YOU DIE DIE NOW. we're saying be more responsible, and that THIS LAW will NOT fix the debt issue. it'll bandaid the people who are in debt right now, MAYBE, and while the ever increasing tuition fees will continue to grow because they'll KNOW they can just up the cost continually while the GOVERNMENT is burdened to pay them with this forgiveness act.
|
On April 19 2012 07:54 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:52 windsupernova wrote:
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,..... It is like saying. Here lets help people out by making sure they they don't have to pay back the loan in full. Okay now who wants to give them money.... Nobody now?
On the contrary, big banks/etc will jump at the chance to give these guys loans, because they know they are going to charge much higher rates, and so they would make a huge profit.
|
On April 19 2012 08:04 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:54 Jisall wrote:On April 19 2012 07:52 windsupernova wrote:
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,..... It is like saying. Here lets help people out by making sure they they don't have to pay back the loan in full. Okay now who wants to give them money.... Nobody now? On the contrary, big banks/etc will jump at the chance to give these guys loans, because they know they aren't going to be able to pay them off, and so they would make a huge profit.
That's not how it works.
|
On April 19 2012 07:25 TestSubject893 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? EDIT: I think, after rereading your last paragraph, that we basically agree... the root of the problem is the insane costs of undergraduate education. The real problem is that way too many people go to college that don't need to. (And as a result, many job openings that don't need a college degree only accept those with college degrees.) Colleges are in competition for students, and as such spend a lot of money on making their campus look attractive to incoming students. We can sit here all day and say college "should" cost less, but we know that unless the demand decreases, there is no reason for universities to lower the tuition, and they will just keep spending to try and attract the best students. The people who are getting their loans forgiven are ones who (by definition) overpaid for their education. This means it was a bad investment in something they didn't need. If we forgive loans for these bad investments, do we extend this to other investments as well? Do we forgive loans of small businesses that over invest in their future? What about people who invest parts of their savings in stocks of companies that go bankrupt? I just don't see why its the government's place to make up for your bad decision. edit: I guess I wasn't clear here. My conclusion here is that less people should go to college, specifically, those who get degrees that can't pay off their loans.
Yea I completely agree that the cycle you describe is a major cause of the insane tuition prices. But most kids going into college don't have a career set. I might go in thinking I want to go to law school, and consequently go to the very best undergrad program I can get into (aka lots of money). Then 3 years later decide I really just have a passion for teaching, and can't stomach the prospect of going to another 3 years of school. Now I spent 200k to learn to be a teacher (50k a yea in salary)
Its not clear how much you overpaid until you decide on your career path. And since most (business, nursing, engineering, etc aside) students don't come in with a career set, I see the prices of undergraduate education to be nothing but ridiculous.
Its absurd that I dropped 200k to decide I want to be a PhD psychologist, and now have to pay 0 dollars (and actually get paid) to earn my graduate degrees. If I had decided (not so much decide as , drawn to? idn I love psychology) on a "lesser" career path, does that really justify the financial fucking I'll get upon graduation? I think, no. It just makes no sense to me, and ends up really screwing kids who don't feel compelled to continue in graduate education (which is like 80% of students)
But yea, I don't think this bill is the solution
|
On April 19 2012 08:04 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 07:54 Jisall wrote:On April 19 2012 07:52 windsupernova wrote:
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,..... It is like saying. Here lets help people out by making sure they they don't have to pay back the loan in full. Okay now who wants to give them money.... Nobody now? On the contrary, big banks/etc will jump at the chance to give these guys loans, because they know they aren't going to be able to pay them off, and so they would make a huge profit.
weird alternate reality you live in. banks dont give loans to people that they think will not be able to pay them back (except, of course, where there is collateral like real property); thats just silly. i think what you are (or should be) referring to is the fact that banks charge higher interest rates to students because they are a financial risk (i.e., there is a potential they won't pay them back). one student loan i took out required that i get a co-signature from my parents to make sure that if i didnt pay it off, they were going to take my parent's house.
|
On April 19 2012 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 08:04 1Eris1 wrote:On April 19 2012 07:54 Jisall wrote:On April 19 2012 07:52 windsupernova wrote:
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,..... It is like saying. Here lets help people out by making sure they they don't have to pay back the loan in full. Okay now who wants to give them money.... Nobody now? On the contrary, big banks/etc will jump at the chance to give these guys loans, because they know they aren't going to be able to pay them off, and so they would make a huge profit. That's not how it works.
I mean for mortgages/car loans/etc. These guys have already flopped hard on one loan, and the government bailed them out. How many will have learned their lessons? Probably not a lot. They'd be prime targets for big companies to make money off.
edit: yeah ^^, misworded that. I meant they would get higher interest rates and most of them would take them anyways because they hadn't learned anybetter.
|
On April 19 2012 08:12 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 08:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 08:04 1Eris1 wrote:On April 19 2012 07:54 Jisall wrote:On April 19 2012 07:52 windsupernova wrote:
Its stupid band aid solution.
How about them doing something about predatory banks taking advantage of students?
Its fine, but doesn´t really fix the root of the problem,..... It is like saying. Here lets help people out by making sure they they don't have to pay back the loan in full. Okay now who wants to give them money.... Nobody now? On the contrary, big banks/etc will jump at the chance to give these guys loans, because they know they aren't going to be able to pay them off, and so they would make a huge profit. That's not how it works. I mean for mortgages/car loans/etc. These guys have already flopped hard on one loan, and the government bailed them out. How many will have learned their lessons? Probably not a lot. They'd be prime targets for big companies to make money off.
How do you profit from people not being able to pay their loans back? I'm not being sarcastic or anything... I'm asking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
