|
On April 19 2012 16:00 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +
What do you mean by relevant? Like relevant to one's field of study? That's not true. People 20 years ago would also sometimes not find jobs in their fields of study, and would take jobs in other fields. It wasn't such a huge issue back then because a smaller percentage of people actually went to college, now of course that so many people go to college you should naturally expect that finding a job is going to be difficult once you get out since you're competing against all the other college graduates.
And since when do you automatically take a loan just because you go to college? You evaluate the job market, and how much a college education is going to be worth to you, look at the loan interest, and details, and make your decision. No one was forced to go into debt, everyone who got a college loan wanted one.
I think that the people that got most screwed did analyze the market, got into their degree and the economy tanked destroying all their job prospects.
So once again we're going to create moral hazards similar to those that destroyed the economy in the first place? That's the solution?
Also if you couldn't find relevant work to your degree 20 years ago you generally fucked up and had no one to blame but yourself. You could finish your degree with a pass/credit average and rock up to a big4 firm for ONE interview and get a job as a graduate. Now good luck without a D average and ton of work experience and good ECs. If 20 years ago all it took to get into a big4 firm was one decent interview backed by average marks then I'm sorry but that is easymode.
First of all that's simply not true, it's just that people would take jobs in somewhat related fields, or even unrelated fields and would be ok because they had the advantage of college education in general. Also, the disparity of income wasn't that great between being college educated, and not being college educated (not that it is now really, given how much college costs.) So you can argue it was easier to get a job in general, but how does that make a difference to this discussion?
The people that went to college 20 years ago are now the parents of kids that are in college now, and parents usually play a huge role in the decisions their children make about things such as which college to go to, and whether to take out loans, so they have all the right to turn around and tell people to suck it up.
|
On April 19 2012 16:20 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 16:00 yandere991 wrote:
What do you mean by relevant? Like relevant to one's field of study? That's not true. People 20 years ago would also sometimes not find jobs in their fields of study, and would take jobs in other fields. It wasn't such a huge issue back then because a smaller percentage of people actually went to college, now of course that so many people go to college you should naturally expect that finding a job is going to be difficult once you get out since you're competing against all the other college graduates.
And since when do you automatically take a loan just because you go to college? You evaluate the job market, and how much a college education is going to be worth to you, look at the loan interest, and details, and make your decision. No one was forced to go into debt, everyone who got a college loan wanted one.
I think that the people that got most screwed did analyze the market, got into their degree and the economy tanked destroying all their job prospects. So once again we're going to create moral hazards similar to those that destroyed the economy in the first place? That's the solution? Show nested quote +
Also if you couldn't find relevant work to your degree 20 years ago you generally fucked up and had no one to blame but yourself. You could finish your degree with a pass/credit average and rock up to a big4 firm for ONE interview and get a job as a graduate. Now good luck without a D average and ton of work experience and good ECs. If 20 years ago all it took to get into a big4 firm was one decent interview backed by average marks then I'm sorry but that is easymode.
First of all that's simply not true, it's just that people would take jobs in somewhat related fields, or even unrelated fields and would be ok because they had the advantage of college education in general. Also, the disparity of income wasn't that great between being college educated, and not being college educated (not that it is now really, given how much college costs.) So you can argue it was easier to get a job in general, but how does that make a difference to this discussion? The people that went to college 20 years ago are now the parents of kids that are in college now, and parents usually play a huge role in the decisions their children make about things such as which college to go to, and whether to take out loans, so they have all the right to turn around and tell people to suck it up.
How is preventing a bubble that will bring the next wave of recessions comparable with loose accounting standards and overly complex securities? Obviously the current system would have to be scrapped if this goes through.
Don't know why you're doubting me when I'm comparing the job market 20 years ago. If my mum with no relevant job experience and a fresh immigrant with credit average could get into Deloitte and the same with her other educated fellow immigrants then yeah it is much easier. The relevance of this to the argument is the people blaming current college graduates of not working hard enough in uni to secure a relevant job and thus be able to pay back their student loans who themselves got their jobs with the difficulty equivalent of picking the offer letter out of a cereal box.
|
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
|
On April 19 2012 16:45 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 16:20 Kiarip wrote:On April 19 2012 16:00 yandere991 wrote:
What do you mean by relevant? Like relevant to one's field of study? That's not true. People 20 years ago would also sometimes not find jobs in their fields of study, and would take jobs in other fields. It wasn't such a huge issue back then because a smaller percentage of people actually went to college, now of course that so many people go to college you should naturally expect that finding a job is going to be difficult once you get out since you're competing against all the other college graduates.
And since when do you automatically take a loan just because you go to college? You evaluate the job market, and how much a college education is going to be worth to you, look at the loan interest, and details, and make your decision. No one was forced to go into debt, everyone who got a college loan wanted one.
I think that the people that got most screwed did analyze the market, got into their degree and the economy tanked destroying all their job prospects. So once again we're going to create moral hazards similar to those that destroyed the economy in the first place? That's the solution?
Also if you couldn't find relevant work to your degree 20 years ago you generally fucked up and had no one to blame but yourself. You could finish your degree with a pass/credit average and rock up to a big4 firm for ONE interview and get a job as a graduate. Now good luck without a D average and ton of work experience and good ECs. If 20 years ago all it took to get into a big4 firm was one decent interview backed by average marks then I'm sorry but that is easymode.
First of all that's simply not true, it's just that people would take jobs in somewhat related fields, or even unrelated fields and would be ok because they had the advantage of college education in general. Also, the disparity of income wasn't that great between being college educated, and not being college educated (not that it is now really, given how much college costs.) So you can argue it was easier to get a job in general, but how does that make a difference to this discussion? The people that went to college 20 years ago are now the parents of kids that are in college now, and parents usually play a huge role in the decisions their children make about things such as which college to go to, and whether to take out loans, so they have all the right to turn around and tell people to suck it up. How is preventing a bubble that will bring the next wave of recessions comparable with loose accounting standards and overly complex securities? Obviously the current system would have to be scrapped if this goes through. Don't know why you're doubting me when I'm comparing the job market 20 years ago. If my mum with no job experience and a fresh immigrant with credit average could get into Deloitte and the same with her other educated fellow immigrants then yeah it is much easier. The relevance of this to the argument is the people blaming current college graduates of not working hard enough in uni to secure a relevant job and thus be able to pay back their student loans who themselves got their jobs with the difficulty equivalent of picking the offer letter out of a cereal box.
As a recent college grad I can tell you that I personally was able to find a job in a month, wherein that month I had roughly 6 interviews. If your argument is that jobs are harder to find, I can certainly understand that are much less jobs now then in recent times, but perhaps that pertains to choice of education rather than anything to do with loans. 20 years ago when not many people had a business degree, it was quite easy to be favored in a job search if you were educated. Now, attempting to find a job with a business degree sounds pretty damn hard because the field is over saturated and then becomes harder to stand out in. I felt like the difficulty of finding my job was as easy as picking the offer letter out of a cereal box!
Maybe I lucked out and picked the right major, who knows. What I do know is that my loans payments are manageable, granted it means living with my parents a few years longer then I would have like to. I can suck that up to have the opportunity to do things my parents couldn't because of lack of education.
|
On April 19 2012 14:03 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 13:55 ander wrote:
"Higher income"? Most people go to university these days out of necessity For a higher paying job; unless you really like lower wages.
If theres not loan forgiveness, atleast put a cap on interest rates, or do something. Students can only get fucked by the system so many times before something needs to change. Fixed. I agree with a cap on interest rates. But a free education because a student chose a saturated job market, or employ that doesnt meet their expectations? Not in a million years.
Here is the thing. Every system has flaws. With a free educations system, will there be people who take advantage and fail to contribute? Of course. In an elite high cost educational system will there be motivated/intelligent people excluded/bankrupted? Of course. It is up to us to decide which one of these we find less acceptable.
I tend to believe that having more educated people, even in "less productive" fields is incredibly important as it raises the level of discourse amongst the general population. When times are hard, should there be no more poets, writers or musicians? These fields are incredibly difficult/low income, on average, at the best of times. Is money the only benefit of education?
tl/dr: If your reason for not wanting a system or set of rules is that it could be taken advantage of, then there is no system that you could ever approve of.
|
United States387 Posts
On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven.
One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student.
|
i feel lucky i didn't try to apply for US, teacher said it would have as much loan as buying a house.
for the bill i'm really curious how it's gonna go, im not an economist or a finacial advisor or live in the US so i can't really comment on anything.
|
On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student.
Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^.
I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..."
Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first.
The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense.
tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents
On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking.
I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it...
|
United States387 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first.The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents
CC first is pretty risky but definitely economical. I suppose the map we're playing on is gigantic so you can get away with it, but when I offrace as T I need at least 1 rax. 
(sorry I couldn't resist  )
|
On April 20 2012 01:05 TheAngryZergling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first.The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents CC first is pretty risky but definitely economical. I suppose the map we're playing on is gigantic so you can get away with it, but when I offrace as T I need at least 1 rax. (sorry I couldn't resist )
CC first is neither risky in SC2 or IRL^^.
On a slightly relevant note, I don't know how it works in the rest of the country, but in California you can get a GUARANTEED transfer to any UC except Berkeley if you meet certain requirements, which are very easy to meet... (certain prerequisite classes depending on your major, and maintaining a 3.0 GPA is all). So no risk there at all really^^.
|
I'm kinda torn on this one.
It doesn't really feel like the right way to go about addressing the problem of "student loans are too high and can shackle graduates for excessive amounts of time".
- The reason the initial loans are so high is because the fees are so high. Surely directly addressing that (either with general funding, or specific scholarship funding) is a better use of the money
- The reason the loans last so long is because graduates struggle to get well paid jobs afterwards. Attempting to improve the market value of eduction seems like a better solution there, by making the skills taught more appealing to employers, getting better industry links while studying, etc
- The reason the loans can't be escaped is because they are such high risk loans. I guess this is difficult to do anything about in the current economic climate, when getting jobs is tough, but the previous point would help.
- The reason the interest is so high is because the loans are given by a profit making organisation. In the UK, student loans are run by a not for profit organisation subsidised by the government, resulting in lower interest rates, more forgiving repayment schedules and generally a much better situation for students
IMO spending money on any of those core reasons would be overall more beneficial and provide better support for those who really need it, than this proposal.
All this proposal does is remove risk to the student without offering any incentive to avoid risky behaviour in the first place, which sounds like a recipe for disaster.
|
On April 20 2012 01:32 dmfg wrote:
I'm kinda torn on this one.
It doesn't really feel like the right way to go about addressing the problem of "student loans are too high and can shackle graduates for excessive amounts of time".
- The reason the initial loans are so high is because the fees are so high. Surely directly addressing that (either with general funding, or specific scholarship funding) is a better use of the money
- The reason the loans last so long is because graduates struggle to get well paid jobs afterwards. Attempting to improve the market value of eduction seems like a better solution there, by making the skills taught more appealing to employers, getting better industry links while studying, etc
- The reason the loans can't be escaped is because they are such high risk loans. I guess this is difficult to do anything about in the current economic climate, when getting jobs is tough, but the previous point would help.
- The reason the interest is so high is because the loans are given by a profit making organisation. In the UK, student loans are run by a not for profit organisation subsidised by the government, resulting in lower interest rates, more forgiving repayment schedules and generally a much better situation for students
IMO spending money on any of those core reasons would be overall more beneficial and provide better support for those who really need it, than this proposal.
All this proposal does is remove risk to the student without offering any incentive to avoid risky behaviour in the first place, which sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Technically the interest rate isn't really that high. Usually either 3.8%, 5.6%, or 6.8% (6.8% for most, unsubsidized). 6.8% are for those that don't qualify for really any help, usually because of their parents' income. That's lower than a lot of general rates you'd find, especially for someone age 18-22.
|
On April 20 2012 01:12 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:05 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first.The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents CC first is pretty risky but definitely economical. I suppose the map we're playing on is gigantic so you can get away with it, but when I offrace as T I need at least 1 rax. (sorry I couldn't resist ) CC first is neither risky in SC2 or IRL^^. On a slightly relevant note, I don't know how it works in the rest of the country, but in California you can get a GUARANTEED transfer to any UC except Berkeley if you meet certain requirements, which are very easy to meet... (certain prerequisite classes depending on your major, and maintaining a 3.0 GPA is all). So no risk there at all really^^.
As somebody who has gone to CC first, I can tell you that there are some strings attached. I ended up taking a group of courses that were required in the Associates degree plan at the CC. However, when I moved on to my 4 year university and those credits transferred, I found out that a large portion of those hours didn't count towards my 4 year degree. In turn, I'm now facing out of state tuition for taking "too many hours."
|
On April 20 2012 01:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 20 2012 01:05 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first.The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents CC first is pretty risky but definitely economical. I suppose the map we're playing on is gigantic so you can get away with it, but when I offrace as T I need at least 1 rax. (sorry I couldn't resist ) CC first is neither risky in SC2 or IRL^^. On a slightly relevant note, I don't know how it works in the rest of the country, but in California you can get a GUARANTEED transfer to any UC except Berkeley if you meet certain requirements, which are very easy to meet... (certain prerequisite classes depending on your major, and maintaining a 3.0 GPA is all). So no risk there at all really^^. As somebody who has gone to CC first, I can tell you that there are some strings attached. I ended up taking a group of courses that were required in the Associates degree plan at the CC. However, when I moved on to my 4 year university and those credits transferred, I found out that a large portion of those hours didn't count towards my 4 year degree. In turn, I'm now facing out of state tuition for taking "too many hours."
I've never heard of that hours thing :o. Do you mean units btw? Still wouldn't have heard of that either, but you can easily research what units transfer and what don't. They make it quite clear if you ever talk to a counselor.
|
On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first. The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking. I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it...
You didn't have the money to go to a good school, you had to commute a huge distance and eat like shit because school is too expensive. The government has a plan to reduce the number of people who have to have a shit time like you did through school (at least from what I can see), to improve the situation, and you think it is a bad idea? People should have to suffer like you did? Am I wrong somewhere?
|
It is probally cheaper for you americans to study abroad like Europe or Asia then to study in your own country xD. School intuition is for foreign students around 3k in holland per year, and most school have budgets for foreign students. And holland is probally heaven on earth for most you ameri's
|
On April 20 2012 02:16 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first. The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking. I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it... You didn't have the money to go to a good school, you had to commute a huge distance and eat like shit because school is too expensive. The government has a plan to reduce the number of people who have to have a shit time like you did through school (at least from what I can see), to improve the situation, and you think it is a bad idea? People should have to suffer like you did? Am I wrong somewhere?
I don't consider that suffering whatsoever. I considered it being responsible. And I can say that honestly. It wasn't ideal, but it really wasn't that bad. People commute to work with 40min - 1 hour drives all the time, not uncommon whatsoever, why should school be any different? Eating like shit... well that was for lunch, living at home, I had nice meals^^. I mean, it's not all that bad, and as I specified earlier, I did have help from my parents.
The main point was that's how you're supposed to live when in college and when you dont' have money. Frugal and within your means. And I went to UCI, which is as expensive as any other public school at the very least. My student loans aren't too high, since I had a job since I was 15, had two jobs in college, and parents helped a lot (which makes me biased in this discussion, I understand). I don't think what I did was even remotely unreasonable and I DO expect other people to follow suit because that's life. It wasn't hard at all to maintain my studies, I had one quarter with a 3.2 and every other quarter has been above 3.5... 3.8 cumulative.
When I first moved out I had $275 rent with 3 ppl crammed in one room. You deal with it.
|
On April 20 2012 02:16 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first. The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking. I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it... You didn't have the money to go to a good school, you had to commute a huge distance and eat like shit because school is too expensive. The government has a plan to reduce the number of people who have to have a shit time like you did through school (at least from what I can see), to improve the situation, and you think it is a bad idea? People should have to suffer like you did? Am I wrong somewhere?
the question is not "do you want other people to suffer," it is "do you want to have your government incur more debt or increase taxes so that other people dont have to suffer?" people keep rephrasing the question and ignoring the real issues.
|
On April 20 2012 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:16 seppolevne wrote:On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first. The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking. I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it... You didn't have the money to go to a good school, you had to commute a huge distance and eat like shit because school is too expensive. The government has a plan to reduce the number of people who have to have a shit time like you did through school (at least from what I can see), to improve the situation, and you think it is a bad idea? People should have to suffer like you did? Am I wrong somewhere? the question is not "do you want other people to suffer," it is "do you want to have your government incur more debt or increase taxes so that other people dont have to suffer?" people keep rephrasing the question and ignoring the real issues.
You know, not shafting people is usually beneficial for the overall economy.
|
On April 20 2012 03:26 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 20 2012 02:16 seppolevne wrote:On April 20 2012 00:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 19 2012 22:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 18 2012 09:17 kammeyer wrote:
If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your
remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. One thing I'm surprised no opponents of this bill have brought up is that it only requires 10% of discretionary income, not pretax or even post tax (disposable) income. Considering the people this is targeted to help out are probably those who don't end up earning much more than $40-50K/yr during that 10 year period it wouldn't be difficult at all to show that they have basically zero income after rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc. So in essence it forgives virtually all debt for those individuals and even for those who earn up to $100K/yr in that 10 year period, they could manage their expenses such that their demonstrable discretionary income is relatively minuscule (since banks would be willing to provide them the loans to purchase $500K homes and mercedes benz). Its just too abuseable by every student. Child support is never income no matter what. Just throwing that out there^^. I think overall I just disagree with some notion that people are entitled to study at whereever they want. I've seen the argument so many times "well I can get a better education at an IVY league or private institution..." Well sorry, sure you can, but that doesn't mean you get to. If you don't have the money, then you simply don't have the money to go, you have to go to a public university instead. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. My school choice boiled down completely to the fact that I could commute to it in a 40 minute drive (no traffic) or 1 hour 10 minute drive (rush hour traffic), and that it was instate so it was much cheaper. If I wanted to save even more money, which I highly debated, I would have gone to a CC first. The biggest argument that gains sympathy from me though, that surprises me I haven't seen that much, is how tuition costs have surprisingly skyrocketed towards rates people couldn't really anticipate. When I started my undergrad in 2007 my first tuition payment was $2400. Expensive, but manageable. As I'm finishing my fifth year, my last payment was $4,600. It's pretty much doubled. Although I still don't understand how people (in in their undergrad) are accumulating 100k+ debt and think that it's a valid approach. If anything, it's an insanely huge gamble with your life. And I don't think that's questionable, or hard to forsee when you decide to go that route at age 18... you're not being misled, it's just common sense. tl;dr: I have far less sympathy for those who go to private schools or out of state when they don't have rich parents On April 19 2012 16:51 Macpo wrote:
What is crazy is the cost of universities that forces students to find a loan... like between 20 000 and 30 000 dollars a year !!
Do you guys know that some countries, it's free?
To come back on the issue of individual responsibility, the thing is that in the actual world, sociology has shown it, there is not "some individuals" who prefer to go to uni and get a loan; and "other individuals" who prefer not to. This is a kind of naïve story, but everyone knows that it's not the way it works.
What happens is that those whose parents (or social background) are able to pay for it without getting a loan do it; while those who can financially stand getting a loan to get at uni do it ; and those who have no opportunity at all, because of unfavorable social background, just don't go to uni.
We can say that this is a choice if it makes you feel better, but that choice is very awkardly distributed among social classes, to the point that we can predict the choices pretty efficiently before they are actually made. The rich have the choice to go to uni and get a good position; the others have the choice to be endebted, or to not go to uni.
Some people think it's good, because it relies on individual responsibility.
But this forgets about 3 things:
- Education is not only about pursuing individual career: there is a collective interest to get our society more educated as a whole.
- Are we responsible for the place where we were born? After all, the child will be majorly impacted by the parents situation, while it's hard to hold him/her responsible for that. Defenders of individual responsibilty should be scandalized to hear that students are heavily dependant on their family to make their studies! We touch here one limit of "individual responsibility". Is it normal that some students have to contract a loan while others just have their parents paying?
- individual responsibility for taking care of your budget very much hide inequalities in the repartition of income: the poor are not poor because they deal badly with money, but because they are not paid enough. (let's remind here that university will often be much more than 100 000 dollars for five years!).
People very often forget that their individual income is nothing but a part of a collective income that has been attributed to them. They forget, because they want to feel that "they deserve it"; it gives them the narcissistic impression that they had complete control over their lives (you know, the "if you really want it, you can have it" thing).
The point is that the repartition of such collective income is never obvious or justified. A business makes 100; his share holders make 25; the boss makes 25; hierarchy makes 25; blue collar workers make 25. Then, is there any reason for that? Not really in terms of justice, it is just "the way it is"; and power relations. Then, it's hard to defend that one "deserve" it.
Then the real question is: do you want this as your education system? At least you can be certain that choices are available on this issue, and that the american model is not the only one. France has its universities paid by taxes. and you have to pay something around 300 hundreds euros for uni + social security. Then, guess what: you don't have individual choice to pay taxes, but you don't start your life with a 100k credit on the back.
Many people, after getting their undergrad, work for a few years before going back to school. What do you think about high school grads working 2-3 years, saving up money, before attending uni, as well as going to a community college? If they do that, everything is completely manageable. I wonder if we'll move towards that in the future.... a ton of people do it already, although it's definitely a minority number. Just thinking. I'd rather have free education for everyone though than the system we have where certain people benefit significantly. Although this plan in itself isn't TERRIBLE, I simply don't agree with it... You didn't have the money to go to a good school, you had to commute a huge distance and eat like shit because school is too expensive. The government has a plan to reduce the number of people who have to have a shit time like you did through school (at least from what I can see), to improve the situation, and you think it is a bad idea? People should have to suffer like you did? Am I wrong somewhere? the question is not "do you want other people to suffer," it is "do you want to have your government incur more debt or increase taxes so that other people dont have to suffer?" people keep rephrasing the question and ignoring the real issues. You know, not shafting people is usually beneficial for the overall economy.
But increasing government debt is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
