-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Well considering the entire system is built around fucking over students in every way possible, yeah.
when you say loan forgiveness, what you really mean is let the government pay for it, which means increase the debt or increase taxes. i am opposed to increasing the debt, and i am opposed to increasing taxes to pay off something that people voluntarily and privately incurred.
i really dont understand why people can get away with such horrible ops btw. here is the official summary of the law:
Official Summary
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries. 3/8/2012--Introduced. Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 - Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish a 10/10 Loan Repayment Plan that allows borrowers of Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) and Direct Loans (DLs) to limit their monthly payment on such loans to one-twelfth of 10% of the amount by which their adjusted gross income and that of their spouse (if applicable) exceeds 150% of the federal poverty level. Requires the Secretary of Education to determine a borrower's repayment obligation under that plan on a case-by-case basis if the repayment formula would result in the borrower paying nothing and the borrower is not in deferment due to an economic hardship. Establishes a 10/10 Loan Forgiveness Program that provides FFEL and DL forgiveness to borrowers who, after the date that is 10 years before the date of this Act's enactment, have made 120 monthly payments under the 10/10 Loan Repayment Plan or under another repayment plan that required them to make payments at least as large as those they would have made under the 10/10 Loan Repayment Plan. Credits the months during which an individual is in deferment due to an economic hardship as months for which payment was made for purposes of the 10/10 Loan Forgiveness Program. Caps the amount of loan forgiveness that the program will provide to individuals who become new borrowers after this Act's enactment. Caps the interest rate on new DLs at 3.4% Amends the public service employee loan forgiveness program to forgive the DLs of participants who have made 60 (currently, 120) monthly payments on such loans pursuant to specified repayment plans. Includes primary care physicians in medically underserved areas in the public service employee loan forgiveness program. Allows certain borrowers to consolidate their private education loans as Direct Consolidation Loans, provided the private loans were made on or before the date of this Act's enactment. Limits such borrowers to those who: (1) were students eligible for unsubsidized Stafford loans or PLUS loans under the FFEL or DL programs for their enrollment at an institution of higher education, or would have been had they been enrolled on at least a half-time basis; (2) borrowed at least one private education loan for such enrollment; and (3) have an average adjusted gross income that does not exceed their total education debt. Caps the interest rate on those Direct Consolidation Loans at 3.4% Requires borrowers to apply for such loans within one year of this Act's enactment. Funds this Act's programs from funds available for Overseas Contingency Operations.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Oh look, someone's parents didn't have an issue dealing with it, clearly that must mean everybody should be able to deal with it.
I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
How's that an argument? The previous generation didn't have it therefore we shouldn't? No one gave my great great grandmother the right to vote so why should my mom have it, right?
It's election season, gotta open up those coffers.
I'm pretty sure the government doesn't have some huge revenue stream that doesn't involve taking people's money. "Forgiving debt" is just another way of saying "Let's make someone else pay it."
A real solution would be to offer free college education considering you can obtain the same education using free resources via internet, but that would never happen so I agree with this. College is way too expensive as it is and many studies to show that sometimes it's more expensive to obtain a degree in the long run and just not worth it.
Personally I am not going to college because I feel it is a waste of money and it's only real benefit is it could potentially land me an entry level postion with great ease.
Student debt is a real big issue though and it does need to be adressed.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
I think the idea is, that they should have forgiven them and they are moving to make things right for this generation... See ideologies like this are incredibly close minded.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
Our goal as a society should be to make education as accessible as possible for everyone, not harder. There has to be a better way to do it than making loans harder to obtain -_-.
Make student loan repayment both simple and fair o The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. ->If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. -> If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. o The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. o The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. o The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
Americans who are behind on their payments would be eligible to enroll in the new program and bring their payments down to 10% of discretionary income.
While current borrowers would be eligible for full forgiveness under the plan, future borrowers would be subject to a $45,520 cap on forgiveness (based on the average overall cost of a four-year degree at a public university). The aim is to incentivize students to be mindful of educational costs and for colleges and universities to control tuition increases. o Provisions of the bill itself would be financed by projected savings from Iraq and Afghanistan Overseas Contingency Operations; the bill would not affect funding for existing student aid programs.
This is now just me paraphrasing.
The bill is balanced by taking in from savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan Overseas Contingency Operations; so the money that would be funded the war would be funded into student debt. [Not sure what the Iraq and Afghanistan Overseas Contingency Operations is.] Current student loans can be forgiven completely, but a cap of $45,520 for future students borrowers.
If students make payments equal to 10% of their discretionary income for 10 years, then the remaining debt is forgiven. Graduates who enter public service professions would only have to pay 10% for 5 years.
Interest rate for student loans would be frozen to 3.4%.
Eh. Colleges are filled with people who shouldn't be there. That's their problem. I hope they don't forgive the loans, so the next generation won't get flooded with degrees who's value just keeps going lower and lower because everyone and their cat has a bachelors.
For everyone saying "we need education to be every more accessible" it's called the internet, books and personal ambition. You can learn SO much now even if you don't go to college as long as you're willing to take the time. You never stop learning if it's what you love.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it just means you can jump through hoops.
I agree, i had financial aid and shit help me in college, but i had a scholarship, as well as others who have spent a large portion of their adult life paying off these loans, why is this coming into play now? Because a ton of people went to college thinking they'd get a free job out of it and then did nothing with themselves to pay it off? I guess we should do this for all home loan owners, and business loan owners too, and just absorb the debt into the government, and then further screw our economy.
I'm a liberal and I think this is going about it the wrong way. Lower tuition rates, cut the ridiculous salaries of faculty (not necessarily professors, but there's a LOT of bloat in university administrations) and provide incentives for people to NOT go to college if they aren't ready for it, or aren't even looking for a job that will help them from it by turning them towards other ways of further education or jobs. Like does the girl who ends up being a manager at mcdonalds or nordstrom really need to get a business degree? Wouldn't she have been better off studying at a vocational school for food services?
The education system right now is broken, and letting people escape the system without correcting it for free, is moronic.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
How's that an argument? The previous generation didn't have it therefore we shouldn't? No one gave my great great grandmother the right to vote so why should my mom have it, right?
Don't just be anti-progress for the sake of it.
so me saying they shouldn't ask my parents, who paid their own loans, to pay for everyone elses loans, and that somehow makes me anti-women's suffrage? i would ask what the fudge you're talking about, but i'm not sure you even know the answer to that question.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Well considering the entire system is built around fucking over students in every way possible, yeah.
well then maybe we should change the system instead of fucking over everyone who isn't a student in every way possible as compensation.
it's also stupid for responsible individuals who saved up money for their kids educations, and sent them to college and paid for them in full, what about them? Will this loan retroactively give them back money for being financially stable?
All of you who keep saying "I hope they don't forgive the loans." - I feel like you truly do not understand what is going to unfold in the next 5-10 years because of the overwhelming debt.
It is not just the students that can't pay their loans that are going to be effected by it.
On April 18 2012 09:23 dAPhREAk wrote: when you say loan forgiveness, what you really mean is let the government pay for it, which means increase the debt or increase taxes. i am opposed to increasing the debt, and i am opposed to increasing taxes to pay off something that people voluntarily and privately incurred.
i really dont understand why people can get away with such horrible ops btw. here is the official summary of the law:
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries. 3/8/2012--Introduced. Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 - Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish a 10/10 Loan Repayment Plan that allows borrowers of Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) and Direct Loans (DLs) to limit their monthly payment on such loans to one-twelfth of 10% of the amount by which their adjusted gross income and that of their spouse (if applicable) exceeds 150% of the federal poverty level. Requires the Secretary of Education to determine a borrower's repayment obligation under that plan on a case-by-case basis if the repayment formula would result in the borrower paying nothing and the borrower is not in deferment due to an economic hardship. Establishes a 10/10 Loan Forgiveness Program that provides FFEL and DL forgiveness to borrowers who, after the date that is 10 years before the date of this Act's enactment, have made 120 monthly payments under the 10/10 Loan Repayment Plan or under another repayment plan that required them to make payments at least as large as those they would have made under the 10/10 Loan Repayment Plan. Credits the months during which an individual is in deferment due to an economic hardship as months for which payment was made for purposes of the 10/10 Loan Forgiveness Program. Caps the amount of loan forgiveness that the program will provide to individuals who become new borrowers after this Act's enactment. Caps the interest rate on new DLs at 3.4% Amends the public service employee loan forgiveness program to forgive the DLs of participants who have made 60 (currently, 120) monthly payments on such loans pursuant to specified repayment plans. Includes primary care physicians in medically underserved areas in the public service employee loan forgiveness program. Allows certain borrowers to consolidate their private education loans as Direct Consolidation Loans, provided the private loans were made on or before the date of this Act's enactment. Limits such borrowers to those who: (1) were students eligible for unsubsidized Stafford loans or PLUS loans under the FFEL or DL programs for their enrollment at an institution of higher education, or would have been had they been enrolled on at least a half-time basis; (2) borrowed at least one private education loan for such enrollment; and (3) have an average adjusted gross income that does not exceed their total education debt. Caps the interest rate on those Direct Consolidation Loans at 3.4% Requires borrowers to apply for such loans within one year of this Act's enactment. Funds this Act's programs from funds available for Overseas Contingency Operations.
I agree. Don't pass the buck just pay what you owe. That's like taking a bank loan to build a store and after you build the store tell taxpayers to pay your loan back for you. Also the number one group this hurts are lower middle class people who didn't go to college and have to pay off people who did go to college.
This essentially encourages colleges to keep raising prices instead of trying to lower prices- the government will pay them, and students won't choose on price because they won't have to pay it back anyways. Horrible idea. If the government is going to start to help paying for people's education (which isn't even necessarily a bad idea), there are a lot better ways to do it that would give incentive to actually lower their operating costs.
I agree. Don't pass the buck just pay what you owe. That's like taking a bank loan to build a store and after you build the store tell taxpayers to pay your loan back for you. Also the number one group this hurts are lower middle class people who didn't go to college and have to pay off people who did go to college.
Don't be silly, lower middle class people don't pay federal taxes.
what is sick about student loans is that I have been hearing advertisements on the radio here in michigan that people can essentially pay into a fund that "locks" them in at the current price of education. The ad basically says you better lock in now because the price of college will increase 2 or 3 times by the time your child will be going.
It is pathetic.
If you want to make a lot of money in the US and have great job security, go into health care or higher education.
On April 18 2012 09:34 Kazeyonoma wrote: it's also stupid for responsible individuals who saved up money for their kids educations, and sent them to college and paid for them in full, what about them? Will this loan retroactively give them back money for being financially stable?
no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
There's no such thing as loan "forgiveness", the debt doesn't magically go away into thin air, it gets picked up by someone, somewhere, at sometime.
How would you feel if you were out of school busting your hump to pay off your debt, you finally get it paid, and the next day they announce, "Ya, all these people are irresponsible and lazy, so we'll just have the taxpayers absorb it"
Yeah so not only did you pay your debt now you have to help pay theirs too?
People who make good decisions shouldn't have to carry the water for those who make bad ones. Achievers are already carrying people not pulling their weight enough.
You're supposed to stop demanding free stuff when you stop believing in Santa Claus.
Think of the precedence this sets too, you got peopling taking out huge mortgages they can't afford, "ZOMG plz bail me out", you got people taking out student loans they can't afford "ZOMG just forgive it!"
Maybe you should think twice before taking on a ton of debt you cannot or will not pay back. Go to a cheaper college, you're not entitled to the degree of your choice from the school you want without having to pay for it.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
Our goal as a society should be to make education as accessible as possible for everyone, not harder. There has to be a better way to do it than making loans harder to obtain -_-.
Hey.. I agree, but at the same time we have to realize we're not Korea or Japan. Most people who go to college in the US do not graduate (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html).
Finances are sighted as part of the problem, but the other issue is "Failure has become acceptable." This bill would only further enforce that failure is acceptable. Until we can somehow get teachers and schools to work for free, or stop our retarded politicians from spending away our tax money, this bill is absolutely unacceptable. It simply exists to garner votes.
The whole problem revolves around how the American education system is structured in the first place. While arguments regarding loans as a whole are basic and intuitive, attempting to carve it around the implementation of colleges and universities borders asinine and only does itself justice as a burlesque. Consider how commercialized academic institutions have become. It should not have to be this way; distribution of education never was supposed to be about profit.
Here's to a good first step to finer access to education in the future. Eff student debt.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
I think the idea is, that they should have forgiven them and they are moving to make things right for this generation... See ideologies like this are incredibly close minded.
What Nemesis said, but I'd also like to add on that college was much cheaper in the US 30+ years ago. As an anecdote to that, my parents were both able to graduate with 5 grand saved up, took minimal loans their first years of college, and only worked twenty hours a week through college in order to maintain a reason able standard of living as a student at a state university.
To be fair, most students here (decent uni) are complete idiots and spend most days partying and doing other stupid things instead of studying and have no shot of getting a job. They are not getting crushed under student debts, they're getting crushed under their own studpidity. Educated doesn't mean shit if all you need is a college diploma to be considered educated, have you looked at acceptance rates at universities in the U.S.? The vast majority of that $1 trillion debt are not owed by our best and brightest.
On April 18 2012 09:34 Kazeyonoma wrote: it's also stupid for responsible individuals who saved up money for their kids educations, and sent them to college and paid for them in full, what about them? Will this loan retroactively give them back money for being financially stable?
no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
exactly, i was being sarcastic. i agree with you and sc2 about this. it's kind of silly.
I grew up poor, i got scholarships, i got financial aid, and i got calgrants. There are already plenty of systems out there that help students go to school, what needs to be fixed is the corrupt higher education administrations that keep increasing rates, while showing no gain for students, and now this, like someone mentioned above, will only incentivize universities to up the prices of school EVEN MORE, why not? the government pays most of it, and the student will still pay out of his ass, until he can reach some magical 10% for 10 years.
On April 18 2012 09:34 Kazeyonoma wrote: it's also stupid for responsible individuals who saved up money for their kids educations, and sent them to college and paid for them in full, what about them? Will this loan retroactively give them back money for being financially stable?
no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
exactly, i was being sarcastic. i agree with you and sc2 about this. it's kind of silly.
I grew up poor, i got scholarships, i got financial aid, and i got calgrants. There are already plenty of systems out there that help students go to school, what needs to be fixed is the corrupt higher education administrations that keep increasing rates, while showing no gain for students, and now this, like someone mentioned above, will only incentivize universities to up the prices of school EVEN MORE, why not? the government pays most of it, and the student will still pay out of his ass, until he can reach some magical 10% for 10 years.
ironically, one of the purposes of the bill is to promote financial responsibility. what a joke.
Promote financial responsibility in higher education o While current borrowers would be eligible for full forgiveness under the plan, future borrowers would be subject to a $45,520 cap on forgiveness (based on the average overall cost of a four-year degree at a public university). The aim is to incentivize students to be mindful of educational costs and for colleges and universities to control tuition increases.
On April 18 2012 09:38 Count9 wrote: To be fair, most students here (decent uni) are complete idiots and spend most days partying and doing other stupid things instead of studying and have no shot of getting a job. They are not getting crushed under student debts, they're getting crushed under their own studpidity.
Again, part of the problem of the education system. Everyone thinks you HAVE to have a degree to get a job, when right now it does nothing, except bloat the system, and end up devaluing the degree itself. If everyone has a degree, everyone might as well not have it as well. So instead you get people who just party it up, because they shouldn't be there anyways, bloat the wallets of the universities themselves to pad the salaries of presidents/chancellors, and sports teams, etc, while simultaneously putting the entire american demographic of young adults into monstrous debt that they have NO WAY of paying themselves out of because there simply aren't enough jobs out there for these people who were sold a LIE from the day they got into high school.
No period. No one deserves free higher education like that when they knew the consequences if they should not pay it back. What happened to responsibility? The real problem is that everyone has been convinced college is 100% necessary and that technical job schools don't work. 99% of those people who don't pay there loans back had no business in school in the first places they should have taken some kind of technical class max and got a job. Now every job in the world that isn't shit requires a college degree even if it can be learned on job or done in a shorter amount of time. On top of this because college become so necessary in the public eyes the prices have exploded for a shit education.
On April 18 2012 09:39 Wood! wrote: the new american mantra: something for nothing
Undergrad is to get a piece of paper that lets you get a job. Colleges/universities are not about education, they are about profit. Students are to blame as well, but the fact that the cost of education keeps going up is a joke. Basically every job requires some type of diploma whether or not its really justified. Its going to get worse in the future when jobs that you can get with a bachelors degree now require a masters.
The universities have us by the balls and they know it. Employers are only helping them out.
On April 18 2012 09:38 Count9 wrote: To be fair, most students here (decent uni) are complete idiots and spend most days partying and doing other stupid things instead of studying and have no shot of getting a job. They are not getting crushed under student debts, they're getting crushed under their own studpidity.
Bingo.
College is such a joke now anyway because of those same idiots. A moron with a piece of paper is still a moron.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
Our goal as a society should be to make education as accessible as possible for everyone, not harder. There has to be a better way to do it than making loans harder to obtain -_-.
Hey.. I agree, but at the same time we have to realize we're not Korea or Japan. Most people who go to college in the US do not graduate (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html).
Finances are sighted as part of the problem, but the other issue is "Failure has become acceptable." This bill would only further enforce that failure is acceptable. Until we can somehow get teachers and schools to work for free, or stop our retarded politicians from spending away our tax money, this bill is absolutely unacceptable. It simply exists to garner votes.
The best way to do it would have something to do with graduation rates, performance, etc. Have a clause somewhere that only students who perform well in school can benefit from bills like this, and set some reasonable limit so schmucks who party hard and fail don't get an out, but people who genuinely try (almost anyone who can get into college can do well if they apply themselves) aren't screwed.
For the record, I decided to be a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst because it was only 17 grand a year when I was a freshman, and I had a scholarship for 1.7 grand off, I could afford that. A year later they raised the fees by 3 grand, and then they did it again another year after that. Now it costs 23 grand a year, and that's much harder for me to afford, and because of my family's interesting financial situation I had to take out private loans.
Colleges need to stop charging a fucking arm and a leg and continually increase costs for attendance, or loans will continue to skyrocket and people will have trouble paying them off.
As for the people who are saying this only rewards people who are financially irresponsible: Are you aware that we have a high unemployment rate, and that industries change over time? If I go to school for a degree in a subject that has a high expectation of employment, but over the 4 years I'm earning the degree the expectation of employment drops and then I can't get a job, should I be screwed over with large debt I can't pay?
Can you imagine situations where people might be screwed by the system? If so, we should try to fix it. And I'd wager a LOT of people are being screwed over by the system.
On April 18 2012 09:39 Wood! wrote: the new american mantra: something for nothing
Undergrad is to get a piece of paper that lets you get a job. Colleges/universities are not about education, they are about profit. Students are to blame as well, but the fact that the cost of education keeps going up is a joke. Basically every job requires some type of diploma whether or not its really justified. Its going to get worse in the future when jobs that you can get with a bachelors degree now require a masters.
The universities have us by the balls and they know it. Employers are only helping them out.
It is sad.
Wrong, the undergrad now is nothing. it doesn't get you a job. everyone and their mom has an undergrad now, especially in fields that don't teach you any technical prowess like non-science based degrees. None of what is taught in universities, generally translate into something useful in the job that people will be getting. Going to a technical school or a vocational school, would've been faster, cheaper, and often times, lead more directly into a paying job than going to get an undergrad for MOST of these people who go to it, but society has been sold on GO TO UNIVERSITY GET YOUR BACHELORS, JOBS WILL BE WAITING, and it's all just been a lie.
On April 18 2012 09:23 dAPhREAk wrote: i really dont understand why people can get away with such horrible ops btw. here is the official summary of the law:
You should do an OP on how to properly make an OP so that people who don't know how to make a proper OP can make a proper OP. I hear you're really good at making good OP's.
As far as the student loan forgiveness~ I'm shouldering the burden of student loans myself so the idea of being able to get out from that is tempting. But, the reality is that its my burden to bear. It was a choice me and my wife made and the consequences should be ours to deal with. ##Vote No on Robin Hood initiatives.
On April 18 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote: Eh. Colleges are filled with people who shouldn't be there. That's their problem. I hope they don't forgive the loans, so the next generation won't get flooded with degrees who's value just keeps going lower and lower because everyone and their cat has a bachelors.
For everyone saying "we need education to be every more accessible" it's called the internet, books and personal ambition. You can learn SO much now even if you don't go to college as long as you're willing to take the time. You never stop learning if it's what you love.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it just means you can jump through hoops.
You're missing the key point. Having massive debt crushes the strength of the economy for all but the very very top (and sometimes there too), it's basically a huge part of why the US is falling apart at the seams. People are generally aware these days that the national debt is much too large, and that this is to their individual detriment. What's less obvious is that programs like Federal loansharking that prey on large swathes of society may not directly victimize you personally, but you do suffer indirectly all the time (for example how nearly every state's government is also bankrupt). Higher education has lots of problems, including admitting unprepared students (often the graduates of spectacularly underfunded public schools), but piling massive debts onto students is not an effective limiter. Not only does it not work, but it actually punishes everyone, except the tiny few who get to swim Scrooge McDuck style as a result.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
This is stupid. Instead of forgiving debts, they should increase government financial aid, and lower tuition. In addition, they should make financial aid harder to get. Or at least, they need to regulate this like crazy so no one abuses it.
On April 18 2012 09:39 Wood! wrote: the new american mantra: something for nothing
Undergrad is to get a piece of paper that lets you get a job. Colleges/universities are not about education, they are about profit. Students are to blame as well, but the fact that the cost of education keeps going up is a joke. Basically every job requires some type of diploma whether or not its really justified. Its going to get worse in the future when jobs that you can get with a bachelors degree now require a masters.
The universities have us by the balls and they know it. Employers are only helping them out.
It is sad.
Wrong, the undergrad now is nothing. it doesn't get you a job. everyone and their mom has an undergrad now, especially in fields that don't teach you any technical prowess like non-science based degrees. None of what is taught in universities, generally translate into something useful in the job that people will be getting. Going to a technical school or a vocational school, would've been faster, cheaper, and often times, lead more directly into a paying job than going to get an undergrad for MOST of these people who go to it, but society has been sold on GO TO UNIVERSITY GET YOUR BACHELORS, JOBS WILL BE WAITING, and it's all just been a lie.
I agree completely.
I feel like learning a trade, and learning it well, would be far more beneficial.
I have my bachelors in Mechanical Engineering from MSU and felt like i learned nothing (I wasnt the best student in the universities defense, but its not like anything in any of the classes I have taken has proven useful. At best it would be like reading a brochure on a topic and then having to actually learn it at work)
On April 18 2012 09:40 CajunMan wrote: No period. No one deserves free higher education like that when they knew the consequences if they should not pay it back. What happened to responsibility? The real problem is that everyone has been convinced college is 100% necessary and that technical job schools don't work. 99% of those people who don't pay there loans back had no business in school in the first places they should have taken some kind of technical class max and got a job. Now every job in the world that isn't shit requires a college degree even if it can be learned on job or done in a shorter amount of time. On top of this because college become so necessary in the public eyes the prices have exploded for a shit education.
I was 18 when I decided to go to university... Didn't have anyone else in my family who ever attended post secondary studies.
No one gave me advice about money really. Everyone, including my high school counsellors just said get a student loan. I feel like... I don't agree with your first sentence. But even if it were true... that no one deserves free higher education.
I can't agree that an 18 year old is prepared to make a decision that would put them in debt for 10-15 years depending on how their life goes. That type of debt just doesn't register in a person's brain who has been taken care of since birth.
Everyone's situation is different. I must stress this part but it's not fair to talk harshly like that (regarding your first sentence).
At least it's something, I would think it better to try and cap in someway (hard because so many private institutions) the absurd and unjustifiably inflated costs of uni within the US, but that's probably impossible.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
Your assumptions are bad. First, you assume that bad luck cannot occur and that things are static. Secondly, you're ignoring the existence of unemployment. Thirdly, when those students default everyone suffers from it. Are you suggesting that letting them default is a better situation? Defaulting on loans sucks horribly for the companies that give out the loans and indirectly affects many people who had no say in the matter in the first place. Preventing default is in everyone's interests.
No ones forcing you to go to an expensive school. Just because people can't be responsible with their finances doesn't mean that they should have them all forgiven. I work and go to an instate college, I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being financially irresponsible.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
Because you assume or generalize that since one can't pay back their loans without being overwhelmed that they are financially irresponsible. You don't seem to take into account how student loan debt is overwhelming even those who work just as hard as you. The economics that apply to the problem is not static math.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
Your assumptions are bad. First, you assume that bad luck cannot occur and that things are static. Secondly, you're ignoring the existence of unemployment. Thirdly, when those students default everyone suffers from it.
I tried to explain this on page one, no one wants to recognize it.
On April 18 2012 09:40 CajunMan wrote: No period. No one deserves free higher education like that when they knew the consequences if they should not pay it back. What happened to responsibility? The real problem is that everyone has been convinced college is 100% necessary and that technical job schools don't work. 99% of those people who don't pay there loans back had no business in school in the first places they should have taken some kind of technical class max and got a job. Now every job in the world that isn't shit requires a college degree even if it can be learned on job or done in a shorter amount of time. On top of this because college become so necessary in the public eyes the prices have exploded for a shit education.
I was 18 when I decided to go to university... Didn't have anyone else in my family who ever attended post secondary studies.
No one gave me advice about money really. Everyone, including my high school counsellors just said get a student loan. I feel like... I don't agree with your first sentence. But even if it were true... that no one deserves free higher education.
I can't agree that an 18 year old is prepared to make a decision that would put them in debt for 10-15 years depending on how their life goes. That type of debt just doesn't register in a person's brain who has been taken care of since birth.
Everyone's situation is different. I must stress this part but it's not fair to talk harshly like that (regarding your first sentence).
I agree that kids are not prepared to take on this debt and generally view it as free money. I feel so lucky I went the military route first and college as an actual adult. With that said, the debt forgiveness exacerbates the problem. The solutions are found elsewhere, and it's not forgiving everyone's debt.
On April 18 2012 09:49 Blindo wrote: No ones forcing you to go to an expensive school. Just because people can't be responsible with their finances doesn't mean that they should have them all forgiven. I work and go to an instate college, I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being financially irresponsible.
How about a school that raised their prices 6,000 dollars in a couple of years? Mine did, after I decided to attend it based on the original price. It was still cheaper than the other schools I was willing to consider (quality reasons), so I had to suck it up.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
Your assumptions are bad. First, you assume that bad luck cannot occur and that things are static. Secondly, you're ignoring the existence of unemployment. Thirdly, when those students default everyone suffers from it.
i recognize that people (especially in this economy) will lose their job, may go on disability, etc. however, we have welfare, we have disability insurance, etc. to cover those kinds of things. this adds another level of government dole that we can neither afford, nor should we increase taxes to provide.
edit: to address your edits, there are things they can do (and already do) to prevent default (deferral, lower interest rates, etc.) that dont require a complete forgiveness. i am not saying make them default, i am saying dont forgive debt.
On April 18 2012 09:38 Count9 wrote: To be fair, most students here (decent uni) are complete idiots and spend most days partying and doing other stupid things instead of studying and have no shot of getting a job. They are not getting crushed under student debts, they're getting crushed under their own studpidity.
Again, part of the problem of the education system. Everyone thinks you HAVE to have a degree to get a job, when right now it does nothing, except bloat the system, and end up devaluing the degree itself. If everyone has a degree, everyone might as well not have it as well. So instead you get people who just party it up, because they shouldn't be there anyways, bloat the wallets of the universities themselves to pad the salaries of presidents/chancellors, and sports teams, etc, while simultaneously putting the entire american demographic of young adults into monstrous debt that they have NO WAY of paying themselves out of because there simply aren't enough jobs out there for these people who were sold a LIE from the day they got into high school.
Nationally we're basically at full employment for people with a Bachelor's and up (unemployment = 4.4%). Unemployment is really only a problem with people that haven't finished college. So, no you weren't sold a lie.
Student loans are amazing. I wouldn't be in school without them. And I'm happy to pay them back when i'm done. How about stop asking for hand outs and do some work in your life.
On April 18 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote: no, it only rewards financially irresponsible people.
I'm hurt to see this level of ignorance.
want to explain how that is ignorant? i only took out student loans that i knew i could pay back. this bill doesn't help me or other people who are able to pay back their debt. it helps people who can't pay back their debt. that is, in my mind, financially irresponsible.
Your assumptions are bad. First, you assume that bad luck cannot occur and that things are static. Secondly, you're ignoring the existence of unemployment. Thirdly, when those students default everyone suffers from it.
i recognize that people (especially in this economy) will lose their job, may go on disability, etc. however, we have welfare, we have disability insurance, etc. to cover those kinds of things. this adds another level of government dole that we can neither afford, nor should we increase taxes to provide.
When it comes down to it, we still have McDonalds too
On April 18 2012 09:52 Noro wrote: Student loans are amazing. I wouldn't be in school without them. And I'm happy to pay them back when i'm done. How about stop asking for hand outs and do some work in your life.
As someone $130,000 in debt with a degree I can't do anything with, I'm all about getting some sort of assistance.
You can think whatever you want about the state of the world, but things have changed drastically in even the past 10 years. It used to be "Hey, go to college, get a job! Hurray!" now it's "Hey, go to college! You might get a job, but shit, if you don't go to college you almost certainly wont! Oh, you just want to be a secretary? Fuck you, go to college anyway or we wont look at you!"
We're forcing people like me who should have never gone to college (I'm not very smart) into these situations that they have no business being in. I understand a lot of you are intelligent people so you should be able to see a society where you're required to pay large amounts of money for the chance of getting a job that may or may not be able to pay that loan back is simply not good.
I'm paying off my shit, extremely slowly and I'll be paying for 50 years, but I'm paying it, and if nothing changes nothing changes. I'll survive, sucky as it is. However, I don't want this shit to happen to the kids I can't afford to have, and feel that something should be changed somehow.
On April 18 2012 09:52 Noro wrote: Student loans are amazing. I wouldn't be in school without them. And I'm happy to pay them back when i'm done. How about stop asking for hand outs and do some work in your life.
I don't think most of us are asking for hand outs. If I were to ask for anything, it'd be more options to refinance.
On April 18 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote: Eh. Colleges are filled with people who shouldn't be there. That's their problem. I hope they don't forgive the loans, so the next generation won't get flooded with degrees who's value just keeps going lower and lower because everyone and their cat has a bachelors.
For everyone saying "we need education to be every more accessible" it's called the internet, books and personal ambition. You can learn SO much now even if you don't go to college as long as you're willing to take the time. You never stop learning if it's what you love.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it just means you can jump through hoops.
You're missing the key point. Having massive debt crushes the strength of the economy for all but the very very top (and sometimes there too), it's basically a huge part of why the US is falling apart at the seams. People are generally aware these days that the national debt is much too large, and that this is to their individual detriment. What's less obvious is that programs like Federal loansharking that prey on large swathes of society may not directly victimize you personally, but you do suffer indirectly all the time (for example how nearly every state's government is also bankrupt). Higher education has lots of problems, including admitting unprepared students (often the graduates of spectacularly underfunded public schools), but piling massive debts onto students is not an effective limiter. Not only does it not work, but it actually punishes everyone, except the tiny few who get to swim Scrooge McDuck style as a result.
Great. Don't care. They shouldn't go to school in the first place. And what's more, that line of thinking is FAR too broad and completely disregards personal responsibility.
Forgiving the debt hurts everyone equal to NOT forgiving debt anyway. Banks are run by people too. Banks are part of the economy too. Where do you think the US government would get the money to forgive those debts? And if they just wash them clean and tell the banks to fuck off (never gonna happen) then we still take a hit as a society as a whole. Those same rich Scrooge McDuck guys you were talking about? They wouldn't feel it at all either way. Talking about them doesn't do anything.
How much is the interest rate on government student loans in USA and what sort of conditions do you need to fulfill before you can qualify?
In Ontario, the government only provides loans to students with a family income of 160k or less and the higher your income, the less loans you get. They assume your family will be willing to pay for your education (fucking stupid assumption imo). The rate is completely reasonable though as it's prime + 1.25 (last time I checked) and you don't pay back (don't need to pay interest during study) until 6 months after graduation.
On April 18 2012 09:52 Noro wrote: Student loans are amazing. I wouldn't be in school without them. And I'm happy to pay them back when i'm done. How about stop asking for hand outs and do some work in your life.
You live in Canada.
As a dual citizen about to transfer to school in the states. I stand by what I said. Since when did our generation get so freaking lazy? Yeah I'll be quite a bit in debt at the end of school. But they're giving me the ability to make money for the rest of my life. How can someone complain about paying for that?
On April 18 2012 09:53 Noobity wrote: As someone $130,000 in debt with a degree I can't do anything with, I'm all about getting some sort of assistance.
You can think whatever you want about the state of the world, but things have changed drastically in even the past 10 years. It used to be "Hey, go to college, get a job! Hurray!" now it's "Hey, go to college! You might get a job, but shit, if you don't go to college you almost certainly wont! Oh, you just want to be a secretary? Fuck you, go to college anyway or we wont look at you!"
We're forcing people like me who should have never gone to college (I'm not very smart) into these situations that they have no business being in. I understand a lot of you are intelligent people so you should be able to see a society where you're required to pay large amounts of money for the chance of getting a job that may or may not be able to pay that loan back is simply not good.
I'm paying off my shit, extremely slowly and I'll be paying for 50 years, but I'm paying it, and if nothing changes nothing changes. I'll survive, sucky as it is. However, I don't want this shit to happen to the kids I can't afford to have, and feel that something should be changed somehow.
The fact that you realize all that speaks volumes about how smart you actually are. Most people don't seem to get the fact that college is NOT good for some people.
On April 18 2012 09:55 The_LiNk wrote: How much is the interest rate on government student loans in USA and what sort of conditions do you need to fulfill before you can qualify?
In Ontario, the government only provides loans to students with a family income of 160k or less and the higher your income, the less loans you get. They assume your family will be willing to pay for your education (fucking stupid assumption imo). The rate is completely reasonable though as it's prime + 1.25 (last time I checked) and you don't pay back (don't need to pay interest during study) until 6 months after graduation.
On April 18 2012 09:55 The_LiNk wrote: How much is the interest rate on government student loans in USA and what sort of conditions do you need to fulfill before you can qualify?
In Ontario, the government only provides loans to students with a family income of 160k or less and the higher your income, the less loans you get. They assume your family will be willing to pay for your education (fucking stupid assumption imo). The rate is completely reasonable though as it's prime + 1.25 (last time I checked) and you don't pay back (don't need to pay interest during study) until 6 months after graduation.
Additionally, the loan payment comes off your income so you can lower your income tax. Pretty nifty stuff
On April 18 2012 09:52 Noro wrote: Student loans are amazing. I wouldn't be in school without them. And I'm happy to pay them back when i'm done. How about stop asking for hand outs and do some work in your life.
You live in Canada.
As a dual citizen about to transfer to school in the states. I stand by what I said. Since when did our generation get so freaking lazy? Yeah I'll be quite a bit in debt at the end of school. But they're giving me the ability to make money for the rest of my life. How can someone complain about paying for that?
Uh, because from what I understand of how Canada's student debt works, it's pretty much identical to what that bill stated except forgiveness.
On April 18 2012 09:38 Count9 wrote: To be fair, most students here (decent uni) are complete idiots and spend most days partying and doing other stupid things instead of studying and have no shot of getting a job. They are not getting crushed under student debts, they're getting crushed under their own studpidity.
Again, part of the problem of the education system. Everyone thinks you HAVE to have a degree to get a job, when right now it does nothing, except bloat the system, and end up devaluing the degree itself. If everyone has a degree, everyone might as well not have it as well. So instead you get people who just party it up, because they shouldn't be there anyways, bloat the wallets of the universities themselves to pad the salaries of presidents/chancellors, and sports teams, etc, while simultaneously putting the entire american demographic of young adults into monstrous debt that they have NO WAY of paying themselves out of because there simply aren't enough jobs out there for these people who were sold a LIE from the day they got into high school.
Nationally we're basically at full employment for people with a Bachelor's and up (unemployment = 4.4%). Unemployment is really only a problem with people that haven't finished college. So, no you weren't sold a lie.
Nearly all unemployment statistics are heavily flawed, the U.S. labor dept's particularly so given how they collect their data. Which isn't to say that no one gets a job, but given that you need to collect unemployment (of some kind or another) from the gov to be considered unemployed has a pretty glaring loophole. And we could easily talk about underemployment as well, just because 'you' have a part-time minimum wage job with no benefits doesn't mean we should consider 'your' employment problems resolved.
This is all fairly tangential to the bill, which hasn't really been discussed at all. I know I honestly have no idea what it contains and if it really addresses the issues it claims to correct. I am however baffled at the number of people who are arguing there's no problem at all.
The solution to the debt problem is to transfer the debt to the government! Fix the distortion by more distortion!
So next time, the crash can be even worse!
Ideally, the best thing to do would be to let things work themselves out, too bad so sad that you bought the BS colleges feed you to get you to come so they can maintain their bloated staffs and compensation for those staffs, but that would entail a lot of suffering before the poison injected into the system could be flushed out. So instead we'll muddle our way to some half-assed solution that will paper the problem over for a few years or decades until it helps contribute to yet another shitty situation that will again be papered over. Until one day there isn't enough paper left, but we'll probably all be dead by then.
Education should be at minimal cost as it provides a service to society by expanding our knowledge. From an outsiders point of view, you tertiary education system is corrupt. Here in Australia we get HECS, which basically means the government pays for our tertiary education, then once we have the means to pay it back (ie. a full-time job), we pay it back with basically 0 interest (they do charge interest, but it's in-line with inflation so basically 0). Our courses only cost around $20,000 for the entire duration. I can't see any reason why it should be any other way.
How about you don't take loans if you can't pay them off? Ppl use student loans for tons of shit besides school... I tooksome extra out to party ... why the fuck should it be forgiven
Horrible idea. People shouldn't be taking out loans if they aren't going to be able to pay them back. People take out tons of loans to go and get a shitty degree that they will have a hard time being able to get a job with and then expect others to pay it off for them...
On April 18 2012 10:04 FabledIntegral wrote: How about you don't take loans if you can't pay them off? Ppl use student loans for tons of shit besides school... I tooksome extra out to party ... why the fuck should it be forgiven
i know so many people who did this...
"Dude my plan worked out perfectly! I got my student loan just in time for Bonnarroo like I planned! We are gonna get soooo fucked up bro! I'm not worried about paying for school or paying the loan back, I got a job and I'll have a better one when I gotta pay the school and pay the loan back it'll be fine..."
On April 18 2012 09:38 Count9 wrote: To be fair, most students here (decent uni) are complete idiots and spend most days partying and doing other stupid things instead of studying and have no shot of getting a job. They are not getting crushed under student debts, they're getting crushed under their own studpidity.
Again, part of the problem of the education system. Everyone thinks you HAVE to have a degree to get a job, when right now it does nothing, except bloat the system, and end up devaluing the degree itself. If everyone has a degree, everyone might as well not have it as well. So instead you get people who just party it up, because they shouldn't be there anyways, bloat the wallets of the universities themselves to pad the salaries of presidents/chancellors, and sports teams, etc, while simultaneously putting the entire american demographic of young adults into monstrous debt that they have NO WAY of paying themselves out of because there simply aren't enough jobs out there for these people who were sold a LIE from the day they got into high school.
Nationally we're basically at full employment for people with a Bachelor's and up (unemployment = 4.4%). Unemployment is really only a problem with people that haven't finished college. So, no you weren't sold a lie.
Nearly all unemployment statistics are heavily flawed, the U.S. labor dept's particularly so given how they collect their data. Which isn't to say that no one gets a job, but given that you need to collect unemployment (of some kind or another) from the gov to be considered unemployed has a pretty glaring loophole. And we could easily talk about underemployment as well, just because 'you' have a part-time minimum wage job with no benefits doesn't mean we should consider 'your' employment problems resolved.
This is all fairly tangential to the bill, which hasn't really been discussed at all. I know I honestly have no idea what it contains and if it really addresses the issues it claims to correct. I am however baffled at the number of people who are arguing there's no problem at all.
No, you do not need to be on unemployment to be considered unemployed. Their methodology is extremely sound.
But yeah, it's a side note. There's certainly a problem with student debt but it should only be forgiven in extreme cases. IMO there should be stricter limits on how much student debt a person can take on. If that means you can't go to the college you want then life's tough, go to a cheaper one.
On April 18 2012 10:03 g. wrote: Education should be at minimal cost as it provides a service to society by expanding our knowledge. From an outsiders point of view, you tertiary education system is corrupt. Here in Australia we get HECS, which basically means the government pays for our tertiary education, then once we have the means to pay it back (ie. a full-time job), we pay it back with basically 0 interest (they do charge interest, but it's in-line with inflation so basically 0). Our courses only cost around $20,000 for the entire duration. I can't see any reason why it should be any other way.
That is indeed a good system. There's more to it than that though. Australia has a tiny population of 20 something million. Also, your defense costs are mostly underwritten by the US. The list goes on and on. Things that work well for small countries in Europe or places like AUS/NZ won't necessarily work for a country like the US. I'm not exactly saying that the US is spending its money efficiently (which it obviously isn't), but the US cannot afford the luxuries of small and relatively worry-free countries.
How about instead of focusing on how to fix debt, we focus on not letting their be debt in the first place.
The American University system is completely broken in regards to cost, level of subsidy, and how the entire financial aid process works. Maybe it sucks for those people with debt, but they agreed to take that debt themselves. We should be prioritizing the needs of current and future students and stop the problem rather than just treat the symptoms.
In australia. the government pays for all your student loans, we call it FEE HELP or HECS. Alternatively, you can pay the fees as they fall due at a 25% discount.
You only ever start paying back the loans when you earn more than $40,000(gross) per year and starts at 4% and is automatically deducted from your paycheck/tax-returns. It only goes up by the CPI (Consumer Price Index) instead of the actual interest/cash rate, so literally only goes up by the inflation. Any full time job will get you $40,000 a year here, so unless your a dole-bludger or some lazy mofo, then there is really no excuse that you can't find a job after you graduate.
The government (or some agency) won't be behind your back chasing these loans, it's a very comfortable scheme to re-pay your loans and I really don't understand why the US government is so stupid in this regard.
On April 18 2012 09:39 Wood! wrote: the new american mantra: something for nothing
Undergrad is to get a piece of paper that lets you get a job. Colleges/universities are not about education, they are about profit. Students are to blame as well, but the fact that the cost of education keeps going up is a joke. Basically every job requires some type of diploma whether or not its really justified. Its going to get worse in the future when jobs that you can get with a bachelors degree now require a masters.
The universities have us by the balls and they know it. Employers are only helping them out.
It is sad.
Wrong, the undergrad now is nothing. it doesn't get you a job. everyone and their mom has an undergrad now, especially in fields that don't teach you any technical prowess like non-science based degrees. None of what is taught in universities, generally translate into something useful in the job that people will be getting. Going to a technical school or a vocational school, would've been faster, cheaper, and often times, lead more directly into a paying job than going to get an undergrad for MOST of these people who go to it, but society has been sold on GO TO UNIVERSITY GET YOUR BACHELORS, JOBS WILL BE WAITING, and it's all just been a lie.
I agree completely.
I feel like learning a trade, and learning it well, would be far more beneficial.
I have my bachelors in Mechanical Engineering from MSU and felt like i learned nothing (I wasnt the best student in the universities defense, but its not like anything in any of the classes I have taken has proven useful. At best it would be like reading a brochure on a topic and then having to actually learn it at work)
Strangely enough, Mike Rowe went to congress and gave a speech about this, talking about how there's several hundreds of thousands of jobs, that are there, that companies NEED to be filled, but can't because people are all going off to 'college' to fulfill the 'proper education route' and in term having trouble getting a job outside fo it. Meanwhile companies that WANT and NEED to hire people, cannot, because no one is willing to take that route.
It's not even about dirty work, unfulfilling work, or under paid work. Linemen for Electric companies, have to go through a vocational type education system that lasts 18 months, it is quite difficult to pass with high marks, but upon completion, have a very high job rate, and get paid STARTING over $95k here in California. Likewise the NURSING industry is a huge area where there are jobs, and a high demand for people, and vocational schools would probably fit a LOT of people who just want a job, to pay their bills, support their family, and live their life doing the same ole same ole with job security.
"shit happens" to people is a sad reality, but just because "shit happens" to a few people, doesn't mean an entire ACT needs to be passed that will probably allow WAY more freeloaders get off, than those who actually need the help. That's the problem with a lot of these bills. They have GOOD intentions to help people who legitimately could USE it (look at welfare) but the problem is, they are rarely written well enough to properly be policed and governed and instead end up being ABUSED.
No, you do not need to be on unemployment to be considered unemployed. Their methodology is extremely sound.
The government's method of gauging unemployment is horribly unsound, even in the best of times it underestimates employment by 2-3% and right now it's underestimating it by around 5%.
On April 18 2012 10:09 Zariel wrote: In australia. the government pays for all your student loans, we call it FEE HELP or HECS. Alternatively, you can pay the fees as they fall due at a 25% discount.
You only ever start paying back the loans when you earn more than $40,000(gross) per year and starts at 4% and is automatically deducted from your paycheck/tax-returns. It only goes up by the CPI (Consumer Price Index) instead of the actual interest/cash rate, so literally only goes up by the inflation. Any full time job will get you $40,000 a year here, so unless your a dole-bludger or some lazy mofo, then there is really no excuse that you can't find a job after you graduate.
The government (or some agency) won't be behind your back chasing these loans, it's a very comfortable scheme to re-pay your loans and I really don't understand why the US government is so stupid in this regard.
Because a lot of people here in the states don't understand that MAYBE, just MAYBE, someone else might know how to handle your money better than you can, but instead like to blame the government for "TAKING MY MONEYZ" and "I SHOULD BE THE ONE WHO CONTROLS WHERE MY MONEY GOES". the moment the government steps in and tries to make things more balanced across the board, "SOCIALISM!" outcries pour out against it.
The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%.
They have to be joking...I know their not, so NO F(*%$'n way, my taxes will not go to something that has such little thought put into it. If they did put any thought to it, provisions like this would not be in.
PS. the quote is from the summary provided in the OP link.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
How's that an argument? The previous generation didn't have it therefore we shouldn't? No one gave my great great grandmother the right to vote so why should my mom have it, right?
Don't just be anti-progress for the sake of it.
so me saying they shouldn't ask my parents, who paid their own loans, to pay for everyone elses loans, and that somehow makes me anti-women's suffrage? i would ask what the fudge you're talking about, but i'm not sure you even know the answer to that question.
"i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it?" is what you said dude.
I think you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, and I don't say that because you don't understand the situation, I say that because I think you literally don't understand the sentences that you're writing.
On April 18 2012 10:03 g. wrote: Education should be at minimal cost as it provides a service to society by expanding our knowledge. From an outsiders point of view, you tertiary education system is corrupt. Here in Australia we get HECS, which basically means the government pays for our tertiary education, then once we have the means to pay it back (ie. a full-time job), we pay it back with basically 0 interest (they do charge interest, but it's in-line with inflation so basically 0). Our courses only cost around $20,000 for the entire duration. I can't see any reason why it should be any other way.
That is indeed a good system. There's more to it than that though. Australia has a tiny population of 20 something million. Also, your defense costs are mostly underwritten by the US. The list goes on and on. Things that work well for small countries in Europe or places like AUS/NZ won't necessarily work for a country like the US. I'm not exactly saying that the US is spending its money efficiently (which it obviously isn't), but the US cannot afford the luxuries of small and relatively worry-free countries.
Insightful post, and I totally agree.
I think that the way your government spends its money is extremely inefficient, and your taxes are lower, but its cruel to do this to students with the life ahead of them trying to pay of some menial debt because a few people want to earn big bucks by charging you as such. Even though your schooling is more expensive (compared to a lot of countries), the interest you have to pay is stupid, by having interest that high there is a profit margin, and no one (except for the universities/colleges) should be profiting from your education.
Except that you can't discharge your student loans through bankruptcy in the United States thanks to George Bush and his financial industry lobbyists. You are stuck with them for life.
Ordinarily loans are an investment, and as such, a risk. Lenders risk the money on people they think can pay them. They take a risk just as much as the borrower does. The lender risks the capital, and the borrower risks having to go into bankruptcy. That's capitalism. But when the borrower can't even declare bankruptcy, it becomes free money for the lender, who is encouraged to loan as much money to as many people as possible.
So when 2008 happens, and the finance industry fucks over everyone, the borrowers, who were promised nothing but growth and jobs for anyone who got educated at college, are left holding the bag, while the lenders still get to collect all the free money they offered.
All of the conservative/libertarians here need to get a grip and come back to reality. Student default hurts everyone and the lenders are just as culpable, if not more culpable than some naive college students who were just doing what everyone else told them to do.
On April 18 2012 10:09 Zariel wrote: In australia. the government pays for all your student loans, we call it FEE HELP or HECS. Alternatively, you can pay the fees as they fall due at a 25% discount..
they don't pay all your loans, they subsidise the course so you only have to pay a minor portion. the 25% discount is if you pay upfront on the minor portion. this is getting negated by the implementation of the so called "Melbourne Model", which funnily enough Monash is going to do as well.
not sure about the States, but when you repay your uni fees, it's tax deductable
There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
On April 18 2012 10:16 IgnE wrote: Except that you can't discharge your student loans through bankruptcy in the United States thanks to George Bush and his financial industry lobbyists. You are stuck with them for life.
Ordinarily loans are an investment, and as such, a risk. Lenders risk the money on people they think can pay them. They take a risk just as much as the borrower does. The lender risks the capital, and the borrower risks having to go into bankruptcy. That's capitalism. But when the borrower can't even declare bankruptcy, it becomes free money for the lender, who is encouraged to loan as much money to as many people as possible.
So when 2008 happens, and the finance industry fucks over everyone, the borrowers, who were promised nothing but growth and jobs for anyone who got educated at college, are left holding the bag, while the lenders still get to collect all the free money they offered.
All of the conservative/libertarians here need to get a grip and come back to reality. Student default hurts everyone and the lenders are just as culpable, if not more culpable than some naive college students who were just doing what everyone else told them to do.
And we're saying you need to FIX the system, that puts these lenders in the power they are, as well as the societal obligation for everyone to go to college (not true!) just to get a job, rather than do this which will likely help a lot of people, but be ABUSED by everyone else.
On April 18 2012 10:03 g. wrote: Education should be at minimal cost as it provides a service to society by expanding our knowledge. From an outsiders point of view, you tertiary education system is corrupt. Here in Australia we get HECS, which basically means the government pays for our tertiary education, then once we have the means to pay it back (ie. a full-time job), we pay it back with basically 0 interest (they do charge interest, but it's in-line with inflation so basically 0). Our courses only cost around $20,000 for the entire duration. I can't see any reason why it should be any other way.
That is indeed a good system. There's more to it than that though. Australia has a tiny population of 20 something million. Also, your defense costs are mostly underwritten by the US. The list goes on and on. Things that work well for small countries in Europe or places like AUS/NZ won't necessarily work for a country like the US. I'm not exactly saying that the US is spending its money efficiently (which it obviously isn't), but the US cannot afford the luxuries of small and relatively worry-free countries.
Insightful post, and I totally agree.
I think that the way your government spends its money is extremely inefficient, and your taxes are lower, but its cruel to do this to students with the life ahead of them trying to pay of some menial debt because a few people want to earn big bucks by charging you as such. Even though your schooling is more expensive (compared to a lot of countries), the interest you have to pay is stupid, by having interest that high there is a profit margin, and no one (except for the universities/colleges) should be profiting from your education.
I agree. Rather than forgiving these loans, the interest rates should be much lower. Obviously, the money cannot be simply handed out, but making the interest rates much lower to where the government is simply getting its money back rather than profitting would be ideal. There are many really good solutions out there, but getting our government to focus on real issues rather than pointless polarizing ones seems to be impossible these days. Perhaps after the election and one party gains total control, things may progress.
On April 18 2012 10:16 IgnE wrote: Except that you can't discharge your student loans through bankruptcy in the United States thanks George Bush and his financial industry lobbyists. You are stuck with them for life.
Ordinarily loans are an investment, and as such, a risk. Lenders risk the money on people they think can pay them. They take a risk just as much as the borrower does. The lender risks the capital, and the borrower risks having to go into bankruptcy. That's capitalism. But when the borrower can't even declare bankruptcy, it becomes free money for the lender, who is encouraged to loan as much money to as many people as possible.
So when 2008 happens, and the finance industry fucks over everyone, the borrowers, who were promised nothing but growth and jobs for anyone who got educated at college, are left holding the bag, while the lenders still get to collect all the free money they offered.
All of the conservative/libertarians here need to get a grip and come back to reality. Student default hurts everyone and the lenders are just as culpable, if not more culpable than some naive college students who were just doing what everyone else told them to do.
They don't want to look at the bigger problem, because they think they are a victim due to their success, and therefore only see the bill as an unfair proposition instead of what it's actually trying to do - get things on the right track. Or at least that's what it seems like.
Edit: I'm not suggesting this is the best solution.
yes lets forgive everyone who got a $50k liberal arts/arts/whatever degree that everyone told them wouldn't get them a job but still the majority get one of these types of degrees, and now they have no job and can't pay it off.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
Btw, this proposed legislation is an example of the real issue our country is facing. Rather than attempt to deal with the real problems inherit with student loans, schools increasing tuition, interest rates, and whatever else there is, politicians rather make headlines with garbage legislation that polarizes the populace while getting absolutely nothing done.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
On April 18 2012 10:25 acerockolla wrote: Btw, this proposed legislation is an example of the real issue our country is facing. Rather than attempt to deal with the real problems inherit with student loans, schools increasing tuition, interest rates, and whatever else there is, politicians rather make headlines with garbage legislation that polarizes the populace while getting absolutely nothing done.
Yes, they run the country with short-sighted goals that wins votes instead of doing what's best for the country. A huge topic in itself. I hate it
On April 18 2012 10:16 IgnE wrote: Except that you can't discharge your student loans through bankruptcy in the United States thanks to George Bush and his financial industry lobbyists. You are stuck with them for life.
Ordinarily loans are an investment, and as such, a risk. Lenders risk the money on people they think can pay them. They take a risk just as much as the borrower does. The lender risks the capital, and the borrower risks having to go into bankruptcy. That's capitalism. But when the borrower can't even declare bankruptcy, it becomes free money for the lender, who is encouraged to loan as much money to as many people as possible.
So when 2008 happens, and the finance industry fucks over everyone, the borrowers, who were promised nothing but growth and jobs for anyone who got educated at college, are left holding the bag, while the lenders still get to collect all the free money they offered.
All of the conservative/libertarians here need to get a grip and come back to reality. Student default hurts everyone and the lenders are just as culpable, if not more culpable than some naive college students who were just doing what everyone else told them to do.
And we're saying you need to FIX the system, that puts these lenders in the power they are, as well as the societal obligation for everyone to go to college (not true!) just to get a job, rather than do this which will likely help a lot of people, but be ABUSED by everyone else.
And what about all the students who have already been victimized by predatory lenders and educators who usually work hand in hand? Colleges are often partnered with lenders, in that they encourage you to "get a college education" and even invite the lenders on campus to make it easier for you to sign up for loans. Loans that cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. Loans that are free money for the lenders and free money for the universities. Why should universities ever stop raising their tuition when the students are guaranteed money, because the lenders have essentially no risk in lending them more?
Fuck those who did what society told them to do? They can reap what they sow? The fact is that they are the future of this country and are already, on average $25,000 in debt. That is the average for everyone who graduated from college in 2010. Some people have no debt. Many more have far more debt.
Yeah I agree we need to change the system. Education is way way way overpriced, not needed for many who go, and really just a calculated scheme to welcome the next generation into American Debt Slavery, before they can even try to buy a house they can't afford. But this bill is a step in the right direction, because George Bush and the rest of this country have been hyping and selling a bunk product to our nation's young people for the last 15+ years.
On April 18 2012 10:21 Silidons wrote: yes lets forgive everyone who got a $50k liberal arts/arts/whatever degree that everyone told them wouldn't get them a job but still the majority get one of these types of degrees, and now they have no job and can't pay it off.
Let's not kid ourselves. There's plenty of degrees out there that are supposed to be "useful" (law degree is one that particularly comes to mind)... but you'll still find the people receiving them are waiting tables or unemployed. And of course the narrative that liberal arts degrees are worthless and we need more science and math people is getting pretty old... any time you have a massive transfer of people to a particular degree program b/c "WE NEED MORE X", what usually ends up happening is that you have an industry that can't support the influx of new workers.
On April 18 2012 10:21 Silidons wrote: yes lets forgive everyone who got a $50k liberal arts/arts/whatever degree that everyone told them wouldn't get them a job but still the majority get one of these types of degrees, and now they have no job and can't pay it off.
what kind of a school charges 12 500 dollars per year for a liberal arts degree? i'd see that happening with engineering, or a top school, but the average pays that much? maybe it's just different over in the states? that just seems like an outrageous amount to charge for a liberal arts degree.
On April 18 2012 10:22 Man with a Plan wrote: This is horrible. Is this a newish "stimulus"? American education system really needs to be reviewed
American education system is a giant game of hot potatoes that had its chain down to college. It basically went "you need to do well in middle school cause that'll help you get better in HS" and then "you need to do well in HS so you can go to a good college". We have a lot more people going to college for absolutely useless degrees than what we had needed, so yes, the system is seriously flawed. This is because college was literally preached as a "cure all" to be "successful". And now people are finally starting to see the repercussions of this.
Meanwhile, this is probably a much better way of stimulating the economy than half the shit congress pulls off anyway. The best way to do is to give tax breaks to parents who paid for college and forgive a fixed amount of debt for college students (rather than all).
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
On April 18 2012 10:21 Silidons wrote: yes lets forgive everyone who got a $50k liberal arts/arts/whatever degree that everyone told them wouldn't get them a job but still the majority get one of these types of degrees, and now they have no job and can't pay it off.
what kind of a school charges 12 500 dollars per year for a liberal arts degree? i'd see that happening with engineering, or a top school, but the average pays that much? maybe it's just different over in the states? that just seems like an outrageous amount to charge for a liberal arts degree.
Many schools charge essentially exactly the same for a degree regardless of major outside of degrees like PharmD/MD.
I don't feel like a bill to forgive is the right solution, that doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that we're pushing too many people into college. Yes, our society is advancing and requiring more human capital related labor, but we're not in an economic, nor societal position that demands that this many workers goes to college. The other problem is that college tuition itself is rising at too fast a rate for job wages to keep up. This is analogous to insurance company premiums and wage pay increases. I feel the US as a whole needs to re-evaluate the necessity of a college education, and inspire cheaper alternatives.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
To each their own then, I'll respect your opinion. Though I would rather take a route that is more aimed at money and less at the profession
I don't know enough about the bill to give an honest opinion so I'll just say this:
High education is a scam right now. Too many people go to college and going to college means less and less. People go to college for bad reasons and go into jobs that have nothing to do with what they studied. That is not what college is for!
I don't want to say "if you have massive debt and no way to pay it off, you deserve it" because that is really harsh and unsympathetic...BUT IT'S TRUE. If you go to college with no plan and bad financial planning I think it is no one's fault except your own (and maybe your parents). It is very possible graduate from a reputable college with less than $40,000 debt even if you have not saved money for it before hand.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
To each their own then, I'll respect your opinion. Though I would rather take a route that is more aimed at money and less at the profession
Well, you only live once, don't you. If you think you can make the most of it by making money by having a terribly boring job that pays well, then that's your call. But don't expect much success when telling everyone "engineering is easy and pays well", which while true, isn't worth it for people like myself.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
That is complete bullshit. It's not like the jobs are out there, you just have to look for them. There are actually very few jobs, and the competition to get those jobs is extremely fierce. Trying to get a job these days without actual experience is a nightmare, because employers can choose from dozens if not a hundred or more applicants, some of whom have the exact experience they are looking for. Why train a new candidate who just graduated from college when you can just bring in a more experienced person and pay them the same amount? The baby boomer generation is literally cannibalizing its young, as the unemployment/underemployment rate for 20 somethings is skyrocketing.
You can't say "well it's his/her fault" when there are only enough jobs for X% of the cohort, where X is some small number. By definition 100-X% will still be un/underemployed no matter how hard they try.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
Can someone explain to me how loan forgiveness fixes the financial blackhole of lost money? How will this prevent a crash if students all lined up for this instead of defaulting? From what I hear, there are a significant number of students out there who would still not be able to pay.
Also:
"If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven."
"Discretionary income is money remaining after all bills are paid off. It is income after subtracting taxes and normal expenses (such as rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc.) to maintain a certain standard of living.[5] It is the amount of an individual's income available for spending after the essentials (such as food, clothing, and shelter) have been taken care of:"
Does no one else see a problem with this? You could pay off your loan with 10% of whatever you have left after paying bills. This figure could easily be manipulated by buying more food or buying more utilities...
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
On April 18 2012 10:36 Spoof wrote: Can someone explain to me how loan forgiveness fixes the financial blackhole of lost money? How will this prevent a crash if students all lined up for this instead of defaulting? From what I hear, there are a significant number of students out there who would still not be able to pay.
Also:
"If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven."
"Discretionary income is money remaining after all bills are paid off. It is income after subtracting taxes and normal expenses (such as rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, etc.) to maintain a certain standard of living.[5] It is the amount of an individual's income available for spending after the essentials (such as food, clothing, and shelter) have been taken care of:"
Does no one else see a problem with this? You could pay off your loan with 10% of whatever you have left after paying bills. This figure could easily be manipulated by buying more food or buying more utilities...
Set a price for "normal expenses" that varies based on region and family size, or some other such factors. It doesn't fix the blackhole of lost money. It's just a stimulus bill that seeks to repair some of the damage caused by predatory lenders and universities in this country that feed off the false promise that "getting an education (at university)" is the most valuable thing anyone can do.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
It's not the purpose of education, but it is the purpose of a degree and enrolling in University. If you just wanted to learn, you could sit in on any university class and nobody would care. You are not paying for education, you are paying for a degree.
On April 18 2012 10:25 acerockolla wrote: Btw, this proposed legislation is an example of the real issue our country is facing. Rather than attempt to deal with the real problems inherit with student loans, schools increasing tuition, interest rates, and whatever else there is, politicians rather make headlines with garbage legislation that polarizes the populace while getting absolutely nothing done.
Exactly, you get elected and re-elected by telling people what they want to hear, you promise them everything under the sun, free ponies for all! The vast majority of the population is so stupid they fall for it. Everyone complains about the outrageous government spending but the second any politician talks about actually cutting anything they get demagogued to death by their opponents "You hate children! You hate the environment! You hate the military! You hate seniors!" etc.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
The reason they have so many options for degrees is so that you find something you're interested in and delve as deep into it as possible. The purpose of getting any degree is to teach you how to learn. This is what helps you earn your money in life; not the material you learn, but your ability to adapt to the changing world.
Your degree was never meant to be an indicator of your future career. This is a common misconception.
The onus is on the graduate to use the processes he learned in college to carve himself something in the real world, whatever that might be. Most people probably don't like that idea or have trouble accepting it which is probably why there's so much confusion in the first place.
On April 18 2012 10:25 acerockolla wrote: Btw, this proposed legislation is an example of the real issue our country is facing. Rather than attempt to deal with the real problems inherit with student loans, schools increasing tuition, interest rates, and whatever else there is, politicians rather make headlines with garbage legislation that polarizes the populace while getting absolutely nothing done.
Exactly, you get elected and re-elected by telling people what they want to hear, you promise them everything under the sun, free ponies for all! The vast majority of the population is so stupid they fall for it. Everyone complains about the outrageous government spending but the second any politician talks about actually cutting anything they get demagogued to death by their opponents "You hate children! You hate the environment! You hate the military! You hate seniors!" etc.
No, you get elected for telling banks and lenders that you have found a way for them to make free money riding the education bubble. You will pass a law that makes it impossible to discharge the debt through bankruptcy, freeing you to loan to every person who asks for the money. The rest of society does its part by telling its young citizens, "You must go to college. An education is the most important investment you can make in your future. You need it to get a job."
Then the subprime mortgage bubble comes (caused by the same predatory lending practices and egregious profiteering of the banking industry) and all the jobs evaporate. Growth stops.
Then society stops giving jobs to young people who have no experience, and scolds them for taking loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The young people can never escape the debt trap, because even if they declare bankruptcy, their future paychecks will be docked money until all the money they owe their educational loan provider is paid back with interest.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
yes lets forgive everyone who got a $50k liberal arts/arts/whatever degree that everyone told them wouldn't get them a job but still the majority get one of these types of degrees, and now they have no job and can't pay it off.
Also I forgot to tell you, but, the majority do NOT get liberal arts degrees. To fully debunk your lie:
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be in a class if you're not paying to be there. It's not enforced for the most part, but you're not supposed to be there anyway.
Yes, you pay for the education. The recognition costs them nothing. Providing education does.
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
Again, part of the problem of the education system. Everyone thinks you HAVE to have a degree to get a job, when right now it does nothing, except bloat the system, and end up devaluing the degree itself. If everyone has a degree, everyone might as well not have it as well. So instead you get people who just party it up, because they shouldn't be there anyways, bloat the wallets of the universities themselves to pad the salaries of presidents/chancellors, and sports teams, etc, while simultaneously putting the entire american demographic of young adults into monstrous debt that they have NO WAY of paying themselves out of because there simply aren't enough jobs out there for these people who were sold a LIE from the day they got into high school.
Except that you do need a degree to get the vast, vast majority of respectable jobs that have room for advancement in them (unless you are going to become the next Bill Gates, but if everyone did that it would completely defeat the purpose - that's not a practical answer to the problem). If less people had the degree, the value of it goes up and there will be no reason to hire someone who doesn't have the degree over someone that does. If everyone DOES have the degree, the value goes down, but employers still say, "Why the hell don't you have a bachelor's?" and you don't get the job.
No matter which way you go, in this day in age, unless you're going into a technical field or flipping burgers/doing retail, you need a bachelor's.
On April 18 2012 10:53 BuGzlToOnl wrote: Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
On April 18 2012 10:16 IgnE wrote: Except that you can't discharge your student loans through bankruptcy in the United States thanks George Bush and his financial industry lobbyists. You are stuck with them for life.
Ordinarily loans are an investment, and as such, a risk. Lenders risk the money on people they think can pay them. They take a risk just as much as the borrower does. The lender risks the capital, and the borrower risks having to go into bankruptcy. That's capitalism. But when the borrower can't even declare bankruptcy, it becomes free money for the lender, who is encouraged to loan as much money to as many people as possible.
So when 2008 happens, and the finance industry fucks over everyone, the borrowers, who were promised nothing but growth and jobs for anyone who got educated at college, are left holding the bag, while the lenders still get to collect all the free money they offered.
All of the conservative/libertarians here need to get a grip and come back to reality. Student default hurts everyone and the lenders are just as culpable, if not more culpable than some naive college students who were just doing what everyone else told them to do.
Please note that the following is an example of what many people have said so far in this thread, with added racism and slut-shaming. BUT I DON'T WANT MY HARD EARNED TAXED MONEY FROM CRUSHING PIG ANUSES WITH MY BARE HANDS FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS TO GO TO SOME LAZY (BLACK) SORORITY (SLUT) WHO IS TOO LAZY TO GET A JOB AND WORK HARD FOR A LIVING RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! Why the racism and slut shaming you ask? Because these kinds of posts are moronic drivel based on the same bad assumptions which dominate this thread. For example: Racism! + Show Spoiler +
I DON'T WANT MY HARD EARN... GOING TO WELFARE BECAUSE IT'S ALL GOING TO GO TO BLACK PEOPLE WHO SIT AROUND DRINKING ALL DAY AND NOT GETTING A DAMN JOB! Problems: This statement assumes that black people are the majority of welfare recipients. This statement assumes that the majority of black people on welfare are not looking for a job and are partying hard!
I DON'T WANT MY... GOING TO FREE CONTRACEPTION FOR SLUTS SO THEY CAN HAVE SEX WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! Problems: Women who use hormone pills are all apparently sluts... OK... This statement also assumes that making birth control pills more accessible is likely to lessen the risk of unwanted pregnancies (which I have always assumed is the intended meaning of 'consequences' in these types of discussions, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). That assumption is probably correct. This leads me to wonder what is wrong with our government, and this heinous idea that might prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I DON'T WANT MY... TO GO TO SOME DEGENERATE LIBERAL HIPPIE WHO GOT A DEGREE IN THEATRE AND DIDN'T FIND A JOB! THAT HIPPIE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE WITH THE REST OF THE POOR PEOPLE! THOSE HIPPIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE RESPONSIBLE! INSTEAD OF DRINKING AND PARTYING ALL THE TIME THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD A PART TIME JOB! Problems: Assuming that the majority of people with large student loans are financially irresponsible. Assuming that people with large student loans don't have a job and aren't currently making payments. Assuming that every field of study is available at a community college level or at a state college/within reasonable commute from a parent's house where they could live for free. Assuming that the people who drink and party their asses off in college are the ones in financial trouble. Assuming that the burden of financial responsibility lies on the person who takes out a loan. This is usually followed up by some statement about a "free market". This is probably one of the dumbest and most aggravating things in this thread.
The responsibility for a loan in a free market lies between both the lender and the recipient. The responsibility for a student loan rests entirely on the student, because unlike traditional loans, the student cannot file for bankruptcy. This means that there is zero culpability to the lender for giving out loans.
Here is a dramatic post along the same lines as many in this thread, only this time it blames the lender instead of the recipient: 35 years old, never had a job? $40,000 in debt? Living off welfare? Well here's your loan for $80,000! Thank you for coming to Sallie Mae!
TL;DR: Morons believe the typical Republocrat bullshit, spout about paying taxes to vermin who live off of handouts, while Sallie Mae sits back and makes a cool trillion while laughing at this whole discussion, university costs go up, and the poor get poorer (and dumber thank god, otherwise they wouldn't be as easy to control).
Also apologies for the slightly offtopic post, I originally only meant to use the first two as brief examples but I ended up collecting my thoughts on two other topics.
User was warned for this post (for referring to people as 'morons').
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are many many many jobs available right now. Just not the jobs they want in the place they want or in the field they want. There are a lot of jobs out there.
I paid for all my schooling by working nights, no government aid came my way and I sure as hell don't want my taxes going to people who could do the same. The US college system is a fucking scam to begin with but if you're going to play their game you better be able to cover your own loses.
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:19 Xanbatou wrote: There is a student debt problem? I wasn't aware of it. I have a student loan for about 25k and I'm almost finished with my bachelor's in CS. I already have a couple jobs lined up for after I graduate that will pay quite well. I expect to be able to pay off all my loans within the first couple years.
IMO, the problem is people spending exorbitant sums of money on degrees in areas that are relatively worthless to society. There is a huge demand for engineers, so go get an engineering degree. You have no right to complain about student loans when you paid 30k a year at a private school getting a degree in Latin. We don't bail out people who waste all their money investing in some shitty startup, why should we bail out people who waste on their money on a useless degree?
Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are many many many jobs available right now. Just not the jobs they want in the place they want or in the field they want. There are a lot of jobs out there.
Eh, I spent about 6 months applying to every company in the surrounding area and only one company replied (walmart). I did get the job but when they hired me they turned down 3 other people. Depends on where you live, and I just don't buy the idea that everyone who is unemployed is simply lazy or unwilling to work a bad job.
On April 18 2012 10:16 IgnE wrote: Except that you can't discharge your student loans through bankruptcy in the United States thanks George Bush and his financial industry lobbyists. You are stuck with them for life.
Ordinarily loans are an investment, and as such, a risk. Lenders risk the money on people they think can pay them. They take a risk just as much as the borrower does. The lender risks the capital, and the borrower risks having to go into bankruptcy. That's capitalism. But when the borrower can't even declare bankruptcy, it becomes free money for the lender, who is encouraged to loan as much money to as many people as possible.
So when 2008 happens, and the finance industry fucks over everyone, the borrowers, who were promised nothing but growth and jobs for anyone who got educated at college, are left holding the bag, while the lenders still get to collect all the free money they offered.
All of the conservative/libertarians here need to get a grip and come back to reality. Student default hurts everyone and the lenders are just as culpable, if not more culpable than some naive college students who were just doing what everyone else told them to do.
Please note that the following is an example of what many people have said so far in this thread, with added racism and slut-shaming. BUT I DON'T WANT MY HARD EARNED TAXED MONEY FROM CRUSHING PIG ANUSES WITH MY BARE HANDS FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS TO GO TO SOME LAZY (BLACK) SORORITY (SLUT) WHO IS TOO LAZY TO GET A JOB AND WORK HARD FOR A LIVING RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! Why the racism and slut shaming you ask? Because these kinds of posts are moronic drivel based on the same bad assumptions which dominate this thread. For example: Racism! + Show Spoiler +
I DON'T WANT MY HARD EARN... GOING TO WELFARE BECAUSE IT'S ALL GOING TO GO TO BLACK PEOPLE WHO SIT AROUND DRINKING ALL DAY AND NOT GETTING A DAMN JOB! Problems: This statement assumes that black people are the majority of welfare recipients. This statement assumes that the majority of black people on welfare are not looking for a job and are partying hard!
I DON'T WANT MY... GOING TO FREE CONTRACEPTION FOR SLUTS SO THEY CAN HAVE SEX WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! Problems: Women who use hormone pills are all apparently sluts... OK... This statement also assumes that making birth control pills more accessible is likely to lessen the risk of unwanted pregnancies (which I have always assumed is the intended meaning of 'consequences' in these types of discussions, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). That assumption is probably correct. This leads me to wonder what is wrong with our government, and this heinous idea that might prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I DON'T WANT MY... TO GO TO SOME DEGENERATE LIBERAL HIPPIE WHO GOT A DEGREE IN THEATRE AND DIDN'T FIND A JOB! THAT HIPPIE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE WITH THE REST OF THE POOR PEOPLE! THOSE HIPPIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE RESPONSIBLE! INSTEAD OF DRINKING AND PARTYING ALL THE TIME THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD A PART TIME JOB! Problems: Assuming that the majority of people with large student loans are financially irresponsible. Assuming that people with large student loans don't have a job and aren't currently making payments. Assuming that every field of study is available at a community college level or at a state college/within reasonable commute from a parent's house where they could live for free. Assuming that the people who drink and party their asses off in college are the ones in financial trouble. Assuming that the burden of financial responsibility lies on the person who takes out a loan. This is usually followed up by some statement about a "free market". This is probably one of the dumbest and most aggravating things in this thread.
The responsibility for a loan in a free market lies between both the lender and the recipient. The responsibility for a student loan rests entirely on the student, because unlike traditional loans, the student cannot file for bankruptcy. This means that there is zero culpability to the lender for giving out loans.
Here is a dramatic post along the same lines as many in this thread, only this time it blames the lender instead of the recipient: 35 years old, never had a job? $40,000 in debt? Living off welfare? Well here's your loan for $80,000! Thank you for coming to Sallie Mae!
TL;DR: Morons believe the typical Republocrat bullshit, spout about paying taxes to vermin who live off of handouts, while Sallie Mae sits back and makes a cool trillion while laughing at this whole discussion, university costs go up, and the poor get poorer (and dumber thank god, otherwise they wouldn't be as easy to control).
Also apologies for the slightly offtopic post, I originally only meant to use the first two as brief examples but I ended up collecting my thoughts on two other topics.
So I hate women and black people because I'm against policies that will result in accelerating unviable tuition increases? This makes a lot of sense, I rate your comment an S+.
Wait, what? Your analogies are too complex for a simpleminded Republocrat bullshitter like me.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Isn't this is a commentary about how getting a law education makes little economic sense in some cases?
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
On April 18 2012 10:24 Elegance wrote: [quote] And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote: [quote]
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
As a starting student next year, I appreciate what Obama's trying to do, but I don't like this law. You can't just let people off the hook on things like this; it sets a bad example thats just going to make them lax and start overspending. I know I will have debt, but my parents and I chosen a college and a plan that I will be able to afford once I get out of college. Too many people completely overestimate things or aren't informed enough and it's frankly ridiculous. (And I'm speaking of some of my own friends/classmates here.)
Don't take stupid loans; if you have to take 80k in loans to go to a college, it's not the college for youand you need to downgrade. Yeah it sucks but you will only do yourself and others a favor.
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Sadly, this is a price you pay for being stupid. There are consequences for things in the real world. Would you do relentless research before buying a house or car worth over $100k? I sure would. Research would tell you that law degrees are mostly for suckers in that they generally get you low paying jobs with long hours. Unless you're going to a top tier school or know someone, it is a horrible investment. I'm speaking from experience here. I thought long and hard about it. I decided not to go to law school for these very reasons. Even today at the school I go to, everyone wants to go to law school. I always want to burst their bubble, but I know they won't listen. I guess the real problem could be said that law schools should stop propagating the myth, but if people jump relatively blindly into debt... whose fault is that?
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote:
On April 18 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Getting a job in engineering would make many, many people incredibly miserable. It's a pretty dreadful 9 to 5 job, really.
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Maybe getting that 150k law degree wasn't the best idea in the first place, and looking into the job market before deciding your major would've been a much cheaper solution. I doubt a job market would shift so drastically in 4 years with so many people getting it. edit: TT guy above me beat me to it. in a better response
On April 18 2012 10:04 FabledIntegral wrote: How about you don't take loans if you can't pay them off? Ppl use student loans for tons of shit besides school... I tooksome extra out to party ... why the fuck should it be forgiven
i know so many people who did this...
"Dude my plan worked out perfectly! I got my student loan just in time for Bonnarroo like I planned! We are gonna get soooo fucked up bro! I'm not worried about paying for school or paying the loan back, I got a job and I'll have a better one when I gotta pay the school and pay the loan back it'll be fine..."
Yeah, at least I only did it with a few thousand (for the partying). I know some who racked up tens of thousands. Didn't do shit. However, I took out those loans with full intention to pay them.
On April 18 2012 10:24 Elegance wrote: [quote] And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote: [quote]
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Maybe getting that 150k law degree wasn't the best idea in the first place, and looking into the job market before deciding your major would've been a much cheaper solution. I doubt a job market would shift so drastically in 4 years with so many people getting it. edit: TT guy above me beat me to it. in a better response
The rate at which you have to pay back student loans in the States is dependent on your income at your work. Thus someone who's making $60k out of college their first year is going to be paying nearly 10x someone who is unemployed out of college. I know this because my roommate is making ~$60k in his first year out of college, while his gf is unemployed. They took out same type of loans, and calculated how soon they have to pay off, etc.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are many many many jobs available right now. Just not the jobs they want in the place they want or in the field they want. There are a lot of jobs out there.
No, there are not a lot of jobs out there, and it's a load of conservative bull to actually believe this. Not only that, even in regions where there ARE a lot of meaningless, crappy jobs in fields people don't want, people don't want these jobs because they don't end up being worth the work, not because people just don't like the job.
As a starting student next year, I appreciate what Obama's trying to do, but I don't like this law. You can't just let people off the hook on things like this; it sets a bad example thats just going to make them lax and start overspending. I know I will have debt, but my parents and I chosen a college and a plan that I will be able to afford once I get out of college. Too many people completely overestimate things or aren't informed enough and it's frankly ridiculous. (And I'm speaking of some of my own friends/classmates here.)
Don't take stupid loans; if you have to take 80k in loans to go to a college, it's not the college and you need to downgrade. Yeah it sucks but you only do yourself and others a favor
Hey guys, poor people will obviously never be able to become leading intellectuals in any field, so they just shouldn't ever bother going to anything put a cheap community college because they can't really offer that much to society or their loved ones.
This would just create that many much problems. For example the Nasdaq bubble was predictable from Austrian economists, the housing bubble was predictable by Austrian economics and this student loan forgiveness act will just create another instant boom, but when the bust comes it will be 10x worse.
So good intentions aside, this act is incredibly stupid. I can see this representative just playing politics and increasing his chances of election.
The government is there to enforce contracts, not to destroy them. And what about all the people that worked or saved to go to college, what about those that payed off their debts? This bill is really unfair to people who actually used their brains before instantly getting loans to go to college.
I just think people should listen to Austrian economists who've been right for over 100 years on every crisis in the Western world and not listen to socialists or Keynesian economists who've been wrong on just about everything!
On April 18 2012 10:24 Elegance wrote: [quote] And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote: [quote]
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Maybe getting that 150k law degree wasn't the best idea in the first place, and looking into the job market before deciding your major would've been a much cheaper solution. I doubt a job market would shift so drastically in 4 years with so many people getting it. edit: TT guy above me beat me to it.
Then you are an idiot because it went from assured job at $160k to no job in one year. At a top 5 law school.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are many many many jobs available right now. Just not the jobs they want in the place they want or in the field they want. There are a lot of jobs out there.
No, there are not a lot of jobs out there, and it's a load of conservative bull to actually believe this. Not only that, even in regions where there ARE a lot of meaningless, crappy jobs in fields people don't want, people don't want these jobs because they don't end up being worth the work, not because people just don't like the job.
Not "being worth the work" is exactly like saying they don't want to do the job because they don't like it. If they really wanted a job they WOULD work for a given amount of money.
On April 18 2012 10:27 Djzapz wrote: [quote] God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
[quote] Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
You exaggerating way too much.
I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster.
It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less.
On April 18 2012 10:24 Elegance wrote: [quote] And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote: [quote]
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Sadly, this is a price you pay for being stupid. There are consequences for things in the real world. Would you do relentless research before buying a house or car worth over $100k? I sure would. Research would tell you that law degrees are mostly for suckers in that they generally get you low paying jobs with long hours. Unless you're going to a top tier school or know someone, it is a horrible investment. I'm speaking from experience here. I thought long and hard about it. I decided not to go to law school for these very reasons. Even today at the school I go to, everyone wants to go to law school. I always want to burst their bubble, but I know they won't listen. I guess the real problem could be said that law schools should stop propagating the myth, but if people jump relatively blindly into debt... whose fault is that?
The problem is that the consequences are batshit insane. Give me a valid argument for student loans having these kinds of default consequences.
Not "being worth the work" is exactly like saying they don't want to do the job because they don't like it. If they really wanted a job they WOULD work for a given amount of money.
Wrong. Not being worth the work means that the pay isn't enough to cover the costs of commuting/living close enough to the job, health costs, raising children, taking care of other dependents, etc. etc. etc. There are endless complications to this that spoiled brats in this thread that have never really struggled economically just do not understand.
I'm not even arguing for this bill specifically, but for the love of God something needs to be done about the absolutely horrific educational system we have here.
On April 18 2012 11:20 TheMatrix wrote: This would just create that many much problems. For example the Nasdaq bubble was predictable from Austrian economists, the housing bubble was predictable by Austrian economics and this student loan forgiveness act will just create another instant boom, but when the bust comes it will be 10x worse.
So good intentions aside, this act is incredibly stupid. I can see this representative just playing politics and increasing his chances of election.
The government is there to enforce contracts, not to destroy them. And what about all the people that worked or saved to go to college, what about those that payed off their debts? This bill is really unfair to people who actually used their brains before instantly getting loans to go to college.
What are you talking about? We are already in a bubble and it's about to burst. Summer of 2012 is 3 years after the 2009 graduates who couldn't find jobs because of the 2008 collapse but still had $25k in loans they have to pay off. You get 36 months to defer payment of your loans because of unemployment. The bubble is going to burst very soon when a bunch of students default on their loans.
This bill is a way to deflate the bubble and correct for predatory lending practices and a corrupt educational industry.
On April 18 2012 11:20 TheMatrix wrote: This would just create that many much problems. For example the Nasdaq bubble was predictable from Austrian economists, the housing bubble was predictable by Austrian economics and this student loan forgiveness act will just create another instant boom, but when the bust comes it will be 10x worse.
So good intentions aside, this act is incredibly stupid. I can see this representative just playing politics and increasing his chances of election.
The government is there to enforce contracts, not to destroy them. And what about all the people that worked or saved to go to college, what about those that payed off their debts? This bill is really unfair to people who actually used their brains before instantly getting loans to go to college.
What are you talking about? We are already in a bubble and it's about to burst. Summer of 2012 is 3 years after the 2009 graduates who couldn't find jobs because of the 2008 collapse but still had $25k in loans they have to pay off. You get 36 months to defer payment of your loans because of unemployment. The bubble is going to burst very soon when a bunch of students default on their loans.
This bill is a way to deflate the bubble and correct for predatory lending practices and a corrupt educational industry.
That's the worse part. It's going to be much worse extremely soon because a lot of students that are graduating have much MUCH more than 25K in loans now, while not being able to find jobs.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are many many many jobs available right now. Just not the jobs they want in the place they want or in the field they want. There are a lot of jobs out there.
No, there are not a lot of jobs out there, and it's a load of conservative bull to actually believe this. Not only that, even in regions where there ARE a lot of meaningless, crappy jobs in fields people don't want, people don't want these jobs because they don't end up being worth the work, not because people just don't like the job.
As a starting student next year, I appreciate what Obama's trying to do, but I don't like this law. You can't just let people off the hook on things like this; it sets a bad example thats just going to make them lax and start overspending. I know I will have debt, but my parents and I chosen a college and a plan that I will be able to afford once I get out of college. Too many people completely overestimate things or aren't informed enough and it's frankly ridiculous. (And I'm speaking of some of my own friends/classmates here.)
Don't take stupid loans; if you have to take 80k in loans to go to a college, it's not the college and you need to downgrade. Yeah it sucks but you only do yourself and others a favor
Hey guys, poor people will obviously never be able to become leading intellectuals in any field, so they just shouldn't ever bother going to anything put a cheap community college because they can't really offer that much to society or their loved ones.
Well, it's SUPER easy to get interviews. Just getting the job is what's hard. What's sad to say is the vast majority of students who graduate didn't even get an interview for a single job that pays $40k+, because they still didn't know what they wanted to do, or didn't apply to enough places. If you haven't gotten any interviews for jobs, it's your fault.
I went to a middle-of-the-road/above average ranked university, didn't have a single internship, and have gotten plenty of interviews throughout the year. Big companies such as Deloitte Consulting, Hitachi, Experian, Liberty Mutual, Top 4 accounting firms + all other accountants, banks, etc. all come to career fairs and all interview a TON of people. I remember Hitachi at my school interviewed like 50+ ish students for their first round (I was one of them). Didn't get the job, but I kept going til finally found one.
That is, as long as you have a decent GPA. Major cutoffs I've seen are 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5. If you're below that line, unless you're an engineer, you're fault. And these places take all majors, know a crim major for example who got hired as a consultant for Deloitte and started at 70k+ his first year.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
You exaggerating way too much.
I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster.
It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less.
I don't think you realize that these "promotions" you are talking about in the manual labor jobs don't exist anymore. Thanks to globalization, Americans will never again make living wages doing menial labor and "hard jobs" that no one supposedly wants to do. The only people who make living wages now are the baby boomers who have been grandfathered in, that is if they weren't just laid off as more and more manufacturing jobs go over to China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the world.
But I guess everyone who says there are jobs out there is content to live on third world wages in sweat shops if that is all that's available.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Tuition costs and the cost of attending university have skyrocketed several hundred percent since your parents' time. Spending 10% of your income for 10 years is probably still well beyond what they paid after inflation is controlled for. The total student loan debt in America is comparable to the total credit card debt, and 4 year degrees are only growing less and less useful.
I thank the lord every day that I only graduated with 7k in loan debt from attending a relatively inexpensive institution, living in impoverished circumstances, taking a few classes at community college during summers, and getting a few scholarships my last 2 years. I was totally unable to find a job after graduating and even now find myself in a field where a college degree is near worthless (I'm a personal trainer). I would just be so god damn fucked if I had like 30k+ debt like a lot of friends I know.
I want less federal government, not more. The problem with colleges is that they practically force everyone into them now, it wasn't that way 30 years ago. The number of people I have meet that shouldn't be/don't want to be in college is astounding.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are many many many jobs available right now. Just not the jobs they want in the place they want or in the field they want. There are a lot of jobs out there.
No, there are not a lot of jobs out there, and it's a load of conservative bull to actually believe this. Not only that, even in regions where there ARE a lot of meaningless, crappy jobs in fields people don't want, people don't want these jobs because they don't end up being worth the work, not because people just don't like the job.
As a starting student next year, I appreciate what Obama's trying to do, but I don't like this law. You can't just let people off the hook on things like this; it sets a bad example thats just going to make them lax and start overspending. I know I will have debt, but my parents and I chosen a college and a plan that I will be able to afford once I get out of college. Too many people completely overestimate things or aren't informed enough and it's frankly ridiculous. (And I'm speaking of some of my own friends/classmates here.)
Don't take stupid loans; if you have to take 80k in loans to go to a college, it's not the college and you need to downgrade. Yeah it sucks but you only do yourself and others a favor
Hey guys, poor people will obviously never be able to become leading intellectuals in any field, so they just shouldn't ever bother going to anything put a cheap community college because they can't really offer that much to society or their loved ones.
If you want to debate, speak in a reasonable tone, otherwise I'm not really interested.
Contrary to popular belief, community colleges don't automatically equal shit. They can and do actually give out decent degrees that lead to well paying jobs. And if they don't have the degfree you want, many of them offer guranteed transfer programs to major universities after two years. Yeah we would all like to go to the best college, but unfortuneately that's not possible, and it's not fair to hinder others in that regard. I would love to go to Stanford, but I would not feel comfortable knowing I was going on the money of others. (And those others are not "rich" people or anything, most of them would be lower-middle class.)
edit: For the record, I agree the system is pretty shitty. But this is not the way to go about it. It's just prolonging the problem and pushing it aside and we all know it's mostly for the elction.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Tuition costs and the cost of attending university have skyrocketed several hundred percent since your parents time. Spending 10% of your income for 10 years is probably still well beyond what they paid after inflation is controlled for. The total student loan debt in America is comparable to the total credit card debt, and 4 year degrees are only growing less and less useful.
I thank the lord every day that I only graduated with 7k in loan debt from attending a relatively inexpensive institution, living in impoverished circumstances, taking a few classes at community college during summers, and getting a few scholarships my last 2 years. I was totally unable to find a job after graduating and even now find myself in a field where a college degree is near worthless (I'm a personal trainer). I would just be so god damn fucked if I had like 30k+ debt like a lot of friends I know.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Well considering the entire system is built around fucking over students in every way possible, yeah.
well then maybe we should change the system instead of fucking over everyone who isn't a student in every way possible as compensation.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
This is how problems don't get solved. Or how no problems get solved. Either way, who are you to defend you're parents debt? They made their own choices, they should live with the results.
I can't believe there's people upset over this and how they could do without loans themselves, so no one else should need it. Good for you, I'm glad you didn't need student loans, but poor people aren't able to do that when they are using their money from working part-time in school to pay for shelter and feed themselves. My parents weren't able to pay for my education, and I don't expect them to either, so I rely on loans, and this is clearly for people who are in my boat. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but life isn't fair.
I'm glad to see something like this come up, but I'm not American and it's a little late for me anyway.
On April 18 2012 09:34 Kazeyonoma wrote: it's also stupid for responsible individuals who saved up money for their kids educations, and sent them to college and paid for them in full, what about them? Will this loan retroactively give them back money for being financially stable?
Have you even looked at how borderline corrupt student loans are in the US? It's not even a case of people over-borrowing, but rather the system being designed to fuck people with student loans.
On April 18 2012 11:31 Stress wrote: I want less federal government, not more. The problem with colleges is that they practically force everyone into them now, it wasn't that way 30 years ago. The number of people I have meet that shouldn't be/don't want to be in college is astounding.
Can you really blame them though? All their lives it was forced down their throats from their parents, mentors, and whatever education systems they attended. It takes a lot of guts and brutal honesty to look inward and realize you aren't college material when 80%+ of your classmates senior year of high school will be attending in some capacity (though far fewer will finish). I just don't think you can really expect that from most middle class 17-18 year old kids. Hell, most adults aren't capable of harsh enough introspection to make that kind of call. You're basically asking the left half of the cognitive bell curve to acknowledge their own intellectual limitations, which is surely impossible precisely because of those limitations.
There's just been such a huge societal push for everyone to earn 4 year degrees that spans back decades. How could it be so simple to reverse this widely held belief? Even assuming this were possible, there's a very imminent threat of the student loan bubble, and reversing the trend of too many people attending college would take much longer than before the bubble actually bursts.
On April 18 2012 11:39 Grobyc wrote: I can't believe there's people upset over this and how they could do without loans themselves, so no one else should need it. Good for you, I'm glad you didn't need student loans, but poor people aren't able to do that when they are using their money from working part-time in school to pay for shelter and feed themselves. My parents weren't able to pay for my education, and I don't expect them to either, so I rely on loans, and this is clearly for people who are in my boat. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but life isn't fair.
I'm glad to see something like this come up, but I'm not American and it's a little late for me anyway.
It's because it's a "solution" that completely ignores the real problems. Anyone yammering about being able to go without loans is really irrelevant. The system is flawed and could use a drastic overhaul, similar to our tax code. Sweeping the problem underneath the rug does not make it go away.
Do people actually think it's preferable for these students to default? When someone defaults on a loan, it hurts a hell of a lot of people indirectly.
Don't you want the American people to become.. well more educated? In Sweden you're pretty much fucked without a degree, and well.. I'm sure some people don't enjoy studying or school for several reasons, but don't you want to get an education? I'd happily pay for everyone to have a education, that way I believe that we humans will evolve. The more people who have an education the smarter the population is. I'm not saying that you are stupid or anything if you don't have a degree (don't take it this way, not all). but isn't generally a educated population a better population? Surely they can make more informed and simply smarter decisions than a un-educated population?
This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I say this as a student expecting to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when I graduate.
This will be a HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUGE) blow to the income banks make from student loans. This fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
On April 18 2012 11:50 Asol wrote: Quick question here from a swede:
Don't you want the American people to become.. well more educated? In Sweden you're pretty much fucked without a degree, and well.. I'm sure some people don't enjoy studying or school for several reasons, but don't you want to get an education? I'd happily pay for everyone to have a education, that way I believe that we humans will evolve. The more people who have an education the smarter the population is. I'm not saying that you are stupid or anything if you don't have a degree (don't take it this way, not all). but isn't generally a educated population a better population? Surely they can make more informed and simply smarter decisions than a un-educated population?
Unfortunately, a large portion of the American population is either 1) too selfish and self-centered to think this way or 2) too foolish to think long-term like this.
The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
I'll just quote it.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
On April 18 2012 10:24 Elegance wrote: [quote] And because having a dreadful 9 to 5 job is well.... dreadful, you would choose a useless degree over it and waste a shit ton of money and probably end up unemployed?
God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
On April 18 2012 10:26 Xanbatou wrote: [quote]
I think a 9 to 5 job in engineering is better than being a barista at starbucks (or something equivalent), which is what happens to many people with useless degrees. I know a girl who got a degree in international relations at a private school. She spent a huge amount of money there and is now in a lot of debt, and she can't find a job anywhere that actually uses the degree she earned.
Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Sadly, this is a price you pay for being stupid. There are consequences for things in the real world. Would you do relentless research before buying a house or car worth over $100k? I sure would. Research would tell you that law degrees are mostly for suckers in that they generally get you low paying jobs with long hours. Unless you're going to a top tier school or know someone, it is a horrible investment. I'm speaking from experience here. I thought long and hard about it. I decided not to go to law school for these very reasons. Even today at the school I go to, everyone wants to go to law school. I always want to burst their bubble, but I know they won't listen. I guess the real problem could be said that law schools should stop propagating the myth, but if people jump relatively blindly into debt... whose fault is that?
I think ultimately expecting people to simply wise up is a poor one when there's been a decades long push for everyone to attend college that won't easily be reversed. What ultimately needs to happen is that student loans need to become far less available and accessible to students. I think some active discrimination needs to happen as well; your ability to procure loans ought to be based directly off your prospects of actually graduating and finding employment in your field of study. So the communications major in the fraternity with a 2.2 gpa simply doesn't have the same access to the same loans a kid in a nursing program with a 3.8 does. Right now I bet you could make the argument that those of lesser academic merit/employment marketability are actually more likely to take out loans because they're less likely to get merit based financial aid.
Right now there's a big systematic problem that is one of the root causes of this debt bubble; colleges have made the process of getting a loan too straightforward and too easy. Its a perverse incentive structure because they aren't the ones bearing the burden of the default risk and their interests are maximized when loans become easy to take out because then they can admit more students and get more public funding and continue growing out of control. The bill in the original post isn't meant to address this problem; its jut to dampen the effects of the bubble bursting. It may or may not be a good idea, but something needs to be done to the big systematic problems actually fueling the bubble as well.
On April 18 2012 11:50 Asol wrote: Quick question here from a swede:
Don't you want the American people to become.. well more educated? In Sweden you're pretty much fucked without a degree, and well.. I'm sure some people don't enjoy studying or school for several reasons, but don't you want to get an education? I'd happily pay for everyone to have a education, that way I believe that we humans will evolve. The more people who have an education the smarter the population is. I'm not saying that you are stupid or anything if you don't have a degree (don't take it this way, not all). but isn't generally a educated population a better population? Surely they can make more informed and simply smarter decisions than a un-educated population?
Unfortunately, a large portion of the American population is either 1) too selfish and self-centered to think this way or 2) too foolish to think long-term like this.
i'll happily pay for your education if you pay for my education. oh, wait, this bill says that because i can afford to pay for my education that nobody is going to help me. so, the government denied me financial aid when i applied for school, i had to work through school and because i made good choices and kept my debt manageable, i now am being denied government aid again.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Tuition costs and the cost of attending university have skyrocketed several hundred percent since your parents' time. Spending 10% of your income for 10 years is probably still well beyond what they paid after inflation is controlled for. The total student loan debt in America is comparable to the total credit card debt, and 4 year degrees are only growing less and less useful.
I thank the lord every day that I only graduated with 7k in loan debt from attending a relatively inexpensive institution, living in impoverished circumstances, taking a few classes at community college during summers, and getting a few scholarships my last 2 years. I was totally unable to find a job after graduating and even now find myself in a field where a college degree is near worthless (I'm a personal trainer). I would just be so god damn fucked if I had like 30k+ debt like a lot of friends I know.
I think it also bears mentioning that the standard for being viable candidates in certain fields necessitates higher graduate degrees. For example, If I were to apply to jobs as a college professor I %99.9 of the time must have a PhD either in hand or be essentially ABD. A masters will not cut it, nor will a bachelors (has nothing to do with one qualifications). This was not the case 30 and 40 years ago for a lot of fields of study.
On April 18 2012 10:27 Djzapz wrote: [quote] God yes, I'd probably be happier with 30k from a social sciences degree with a decent job than 50-60k from an engineering degree designing stuff according to sometimes ridiculous and unnecessary standards and codes.
For some people it's awesome, for others it isn't. I'm getting my masters in political sciences and I'll end up with the same salary as someone with an engineering bachelor (which takes 2 years less to get). Worth it. Would've been worth it even if I made less.
Engineering -_- ugh
[quote] Well if she looked harder for a semi-decent job, she could get something in her field. It may not lead to a lot of money, but it wouldn't be Starbucks. Her fault.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Sadly, this is a price you pay for being stupid. There are consequences for things in the real world. Would you do relentless research before buying a house or car worth over $100k? I sure would. Research would tell you that law degrees are mostly for suckers in that they generally get you low paying jobs with long hours. Unless you're going to a top tier school or know someone, it is a horrible investment. I'm speaking from experience here. I thought long and hard about it. I decided not to go to law school for these very reasons. Even today at the school I go to, everyone wants to go to law school. I always want to burst their bubble, but I know they won't listen. I guess the real problem could be said that law schools should stop propagating the myth, but if people jump relatively blindly into debt... whose fault is that?
I think ultimately expecting people to simply wise up is a poor one when there's been a decades long push for everyone to attend college that won't easily be reversed. What ultimately needs to happen is that student loans need to become far less available and accessible to students. I think some active discrimination needs to happen as well; your ability to procure loans ought to be based directly off your prospects of actually graduating and finding employment in your field of study. So the communications major in the fraternity with a 2.2 gpa simply doesn't have the same access to the same loans a kid in a nursing program with a 3.8 does. Right now I bet you could make the argument that those of lesser academic merit/employment marketability are actually more likely to take out loans because they're less likely to get merit based financial aid.
I really doubt you could, and that's fairly insulting to make that suggestion. Also, I find it highly disturbing that we want to just discriminate against what people want to do with their lives. What kind of society would we have if we only encouraged people to be scientists/business people? Do you really want to tell me that our culture doesn't need arts/humanities/social sciences?
On April 18 2012 11:51 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I say this as a student expecting to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when I graduate.
This will be a HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUGE) blow to the income banks make from student loans. This fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
Right, the problem is people are taking on loans way larger than they should be and then when they come out of college and see 30k-100k in dead they wring their hands and go "wtf where did all this come from? It's not even a jab at poor people or anything, I honestly think this is more prevalent among middle class people who simply don't bother to plan or to think about their future and it's not only ignorant but inexcusable. Most poor people know they're not going to be able to afford it anyways so they don't apply.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
I don't like this Abraham Lincoln guy. My parents were slaves to the white men and they never got freed. Now why should I be emancipated? Balderdash.
I really hope my rhetoric is understood here so I don't get banned for promoting slavery or something O_o
On topic: I think this is really cool. As a student, this sounds really nice because it guarantees that I will only be in debt for ten years. I plan to become a high school teacher, so I will be paying off loans for many more than ten years I expect.
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
I'll just quote it.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
Right, the problem is people are taking on loans way larger than they should be and then when they come out of college and see 30k-100k in dead they wring their hands and go "wtf where did all this come from? It's not even a jab at poor people or anything, I honestly think this is more prevalent among middle class people who simply don't bother to plan or to think about their future and it's not only ignorant but inexcusable. Most poor people know they're not going to be able to afford it anyways so they don't apply.
Who is giving them money? People who will get paid regardless.
But you are right. Totally inexcusable for people to take out loans when everyone around them is telling them that that's the best way for them to get ahead in life, and everyone ahead of them is having a great time in college and seemingly doing ok when they graduate.
Fast forward to 2009 and the jobs are gone, unemployment is skyrocketing. But the middle class people should have foreseen that.
At least the lenders are still going to get their money.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Because many died from cancer already, if they discover the cure, they shouldnt use it because of those that already died of cancer?
You should be happy for the ones that will be beneficiated with that.
Its like when ppl buy a game and 2 years later, the price goes on offer for $5 and then they complain how they paid the full price of the item
I wonder what the mindset of becoming a millionaire is doing here. Why does everyone want a job that makes you 6 digits? After working and saving money for 5 years I'll be attending a college for a degree that will cost me 15k. I'll be able to pay it all up front. Normally the most money ill be able to make with the degree will be around 50 to 60k a year, but it's perfectly acceptable to me and I'll be living a life i love. Are most of these college loans taken with the thought of "I must attend a good 4 year college to get a decent job" or "I gotta attend a good 4 year college to get my degree to get rich"?
Issues with money are all pretty sad to be honest =( and I can understand both sides of the argument.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
Sadly, this is a price you pay for being stupid. There are consequences for things in the real world. Would you do relentless research before buying a house or car worth over $100k? I sure would. Research would tell you that law degrees are mostly for suckers in that they generally get you low paying jobs with long hours. Unless you're going to a top tier school or know someone, it is a horrible investment. I'm speaking from experience here. I thought long and hard about it. I decided not to go to law school for these very reasons. Even today at the school I go to, everyone wants to go to law school. I always want to burst their bubble, but I know they won't listen. I guess the real problem could be said that law schools should stop propagating the myth, but if people jump relatively blindly into debt... whose fault is that?
I think ultimately expecting people to simply wise up is a poor one when there's been a decades long push for everyone to attend college that won't easily be reversed. What ultimately needs to happen is that student loans need to become far less available and accessible to students. I think some active discrimination needs to happen as well; your ability to procure loans ought to be based directly off your prospects of actually graduating and finding employment in your field of study. So the communications major in the fraternity with a 2.2 gpa simply doesn't have the same access to the same loans a kid in a nursing program with a 3.8 does. Right now I bet you could make the argument that those of lesser academic merit/employment marketability are actually more likely to take out loans because they're less likely to get merit based financial aid.
I really doubt you could, and that's fairly insulting to make that suggestion. Also, I find it highly disturbing that we want to just discriminate against what people want to do with their lives. What kind of society would we have if we only encouraged people to be scientists/business people? Do you really want to tell me that our culture doesn't need arts/humanities/social sciences?
of course we need arts/humanities/social sciences. Do we need them as badly as scientists/medical practitioners/engineers? Hell no. Do those arts/humanities folks need specific instruction from highly trained professionals with graduate degrees to the same extent as the scientists? Of course not. Is it worth creating a debt crisis so that they are able to receive that instruction? I would argue no.
When you give out a loan in any other capacity, discriminating based on what will be done with that money is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO to determine whether or not it will be a profitable loan. Denying a loan that will go toward a half-assed education in a largely extraneous field isn't discriminatory or mean-spirited; it seems entirely rational. Besides, its not as if the liberal arts buildings across America will simply close their doors; it would just be a lot more difficult to coast by and get an "easy" degree in college with borrowed money.
On April 18 2012 11:51 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I say this as a student expecting to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when I graduate.
This will be a HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUGE) blow to the income banks make from student loans. This fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Bad plan.
sarcasm? or just not going to a good school? banks no longer make money of school loans... that stopped 2 years ago? im not sure when Obama signed that bill but now its just the gov that makes the cash. Also how is graduating students not being drowned in debt a good thing? a debt forgiveness program is a great idea, i really like the part where the public service clause is cut in half; all you have to do is give back by teaching for 5 years and the debt is forgiven!
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
I'll just quote it.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
Right, the problem is people are taking on loans way larger than they should be and then when they come out of college and see 30k-100k in dead they wring their hands and go "wtf where did all this come from? It's not even a jab at poor people or anything, I honestly think this is more prevalent among middle class people who simply don't bother to plan or to think about their future and it's not only ignorant but inexcusable. Most poor people know they're not going to be able to afford it anyways so they don't apply.
Who is giving them money? People who will get paid regardless.
But you are right. Totally inexcusable for people to take out loans when everyone around them is telling them that that's the best way for them to get ahead in life, and everyone ahead of them is having a great time in college and seemingly doing ok when they graduate.
Fast forward to 2009 and the jobs are gone, unemployment is skyrocketing. But the middle class people should have foreseen that.
At least the lenders are still going to get their money.
There's nothing wrong with taking out loans, you just have to be reasonable about it. No one is saying "go put yourself massively in debt" and it's ridiculous to think that just because someone says something you should do it. That's one of the hugest problems with America (both liberals and conservatives), most of the time people just listen to ramblings and do exactly what they say without doing their own research.
And no, I'm not saying they should have foreseen it; I'm saying they shouldn't have been reckless. My parents lost a lot of money in the 2007-8 crash and now I'm not going to anywhere near the college of my choice, but oh well. Actions have consequences and some people need to realize that. Political and economic apathy in this country is absolutely retarded and it's never going to go away if we keep propping it up.
You do realize the "lender" in this case is the Federal Government right? And you do realize how deep in debt it is right now? But sure, just keep piling it on. Wonder how we'll all do when it suffers
Also, I find it highly disturbing that we want to just discriminate against what people want to do with their lives.
There's a lot of areas in which society discriminates against "what certain people want to do with their lives."
I hardly see how "not financially enabling" X behavior translates to "discriminating against" X behavior, at least not if you want to make the term "discriminating against" meaningful at all.
If no one will even pay you to use the skills you've learned, those skills are not useful to society.
I'm sure internet commenter of renown Stratos_Spear knows a lot more about the intrinsic worth of professions than society's employers.
On April 18 2012 12:20 politik wrote: And no. If no one will even pay you to use the skills you've learned, those skills are not useful to societyprofitable for major corporations.
On April 18 2012 12:14 beatitudes wrote: I wonder what the mindset of becoming a millionaire is doing here. Why does everyone want a job that makes you 6 digits? After working and saving money for 5 years I'll be attending a college for a degree that will cost me 15k. I'll be able to pay it all up front. Normally the most money ill be able to make with the degree will be around 50 to 60k a year, but it's perfectly acceptable to me and I'll be living a life i love. Are most of these college loans taken with the thought of "I must attend a good 4 year college to get a decent job" or "I gotta attend a good 4 year college to get my degree to get rich"?
Issues with money are all pretty sad to be honest =( and I can understand both sides of the argument.
What you are hinting towards is definitely part of the issue. People are reaching beyond their capabilities. There are many causes for this, but the fact is that many people have inflated senses of self worth. We all wanted to be something amazing like a fighter pilot or rock star as a kid, but eventually we come to the realization of what we are actually capable of. There's too much "you can be anything you want to be" passed around. We also celebrate everyone going to college, even when it's obvious to everyone else it's a fruitless endeavor for the person. Every issue in the world could be solved by a parents tough love, which seems to be disappearing.
I joined the military out of high school, mainly because my parents used a bit of tough love on me by not obtaining an easily obtainable scholarship. It was get some job I didn't want to do, or give the military a chance. I gave the military a chance, gained a ton of experience. Now that I appreciate school, I am one semester away from my BA with a 3.99 GPA. The degree coupled with my experience gaurantees a six figure job in the DC area. If I wasn't given a bit of tough love, I would have undoubtedly taken out school loans straight out of high school and floundered in college. I wouldn't have graduated and I would be loaded with debt.
Since we all know you can't expect parents to do their job, the government must step in. This bill is obviously not the solution, but I guess it's good that it's drumming up a lot of discussion and bringing attention to the fact that the system is indeed broken.
On April 18 2012 11:51 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I say this as a student expecting to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when I graduate.
This will be a HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUGE) blow to the income banks make from student loans. This fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Bad plan.
ooooorrrr the government elects NOT to force the institutions to offer student loans. Then student loan availability becomes greatly diminished. Colleges experience dramatically falling enrollment and are forced to downsize their outrageous budgets and rectify their bureaucratic habits. People who aren't a good fit for college stop attending from being unable to attain funding, and the total student loan debt in America has become much smaller, back under control, and no longer growing at outrageous and unsustainable rates.
On April 18 2012 12:20 politik wrote: Terrible idea. America will have ten million philosophers and sociologists and no one to do actual jobs that contribute to society.
And no. If no one will even pay you to use the skills you've learned, those skills are not useful to society.
you sir.... oh sir i don't know how to respond to you.... first off those skills are very useful to society, just because you dont see them every day does not mean things are not useful. Secondly someone posted early in this thread that only 14% of all college graduates have a liberal arts degree, over 50% of graduates have a business / STEM degree, not all of these people get jobs and many of them have huge amounts of debt. This idea that if education was free(or had no consequences for a low paying major) everyone would just get a shitty education is bullshit, not everyone can do a 9-5 job where they crunch numbers and contribute nothing to the world. If you ask me the people who are useless in society are the people who sit in a cubical and can be replaced at a moments notice with someone else who can do the same thing they did in the exact same way.
On April 18 2012 11:51 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I say this as a student expecting to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when I graduate.
This will be a HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUGE) blow to the income banks make from student loans. This fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Bad plan.
ooooorrrr the government elects NOT to force the institutions to offer student loans. Then student loan availability becomes greatly diminished. Colleges experience dramatically falling enrollment and are forced to downsize their outrageous budgets and rectify their bureaucratic habits. People who aren't a good fit for college stop attending from being unable to attain funding, and the total student loan debt in America has become much smaller, back under control, and no longer growing at outrageous and unsustainable rates.
Just food for thought.
this also leads to a largely uneducated working class..... we have that before and it didnt turn out to well for the working class
Some people will attend an expensive school (~$40-50k / year) for 4 to 5 years to get a liberal arts degree which will net them a job that will only pay $30-40kish / year. After 10 years of paying 10% of their discretionary income (roughly 10-15k), they will get their entire loans paid off at my (and other taxpayer's) expense.
On April 18 2012 11:51 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I say this as a student expecting to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt when I graduate.
This will be a HUGE (HUUUUUUUUUUGE) blow to the income banks make from student loans. This fucks with the economy and would likely result in either HUGE increases in interest rates across all loans to make up for the loss, or the lack of offering student loans in the first place (which in turn would cause the government to force them to offer them which would in turn force the first issue, which would in turn cause the government to mandate lower interest rates which would in turn drive banks out of business which would in turn ruin jobs and make it so NO ONE can afford to go to college which would in turn make private universities go bankrupt which would in turn force government subsidy of public university... you know what, you get the picture, go read Atlas Shrugged if you want the whole story.)
Bad plan.
ooooorrrr the government elects NOT to force the institutions to offer student loans. Then student loan availability becomes greatly diminished. Colleges experience dramatically falling enrollment and are forced to downsize their outrageous budgets and rectify their bureaucratic habits. People who aren't a good fit for college stop attending from being unable to attain funding, and the total student loan debt in America has become much smaller, back under control, and no longer growing at outrageous and unsustainable rates.
Just food for thought.
this also leads to a largely uneducated working class..... we have that before and it didnt turn out to well for the working class
just food for thought
Is that so bad though? Many working class people go and get 4 years of university education then go straight back to working class jobs. (I consider myself in this group)
Is the education for its own sake absent improved job prospects really worth the opportunity costs and money? From personal experience I would argue no, but I guess philosophically I can see the flip side.
From a selfless stand point I'll say this isn't the best idea, I simply see too many people everyday that should not be in college at all, but have rich parents that force them there just to sit and be an "english major" or something so they can talk about their awesome college student at their Sunday outings. On the other hand, I can look at it from the selfish fact that I'm graduating in half a month with a bio degree and wouldn't mind some debt taken away :p
On April 18 2012 12:20 politik wrote: Terrible idea. America will have ten million philosophers and sociologists and no one to do actual jobs that contribute to society.
And no. If no one will even pay you to use the skills you've learned, those skills are not useful to society.
Obviously contribution to society is directly proportional to amount earned. I guess sports stars offer far more to society than police officers, firefighters, and teachers (combined).
I want smaller government, but man this is enticing. I've paid for school in cash until this semester. Due to an increase in tuition I needed to take a loan of 2.5k to cover spring and summer
If they lowered tuition back to what I paid in 2007-2009 then I'd be able to afford it without loans.
On April 18 2012 12:14 beatitudes wrote: I wonder what the mindset of becoming a millionaire is doing here. Why does everyone want a job that makes you 6 digits? After working and saving money for 5 years I'll be attending a college for a degree that will cost me 15k. I'll be able to pay it all up front. Normally the most money ill be able to make with the degree will be around 50 to 60k a year, but it's perfectly acceptable to me and I'll be living a life i love. Are most of these college loans taken with the thought of "I must attend a good 4 year college to get a decent job" or "I gotta attend a good 4 year college to get my degree to get rich"?
Issues with money are all pretty sad to be honest =( and I can understand both sides of the argument.
What you are hinting towards is definitely part of the issue. People are reaching beyond their capabilities. There are many causes for this, but the fact is that many people have inflated senses of self worth. We all wanted to be something amazing like a fighter pilot or rock star as a kid, but eventually we come to the realization of what we are actually capable of. There's too much "you can be anything you want to be" passed around. We also celebrate everyone going to college, even when it's obvious to everyone else it's a fruitless endeavor for the person. Every issue in the world could be solved by a parents tough love, which seems to be disappearing.
I joined the military out of high school, mainly because my parents used a bit of tough love on me by not obtaining an easily obtainable scholarship. It was get some job I didn't want to do, or give the military a chance. I gave the military a chance, gained a ton of experience. Now that I appreciate school, I am one semester away from my BA with a 3.99 GPA. The degree coupled with my experience gaurantees a six figure job in the DC area. If I wasn't given a bit of tough love, I would have undoubtedly taken out school loans straight out of high school and floundered in college. I wouldn't have graduated and I would be loaded with debt.
Since we all know you can't expect parents to do their job, the government must step in. This bill is obviously not the solution, but I guess it's good that it's drumming up a lot of discussion and bringing attention to the fact that the system is indeed broken.
I can certainly agree with you there. I have 6 brothers and sisters and all of us combined have under 15k of student loan debt. Much love for the quality parents who taught us how to go about things ^_^ <3
over 50% of graduates have a business / STEM degree, not all of these people get jobs and many of them have huge amounts of debt.
I can attest that there are certain STEM degrees in which an undergrad degree is not all that useful in terms of improving employment prospects. But, again, shouldn't the burden be on the consumer of education to realize that the product is not a good economic investment?
not everyone can do a 9-5 job where they crunch numbers and contribute nothing to the world. If you ask me the people who are useless in society are the people who sit in a cubical and can be replaced at a moments notice with someone else who can do the same thing they did in the exact same way.
Good god, there's enough illusory superiority in this thread to power an entire league of legends server.
"Look at these useless people that actually have work ethic, better that they spend other people's money getting sort-of/not really useful credentials, or do philosophizing that no one will pay for but is in fact, really useful to society."
I realize I'm not being perfectly fair with this characterization, but then again, neither are you.
As someone who recently graduated college, I'm willing to disclose that I'm roughly 80k in debt thanks to my student loans. And this was essentially for only 3 years at a state school (I went 4 years but my first year was more or less taken care of thanks to grants/scholarships). Since my parents were unable to assist me paying for school except for cosigning for my private loans, my situation currently lies like this:
3 Private loans totaling roughly $50k after they've been repaid, these loans are for 20 years 6-7 Government funded loans totaling roughly $30k after they've been repaid, these are for 10 years 1 Sallie Mae loan for ~$3800, pretty sure that's rated for 10 years as well.
Currently, I'm paying ~$700 per month just for my loans, which compared to what I'm making thanks to the job I wouldn't have gotten without going to college, I'd say it's manageable. Granted I'll be living with parents for the next few years trying to chip away as much as I can, but the fact of the matter is that student loans are pretty affordable with a decent paying job, and I personally fail to see how it can be so difficult that loans needs to be forgiven at all. On the one hand I can understand that if you're having trouble actually finding a job and can't pay, but that's about it.
In short: Loans shouldn't be forgiven. Don't sign off on checks you won't be able to cash. Yes the system currently in place is pretty ridiculous, but it's manageable and this bill doesn't seem to propose a solution that's needed or will be helpful in the long run.
over 50% of graduates have a business / STEM degree, not all of these people get jobs and many of them have huge amounts of debt.
But, again, shouldn't the burden be on the consumer of education to realize that the product is not a good economic investment?
Theoretically yes. But then consider that the government/public education is trying to coerce every student to go to college from the time they are 13. Young people are impressionable. Can you really expect rational consumer behavior from them based when these two things are in the way? Like I said before, most people aren't capable of meaningful introspection and critical self-assessment which further complicates things. Education is kind of an exceptional case in the market compared to how people view nearly every other good/service/long term investment.
over 50% of graduates have a business / STEM degree, not all of these people get jobs and many of them have huge amounts of debt.
I can attest that there are certain STEM degrees in which an undergrad degree is not all that useful in terms of improving employment prospects. But, again, shouldn't the burden be on the consumer of education to realize that the product is not a good economic investment?
not everyone can do a 9-5 job where they crunch numbers and contribute nothing to the world. If you ask me the people who are useless in society are the people who sit in a cubical and can be replaced at a moments notice with someone else who can do the same thing they did in the exact same way.
Good god, there's enough illusory superiority in this thread to power an entire league of legends server.
"Look at these useless people that actually have work ethic, better that they spend other people's money getting sort-of/not really useful credentials, or do philosophizing that no one will pay for but is in fact, really useful to society."
I realize I'm not being perfectly fair with this characterization, but then again, neither are you.
But the humanity majors have some of the highest employment rates out there. So why are you chastising them again?
On April 18 2012 12:41 Battleaxe wrote: As someone who recently graduated college, I'm willing to disclose that I'm roughly 80k in debt thanks to my student loans. And this was essentially for only 3 years at a state school (I went 4 years but my first year was more or less taken care of thanks to grants/scholarships). Since my parents were unable to assist me paying for school except for cosigning for my private loans, my situation currently lies like this:
3 Private loans totaling roughly $50k after they've been repaid, these loans are for 20 years 6-7 Government funded loans totaling roughly $30k after they've been repaid, these are for 10 years 1 Sallie Mae loan for ~$3800, pretty sure that's rated for 10 years as well.
Currently, I'm paying ~$700 per month just for my loans, which compared to what I'm making thanks to the job I wouldn't have gotten without going to college, I'd say it's manageable. Granted I'll be living with parents for the next few years trying to chip away as much as I can, but the fact of the matter is that student loans are pretty affordable with a decent paying job, and I personally fail to see how it can be so difficult that loans needs to be forgiven at all. On the one hand I can understand that if you're having trouble actually finding a job and can't pay, but that's about it.
In short: Loans shouldn't be forgiven. Don't sign off on checks you won't be able to cash. Yes the system currently in place is pretty ridiculous, but it's manageable and this bill doesn't seem to propose a solution that's needed or will be helpful in the long run.
People can't find jobs. Welcome to America in 2012.
$700/month of student loans is insane, just fyi. In our current society/education system/reality having that kind of debt is an impossible burden for most people. You're very smart to live at home (and fortunate that you can), but a lot of parents are dumb and or their kids so they can't.
My thoughts . If your going to undergrad and then four years of grad school and racking up 150-200k debt in order to get a job that pays under 50-60k a year. That is called poor planning, we should not reward poor planning. I mean that is just a stupid plan from start to finish.
Also a way to high percentage of the high school population is being funneled into the higher education system. People coming out of high school have no idea that you can make a very respectable living as a plumber, welder or finish carpenter. Trade schools are never mentioned by high schools as a possible next step for students coming out of high school.
Going from my roommates. The ones who received student loans and federal aid make the least effort to pay for their schooling out of pocket and find jobs in the summer.
Precisely. The government is very much guilty of making student loans overly accessible which got us into this mess in the first place. If the market for student loans were entirely free of government influence we'd be looking at a much different picture here.
The next bubble to pop will be the student loan bubble. The requirements to get one are way to low, similar to when the housing bubble burst.
over 50% of graduates have a business / STEM degree, not all of these people get jobs and many of them have huge amounts of debt.
I can attest that there are certain STEM degrees in which an undergrad degree is not all that useful in terms of improving employment prospects. But, again, shouldn't the burden be on the consumer of education to realize that the product is not a good economic investment?
not everyone can do a 9-5 job where they crunch numbers and contribute nothing to the world. If you ask me the people who are useless in society are the people who sit in a cubical and can be replaced at a moments notice with someone else who can do the same thing they did in the exact same way.
Good god, there's enough illusory superiority in this thread to power an entire league of legends server.
"Look at these useless people that actually have work ethic, better that they spend other people's money getting sort-of/not really useful credentials, or do philosophizing that no one will pay for but is in fact, really useful to society."
I realize I'm not being perfectly fair with this characterization, but then again, neither are you.
But the humanity majors have some of the highest employment rates out there. So why are you chastising them again?
I'm not even attacking humanities majors, I'm taking issue with the idea that somehow its objectively better to have a skillset which no one will pay for, but involves deep thinking or something, than to actually take a job in which one is 'easily replaceable'.
He uses the term 'useless in society' to describe the latter, so this isn't just me making shit up.
Whether the humanities fall under the category of "skillset no one will pay for" is kind of independent of the point I was trying to make there.
On April 18 2012 12:45 liberal wrote: If the market for student loans wasn't completely broken by government regulation, then regulation like this wouldn't even be necessary.
They act like they are solving the problems which they created instead of creating additional problems.
The sad thing is the public buys it all. I'm losing more hope for the future on a daily basis.
Precisely. The government is very much guilty of making student loans overly accessible which got us into this mess in the first place. If the market for student loans were entirely free of government influence we'd be looking at a much different picture here.
over 50% of graduates have a business / STEM degree, not all of these people get jobs and many of them have huge amounts of debt.
I can attest that there are certain STEM degrees in which an undergrad degree is not all that useful in terms of improving employment prospects. But, again, shouldn't the burden be on the consumer of education to realize that the product is not a good economic investment?
not everyone can do a 9-5 job where they crunch numbers and contribute nothing to the world. If you ask me the people who are useless in society are the people who sit in a cubical and can be replaced at a moments notice with someone else who can do the same thing they did in the exact same way.
Good god, there's enough illusory superiority in this thread to power an entire league of legends server.
"Look at these useless people that actually have work ethic, better that they spend other people's money getting sort-of/not really useful credentials, or do philosophizing that no one will pay for but is in fact, really useful to society."
I realize I'm not being perfectly fair with this characterization, but then again, neither are you.
But the humanity majors have some of the highest employment rates out there. So why are you chastising them again?
I'm not even attacking humanities majors, I'm taking issue with the idea that somehow its objectively better to have a skillset which no one will pay for, but involves deep thinking or something, than to actually take a job in which one is 'easily replaceable'.
He uses the terms 'useless in society' to describe the latter, so this isn't just me making shit up.
Whether the humanities fall under the category of "skillset no one will pay for" is kind of independent of the point I was trying to make there.
On April 18 2012 12:20 politik wrote: And no. If no one will even pay you to use the skills you've learned, those skills are not useful to societyprofitable for major corporations.
You're right, there is plenty of good you can do with a "financially useless" degree. Many people have accomplished great things, and have improved the lives of many.
The thing you have to understand is that, well, there are 23409823409823094 other people with the same degree as you, and most of them are probably smarter. Chances are exorbitantly high that you will never accomplish anything that hundreds of others can do just as well.
This is the reason tuition is so high in the first place. Everyone is taught to believe they are a special snowflake, and can be successful just doing what they love. Unfortunately, in most cases this is subjectively false.
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
I'll just quote it.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
Right, the problem is people are taking on loans way larger than they should be and then when they come out of college and see 30k-100k in dead they wring their hands and go "wtf where did all this come from? It's not even a jab at poor people or anything, I honestly think this is more prevalent among middle class people who simply don't bother to plan or to think about their future and it's not only ignorant but inexcusable. Most poor people know they're not going to be able to afford it anyways so they don't apply.
Who is giving them money? People who will get paid regardless.
But you are right. Totally inexcusable for people to take out loans when everyone around them is telling them that that's the best way for them to get ahead in life, and everyone ahead of them is having a great time in college and seemingly doing ok when they graduate.
Fast forward to 2009 and the jobs are gone, unemployment is skyrocketing. But the middle class people should have foreseen that.
At least the lenders are still going to get their money.
There's nothing wrong with taking out loans, you just have to be reasonable about it. No one is saying "go put yourself massively in debt" and it's ridiculous to think that just because someone says something you should do it. That's one of the hugest problems with America (both liberals and conservatives), most of the time people just listen to ramblings and do exactly what they say without doing their own research.
And no, I'm not saying they should have foreseen it; I'm saying they shouldn't have been reckless. My parents lost a lot of money in the 2007-8 crash and now I'm not going to anywhere near the college of my choice, but oh well. Actions have consequences and some people need to realize that. Political and economic apathy in this country is absolutely retarded and it's never going to go away if we keep propping it up.
You do realize the "lender" in this case is the Federal Government right? And you do realize how deep in debt it is right now? But sure, just keep piling it on. Wonder how we'll all do when it suffers
You do realize that hundreds of billions of dollars that the federal government guaranteed are going to lenders who directly lent to students in the middle of the massive education bubble right? It may be true that going forward the government is directly lending to many students, but hundreds of billions of dollars are still owed to private lenders who are making free money on bad loans to students.
I really don't understand why people are so quick to judge and condemn their neighbors, the everyday citizens of this country, while not pointing any fingers at the banks, capital holders, lobbyists, and financial industry that is profiting off of these bubbles by bribing the government with campaign contributions. And then when someone in Congress tries to actually stimulate the economy and help out the victims of predatory lending and corrupt industries, people are so quick to deny that aid. No one is arguing that the education industry is fine as is, or that lending and runaway tuition costs should keep going up. What sane people are saying is that this bill is a step in the right direction, people need to get out from under their massive debt, and if we don't help the younger generation in some way, we are going to have an entire cohort of people trapped under mountains of debt, with little work experience, no history of high salary or wages, and little hope for the future.
Whoever supports this bill has no honor (said in Splinter TMNT live action movie voice).
You fulfill your obligations. If you disagree with the ridiculously high tuition and costs in the higher education sector, I plead with you to reconsider your support of subsidies (which up tuition) and the notion that an infinite amount of money should be spent on education. There used to be a high ratio of teachers to administrators. Now the ratio is nearly even, because people want to mooch off the system as a bureaucrat with ridiculous, unsustainable benefits and pensions. Also please realize the philosophy of those involved in such activities and reconsider its validity.
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
I'll just quote it.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
Right, the problem is people are taking on loans way larger than they should be and then when they come out of college and see 30k-100k in dead they wring their hands and go "wtf where did all this come from? It's not even a jab at poor people or anything, I honestly think this is more prevalent among middle class people who simply don't bother to plan or to think about their future and it's not only ignorant but inexcusable. Most poor people know they're not going to be able to afford it anyways so they don't apply.
Who is giving them money? People who will get paid regardless.
But you are right. Totally inexcusable for people to take out loans when everyone around them is telling them that that's the best way for them to get ahead in life, and everyone ahead of them is having a great time in college and seemingly doing ok when they graduate.
Fast forward to 2009 and the jobs are gone, unemployment is skyrocketing. But the middle class people should have foreseen that.
At least the lenders are still going to get their money.
There's nothing wrong with taking out loans, you just have to be reasonable about it. No one is saying "go put yourself massively in debt" and it's ridiculous to think that just because someone says something you should do it. That's one of the hugest problems with America (both liberals and conservatives), most of the time people just listen to ramblings and do exactly what they say without doing their own research.
And no, I'm not saying they should have foreseen it; I'm saying they shouldn't have been reckless. My parents lost a lot of money in the 2007-8 crash and now I'm not going to anywhere near the college of my choice, but oh well. Actions have consequences and some people need to realize that. Political and economic apathy in this country is absolutely retarded and it's never going to go away if we keep propping it up.
You do realize the "lender" in this case is the Federal Government right? And you do realize how deep in debt it is right now? But sure, just keep piling it on. Wonder how we'll all do when it suffers
You do realize that hundreds of billions of dollars that the federal government guaranteed are going to lenders who directly lent to students in the middle of the massive education bubble right? It may be true that going forward the government is directly lending to many students, but hundreds of billions of dollars are still owed to private lenders who are making free money on bad loans to students.
I really don't understand why people are so quick to judge and condemn their neighbors, the everyday citizens of this country, while not pointing any fingers at the banks, capital holders, lobbyists, and financial industry that is profiting off of these bubbles by bribing the government with campaign contributions. And then when someone in Congress tries to actually stimulate the economy and help out the victims of predatory lending and corrupt industries, people are so quick to deny that aid. No one is arguing that the education industry is fine as is, or that lending and runaway tuition costs should keep going up. What sane people are saying is that this bill is a step in the right direction, people need to get out from under their massive debt, and if we don't help the younger generation in some way, we are going to have an entire cohort of people trapped under mountains of debt, with little work experience, no history of high salary or wages, and little hope for the future.
Then shouldn't we be harping on the federal government for doing that? The lenders want to make money, but the federal government "should" be trying to help people get through college.
I'm pretty sure hate is directed plentily at the big banks/corps/etc. It's all over the media and everyone says it, from both sides of the spectrum. And well they certainly are a problem, one of the biggest reasons they are a problem is because of how stupid some consumers/people can be. Smacking down the corporations might help a little, but if people are still going to make retarded choices, then the problem is never going to end. And no, this bill is not a step in the right direction. It's a bandaid fix on a severed arm that will probably tear off. It might help a bit right now, but it's not going to in the long run and it just gives people an incentive to be even more lax/risky/etc. There needs to be a clear redesignment of the college (or education overall) system in general, not just little things like this because they really aren't going to help. This is just a vote grabber at heart and it really pisses me off.
On April 18 2012 12:44 feanor1 wrote: My thoughts . If your going to undergrad and then four years of grad school and racking up 150-200k debt in order to get a job that pays under 50-60k a year. That is called poor planning, we should not reward poor planning. I mean that is just a stupid plan from start to finish.
Also a way to high percentage of the high school population is being funneled into the higher education system. People coming out of high school have no idea that you can make a very respectable living as a plumber, welder or finish carpenter. Trade schools are never mentioned by high schools as a possible next step for students coming out of high school.
Going from my roommates. The ones who received student loans and federal aid make the least effort to pay for their schooling out of pocket and find jobs in the summer.
Precisely. The government is very much guilty of making student loans overly accessible which got us into this mess in the first place. If the market for student loans were entirely free of government influence we'd be looking at a much different picture here.
The next bubble to pop will be the student loan bubble. The requirements to get one are way to low, similar to when the housing bubble burst.
This is why I am thankful to have gone to a good high school where after you pass a class on Industrial Safety, you are allowed to sign up for vocational classes like automotives, construction which branches into specific trades like plumbing & electrical. You also have a Metals class where you can get into sheet metal work, welding, or machinery like lathes, etc.
More high schools should do this and tell students "hey, if you don't want to go to college you can learn a trade instead, often getting paid while you learn and you end up making pretty good money for the time you put into it."
Society seems to put a stigma on them when in reality they are a far better choice in terms of the cost and job opportunities for most people. I think they should implement it into more high schools out there and give students some idea of what those jobs are like, and they can decide for themselves.
On April 18 2012 11:56 Millitron wrote: The real student loan problem is that not all degrees have opportunities for employment, so the people who took those degrees are stuck in thousands of dollars in debt, and are only qualified to work at McDonald's.
I don't mean to sound mean here, but what could they possibly expect when they signed up for some liberal art major? In all seriousness, what job can someone get with a degree in something like Shakespearean Drama or Classical Scuplture? I don't see many places hiring playwrights or sculptors these days.
I'm aware that this isn't the whole problem, and plenty of people with practical degrees get stuck too, but that can be solved by bigger and more frequent scholarships, without needing outlandish laws.
Read a few pages back. That isn't even close to the real problem.
I'll just quote it.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, humanities majors account for about 12 percent of recent graduates, and art history majors are so rare they’re lost in the noise. They account for less than 0.2 percent of working adults with college degrees, a number that is probably about right for recent graduates, too. Yet somehow art history has become the go-to example for people bemoaning the state of higher education.
A longtime acquaintance perfectly captured the dominant Internet memes in an e-mail he sent me after my last column, which was on rising tuitions. “Many people that go to college lack the smarts and/or the tenacity to benefit in any real sense,” he wrote. “Many of these people would be much better off becoming plumbers -- including financially. (No shame in that, who’re you gonna call when your pipes freeze in the middle of the night? An M.A. in Italian art?)”
While government subsidies may indeed distort the choice to go to college in the first place, it’s simply not the case that students are blissfully ignoring the job market in choosing majors. Contrary to what critics imagine, most Americans in fact go to college for what they believe to be “skill-based education.”
A quarter of them study business, by far the most popular field, and 16 percent major in one of the so-called Stem (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Throw in economics, and you have nearly half of all graduates studying the only subjects such contemptuous pundits recognize as respectable.
The rest, however, aren’t sitting around discussing Aristotle and Foucault.
Most are studying things that sound like job preparation, including all sorts of subjects related to health and education. Even the degree with the highest rate of unemployment -- architecture, whose 13.9 percent jobless rate reflects the current construction bust -- is a pre-professional major. Diversity of Jobs
The students who come out of school without jobs aren’t, for the most part, starry-eyed liberal arts majors but rather people who thought a degree in business, graphic design or nursing was a practical, job-oriented credential. Even the latest target of Internet mockery, a young woman the New York Times recently described as studying for a master’s in communication with hopes of doing public relations for a nonprofit, is in what she perceives as a job-training program.
The higher-education system does have real problems, including rising tuition prices that may not pay off in higher earnings. But those problems won’t be solved by assuming that if American students would just stop studying stupid subjects like philosophy and art history and buckle down and major in petroleum engineering (the highest-paid major), the economy would flourish and everyone would have lucrative careers.
Funny side note: Philosophy/history majors end up with some of the highest employment rates after graduation.
Right, the problem is people are taking on loans way larger than they should be and then when they come out of college and see 30k-100k in dead they wring their hands and go "wtf where did all this come from? It's not even a jab at poor people or anything, I honestly think this is more prevalent among middle class people who simply don't bother to plan or to think about their future and it's not only ignorant but inexcusable. Most poor people know they're not going to be able to afford it anyways so they don't apply.
Who is giving them money? People who will get paid regardless.
But you are right. Totally inexcusable for people to take out loans when everyone around them is telling them that that's the best way for them to get ahead in life, and everyone ahead of them is having a great time in college and seemingly doing ok when they graduate.
Fast forward to 2009 and the jobs are gone, unemployment is skyrocketing. But the middle class people should have foreseen that.
At least the lenders are still going to get their money.
There's nothing wrong with taking out loans, you just have to be reasonable about it. No one is saying "go put yourself massively in debt" and it's ridiculous to think that just because someone says something you should do it. That's one of the hugest problems with America (both liberals and conservatives), most of the time people just listen to ramblings and do exactly what they say without doing their own research.
And no, I'm not saying they should have foreseen it; I'm saying they shouldn't have been reckless. My parents lost a lot of money in the 2007-8 crash and now I'm not going to anywhere near the college of my choice, but oh well. Actions have consequences and some people need to realize that. Political and economic apathy in this country is absolutely retarded and it's never going to go away if we keep propping it up.
You do realize the "lender" in this case is the Federal Government right? And you do realize how deep in debt it is right now? But sure, just keep piling it on. Wonder how we'll all do when it suffers
You do realize that hundreds of billions of dollars that the federal government guaranteed are going to lenders who directly lent to students in the middle of the massive education bubble right? It may be true that going forward the government is directly lending to many students, but hundreds of billions of dollars are still owed to private lenders who are making free money on bad loans to students.
I really don't understand why people are so quick to judge and condemn their neighbors, the everyday citizens of this country, while not pointing any fingers at the banks, capital holders, lobbyists, and financial industry that is profiting off of these bubbles by bribing the government with campaign contributions. And then when someone in Congress tries to actually stimulate the economy and help out the victims of predatory lending and corrupt industries, people are so quick to deny that aid. No one is arguing that the education industry is fine as is, or that lending and runaway tuition costs should keep going up. What sane people are saying is that this bill is a step in the right direction, people need to get out from under their massive debt, and if we don't help the younger generation in some way, we are going to have an entire cohort of people trapped under mountains of debt, with little work experience, no history of high salary or wages, and little hope for the future.
Then shouldn't we be harping on the federal government for doing that? The lenders want to make money, but the federal government "should" be trying to help people get through college.
I'm pretty sure hate is directed plentily at the big banks/corps/etc. It's all over the media and everyone says it, from both sides of the spectrum. And well they certainly are a problem, one of the biggest reasons they are a problem is because of how stupid some consumers/people can be. Smacking down the corporations might help a little, but if people are still going to make retarded choices, then the problem is never going to end. And no, this bill is not a step in the right direction. It's a bandaid fix on a severed arm that will probably tear off. It might help a bit right now, but it's not going to in the long run and it just gives people an incentive to be even more lax/risky/etc. There needs to be a clear redesignment of the college (or education overall) system in general, not just little things like this because they really aren't going to help. This is just a vote grabber at heart and it really pisses me off.
Problem even in health care today. They just want our votes, so they provide them band-aid solutions to keep us happy for a little bit while never getting to the root of the problem (for the long term) because that kind of action usually is not a big vote-winning thing. In the end its all money, all that big corp lobbyist bs etc. Basically government doesn't REALLY stand for the people anymore, hence why i wouldn't even think about unloading a child into this world of shit.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
Our goal as a society should be to make education as accessible as possible for everyone, not harder. There has to be a better way to do it than making loans harder to obtain -_-.
Yes, it's called decreasing the price of the service. In order to do that you have to get rid of Government loans, and guaranteed loans. You also need to make student debt (loans) servicable through bankruptcy like every other loan. Ending subsidies to Universities would help also, as well as loosening / ending the stringent licensure and permit regime.
You want to make services accessible? Reduce the prices (Hint: that doesn't mean price/wage controls FYI).
I feel really stupid for coming to university when lectures are online for free. Though I wouldn't get that piece of paper and I'd probably never self study :p
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
Our goal as a society should be to make education as accessible as possible for everyone, not harder. There has to be a better way to do it than making loans harder to obtain -_-.
Yes, it's called decreasing the price of the service. In order to do that you have to get rid of Government loans, and guaranteed loans. You also need to make student debt (loans) servicable through bankruptcy like every other loan. Ending subsidies to Universities would help also, as well as loosening / ending the stringent licensure and permit regime.
You want to make services accessible? Reduce the prices (Hint: that doesn't mean price/wage controls FYI).
your post just made me think of something. if the government forgives all of the student loans without penalty then its kind of committing a fraud on the financial industry unless they are required to disclose it. these individuals should have pretty shitty credit scores if they are basically defaulting on such a huge loan. the financial industry needs to know about it. if i were a bank, i wouldnt want to give a loan to someone who couldnt pay back their student loans.
On April 18 2012 13:14 fish ()( wrote: Don't like it those in the past have found a way to pay for college, why can't we?
a.) Tuition is much more expensive these days. In the last year alone, my school increased cost of attendance by $7k, no joke. It increased the year before that, but the exact figure escapes me. (Luckily, it more than compensated by giving me a bigger fin. aid package even though my parents' income also went up. In my home state also, a state-wide, four-year scholarship got cut significantly when they raised the minimum GPA required for scholarship renewal.)
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
Our goal as a society should be to make education as accessible as possible for everyone, not harder. There has to be a better way to do it than making loans harder to obtain -_-.
Yes, it's called decreasing the price of the service. In order to do that you have to get rid of Government loans, and guaranteed loans. You also need to make student debt (loans) servicable through bankruptcy like every other loan. Ending subsidies to Universities would help also, as well as loosening / ending the stringent licensure and permit regime.
You want to make services accessible? Reduce the prices (Hint: that doesn't mean price/wage controls FYI).
On April 18 2012 13:14 fish ()( wrote: Don't like it those in the past have found a way to pay for college, why can't we?
Tuition fees were also much less (even adjusted for inflation) in the past. Not exactly the same situation.
Not only that, but culture treated college differently. It was accepted that a large number of people would find applicable skills outside of college, and still gain decent employment.
Over the past few decades, college has become a defacto "requirement" for anyone to make an even semi-livable wage. We've turned colleges into our entire society's litmus test. As a result, tuition has obviously been raised, and more people are going through college than the job market has demand for...
Lot of reasons to support bills like the one proposed in the OP.
The people against this bill seem to argue semantically or very rhetorically. "Oh, my parents didn't need this." None of that matters --- the ONLY thing that should matter is if the bill would have a positive effect on society TODAY. Look at it with pragmatism, not ideology.
the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
please no no no no. college are becoming a joke. This only helps those too incompetent or lazy to not be able to pay off their loans. Not everyone HAS to go spend 4-5 years providing little to no contribution to society during the prime of their lives. Damn near anyone who actually spends that time learning will no doubt be able to pay off the loans they accrue.
I've wanted to post this for a few months now, but never really had the time for it. Anyways, last semester I was a freshman at the University of Arizona, majoring in Physics and Astronomy (basically the same thing for undergrad). Anyways, I was in charge of paying for my own way, and so I had about $3k in student loans for just the one semester. I was a fucking awful student, spent most of my time watching and playing SC2, and basically doing everything except for school-work. I fooled myself into thinking that I would pass all of my classes, but I just am not capable of passing 5 very difficult classes without putting in some work. I failed 3 classes, and during Christmas break, I told my parents that I wouldn't be able to return to University for the spring semester. Now I am enrolled in 3 classes at a community college and I'm working 20 hours a week at Pizza Hut. While this may not be the most ideal way to get into a field like Astronomy, I'm sure as hell going to have a shit-ton less debt than anyone else I know who's going straight through a 4 year institution. I'll also only be delayed by 6 months (in all likelihood), and I'll have real-world experience.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a 4 year institution is an idiot, it is simply to say that it is not for everyone. When I was in High School, all of my teachers and friends talked about Community Colleges as the place for people who failed their way through high school. What I actually see is more driven people, who are more likely to get a good job than the people who party their way to a Pottery degree at some 4 year university. Hell, I have a couple of family friends who work in the recycling industry, and they both say that someone who knows their shit is infinitely more likely to get a job with them than someone who has a degree. From what I hear, programming is even more severe with that trend. In short, there are alternatives to University, even for those who want an "Academic" career. If you go to a 4-year University, you should know that you will have to get a fairly good job to pay for the first two years that could be accomplished at community college for 1/5 the price.
On April 18 2012 13:46 TheAngryZergling wrote: please no no no no. college are becoming a joke. This only helps those too incompetent or lazy to not be able to pay off their loans. Not everyone HAS to go spend 4-5 years providing little to no contribution to society during the prime of their lives. Damn near anyone who actually spends that time learning will no doubt be able to pay off the loans they accrue.
On April 18 2012 13:14 fish ()( wrote: Don't like it those in the past have found a way to pay for college, why can't we?
1 it was cheaper then 2 it wasn't required in order to get a job that gave you a living wage back then.
Your second point is a terrible myth.
Actually he is right. Unless you consider that 90% of the US in 1960 were below the poverty line, which I would love to see your try and prove that proposition.
Check the graph on the second page. You didn't even need a HS diploma to be able to make a living in those days because the licensing and permit regime as well as the Corporate State wasn't as prevalent. You could learn a skill and make a decent wage without having to have a piece of paper that cost you 10 years wages.
On April 18 2012 13:46 TheAngryZergling wrote: please no no no no. college are becoming a joke. This only helps those too incompetent or lazy to not be able to pay off their loans. Not everyone HAS to go spend 4-5 years providing little to no contribution to society during the prime of their lives. Damn near anyone who actually spends that time learning will no doubt be able to pay off the loans they accrue.
On April 18 2012 13:38 polysciguy wrote:
On April 18 2012 13:14 fish ()( wrote: Don't like it those in the past have found a way to pay for college, why can't we?
1 it was cheaper then 2 it wasn't required in order to get a job that gave you a living wage back then.
Your second point is a terrible myth.
Actually he is right. Unless you consider that 90% of the US in 1960 were below the poverty line, which I would love to see your try and prove that proposition.
Check the graph on the second page. You didn't even need a HS diploma to be able to make a living in those days because the licensing and permit regime as well as the Corporate State wasn't as prevalent. You could learn a skill and make a decent wage without having to have a piece of paper that cost you 10 years wages.
There is a world of difference between being helpful and being required.
On April 18 2012 13:37 kuzyk wrote: the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
Are you aware of anyone actually doing option 2 successfully? Also, your example is comparing a private university to a public university, your argument holds even less water. Why not adjust your numbers to use the same school in 2 vs 4 years?
the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at private university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, $72640 final total $78440
difference of: $66840, not 100k
Going back to my above point, many students that transfer from community college don't get credit for most of the classes they take during that time to actually count toward anything, especially if you're undeclared in community college. This is going to incur even most cost for having to make up the credit.
I would love it if I could just give up my responsibilities and get a free education that someone had to pay for under the current system, but the fact is someone paid for it and I can't just back out of that commitment. As for welcome to America 2012, I found a job in one month, in my area, that was temp to hire, and ended up being hired. If that didn't work out, I had a multitude of other listings I found just by using monster.com and careerbuilder.com ffs. Now I know geography comes into play but as I mentioned, I was able to find many opportunities within a 20 mile radius.
education is by far an overlooked problem in the U.S. A B.S. degrees is almost worthless, go to school for about 10 hours a week and pay 20k a semester. Real Joke. Atleast for me, after finishing medical school and struggling for a few years I know I will be able to pay back all of my loans without much trouble. That sort of security doesnt exist for many fields, and it really is troublesome. It is almost at the point where going to college might not even be worth it for many.
On April 18 2012 13:37 kuzyk wrote: the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
Are you aware of anyone actually doing option 2 successfully? Also, your example is comparing a private university to a public university, your argument holds even less water. Why not adjust your numbers to use the same school in 2 vs 4 years?
Yes. My younger brother went to a local community college, got a low end engineering job right away out of an internship started during his final semester. Guess what, after he was a proven commodity to his company they immediately sent him back to get more education on their dime because he had proved his value. EZ PZ.
On April 18 2012 13:37 kuzyk wrote: the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
Are you aware of anyone actually doing option 2 successfully? Also, your example is comparing a private university to a public university, your argument holds even less water. Why not adjust your numbers to use the same school in 2 vs 4 years?
Yes. My younger brother went to a local community college, got a low end engineering job right away out of an internship started during his final semester. Guess what, after he was a proven commodity to his company they immediately sent him back to get more education on their dime because he had proved his value. EZ PZ.
community college is almost never a bad choice, if you get good grades and transfer and maintain a solid gpa, it really doesnt matter if you went for a full 4 years to a uni.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Assuming your parents had public education, they probably paid 1/10 of what students pay today.
On April 18 2012 13:37 kuzyk wrote: the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
Are you aware of anyone actually doing option 2 successfully? Also, your example is comparing a private university to a public university, your argument holds even less water. Why not adjust your numbers to use the same school in 2 vs 4 years?
Yes. My younger brother went to a local community college, got a low end engineering job right away out of an internship started during his final semester. Guess what, after he was a proven commodity to his company they immediately sent him back to get more education on their dime because he had proved his value. EZ PZ.
community college is almost never a bad choice, if you get good grades and transfer and maintain a solid gpa, it really doesnt matter if you went for a full 4 years to a uni.
i agree with that, i made a huge mistake going to a university for 2 years, i didn't know that i would end up deciding against the major i was going for, huge waste of money.
On April 18 2012 13:48 Mordanis wrote: I've wanted to post this for a few months now, but never really had the time for it. Anyways, last semester I was a freshman at the University of Arizona, majoring in Physics and Astronomy (basically the same thing for undergrad). Anyways, I was in charge of paying for my own way, and so I had about $3k in student loans for just the one semester. I was a fucking awful student, spent most of my time watching and playing SC2, and basically doing everything except for school-work. I fooled myself into thinking that I would pass all of my classes, but I just am not capable of passing 5 very difficult classes without putting in some work. I failed 3 classes, and during Christmas break, I told my parents that I wouldn't be able to return to University for the spring semester. Now I am enrolled in 3 classes at a community college and I'm working 20 hours a week at Pizza Hut. While this may not be the most ideal way to get into a field like Astronomy, I'm sure as hell going to have a shit-ton less debt than anyone else I know who's going straight through a 4 year institution. I'll also only be delayed by 6 months (in all likelihood), and I'll have real-world experience.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a 4 year institution is an idiot, it is simply to say that it is not for everyone. When I was in High School, all of my teachers and friends talked about Community Colleges as the place for people who failed their way through high school. What I actually see is more driven people, who are more likely to get a good job than the people who party their way to a Pottery degree at some 4 year university. Hell, I have a couple of family friends who work in the recycling industry, and they both say that someone who knows their shit is infinitely more likely to get a job with them than someone who has a degree. From what I hear, programming is even more severe with that trend. In short, there are alternatives to University, even for those who want an "Academic" career. If you go to a 4-year University, you should know that you will have to get a fairly good job to pay for the first two years that could be accomplished at community college for 1/5 the price.
I'm curious how exactly one "pays their own way" at the University of Arizona and only has $3k debt in one semester?Estimated University of Arizona Cost According to this link, the cost of tuition would run you ~$4500 along per semester, assuming you're living with your parents/commuting and incurring no other expenses (since you didn't mention a job while at U of A). Based on that, I'll assume you either had money saved to cover the other $1500 or you're math is really bad.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a community college is an idiot, it's simply to say that not everyone can handle a 4 year college. People who think college is just for partying and fucking around, dont make it (see above). People who think college is just for studying, probably make it but from my experience have trouble finding a job because that's all they did was bury their noses in a book and have no clue how to handle an interview or other people in a working environment.
One of things that made me work the hardest in college was knowing I was the one fronting the bill. My parents made that abundantly clear before I even graduated high school, so knowing doing shitty in school would be a waste of money was never in the cards. I even failed a couple classes, dropped another here and there, and thanks to summer sessions I still managed to get out in 4 years, granted with some greater incurred cost.
okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
On April 18 2012 13:48 Mordanis wrote: I've wanted to post this for a few months now, but never really had the time for it. Anyways, last semester I was a freshman at the University of Arizona, majoring in Physics and Astronomy (basically the same thing for undergrad). Anyways, I was in charge of paying for my own way, and so I had about $3k in student loans for just the one semester. I was a fucking awful student, spent most of my time watching and playing SC2, and basically doing everything except for school-work. I fooled myself into thinking that I would pass all of my classes, but I just am not capable of passing 5 very difficult classes without putting in some work. I failed 3 classes, and during Christmas break, I told my parents that I wouldn't be able to return to University for the spring semester. Now I am enrolled in 3 classes at a community college and I'm working 20 hours a week at Pizza Hut. While this may not be the most ideal way to get into a field like Astronomy, I'm sure as hell going to have a shit-ton less debt than anyone else I know who's going straight through a 4 year institution. I'll also only be delayed by 6 months (in all likelihood), and I'll have real-world experience.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a 4 year institution is an idiot, it is simply to say that it is not for everyone. When I was in High School, all of my teachers and friends talked about Community Colleges as the place for people who failed their way through high school. What I actually see is more driven people, who are more likely to get a good job than the people who party their way to a Pottery degree at some 4 year university. Hell, I have a couple of family friends who work in the recycling industry, and they both say that someone who knows their shit is infinitely more likely to get a job with them than someone who has a degree. From what I hear, programming is even more severe with that trend. In short, there are alternatives to University, even for those who want an "Academic" career. If you go to a 4-year University, you should know that you will have to get a fairly good job to pay for the first two years that could be accomplished at community college for 1/5 the price.
I'm curious how exactly one "pays their own way" at the University of Arizona and only has $3k debt in one semester?Estimated University of Arizona Cost According to this link, the cost of tuition would run you ~$4500 along per semester, assuming you're living with your parents/commuting and incurring no other expenses (since you didn't mention a job while at U of A). Based on that, I'll assume you either had money saved to cover the other $1500 or you're math is really bad.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a community college is an idiot, it's simply to say that not everyone can handle a 4 year college. People who think college is just for partying and fucking around, dont make it (see above). People who think college is just for studying, probably make it but from my experience have trouble finding a job because that's all they did was bury their noses in a book and have no clue how to handle an interview or other people in a working environment.
One of things that made me work the hardest in college was knowing I was the one fronting the bill. My parents made that abundantly clear before I even graduated high school, so knowing doing shitty in school would be a waste of money was never in the cards. I even failed a couple classes, dropped another here and there, and thanks to summer sessions I still managed to get out in 4 years, granted with some greater incurred cost.
It was a weird thing where my parents paid for my food and room and board, IDK what else. Regardless, I am already getting some company mailing me telling me to start paying on my 3 thousand dollar loan. Edit: Yeah, in retrospect, that statement was slightly misleading. In my defense, I was paying 2/3 of my way, and the food + dorm thing was only for the first year.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Ah yes, the old "I can't have a lollipop so why should anyone else have a lollipop" argument. My parents also struggled with student loans and finally paid them off. Why wouldn't I want them to have had the opportunity to be more economically independent? Between me being born unexpectedly and their crushing debt, they almost got divorced several times. If they could have had an easier option, that would have been wonderful. Not saying that this bill is necessarily the right way to do things (how about tackling the enormous growth rate of tuition at public universities!), just saying your logic in infantile.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
what so your saying since your parents got screwed that everyone else after them should too? a bit spiteful that is
i think its a start... but imo i think they need to get go after why education costs so damn much to begin with.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
On April 18 2012 13:37 kuzyk wrote: the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
Are you aware of anyone actually doing option 2 successfully? Also, your example is comparing a private university to a public university, your argument holds even less water. Why not adjust your numbers to use the same school in 2 vs 4 years?
Yes. My younger brother went to a local community college, got a low end engineering job right away out of an internship started during his final semester. Guess what, after he was a proven commodity to his company they immediately sent him back to get more education on their dime because he had proved his value. EZ PZ.
community college is almost never a bad choice, if you get good grades and transfer and maintain a solid gpa, it really doesnt matter if you went for a full 4 years to a uni.
i agree with that, i made a huge mistake going to a university for 2 years, i didn't know that i would end up deciding against the major i was going for, huge waste of money.
You're talking about an engineering degree, which if I'm not mistaken is a profession that has been identified in recent years as an area where US students are not performing as well, so it wouldn't surprise me a company would send a valuable employee to get more education. My point was more so that the example figures given were biased to make community college look more appealing, when in fact the difference is much less compared to the figures of that poster.
I personally don't know many (if anyone) who has successfully made the transition from community college to university and actually gotten out in 2 years with a bachelor's, of course it happens. Tell someone that it doesn't matter if they went to a community college when they get beat out for a job because they didn't seem qualified enough compared to another recent grad who came out a 4 year university. As much as people don't want to hear it, if you have 2 canidates competing for a job and the only major difference is a community college vs university, the university candidate will win out unless the company is looking to the pay the person less. The fact of the matter is I make more money at my job doing the exact same thing as coworkers who have been there several years longer then I simply because I have a 4 year college degree.
On April 18 2012 13:48 Mordanis wrote: I've wanted to post this for a few months now, but never really had the time for it. Anyways, last semester I was a freshman at the University of Arizona, majoring in Physics and Astronomy (basically the same thing for undergrad). Anyways, I was in charge of paying for my own way, and so I had about $3k in student loans for just the one semester. I was a fucking awful student, spent most of my time watching and playing SC2, and basically doing everything except for school-work. I fooled myself into thinking that I would pass all of my classes, but I just am not capable of passing 5 very difficult classes without putting in some work. I failed 3 classes, and during Christmas break, I told my parents that I wouldn't be able to return to University for the spring semester. Now I am enrolled in 3 classes at a community college and I'm working 20 hours a week at Pizza Hut. While this may not be the most ideal way to get into a field like Astronomy, I'm sure as hell going to have a shit-ton less debt than anyone else I know who's going straight through a 4 year institution. I'll also only be delayed by 6 months (in all likelihood), and I'll have real-world experience.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a 4 year institution is an idiot, it is simply to say that it is not for everyone. When I was in High School, all of my teachers and friends talked about Community Colleges as the place for people who failed their way through high school. What I actually see is more driven people, who are more likely to get a good job than the people who party their way to a Pottery degree at some 4 year university. Hell, I have a couple of family friends who work in the recycling industry, and they both say that someone who knows their shit is infinitely more likely to get a job with them than someone who has a degree. From what I hear, programming is even more severe with that trend. In short, there are alternatives to University, even for those who want an "Academic" career. If you go to a 4-year University, you should know that you will have to get a fairly good job to pay for the first two years that could be accomplished at community college for 1/5 the price.
I'm curious how exactly one "pays their own way" at the University of Arizona and only has $3k debt in one semester?Estimated University of Arizona Cost According to this link, the cost of tuition would run you ~$4500 along per semester, assuming you're living with your parents/commuting and incurring no other expenses (since you didn't mention a job while at U of A). Based on that, I'll assume you either had money saved to cover the other $1500 or you're math is really bad.
The purpose of this anecdote is not to prove that anyone going to a community college is an idiot, it's simply to say that not everyone can handle a 4 year college. People who think college is just for partying and fucking around, dont make it (see above). People who think college is just for studying, probably make it but from my experience have trouble finding a job because that's all they did was bury their noses in a book and have no clue how to handle an interview or other people in a working environment.
One of things that made me work the hardest in college was knowing I was the one fronting the bill. My parents made that abundantly clear before I even graduated high school, so knowing doing shitty in school would be a waste of money was never in the cards. I even failed a couple classes, dropped another here and there, and thanks to summer sessions I still managed to get out in 4 years, granted with some greater incurred cost.
It was a weird thing where my parents paid for my food and room and board, IDK what else. Regardless, I am already getting some company mailing me telling me to start paying on my 3 thousand dollar loan. Edit: Yeah, in retrospect, that statement was slightly misleading. In my defense, I was paying 2/3 of my way, and the food + dorm thing was only for the first year.
Understandable, actually figuring out your monetary while still in school is a fucking nightmare, so I totally understand. Just wanted to try and clear some things up for people who may peruse the thread later. <3 GL with school though
Signed. Other smart countries already have free public higher-education. I am one of those recent grads who is sitting on a good degree with nowhere to go. Every place I apply that I'm qualified for there are 200 other applicants. Underemployment for 21-29 year olds is still in the low twenty percents. Either everyone needs to be pushed to seek higher education by public funding or we have to completely change how employers hire/train. The better solution would be both solutions; This petition could be the step in one of those directions.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Thats the vast majority of the reason why I'm so against the delaying/forgiving of student debts. Putting it that far in the future is an enabler for kids whose primary purpose for going to college is enjoy a relatively independent, short term consequence free environment. They are valuable assets to society in the prime of their lives that could be doing other jobs while not setting themselves up for financial burden or creating it for others. They can still party 3-5 days a week with just about any job that doesn't require more than a GED.
On April 18 2012 11:50 Asol wrote: Quick question here from a swede:
Don't you want the American people to become.. well more educated? In Sweden you're pretty much fucked without a degree, and well.. I'm sure some people don't enjoy studying or school for several reasons, but don't you want to get an education? I'd happily pay for everyone to have a education, that way I believe that we humans will evolve. The more people who have an education the smarter the population is. I'm not saying that you are stupid or anything if you don't have a degree (don't take it this way, not all). but isn't generally a educated population a better population? Surely they can make more informed and simply smarter decisions than a un-educated population?
Unfortunately, a large portion of the American population is either 1) too selfish and self-centered to think this way or 2) too foolish to think long-term like this.
i'll happily pay for your education if you pay for my education. oh, wait, this bill says that because i can afford to pay for my education that nobody is going to help me. so, the government denied me financial aid when i applied for school, i had to work through school and because i made good choices and kept my debt manageable, i now am being denied government aid again.
You've spouted this sort of stuff off a lot in this thread and I just don't think you're thinking about what you're saying.
Whether or not you have children, you pay for other people's kids to go to public school. Even if you do well in life, you pay for people on welfare. Even if you sacrifice to put food on your table, you still pay for people's food stamps. Even if you don't drive, you pay for the roads that others do drive on.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Why must everything be quid pro quo? Why must the fact that other people have suffered under the weight of a truly broken system (college tuition) mean that future people must also suffer? Why should we stunt programs intended to help fix a problem simply because some people will not benefit from it?
Now, you can disagree with this approach, and that's fine. Like some people have said, it seems as though it would have an explosive effect on college prices even worse than we have now because whatever schools charge, the government would pay off after 10 years, supposedly. There are serious holes and questions for this law.
However, so many people are simply ignoring that this is a problem and that's truly puzzling to me. Look at this site for some basic figures (http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml)
On average, tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. An 8% college inflation rate means that the cost of college doubles every nine years. For a baby born today, this means that college costs will be more than three times current rates when the child matriculates in college.
It's just not sustainable. It's not really the poor that suffer, they get need based scholarships at nearly all colleges. It's not the rich that suffer, because they have the money to pay. It's a HUGE cross-section of the middle who are deemed "too well off" for grants and scholarships and instead shoulder immense burdens of debt. The greatest gift my parents ever gave me was to pay for my college to spare me from potentially 80-100k of student loan debt. I wonder if I'll be able to afford to do the same for my children.
On average the price of tuition goes up 1.5x-2x the rate of inflation. Something has to be done to lower the rising costs of education. Perhaps this loan forgiveness bill is not the right approach, but people that are acting as though there is no problem are simply wrong. Likewise, people saying that we shouldn't do anything unless everyone (past and present) benefit from it are just being obstinate. So much of what we do and what we pay for and what we support are for those that need it most who may not be ourselves. Education makes people's lives better. It should be more affordable. Perhaps not mostly free like this bill would make it, but it should be more affordable than it is now.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
On April 18 2012 14:38 slytown wrote: Signed. Other smart countries already have free public higher-education. I am one of those recent grads who is sitting on a good degree with nowhere to go. Every place I apply that I'm qualified for there are 200 other applicants. Underemployment for 21-29 year olds is still in the low twenty percents. Either everyone needs to be pushed to seek higher education by public funding or we have to completely change how employers hire/train. The better solution would be both solutions; This petition could be the step in one of those directions.
Where did you go to college, what was your degree, and what was your GPA? As long as you performed decently and went to a good school there's no reason you shouldn't have a job, unless you did something like be an English or History major. Every single one of my friends that got above a 3.3 GPA, had internships while in college, and actively sought out jobs while still an undergrad found good jobs, at least paying ~40k. I don't have a single friend (who I at least talk to regularly) that hasn't been able to find a job.
Every place you apply there's over 200 other applicants, but if your credentials are better than theirs because you tried harder in college, you'll get the job. The people suffering now are those with sub 3.3 GPAs that didn't study hard enough or didn't actively job search during their senior year.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
On April 18 2012 13:37 kuzyk wrote: the decisions some people make to take out loans are just amazing. compare these 2 choices. the 1st is the classic college experience living at a private school for 4 years, tuition + room and board 36,320 per year, so a total of $145280
the other option is 2 years of community college and living at home tuition and living at home 2,900 per year, so $5800 final 2 years at public university, and assume you need to stay on campus because of distance tuition + room and board 17,600 per year, $35200 final total $41000
why wouldn't you choose option 2? you saved yourself 100k.
Are you aware of anyone actually doing option 2 successfully? Also, your example is comparing a private university to a public university, your argument holds even less water. Why not adjust your numbers to use the same school in 2 vs 4 years?
Yes. My younger brother went to a local community college, got a low end engineering job right away out of an internship started during his final semester. Guess what, after he was a proven commodity to his company they immediately sent him back to get more education on their dime because he had proved his value. EZ PZ.
community college is almost never a bad choice, if you get good grades and transfer and maintain a solid gpa, it really doesnt matter if you went for a full 4 years to a uni.
i agree with that, i made a huge mistake going to a university for 2 years, i didn't know that i would end up deciding against the major i was going for, huge waste of money.
our ids are our majors (im assuming ur polisci) haha :p
I have $120,000 in student loan debt, (a four year engineering degree from a public, state-funded university). About $30,000 is federal. And I didn't fuck around either, I graduated on time with a 3.47 GPA and recommendations from advisers to put on job applications. So last year I applied for about 75 entry level engineering jobs and internships, and NEVER heard ANYTHING from one of them. Since I needed to start payments on my loans so quickly after graduation, I decided to teach English in Korea because it's a guaranteed salary and SC is awesome.
Right now I make about $20,000 per year to feed myself and my wife AND make payments on those loans.
If my mom hadn't cosigned my loans, I would just change my name and stay in Korea for the rest of my life. Fuck the system. If the government does something about it, great. Because right now, college education in America is totally fucked, not worth it at all. That's what I'm telling all my younger cousins. Don't fucking do it in America. It's a waste.
Community college is another story all together. If I wasn't so pressured by my family to get the best education possible regardless of results, and had decent knowledge of the job market four years in advance, I would have absolutely gone with community. The real problem is forcing 16-17 year olds to make a decision that has the equivalent repercussions of taking out a mortgage
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
Just so you know, if you HOUSEHOLD makes 100K/yr, it is in the top 15-20% of all households in the US. Not individual salary, household salary. It's not common for people that attend college to be making > 100K in any reasonable amount of time. As you said though, some fields it is more common. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
According to this there are approximately 40 or so jobs in the US for which the average salary is over 100K. Most of them are professional (law/medicine) or are engineering based. (http://www.myplan.com/careers/top-ten/highest-paying.php)
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
Yeah, I think those 2 reasons are large contributors for such colossal debt.
I know a lot of kids take out much larger loans than they need/needed because "hey I'll pay it off when I have a job and meanwhile I'll purchase smart phones, large TVs, a car, $100+/month in alcohol etc" They then feel life is unfair when everything doesn't go precisely according to their life plan (if they think ahead at all) and they don't get an amazing job straight out of school and live in the shadow of a school loan that could have been much more manageable if they had lived according to anything resembling their means.
State / Public Universities are vastly overrated. They don't provide a better education generally than Community Colleges. When you have classes regularly 30-40+ folks in a large lecture session, you have very little chance to interact with your teacher and everything is generalized / non-individualized. At least in most CC's I have seen student loads are far less and its more personalized. It also helps to choose a CC that has a good program for your major. For instance my Mother received her RN degree going to one of the best RN programs in the State which was @ a CC. She makes just as much as someone who spent 10-15x more for the same education. When you go to State / Public Universities you pay a lot for advertising / sports programs / lots of other superfluous activities that have nothing to do with an education in the first place.
If you are fine paying for those things, so be it, but don't act like a State Universitiy education is that much superior or superior at all to CC education.
Government backed student loans are the problem with education. Schools sit on their asses and raise prices every year and nobody cares because everyone gets a loan for the money. When you buy a school review book the cost isn't even a listed factor in the comparison. It wasn't that long ago people could work for 2 months in the summer and pay for school with no debt. Now people graduate with a sociology degree, have no hope of getting a job, and have a 200k mortgage and no house. Is the quality of education better today to justify that cost? I would argue that my dad's graduating high school class would test better then college grads today. How about technology and economies of scale? The price of education should be going down......... it isn't tho. Tuition hike after tuition hike, year after year. Politicians buy you off with stupid shit like student loans because they know the repercussions of their actions won't be realized until long after they have made a milli or 2 selling their influence and they are long gone and that we collectively are too stupid and greedy to say no to something that sounds free.
If the government stopped backing student loans, no bank would loan you money to take humanities and social sciences because you have no hope of ever paying the money back at the current price. Schools would be forced to actually educate people at a decent price because all of a sudden their clients would care about the costs and they would have no students. Instead of hiring teacher after teacher and paying them ridiculous amounts of money to do basically nothing so that they can have the best teacher to student ratio (that's what the review books rate schools on now btw) they would get lean, mean and efficient or go out of business.
Everything the government touches turns to shit. Education, health care, social security all disasters where the price goes up and the quality goes down. Contrast that to cell phones or plasma tvs or anything else the government doesn't have it's short term focused grubby little fingers in. The price goes down and the quality goes up.
Personally I regret the time I spent getting an english ba. Seriously I could just say I had one on my resume it wouldn't make a difference. I work in finance and I taught myself from books. If you aren't going to become an engineer or a doctor or a lawyer.... don't go it's not worth 200k in debt. Just start working and building your skill set because trust me that soc degree is worthless.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
Then it's their problem isn't it? I don't see why the law should be the solution for people's stupidity.
On April 18 2012 14:38 slytown wrote: Signed. Other smart countries already have free public higher-education. I am one of those recent grads who is sitting on a good degree with nowhere to go. Every place I apply that I'm qualified for there are 200 other applicants. Underemployment for 21-29 year olds is still in the low twenty percents. Either everyone needs to be pushed to seek higher education by public funding or we have to completely change how employers hire/train. The better solution would be both solutions; This petition could be the step in one of those directions.
Where did you go to college, what was your degree, and what was your GPA? As long as you performed decently and went to a good school there's no reason you shouldn't have a job, unless you did something like be an English or History major. Every single one of my friends that got above a 3.3 GPA, had internships while in college, and actively sought out jobs while still an undergrad found good jobs, at least paying ~40k. I don't have a single friend (who I at least talk to regularly) that hasn't been able to find a job.
Every place you apply there's over 200 other applicants, but if your credentials are better than theirs because you tried harder in college, you'll get the job. The people suffering now are those with sub 3.3 GPAs that didn't study hard enough or didn't actively job search during their senior year.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
or went to a top of the line school...... i know a lot of people with 100k debt that i will wager are a lot smarter then you my friend.... generalizing is bad
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
Just so you know, if you HOUSEHOLD makes 100K/yr, it is in the top 15-20% of all households in the US. Not individual salary, household salary. It's not common for people that attend college to be making > 100K in any reasonable amount of time. As you said though, some fields it is more common. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
According to this there are approximately 40 or so jobs in the US for which the average salary is over 100K. Most of them are professional (law/medicine) or are engineering based. (http://www.myplan.com/careers/top-ten/highest-paying.php)
I completely agree that it isn't common for a household to make $100K/yr because most people aren't very good employees (for a laundry list of possible reasons many of which I can't entirely place at the feet of those individuals). I just said that it can put you in the driver's seat to achieve such an income.
On April 18 2012 11:50 Asol wrote: Quick question here from a swede:
Don't you want the American people to become.. well more educated? In Sweden you're pretty much fucked without a degree, and well.. I'm sure some people don't enjoy studying or school for several reasons, but don't you want to get an education? I'd happily pay for everyone to have a education, that way I believe that we humans will evolve. The more people who have an education the smarter the population is. I'm not saying that you are stupid or anything if you don't have a degree (don't take it this way, not all). but isn't generally a educated population a better population? Surely they can make more informed and simply smarter decisions than a un-educated population?
Unfortunately, a large portion of the American population is either 1) too selfish and self-centered to think this way or 2) too foolish to think long-term like this.
i'll happily pay for your education if you pay for my education. oh, wait, this bill says that because i can afford to pay for my education that nobody is going to help me. so, the government denied me financial aid when i applied for school, i had to work through school and because i made good choices and kept my debt manageable, i now am being denied government aid again.
You've spouted this sort of stuff off a lot in this thread and I just don't think you're thinking about what you're saying.
Whether or not you have children, you pay for other people's kids to go to public school. Even if you do well in life, you pay for people on welfare. Even if you sacrifice to put food on your table, you still pay for people's food stamps. Even if you don't drive, you pay for the roads that others do drive on.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Why must everything be quid pro quo? Why must the fact that other people have suffered under the weight of a truly broken system (college tuition) mean that future people must also suffer? Why should we stunt programs intended to help fix a problem simply because some people will not benefit from it?
Now, you can disagree with this approach, and that's fine. Like some people have said, it seems as though it would have an explosive effect on college prices even worse than we have now because whatever schools charge, the government would pay off after 10 years, supposedly. There are serious holes and questions for this law.
However, so many people are simply ignoring that this is a problem and that's truly puzzling to me. Look at this site for some basic figures (http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml)
On average, tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. An 8% college inflation rate means that the cost of college doubles every nine years. For a baby born today, this means that college costs will be more than three times current rates when the child matriculates in college.
It's just not sustainable. It's not really the poor that suffer, they get need based scholarships at nearly all colleges. It's not the rich that suffer, because they have the money to pay. It's a HUGE cross-section of the middle who are deemed "too well off" for grants and scholarships and instead shoulder immense burdens of debt. The greatest gift my parents ever gave me was to pay for my college to spare me from potentially 80-100k of student loan debt. I wonder if I'll be able to afford to do the same for my children.
On average the price of tuition goes up 1.5x-2x the rate of inflation. Something has to be done to lower the rising costs of education. Perhaps this loan forgiveness bill is not the right approach, but people that are acting as though there is no problem are simply wrong. Likewise, people saying that we shouldn't do anything unless everyone (past and present) benefit from it are just being obstinate. So much of what we do and what we pay for and what we support are for those that need it most who may not be ourselves. Education makes people's lives better. It should be more affordable. Perhaps not mostly free like this bill would make it, but it should be more affordable than it is now.
oh, i am thinking about what im saying. paying off student debt is a huge mistake. people need to take more responsibility for their own decisions, and stop relying on the government to bail them out.
the fact that this recent bill has come out (in an election year along with the buffet rule) just reinforces my belief that the government is pandering for votes rather than trying to fix the economy. i am sick of these band-aid measures, and forcing the blame on the rich.
also, what the hell is up with these extremes? so, you got an education, the economy tanks and now you cant pay your student debt. well, how about the government defers payment until the economy improves? how about the government drops the interest rate, or drops the payment to an incredibly small amount? why the hell do they jump to "we'll just pay/write it off?" its pandering for votes; its not good economic policy.
finally, this is never going to pass; just like the buffet rule. so, congratulations lawmakers. you just wasted more taxpayer money and time on bullshit. if our country was run like a business, they would be fired.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
Then it's their problem isn't it? I don't see why the law should be the solution for people's stupidity.
yes it is their problem im not arguing about that.
what im triying to get at its why is it that those people keep getting into those debts, why is higher education so expensive in the USA , and why they dont choose the cheaper options.
On April 18 2012 14:38 slytown wrote: Signed. Other smart countries already have free public higher-education. I am one of those recent grads who is sitting on a good degree with nowhere to go. Every place I apply that I'm qualified for there are 200 other applicants. Underemployment for 21-29 year olds is still in the low twenty percents. Either everyone needs to be pushed to seek higher education by public funding or we have to completely change how employers hire/train. The better solution would be both solutions; This petition could be the step in one of those directions.
Where did you go to college, what was your degree, and what was your GPA? As long as you performed decently and went to a good school there's no reason you shouldn't have a job, unless you did something like be an English or History major. Every single one of my friends that got above a 3.3 GPA, had internships while in college, and actively sought out jobs while still an undergrad found good jobs, at least paying ~40k. I don't have a single friend (who I at least talk to regularly) that hasn't been able to find a job.
Every place you apply there's over 200 other applicants, but if your credentials are better than theirs because you tried harder in college, you'll get the job. The people suffering now are those with sub 3.3 GPAs that didn't study hard enough or didn't actively job search during their senior year.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
i had about 100k in debt. its an investment and it has paid huge dividends for me.
On April 18 2012 15:01 Wegandi wrote: State / Public Universities are vastly overrated. They don't provide a better education generally than Community Colleges. When you have classes regularly 30-40+ folks in a large lecture session, you have very little chance to interact with your teacher and everything is generalized / non-individualized. At least in most CC's I have seen student loads are far less and its more personalized. It also helps to choose a CC that has a good program for your major. For instance my Mother received her RN degree going to one of the best RN programs in the State which was @ a CC. She makes just as much as someone who spent 10-15x more for the same education. When you go to State / Public Universities you pay a lot for advertising / sports programs / lots of other superfluous activities that have nothing to do with an education in the first place.
If you are fine paying for those things, so be it, but don't act like a State Universitiy education is that much superior or superior at all to CC education.
As of about 2008, on average, people with Bachelor's Degrees earn approximately 34% more in their lifetime than the holders of Associate's Degrees.
Of course there are exceptions. Some very notable rich people in this country were dropouts. Some people with high school educations have started very successful businesses. Some with high school degrees or associate's degrees have climbed up the economic ladder very successfully. They are exceptions and outliers and not the rule. There is not room for everyone to share that same experience.
Nobody cares what your gpa was in school. Work experience is worth a a thousand times what a degree is (with certain exceptions). You just need to say you have one because every single person on earth does and they'll throw your resume away without reading it. I hire people. Trust me. I take a guy with work experience over a guy fresh out of school 10 out of 10 times.
On April 18 2012 15:01 Wegandi wrote: State / Public Universities are vastly overrated. They don't provide a better education generally than Community Colleges. When you have classes regularly 30-40+ folks in a large lecture session, you have very little chance to interact with your teacher and everything is generalized / non-individualized. At least in most CC's I have seen student loads are far less and its more personalized. It also helps to choose a CC that has a good program for your major. For instance my Mother received her RN degree going to one of the best RN programs in the State which was @ a CC. She makes just as much as someone who spent 10-15x more for the same education. When you go to State / Public Universities you pay a lot for advertising / sports programs / lots of other superfluous activities that have nothing to do with an education in the first place.
If you are fine paying for those things, so be it, but don't act like a State Universitiy education is that much superior or superior at all to CC education.
As of about 2008, on average, people with Bachelor's Degrees earn approximately 34% more in their lifetime than the holders of Associate's Degrees.
Of course there are exceptions. Some very notable rich people in this country were dropouts. Some people with high school educations have started very successful businesses. Some with high school degrees or associate's degrees have climbed up the economic ladder very successfully. They are exceptions and outliers and not the rule. There is not room for everyone to share that same experience.
What are you talking about. Most CC's offer Bachelor's Degrees.
On April 18 2012 15:01 Wegandi wrote: State / Public Universities are vastly overrated. They don't provide a better education generally than Community Colleges. When you have classes regularly 30-40+ folks in a large lecture session, you have very little chance to interact with your teacher and everything is generalized / non-individualized. At least in most CC's I have seen student loads are far less and its more personalized. It also helps to choose a CC that has a good program for your major. For instance my Mother received her RN degree going to one of the best RN programs in the State which was @ a CC. She makes just as much as someone who spent 10-15x more for the same education. When you go to State / Public Universities you pay a lot for advertising / sports programs / lots of other superfluous activities that have nothing to do with an education in the first place.
If you are fine paying for those things, so be it, but don't act like a State Universitiy education is that much superior or superior at all to CC education.
As of about 2008, on average, people with Bachelor's Degrees earn approximately 34% more in their lifetime than the holders of Associate's Degrees.
Of course there are exceptions. Some very notable rich people in this country were dropouts. Some people with high school educations have started very successful businesses. Some with high school degrees or associate's degrees have climbed up the economic ladder very successfully. They are exceptions and outliers and not the rule. There is not room for everyone to share that same experience.
What are you talking about. Most CC's offer Bachelor's Degrees.
in what state? in CA not a single CC offers a bachelors....
On April 18 2012 15:01 Wegandi wrote: State / Public Universities are vastly overrated. They don't provide a better education generally than Community Colleges. When you have classes regularly 30-40+ folks in a large lecture session, you have very little chance to interact with your teacher and everything is generalized / non-individualized. At least in most CC's I have seen student loads are far less and its more personalized. It also helps to choose a CC that has a good program for your major. For instance my Mother received her RN degree going to one of the best RN programs in the State which was @ a CC. She makes just as much as someone who spent 10-15x more for the same education. When you go to State / Public Universities you pay a lot for advertising / sports programs / lots of other superfluous activities that have nothing to do with an education in the first place.
If you are fine paying for those things, so be it, but don't act like a State Universitiy education is that much superior or superior at all to CC education.
As of about 2008, on average, people with Bachelor's Degrees earn approximately 34% more in their lifetime than the holders of Associate's Degrees.
Of course there are exceptions. Some very notable rich people in this country were dropouts. Some people with high school educations have started very successful businesses. Some with high school degrees or associate's degrees have climbed up the economic ladder very successfully. They are exceptions and outliers and not the rule. There is not room for everyone to share that same experience.
What are you talking about. Most CC's offer Bachelor's Degrees.
in what state? in CA not a single CC offers a bachelors....
On April 18 2012 15:01 Wegandi wrote: State / Public Universities are vastly overrated. They don't provide a better education generally than Community Colleges. When you have classes regularly 30-40+ folks in a large lecture session, you have very little chance to interact with your teacher and everything is generalized / non-individualized. At least in most CC's I have seen student loads are far less and its more personalized. It also helps to choose a CC that has a good program for your major. For instance my Mother received her RN degree going to one of the best RN programs in the State which was @ a CC. She makes just as much as someone who spent 10-15x more for the same education. When you go to State / Public Universities you pay a lot for advertising / sports programs / lots of other superfluous activities that have nothing to do with an education in the first place.
If you are fine paying for those things, so be it, but don't act like a State Universitiy education is that much superior or superior at all to CC education.
As of about 2008, on average, people with Bachelor's Degrees earn approximately 34% more in their lifetime than the holders of Associate's Degrees.
Of course there are exceptions. Some very notable rich people in this country were dropouts. Some people with high school educations have started very successful businesses. Some with high school degrees or associate's degrees have climbed up the economic ladder very successfully. They are exceptions and outliers and not the rule. There is not room for everyone to share that same experience.
What are you talking about. Most CC's offer Bachelor's Degrees.
in what state? in CA not a single CC offers a bachelors....
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
You might be getting community colleges confused with public universities. The US has many public universities that are leaders in the world of "insert tons of research stuff" and provide amazing education. Public universities are extremely diverse in terms of how much they cost and the quality of education one can get at them.
For example I go to a public university that ranks much higher than the majority of private universities in the US (of course rankings are mostly bullshit). In my state I could have saved thousands of dollars by going to the other public universities, but they are all less well known, less prestigious, and have less resources do to less funding. I could have also saved money by going to some of the private universities around here.
So while community colleges are extremely cheap in comparism to the other forms of higher education, public universities are very diverse, some being cheaper than others. You might end up at one where the overall cost is like 5-10k a year, or you could end up at one like mine which costs around 30k a year. So that is how people go into massive debt attending public universities.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Buuhuu I didn't get a cookie, noone else should get a cookie. What is this, kindergarden? Really, this is a GREAT idea, would be great in all countries, it really gives some incentive to do something for your country, especially the teaching/firefighting thing.
The student loan dept is a huge problem BUT.... there is a large portion of people in that group that accrued dept because of stupidity. Many of whom borrowed to get very weak degrees. If a bill like this was to happen, I would like it to specify which degrees will have this bill applied to like engineering. I still don't know if that is even good enough for me to be for it. How the fuck are they forgiving these loans? Are they bailing them out with money from the Fed or just acting like the money was never borrowed if they abide by the bill. Just fucking cut our spending and free up the market. We do not need a big government taking care of us, let the people solve our problems. The government is just fucking us up the arse more and more every year. It is obvious the government fails every time they try to bail people out or spend money to take care of people. Social security? Obama care anybody??? Anyways.... I do not think this is a good idea right now.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
You might be getting community colleges confused with public universities. The US has many public universities that are leaders in the world of "insert tons of research stuff" and provide amazing education. Public universities are extremely diverse in terms of how much they cost and the quality of education one can get at them.
For example I go to a public university that ranks much higher than the majority of private universities in the US (of course rankings are mostly bullshit). In my state I could have saved thousands of dollars by going to the other public universities, but they are all less well known, less prestigious, and have less resources do to less funding. I could have also saved money by going to some of the private universities around here.
So while community colleges are extremely cheap in comparism to the other forms of higher education, public universities are very diverse, some being cheaper than others. You might end up at one where the overall cost is like 5-10k a year, or you could end up at one like mine which costs around 30k a year. So that is how people go into massive debt attending public universities.
Due* Lot of good that prestigious college is doing you...
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
You might be getting community colleges confused with public universities. The US has many public universities that are leaders in the world of "insert tons of research stuff" and provide amazing education. Public universities are extremely diverse in terms of how much they cost and the quality of education one can get at them.
For example I go to a public university that ranks much higher than the majority of private universities in the US (of course rankings are mostly bullshit). In my state I could have saved thousands of dollars by going to the other public universities, but they are all less well known, less prestigious, and have less resources do to less funding. I could have also saved money by going to some of the private universities around here.
So while community colleges are extremely cheap in comparism to the other forms of higher education, public universities are very diverse, some being cheaper than others. You might end up at one where the overall cost is like 5-10k a year, or you could end up at one like mine which costs around 30k a year. So that is how people go into massive debt attending public universities.
Thats quite interesting...
i thought they had a system like the one used here wich forces a cap on the price of public universities under the simple argument of "public universities are there to offer education everyone can afford not just those in the high end of the economic ladder" and to top it off the price is lower depending on your family´s income so everyone can afford it.
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
You might be getting community colleges confused with public universities. The US has many public universities that are leaders in the world of "insert tons of research stuff" and provide amazing education. Public universities are extremely diverse in terms of how much they cost and the quality of education one can get at them.
For example I go to a public university that ranks much higher than the majority of private universities in the US (of course rankings are mostly bullshit). In my state I could have saved thousands of dollars by going to the other public universities, but they are all less well known, less prestigious, and have less resources do to less funding. I could have also saved money by going to some of the private universities around here.
So while community colleges are extremely cheap in comparism to the other forms of higher education, public universities are very diverse, some being cheaper than others. You might end up at one where the overall cost is like 5-10k a year, or you could end up at one like mine which costs around 30k a year. So that is how people go into massive debt attending public universities.
Due* Lot of good that prestigious college is doing you...
Sorry, couldn't help myself, just teasing.
Well by prestigious i meant like nationally known. I'm honestly not trying to be elitist, but you have better name recognition going to a flagship than a directional college. Just like how someone who went to harvard would get more looks from employers than I would lol.
But seriously. In today's age of "everyone has to go to college", the ONLY way to accomplish this is by nationalizing the whole system. This stops the rampant profiteering, and gives an additional incentive to attent college. Plus, since almost everyone goes to college anyway, almost no one can complain that their tax money is being wasted on others. Too bad this isn't a viable option.
Big part of the problem is that people expect you to have some kind of degree no matter what field you are going into. Its hard to get started in your career (a real one) without a degree. Sometimes its important to have a degree, other times its just a piece of paper that shows very little.
in my opinion college degree's are one of the biggest scams of the 21st century. pay $50k to get a requirement for a job that makes <$50k. anytime a job requires a degree, that means you're working under someone and will generally be low on the totem poll and work a normal 9-5. i would take someone with 5yrs+ experience in ANY JOB who doesn't have a degree over someone who is a PhD in whatever and was only on the field for a year or 2. these corporations have an in with the universities and love making people spend $50k for a some stupid degree as a requirement for some job that doesn't really qualify for a job that needs a degree.
maybe i'm lucky that both my parents have no degree and make good money...i'm following that same route my father took (real estate) and i dropped out of college because i only liked mathematics and did not want a job in mathematics.
was in the class before differential, and math was pretty much the only class i had to spend >1hr on per week. all the history, biology, etc classes were so damn easy and many people would get C's and B's on them while they were 100% memorization...anyone who gets a degree in something simple doesn't deserve to make good money in my opinion.
On April 18 2012 15:38 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Universities are already quasi public institutions. Nationalizing anything is always a bad idea.
lol well then get out of america beacuse there are many many things that are nationalized. like for example when right wingers love to call obama a socialist, when in fact america has had so many socialist institutions for years it's uncanny
On April 18 2012 14:23 Panzamelano wrote: okay so i have a big issue understanding how this works.
So from what i get Community college and Public universities apparently are worthless in the USA.
Now my question is... are they really that bad? and im not asking if they are of the same quality of the biggest private universities or something but... is it really worth it to pay those extra 100k dollars when that extra quality doesnt really end up being a big deal because lets face it... the people that are smart and want to thriump will do it witouth the need of a big and fancy private university but my question is about the average student... who spends most of the time on the campus on the internet/partying/doing everything but studying, is it worth it for them? or are community college´s and public universities really that bad.
(just to give some insight here in colombia the best universities are the public universities and only those who REALLY want to study actually end up finishing a carrer in those so it ends up being a thing of Smart+wanting to triumph = really really cheap higher education , and spoiled little brat = a quite expensive carreer on a private university).
People who intend to do all that should really stay away from student loans and colleges in general if they can't afford it.
Don't party away moolah when it isn't yours.
Ofcourse they should stay away from student loans and colleges in general... but they dont and sadly its only the minority of those who go to a university that actually spend their time studying and working towards a good future whit a stable job because lets face it... most people dont like studying so they give the bare minimum to get trough because they expect that the degree magically will get them from a lazy student who barely passes his classes to a freaking millionare earning a ton of cash as soon as they finish the university.
On April 18 2012 14:30 TheAngryZergling wrote:
No, they're not that bad, where bad-ness is evaluated in terms of ability to allow you to be considered for a job that provides a financially comfortable life. While it doesn't hold true for every field obviously any public college can put you in a position to earn $100K salary within 10 years of being in the field.
Going to a community colleges probably increases the time to 100K/yr by 5 years and likely necessitates a return trip to a 4 yr college to get a BS (on your dime or another's).
okay so going to a community college is the hard and slow way thats fine.
but if public universities are fine and (according to the numbers that Kuzyk gave) are so cheap in comparission... why is everyone getting into these MASSIVE 100k+ debts?.
is it sheer lack of knowledge?, Peer pressure? , or what is it?.
You might be getting community colleges confused with public universities. The US has many public universities that are leaders in the world of "insert tons of research stuff" and provide amazing education. Public universities are extremely diverse in terms of how much they cost and the quality of education one can get at them.
For example I go to a public university that ranks much higher than the majority of private universities in the US (of course rankings are mostly bullshit). In my state I could have saved thousands of dollars by going to the other public universities, but they are all less well known, less prestigious, and have less resources do to less funding. I could have also saved money by going to some of the private universities around here.
So while community colleges are extremely cheap in comparism to the other forms of higher education, public universities are very diverse, some being cheaper than others. You might end up at one where the overall cost is like 5-10k a year, or you could end up at one like mine which costs around 30k a year. So that is how people go into massive debt attending public universities.
Thats quite interesting...
i thought they had a system like the one used here wich forces a cap on the price of public universities under the simple argument of "public universities are there to offer education everyone can afford not just those in the high end of the economic ladder" and to top it off the price is lower depending on your family´s income so everyone can afford it.
Hahaha, ya not really. It depends where you live of course. My state is in rediculous debt so the universities don't get very good support from the government. But ya the best public universities tend to be only slightly cheaper than private colleges. It also depends on whether or not you are attending a school in the state you live in. Most universities have instate tuition which is significantly cheaper than out of state tuition. Private colleges, however, are more keen on giving out financial aid that isn't just pure loans. Attending my university from out of state (or out of country) would be about as expensive as the most expensive private universities.
Personally I think this whole 'need PHD to get a job' bs is just a way of keeping people out of the labour market. Back when I worked at a call center I remember so many of the people in my class had university diplomas and were working the same crappy minimum wage job I was. The whole economy is fucked because so much of it is based upon the govenrment redistributing wealth. A kleptocracy does not a healthy future make.
But without nationalizing you get an exponential increase in tuition as enrollment and thus demand rises. Then the only way to solve the problem is by having less people go to university in the first place which I don't think is a compromise that should be made. At this rate it will become a point where only the very rich can afford university, then it just becomes a cycle of the rich become richer.
On April 18 2012 15:37 politik wrote: But seriously. In today's age of "everyone has to go to college", the ONLY way to accomplish this is by nationalizing the whole system. This stops the rampant profiteering, and gives an additional incentive to attent college. Plus, since almost everyone goes to college anyway, almost no one can complain that their tax money is being wasted on others. Too bad this isn't a viable option.
That would sure be swell ... assuming those extra bodies you are keeping out of the workforce return to make correspondingly better contributions to society.
On April 18 2012 15:46 politik wrote: But without nationalizing you get an exponential increase in tuition as enrollment and thus demand rises. Then the only way to solve the problem is by having less people go to university in the first place which I don't think is a compromise that should be made. At this rate it will become a point where only the very rich can afford university, then it just becomes a cycle of the rich become richer.
what are your reasons for thinking that isn't acceptable?
There are many reasons to argue that high college education rates are disadvantageous, but the cost to the individual is not one of them.
Edit: Ideally the only difference would be that instead of leaving college with cripping debt, the debt would be replaced with increased taxes throughout their lifetime. Of course, at least in America, the effects would be far from ideal.
Are you assuming a fixed supply for some reason? AFAIK they are still capable of building schools and giving birth to people who become university professors. Anyway I agree with... I think it was Sowell (brilliant economist) who said that there are too many people going to post secondary these days. Really I think a lot of it is just a racket to keep people out of the labour market until they are 35 (and drive up wages for the people who are working in the mean time). Just like the minimum wage. Part of the reason for the overdemand for universities is because of how heavily subsidized they are. Instead of natioanlizing we should just eliminate government subsidies to universities. Really most of the professors are worthless anyway. Basically intellectuals, specifically university professors, serve the role that churches used to play in the past, intellectual bodyguards for the state. In exchange for justifying all manner of government intrusion into our lives they share in the plunder with very lax jobs and high salaries.
On April 18 2012 14:53 Meta wrote: I have $120,000 in student loan debt, (a four year engineering degree from a public, state-funded university). About $30,000 is federal. And I didn't fuck around either, I graduated on time with a 3.47 GPA and recommendations from advisers to put on job applications. So last year I applied for about 75 entry level engineering jobs and internships, and NEVER heard ANYTHING from one of them. Since I needed to start payments on my loans so quickly after graduation, I decided to teach English in Korea because it's a guaranteed salary and SC is awesome.
Right now I make about $20,000 per year to feed myself and my wife AND make payments on those loans.
If my mom hadn't cosigned my loans, I would just change my name and stay in Korea for the rest of my life. Fuck the system. If the government does something about it, great. Because right now, college education in America is totally fucked, not worth it at all. That's what I'm telling all my younger cousins. Don't fucking do it in America. It's a waste.
Community college is another story all together. If I wasn't so pressured by my family to get the best education possible regardless of results, and had decent knowledge of the job market four years in advance, I would have absolutely gone with community. The real problem is forcing 16-17 year olds to make a decision that has the equivalent repercussions of taking out a mortgage
How is that possible? Despite the fact you're supposed to get internships both your sophmore/junior year, I know plenty of engineers that got a TON of jobs/offers with GPAs ranging between 2.9-3.3. I don't think any had a 3.47 GPA. I mean I would say you should follow up with the applications, but even if you didn't, as long as you went to shit like career fairs and talked to recruiters you should have gotten SOMETHING.
Although still, taking $120,000 is so excessive I feel. Did you not have a job whatsoever during college? You should be able to make easily 10k per year to cut some costs (that's what I did). Especially work full time during the summer. But yeah, unfortunate you were pressured by your family, as for people that are going to go soley on student loans, CC is almost always the better option. Does your wife not make money as well to support the family..? =[.
I recall thinking if I didn't get a job I'd to the teach English in Korea program as well though. You make about $20k per year, but cost of living is a lot lower in SK and also they pay for your rent... so it's kinda deceiving.
On April 18 2012 15:37 nennx wrote: Big part of the problem is that people expect you to have some kind of degree no matter what field you are going into. Its hard to get started in your career (a real one) without a degree. Sometimes its important to have a degree, other times its just a piece of paper that shows very little.
a real career...? What define real?
If you're hardworking, active, you can make as much money doing tradecraft than average if not more. I get the feeling that people view tertiary education as a fastlane to high paying jobs, which is false, since it only open you up for more choice. Since tertiary education is widely accessible thanks to student loan, most sees themself with a chance, when infact you still have to work hard to come out at the top, and by top it isn't mean just good grades, but be active doing all those shit people suggested.
On April 18 2012 14:53 Meta wrote: I have $120,000 in student loan debt, (a four year engineering degree from a public, state-funded university). About $30,000 is federal. And I didn't fuck around either, I graduated on time with a 3.47 GPA and recommendations from advisers to put on job applications. So last year I applied for about 75 entry level engineering jobs and internships, and NEVER heard ANYTHING from one of them. Since I needed to start payments on my loans so quickly after graduation, I decided to teach English in Korea because it's a guaranteed salary and SC is awesome.
75 is not a lot. That is 1 a day for 2.5 months. Once you have you get used to the process of customizing your cover letters and looking up specifics of the company and position you are applying for that is a max of 4 hours work. That you didn't hear back from any while having an above average GPA indicates either your resume & cover letters didn't represent you as well as they should; a common problem. Thats why most (all?) universities have offices that help you craft such things (though you can always get helped by a doofus whose suggestions are inappropriate in which case seek help from others for the matter). Another factor could have been location. If you apply primarily to places around the university producing a bunch of engineers or around your hometown which simply may not have a ton of engineering jobs then thats also going to hurt your chances.
On April 18 2012 14:53 Meta wrote: The real problem is forcing 16-17 year olds to make a decision that has the equivalent repercussions of taking out a mortgage
I'd argue "the real problem" is that societal expectations for kids stays soooooo low for so long that they too often aren't able to shoulder the weight of such decisions and so don't even know how to go about making such choices.
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
I don't think its fair to include living expenses with the cost of education. People who don't go to college have to pay that too.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Except that you don't shell out money to help people. You shell out money so that you can get paid while helping people (which also benefits you in non-monetary ways.
Though I do honestly have sympathy for the generally high cost (relative to reimbursement) of jobs which "help people".
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Your not shelling out all this money to help people.....That would be volunteering your time. Your shelling out all this money to work in a field that you want to.
Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
Yes and many jobs require two years of supervised experience before you can obtain a full license.
On April 18 2012 15:42 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Personally I think this whole 'need PHD to get a job' bs is just a way of keeping people out of the labour market. Back when I worked at a call center I remember so many of the people in my class had university diplomas and were working the same crappy minimum wage job I was. The whole economy is fucked because so much of it is based upon the govenrment redistributing wealth. A kleptocracy does not a healthy future make.
Are you restricting your job search to positions as a professor in universities?
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
I feel similar, although my parents definitely helped me along the way. I lived at home and commuted to college while everyone else I knew got the dorm experience. I worked at the age of 15 taking the bus to another city because most places won't hire at 15, but 16. I've worked full time during summers and 20 hours a week for most of college. Sometimes I'd work up to 55 hours/week during summer between two jobs.
I can't relate quite as much though since my parents helped me a lot, and my loans are fairly manageable. I mean, as it is now, your loan repayment is dependent upon your current salary, so if you're not making a ton, you're not paying a ton back yet either.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
Because everyone can find a job right now (I was able to through junior+senior years of HS, but many others tried, hard, and failed). you're also assuming that people can get into a college close enough to let them commute that isn't community college etc etc. Not to mention that you're condemning people for going to a private university that may offer them a superior education... Not everyone's going to be able to go through college as cheaply and successfully as you, and implying that people are stupid and/or lazy for doing so is dumb, as is suggesting that everyone should have to go through the tough shit you did cause it would be "fair". Your tax money isn't going to subsidize "laziness", it's subsidizing people who either aren't as lucky as you or go/went to universities that charged more than yours.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
Because everyone can find a job right now (I was able to through junior+senior years of HS, but many others tried, hard, and failed). you're also assuming that people can get into a college close enough to let them commute that isn't community college etc etc. Not to mention that you're condemning people for going to a private university that may offer them a superior education... Not everyone's going to be able to go through college as cheaply and successfully as you, and implying that people are stupid and/or lazy for doing so is dumb, as is suggesting that everyone should have to go through the tough shit you did cause it would be "fair". Your tax money isn't going to subsidize "laziness", it's subsidizing people who either aren't as lucky as you or go/went to universities that charged more than yours.
If you can't afford it then you can't afford it. Since when has there been some absurd notion that you're entitled to go to a private college because it offers superior education? I don't agree with the public education one, but I can understand it at least. But you're arguing you should be heavily subsidized to go a private institution? What?
If you can't get into a college close enough to commute to, then ya fucked up in high school, didn't you? And if you fucked up in high school, then your choice is community college, with eventually transferring. Those are your options, not "fuck it, I can't afford it but am going to do it anyways and then bitch when I accumulate all these expenses."
Implying that people are lazy.... ha... people are lazy in teh vast majority of these cases. There's no reason to subsidize people who chose to go to a uni when they knew they couldn't afford it ahead of time. I don't understand the notion that people should be entitled to attend whatever institution they want, simply because they want to.
Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
On April 18 2012 18:34 screamingpalm wrote: Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
lol. All I've seen is advocation for punishing those who did their work, while rewarding those who didn't. It depends how you look at it. Then again, that's how I've been trained to look at it, as a Business Economics major.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
Rather than thinking "irresponsible people are getting benefits for being irresponsible", you should think "responsible people like myself won't have to go through the same things."
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc.
Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc.
Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps.
You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc.
The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume.
Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave.
What they REALLY need to do is SUBSIDIZE EDUCATION so shit is way cheaper... I went to College for 3 years and finished my program and I was able to pay it all off while living at home. Basically if you want to become a Doctor, Engineer, or Lawyer, your parents need to be insanely rich at the moment cause even living in Canada living at home you're looking at upwards of $100,000 just to complete the program. My program was only about $15,000 all said and done which is very cheap and it wasn't a bad program by any means. I can only imagine how much more it would be in the US... the international students had to pay over $10,000 a year to go to my school.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc.
Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps.
You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc.
The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume.
Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave.
Ah I had you pegged all wrong... pro-choice then?
I never said I don't like the 'rich'. It's the greedy I don't care much for.
So since my disability keeps me from being able to work, I should just simply not consume? Nice to know.
Just to make everyone understand where I'm coming from, here's a short back story on me: I have both a Swiss and a US passport. My father is from the Philadelphia area and graduated form Penn state. My mother is (for the purpose of this discussion, it's somewhat more complicated) swiss. Since I've been born, my parents and grandparents have set up, maintained and paid into a trust fund for my college education. It's not a huge amount, but it's something. I know a lot of people don't have that luxury. I currently study CS at the Swiss Polytechnical institute, which is currently the best ranked german speaking and best ranked university in mainland Europe and generally in the top15 in the world. It's essentially an ivy league level education (or very close to it). Do you know how much I pay per semester? About 900 dollars. Currently there's talk about doubling it to a staggering 1800 and everyone in the country has been running amok about how much that is. (The rest gets paid for by the canton of Zurich and the country).
So let me ask you a question: for a similar education in the US without scholarships, how much would you pay? 10 times that? 20 times that? But for some reason, Switzerland isn't dying to debt, the way the US is. That should give you some clue about how completely and utterly fucked the US education system is (oh and by the way, Swiss high school education is also ranked quite highly).
And yet only about 20% of Swiss teenagers have a full 12 years of School, the amount graduating from university is also around that number.
I've asked myself questions about this for quite some time and it took me long enough to find the central difference between Switzerland and almost every other country. The Swiss system offers a valued and functioning education, without the need to first go to 12 years of school and then another 3-9 years of university: apprenticeship.
Most Swiss people did an apprenticeship starting at 16, so they worked for a small wage while learning only very applied things in their remaining classes. After that they start working around 20-21 - without any debt. (Later many of them go to an applied university, but that's another point).
Because there is no need to stay in some form of school until 21+ and thus no student loans to pay off, the entire system is massively stabilized by a large - and specialized - working force that isn't without hope for future education. This also allows people to tailor their lives to their own desires, I know plenty of people that just said: "I'm not going to school forever, I wanna start working without sacrificing my future!" - and they could.
It isn't an issue purely of studying or student loans; the entire US system needs an overhaul. It just isn't healthy to make everyone that wants to hold even a glimmer of hope for his or her future to go to college, even it is community.
And to the guy above me (wegandi): well, letting the free market sure as hell didn't work for the US, so having the State do something might not be such a terrible idea.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc.
Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps.
You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc.
The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume.
Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave.
Ah I had you pegged all wrong... pro-choice then?
I never said I don't like the 'rich'. It's the greedy I don't care much for.
So since my disability keeps me from being able to work, I should just simply not consume? Nice to know.
No, I'm not pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm pro-property rights, which puts me in the middle. The woman doesn't have a right to kill the unborn, but neither the unborn have a right to occupy a space which the mother doesn't want. So, the solution is the woman is free to induce early labor and 'evict' the child, and thus, put it up for adoption. This means that as technology progresses so too is the woman's ability to evict sooner.
In any event, I don't mind greedy folk, I just don't like thieves, robbers, and the host of criminal folk.
As far as your disability, my apologies, but that doesn't mean because you got a bad deal in life that some other sap has to work for you without a choice in the matter. Family is there to help each other out, and in the case you have bad luck there, you can search for help by other means, and in the case of disabilities only the severely disabled are unable to work at all. The Welfare State is no subsititute as a means of assistance, because it produces envy, avarice, and lethargy amongst society. It ain't limited to the folk who truly are in need of assistance. The Welfare State primarily benefits the extremely wealthy and the folk who only vote your property, as well as a whole host of societal engineering by meglomaniacs. No thanks.
Working long hours continuously is fucking bad for yourself and society just look at Japan and their salarymen culture. Some of the brightest and hardworking friends I know burnt out in less than one year working M&A at a BBIB.
It's terrible how graduates are treated as well, when you finally climbed over the corpses of the hundred other applicants to get into that job that you want you are put on absolutely shit hours with crappier pay to match. So before any of you older generation people (basically your generation fucked the global economy up into what it is now) say that you guys had to pay your own way through college ask yourself this.
Did you guys compete with 100+ people for a single graduate position? And if by some miracle of god you guys got it did you work hours like 10am-11pm whilst paying back a student loan that is magnitudes larger than what you had to pay and trying to secure a property (or just rent for that matter) in a market full of bloated overpriced houses that you guys drove up?
Sorry if I sounded a bit pissed, it just really irritates me when older people go "back in my day..." and pretend the younger generations have it so easy and just want to cruise through life.
On April 18 2012 18:34 screamingpalm wrote: Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
lol. All I've seen is advocation for punishing those who did their work, while rewarding those who didn't. It depends how you look at it. Then again, that's how I've been trained to look at it, as a Business Economics major.
What I see is someone proposing a bill that might just make university education less of a risk for people that haven't had the opportunity to 'do their work' and save up.
But then I've lived in an area where there was youth unemployment at rates above 40% before the crisis, where some of the people in my class were primary breadwinners for their families by 16. How were the kids working 30 hours a week on top of high school to pay rent supposed to save up for college? What were the 40% of kids who wanted to work but couldn't get a job supposed to do more? Commute 4 hours per day to work in the next city at the cost of 2 hours of wages?
Luckily for people in that area, their government has already put in place a system to eliminate punitive debt associated with higher education. Even though they don't have savings or parental savings to support them, they will graduate with a low total amount of debt which will gather interest at a low rate and will only have to make repayments proportional to their income.
One idea behind measures like this is that a university education will on average make a person more valuable to the economy by enough that it is worth educating them, and that debt or the fear of debt drives away the people whose value would most be increased by the education more than any other group.
Yeah that older generation talk is PURE garbage. My father, for example paid like 2-3k (assuming I remember correctly) for his educatiuon at University of OR in his day. He actually didn't pay a dime though- GI Bill covered the whole thing after his 2 year stint in the Army. Bought our house and 2 acres for 60,000 (sold for 250,000 during the big bubble- 2nd acre sold seperately). Wages have not changed all that much since then.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Why should you be able to have a cell phone when seniors didn't have them at a younger age?
I heard somewhere ( maybe over exaggerated ) that the government can hold money away from you in say a bank without your permission and you would never know about it unless you investigated it yourself... but the IRS comes and shits all over you and your future if you owe them money, make poor people completely destitute, i say we tax the fucking rich so much that they're only considered middle class. there all the money problems in the united states solved! :-)
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Your parents barely had any student loans in the first place. The cost of attending school has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Tuition is going up by 10%+ each year and with the near necessity of having a college degree in today's market, you open the landscape up to predatory lending by any number of agencies.
To put it in perspective, in the '70s, you could get a medical education for about 15,000 in today's dollars. Now, it costs around 250,000 to get an education. You see the giant disparity?
While it's not entirely clear how much better a university education is than wikipedia/online lecture surfing, the thing that matters is that employers look at your degree and where you graduated from. You can't go into a job interview without a degree and say "well I'm qualified because I followed all those lectures online" even if that statement were objectively true. A student loan should be seen as an investment, but as with any investment, people should seriously consider whether the cost (including the opportunity cost of years that could have been spent earning money) is justified by the return.
This thread is extremely hard to read, it's sad to see how many people are willing to condemn those for a poor, probably misguided choice. Should the government bail them out 100%, No. But too say we shouldn't try to make it better is just plain wrong, especially those that say "I did it, why can't they".
Maybe I'm blinded, maybe I'm silly to think that a lot of our tax money is tied up in other areas, maybe we actually need all that military funding? I'm not talking about raising taxes here, I'm talking about making it easy on our young people. My brother is in university, has extremely good grades, but has paid in cash so far(mostly my mom's money). He's strongly considering going to community college instead of taking out 10000 in loans next semester because seriously, what the hell is the difference.
Just because you worked two jobs, and went to six classes a semester too finish school faster, and had a poor quality of life for two years doesn't mean all of our young people should do it, some of them doing it right now have read this thread, and probably are groaning at some of these comments, dreading all that $ sitting there gathering interest, knowing that if they cant succeed they are pretty screwed. A part time job and full time school is fine, doable, and reasonable, but depending on how many hours your putting in, too much work cuts into your school, and not everyone can do well in school without trying and taking time to study.
I don't like it because a lot of people go to university just for going to university. Pick a stupid ass degree that they know they will have a hard time getting a job. Cry when they don't get a job. Go and get another degree. That is just poor planning.
Paying off student loans is an important part of most young peoples lives, as it forces them to go out and get a career, or deal and settle on a shitty job to pay the bills. It also leads them to learn "budgetting" which I have always known and done, mostly because of coming from a poor family, I didn't want to waste my money. There are plenty of students that even though they are "broke" will spend all there extra money on booze, or go on spring vacation when they really can't afford these things.
Experience: Currently in school probably 40k in debt. Student loan fucked up last semester and didn't give me enough money to live. Extreme budgeting was done, as well as borrowing a lot of money from my friends to pay off my semester, which I have since paid all back with almost 0 spending for myself during my work term.
That being everything would be so much better if university was free or I had a fucking scholarship. Lol. QQ
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc.
Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps.
You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc.
The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume.
Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave.
Ah I had you pegged all wrong... pro-choice then?
I never said I don't like the 'rich'. It's the greedy I don't care much for.
So since my disability keeps me from being able to work, I should just simply not consume? Nice to know.
No, I'm not pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm pro-property rights, which puts me in the middle. The woman doesn't have a right to kill the unborn, but neither the unborn have a right to occupy a space which the mother doesn't want. So, the solution is the woman is free to induce early labor and 'evict' the child, and thus, put it up for adoption. This means that as technology progresses so too is the woman's ability to evict sooner.
In any event, I don't mind greedy folk, I just don't like thieves, robbers, and the host of criminal folk.
As far as your disability, my apologies, but that doesn't mean because you got a bad deal in life that some other sap has to work for you without a choice in the matter. Family is there to help each other out, and in the case you have bad luck there, you can search for help by other means, and in the case of disabilities only the severely disabled are unable to work at all. The Welfare State is no subsititute as a means of assistance, because it produces envy, avarice, and lethargy amongst society. It ain't limited to the folk who truly are in need of assistance. The Welfare State primarily benefits the extremely wealthy and the folk who only vote your property, as well as a whole host of societal engineering by meglomaniacs. No thanks.
I somewhat agree with you on the welfare state, but not entirely. Free market is NOT working the way it's supposed to. Yes, their should be income disparaties, but is it really fair for the some people to make 1000 times as much as someone else? No, it isn't. Double is fair. 5 times is fair. Hell, I'm even ok wit 10, 20 or 50 times as much. But the current income disparity (espacially) in the US is ridiculous and isn't the sign of anything good. Sure, some of them earned it, but come on: a lot of people are ridiculously privileged because of something their parents did. Yes, that's what they worked for, but they way the US works right now, politically, academically and economically is drenched in nepotism and more reminiscent of middle-aged inherited titles than any kind of free market.
On April 18 2012 21:08 Mementoss wrote: I don't like it because a lot of people go to university just for going to university. Pick a stupid ass degree that they know they will have a hard time getting a job. Cry when they don't get a job. Go and get another degree. That is just poor planning.
This is an important problem. People really need to consider what they are going to do in the future with their degree.
I think the real problem here is not paying back student loans. It is job planning and the cost of education.
Honestly, I really wonder where all the money is going in college. I have had my tuition money increased and increased every year for virtually no foreseeable benefit to myself? I think if the government took the money they were going to give to help pay off school loans with and gave it to universities, this would be the best way to start solving the problem (but then again the government is broke).
Also, job planning is ridiculous. I mean the economy is rough, and it is hard to get a job, especially for college graduates (in say.. basket-weaving) with little to no experience. People really need to choose between two priorities: "getting the degree they want" and "getting a degree that will give them a stable career."
Edit: response to this:
I somewhat agree with you on the welfare state, but not entirely. Free market is NOT working the way it's supposed to. Yes, their should be income disparaties, but is it really fair for the some people to make 1000 times as much as someone else? No, it isn't. Double is fair. 5 times is fair. Hell, I'm even ok wit 10, 20 or 50 times as much. But the current income disparity (espacially) in the US is ridiculous and isn't the sign of anything good. Sure, some of them earned it, but come on: a lot of people are ridiculously privileged because of something their parents did. Yes, that's what they worked for, but they way the US works right now, politically, academically and economically is drenched in nepotism and more reminiscent of middle-aged inherited titles than any kind of free market.
I see your point. The reality is that this whole system isn't fair, but think about those people who really did earn their spot. This hurts them incredibly, and I am a firm believer that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. Thus, we shouldn't change from a system which allows a few people to earn their place (even if many do not). Honestly, I think the only solution is to just work hard and try and make your way up the ladder. It is thinking other than this that got us to this point in the first place.
On April 18 2012 20:48 sharky246 wrote: wrong time to be putting up this act imo. Maybe like 10 years later when the america paid back most of its debt.
The last time the debt was paid was 1835. I wouldn't hold your breath.
On April 18 2012 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort, unless someone wants to voluntarily subsidize you; that (Welfare - Entitlement) sort of system is parasitic and harmful. That's what a majority of people have a problem with.
As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective. In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
And I suppose only the rich shall be allowed to reproduce, etc.
Now what about those of us who are disabled, and not just 'lazy'? Shall we aim low then (unfortunately my productivity isn't quite what it was in my prime)? Doesn't sound like freedom to me... serfdom perhaps.
You still don't understand. The State enriches and enables the 'rich' whatever your definition is of it. Liberty is the most equalizing environment if you happen to value a more egalitarian society. There are no privileges, no immunities, no guarantees. Free to fail, or succeed, make money and lose money, innovate, compete, etc. Those 'rich' you don't like, well, they sure love the folks who write them competition crippling regulations, licensining, permits, monopolies, guaranteed income (Auto Insurance, etc.), etc.
The entire regulatory environment was born out of the 'need' for a select few Industrials to destroy their competition that was making them become irrelevant. I don't like the parasites at the top, or the bottom, they're both thieves. I know it's antiquated, but, yes folks should have to work to consume.
Anyone is free to reproduce, as long as you can afford it. That's common sense. Why should we be subsidizing a new generation of folk who only know Welfarism? That's dependancy on the State. Booker T. Washington is probably rolling in his grave.
Ah I had you pegged all wrong... pro-choice then?
I never said I don't like the 'rich'. It's the greedy I don't care much for.
So since my disability keeps me from being able to work, I should just simply not consume? Nice to know.
No, I'm not pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm pro-property rights, which puts me in the middle. The woman doesn't have a right to kill the unborn, but neither the unborn have a right to occupy a space which the mother doesn't want. So, the solution is the woman is free to induce early labor and 'evict' the child, and thus, put it up for adoption. This means that as technology progresses so too is the woman's ability to evict sooner.
In any event, I don't mind greedy folk, I just don't like thieves, robbers, and the host of criminal folk.
As far as your disability, my apologies, but that doesn't mean because you got a bad deal in life that some other sap has to work for you without a choice in the matter. Family is there to help each other out, and in the case you have bad luck there, you can search for help by other means, and in the case of disabilities only the severely disabled are unable to work at all. The Welfare State is no subsititute as a means of assistance, because it produces envy, avarice, and lethargy amongst society. It ain't limited to the folk who truly are in need of assistance. The Welfare State primarily benefits the extremely wealthy and the folk who only vote your property, as well as a whole host of societal engineering by meglomaniacs. No thanks.
I somewhat agree with you on the welfare state, but not entirely. Free market is NOT working the way it's supposed to. Yes, their should be income disparaties, but is it really fair for the some people to make 1000 times as much as someone else? No, it isn't. Double is fair. 5 times is fair. Hell, I'm even ok wit 10, 20 or 50 times as much. But the current income disparity (espacially) in the US is ridiculous and isn't the sign of anything good. Sure, some of them earned it, but come on: a lot of people are ridiculously privileged because of something their parents did. Yes, that's what they worked for, but they way the US works right now, politically, academically and economically is drenched in nepotism and more reminiscent of middle-aged inherited titles than any kind of free market.
The quandry you are having is seeing modern society and its economic system as free market when we haven't had anything close to it since about 1900 (and I'd argue even further back before Sherman and Clayton acts so around 1890), The system most prevalent around the world today is Corporatist or Fascist in nature. As far as what is fair, that's irrelevant. Fair is whatever someone is willing to pay another without any fraud, coercion, or violent interference. You are running to a State which produced our current society expecting them to fix what they created. That's lunacy my friend. The entire point of the State is to enrich those who either are 'good obedient sons' (intelligentsia), or who are in positions of power, or those of whom pay those people in power (Corporations). So, you see, you can't use a system of evil to do good, ain't workin'.
Furthermore I don't see how it fair to use violence to prevent folk from making what consensual parties agree to. That isn't fair.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort
But that just doesn't work. Because if you're putting in that amount effort, you're already not living a high standard of life because you're sacrificing other important aspects of your life and you're already suffering.
This is particularly bad if it takes place during your formative years (young adulthood) and coincides with your education, because experiences you have during this period will greatly affect your character and core personal values which in turn guide you to forming an opinion on important social and political issues.
The fact that on this very thread we have so many people who have this vision of the world where human life is essentially reduced to its economic value to me indicates that there is something inherently wrong with a system which seems to systematically imprint those values onto people.
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote: As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective.
Humans - all of us - have a very specific set of needs and prioritization of needs that is very uniform, and very well researched. This isn't about subjective opinions. It most certainly isn't about personal values.
Take sex for a very basic example. People need to have sex to be happy. If somebody claims they don't care about it or don't need it or are fine without it, that's not them expressing their opinion and personal value, it's them being WRONG - or more precisely, ignorant about their own physiology and psychology and unaware of how much it affects them (and by extension the people around them and their environment). Same is true for more complex needs, such as entertainment, safety, stability and an ethical social environment.
People who call the lot of us who spend too much time frequenting a gaming/esports website unhealthy are not expressing their subjective opinion, they are stating a fact that they can back up with evidence that you can not argue against. If you think you can just decide that spending 15 hours a day on teamliquid and SC2 streams is not unhealthy for you, you are very mistaken. The same is true for sitting at an office desk and working for 15 hours a day or studying for 15 hours a day (over a long period of time).
You can choose to suspend it or be convinced or convince yourself that certain things don't matter so much in life and you don't need them, but that doesn't change the reality of it, and ultimately you're only making your own life worse - or, like what you specifically are doing right now - advocating ideas that make other people's lives worse.
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote: In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
That is not freedom. That's an abusive, perverted interpretation of freedom that results in concept of freedom being skewed to the point of representing almost the exact opposite of what actual freedom is. Your idea of freedom inevitably results in the huge majority of people not being free and having little hope of ever being free of the oppressive and inherently exploitative society it encourages.
I don't like this. You know it's a loan when you sign up for it. If you arent comfortable with that then don't take out a loan. "But the system forces you to behave irresponsibly and take out a loan you might not be able to pay back!" then let's fix the system, instead of flooding it with more taxpayer money for the educational establishment to gobble up.
I think its fucked in the first place that students have to pay an interest above 3.4% as the bill suggests. Their loan are insured by the government, thefore the risk a bank takes with a student loan is de facto the risk that the US government will not pay back its loans. Last time I checked, T-bill went around for <2%. Student loans should not pay a higher interest as the T-bills for similiar length, given that the US government insures them. Every percentage higher is simply handing out free cash to the financial sector at the expense of indebted students.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
It's "I was responsible and you weren't, so why should I have to pay for you being irresponsible?"
You say it like it's sacrifice. It's not sacrificing to do what he did. It's what everyone should do unless they can afford to do otherwise. Sure, it'd be nice if it wasn't like that, but you want him to pay higher taxes to support other people's laziness? Pfft. I'm completely against it.
It's absolutely a sacrifice to have to go through what he did during studies.
It's a sacrifice in the sense that you sacrifice a LOT of things that make up for a reasonable, healthy life by having to work during studies. You sacrifice time spent with your family, you sacrifice time for hobbies, recreation, socializing, traveling, obtaining a broader education, developing different skills, working on personal projects - hell, many kids are even lucky if having to work does not cut into their grades in the first place (in fact it almost certainly will).
All of these components are absolutely necessary for an individual to set foundations for a healthy life, and for someone to actually grow into a socially aware and responsible individual. A person who has had to work and study since they were 15 pays a huge price, and I'm not talking about money. Don't get me wrong, I personally do admire such people and their commitment, and it's a massive personal accomplishment for them that they can definitely be proud of - but to say it's not a sacrifice is plainly wrong.
It's an IMMENSE sacrifice, one that arguably you can't ever make up for in the future. To say that everyone "should" have to do it unless they (their parents) can afford otherwise is even more damning.
And secondly, can we please get over calling people who don't work 12 hours a day "lazy"? If that is the definition of laziness, then laziness is good. Excessive working hours and commitments are physically, mentally AND socially unhealthy. Stop looking at it as some sort of highest value and an ideal everyone should uphold, because it is certainly not that, and it has horrible consequences for a society.
To a lot of people it's not so much the attitude (even if they say it) that I work twelve hours and you should too, it's that people should be compensated based on their productivity and value. In other words, you shouldn't be living a high standard of life if you don't put in the effort
But that just doesn't work. Because if you're putting in that amount effort, you're already not living a high standard of life because you're sacrificing other important aspects of your life and you're already suffering.
This is particularly bad if it takes place during your formative years (young adulthood) and coincides with your education, because experiences you have during this period will greatly affect your character and core personal values which in turn guide you to forming an opinion on important social and political issues.
The fact that on this very thread we have so many people who have this vision of the world where human life is essentially reduced to its economic value to me indicates that there is something inherently wrong with a system which seems to systematically imprint those values onto people.
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote: As far as what constitutes a healthy lifestyle that is subjective and up to each individual. Lots of people would call the lot of us who frequent a GAMING site, very unhealthy, and sure, it may be for them, but values are subjective.
Humans - all of us - have a very specific set of needs and prioritization of needs that is very uniform, and very well researched. This isn't about subjective opinions. It most certainly isn't about personal values.
Take sex for a very basic example. People need to have sex to be happy. If somebody claims they don't care about it or don't need it or are fine without it, that's not them expressing their opinion and personal value, it's them being WRONG - or more precisely, ignorant about their own physiology and psychology and unaware of how much it affects them (and by extension the people around them and their environment). Same is true for more complex needs, such as entertainment, safety, stability and an ethical social environment.
People who call the lot of us who spend too much time frequenting a gaming/esports website unhealthy are not expressing their subjective opinion, they are stating a fact that they can back up with evidence that you can not argue against. If you think you can just decide that spending 15 hours a day on teamliquid and SC2 streams is not unhealthy for you, you are very mistaken. The same is true for sitting at an office desk and working for 15 hours a day or studying for 15 hours a day (over a long period of time).
You can choose to suspend it or be convinced or convince yourself that certain things don't matter so much in life and you don't need them, but that doesn't change the reality of it, and ultimately you're only making your own life worse - or, like what you specifically are doing right now - advocating ideas that make other people's lives worse.
On April 18 2012 19:36 Wegandi wrote: In any event, consumpton = productivity - value, is the ideal. Those that are well to do should be encouraged towards philanthraphy and other such endeavors. That's freedom. Let's try and steer away from the coercion and violence that are State 'solutions', shall we?
That is not freedom. That's an abusive, perverted interpretation of freedom that results in concept of freedom being skewed to the point of representing almost the exact opposite of what actual freedom is. Your idea of freedom inevitably results in the huge majority of people not being free and having little hope of ever being free of the oppressive and inherently exploitative society it encourages.
Only someone so Orwellian would believe that a society bereft of institutionalized violence, thievery, and coercion is oppressive, unfree, and exploitative. You seem to have all the answers and know everything for everyone and what they should and shouldn't do. Perhaps you should become dictator to tell us nitwits how wrong we are living our own lives.
Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
On April 18 2012 09:49 Blindo wrote: No ones forcing you to go to an expensive school. Just because people can't be responsible with their finances doesn't mean that they should have them all forgiven. I work and go to an instate college, I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being financially irresponsible.
How about a school that raised their prices 6,000 dollars in a couple of years? Mine did, after I decided to attend it based on the original price. It was still cheaper than the other schools I was willing to consider (quality reasons), so I had to suck it up.
Higher education in Belgium: 580 EUR/year, 100 EUR if you're eligible for a tuition. Entry fees for higher education are regulated by the state. Education should NEVER be a free market thing, it's way too important.
Then again, Europeans are filthy socialists (that somehow have way higher living standards than the average american citizen), right?
Dude... it's the government loans that allow the schools to raise prices every year..... free market brings costs down and quality up...... think cell phones or tvs or computers or anything else. Everything is supposed to be a free market thing. You trust retarded politicians to micro manage education? If they could do anything of value they wouldn't be politicians.
You might not think you are paying for it but you are. Look at the EU in shambles, some countries bordering on civil war, completely bankrupt. That is the price of allowing politicians and bankers to team up. If you didn't allow them such power it could never happen. The sad thing is America was founded on the principles of limited government and liberty. They knew thisshit and became the greatest country on earth as a result. Unfortunately with the passage of time all these lessons have been forgotten and the price they are going to pay will be staggering.
The bill is great for students in debt, but pretty bad for everyone else. Voting for this is basically a litmus test for selfishness.
And I echo the sentiments of those saying this will just raise the cost of tuition. Its things like this that made college so damn expensive in the first place. If you artificially inflate demand while supply remains the same, guess what: price has to rise.
On April 18 2012 22:28 CruelZeratul wrote: Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
Studying is free. Its other peoples time and labour that costs money. You mean to say that college should be free, which is just silly. If education is your right, then the people who pay for it are your slaves.
Theres a new thread like this every week on TL so I will say this again: A forum made up primarily of college kids think that college should be free? What a shocker.
On April 18 2012 22:28 CruelZeratul wrote: Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
Studying is free. Its other peoples time and labour that costs money. You mean to say that college should be free, which is just silly. If education is your right, then the people who pay for it are your slaves.
Theres a new thread like this every week on TL so I will say this again: A forum made up primarily of college kids think that college should be free? What a shocker.
Isn't primary school and school in general free in US/Canada? Are you a slave for them?
On April 18 2012 22:28 CruelZeratul wrote: Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
Studying is free. Its other peoples time and labour that costs money. You mean to say that college should be free, which is just silly. If education is your right, then the people who pay for it are your slaves.
Theres a new thread like this every week on TL so I will say this again: A forum made up primarily of college kids think that college should be free? What a shocker.
Isn't primary school and school in general free in US/Canada? Are you a slave for them?
Yes. People with guns come for my money and kidnap me if I dont give it to them. Dont have kids? Dont use the system? Too bad I have no chioce.
Slave is an inflammatory word because obviously im not getting whipped, but thats only because I always pay up.
On April 18 2012 22:28 CruelZeratul wrote: Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
Studying is free. Its other peoples time and labour that costs money. You mean to say that college should be free, which is just silly. If education is your right, then the people who pay for it are your slaves.
Theres a new thread like this every week on TL so I will say this again: A forum made up primarily of college kids think that college should be free? What a shocker.
Isn't primary school and school in general free in US/Canada? Are you a slave for them?
Try not paying your property tax and see where you end up. The State owns your ass and your property. If you have no money, property all ready paid off fully, tough shit you'll be kicked out and probably off to jail too.
On April 18 2012 23:14 turamn wrote: Or just pay your loans? Don't take them out if you can't pay them back.
Thats another great point. So many kids (myself included) just stay in school and just go deeper in debt very carelessly. Private lenders dont want to pay out 50 000k for someone to sit in school for 6 years in some liberal arts program: why? Because they dont see a way they are ever going to get paid back, and are they wrong? Just think of all the people out there with massive debt and little to no job opportunities.
Private loans and private free market interest rates are not 'mean' or 'punitive'. They are REALISTIC. They convey real information about the likelyhood of repayment. The fact the 90% of elective representatives dont understand this is scary (but hardly surprising).
On April 18 2012 23:14 turamn wrote: Or just pay your loans? Don't take them out if you can't pay them back.
Thats another great point. So many kids (myself included) just stay in school and just go deeper in debt very carelessly. Private lenders dont want to pay out 50 000k for someone to sit in school for 6 years in some liberal arts program: why? Because they dont see a way they are ever going to get paid back, and are they wrong? Just think of all the people out there with massive debt and little to no job opportunities.
Private loans and private free market interest rates are not 'mean' or 'punitive'. They are REALISTIC. They convey real information about the likelyhood of repayment. The fact the 90% of elective representatives dont understand this is scary (but hardly surprising).
Actually, private lenders will jump at the idea to pay out 50k for a student loan, especially if there is a co-signer. They are almost guaranteed the money back since filing bankruptcy doesn't apply to student loans. You'll default, and they'll sue anyone involved for all that you're worth. EDIT: And the interest will continue to build.
I think parents should also take responsibility to guide those 16-17 year olds make decisions, but the problem with that is that in the Western culture, they are too caught up with the whole individuality thing so the kids often make stupid decisions despite what the parents might say. A lot of parents know how the job market is at the time and can roughly make out a picture of what degrees can get a job and what can't - a vital piece of information that can be passed along to their children.
Let's consider other education that is free. How much is a high school diploma worth? Essentially nothing as far as anyone is concerned. And people want to do the same thing to college? The amount of retardation that comes from student debt forgiveness and free college tuition is asounding. Apparently the people these ideas eminate from didn't learn anything in college.
On April 18 2012 23:39 Elegance wrote: I think parents should also take responsibility to guide those 16-17 year olds make decisions, but the problem with that is that in the Western culture, they are too caught up with the whole individuality thing so the kids often make stupid decisions despite what the parents might say. A lot of parents know how the job market is at the time and can roughly make out a picture of what degrees can get a job and what can't - a vital piece of information that can be passed along to their children.
It's probably mostly the parents' faults actually. They think that since the market is so bad, they want their kid to go to college to HELP them get a job. They think they SHOULD spend the money and come out four years later to HOPEFULLY a better job market.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
i lived at home and commuted to school to keep living expenses down. i earned money before college so i wouldnt have to take as many loans out. i worked hard to get scholarships. i worked during college and every summer to keep loans manageable. i now have loans that i can repay with my job, and i would not benefit at all from the loan forgiveness because i kept expenses down and made sure i could pay back all my student debt. is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to go to an expensive private institution? is it fair for me to have to pay extra taxes because you decided to live on campus at extra expense to yourself? is it ignorant of me to expect that my tax money wont be used to subsidize people's choice of not managing their finances appropriately?
It's so depressive to see that so many people have this "I went through this so I want everyone else to have to go through the same thing as well" attitude these days.
One would think that after you've been through all that and had to make so many sacrifices to get what you want, you would strive to make sure other people - or at the very least future generations - do not have to go through the same thing or at least have it a LITTLE bit easier, rather than condemning them to the same fate due to some misguided concept of fairness.
i certainly will strive to make sure my children dont have to go through it because i am in a good economic position, but i dont feel any need to make sure that society generally doesnt have to act financially responsible.
here is my problem with these loan forgiveness plans: people signed contracts saying that they will pay back the money at a certain interest rate (no ifs, ands or buts); employment was potential, but not absolute; the economy was not absolute; yet, when it comes to them to pay back back the loans, they say they shouldnt have to; that is neither responsible nor appropriate. maybe education is too expensive; maybe the economy sucks so some type of deferral on payments is necessary; however, in no way, shape or form should people be allowed to renege on their agreement to pay back the money. it promotes financial irresponsibility and non-accountability.
would it be nice if we live in a society where nobody has to pay for education? yes. i can get behind that. but we dont, and when you agree to do something (e.g., pay back a loan) then be responsible and pay it back.
too many times have people acted irresponsibly in their financial endeavors and then asked the gov't to bail them out.
On April 18 2012 23:14 turamn wrote: Or just pay your loans? Don't take them out if you can't pay them back.
Thats another great point. So many kids (myself included) just stay in school and just go deeper in debt very carelessly. Private lenders dont want to pay out 50 000k for someone to sit in school for 6 years in some liberal arts program: why? Because they dont see a way they are ever going to get paid back, and are they wrong? Just think of all the people out there with massive debt and little to no job opportunities.
Private loans and private free market interest rates are not 'mean' or 'punitive'. They are REALISTIC. They convey real information about the likelyhood of repayment. The fact the 90% of elective representatives dont understand this is scary (but hardly surprising).
Actually, private lenders will jump at the idea to pay out 50k for a student loan, especially if there is a co-signer. They are almost guaranteed the money back since filing bankruptcy doesn't apply to student loans. You'll default, and they'll sue anyone involved for all that you're worth. EDIT: And the interest will continue to build.
Well your assuming a co-signer. Let me ask again then: who would co-sign such a loan? The essential question here is who is going to bear the risk?
If its the lender or co-signer in a private arrangment then they do that voluntarily of their own free will, and it doesnt affect society at large.
On April 18 2012 23:39 Elegance wrote: I think parents should also take responsibility to guide those 16-17 year olds make decisions, but the problem with that is that in the Western culture, they are too caught up with the whole individuality thing so the kids often make stupid decisions despite what the parents might say. A lot of parents know how the job market is at the time and can roughly make out a picture of what degrees can get a job and what can't - a vital piece of information that can be passed along to their children.
It's probably mostly the parents' faults actually. They think that since the market is so bad, they want their kid to go to college to HELP them get a job. They think they SHOULD spend the money and come out four years later to HOPEFULLY a better job market.
Not to mention that their kids HAVE to make 6 figures and are better than everyone elses' kids
On April 18 2012 23:14 turamn wrote: Or just pay your loans? Don't take them out if you can't pay them back.
Thats another great point. So many kids (myself included) just stay in school and just go deeper in debt very carelessly. Private lenders dont want to pay out 50 000k for someone to sit in school for 6 years in some liberal arts program: why? Because they dont see a way they are ever going to get paid back, and are they wrong? Just think of all the people out there with massive debt and little to no job opportunities.
Private loans and private free market interest rates are not 'mean' or 'punitive'. They are REALISTIC. They convey real information about the likelyhood of repayment. The fact the 90% of elective representatives dont understand this is scary (but hardly surprising).
Actually, private lenders will jump at the idea to pay out 50k for a student loan, especially if there is a co-signer. They are almost guaranteed the money back since filing bankruptcy doesn't apply to student loans. You'll default, and they'll sue anyone involved for all that you're worth. EDIT: And the interest will continue to build.
Well your assuming a co-signer. Let me ask again then: who would co-sign such a loan? The essential question here is who is going to bear the risk?
If its the lender or co-signer in a private arrangment then they do that voluntarily of their own free will, and it doesnt affect society at large.
A parent that believes in their child? It's happening. Do you really not know that parents co-sign their children's loans? Edit: To directly answer the question, the borrower is bearing the risk WITH the co-signer, so student and parent typically with false idea beaten into them that they will be able to pay it off later (stupid idea for some people without the knowledge or foresight to have known any better). The thing is, lending money should be a risk for both borrower AND lender. The fact that student loans are not affected by bankruptcy makes it such that lenders have basically no risk, so they're just handing out loans to everyone who has a parent. Or grandparent. Or relative.
Student loan forgiveness is a bailout for the upper class. There a ton of people who would have liked to go to college, but did not have that opportunity. The extra income earned by those who are lucky enough to go to college more than makes up for their student loan payments. There is no need to make the best off any better off than they already are.
studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
On April 18 2012 23:14 turamn wrote: Or just pay your loans? Don't take them out if you can't pay them back.
Thats another great point. So many kids (myself included) just stay in school and just go deeper in debt very carelessly. Private lenders dont want to pay out 50 000k for someone to sit in school for 6 years in some liberal arts program: why? Because they dont see a way they are ever going to get paid back, and are they wrong? Just think of all the people out there with massive debt and little to no job opportunities.
Private loans and private free market interest rates are not 'mean' or 'punitive'. They are REALISTIC. They convey real information about the likelyhood of repayment. The fact the 90% of elective representatives dont understand this is scary (but hardly surprising).
Actually, private lenders will jump at the idea to pay out 50k for a student loan, especially if there is a co-signer. They are almost guaranteed the money back since filing bankruptcy doesn't apply to student loans. You'll default, and they'll sue anyone involved for all that you're worth. EDIT: And the interest will continue to build.
Well your assuming a co-signer. Let me ask again then: who would co-sign such a loan? The essential question here is who is going to bear the risk?
If its the lender or co-signer in a private arrangment then they do that voluntarily of their own free will, and it doesnt affect society at large.
A parent that believes in their child? It's happening. Do you really not know that parents co-sign their children's loans? Edit: To directly answer the question, the borrower is bearing the risk WITH the co-signer, so student and parent typically with false idea beaten into them that they will be able to pay it off later (stupid idea for some people without the knowledge or foresight to have known any better). The thing is, lending money should be a risk for both borrower AND lender. The fact that student loans are not affected by bankruptcy makes it such that lenders have basically no risk, so they're just handing out loans to everyone who has a parent. Or grandparent. Or relative.
On April 18 2012 23:14 turamn wrote: Or just pay your loans? Don't take them out if you can't pay them back.
Thats another great point. So many kids (myself included) just stay in school and just go deeper in debt very carelessly. Private lenders dont want to pay out 50 000k for someone to sit in school for 6 years in some liberal arts program: why? Because they dont see a way they are ever going to get paid back, and are they wrong? Just think of all the people out there with massive debt and little to no job opportunities.
Private loans and private free market interest rates are not 'mean' or 'punitive'. They are REALISTIC. They convey real information about the likelyhood of repayment. The fact the 90% of elective representatives dont understand this is scary (but hardly surprising).
Actually, private lenders will jump at the idea to pay out 50k for a student loan, especially if there is a co-signer. They are almost guaranteed the money back since filing bankruptcy doesn't apply to student loans. You'll default, and they'll sue anyone involved for all that you're worth. EDIT: And the interest will continue to build.
Well your assuming a co-signer. Let me ask again then: who would co-sign such a loan? The essential question here is who is going to bear the risk?
If its the lender or co-signer in a private arrangment then they do that voluntarily of their own free will, and it doesnt affect society at large.
A parent that believes in their child? It's happening. Do you really not know that parents co-sign their children's loans? Edit: To directly answer the question, the borrower is bearing the risk WITH the co-signer, so student and parent typically with false idea beaten into them that they will be able to pay it off later (stupid idea for some people without the knowledge or foresight to have known any better). The thing is, lending money should be a risk for both borrower AND lender. The fact that student loans are not affected by bankruptcy makes it such that lenders have basically no risk, so they're just handing out loans to everyone who has a parent. Or grandparent. Or relative.
I agree. I dont know why we are arguing.
Hmm. I guess I got the wrong idea about the points you were making or something. Who knows.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
"Im gunna chop of your finger, but hey at least im not chopping off your leg?" Yeah thats not good enough for me.
And also in North America not everyone goes to college. "Lucky to go to college" is a reality.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours. I mean, in comparison you have a system that will encourage actual squandering of the resources of the world to make iPads just because there's a "demand" for it.
If for no other reason, educated people are less likely to be manipulated and more likely to understand their needs better which will lead towards a more reasonable market with more realistic demand.
Some things are just universally, objectively, and rationally good and have inherent value that may or may not entirely translate into market value, no matter how difficult it might be for you to acknowledge the existence of such things.
There`s no such thing as 'free' education. What you are really saying is you want me to pay for your education. Well I don't want to pay for your education. Why should I, someone who never went to university, who never had those opportunities, be forced to subsidize you? People who go to university tend to be from a higher socio-economic background then those who don't. So why should the poor be forced to subsidize the rich?
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
Yes, it's a good idea.
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized. Partly forgiving student loans and tying it to working in jobs that society needs, like teachers, etc, increases the net societal good.
In Australia, everyone can get a university loan, which gets paid back through the tax system if your income after university exceeds a certain threshold.
Even better, the government reduces the cost of university if you study in high demand areas such as science, nursing or education. And even better than that, the government in effect further reduces this debt if you are employed in science after graduating.
This way, we encourage people to be educated in areas of need, like science, and further encourage them to work in these areas. All of this has positive spillover effects on society.
I'm generally against this. There are better ways to make college affordable, this doesn't target particularly talented kids or especially deserving ones. Eventually people will realize college is just not for everyone, and thats completely fine.
On April 19 2012 00:26 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: There`s no such thing as 'free' education. What you are really saying is you want me to pay for your education. Well I don't want to pay for your education. Why should I, someone who never went to university, who never had those opportunities, be forced to subsidize you? People who go to university tend to be from a higher socio-economic background then those who don't. So why should the poor be forced to subsidize the rich?
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Your complaint is that poor people can't afford to go to university, and your solution is stop all subsidies.
Then, how do you expect poor people to get into university, if they are too poor to afford it, and no one pays for them?
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized.
I disagree with this. Just because someone else benefits from something I do doesn't mean they should be taxed for my benefit. If a girl walks around in a miniskirt I have a positive externality because of this, but do you really think I should be taxed in order to subsidize her for that?
Your complaint is that poor people can't afford to go to university, and your solution is stop all subsidies.
My complaint is that advocates of subsidizing education want to steal from the poor to give to the rich. I don't have a problem with the fact that poor people DON'T go to university (clearly they CAN, just by getting a job & or student loans) because I think far too many people do go to university.
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized.
I disagree with this. Just because someone else benefits from something I do doesn't mean they should be taxed for my benefit. If a girl walks around in a miniskirt I have a positive externality because of this, but do you really think I should be taxed in order to subsidize her for that?
Yes, imagine the net benefit to (male) society if the government paid women to walk around in miniskirts.
EDIT: No I'm not serious. But this is a good example. If women walking around in miniskirt really is a positive externality (not really, it might be demeaning to them, some girls are fat, it gets cold, mainly benefits men not women, etc.), then it does make sense for the government to subsidize it, in accordance with standard economic theory.
You can't improve society by forcing people to do things they don't want to do. Everyone has their own subjective value scales, their own things they want to spend their money on. Taxation decreases people's utility by forcing them to spend money on things they don't want to spend money on. And it's wrong. It's wrong to use state power to loot one group in order to subsidize another.
Your complaint is that poor people can't afford to go to university, and your solution is stop all subsidies.
My complaint is that advocates of subsidizing education want to steal from the poor to give to the rich. I don't have a problem with the fact that poor people DON'T go to university (clearly they CAN, just by getting a job & or student loans) because I think far too many people do go to university.
Taxes are mostly stolen from the rich, not the poor.
Subsidizing education is stealing from the rich to give to everyone (although in Australia, there's currently a government initiative to increase university enrollment from poor families), not stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
This is a program that is trying to do the right thing, but going about it the wrong way. Instead of spending gov't money to get rid of this loans, why not just spend more gov't money on our Junior Colleges and State Universities? With more government fundings our public institutions won't have to charge high tuitions that necessitate loans.
The easiest thing to do here is reduce tuition, rather than have a high tuition then do some wonky loan forgiveness scheme. We should spend some serious bank on our higher ed programs so people can actually afford to go to a state uni like they used to...
Trying to solve this problem by forgiving loans instead of just lowering tuition is like talking to your fat friend who eats mcdonalds 9x a day and saying "oh, keep on eating that mcdonalds 9x a day but also go for a jog for 9 hours a day" when instead he could just not eat mcdonalds 9x a day
On April 19 2012 00:37 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: You can't improve society by forcing people to do things they don't want to do. Everyone has their own subjective value scales, their own things they want to spend their money on. Taxation decreases people's utility by forcing them to spend money on things they don't want to spend money on. And it's wrong. It's wrong to use state power to loot one group in order to subsidize another.
No one is being forced.
It's not wrong, it's a positive externality, it increases the societal good.
An educated work force is good for society, so the government incentivizes people to get education.
There is a skills shortage in science (at least in Australia) so more people working in science is good for society, therefore the government incentivizes people to get a science degree, and further incentivizes them to work in science after graduation.
Subsidies don't force, they incentivize.
While taxation decreases personal utility, it can increase societies utility, as without taxation no government could afford to build roads, in force laws, provide social insurance for the poor etc.
The flip side is that if there is too much redistribution through taxes, then taxation serves as a disincentive to working hard and being productive. But this argument does not apply in the case of subsidizing education, as you still have to work hard to get good results and get a job after graduation.
Talking about taxation as if it's some kind of moral evil is an irrelevant argument. This is economics, not morality.
If taxation is such a great thing you wouldn't need to bully people into paying their taxes by threatening them with violence if they didn't. Extortion is not a moral business model. When you say there is a shortage of scientists in your society, what you are really demonstrating is what Hayek termed the pretense of knowledge - there's no possible way to have that knowledge. How are you so sure there's not too many scientists?
When I am taxed in order to spend money on x (where x is something you want the government to spend money on) this is coercive. I am being forced, by the threat of violence, to spend money on something I don't want to spend money on. The reason why you need so much subsidies to education is because most of the people involved in this whole practice c couldn't get a real job that pays nearly as much as they can by working @ a university (or using their diploma to get a position as a bureaucrat when they graduate). The whole system is an elaborate scam, and it's all the worse because people have the gall to lecture me about the necessity of this scam.
When you are born into a modern society, you inherently opt into our social contract, which includes the payment of taxes (assuming you have a sufficiently large income). If you don't like the idea of taxation and the coercion behind it, you have a number of options, including leading a secession, trying to live outside of society in the wilderness, or fleeing to a country where you can hide from taxes.
On April 19 2012 00:54 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: If taxation is such a great thing you wouldn't need to bully people into paying their taxes by threatening them with violence if they didn't. Extortion is not a moral business model. When you say there is a shortage of scientists in your society, what you are really demonstrating is what Hayek termed the pretense of knowledge - there's no possible way to have that knowledge. How are you so sure there's not too many scientists?
When I am taxed in order to spend money on x (where x is something you want the government to spend money on) this is coercive. I am being forced, by the threat of violence, to spend money on something I don't want to spend money on. The reason why you need so much subsidies to education is because most of the people involved in this whole practice c couldn't get a real job that pays nearly as much as they can by working @ a university (or using their diploma to get a position as a bureaucrat when they graduate). The whole system is an elaborate scam, and it's all the worse because people have the gall to lecture me about the necessity of this scam.
Your use of terms like "bully", "extort", "coercive" is completely wrongheaded. Economics is not a morality tale, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.
The Australian government decides which courses to subsidize partly based on demand, from the public and private sector. There is a shortage of scientist and engineers in Australia. Therefore, providing incentives to work in science really is to the benefit of society.
Your attack on academics is very low, particularly since academics get paid much less than they could otherwise get working in the private sector. Here's some real numbers (1 AUD is approximately 1 USD): http://www.hr.unsw.edu.au/services/salaries/acadsal.html
You seem to be out on a crusade to prove that taxation is some moral evil, while being out of touch with the facts, and completely disregarding economics.
Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day.
Why should I pay for someone elses loan? No one paid for my loan. The only way this would be fair is if the government gave me money back for the money I paid for my college degree. Working full time and school isn't fun. If I knew this was an option, I wouldn't have worked full time.
On April 19 2012 01:15 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day.
No one is going to stop you from going into the wilderness and living by yourself. If you want to live in modern society then you have to pay taxes. Personally, I like having things like running water, public parks, and public roads so I pay taxes.
reading this threat i now realize why the healthcare thing obama tried was such a big deal.
And how is supporting people to get better education "taking from poor and giving it to rich". Middleclass and upper class pays way more taxes than poor people and this support will give everyone (including poor people) the opportunity to rise in society based on their skills and not their heritage.
This is also creates a healthier enviroment than forcing young people to take threatening loans and working in low skill and wage jobs while trying to study a scientific field.
On April 19 2012 01:15 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day.
I disagree with Oppenheimer. The fact of the matter is, there's nothing preventing you from leaving society except that you WANT to stay. The state, and the way our society is structured, provides valuable resources that makes you want to be a part of this society. You can complain all you want, but unless you take matters into your own hands, you're just whining. You're using a computer (or some similar device). You're consenting to be part of the system.
On April 18 2012 18:34 screamingpalm wrote: Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
lol. All I've seen is advocation for punishing those who did their work, while rewarding those who didn't. It depends how you look at it. Then again, that's how I've been trained to look at it, as a Business Economics major.
What I see is someone proposing a bill that might just make university education less of a risk for people that haven't had the opportunity to 'do their work' and save up.
But then I've lived in an area where there was youth unemployment at rates above 40% before the crisis, where some of the people in my class were primary breadwinners for their families by 16. How were the kids working 30 hours a week on top of high school to pay rent supposed to save up for college? What were the 40% of kids who wanted to work but couldn't get a job supposed to do more? Commute 4 hours per day to work in the next city at the cost of 2 hours of wages?
Luckily for people in that area, their government has already put in place a system to eliminate punitive debt associated with higher education. Even though they don't have savings or parental savings to support them, they will graduate with a low total amount of debt which will gather interest at a low rate and will only have to make repayments proportional to their income.
One idea behind measures like this is that a university education will on average make a person more valuable to the economy by enough that it is worth educating them, and that debt or the fear of debt drives away the people whose value would most be increased by the education more than any other group.
If you haven't saved up, then you shouldn't go to college. Your fault. Who says you need to go to college as soon as you graduate high school? If you haven't planned ahead, then start now. My roommate now started college at 23. How is that a big deal? He has a scholarship full ride to law school now and was a friggin' poli sci major.
On April 18 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
Or are in law school. (Including the good ones)
I should have clarified. I meant for undergrad. If you want to go to law school and don't have the money, then you should get a job after you graduate, make money for 3-4 years, THEN go back to law school. What bothers me is all the people that think they should be able to go to school for however many ridiculous years and not have to pay the costs of doing so.
As I said, I took out extra loans to party my ass off in college. TONS of people do this. TONS of people don't have jobs. What the hell is with the mentality of (mostly Europeans, from what I've seen) that think you shouldn't have to work while in school...
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
Yes, it's a good idea.
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized. Partly forgiving student loans and tying it to working in jobs that society needs, like teachers, etc, increases the net societal good.
In Australia, everyone can get a university loan, which gets paid back through the tax system if your income after university exceeds a certain threshold.
Even better, the government reduces the cost of university if you study in high demand areas such as science, nursing or education. And even better than that, the government in effect further reduces this debt if you are employed in science after graduating.
This way, we encourage people to be educated in areas of need, like science, and further encourage them to work in these areas. All of this has positive spillover effects on society.
Having a well manicured and landscaped yard is a positive externality to all the other properties around yours. So do lots of other things. Should all those things be subsidized? The fact is that there is no need to subsidize a positive externality, because they always provide utility for the bearer, and like say, protection can be denied to those not paying for service, which renders moot the 'public good' mantra. You should read Hoppe's Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.
Besides, subsidies increase the price of goods and services and serve as distorting the allocation of resources within the economy. Orthodox economic theory is in shambles and has brought mass ruination to the lot of people. From FRB to Central Banking, to econometrics, etc. Besides, economics is a value-free science, so for your to presume normative statements belies the entire premise of the science in the first place. Economics doesn't say anything about what action you should take, only what consequences occur based on human action.
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
Yes, it's a good idea.
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized. Partly forgiving student loans and tying it to working in jobs that society needs, like teachers, etc, increases the net societal good.
In Australia, everyone can get a university loan, which gets paid back through the tax system if your income after university exceeds a certain threshold.
Even better, the government reduces the cost of university if you study in high demand areas such as science, nursing or education. And even better than that, the government in effect further reduces this debt if you are employed in science after graduating.
This way, we encourage people to be educated in areas of need, like science, and further encourage them to work in these areas. All of this has positive spillover effects on society.
Having a well manicured and landscaped yard is a positive externality to all the other properties around yours. So do lots of other things. Should all those things be subsidized?
Actually, the externality a nice yard is internalized by social interaction (not the gov't). We have block parties and stuff, and if you have a shitty yard (which nobody does, except this one old guy) you'd definitely get some weird looks. Neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum, people have social interactions.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Well considering the entire system is built around fucking over students in every way possible, yeah.
How exactly is the entire system built around fucking over students? Offering someone a loan so that they could attend a school they otherwise wouldn't be able to attend is an offer nobody is forced to accept.
People need to be responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing you to take a loan out. The big bad school isn't fucking anyone over. If you don't want the loan, don't sign the paper. It's not that difficult. Time to grow the fuck up.
On April 19 2012 01:15 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Blazinghand : I hope you don't take this bizarre perspective on consent to all aspects of your life. The social contract myth about the origin of the state is simply that. The state arose not out of any voluntary arrangement but, as Oppenheimer explains 'The state arises through conquest and plunder and exists through exploitation'. It has remained fundamentally unchanged to the present day.
All human societies function like that to some degree. Stating that you do not like it, is like stating you do not like that people are dying. There is nothing you can do about it in foreseeable future. So the question remain how to choose from the real options. Modern states are rather good choice.
Social contract pertains to all human societies, not only states.
On April 19 2012 00:37 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: You can't improve society by forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
And education plays a significant role in people being more aware of the world and society around them so that they would not need to be forced to do something like this, but would actually want to do those things instead because they would be more open minded and capable of understanding why it's a good thing for everyone to know more and have as easy path as possible to obtain that knowledge.
You also can't improve society by letting people do whatever they want. That's just a one way ticket to a catastrophe at some point in the future. It's not a "system", it's an absence of system.
On April 19 2012 00:37 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Everyone has their own subjective value scales, their own things they want to spend their money on. Taxation decreases people's utility by forcing them to spend money on things they don't want to spend money on. And it's wrong. It's wrong to use state power to loot one group in order to subsidize another.
Can we please get past the childish notion that having to pay taxes is equal to money being "stolen" or "looted" from you?
Whether you like it or not, the society owns a fraction of your income. It's not your money, it's not even money that was earned exclusively by your own hard work, because you are not an isolated and independent entity.
Every single basic human right that you have, starting from your right to actually live and work, everything that gives you an opportunity to even think about making money from yourself, is provided to you by the society. Every cent you earn, you earned partly by yourself, but a part - realistically a more significant part than what anyone ever pays in taxes - of what you earn is due to being allowed to live and work in your society and having many benefits and opportunities you seem to take for granted provided for you. Without a society, you own nothing and are not worth anything, let alone money. It is safe to say that you get A LOT more value out of the society than what you put in through taxes.
Rather than money being "taken away" from you, the reality of it is closer to you being allowed to keep the majority of your income and spend it as you see fit on things that benefit only yourself. You even have a proportional input in the collective decision on what tax money is being spent on (or at least you would have if you had a functioning government and an election system). Your standpoint and things you complain about is completely irrational and based on some abstract ideas that are unsustainable in reality.
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
Yes, it's a good idea.
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized. Partly forgiving student loans and tying it to working in jobs that society needs, like teachers, etc, increases the net societal good.
In Australia, everyone can get a university loan, which gets paid back through the tax system if your income after university exceeds a certain threshold.
Even better, the government reduces the cost of university if you study in high demand areas such as science, nursing or education. And even better than that, the government in effect further reduces this debt if you are employed in science after graduating.
This way, we encourage people to be educated in areas of need, like science, and further encourage them to work in these areas. All of this has positive spillover effects on society.
Having a well manicured and landscaped yard is a positive externality to all the other properties around yours. So do lots of other things. Should all those things be subsidized?
Actually, the externality a nice yard is internalized by social interaction (not the gov't). We have block parties and stuff, and if you have a shitty yard (which nobody does, except this one old guy) you'd definitely get some weird looks. Neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum, people have social interactions.
You are oblivious to what I am talking about. Having well-maintained properties increase the value of other properties around yours. Thus, using his definition it absolutely should be subsidized, and the Government should be paying to have my yard landscaped and maintained, as well as to fix issues that arise with the aesthetics of my house. The reason you shouldn't subsidize such things is because subsidies raise the price and distort allocation of resources as well as there being no need to because having a well-maintained househould has utility of its own as it increases the value of your own house, as well as providing enjoyment to the residents.
The same goes with education, and all other so-called 'public goods'. Orthodox economists can't even provide a useful definition of what is one and what is not and why only the State can provide. You should really read the link I provided in my earlier post.
i have to ask...WHO WOULD NOT GET A LOAN WITH THIS PASSING?
i never had to get a loan, but if i went back, shit why not get a loan if in 10 yrs it'll be gone making minimum payment?
i'm 20yrs old, and normally pretty damn left-winged. but this is a really stupid bill idea that is 100% for the people who have no idea how to manage life and don't deserve to not pay for their decisions...
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
Yes, it's a good idea.
Education is a positive externality, and basic economic theory says that positive externalities should be subsidized. Partly forgiving student loans and tying it to working in jobs that society needs, like teachers, etc, increases the net societal good.
In Australia, everyone can get a university loan, which gets paid back through the tax system if your income after university exceeds a certain threshold.
Even better, the government reduces the cost of university if you study in high demand areas such as science, nursing or education. And even better than that, the government in effect further reduces this debt if you are employed in science after graduating.
This way, we encourage people to be educated in areas of need, like science, and further encourage them to work in these areas. All of this has positive spillover effects on society.
Having a well manicured and landscaped yard is a positive externality to all the other properties around yours. So do lots of other things. Should all those things be subsidized?
Actually, the externality a nice yard is internalized by social interaction (not the gov't). We have block parties and stuff, and if you have a shitty yard (which nobody does, except this one old guy) you'd definitely get some weird looks. Neighborhoods don't exist in a vacuum, people have social interactions.
You are oblivious to what I am talking about. Having well-maintained properties increase the value of other properties around yours. Thus, using his definition it absolutely should be subsidized, and the Government should be paying to have my yard landscaped and maintained, as well as to fix issues that arise with the aesthetics of my house. The reason you shouldn't subsidize such things is because subsidies raise the price and distort allocation of resources as well as there being no need to because having a well-maintained househould has utility of its own as it increases the value of your own house, as well as providing enjoyment to the residents.
The same goes with education, and all other so-called 'public goods'. Orthodox economists can't even provide a useful definition of what is one and what is not and why only the State can provide. You should really read the link I provided in my earlier post.
Actually, the economic definition of a public good includes non-exclusivity and rivalry, which does not apply to a lawn in your neighborhood-- the extra value of that lawn is only available to those who own property in your neighborhood. If we're talking economics, your lawn is a "common good", which is different.
In any case, your lawn IS subsidized, when your neighbors are friendlier to you as a result. Is it subsidized by the government? No, it isn't, but then again, it's not a public good, it's a common good. The positive exterality of your lawn is limited to your neighbors.
Oh snap turns out blazinghand payed attention in econ 101 what now
On April 19 2012 01:34 Silidons wrote: i have to ask...WHO WOULD NOT GET A LOAN WITH THIS PASSING?
i never had to get a loan, but if i went back, shit why not get a loan if in 10 yrs it'll be gone making minimum payment?
i'm 20yrs old, and normally pretty damn left-winged. but this is a really stupid bill idea that is 100% for the people who have no idea how to manage life and don't deserve to not pay for their decisions...
These yuppies think this is a great thing, but there's always consequences. If the people giving the loans out don't get paid back they lose money and they will simply up their interest rate to make up for it.
Those with money never lose out. If you control the market you control everything. The notion that the debt will be "forgiven" and nobody will be on the hook is foolish. Someone will pay because someone has to pay.
It's like the people who vote for gas taxes thinking it will hurt oil companies, but in reality they just pass the tax on to the consumer. Big oil doesn't give 2 shits about tax because it knows you NEED what it has. America is addicted to taking out loans, they know you NEED what they have and regardless of how high the interest rate goes people will be in line.
tldr: someone always pays and it's not the people in the suits.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
On April 18 2012 18:34 screamingpalm wrote: Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
lol. All I've seen is advocation for punishing those who did their work, while rewarding those who didn't. It depends how you look at it. Then again, that's how I've been trained to look at it, as a Business Economics major.
What I see is someone proposing a bill that might just make university education less of a risk for people that haven't had the opportunity to 'do their work' and save up.
But then I've lived in an area where there was youth unemployment at rates above 40% before the crisis, where some of the people in my class were primary breadwinners for their families by 16. How were the kids working 30 hours a week on top of high school to pay rent supposed to save up for college? What were the 40% of kids who wanted to work but couldn't get a job supposed to do more? Commute 4 hours per day to work in the next city at the cost of 2 hours of wages?
Luckily for people in that area, their government has already put in place a system to eliminate punitive debt associated with higher education. Even though they don't have savings or parental savings to support them, they will graduate with a low total amount of debt which will gather interest at a low rate and will only have to make repayments proportional to their income.
One idea behind measures like this is that a university education will on average make a person more valuable to the economy by enough that it is worth educating them, and that debt or the fear of debt drives away the people whose value would most be increased by the education more than any other group.
If you haven't saved up, then you shouldn't go to college. Your fault. Who says you need to go to college as soon as you graduate high school? If you haven't planned ahead, then start now. My roommate now started college at 23. How is that a big deal? He has a scholarship full ride to law school now and was a friggin' poli sci major.
On April 18 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
Or are in law school. (Including the good ones)
I should have clarified. I meant for undergrad. If you want to go to law school and don't have the money, then you should get a job after you graduate, make money for 3-4 years, THEN go back to law school. What bothers me is all the people that think they should be able to go to school for however many ridiculous years and not have to pay the costs of doing so.
As I said, I took out extra loans to party my ass off in college. TONS of people do this. TONS of people don't have jobs. What the hell is with the mentality of (mostly Europeans, from what I've seen) that think you shouldn't have to work while in school...
Mentality is about making starting conditions for people as equal as possible. And after that let life/society/market distinguish them by their accomplishments. Point is to have a system where what you earn when adult is not related to where you were born, but to your abilities. Meritocracy. And as far as empiric data go, quality public education including university level seems to be a good way to go compared to US system. Students will pay what they get from state in taxes back anyway. That of course assumes well designed education system, where college/university degrees are required for jobs where it makes sense, so basically far below what many western systems are designed for.
Point of this law should be to transition to a better educational system altogether, but that would be hoping too much. As it is it should not be permanent leeching off the state by some students and not others. They should just give some kind of amnesty for current students and offer state-sponsored, but still profitable (or at least not with a loss) loans to the students and make it possible to get rid of those loans by bankruptcy.
Rather than money being "taken away" from you, the reality of it is closer to you being allowed to keep the majority of your income and spend it as you see fit on things that benefit only yourself
You are correct that this is the fundamental statement of the income tax, that the government owns your income and ALLOWS you to keep a % of this. It`s just that I would rather not be a slave to the state.
On April 18 2012 22:28 CruelZeratul wrote: Studying should be free anyway. I don't get why people are not willing to support education. Cut down military and other nonsense and invest in education. So called human capital would help the development of a better future. I don't say everything else should be cut down drastically but education needs bigger attention. It's the future of every country. It is fucking important to have qualified persons.
Studying is free. Its other peoples time and labour that costs money. You mean to say that college should be free, which is just silly. If education is your right, then the people who pay for it are your slaves.
Theres a new thread like this every week on TL so I will say this again: A forum made up primarily of college kids think that college should be free? What a shocker.
Isn't primary school and school in general free in US/Canada? Are you a slave for them?
Yes. People with guns come for my money and kidnap me if I dont give it to them. Dont have kids? Dont use the system? Too bad I have no chioce.
Slave is an inflammatory word because obviously im not getting whipped, but thats only because I always pay up.
The idea behind it is that you were once a kid and you therefore used the system.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
On April 18 2012 18:34 screamingpalm wrote: Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
lol. All I've seen is advocation for punishing those who did their work, while rewarding those who didn't. It depends how you look at it. Then again, that's how I've been trained to look at it, as a Business Economics major.
What I see is someone proposing a bill that might just make university education less of a risk for people that haven't had the opportunity to 'do their work' and save up.
But then I've lived in an area where there was youth unemployment at rates above 40% before the crisis, where some of the people in my class were primary breadwinners for their families by 16. How were the kids working 30 hours a week on top of high school to pay rent supposed to save up for college? What were the 40% of kids who wanted to work but couldn't get a job supposed to do more? Commute 4 hours per day to work in the next city at the cost of 2 hours of wages?
Luckily for people in that area, their government has already put in place a system to eliminate punitive debt associated with higher education. Even though they don't have savings or parental savings to support them, they will graduate with a low total amount of debt which will gather interest at a low rate and will only have to make repayments proportional to their income.
One idea behind measures like this is that a university education will on average make a person more valuable to the economy by enough that it is worth educating them, and that debt or the fear of debt drives away the people whose value would most be increased by the education more than any other group.
If you haven't saved up, then you shouldn't go to college. Your fault. Who says you need to go to college as soon as you graduate high school? If you haven't planned ahead, then start now. My roommate now started college at 23. How is that a big deal? He has a scholarship full ride to law school now and was a friggin' poli sci major.
On April 18 2012 14:54 Takkara wrote:
On April 18 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
Or are in law school. (Including the good ones)
I should have clarified. I meant for undergrad. If you want to go to law school and don't have the money, then you should get a job after you graduate, make money for 3-4 years, THEN go back to law school. What bothers me is all the people that think they should be able to go to school for however many ridiculous years and not have to pay the costs of doing so.
As I said, I took out extra loans to party my ass off in college. TONS of people do this. TONS of people don't have jobs. What the hell is with the mentality of (mostly Europeans, from what I've seen) that think you shouldn't have to work while in school...
Mentality is about making starting conditions for people as equal as possible. And after that let life/society/market distinguish them by their accomplishments. Point is to have a system where what you earn when adult is not related to where you were born, but to your abilities. Meritocracy. And as far as empiric data go, quality public education including university level seems to be a good way to go compared to US system. Students will pay what they get from state in taxes back anyway. That of course assumes well designed education system, where college/university degrees are required for jobs where it makes sense, so basically far below what many western systems are designed for.
Point of this law should be to transition to a better educational system altogether, but that would be hoping too much. As it is it should not be permanent leeching off the state by some students and not others. They should just give some kind of amnesty for current students and offer state-sponsored, but still profitable (or at least not with a loss) loans to the students and make it possible to get rid of those loans by bankruptcy.
It's a completely different story if education is free, or highly subsidized by the state for everyone, as in Europe. Unfortunately, the topic of debate is not that at the moment, but rather, those who paid their way get fucked while those who were lazy are rewarded. I mean sure, it would benefit me, as I've stated twice before, I took out more loans than I needed to party hard. But I think it's utterly absurd to state I shouldn't pay back that money that I directly borrowed. Not through taxes, but through direct repayment of what I borrowed.
I can't say I'm a fan of the European system (I don't hate it either, just not a fan), but overall, it's a lot more fair in my eyes than having our system then forgiving loans.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
His point was correct in the sense that current trends of college for everyone would be a waste of resources. But the point of having cheap higher public education is to have a system where access to higher education is based on ability not on the wealth. So even if you are not planning on having everyone with college degree, it is still essential to have higher education "free" and restrict access based on abilities. Also if you do so you do not run high risk of the funds not getting back to the state as people who finish the school will have high probability of actually getting high paying job and thus paying high taxes.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
On April 18 2012 18:34 screamingpalm wrote: Someone posted a great video in another thread that talked about the issues with our education system. One of the problems is the increased vocationalized assembly line with a graduation (see: manufacture) date, rather than liberal arts and critical thinking, preparing students for jobs that do not exist, and filled with corporate interest influence. It is no wonder that such a system is seen as overpriced- I would ask for a refund too.
And Talin is right. American society is all about me, myself, and I. Greater good and educated society be damned.
lol. All I've seen is advocation for punishing those who did their work, while rewarding those who didn't. It depends how you look at it. Then again, that's how I've been trained to look at it, as a Business Economics major.
What I see is someone proposing a bill that might just make university education less of a risk for people that haven't had the opportunity to 'do their work' and save up.
But then I've lived in an area where there was youth unemployment at rates above 40% before the crisis, where some of the people in my class were primary breadwinners for their families by 16. How were the kids working 30 hours a week on top of high school to pay rent supposed to save up for college? What were the 40% of kids who wanted to work but couldn't get a job supposed to do more? Commute 4 hours per day to work in the next city at the cost of 2 hours of wages?
Luckily for people in that area, their government has already put in place a system to eliminate punitive debt associated with higher education. Even though they don't have savings or parental savings to support them, they will graduate with a low total amount of debt which will gather interest at a low rate and will only have to make repayments proportional to their income.
One idea behind measures like this is that a university education will on average make a person more valuable to the economy by enough that it is worth educating them, and that debt or the fear of debt drives away the people whose value would most be increased by the education more than any other group.
If you haven't saved up, then you shouldn't go to college. Your fault. Who says you need to go to college as soon as you graduate high school? If you haven't planned ahead, then start now. My roommate now started college at 23. How is that a big deal? He has a scholarship full ride to law school now and was a friggin' poli sci major.
On April 18 2012 14:54 Takkara wrote:
On April 18 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: People that end up with 100k+ in debt are fucking retarded.
Or are in law school. (Including the good ones)
I should have clarified. I meant for undergrad. If you want to go to law school and don't have the money, then you should get a job after you graduate, make money for 3-4 years, THEN go back to law school. What bothers me is all the people that think they should be able to go to school for however many ridiculous years and not have to pay the costs of doing so.
As I said, I took out extra loans to party my ass off in college. TONS of people do this. TONS of people don't have jobs. What the hell is with the mentality of (mostly Europeans, from what I've seen) that think you shouldn't have to work while in school...
Mentality is about making starting conditions for people as equal as possible. And after that let life/society/market distinguish them by their accomplishments. Point is to have a system where what you earn when adult is not related to where you were born, but to your abilities. Meritocracy. And as far as empiric data go, quality public education including university level seems to be a good way to go compared to US system. Students will pay what they get from state in taxes back anyway. That of course assumes well designed education system, where college/university degrees are required for jobs where it makes sense, so basically far below what many western systems are designed for.
Point of this law should be to transition to a better educational system altogether, but that would be hoping too much. As it is it should not be permanent leeching off the state by some students and not others. They should just give some kind of amnesty for current students and offer state-sponsored, but still profitable (or at least not with a loss) loans to the students and make it possible to get rid of those loans by bankruptcy.
It's a completely different story if education is free, or highly subsidized by the state for everyone, as in Europe. Unfortunately, the topic of debate is not that at the moment, but rather, those who paid their way get fucked while those who were lazy are rewarded. I mean sure, it would benefit me, as I've stated twice before, I took out more loans than I needed to party hard. But I think it's utterly absurd to state I shouldn't pay back that money that I directly borrowed. Not through taxes, but through direct repayment of what I borrowed.
I can't say I'm a fan of the European system (I don't hate it either, just not a fan), but overall, it's a lot more fair in my eyes than having our system then forgiving loans.
I am not complete fan of where current European systems are heading either. They took the "socialist" approach of not basing education on income, but then decided that "university degrees for everyone" is a good idea. Which is a rather bad combination as there is nothing to regulate it. In market system market regulates (even though slowly and not really efficiently contrary to popular belief) the education system. Whereas in public system that does not weed out students hard enough based on abilities, there is nothing to regulate it and it becomes nonsensical expensive mess. And corrupt politicians then argue that the system is broken because it is public and therefore it needs to privatized(ideally to their friends).
As I noted in the second paragraph I think the proposed law is flawed exactly because it is unequal patch and pointed out what I would like instead/changed.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
Yes there is. Everyone is forced to 'buy' public education. You can homeschool or send your kids to private schools, but you still have to 'buy' public education. If the government forced you to buy a Chevy, you wouldn't really have the option of getting a Toyota too, unless you were super rich. That's why 90% of students go to public school. If 90% of people bought Chevy's we would call that a monopoly.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
Yes there is. Everyone is forced to 'buy' public education. You can homeschool or send your kids to private schools, but you still have to 'buy' public education. If the government forced you to buy a Chevy, you wouldn't really have the option of getting a Toyota too, unless you were super rich. That's why 90% of students go to public school. If 90% of people bought Chevy's we would call that a monopoly.
Paying for education is not receiving education.
One of the poorest families I know homeschooled all 6 or 7 of their kids. The results vary from receiving full academic scholarships to Duke University before going on to doctoral studies to merely receiving run of the mill public university education while pursuing very profitable hobbies. If the proper education of your kids is important to you no dearth of money will stop you from doing so. Its just a question of priorities.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
There is extremely important role public mandatory schools play in society beside actual education. One is socialization, it is I would argue as important aspect of schools for society as the education that happens there. Second is that what you call "learning to be slaves" is a good skill to have in all real societies (compared to the magical ones you are proposing). Nearly all people will be employees of some kind later in their life and having good working habits for future work (which for most people will be doing BS assignments at least from time to time) is extremely important.
Another important part is children are not capable of deciding what is good for them and many parents are even worse at that. Also standard school system has no significant effect on "inherent creative capacity we are all born with".
Your proposal is basically a recipe for many parents to destroy their kids lives and some kids to destroy theirs. The second part is I would say ok in your world of complete responsibility for your actions, the former does not even follow that.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
All debts need to be forgivable. I see it as equitable to medical expenses - you cannot have your life and future prospects essentially end simply because something bad happened to you, or even because you made an irresponsible decision. That is not the mark of a civilized society.
Those who argue that allowing student loans to be forgiven would simply lead to irresponsible decision making have never been through bankruptcy. It doesn't just impact your credit score - it makes it harder to find work, a place to live, good insurance. It appears on your background check. It ain't a walk in the park.
The reason we are seeing such atrocious rates of default on student loans has to do with the absurd price of college more than it does with some epidemic of irresponsibility or too many people going to school. Universities around the country have lost a huge portion of their state funding, which has led to a necessary increase in tuition. Ironically enough, the same people who argue for this decrease in state funding (anti-tax folk) frequently received degrees from colleges during a period in which tuition was affordable. The degree to which tuition has skyrocketed cannot be attributed to natural causes such as inflation - I had 4 years of college funding saved in the early 2000s, and by the time I graduated my entire savings was about enough for a year and a half, if that.
In spite of what is frequently said, higher education is incredibly important in this country, if only as a standard for finding lucrative work. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that's the way it is. It is nigh-impossible for a young person now to find a career (not work, but a career) without some form of higher education. Arguing about its objective value is a waste of time when faced with this fact.
I'm all for young people developing marketable skills. There are two really important things that should happen to accomplish this - #1 the elimination of the minimum wage #2 - young people joining the work force sooner. The best way to learn how to work a job is by working a job. Unfortunately child labour has become stigmatized and criminalized, as part of the agitation by labour unions who do not want competition for their jobs. The notion that some government planner who has never even met the child in question is more capable then the parent or the child in deciding what form that child's education should take is nonsense. Every person is unique we should not attempt to force them all into a uniform mold.
When I went to school, how it was for me was we spent virtually all our classroom time at a desk listening to a teacher talk. This conditions you towards passivity and obedience to authority. It doesn't promote independent thinking and creativity. It encourages you to sit down, shut up, stop thinking and pay attention to what the authority figure is telling you to do. The end result is people who are conditioned to being slaves.
On April 19 2012 02:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I'm all for young people developing marketable skills. There are two really important things that should happen to accomplish this - #1 the elimination of the minimum wage #2 - young people joining the work force sooner. The best way to learn how to work a job is by working a job. Unfortunately child labour has become stigmatized and criminalized, as part of the agitation by labour unions who do not want competition for their jobs. The notion that some government planner who has never even met the child in question is more capable then the parent or the child in deciding what form that child's education should take is nonsense. Every person is unique we should not attempt to force them all into a uniform mold.
When I went to school, how it was for me was we spent virtually all our classroom time at a desk listening to a teacher talk. This conditions you towards passivity and obedience to authority. It doesn't promote independent thinking and creativity. It encourages you to sit down, shut up, stop thinking and pay attention to what the authority figure is telling you to do. The end result is people who are conditioned to being slaves.
All people are unique to a degree and have other things in common with basically all other people. Well designed public education should recognize this and work accordingly. Your objection is not argument against it, it is argument for reforming it.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts.
Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare.
Im sorry but this is redicoullous. all this bill will do is encourage the prevailing trend of students going to university for useless programs (art history etc) and rack up huge debt learning stuff that isn't useful in a work environment. And no, sounding cool at Starbucks while you make cofee doesnt count.
On April 19 2012 02:48 Vega62a wrote: All debts need to be forgivable. I see it as equitable to medical expenses - you cannot have your life and future prospects essentially end simply because something bad happened to you, or even because you made an irresponsible decision. That is not the mark of a civilized society.
While I like the notion that we should have forgiveness for bad things happening, taking on a student loan is not like all medical expenses. If for no other reason than student loan is a choice, college education is a choice. Not everyone needs it, not all jobs require it. Some medical conditions is outside of personal control, there we should be forgiving, it is a bad draw, not the fault of a person. But forgiving the expenses an obese person with a diabetes seems to be unfair to those people who ensure somewhat healthy living standards.
Forgiving is too generous. There are consequences to irresponsible decisions. People have to learn to live with those consequences. That said, there is something fundamentally broken here. The debt collection/recovery of student loan is beyond what is necessary and fair (not a lawyer, but the only two things I know that you can't bankrupt yourself out of are student loans and alimony; you can blame med students for the loan problem). That needs to be fixed.
There should be better warning ahead of time (let's not kid ourselves, there is a clear difference between degree from some low tier university and attending an ivy league school. Students need to become more aware of their future potential from wherever they are going. Lending agents should be willing to work with graduates to come up with a realistic payback plan. And there needs to be better data because I swear, the 1 million dollar value of a college degree varies massively depending on the school and the major.
On April 19 2012 02:53 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I'm all for young people developing marketable skills. There are two really important things that should happen to accomplish this - #1 the elimination of the minimum wage #2 - young people joining the work force sooner. The best way to learn how to work a job is by working a job. Unfortunately child labour has become stigmatized and criminalized, as part of the agitation by labour unions who do not want competition for their jobs. The notion that some government planner who has never even met the child in question is more capable then the parent or the child in deciding what form that child's education should take is nonsense. Every person is unique we should not attempt to force them all into a uniform mold.
When I went to school, how it was for me was we spent virtually all our classroom time at a desk listening to a teacher talk. This conditions you towards passivity and obedience to authority. It doesn't promote independent thinking and creativity. It encourages you to sit down, shut up, stop thinking and pay attention to what the authority figure is telling you to do. The end result is people who are conditioned to being slaves.
You want the market to dictate the value of students yet you want don't want people to be "slaves". People are nothing more then dollar signs and a statistic.
You also deride on the statist concept and yet the country leading the world in economy (EDIT- soon to be leading) and education is heavily statist. You're just derailing this thread with annoying generalizing and ramblings (surprise...).
On April 19 2012 03:00 zhenherald wrote: Im sorry but this is redicoullous. all this bill will do is encourage the prevailing trend of students going to university for useless programs (art history etc) and rack up huge debt learning stuff that isn't useful in a work environment. And no, sounding cool at Starbucks while you make cofee doesnt count.
Social studies are necessary. There is much to learn there about people, about history, about culture, things that are useful for society and personal development As for stuff that's being useful in work environment, I majored in economics and chemistry. I worked as a business analyst for 3 years, there was very little I learned at school that was applicable to work. The ability to analyze and think critically are the most important skills you'll get out of college (there's something to be said for communication, social skills, but that was never my strongest points).
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts.
Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare.
It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible.
yet the country leading the world in economy (EDIT- soon to be leading) and education is heavily statis
that country wouldn't happen to have a quarter of the worlds population, would it? perhaps that accounts for the wealth they are creating. meanwhile a nation that has < 25% of their population, which for a long time practiced laissez-faire capitalism, still creates more wealth every year. And as far as conditions of people are concerned, I'd much rather live in Hong Kong (bastion of laissez-faire) than China.
Between the ages of 18 and 22, Jodi Romine took out $74,000 in student loans to help finance her business-management degree at Kent State University in Ohio. What seemed like a good investment will delay her career, her marriage and decision to have children.
Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time.
- Mod Edit -
If you would like to read the article that this poster copy/pasted in its entirety, check it out on the Wall Street Journal's website.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts.
Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare.
It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible.
Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide).
It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide.
Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Someone cut me with a knife!, I think you deserve to be cut with a knife too! What kind of logic is that! o.o
Between the ages of 18 and 22, Jodi Romine took out $74,000 in student loans to help finance her business-management degree at Kent State University in Ohio. What seemed like a good investment will delay her career, her marriage and decision to have children.
Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time.
They can't buy a house, visit their families in Ohio as often as they would like or spend money on dates. Plans to marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine. "I'm just looking for some way to manage my finances."
High school's Class of 2012 is getting ready for college, with students in their late teens and early 20s facing one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make.
Total U.S. student-loan debt outstanding topped $1 trillion last year, according to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it continues to rise as current students borrow more and past students fall behind on payments. Moody's Investors Service says borrowers with private student loans are defaulting or falling behind on payments at twice prerecession rates.
Most students get little help from colleges in choosing loans or calculating payments. Most pre-loan counseling for government loans is done online, and many students pay only fleeting attention to documents from private lenders. Many borrowers "are very confused, and don't have a good sense of what they've taken on," says Deanne Loonin, an attorney for the National Consumer Law Center in Boston and head of its Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project.
Enlarge Image
Jon Lowenstein/NOOR for The Wall Street Journal Danielle Jokela will have paid $211,000 for $79,000 in student loans by the time the debt is paid off in 25 years.
More than half of student borrowers fail to max out government loans before taking out riskier private loans, according to research by the nonprofit Project on Student Debt. In 2006, Barnard College, in New York, started one-on-one counseling for students applying for private loans. Students borrowing from private lenders dropped 74% the next year, says Nanette DiLauro, director of financial aid. In 2007, Mount Holyoke College started a similar program, and half the students who received counseling changed their borrowing plans, says Gail W. Holt, a financial-services official at the Massachusetts school. San Diego State University started counseling and tracking student borrowers in 2010 and has seen private loans decline.
The implications last a lifetime. A recent survey by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys says members are seeing a big increase in people whose student loans are forcing them to delay major purchases or starting families.
Looking back, Ms. Romine wishes she had taken only "a bare minimum" of student loans. She paid some of her costs during college by working part time as a waitress. Now, she wishes she had worked even more. Given a second chance, "I would never have touched a private loan—ever," she says.
Ms. Romine hopes to solve the problem by advancing her career. At the bank where she works, a former supervisor says she is a hard working, highly capable employee. "Jodi is doing the best she can," says Michael Matthews, a Beaufort, S.C., bankruptcy attorney who is familiar with Ms. Romine's situation. "But she will be behind the eight-ball for years."
Private student loans often carry uncapped, variable interest rates and aren't required to include flexible repayment options. In contrast, government loans offer fixed interest rates and flexible options, such as income-based repayment and deferral for hardship or public service.
Steep increases in college costs are to blame for the student-loan debt burden, and most student loans are now made by the government, says Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, a private lenders' industry group.
Many private lenders encourage students to plan ahead on how to finance college, so "your eyes are open on what it's going to cost you and how you will manage that," says a spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, a Reston, Va., student-loan concern. Federal rules implemented in 2009 require lenders to make a series of disclosures to borrowers, so that "you are made aware multiple times before the loan is disbursed" of various lending options, the spokeswoman says.
Both private and government loans, however, lack "the most fundamental protections we take for granted with every other type of loan," says Alan Collinge, founder of StudentLoanJustice.org, an advocacy group. When borrowers default, collection agencies can hound them for life, because unlike other kinds of debt, there is no statute of limitations on collections. And while other kinds of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy, student loans must still be paid barring "undue hardship," a legal test that most courts have interpreted very narrowly.
Work & Family Mailbox
Columnist Sue Shellenbarger answers readers' questions Deferring payments to avoid default is costly, too. Danielle Jokela of Chicago earned a two-year degree and worked for a while to build savings before deciding to pursue a dream by enrolling at age 25 at a private, for-profit college in Chicago to study interior design. The college's staff helped her fill out applications for $79,000 in government and private loans. "I had no clue" about likely future earnings or the size of future payments, which ballooned by her 2008 graduation to more than $100,000 after interest and fees.
She couldn't find a job as an interior designer and twice had to ask lenders to defer payments for a few months. After interest plus forbearance fees that were added to the loans, she still owes $98,000, even after making payments for most of five years, says Ms. Jokela, 32, who is working as an independent contractor doing administrative tasks for a construction company.
By the time she pays off the loans 25 years from now, she will have paid $211,000. In an attempt to build savings, she and her husband, Mike, 32, a customer-service specialist, are selling their condo. Renting an apartment will save $600 a month. Ms. Jokela has given up on her hopes of getting an M.B.A., starting her own interior-design firm or having children. "How could I consider having children if I can barely support myself?" she says.
When Debt Takes Over Potential consequences of taking out too many student loans
--Delays in buying a car or purchasing a home
--Postponement of marriage and childbirth for financial reasons
--Parents feel pressure to take out loans or otherwise help with payments
--Risk for parents who co-sign loans of losing homes, cars and other assets
--Little ability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy
--Inability to get credit cards or home or car loans
--Inability to rent a home because of high debt-to-income ratio
--Being forced to deal with private collection agencies in the event of default
--Having liens placed on bank accounts or property in a default*
--Facing collection fees of 25% of amount owed in a default
--No statute of limitations on collection efforts
--Having wages garnisheed
--Possible loss of state-issued professional licenses
Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com
What a terrible terrible post. wall of text, anecdote poorly copied and pasted without any content of your own. Edit to be a link or hidden in spoiler please.
College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
On April 19 2012 03:00 zhenherald wrote: Im sorry but this is redicoullous. all this bill will do is encourage the prevailing trend of students going to university for useless programs (art history etc) and rack up huge debt learning stuff that isn't useful in a work environment. And no, sounding cool at Starbucks while you make cofee doesnt count.
This type of thought process is the same one that fuels the notion that it is worthless to explore astrophysics. Just because a degree gives you no workplace skills does not mean you should not pursue it. The acquisition of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is one of the most noble human traits, and if we reduce higher education to workplace education, then we're basically eliminating our capacity to dream and advance as a society.
And for reference, I studied engineering. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is my hero.
I don't like it. This is a law aiming at the curing the symptoms but not the ailement itself.
As for the content of the law... has anybody calculated it through already? If it's 10 percent for 10 years, how much can the state expect the average student to pay back? How much would the state have to subsitute for him? In Germany, there the system is like you have to pay everything back that was given to you as a credit, but there are no interests (and ofc they don't expect you to use up 60% of your income for monthly paybacks). If you finish with a good score and reasonably fast, you even get part of the debt annulled. What about such a system?
On April 19 2012 03:00 zhenherald wrote: Im sorry but this is redicoullous. all this bill will do is encourage the prevailing trend of students going to university for useless programs (art history etc) and rack up huge debt learning stuff that isn't useful in a work environment. And no, sounding cool at Starbucks while you make cofee doesnt count.
This type of thought process is the same one that fuels the notion that it is worthless to explore astrophysics. Just because a degree gives you no workplace skills does not mean you should not pursue it. The acquisition of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is one of the most noble human traits, and if we reduce higher education to workplace education, then we're basically eliminating our capacity to dream and advance as a society.
And for reference, I studied engineering. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is my hero.
If a student wishes to study art history for their own entertainment and not apply it at work that is their own business and I applaud them, so long as they do not expect the rest of us to pay for it.
There are two kinds of education: There is universal education that the government pays for. There is private education that the customer pays for.
Creating a system where society selects those who are already most likely to succeed and confers an even greater advantage upon them while forcing everyone to pay is about as regressive as it gets.
If college were universal, then I would be fine with having the government pay, but when only the top 3rd are fortunate enough to get a full college education and when they already out earn those without degrees by $20K/year I see no reason why the government should subsidize them, when there are plenty of poor that need help.
On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison.
do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
Wow, the level of ignorance in this thread. The year before I graduated college is when the enconomy started to tank so when I graduated we were full into the recession. I wanted to get my masters because in order to be a counselor you are REQUIRED to have Masters degree and a license from the state. I tried to get a job anywhere at all so i could work while getting my degree, but I was unable to get so much as an interview. I even talked to a career counselor and redid my resume and still did not find a job. So I focused on getting my Masters. Thankfully, I just got a Graduate Assistantship, which is paying for this and next semester as well as giving me some pocket money, but I am getting laid off in the fall so they can hire someone full time, so it's back to taking one last loan. Also, I start my 600 hour internship this summer (20 hours per week UNPAID), which makes getting a job for one semester in the fall really impractical.
I've read through 7 pages of this thread, and it seems the arguments against it are either about the proper role of government(lol) or something about government spending.
Does anybody have an argument against it outside of an idealist framework? Seriously, nothing here is about to demonstrate that this is a bad idea.
Also,
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools.
This is poorly reasoned. Just because there are inefficiencies within public schools, it doesn't follow that home schooling is as good as, or better than, public schools.
On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison.
do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs.
The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more.
On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison.
do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs.
The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more.
Right because those without a college degree are over $60,000 in debt (which absolutely must be paid back) on top of house/car loans. So while the non-graduates are struggling to put food on the table, the graduates are struggling to put food on the table and have a huge debt weighing over their heads.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts.
Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare.
It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible.
Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide).
It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide.
Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools.
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.
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. So there is no problem with inefficiency as speeding things up is not really useful. For those kids that parents want to learn more, there is always enough time after school. Of course best possible solution would be public schools where kids would be n on 1 with a teacher (n very low). Some group homeschooling could partially simulate it, but not completely, see below.
And after basic school, there should be separation between people based on skills as one speed is no longer viable. But at that point, where homeschooling would actually had biggest benefits, homeschooling is completely out of question unless the parent studied the same field.
All those social experiences are extremely hard to replicate in ways you describe, not impossible, but very hard. The point is to make the child used to people of as many different backgrounds, characters,... as possible. Real public schools in cities do that rather well, but the activities you describe are more often than not rather selective.
On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison.
do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs.
The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more.
Right because those without a college degree are over $60,000 in debt (which absolutely must be paid back) on top of house/car loans. So while the non-graduates are struggling to put food on the table, the graduates are struggling to put food on the table and have a huge debt weighing over their heads.
This isn't about mere assets or debts, it is also vastly more about the ability for the two respective parties to repay their debts/loans and to have a good standard of living.
Short and long term non-graduates will have it worse off( I think their rate of unemployment is about ~6% higher than college graduates across most time periods) both in terms of getting a job, keeping a job, and the earning potential of said job.
Additionally, if your argument was to be correct, then we'd likely see fewer and fewer people attempting to pursue a college degree. If it wasn't net-beneficial to an individual to graduate from college during a recession, then our college enrollment rates wouldn't be at an all-time high, as the costs for going to college would outweigh any benefits.
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts.
Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare.
It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible.
Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide).
It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide.
Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools.
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.
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. So there is no problem with inefficiency as speeding things up is not really useful. For those kids that parents want to learn more, there is always enough time after school. Of course best possible solution would be public schools where kids would be n on 1 with a teacher (n very low). Some group homeschooling could partially simulate it, but not completely, see below.
And after basic school, there should be separation between people based on skills as one speed is no longer viable. But at that point, where homeschooling would actually had biggest benefits, homeschooling is completely out of question unless the parent studied the same field.
All those social experiences are extremely hard to replicate in ways you describe, not impossible, but very hard. The point is to make the child used to people of as many different backgrounds, characters,... as possible. Real public schools in cities do that rather well, but the activities you describe are more often than not rather selective.
I met a lot more varied and interesting people homeschooling than I ever did in public school. I also got a lot more out of it academically than I did from public school. Although I'll agree that homeschooling can't work for everyone, I disagree with a lot of the generalizations you make.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
Wow, the level of ignorance in this thread. The year before I graduated college is when the enconomy started to tank so when I graduated we were full into the recession. I wanted to get my masters because in order to be a counselor you are REQUIRED to have Masters degree and a license from the state. I tried to get a job anywhere at all so i could work while getting my degree, but I was unable to get so much as an interview. I even talked to a career counselor and redid my resume and still did not find a job. So I focused on getting my Masters. Thankfully, I just got a Graduate Assistantship, which is paying for this and next semester as well as giving me some pocket money, but I am getting laid off in the fall so they can hire someone full time, so it's back to taking one last loan. Also, I start my 600 hour internship this summer (20 hours per week UNPAID), which makes getting a job for one semester in the fall really impractical.
You tried getting a job anywhere at all and you couldn't with a bachelors? How many interviews did you go to, and how many places did you apply to senior year? Maybe you should have taken some time off before getting your masters?
Talking to your counselor is usually something you do your junior year, when you're looking for internships, not senior year.
What it sounds like to me is that all the people who can't find jobs, or even get interviews, are in this situation because they didn't work hard enough during school, or didn't do the research needed. I don't go to an ivy league school, I didn't have any internship (because I worked two jobs during college), and got plenty of interviews, and I honestly didn't even apply to THAT many (maybe 100 total). I'm not going to deny it, the process was fairly brutal, considering how selective they can be due to only hiring a few people, but my god, if you had at least a 3.4 GPA in a non-worthless major and you can't get any interviews... it's either the school you attended or you're doing something wrong.
On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison.
do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs.
The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more.
Right because those without a college degree are over $60,000 in debt (which absolutely must be paid back) on top of house/car loans. So while the non-graduates are struggling to put food on the table, the graduates are struggling to put food on the table and have a huge debt weighing over their heads.
Why the heck do you have a car loan and house loan if couldn't find a job? lolz wtf?!
Instead, you should rent somewhere cheap, with roommates, and buy a cheap, used car, if you don't have the money to support what you want. Simple as that.
As a future grad student who is going to be going into 300k+ debt, I can easily say that it's simply ridiculous how high tuition and interest rates are. If they are going to be putting us this deep into the hole, they need more programs that offer loan forgiveness. Signed the petition. You don't truly appreciate how much debt, work, time, effort it all is until you actually go into that much debt yourself. Support this.
On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote: The problem is not actually looking for an answer, but knowing what to look for and understanding it to properly dumb the answer down to appropriate level. That is hard to do without having some level of knowledge already.
I agree that relating information in a way that is digestible for the student is necessary, but its also secondary to the requirement of having that information in the first place. The incompleteness of knowledge even for highly educated teachers of a subject is the issue I described. If one lacks the ability to present information in an appropriate way for your audience, then no, they probably shouldn't teach.
On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote: As for basic schools and wasting time. For most children there is "age-appropriate" knowledge and thus the speeding up the process is not really possible/wanted. And for children that could go faster it would mean separating them from their peers and that is also not the greatest solution.
Here we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not acknowledge age appropriate knowledge. I believe that there is cognitive and maturity appropriate knowledge. While I had a standard education, none of the dozens of people I know of who were homeschooled were ostracized in any way shape or form. There are a million reasons kids torment and isolate each other and being homeschooled doesn't really carry the sting that so many others can.
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
Wait, one-on-one private tutoring by their own parent(s) is terrible? And, you think all, or even most, k-12 teachers have college-level comprehension of all subjects? I would be doing my child a disservice to raise him myself instead of letting a stranger? Hahahahaha.
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote: This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg.
You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets.
You are aware that bankruptcy cannot free you from student loan debts, right?
No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution.
There's a reason it was prevented in the first place. Since student loans are basically guaranteed by the government, anyone can take them out. Spending $100k on your education w/ loans and then declaring bankruptcy was actually a pretty good idea. No credit, but hey, that's $100k that you don't have to pay back. It's highly unlikely that we will return to being able to declare bankruptcy on student loans because of that. The solutiosn proposed in this bill at least to some degree have some additional requirements to be met.
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote: This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg.
You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets.
You are aware that bankruptcy cannot free you from student loan debts, right?
No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution.
From what I understand lawyers and doctors were using that to clear out the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt without even attempting to pay it off. That's why you're not allowed to do it anymore.
On April 19 2012 05:08 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Who is this `they`and how did they put you in this hole? Were you forced at a gun point to borrow all that money?
The problem is systemic, as many areas of society have build up the myth (but there's still a good deal of truth behind it) that you need a college degree. The government subsequently built up a system around the lenders to make them have every last card in college lending (lack of Bankruptcy protection, and a variety of other safeguards to protect those in power). Indeed, the gun that they were forced by was far stronger than any sort of literal gun-- these people were conned into believing that they'd have shit lives if not for a college degree.
Here's a radical claim: it doesn't matter why students are under crushing debt, increasingly screwed by a system that should serve them. The fact remains that there exists a structure designed to screw them over, and all parties involved understand this. The task at hand should be to figure out what the most effective way is to help the students who are screwed by this while simultaneously helping the society that these students/lenders emerge from.
Currently, it is only the lenders and students as individual actors that benefit in this equation.
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote: This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg.
You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets.
You are aware that bankruptcy cannot free you from student loan debts, right?
No I wasn't aware, thanks,, but then maybe thats -a- solution.
I *think*, and I want to emphasize the fact I'm unsure of the matter, that the reason is because it was feared people would willingly declare bankruptcy after graduating. I saw someone just earlier say they have 300k+ debt... well, before you have a house, anything settled, you'd simply declare bankruptcy, be in the shitter in terms of credit yes, but have 300k+ less money to pay back, which is definitely worth it if you can get away with it (say you already found a job).
On April 19 2012 05:08 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Who is this `they`and how did they put you in this hole? Were you forced at a gun point to borrow all that money?
The problem is systemic, as many areas of society have build up the myth (but there's still a good deal of truth behind it) that you need a college degree. The government subsequently built up a system around the lenders to make them have every last card in college lending (lack of Bankruptcy protection, and a variety of other safeguards to protect those in power). Indeed, the gun that they were forced by was far stronger than any sort of literal gun-- these people were conned into believing that they'd have shit lives if not for a college degree.
Here's a radical claim: it doesn't matter why students are under crushing debt, increasingly screwed by a system that should serve them. The fact remains that there exists a structure designed to screw them over, and all parties involved understand this. The task at hand should be to figure out what the most effective way is to help the students who are screwed by this while simultaneously helping the society that these students/lenders emerge from.
Currently, it is only the lenders and students as individual actors that benefit in this equation.
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
Wow, the level of ignorance in this thread. The year before I graduated college is when the enconomy started to tank so when I graduated we were full into the recession. I wanted to get my masters because in order to be a counselor you are REQUIRED to have Masters degree and a license from the state. I tried to get a job anywhere at all so i could work while getting my degree, but I was unable to get so much as an interview. I even talked to a career counselor and redid my resume and still did not find a job. So I focused on getting my Masters. Thankfully, I just got a Graduate Assistantship, which is paying for this and next semester as well as giving me some pocket money, but I am getting laid off in the fall so they can hire someone full time, so it's back to taking one last loan. Also, I start my 600 hour internship this summer (20 hours per week UNPAID), which makes getting a job for one semester in the fall really impractical.
You tried getting a job anywhere at all and you couldn't with a bachelors? How many interviews did you go to, and how many places did you apply to senior year? Maybe you should have taken some time off before getting your masters?
Talking to your counselor is usually something you do your junior year, when you're looking for internships, not senior year.
What it sounds like to me is that all the people who can't find jobs, or even get interviews, are in this situation because they didn't work hard enough during school, or didn't do the research needed. I don't go to an ivy league school, I didn't have any internship (because I worked two jobs during college), and got plenty of interviews, and I honestly didn't even apply to THAT many (maybe 100 total). I'm not going to deny it, the process was fairly brutal, considering how selective they can be due to only hiring a few people, but my god, if you had at least a 3.4 GPA in a non-worthless major and you can't get any interviews... it's either the school you attended or you're doing something wrong.
There's this thing called being overly qualified for a job. Graduating Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology with a 3.82 GPA and applying at department stores because you really need a job, they tend to think you aren't going to stick around very long. I also applied at places that were relevant to my field, but they went with people that had more hands on experience than I did as my experience at the time was all class room based. What's funny, is that for getting a graduate school internship, everyone wanted to interview me, problem is that it is still an UNPAID internship because LEGALLY you cannot be paid to do (non career) counseling until you have a license. Granted if you are extremely lucky you can get a stipend similar to a Graduate Assistantship.
The problem is for some fields additional education is required to get a decent job, or to get the job you want you MUST get a Masters or Doctorate Degree and have state licensure. For these fields, students accumulate far more loans. I got lucky because I am getting my Masters from a state institution and paying half as much per credit hour as I did for my undergrad. Had I gone anywhere else to get my Masters I'd be looking at $100,000 or more in loans and I would have to have to wait several more months to test to get my license and pay substantially more money to do so.
Although I believe in personal responsibility and believe these graduates should pay their debts. I can understand why they are upset. They spend years in a university only to be saddled with enormous debt and a devalued degree. However I think federal student loans are more to blame as they just keep increasing the cost of higher education.
It says it rewards for entering public service, like teaching and firefighting? I don't like them telling me I have to work in the public sector to pay off my loan...
On April 19 2012 05:22 danl9rm wrote: Wait, one-on-one private tutoring by their own parent(s) is terrible? And, you think all, or even most, k-12 teachers have college-level comprehension of all subjects? I would be doing my child a disservice to raise him myself instead of letting a stranger? Hahahahaha.
Anddddd, this is how you just exposed yourself as knowing nothing about teaching others. It isn't merely mastery of whatever subject that the teacher has experience in. There is a lot of in-depth knowledge and experience that goes into learning how to teach others.
There's literally been over 2k years of debate on what the best way to teach a student is, and teachers who get employed now (my understanding is that a Master's is the new base-level of required experience) need to understand not only the various theories on how to teach others, but how to adapt and modify these theories to suit any given classroom and student.
The reason why homeschooling is awful, in the end, is as much as the parent wants to think they know their own child, there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child in any given subject. In this way, their background is lacking on two levels: the subject matter (the teacher probably knows more in several subjects than does this parent) and in how to deliver the education (which I am certain incredibly few parents know about).
On April 19 2012 05:29 Rfaulker wrote: It says it rewards for entering public service, like teaching and firefighting? I don't like them telling me I have to work in the public sector to pay off my loan...
There also is a system that rewards you for being a counselor in the inner city as well. You know why? Because you make far less money counseling when all of your clients are paying on a sliding scale system. One "one hour" (actual time 50 minutes) counseling session at full price will run about $140. The only people that can afford that out of pocket live in affluent rich neighborhoods. As for payment on a sliding scale system, clients pay what they can afford, so with the exception of those covered by Medicaid (which will still only pay about $100 tops for a session and may take up to 6 months to pay you) you make about 50-70% less than what the going rate per hour is. I didn't choose counseling for the money, but I certainly would appreciate some help if I am going to get paid even less than I first expected simply because I want to work with those that need help the most. Furthermore, you cannot work with people that have insurance until you get your second level of licensure in the state of IL, which requires 1900 hours of work and 1 hour of supervision per week (which you pay for out of pocket).
On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote: Commence Rant/
Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America.
Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries.
For myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance.
So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit.
/End Rant
Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
Wow, the level of ignorance in this thread. The year before I graduated college is when the enconomy started to tank so when I graduated we were full into the recession. I wanted to get my masters because in order to be a counselor you are REQUIRED to have Masters degree and a license from the state. I tried to get a job anywhere at all so i could work while getting my degree, but I was unable to get so much as an interview. I even talked to a career counselor and redid my resume and still did not find a job. So I focused on getting my Masters. Thankfully, I just got a Graduate Assistantship, which is paying for this and next semester as well as giving me some pocket money, but I am getting laid off in the fall so they can hire someone full time, so it's back to taking one last loan. Also, I start my 600 hour internship this summer (20 hours per week UNPAID), which makes getting a job for one semester in the fall really impractical.
You tried getting a job anywhere at all and you couldn't with a bachelors? How many interviews did you go to, and how many places did you apply to senior year? Maybe you should have taken some time off before getting your masters?
Talking to your counselor is usually something you do your junior year, when you're looking for internships, not senior year.
What it sounds like to me is that all the people who can't find jobs, or even get interviews, are in this situation because they didn't work hard enough during school, or didn't do the research needed. I don't go to an ivy league school, I didn't have any internship (because I worked two jobs during college), and got plenty of interviews, and I honestly didn't even apply to THAT many (maybe 100 total). I'm not going to deny it, the process was fairly brutal, considering how selective they can be due to only hiring a few people, but my god, if you had at least a 3.4 GPA in a non-worthless major and you can't get any interviews... it's either the school you attended or you're doing something wrong.
There's this thing called being overly qualified for a job. Graduating Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology with a 3.82 GPA and applying at department stores because you really need a job, they tend to think you aren't going to stick around very long. I also applied at places that were relevant to my field, but they went with people that had more hands on experience than I did as my experience at the time was all class room based. What's funny, is that for getting a graduate school internship, everyone wanted to interview me, problem is that it is still an UNPAID internship because LEGALLY you cannot be paid to do (non career) counseling until you have a license. Granted if you are extremely lucky you can get a stipend similar to a Graduate Assistantship.
The problem is for some fields additional education is required to get a decent job, or to get the job you want you MUST get a Masters or Doctorate Degree and have state licensure. For these fields, students accumulate far more loans. I got lucky because I am getting my Masters from a state institution and paying half as much per credit hour as I did for my undergrad. Had I gone anywhere else to get my Masters I'd be looking at $100,000 or more in loans and I would have to have to wait several more months to test to get my license and pay substantially more money to do so.
It's common knowledge that you don't put that you got a Bachelors if you're applying to a lessor job. I recall during college my boss instantly threw out all applications for administrative assistants if they put they had a bachelors on it.
If you're just graduating, and you say you'll take any job (not necessarily the career you're looking into) then why didn't you apply to areas that don't require licensure? And I've found out that the majority of places that are entry level hire you on the expectation you'll get your licensure while working with them. For example, you want to go into an actuarial job? You need a license, but guess what, tons of firms hire you at entry level position, and you spend your entire first year learning about it without actually doing it, and in the meantime you get accredited. For accounting, you go work for a firm for 2 years THEN you get your CPA (certified public accountant) afterwards while working for them.
Myself I plan on going back to grad school in 3-4 years, after I have a solid income and have paid off my existing debt. I'm not rushing into it senselessly.
I hate this personally. If you go to college you should know you're taking out loans and intend to pay them back. Taxpayers and/or banks are then taking a hit if you're planning on forgiving the loans. Just because people do stupid things like go to NYU for a sociology or women's studies degree then wonder why they can't pay back their $250k+ in student loans doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer. Be smart and pick a real major and ask if it's worth it to go to that private univeristy, go to community college 2 years, etc.
On April 19 2012 05:22 danl9rm wrote: Wait, one-on-one private tutoring by their own parent(s) is terrible? And, you think all, or even most, k-12 teachers have college-level comprehension of all subjects? I would be doing my child a disservice to raise him myself instead of letting a stranger? Hahahahaha.
Anddddd, this is how you just exposed yourself as knowing nothing about teaching others. It isn't merely mastery of whatever subject that the teacher has experience in. There is a lot of in-depth knowledge and experience that goes into learning how to teach others.
There's literally been over 2k years of debate on what the best way to teach a student is, and teachers who get employed now (my understanding is that a Master's is the new base-level of required experience) need to understand not only the various theories on how to teach others, but how to adapt and modify these theories to suit any given classroom and student.
The reason why homeschooling is awful, in the end, is as much as the parent wants to think they know their own child, there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child in any given subject. In this way, their background is lacking on two levels: the subject matter (the teacher probably knows more in several subjects than does this parent) and in how to deliver the education (which I am certain incredibly few parents know about).
Lol. I exposed myself.
Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school?
You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..." You don't see a problem with that?
I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."'
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
Let me make this clear: I don't care about the individual who got C's in college and now cannot find a job. They're just a symptom of a larger problem, one that my earlier post I think alludes to.
I mean, performance in college does determine later success-- I think that is sorta intuitive. What I'm objecting to are the systemic pressures that force a C student to still go to college, or for people to somehow think college is a necessity. In a large way, the people who enroll at a university and still don't have their prospects for long-term success improved are not culpable in any real sense-- many of my co-classmates have no place here, but are here because getting a college degree is "What you do."
On April 19 2012 05:14 v3chr0 wrote: This is a solution? You mess up, and someone else is responsible? LOL
JFC, what is happening to this Country and people having personal responsibility, and being held accountable for their actions... uhg.
You can't pay your student loans, you don't ACTUALLY have money? You claim bankrupt, this system already has safety nets.
All rhetoric, short on facts, and no pragmatism. JFC, indeed.
This should be a dry issue. It isn't a moral issue. The only question that matters is if forgiving student loans will help move our society to a better place.
And, no, you can't claim bankruptcy on student loans -- although even if we could, it would probably be disastrous in itself given today's economy. A whole lot of young people declaring bankruptcy -- how is that better, or more accepting of personal responsibility?
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
Let me make this clear: I don't care about the individual who got C's in college and now cannot find a job. They're just a symptom of a larger problem, one that my earlier post I think alludes to.
I mean, performance in college does determine later success-- I think that is sorta intuitive. What I'm objecting to are the systemic pressures that force a C student to still go to college, or for people to somehow think college is a necessity. In a large way, the people who enroll at a university and still don't have their prospects for long-term success improved are not culpable in any real sense-- many of my co-classmates have no place here, but are here because getting a college degree is "What you do."
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?
On April 19 2012 05:39 Hamdemon wrote: I hate this personally. If you go to college you should know you're taking out loans and intend to pay them back. Taxpayers and/or banks are then taking a hit if you're planning on forgiving the loans. Just because people do stupid things like go to NYU for a sociology or women's studies degree then wonder why they can't pay back their $250k+ in student loans doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer. Be smart and pick a real major and ask if it's worth it to go to that private univeristy, go to community college 2 years, etc.
Hey, they could take the money from our grossly inflated defense budget and easily cover all these loans. No need to raise taxes or accrue more government debt. By the way that budget is looking to be around $1 trillion.
True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote: True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
Wanna know where the money is going? Open up your local newspaper. Mine says: "University commission (the people that approve university spending projects) just approved $26 million construction for new bolton dining hall (cause the old one, while functional, isn't NEW enough). They need it to attract more students.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school?
Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class.
Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..." You don't see a problem with that?
Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology.
In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.
As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."'
No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why?
Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people.
On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote: True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
This is the crux of the issue. This is why people suggesting we just suck it up and pay our loans need to take a look at the real issue of the ridiculous expense of going to college in the United States.
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.
On April 19 2012 05:39 Hamdemon wrote: I hate this personally. If you go to college you should know you're taking out loans and intend to pay them back. Taxpayers and/or banks are then taking a hit if you're planning on forgiving the loans. Just because people do stupid things like go to NYU for a sociology or women's studies degree then wonder why they can't pay back their $250k+ in student loans doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer. Be smart and pick a real major and ask if it's worth it to go to that private univeristy, go to community college 2 years, etc.
Hey, they could take the money from our grossly inflated defense budget and easily cover all these loans. No need to raise taxes or accrue more government debt. By the way that budget is looking to be around $1 trillion.
or they could take the money from the grossly inflated defense budget and pay down U.S. debt, and let private individuals pay back their own private debts. too bad china isnt willing to give the US loan forgiveness on all the US loans.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts.
Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare.
It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible.
Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide).
It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide.
Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools.
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.
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. So there is no problem with inefficiency as speeding things up is not really useful. For those kids that parents want to learn more, there is always enough time after school. Of course best possible solution would be public schools where kids would be n on 1 with a teacher (n very low). Some group homeschooling could partially simulate it, but not completely, see below.
And after basic school, there should be separation between people based on skills as one speed is no longer viable. But at that point, where homeschooling would actually had biggest benefits, homeschooling is completely out of question unless the parent studied the same field.
All those social experiences are extremely hard to replicate in ways you describe, not impossible, but very hard. The point is to make the child used to people of as many different backgrounds, characters,... as possible. Real public schools in cities do that rather well, but the activities you describe are more often than not rather selective.
I met a lot more varied and interesting people homeschooling than I ever did in public school. I also got a lot more out of it academically than I did from public school. Although I'll agree that homeschooling can't work for everyone, I disagree with a lot of the generalizations you make.
Also, mcc, heads up, you're at 2499 :D
It was worded very carefully to not make incorrect generalizations, that is why there are so many qualifiers And there is nothing more to get academically from basic school. You should get from it basic knowledge, something that 95+% of population can get. There should be no "more" or "less". The more or less part comes from out of school/extracurricular activities. And you are correct I post too much. I will make the special post in the same way as special Daily 200 was done, so when I reach 10000 I will make special post for 2500
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
This is in the same category as, "The ones without jobs are the ones who ended up with a useless liberal arts degree". It's complete BS with nothing backing it up (the second one has actually been proven to be false) and it's just thrown around by those that don't understand that life isn't actually fair to everyone.
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.
On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote: True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
Wanna know where the money is going? Open up your local newspaper. Mine says: "University commission (the people that approve university spending projects) just approved $26 million construction for new bolton dining hall (cause the old one, while functional, isn't NEW enough). They need it to attract more students.
I see, a pretty vicious circle...spend more money to get more people to spend more money on you, pretty good business model for an education system lol.
When Germany temporarily (god that's a long story) introduced student loans (about 800$ per semester tops) for everybody they made sure by law that these monies can't be spent on construction etc. and only on anything directly student level of education related (additional tutoring hours, free counselling, more library books). Could be a start? The combination of a rather low cap and spending regulations worked rather well until the general consensus among the people was brought to the politicians' attention. Fairness in education above all else. I don't think there's any country that's quite there yet but I don't think we can afford to waste so much potential by not nurturing young minds unfortunate enough to be born into a poor family.
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.
So many people like you in this thread just can't understand that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The punishments for defaulting on student loans are absolutely ridiculous and this is why people need help.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
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.
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.
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.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school?
Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class.
Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..." You don't see a problem with that?
Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology.
In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.
As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."'
No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why?
Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people.
As a professional educator, I'm just going to tell you that you are wrong (as long as we are ignoring outliers, which we should) and you don't really understand how homeschooling works.
Most people who homeschool their children are: a) very smart (as smart as, or smarter than the average teacher) and more than capable of teaching K-12 subject matter b) smart enough to know that they aren't smart enough to teach K-12 subject matter and so they seek outside help
In both cases, the majority belong to co-ops, groups, learning associations, etc. that have access to a wealth of resources and professionals to bridge the gap. Studies show that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school counterparts in just about every area.
What about the people who can't make the payments? My fiance got her degree and is heavily in debt but cannot find a job with her degree, even when the college promised to help with job placement. So she is working min wage and there is no way she can pay what they want her to pay.....
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils.
I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours.
Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering.
That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve.
Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label.
You are quite right.
My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue.
On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually.
Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids.
There is also different models Montessori amongst others.
I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case.
Wait, one-on-one private tutoring by their own parent(s) is terrible? And, you think all, or even most, k-12 teachers have college-level comprehension of all subjects? I would be doing my child a disservice to raise him myself instead of letting a stranger? Hahahahaha.
Read my later posts for more details on my opinion including answer to your implicit why. K-12 teachers should have that knowledge in the subjects they teach, not in all, because unlike you they use this human invention called division of labor. Also how does sending kid to school mean in any way you cannot raise him ?
On April 19 2012 05:48 Timerly wrote: True but as a parent you can make up for that. You want the best for your child, you get an EXACT picture of what the child understands cause you can keep pushing until you find out. Having more of your attention directed at a single student (by a factor of 30 for many public schools) means you can teach exactly to their needs. Everybody who was educated at a public school know how much time you spend hearing about stuff you already know and how sometimes you just don't get something teachers can't spend more time on in respect for the others. Even if you teach 20% as effective as a professional you can still get the same results by simply putting everything into one student. Homeschooling just needs to be checked by exams once or twice a year, that's about it. If kids pass it they're fine, make them a little harder cause it's a privilege in comparison, specifics are not the subject though.
And on topic: Problem is not the loan system, it's the fact that you NEED those loans. I mean wtf, outside of the US universities are often completely free or at least far less expensive without lacking in the quality of education. German engineers are world class and people here don't pay for tuition at all in most states, how does any uni justify 10k in tuition fees per semester? I mean where the fuck is that money even going?
You need loans to afford higher education because the federal student loan program made them so easily available. They are pretty much guaranteed. So if students can't pay tuition, they can just take out a loan. The universities know this and It gives them free reign to just keep inflating prices.
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.
So many people like you in this thread just can't understand that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The punishments for defaulting on student loans are absolutely ridiculous and this is why people need help.
this thread is discussing whether to allow loan forgiveness, not whether to change the "punishment" for defaulting. if the punishment is the problem, draft a bill to change the punishment, dont draft a bill to forgive the loans because you dont like the punishment.
On April 19 2012 06:15 morevox wrote: What about the people who can't make the payments? My fiance got her degree and is heavily in debt but cannot find a job with her degree, even when the college promised to help with job placement. So she is working min wage and there is no way she can pay what they want her to pay.....
Don't worry people will say shes just lazy and obviously didn't work hard enough and deserves to be in this mess. Anything that could help her is just a handout and god forbid people help eachother.
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.
On April 19 2012 06:15 morevox wrote: What about the people who can't make the payments? My fiance got her degree and is heavily in debt but cannot find a job with her degree, even when the college promised to help with job placement. So she is working min wage and there is no way she can pay what they want her to pay.....
Don't worry people will say shes just lazy and obviously didn't work hard enough and deserves to be in this mess. Anything that could help her is just a handout and god forbid people help eachother.
What degree did she get?
Just because she took the decision go into debt to get a potentially useless degree doesn't mean others have to pay for it.
On April 19 2012 05:05 GrayArea wrote: As a future grad student who is going to be going into 300k+ debt, I can easily say that it's simply ridiculous how high tuition and interest rates are. If they are going to be putting us this deep into the hole, they need more programs that offer loan forgiveness. Signed the petition. You don't truly appreciate how much debt, work, time, effort it all is until you actually go into that much debt yourself. Support this.
How many years did you spend in university and what kind of a degree did you get?
Unless you got a degree with actual job prospects and can be paid over 100K / year, than you've wasted 300K$ and should be responsible for it yourself.
And if you can make over 100K a year with whatever degree you get, you should still pay for it yourself.
On April 19 2012 06:15 morevox wrote: What about the people who can't make the payments? My fiance got her degree and is heavily in debt but cannot find a job with her degree, even when the college promised to help with job placement. So she is working min wage and there is no way she can pay what they want her to pay.....
there are options available to her through the loan company (or government) to defer payment, reduce payment, etc. she should contact them and see what she can do about her situation. loan companies dont want people to default as much as people dont want to default.
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
This is in the same category as, "The ones without jobs are the ones who ended up with a useless liberal arts degree". It's complete BS with nothing backing it up (the second one has actually been proven to be false) and it's just thrown around by those that don't understand that life isn't actually fair to everyone.
Nothing backing it up? Except that although there are a lot less jobs, there's still a lot of jobs out there?
There's currently 2284 jobs on the UCI career fair job board. Give me a break. I mean, I had multiple interviews as well with companies that didn't even post on the job board, I just went to their website and applied. This also doesn't count the thousands of hires that have already happened throughout the year (for example, all major consulting and accounting firms hire during the fall ONLY).
There's tons of jobs out there, tons of interviews, people just aren't applying themselves. I saw someone say they had a 3.4 in engineering and couldn't find a job. I can only surmise that it's his lack of effort, lack of internship, or terrible cover letters. Engineers are still getting hired all over the place, I believe at the moment it's the number one hired major in the entire nation. And if you have a 3.4 in engineering you're most likely top 10% of your class. He said he didn't even get a single interview. SOMETHING is wrong when my roommate with a 2.94 had 25+ interviews last year and landed a job paying $60k+. Not to mention he got a job offer out in Utah that was offering 68k, he just didn't want to move to Utah.
Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
seems many people have pointed out that this will put a further burden on the government budget and/or increase taxes, which is just bad practice since it is not going to create a better economy. and more generally that it promotes financial irresponsibility by students.
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
For example, those that went out of their way to go to the accounting association at my school, you know how many of the outgoing seniors got jobs? Every single one of them. And it was I think only one of those didn't land a job at the top 4, but got a job at McGladery. Those that attend the meetings at the Finance association, as long as they had decent records, all got interviews at the very least for internships/jobs by recruiters that came by. I couldn't even name how many recruiters have come to my career fair looking to hire people. Every bank seems to be there (particularly Wells Fargo), all the consulting firms end up there, engineering firms (whatever they do, I don't look into it, but my roommate with a 2.9 GPA in some sort of engineering had over 25 interviews his senior year, landed a job at EMC that's ridiculous and is paying notably more than my job exiting uni).
I go to UCI. I go to an above average university, not the top. Those that whine are those that didn't look into. That's all I'm saying.
This is in the same category as, "The ones without jobs are the ones who ended up with a useless liberal arts degree". It's complete BS with nothing backing it up (the second one has actually been proven to be false) and it's just thrown around by those that don't understand that life isn't actually fair to everyone.
Nothing backing it up? Except that although there are a lot less jobs, there's still a lot of jobs out there?
There's currently 2284 jobs on the UCI career fair job board. Give me a break. I mean, I had multiple interviews as well with companies that didn't even post on the job board, I just went to their website and applied. This also doesn't count the thousands of hires that have already happened throughout the year (for example, all major consulting and accounting firms hire during the fall ONLY).
There's tons of jobs out there, tons of interviews, people just aren't applying themselves. I saw someone say they had a 3.4 in engineering and couldn't find a job. I can only surmise that it's his lack of effort, lack of internship, or terrible cover letters. Engineers are still getting hired all over the place, I believe at the moment it's the number one hired major in the entire nation. And if you have a 3.4 in engineering you're most likely top 10% of your class. He said he didn't even get a single interview. SOMETHING is wrong when my roommate with a 2.94 had 25+ interviews last year and landed a job paying $60k+. Not to mention he got a job offer out in Utah that was offering 68k, he just didn't want to move to Utah.
I have no idea on the US job market but if its anything like Europe and you're under 35 you're fucked. Babyboomers are hogging all the good spots based on their 'time with the company/institution' and all getting ready for their fishing trips when they retire early, probably a good 5-8 years earlier then I'll retire.
Out of the shitloads of money society spends, they should at least consider investing in education instead of cutting back on it every time again while they're too scared to touch the real things that are spiralling the deficits out of control: social security, rising medical costs, or put differently: old people. There was some thruth to 'paying your due to the people that built your country', but all the babyboomers are doing is sucking every last dollar out of the system before they finally depart this world.
Plans like this don't even make a dent in the deficit, most of Europe runs government programs like this and with the profits made off the loans that get paid back they all run 'profits'. Education isn't something you waste money on, its something you invest money in that will pay itself back several times over in taxes. Except ofcourse if you're in a society that places a higher marginal tax rate on minimum wage earners than millionaires.
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school?
Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class.
Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..." You don't see a problem with that?
Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology.
In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.
As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."'
No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why?
Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people.
As a professional educator, I'm just going to tell you that you are wrong (as long as we are ignoring outliers, which we should) and you don't really understand how homeschooling works.
Most people who homeschool their children are: a) very smart (as smart as, or smarter than the average teacher) and more than capable of teaching K-12 subject matter b) smart enough to know that they aren't smart enough to teach K-12 subject matter and so they seek outside help
In both cases, the majority belong to co-ops, groups, learning associations, etc. that have access to a wealth of resources and professionals to bridge the gap. Studies show that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school counterparts in just about every area.
Which might be just a testament to terrible basic public education in US, which would make homeschooling a good thing as a temporary patch, but should make reform of public education more important ? There is not much you can conclude from that research other than exactly what it says. Not even talking that I know (and I am not from US) about parents who misuse homeschooling to shelter/indoctrinate their children. I have no idea how prevalent is that, but even the fact that it is used like that is rather disconcerting.
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?
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
You can follow "they should have worked harder" with "I don't think they deserve it" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're blaming them for their situation. Such a confusion over the meaning of your own words is to be expected from a man whose solution to the problem of there being too few jobs and only the very top applicants finding work is "everyone outperform everyone and then everyone gets the most exclusive and highly competitive jobs".
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security.
On April 19 2012 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.
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
The housing bubble started when lenders reduced the standards for giving loans. They would allow people to get a loan without documenting their income. Student loans are in the same field. Students do not have income, or if they do it is minimal. Student loans are bets on the future earnings of the students. These sub-prime mortgages that caused the housing bubble was based on the future value of the houses. No-one expected housing prices to decline, just like no-one expects the value of a degree to go down.
I see the same thing happening when you make it easier to pay off student loans at a loss to the lender. People will pass the bill to the next investor until the defaults start happening and people lose all there money. A dangerous game of hot-potato it will become.
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security.
Right, but it's root was partially caused by the government in terms of passing legislation that allowed under qualified people to have a chance at purchasing homes, it's analogous to what's happening right now in education, and would likely be exacerbated further by this legislation. After all, who won't be trying to offer shitty loans to students if they know that they'll be paid back no matter what? It's essentially the same thing that helped the housing bubble burst.
I don't know much about the current situation in america, but from what i am hearing people dont like it because they have paid their debt off so they think its unfair the next gen dont have to pay (as much) ? if that is the case, then have a heart <3
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security.
Right, but it's root was partially caused by the government in terms of passing legislation that allowed under qualified people to have a chance at purchasing homes, it's analogous to what's happening right now in education, and would likely be exacerbated further by this legislation. After all, who won't be trying to offer shitty loans to students if they know that they'll be paid back no matter what? It's essentially the same thing that helped the housing bubble burst.
Your reasoning is correct. Your packaging a risky investment as a safe one, with the help of company with the goverments support. Like the movie I linked says, your creating a house of cards made out of student loans.
On April 19 2012 06:58 firehand101 wrote: I don't know much about the current situation in america, but from what i am hearing people dont like it because they have paid their debt off so they think its unfair the next gen dont have to pay (as much) ? if that is the case, then have a heart <3
No, what's troubling is the fact that people are being forced to foot the bill for people that (often through their own decisions) have landed themselves in a bad situation.
-The bill would create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness. If you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. - If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness. - The bill would ensure low interest rates on federal student loans by capping them at 3.4%. - The bill would allow existing borrowers whose educational loan debt exceeds their income to break free from the crushing interest rates of private loans by converting their private loan debt into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling their new federal loans into the 10/10 program. - The bill would reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting. It would also provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. It would reduce the Public Service Loan Forgiveness requirement to 5 years from its current 10 years.
What do you guys think? You should sign the petition if you're for it, but open dialogue about it would be cool as well.
This is exactly how the housing bubble was started. I would not endorse it.
Could you elaborate? I'd be interested in the parallels you could draw (I really don't know much about the housing bubble beyond what CNN told me >__>)
He can't cause it's bogus. The whole financial crisis thing was based on investment bankers leveraging credit by creating financial instruments based on the default chance. The housing bubble was just an ordinary bubble which occurs from time to time in many industries. It also doesn't fit the analogy because your degree is not a security while a house bought from a loan acts as a security.
Right, but it's root was partially caused by the government in terms of passing legislation that allowed under qualified people to have a chance at purchasing homes, it's analogous to what's happening right now in education, and would likely be exacerbated further by this legislation. After all, who won't be trying to offer shitty loans to students if they know that they'll be paid back no matter what? It's essentially the same thing that helped the housing bubble burst.
Your reasoning is correct. Your packaging a risky investment as a safe one, with the help of company with the goverments support. Like the movie I linked says, your creating a house of cards made out of student loans.
Seriously though people, go watch that video. It'll do a better job of explaining the motives behind everything that caused it to crumble than reading wikipedia will ever do.
I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
medical school. 190k. i went to a state school, where tuition went from 21k -> 32k during my 4 year stay. people who graduated 5 years earlier have <100k loans, which is much more manageable. i don't plan to be a rich spoiled doctor driving a lambo (i drive a beaten up civic as a 4th year med student), but i have to mention that it's definitely putting pressure on a lot of my classmates. i want to stay in academic medicine, which halves my salary, but this "average" amount of loans is really making me reconsider. I might just sell myself out to a private lab group (im going into pathology), who will give me 300k salary but will work my butt off for maximum profit. no room for innovation.
Plus, graduate loans are stuck at 6.8%~7.9%. my residency salary will be 52.7k in NYC. minium loan payment for my next 5-6 years of training while interest accrues.
i really want to help change the whole healthcare system from the medical informatics approach, but loans are really becoming an hindrance to any kind of creative ventures. i might be reading colon and stomach biopsies all day just to pay my loans first.
On April 19 2012 07:02 Playguuu wrote: I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
That is my fear. Any loan based on future activity is a risky one.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
You can follow "they should have worked harder" with "I don't think they deserve it" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're blaming them for their situation. Such a confusion over the meaning of your own words is to be expected from a man whose solution to the problem of there being too few jobs and only the very top applicants finding work is "everyone outperform everyone and then everyone gets the most exclusive and highly competitive jobs".
I'm not saying that's the solution. But I'm saying that there are still jobs out there, they aren't AS bad as people are making them sound. Many are those who didn't even search for jobs until after they graduated, many without internships, many without minors, or previous work experience. Sure, they might have gotten a 3.0, but those are they people that can only blame themselves for the situation they put themselves in. They didn't put in the extra effort to get an A. In this shitty economy, people are going to suffer, no one deserves it, but IF people are going to suffer, it's going to be the people that couldn't perform as well in college.
Like I've said before, I didn't even have a fucking internship and I got a job and countless interviews. There's nearly 2,500 job listings on the UCI career website, and there have been thousands more throughout the year. I've been to multiple career fairs, there are PLENTY of recruiters there. One job I went to, nice entry level position for finance, I only got the interview because I talked to the recruiter and no one else did. You know how many people applied to the position? SIX. Everyone who applied got interviews as a result. The starting pay for this entry level position, open to ALL majors, with NO prior experience in the field necessary, was $52,000. I got to the final round of the interview before losing out to someone from UCLA. I would have taken the job if I could have gotten it, as it was with Liberty Mutual, a company that ranked 82 on the Fortune 500 list last year.
Every single damn person I know that's applied themselves has gotten a job. Not ONE person I know (relatively well) hasn't. Even the people in my major that I thought were fucking up got jobs. One who couldn't find a job got an internship after he graduated with Experian (largest credit bureau rating company), which six months later they hired him. And the internship was paid. He got it immediately after he graduated during summer. He was a 3.0 GPA student who didn't do shit during the year. It might be anecdotal evidence, but I don't know ANYONE who I can say actually applied themselves during their undergrad and didn't get at least a $40k job upon graduation. One of my roommates who didn't apply himself whatsoever, in the sense he didn't apply to a single job until after he graduated, got a job 2 weeks afterwards because he hired a person to recruit and find a job for him. His recruiter had interviews lined up for him in the 28k-38k range. He got a job for 36k, which he's using to build up money BEFORE he goes to law school. You know, because he's planning it out, instead of jumping into it...
On April 19 2012 07:02 Playguuu wrote: I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
Is it bad that I really hope it bursts soon? Not for any schadenfruede reasons but because we're pressuring kids to waste 4 years of their life on a degree that qualifies them to be little more than a barista. And in many cases we're flat out lying to them about how much that degree is worth.
I want the bubble to burst so that lie isn't nearly as believable as it is now.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
You can follow "they should have worked harder" with "I don't think they deserve it" as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that you're blaming them for their situation. Such a confusion over the meaning of your own words is to be expected from a man whose solution to the problem of there being too few jobs and only the very top applicants finding work is "everyone outperform everyone and then everyone gets the most exclusive and highly competitive jobs".
If everyone in the world worked harder in an attempt to outperform their peers then the economy as a whole would be producing more, allowing for the creation of more jobs. Eventually everyone could be employed this way. Look at it as a threshold of being profitable to hire, instead of as a competition. Unfortunately, we have yet to have the problem of too many people working hard.
On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote: So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything?
I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however.
how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job.
then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility.
edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage.
Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!)
I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly)
Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs.
It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being.
Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly?
i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years.
i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me .
i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!).
i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go.
there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways.
edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument.
Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc.
I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford)
But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans.
I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot.
Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best.
The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education? EDIT: I think, after rereading your last paragraph, that we basically agree... the root of the problem is the insane costs of undergraduate education.
On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote: So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything?
I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however.
how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job.
then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility.
edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage.
Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!)
I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly)
Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs.
It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being.
Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly?
i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years.
i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me .
i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!).
i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go.
there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways.
edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument.
Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc.
I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford)
But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans.
I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot.
Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best.
The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education?
Whoa whoa whoa, now you're including housing into it? I don't think housing is a valid argument. You should be able to pay off housing completely with a part time job in the school year and a full time job during summer. If not, you should go to CC for your first two years to save money. Simple as that, CC is a completely valid solution to so many issues yet people simply refuse to go to them, despite them generally offering guaranteed transfers (at least in California) to University if you achieve X GPA and take Y classes. And you still get your degree from a university, which is all that counts. Not to mention CC teachers are infinitely better than the garbage professors you generally get at university...
I would like to say though what I have learned is that even if you're making a small income, apparently the loan payments still come at your relatively high. I'm not sure how this works exactly, or if it's only for the people that took out ridiculous loans, as I know my roommates GF is paying like $30 a month or something ridiculously low since she's unemployed (and her income is the reason she's paying so little). My roommate who makes 60k+ is having to pay significantly more, I think $300 ish. They both have ~$25-30k in debt.
On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote: So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything?
I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however.
how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job.
then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility.
edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage.
Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!)
I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly)
Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs.
It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being.
Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly?
i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years.
i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me .
i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!).
i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go.
there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways.
edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument.
Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc.
I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford)
But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans.
I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot.
Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best.
The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education?
i went to private schools for undergrad and law school. tuition was $35k, $45k, respectively. you and i both made the choice to go to overly expensive schools instead of taking advantage of cheaper alternatives. i do not regret my decision, and my loans are manageable.
like i said before, the cost of education is ridiculous. forgiving loans isnt going to fix that issue. and, i argue, that once the government starts subsidizing education loans even more then tuition will increase drastically. then we will be faced with a situation where the government is already subsidizing student loans but the students are still in heavy debt.
the government has no say in what private universities can charge. they can control public universities, which is why public universities (which are already subsidized by tax payers) are so cheap.
i dont claim to know how to solve the education cost crisis, but loan forgiveness is not the way.
On April 19 2012 05:46 Kazeyonoma wrote: So instead of fixing the problem, we're going to give out hand outs to solve the symptoms of the problem? how is this fixing anything?
I don't think anybody ever said this fixes the underlying problem. It certainly does help the individual actors getting harmed, however.
how are people harmed by having to pay back debts that they voluntarily agreed to take on? students who take out loans arent victims; they made conscious decisions to take on debt.
Part of it has to do with how people are bombarded by messages since they are an infant that they need to pursue higher education if they want to have any sort of comfortable lifestyle. I mean if you are told by basically everybody around for your entire life that you NEED to go to college and you have to take out loans to make ends meet then its not as clear cut as "they know what they're getting into". It is true they generally do. What they don't understand is that you won't always get that job you are after and its not exactly not uncommon for you to have to settle for a job that you could of had without any college degree at all (such as retail). People understood the situation regarding the loan itself... What they did NOT understand was that they can't pay off their loans later on because they just can't get a good job.
then people need to grow the fuck up before they sign big-boy loan commitments. lets stop pampering our kids and teach them some responsibility.
edit: i bought a home in 2006. when the market tanked and my home was worth 40% of what i bought it for in less than two years, i didnt ask the government or Countrywide to forgive my mortgage.
Do you think there is room for argument to be made that it makes the most financial sense to, if after 10 years of paying 10% of your income towards your loans, forgive those loans so the person can inject that money back into the economy. (I'm asking cause I have no idea!)
I know at least personally I see a huge issue with the pay structure for Higher education in America. To give myself as an example. I spent 200k+ on a BA in psychology which I would be lucky if it could secure me a job paying 50-60k a year. At that rate (5k a year against 200k in loans plus interest) I would basically never pay off my loans and be stuck putting 10% of my income every year into them (it would also be a big weight on my credit score, making any future loans more costly)
Now I'm in my MS program where Graduate assistants get 12k a semester on stipend, and non GAs get tuition paid for in exchange for 7 hours a week work for the department. Same applies to PhD programs.
It seems to me that any non professional degree (engineering, nursing, business, etc) at the undergraduate level is basically robbery because the cost of the degree in no way matches the earning potential it gives you. Yet graduate education (where you get earning potential) is basically free across the board. This bill seems to be trying to address this issue- because if I end up with a PhD I'll likely have the income to pay off my undergraduate loans, but if I'm stuck with a basically useless BA against its cost, I'll be able to salvage my financial well being.
Do you simply not see the cost vs earning potential issue of undergraduate degrees as an issue that should be addressed? Or do you just not think this bill is addressing the issue correctly?
i think there is lots of room for argument about the economics of this bill. and im sure that reasonable minds could come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether forgiving student loans would eventually promote a better economy. i am on the far right of the specturm that says not only will it not promote a better economy, but it will teach upcoming generations (once again) that when they fuck up they can look to others to fix their problems. for the most part, people dont teach kids fiscal responsibility in this country. the standard is to buy clothes, cars, etc. that you cant afford, and to buy it on credit. i see student loans as just another form of this fiscal irresponsibility. education (more specifically students loans) is an investment. you need to make damn sure that before you sign a loan that you are going into a field where you are going to be able to pay it back. i know the economy is shit right now and jobs are difficult, but that doesnt mean you wont be able to pay it back in 35 years instead of 30 years.
i have a BA in psychology (four years), and a juris doctorate (three years). i lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco (two of the most expensive cities in the United States); i also spent a year in tokyo (arguably the most expensive city in the world). i had about $100k in loans, total for seven years. i dont understand how you (or other people in this thread) could have more student loans than me .
i agree that some degrees are basically useless. but, going back to my original point, dont get that degree if the education is too expensive. you dont need to go to a private university to get a shitty, useless degree. there are community colleges, there are California State Universities and there are Universities of California (in California that is) where you can get the same shitty degree for much less (and tax payer subsidized, yay!).
i do not think this bill addresses the issues correctly. we are in a shitty economy and the fact that graduates cant get jobs should be addressed. however, loan forgiveness is not the way to go. defer payments, reduce (or even eliminate temporarily) interest rates and reduce monthly payments. these will allow people to coast through this fucking economy. then, when shit improves, they can start paying back their loans. i do not think that loan forgiveness is ever the way to go.
there is a huge overarching issue of the cost of education in general, which should be addressed. this bill does not do that. it only encourages universities/colleges to increase tuition because now they know that they can get away with it since the government will subsidize the majority of tuition if the bill is passed. students will end up with huge amounts of debt anyways.
edit: when i said far right, i didnt mean im republican. i voted for obama. im hoping to avoid a "he's a republican" argument.
Well I have more in loans than you because my school costs me 54k a year plus housing, food, books, etc.
I totally see your point about fiscal responsibility being rare in people my age (I see it everyday when I'm flanked by M3s and Cayennes in the parking lot... that a 22 year old could in no way possibly afford)
But the crux of my point is that the inflation of undergraduate education has rapidly outpaced the earning potential that comes with it. You and I are lucky, you went to law school and I go to grad school. But 80% of those who attend university do not do so. Those who are stuck with an 80-200k BA will never earn enough to effectively pay off those loans.
I think you may be focusing solely on student fiscal responsibility and not seeing the crazy inflation that is occurring in tuition (particularly private institutions). It doesn't matter how fiscally frugal and responsible you are; If you graduate with debt that is 1-5x your possible annual salary, you are in a really shitty financial spot.
Now 1 solution is to only go to a school you can pay in full now for, but I feel like telling high school students to "try hard, but not too hard that you get into a prestigious school you'll never be able to pay off" leaves only the wealthy access to elite education, instead of the best.
The 2nd solution, which i advocate, is to in someway either reduce the cost of undergraduate education, or alleviate the burden of debt that students incur for doing nothing but trying their academic best. I agree that making your debt go POOF is unpalatable, but does the federal government have anyway to control what private universities charge for education?
Whoa whoa whoa, now you're including housing into it? I don't think housing is a valid argument. You should be able to pay off housing completely with a part time job in the school year and a full time job during summer. If not, you should go to CC for your first two years to save money. Simple as that, CC is a completely valid solution to so many issues yet people simply refuse to go to them, despite them generally offering guaranteed transfers (at least in California) to University if you achieve X GPA and take Y classes. And you still get your degree from a university, which is all that counts. Not to mention CC teachers are infinitely better than the garbage professors you generally get at university...
Housing is not included in my 54k a year tuition, I was simply including all the costs a student faces. Also I have no idea what CC is. I lived in dorms the first two years of school at 3.8k a year (i think) and an on campus apartment my 3rd year at ~4.5k a semester. This year and next year I'm off campus paying ~800 a month in rent+utilities. I wasn't saying that I can't afford to pay my housing, just that its an additional cost students face.
EDIT: OOO you mean community college. My university would let me take half of my non major courses (so like 45 credits, 15 courses) at community college. A bunch of people take a course or two over the summer. But my point is just that undergraduate education is insanely overpriced compared to the earning potential it gives you. I don't really wanna argue about housing or whatever, its not a big deal.
On April 19 2012 07:02 Playguuu wrote: I made my decision to go to the school I did because I know I could pay it back. I could have easily gone to a more expensive school or go out of state. Luckily the UNC system of schools is reputable and had an acredited program in the field I was going into. That said I don't know what to think about this. I think this will encourage people to go to schools they can't possibly afford. Sounds awfully familiar to the lending and housing crisis in the country.
Education will be the next bubble to burst in this country, mark my words.
Is it bad that I really hope it bursts soon? Not for any schadenfruede reasons but because we're pressuring kids to waste 4 years of their life on a degree that qualifies them to be little more than a barista. And in many cases we're flat out lying to them about how much that degree is worth.
I want the bubble to burst so that lie isn't nearly as believable as it is now.
Precisely. There is a glut of college educated people chasing too few specialized jobs and a breaking point between the available jobs in an area and the increasing cost of college education will make it so going to a technical school makes more sense. The poly-sci/sociology/library science/communication people will suffer most. They are told they need the degrees or need masters/doctorates to even begin making money.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 07:52 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 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.
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)
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 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 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.
All in All.... this bill would be bad for any economy... especially one like we have now. Lets just forgive people for making bad decisions... and for those who make good decisions... lets make them pay for those who don't make good decisions. I dont buy it.
On April 19 2012 08:16 YuTz wrote: All in All.... this bill would be bad for any economy... especially one like we have now. Lets just forgive people for making bad decisions... and for those who make good decisions... lets make them pay for those who don't make good decisions. I dont buy it.
Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
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.
There's no guarantee it would happen again, and it would also result in a massive backlash and loss of PR for the banks if it happened twice. Not to mention that a lot of people for the company get fired in the process.
Don't get me wrong, achieving a "too big to fail" status completely shits on what normal economic theory states.
On April 19 2012 08:16 YuTz wrote: All in All.... this bill would be bad for any economy... especially one like we have now. Lets just forgive people for making bad decisions... and for those who make good decisions... lets make them pay for those who don't make good decisions. I dont buy it.
Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures.
I'm pretty sure the biggest argument in here is that degrees aren't worth it, there's too much unneeded demand for them,a nd we need less people getting them...
The fact that this petition has been signed about 700,000 times is ridiculous. I'm no Republican, but I'll be happy to see them squash the bill in the house. People, especially the most educated among us, shouldn't be rewarded for making bad choices, whether the choices be to -go to a too-expensive school, -go into a low paying field or one that they don't need a degree for, -get a loan without reading the papers or without being prepared for the interest rate, -start a family when they have negative net worth, -or spend too much on goods and services that people around the world making $2 a day can get by without. Note here that almost every single poor household (and the bill doesn't even apply to just the poor) owns a TV, the vast majority have VCRs or DVD players, and a significant majority of them have cable or satellite programming, as of 2004 (so these statistics have probably increased). Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
This bill will encourage more people to go into college when they don't need it, go into colleges that financially don't fit with their career aspirations, and given that people often respond to incentives, perhaps even work less hard (knowing that their hard work will not be needed to pay back their student loan). Most importantly, it will increase our debt, compared what would be possible if we just reduced the spending on Afghanistan without implementing student loan forgiveness.
In this statement in the bill, the author strongly implies that a formal post-secondary education is needed to earn a "living wage":
"Because of soaring tuition costs, students often have no choice but to amass significant debt to obtain an education that is widely considered a prerequisite for earning a living wage."
I would like to see an example of an American who did not go to college, acted rationally in their life choices, but ended up unable to manage to earn a "living wage". Are there examples of this at all? If so, is this a widespread outcome?
On April 19 2012 08:16 YuTz wrote: All in All.... this bill would be bad for any economy... especially one like we have now. Lets just forgive people for making bad decisions... and for those who make good decisions... lets make them pay for those who don't make good decisions. I dont buy it.
Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures.
Less people should go for higher education, when they can't afford it, especially education in fields that bring little return on the investment. It's not the business of every citizen to pay taxes towards debt relief for irresponsible morons, or to help encourage other morons who misunderstood the debt crisis and think it's a bad time to study business even when their savings already have it covered. Of course even if it was everyone's responsibility, that still would not justify forcing their hand. Otherwise is the essential philosophy behind facism. If government corruption is essentially causing higher education to be more expensive than it should be, then for god's sake petition to eliminate that corruption. You don't even address that problem if all you do is redistribute wealth to pay those educators exactly what they're artifically empowered to ask for.
its stupid, if your going to school for something retarded like liberal arts and you cant find a job afterwards, tough luck shouldnt have spent money u didnt have, we dont need any more socialism in this country
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
Truth, my dad paid maybe 4000 in total for his 4 year engineering degree. Mom paid like 500 dollars for her dental assistants degree.
I'm looking at around 35,000 or more for my accounting degree ><
Edit:
My dad is still always amazed at how much it costs for me to goto school when he got his for almost free.
On April 18 2012 09:23 dAPhREAk wrote: when you say loan forgiveness, what you really mean is let the government pay for it, which means increase the debt or increase taxes. i am opposed to increasing the debt, and i am opposed to increasing taxes to pay off something that people voluntarily and privately incurred.
I agree with you here.
You cannot guarantee low interest rates if you're also going to "forgive" debt without negative externalities. Eventually, lenders realize that no one actually wants to pay their loans because they can get forgiven. Some people will pay, but an inordinate amount will not. Lenders therefore lose money. Fewer and fewer lenders exist in this money losing market of giving loans to students who dont have to pay them back, and now the only lender left is the government or no one at all
Now if the government is dealing these money losing student loans, that lost money just becomes another government expense that they have to pay with taxes.
Maybe people WANT this to happen. The wealthy will pay disproportionately for these losses since the poor are the ones that are likely to need the student loan and not pay it back in the first place. But then you have to have real questions about whether we want to create a society where contracts MEAN something, as opposed to your promising to pay someone back at a non-usurious rate yet deciding not to pay anyway. I think this undermines the incentives that make capitalism effective.
That said, it doesn't mean that there can't be improvements. I would like to see something that incentivizes students to go into science/engineering/medicine like better interest rates on their student loans with the government putting in the difference between the lower rate and the market rate. Yes, that would be paid with taxes though.
On April 19 2012 08:16 YuTz wrote: All in All.... this bill would be bad for any economy... especially one like we have now. Lets just forgive people for making bad decisions... and for those who make good decisions... lets make them pay for those who don't make good decisions. I dont buy it.
Or you could maybe think a little further down the line. If this debt problem really is this big and it gets a lot of exposure it might lead to less and less american youth's consider pursuing higher education. You want to see how fast your country will crumble when you stop innovating due to lack of talented people being educated? Honestly, these kind of measures are a lot better for an economy in the long run compared to half of the current government expeditures.
There's already a problem with too few American students opting for a high enough level of education to meet demand in many fields. It's why there are so many jobs that have to be filled by skilled immigrants. When I lived in Palo Alto, I would have been surprised if there were more than 2 kids in my class with US-born parents.
Edit: Screw the wealthy people who don't want to contribute to a better society. Just because you don't have to see the bad in your gated communities and nice little rich-only areas doesn't mean you aren't judged on their standard of living. Screw the tax-dodgers who cheat their country out of billions of dollars each year that could go to making the USA a truly first-world country again, and push for legislation to make it legal. Tax isn't theft, it's a fee that you pay to live in a country where you are insured to have a basic standard of living, to use its services including highways, to be protected from criminals and from corporations who happily poison the rivers if they are allowed and it's cheaper than waste disposal. Screw the liars on the major news networks in the USA, who use their propaganda to make people believe that benefit fraud costs more than tax fraud, or that socialised medicine is disliked by the majority in countries where it is in place.
The USA at its best is a wonderful place to live, work, and innovate. I want to see it flourish. It can't do that unless its people flourish, from the weakest members on up.
I disagree. Since the beginning of high school, I've been investing, saving and playing the stock market to save up money. I also worked hard in high school to get into a good school with scholarship. I hope to graduate more or less debt free. Med school, well, that's another issue. Either way, I'm working hard for this ish yo.
People should only pay for college if they need it for their future career. Forgiving debt dilutes that decision.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
On April 19 2012 09:56 ticklishmusic wrote: I disagree. Since the beginning of high school, I've been investing, saving and playing the stock market to save up money. I also worked hard in high school to get into a good school with scholarship. I hope to graduate more or less debt free. Med school, well, that's another issue. Either way, I'm working hard for this ish yo.
People should only pay for college if they need it for their future career. Forgiving debt dilutes that decision.
Congratulations on having an opportunity few are afforded and taking advantage of it. Your reward for this under the new scheme would be to not give up 10% of your income for 10 years.
I pay like 50$ a month on my loans, which will take me fucking forever to pay off, but the interest is only at like 1.5% and theres no limit to how long it can take me to repay it.
Seriously these people that are STILL going on about how back in their days they had to pay their loans and if they took jobs to pay it off need to get it through their skulls that times have changed.
Working part time jobs to pay your bills back then may of been doable but trying doing that shit now when wages of a part time job did not increase at the 800% of student fees.
Back then it was fucking easy to get a job provided you didn't fuck up you're degree epic-ally. My mum got a job in Deloitte with one interview and other interviews at Ernst & Young and KPMG with a decent credit average and no job experience. Now we have fucking 2 round interviews with prescreening psychometric testing and a group assessment centre before you find out if you got the job (and this isn't even a graduate job its for an internship ffs). And it isn't enough that you just did well in you're degree you also need crazy extra curricular. My friend got rejected for a JPMorgan internship despite having a HD WAM whilst being a project coordinator in one club and a finance director in another, she was picked over a person (after the 6th round of interviews) who had a prior internship at Deutsche Bank. Basically you needed RELEVANT work experience for an internship.
Yeah times haven't changed, we simply haven't worked hard enough -rollseyes-
I sympathize with American students and their absurd student loans and I'm extremely thankful of the HECs system in Australia. I have no qualms about paying for another person's education if it would help lift the intelligence of the general population even by a margin. Considering how retarded a majority of the populace is, it wouldn't hurt that people who have the same voting rights as me would be a tiny bit more informed and less retarded when helping making decision on the future of the nation.
On April 19 2012 09:37 -_-Quails wrote:Edit: Screw the wealthy people who don't want to contribute to a better society. Just because you don't have to see the bad in your gated communities and nice little rich-only areas doesn't mean you aren't judged on their standard of living. Screw the tax-dodgers who cheat their country out of billions of dollars each year that could go to making the USA a truly first-world country again, and push for legislation to make it legal. Tax isn't theft, it's a fee that you pay to live in a country where you are insured to have a basic standard of living, to use its services including highways, to be protected from criminals and from corporations who happily poison the rivers if they are allowed and it's cheaper than waste disposal. Screw the liars on the major news networks in the USA, who use their propaganda to make people believe that benefit fraud costs more than tax fraud, or that socialised medicine is disliked by the majority in countries where it is in place.
The USA at its best is a wonderful place to live, work, and innovate. I want to see it flourish. It can't do that unless its people flourish, from the weakest members on up.
I personally would have fewer qualms with taxing and spending if the United States stopped taxing income that went to charity. Right now you can only donate 50% of your income to public charities and 30% to private ones and have it be tax deductible.
I know that few people give away more than that much, but I still find it wrong that someone interested in doing as much good as they possibly can would be forced to give a significant portion of their income to an inefficient bureaucracy that spends money on such things as $120,000 cancer drugs that only extend life expectancy by 3.5 months (or college graduates who live in one of the world's richest countries, for that matter), rather than on charities that can save a life (not just extend it for a couple of months) for like $400 by treating tuberculosis.
You are right, though. Some people just are not cut out for or are not interested in STEM majors. However, it's a bit silly to pay the same for your degree as someone in a STEM field since they will usually make so much more. Since education is basically teaching you how to contribute to society, I think the degrees should be valued accordingly. People that receive degrees that have lower associated salary should pay less for their education, IMO. I don't think that's feasible though =/.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
You exaggerating way too much.
I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster.
It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less.
This is the most depressing thing I've read today.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
You have a reasonable point, I'll give you that. But it's still much easier to say when you're not about to not be able to go to college because your family can't afford to pay or take the loans, and likely destined for failure, or at least being stuck in your situation, in a system that demands a college degree for most every job. Oh wait, I suppose I didn't try hard enough.
There's a long list of reasons why we need to so something about college tuition and college loans. Here's a list of pertinent issues brought up by the Huffington Post:
Ryan Budget Whacks Pell Grants, Makes Federal Student Loans More Expensive Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed federal budget would cut $200 million from the program, and potentially eliminate help for more than 1 million students.
Currently the maximum Pell grant award is $5,645, which only covers about a third of the cost of attending college.
Ryan's budget would cut Pell grant eligibility for students who attend classes on less than halftime. His budget would also make it so college students with federal student loans would have to start paying interest on their loans while still in school.
A 2007 law that kept federally subsidized Stafford loan interest rates low will expire this summer, meaning the rates would double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent.
Students have already gone to Capitol Hill to protest and most Democrats are in favor of keeping the interest rates low. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) proposed a bill that would get rid of the expiration date on the discounted student loan rate.
However, Republicans argue it would cost the federal government $5.7 billion, which they say is way too much.
If Congress does not act, the interest rates for federal student loans would increase on June 30, 2012.
Republicans passed a bill out of committee that would repeal minimum standards for a credit hour and removes the need for a state to authorize higher education institutions in their state.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) contends this would allow greater flexibility for schools, Democrats counter that it opens the door for fraud. The federal definition of a credit hour is the basic unit underlying the distribution of federal student aid.
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) wrote on Inside Higher Ed that the bill represents a threat to the government's ability to police institutional fraud in the higher education industry.
In regards to eliminating the requirement for state authorization for colleges, Bishop said "the bill would make it impossible for states to guarantee the quality of programs operating inside their borders."
Thanks to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005, virtually no student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. So in practical terms, if you have $200,000 in debt for credit cards, car payments, or mortgage payments from a private bank, they can all be wiped away in bankruptcy. However, student loans from the same private lender cannot.
The argument is that you can take away someone's car when they file bankruptcy, but you cannot take away their education.
The Senate heard testimony on March 20 about whether or not this should be changed.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is leading the charge for bankruptcy reform that would allow students to get rid of their student loan debt when and if they file bankruptcy.
Congressional Republicans recently sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office urging them to investigate the federal student loan program and whether they are "appropriately managing student debt."
The federal government has turned to private debt collectors to collect money owed for student loans, while $67 billion of student loans are now in default, according to Businessweek. Those contractors out there trying to get students and graduates to pay up are paid on commission.
The GOP letter said they were concerned borrowers who have defaulted are not getting adequate assistance to get back on track repaying their loans.
I really don't think this is the purpose of education at all, but we've somehow transformed education into this contest of how to better benefit the state.
Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
You exaggerating way too much.
I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster.
It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less.
This is the most depressing thing I've read today.
Ditto. I don't think I could survive such a dreamless life, or that I would want to.
What this comes down to is that for the rich to be rich, somebody has to be poor, and considering how many people are alive right now, and how many people live in rich places like the US and EU, it will take speshul taktiks to keep people poor enough. A debt trap from college is a great way to do that. So essentially what this bill is recommending is that rich people get less rich (taxed) and we give the money to the lower class.
On April 19 2012 09:56 ticklishmusic wrote: I disagree. Since the beginning of high school, I've been investing, saving and playing the stock market to save up money. I also worked hard in high school to get into a good school with scholarship. I hope to graduate more or less debt free. Med school, well, that's another issue. Either way, I'm working hard for this ish yo.
People should only pay for college if they need it for their future career. Forgiving debt dilutes that decision.
Did you have to pay rent, utilities and work a full time job while on college? Good luck trying to avoid debt while doing all that. I'm an average Caucasian male with a 3.0 gpa in high school. I'm now 22 and struggling between working full time to make ends meet and take out a loan for school, or scrap school all together.
I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
On April 18 2012 10:43 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Pretty much. The fact that education is all about getting a job is one of our great failures.
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
You exaggerating way too much.
I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster.
It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less.
This is the most depressing thing I've read today.
Ditto. I don't think I could survive such a dreamless life, or that I would want to.
I've had around 50k in student loans since college, and been out in the workforce for about 5 years as an engineer. I've pretty much only been paying the interest on these... mainly because my first job was in silicon valley and my 1 bedroom cost 2k a month.. and then I was out of work for a bit before moving to my most recent job.
All I can say is... Bring it on! Glad I haven't been making paying it off a priority, wipe them clean baby !
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Again, education is not about getting a job. You don't have to pay for education. Like I said, you can just walk into any university and sit in on the classes and nobody will bat an eye. You are paying for the degree. You are paying for formal recognition that you completed a certain set of classes. There's no need for formal recognition for anything, except to prove to other people (employers) that you are at least semi-capable of learning things in a particular subject area.
the bold part is just completely incorrect. You definitely cannot just show up to any respectable university/college and sit in a class. You'll get your ass booted out so fast your head would spin.
Education:
Originally $17,500 USD of school debt. Would of cost me another $5,000 to finish degree. Don't ask me how or why, because I don't know either.
Four years of college. Two community (paid cash). Two University (loans). No degree. Three to four classes away from BA in Biological Sciences. Soft science, but better than liberal arts degree. HA!
Current debt: $10,000. One year after decision to quit school. By this time next year I should have no debt what so ever. Will be 100% debt free. How? Work. Any job you can find. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. There are jobs out there shut the fuck up. Not jobs you will like. Not jobs that are easy. Not desk jobs. But there are jobs out there. You'll get dirty, you'll get sweaty, you'll hate life, but there's a job out there. Plenty of them. Take what you can get. Beggars can't be choosers.
My parents repeatedly told me hundreds of times that the interest would eat me. It has. And that they are willing to pay my entire debt. I said no. To this day they tell me that they are willing to pay it off. I say, no. My debt, my decision, my problem. They are not wealthy, but have savings. The debt, like this forgiveness law as many have stated before me will not magically make the debt disappear. Someone will pay it for you in one way or another.
Yes it sucks. And people basically pray on students and make them feel entrapped to go to college and get a degree. Ultimately it was your decision and your decision alone. I'm against the law. And not just because I'm almost out of debt and for me it would seem "unfair" that people will get off for free while I paid my way out. It's not that; it's because the amount of people that would take advantage of this would be massive. If they won't be held responsible for their actions now. What's to stop them from doing this again with a car or a house?
Your decisions. Just like it is the decision of a girl I know to be $100,000 in student debt and buy a brand new $26,000 car. While I've been riding a bicycle for almost a year now.
You'll find a way to make it work. In one way or another. In one shitty job or another. Those who are in debt. You'll work your way up and get out eventually little by little. Not from one day to the next like this law offers, but little by little. If you don't you'll learn nothing and just have another piece of paper - this one having fancy wording saying loan forgiveness.
It's an incredibly simple concept that there are NOT jobs out there for everyone. It's not like every unemployed person is sitting on his ass not looking for a job. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean everyone can.
There are jobs out there for everyone. I've have always been able to find a job. Open any newspaper, you'll find companies looking for people to hire. Be it factory, warehouse, field work, pizza delivery anything there are jobs.
If you would say there are no jobs that I like or that I can use my degree in than I would agree with you. But menial, meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and you hate. There everywhere.
We should all strive to work at jobs meaningless jobs that give you no self worth and engender only bitterness and anger.
Can't pay off $150k in loans that you spent to get a law degree delivering pizzas, no matter how much you save and scrimp.
No you can't. That's why you only deliver pizza's for 30 hours while you work in a factory or warehouse for another 40-50. Sacrifice social life and luxuries like internet, tv, and house phone and you'll be on your way there.
Then when I die at 80 with all my bills paid off, and a life of hard scrabble toil and endless suffering behind me, I can go to heaven right?
You exaggerating way too much.
I would say about 25-30 years of working you'll pay off your loans. Assuming your 22 when your graduated college with a BA. You'll be 47 at the earliest. Assuming you applied yourself to at least one job and got promoted over the past 25-30 years you'll definitively pay off your loans a lot faster.
It's doable. Not the way you'll want to do it, but doable none the less.
This is the most depressing thing I've read today.
Ditto. I don't think I could survive such a dreamless life, or that I would want to.
you guys shouldnt get mortgages then.
It's not the debt that I wish to avoid, it's giving up all dreams of a fulfilling life for 25-30 years that I couldn't bear. It is entirely possible to pay off a mortgage while having a fulfilling job and not sacrificing comforts, my parents have been doing so for a couple of decades now.
Some people can take their satisfaction from their social life while they work on a factory floor and I envy them that, in a situation they can thrive in I would wither. I don't need a TV, or a car, or a social life. I do need work that interests and inspires me, a place to live (with heating for winter, clean water, something to cook with and something to store food,and electricity), internet to keep in contact with my family over, and a musical instrument of some sort. My work will be most of my life, I couldn't survive if it did not require me to think.
Edit: I have only one life, and after that there are no guarantees that I will exist to experience more. I will not give a quarter to a third of that life away so easily.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
On April 19 2012 10:50 -fj. wrote: What this comes down to is that for the rich to be rich, somebody has to be poor, and considering how many people are alive right now, and how many people live in rich places like the US and EU, it will take speshul taktiks to keep people poor enough. A debt trap from college is a great way to do that. So essentially what this bill is recommending is that rich people get less rich (taxed) and we give the money to the lower class.
I see no problem with this bill.
Except it's not just the rich who are getting taxed...
On April 18 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote: Eh. Colleges are filled with people who shouldn't be there. That's their problem. I hope they don't forgive the loans, so the next generation won't get flooded with degrees who's value just keeps going lower and lower because everyone and their cat has a bachelors.
For everyone saying "we need education to be every more accessible" it's called the internet, books and personal ambition. You can learn SO much now even if you don't go to college as long as you're willing to take the time. You never stop learning if it's what you love.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it just means you can jump through hoops.
Try going into a place and saying "I dont have a degree but I learned a lot online". You wont get the job you don't even have to be smart but a degree holds much more weight then a smarter person without a degree. I'm personally all for more education as the society becomes more educated that's never a bad thing the brighter individuals will always stand out.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
You can't expect people to see the future though, and not only the rich should be allowed to have kids. Everyone's circumstances are different too. We had our kids when I was still healthy, now I am unable to work and my wife goes to work and we make do as best we can. I worked as long as I possibly could, right up until I was fired while on FMLA, so it's not like I wasn't trying. I'm sure to many, I am inhuman, drain on the system, whatever... blow me.
Health care ties into this as well. You have to gamble that you keep your health and are able to work the amount of years necessary to pay back your debt. I understand where some of the thoughts come from on this board, but no one can hold on to the immortality of their 20's forever.
I do agree that forgiving debts isn't really the right way to go. It's really about priorities, and those of the citizenry. Americans do not place a high value on health or education like they do with profits, therefore we are stuck with the dysfunctional systems we have. Systems where profit has no place, but is exploited to the fullest extent. Education should be accessible to anyone who wants it, and also based on ability (as another poster already offered). It should not be a vocationalized conveyor belt with the sole focus of creating worker drones. People should be able, and encouraged, to pursue any field of study they are interested in. Not be berated for picking a less profitable major. The benefits are many, and have mostly already been stated.
I'm really glad i live in a country where I can pay off my own school tuition with about 2 months of work. However there is a reason why the USA as the best colleges and universities in the world, money is it.
Seeing all that debt really makes me tempted to get a loan for a sweet car and not feel guilty xD
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
the president doesnt pass legislation. republicans control congress.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
the president doesnt pass legislation. republicans control congress.
You realize there has already been one forgiveness act passed last year, right? lol. Instead of 10 years, it's 20 years.
On April 18 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote: Eh. Colleges are filled with people who shouldn't be there. That's their problem. I hope they don't forgive the loans, so the next generation won't get flooded with degrees who's value just keeps going lower and lower because everyone and their cat has a bachelors.
For everyone saying "we need education to be every more accessible" it's called the internet, books and personal ambition. You can learn SO much now even if you don't go to college as long as you're willing to take the time. You never stop learning if it's what you love.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it just means you can jump through hoops.
Try going into a place and saying "I dont have a degree but I learned a lot online". You wont get the job you don't even have to be smart but a degree holds much more weight then a smarter person without a degree. I'm personally all for more education as the society becomes more educated that's never a bad thing the brighter individuals will always stand out.
A degree proves that you can live in society outside of a purely institutional setting, like a school, for a period of years without being cast out for complete failure to meet minimal social standards of behaviour. People that study at a college usually have to behave in a minimally civilised* fashion in order to stay enrolled. You can do what you want if you're just studying online.
*Minimal standards for civilisationinclude but are not limited to: Pig corpse kept in room -> ok until it begins to rot Pig corpse put in a tree facing a college full of new international students to greet them on their way to their first breakfast, or in the car of someone who has 'dissed' you -> not okay (Actual examples - the first resulted in traumatised flatmates of the pig corpse owner, the second in disciplinary action taken by the university)
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
the president doesnt pass legislation. republicans control congress.
Only the house. The democrats still control the senate, although in the senate you need 60% to do most stuff.
Federal Direct Plus loans, which are the bulk of where most graduate students get their loans, charged a minimum of 6.7% interest this year for graduate students. Interest accumulates as soon as its dispersed, and payments being immediately after graduation.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
the president doesnt pass legislation. republicans control congress.
You realize there has already been one forgiveness act passed last year, right? lol. Instead of 10 years, it's 20 years.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
the president doesnt pass legislation. republicans control congress.
You realize there has already been one forgiveness act passed last year, right? lol. Instead of 10 years, it's 20 years.
are you referring to the Pay As You Earn plan?
I'm talking about the 15% of your discretionary income, 20 years and then it's wiped. 10 if you are eligible to work in a public service and consolidation of your federal loans.
I don't understand if you just don't see the big picture or you're purposely playing devil's advocate. These loans defaulting in the next 4-5 years isn't just going to effect the people who are in debt. It's going to be a much larger and substantial bubble burst than the housing mortgage crisis.
Did you not see how badly ravaged the economy was? Do you not recall banks getting bailed out and paying hefty bonuses to executives? I don't even give a shit if they don't forgive my debt. What I do care about is more affordable payment plans, instead of asking me to pay $1400 dollars a month over the span of 10-15 years, on a salary of $40K.
I'd be fucking 40 years old before I'd be able to afford a mortgage, a car, kids, a wife or even begin to have a savings account, lol.
On April 19 2012 09:56 ticklishmusic wrote: I disagree. Since the beginning of high school, I've been investing, saving and playing the stock market to save up money. I also worked hard in high school to get into a good school with scholarship. I hope to graduate more or less debt free. Med school, well, that's another issue. Either way, I'm working hard for this ish yo.
People should only pay for college if they need it for their future career. Forgiving debt dilutes that decision.
Did you have to pay rent, utilities and work a full time job while on college? Good luck trying to avoid debt while doing all that. I'm an average Caucasian male with a 3.0 gpa in high school. I'm now 22 and struggling between working full time to make ends meet and take out a loan for school, or scrap school all together.
No, I don't. It's all bundled in with school, though I would prefer to pay separately. School overcharges for the meal plan and room and board. Room and board is about $3.5K/semester, and food is $2.5K. I could probably save around $5-10K a year if I didn't have to get those from the school and just rented a place with some friends and cooked for myself.
I'm Asian, and I had about a 3.9 in high school (1 B, 1 C, the rest A's).
My uni costs $55K a year. I have around ~$45K in combined scholarships, so I'm paying about $10K a year. I've got around $20K saved up, and I've got a summer job lined up that will pay about $4K (and hopefully the next 3 years will be similar). Costs do increase every year, but if I get a job during the year and the RA position (don't have to pay room and board) junior year and live off campus senior year, I should break about even.
I'll be broke for med school, but I'll see what I can do when I get closer- going to go crazy applying for grants and loans and stuff.
Am I super smart? No,not really. There are a lot of people here that are smarter than me that study less and do better, or just simply manage to do more than I can given the same amount of time. There were people smarter than me in my high school too. I didn't even work the hardest. I just grabbed opportunities better than others.
On April 19 2012 10:55 DontJudgeEvery1 wrote: I don't have a solution to this and have read alot of these responses. It's always easy for someone to respond to something in an ignorant matter when they can't relate to it... I can understand but cannot agree with anyone who compares today's student loan situation to his/her parents student loan situation during a time/age where the economy, job opportunities, and the country was in a financially better place. Not playing the race card, trying to get any sympathy however I'm just clueless as to what the solution is for my situation given everyone's responses. My wife and I are a young couple 2 beautiful daughters, and are well accomplished for our age however we've been stunted due to my wife's student loans. She's the first of her family to attend and graduate college, now an executive Chef at a famous fine dining restaurant (Formal dress code) at the age of 26. I'm a Network Engineer and make nearly double my wife's salary and most of the pressure has been on me to be the bread winner in order to have my family succeed. While we pay all of our debts now, exception of one of her student loans ~$80K and growing (after paying $11k in interest) and can't dent the principal, we have given up on that loan. We can't proceed on purchasing a home, with fear of the company coming back and placing a lean on any home we try to purchase, can't invest in a college plan for our children's future because we have to pay her other student loans (all private loans). She did receive scholarships as well however tuition was so high that they didn't cover 20% of her debt.
We've even resorted to moving in to her mom's basement to save money in order to take care of our student loan debts. I have to tell you as a man, this is not a comfortable situation however I swallow my pride for the sake of my wife and family. We've sought financial counseling, legal advice, and we have done extensive research online to the point where we can't touch this loan situation anymore. My wife's mother who took out the loan on her behalf knew nothing about the financial obligation her daughter would have after graduation however, despite that fact she's extremely proud of her b/c of how accomplished she is as am I. I know most situations aren't like ours however, I'm glad that there is SOMETHING on the table as a solution to private student loan debt. If you are trying to find a flaw in my story right about now please don't b/c it's all true. What are families like mine supposed to do in a situation like this? Please explain how this deal is better dead in the water than being passed? College tuition, lending institutions, and the higher education system as a whole are out of control and it's the next balloon to pop. With this plan on the table my wife and I are glad we've waited this out so far. We are regretful that we wasted $11k on this loan while not touching the principal.
This isn't a party affiliated issue (Dem, Rep, Lib, other...lol) it's a moral issue at this point about how this country's leaders plan on handling the next bailout. I don't think deep down many people disagree with this. It's an eventuality... I'm from a 3rd world country and have been pretty successful at working hard and I stand back and watch every other country (ie: china) understand the importance of education and impress that importance on the next generation and hold the current generation responsible. Too many things we take today as rights should be privileges. too many distractions, too many excuses, too much greed, not enough accountability, and simply not enough fairness. It's not until we end up like Iceland will we truly understand how to be humble. I don't live in a bubble or a Ron Paul world just can see the possibility of this country being great again if there were enough people that believed in it.
why would you have two children when you cant financially support them? and why would you look for a mortgage when you cant afford the debts you already have?
Even though my wife and I didn't plan on having children, we had our first daughter while still in college. Our second daughter is only 2 years of age and we did plan her birth. Both of our daughters are very well taken care of. While we did try to wait, and could've taken the abortion route, however we accepted our responsibilities and adjusted our lives and priorities. Because of her student loans, we've adjusted. We didn't put our lives on hold for 20+ years in hopes of paying off student loans before having kids. Life is our priority and even though we can try to plan things out there are times in which you have to adjust that plan. In the grand scheme of things we can pay the majority of our student loans and we do (on time at that). It's that one student loan which is out of control. As far as a mortgage is concerned again we're not putting our lives on hold. We can afford a mortgage and the additional responsibilities tied to owning a home. Given our track record are we not too entitled to providing a better living situation for our children? Do we at this point let our student loans take priority over our all of our futuristic planning?
Back to the topic, this bill provides an opportunity for all. Isn't that one of this country's motto's "The land of opportunity". Why not support something like this. It will probably get amended however at least something is getting done to help out those in situation such as ours.
im sorry, but your situation doesnt make me think that we should forgive student loans. quite the contrary. you have made some questionable financial decisions and it seems like you feel entitled to something you can never afford.
as for the "land of opportunity" comment, that has to be a joke. because it is incredibly naive.
this bill is dead in the water. it is a political stunt during an election year. it will go down the same route as the buffet rule.
With Obama's constant consideration of already changing how federal loans are paid? I doubt it.
the president doesnt pass legislation. republicans control congress.
You realize there has already been one forgiveness act passed last year, right? lol. Instead of 10 years, it's 20 years.
are you referring to the Pay As You Earn plan?
I'm talking about the 15% of your discretionary income, 20 years and then it's wiped. 10 if you are eligible to work in a public service and consolidation of your federal loans.
I don't understand if you just don't see the big picture or you're purposely playing devil's advocate. These loans defaulting in the next 4-5 years isn't just going to effect the people who are in debt. It's going to be a much larger and substantial bubble burst than the housing mortgage crisis.
Did you not see how badly ravaged the economy was? Do you not recall banks getting bailed out and paying hefty bonuses to executives? I don't even give a shit if they don't forgive my debt. What I do care about is more affordable payment plans, instead of asking me to pay $1400 dollars a month over the span of 10-15 years, on a salary of $40K.
I'd be fucking 40 years old before I'd be able to afford a mortgage, a car, kids, a wife or even begin to have a savings account, lol.
what you are talking about, and what is discussed in the op are not even comparable. the michigan proposal is an atomic bomb compared to the prior scalpel approach, which itself was a modification of an even earlier approach.
its not even really a forgiveness program for most people:
"Unless you have really low income, you'll end up paying the loan off before you'd ever have anything forgiven," says Orsolini. "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
your doomsday proposal does not change my opinion that the michigan approach is foolish. couldnt we say the same thing about mortgage debt? if the government doesn't buy out all of the mortgages that are underwater then the economy will tank when they default. or what about the small business loans. if the government doesn't buy out all the small business loans then the economy will tank when they default.
there are things the government can do without taking this huge amount of debt on itself.
"If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
On April 19 2012 12:38 kammeyer wrote: "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
i quoted the source. if you think you are smarter than bankrate.com's sources then more power to you.
On April 19 2012 12:38 kammeyer wrote: "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
Not really sure what you're talking about here. I borrowed the maximum from the government every year I was in school, and totaling up all of my federal loans, it comes out to $25000k. After interest and such, I'll be paying roughly 30k after the 10 year repayment. I personally haven't heard of anyone going over the max or that there even was one, but unless you are going to school for more then 4 years I don't even think it's possible for you to be getting over the 27k noted in phreak's post unless you're getting aid for summer classes, in which case I can't say.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
No.
This thread is filled, filled, filled with personal anecdotes, ad nauseum.
We have a trillion dollar debt in this country of student loans, and the people who hold this debt are having a hard time finding jobs.
This is a unique and new situation, and I'm tired of hearing self-absorbed arguments that are based on personal experience. They don't mean anything. They strike at the "fairness" chord, and I don't care. No, of course it isn't fair that some people get help that others didn't,.
On April 19 2012 12:38 kammeyer wrote: "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
Not really sure what you're talking about here. I borrowed the maximum from the government every year I was in school, and totaling up all of my federal loans, it comes out to $25000k. After interest and such, I'll be paying roughly 30k after the 10 year repayment. I personally haven't heard of anyone going over the max or that there even was one, but unless you are going to school for more then 4 years I don't even think it's possible for you to be getting over the 27k noted in phreak's post unless you're getting aid for summer classes, in which case I can't say.
If you want to continue arguing after this...hopefully everyone will be wise enough not to respond
That is a pretty clear graph, but something with the context isn't right. I am personally aware that you can borrow much, much more than that. Maybe thats just for the stafford loans, and not including the direct plus loans?
Edit: personally aware, as in, i have borrowed more than that and it sucks balls
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
No.
This thread is filled, filled, filled with personal anecdotes, ad nauseum.
We have a trillion dollar debt in this country of student loans, and the people who hold this debt are having a hard time finding jobs.
This is a unique and new situation, and I'm tired of hearing self-absorbed arguments that are based on personal experience. They don't mean anything. They strike at the "fairness" chord, and I don't care. No, of course it isn't fair that some people get help that others didn't,.
But. So. What?
No, the difference is before, recruiters came to the students, and now students have to go to recruiters. That's the main difference. Oh, and of course there are plenty of less jobs. I never denied it. I just said it's not near at the panic rate that people are making it out to be. 3.4 GPA in engineering and can't get a single interview? You're doing something wrong.
The plus loan your speaking of I'm assuming is the PLUS loan for parents, which since your parents would be cosigning for it, wouldn't really have a cap. Here's the info on maximum for a parent PLUS loan:
"How much can a parent borrow?
The annual limit on a PLUS Loan is equal to the student's cost of attendance minus any other financial aid the student receives.
For example, if the cost of attendance is $6,000 and the student receives $4,000 in other financial aid, the student's parent can request up to $2,000." Source edit: source link was broken
Now there's another type of PLUS loan for graduate and those seeking professional degrees, but this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the 27k figure that was mentioned earlier.
On April 19 2012 12:38 kammeyer wrote: "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
Not really sure what you're talking about here. I borrowed the maximum from the government every year I was in school, and totaling up all of my federal loans, it comes out to $25000k. After interest and such, I'll be paying roughly 30k after the 10 year repayment. I personally haven't heard of anyone going over the max or that there even was one, but unless you are going to school for more then 4 years I don't even think it's possible for you to be getting over the 27k noted in phreak's post unless you're getting aid for summer classes, in which case I can't say.
If you want to continue arguing after this...hopefully everyone will be wise enough not to respond
That is a pretty clear graph, but something with the context isn't right. I am personally aware that you can borrow much, much more than that. Maybe thats just for the stafford loans, and not including the direct plus loans?
Edit: personally aware, as in, i have borrowed more than that and it sucks balls
State governments offer loans as well. Are you positive all of your loans are federal loans?
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
No.
This thread is filled, filled, filled with personal anecdotes, ad nauseum.
We have a trillion dollar debt in this country of student loans, and the people who hold this debt are having a hard time finding jobs.
This is a unique and new situation, and I'm tired of hearing self-absorbed arguments that are based on personal experience. They don't mean anything. They strike at the "fairness" chord, and I don't care. No, of course it isn't fair that some people get help that others didn't,.
But. So. What?
No, the difference is before, recruiters came to the students, and now students have to go to recruiters. That's the main difference. Oh, and of course there are plenty of less jobs. I never denied it. I just said it's not near at the panic rate that people are making it out to be. 3.4 GPA in engineering and can't get a single interview? You're doing something wrong.
My thinking is, we pay more than a trillion dollars every year just to maintain our military. We have a generation of kids that I see are completely disillusioned with society and the world at large. And perhaps rightly so.
To me, this is just taking a giant leap in a different direction, to wipe these loans off their plate. It's idealistic, and I agree it will never happen. But I do think it would be a beautiful thing -- even if it is completely "unfair". I just don't like that "fairness" argument when we're handing future generations all sorts of problems they never asked for anyways. They're going to pay for our mistakes --- maybe let's pay for one of theirs?
On April 19 2012 12:38 kammeyer wrote: "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
Not really sure what you're talking about here. I borrowed the maximum from the government every year I was in school, and totaling up all of my federal loans, it comes out to $25000k. After interest and such, I'll be paying roughly 30k after the 10 year repayment. I personally haven't heard of anyone going over the max or that there even was one, but unless you are going to school for more then 4 years I don't even think it's possible for you to be getting over the 27k noted in phreak's post unless you're getting aid for summer classes, in which case I can't say.
If you want to continue arguing after this...hopefully everyone will be wise enough not to respond
That is a pretty clear graph, but something with the context isn't right. I am personally aware that you can borrow much, much more than that. Maybe thats just for the stafford loans, and not including the direct plus loans?
Edit: personally aware, as in, i have borrowed more than that and it sucks balls
On April 19 2012 13:18 Battleaxe wrote: The plus loan your speaking of I'm assuming is the PLUS loan for parents, which since your parents would be cosigning for it, wouldn't really have a cap. Here's the info on maximum for a parent PLUS loan:
"How much can a parent borrow?
The annual limit on a PLUS Loan is equal to the student's cost of attendance minus any other financial aid the student receives.
For example, if the cost of attendance is $6,000 and the student receives $4,000 in other financial aid, the student's parent can request up to $2,000." Source edit: source link was broken
Now there's another type of PLUS loan for graduate and those seeking professional degrees, but this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the 27k figure that was mentioned earlier.
Plus loans don't need a parent cosigner if you're a graduate student. And your interest rates are almost double for the same loan for undergraduates.
On April 19 2012 12:38 kammeyer wrote: "If you have borrowed the maximum $27,000 (federal loan allowance) and if you make $24,500 (per year), you'll pay your loan off in less than 20 years."
27,000 dollars is not even close to the federal loan allowance. I have no idea where that number is taken from, but I have much more than 27K in federal loans as do many people I know of.
Not really sure what you're talking about here. I borrowed the maximum from the government every year I was in school, and totaling up all of my federal loans, it comes out to $25000k. After interest and such, I'll be paying roughly 30k after the 10 year repayment. I personally haven't heard of anyone going over the max or that there even was one, but unless you are going to school for more then 4 years I don't even think it's possible for you to be getting over the 27k noted in phreak's post unless you're getting aid for summer classes, in which case I can't say.
If you want to continue arguing after this...hopefully everyone will be wise enough not to respond
That is a pretty clear graph, but something with the context isn't right. I am personally aware that you can borrow much, much more than that. Maybe thats just for the stafford loans, and not including the direct plus loans?
Edit: personally aware, as in, i have borrowed more than that and it sucks balls
State governments offer loans as well. Are you positive all of your loans are federal loans?
Lol. Yes, I am positive my loans are from the feds.
I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Now there's another type of PLUS loan for graduate and those seeking professional degrees, but this doesn't seem to have any bearing on the 27k figure that was mentioned earlier.
Plus loans don't need a parent cosigner if you're a graduate student. And your interest rates are almost double for the same loan for undergraduates.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
I don't know, spending trillions of dollars on war that could make education cheaper for American's might be related to why students have to take out such huge loans. Then again, it could also be the problem [the government guarantees](that allows tuition to be so absurdly expensive)
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
"Higher income"? Most people go to university these days out of necessity; unless you really like retail.
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.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
In order to become eligible for these loans you should have to pass a personal finance test/class. Seriously, some people are just stupid. To all the people that are having trouble paying their student loans, I feel bad for a very small portion of you. The majority of you are just financially irresponsible or financially uneducated. Nobody forced you to take those student loans.
With that said... I do think that something needs to be done to fix the current student debt problem. Is this proposed bill the proper solution? I don't fucking know, but I'm more interested in how they plan on preventing this idiocy from happening again. I blame both the stupid interest rates AND the stupid kids taking the loans in the first place.
"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.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
I don't know, spending trillions of dollars on war that could make education cheaper for American's might be related to why students have to take out such huge loans. Then again, it could also be the problem [the government guarantees](that allows tuition to be so absurdly expensive)
Yeah they've brought troops back from the war, but i don't see the economy coming back in shape, although it did help abit. It is one of those mess that can only be reduced through time.
But it is not hard to study the current demographic for an area, and identify areas where employment will be available.
If one resides in an area that is largely aged or a retirement community, it makes a large amount of sense to seek education and employ in related areas to that demographic - Health care, physiotherapy, legal, funeral related employ, etc.
Instead students take kinesiology, early childhood education, public works, etc etc?????????
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
I don't know, spending trillions of dollars on war that could make education cheaper for American's might be related to why students have to take out such huge loans. Then again, it could also be the problem [the government guarantees](that allows tuition to be so absurdly expensive)
Yeah they've brought troops back from the war, but i don't see the economy coming back in shape, although it did help abit. It is one of those mess that can only be reduced through time.
They brought back troops from one war. Still plenty in Afghanistan. No real decreases to the US's absurd military budget which looks to be over 1 trillion dollars this year. But god forbid we cut even a sliver of that and increase Pell Grant funding. Instead - they cut Pell Grant funding.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of people who go to college aren't, as you say, high caliber enough. There's schools out there that will take you with a 2.0 from high school and spit you out four years later with a 2.0 from college as long as you can pay. Unfortunately you can't do the same when you get to the real world-- in the end, a diploma or degree is only worth as much as you put into it.
Some are actually rich and can afford to get an "easy" degree and party. Others aren't as wealthy and squander the opportunity college is supposed t provide.
But it is not hard to study the current demographic for an area, and identify areas where employment will be available.
If one resides in an area that is largely aged or a retirement community, it makes a large amount of sense to seek education and employ in related areas to that demographic - Health care, physiotherapy, legal, funeral related employ, etc.
Instead students take kinesiology, early childhood education, public works, etc etc?????????
I would love to become a Computer Engineer and makes lots of money like my roommate likely will. A few problems.
1. No school would allow me into even Computer Science because I lack prerequisites (ones that would take years to finish) 2. I'm horrible at Math, so a hard science or engineering program is not one I will likely succeed in. 3. Areas change. What may be needed in one year could be completely saturated in 4-6 when someone finished school.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
I don't know, spending trillions of dollars on war that could make education cheaper for American's might be related to why students have to take out such huge loans. Then again, it could also be the problem [the government guarantees](that allows tuition to be so absurdly expensive)
Yeah they've brought troops back from the war, but i don't see the economy coming back in shape, although it did help abit. It is one of those mess that can only be reduced through time.
They brought back troops from one war. Still plenty in Afghanistan. No real decreases to the US's absurd military budget which looks to be over 1 trillion dollars this year. But god forbid we cut even a sliver of that and increase Pell Grant funding. Instead - they cut Pell Grant funding.
If they just withdraw from all wars they are involved in, then all their war efforts will be in vain. It is not as simple as 'we need more money so we'll withdraw our troops'. You just look at the present, but think of the past. They spent like 10 years. Once they withdraw, thats 10 years worth of time and resources used for nothing.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of people who go to college aren't, as you say, high caliber enough. There's schools out there that will take you with a 2.0 from high school and spit you out four years later with a 2.0 from college as long as you can pay. Unfortunately you can't do the same when you get to the real world-- in the end, a diploma or degree is only worth as much as you put into it.
Some are actually rich and can afford to get an "easy" degree and party. Others aren't as wealthy and squander the opportunity college is supposed t provide.
The student receives a diploma or a degree. They can now in turn apply for employ in their CHOSEN field, which they qualify for. A great number of employers require ANY degree or diploma for a range of positions, which pay quite well.
The diploma or degree doesnt say their grade on the front of it does it? I thought that was only reserved for Honors students etc.
If a student makes poor decisions and choices, fails to apply themselves to obtain a quality education and cannot hold down employ because of their lack of a quality education, I further fail to see how that becomes the tax payers responsibility.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
I don't know, spending trillions of dollars on war that could make education cheaper for American's might be related to why students have to take out such huge loans. Then again, it could also be the problem [the government guarantees](that allows tuition to be so absurdly expensive)
Yeah they've brought troops back from the war, but i don't see the economy coming back in shape, although it did help abit. It is one of those mess that can only be reduced through time.
They brought back troops from one war. Still plenty in Afghanistan. No real decreases to the US's absurd military budget which looks to be over 1 trillion dollars this year. But god forbid we cut even a sliver of that and increase Pell Grant funding. Instead - they cut Pell Grant funding.
If they just withdraw from all wars they are involved in, then all their war efforts will be in vain. It is not as simple as 'we need more money so we'll withdraw our troops'. You just look at the present, but think of the past. They spent like 10 years. Once they withdraw, thats 10 years worth of time and resources used for nothing.
So if they wasted money already, maybe if they spend more it will turn out well? How did Iraq turn out, by the way? Keeping troops in Afghanistan is fruitless. Even if that weren't true however, there is still plenty of money that could be cut from the military budget to further more important things like education.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
And they can also tell the future.
To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
But it is not hard to study the current demographic for an area, and identify areas where employment will be available.
If one resides in an area that is largely aged or a retirement community, it makes a large amount of sense to seek education and employ in related areas to that demographic - Health care, physiotherapy, legal, funeral related employ, etc.
Instead students take kinesiology, early childhood education, public works, etc etc?????????
I would love to become a Computer Engineer and makes lots of money like my roommate likely will. A few problems.
1. No school would allow me into even Computer Science because I lack prerequisites (ones that would take years to finish) 2. I'm horrible at Math, so a hard science or engineering program is not one I will likely succeed in. 3. Areas change. What may be needed in one year could be completely saturated in 4-6 when someone finished school.
1 and 2) Then you must compromise and you do not get to pursue your dream job. Choose a career path that will set you up for success and employ, not one because you think it is fun or entertaining.
3) Employment demands for educated fields are not single year dynamics.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
And they can also tell the future.
To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school like me, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
But it is not hard to study the current demographic for an area, and identify areas where employment will be available.
If one resides in an area that is largely aged or a retirement community, it makes a large amount of sense to seek education and employ in related areas to that demographic - Health care, physiotherapy, legal, funeral related employ, etc.
Instead students take kinesiology, early childhood education, public works, etc etc?????????
I would love to become a Computer Engineer and makes lots of money like my roommate likely will. A few problems.
1. No school would allow me into even Computer Science because I lack prerequisites (ones that would take years to finish) 2. I'm horrible at Math, so a hard science or engineering program is not one I will likely succeed in. 3. Areas change. What may be needed in one year could be completely saturated in 4-6 when someone finished school.
1 and 2) Then you must compromise and you do not get to pursue your dream job. Choose a career path that will set you up for success and employ, not one because you think it is fun or entertaining.
3) Employment demands for educated fields are not single year dynamics.
I already have a career plan, but it doesn't involve living in the US.
I don't know. I heard Engineers and other hard science fields needed people badly, and then got flooded. I don't know about statistics. Simply anecdotes. Maybe the people in those fields who can't find anything are the minority.
On April 19 2012 13:39 Cubu wrote: I don't think this is the right time for this. Maybe when america has reduced a significant portion of their debt. But it just doesn't seem fair for other people.
Yeah, we bailed out the banks, but the people? Let's wait. I wish America would stop being so militaristic and take care of home, but of course that won't happen. Gotta get them "terrorists" and "free people all over the world."
They bailed out the banks because it was either that or their economy. This is different.
I'm not an economist so I won't argue with you on whether or not that was necessary, but any refutation to my military point?
what does your military point have to do with this topic?
I don't know, spending trillions of dollars on war that could make education cheaper for American's might be related to why students have to take out such huge loans. Then again, it could also be the problem [the government guarantees](that allows tuition to be so absurdly expensive)
Yeah they've brought troops back from the war, but i don't see the economy coming back in shape, although it did help abit. It is one of those mess that can only be reduced through time.
They brought back troops from one war. Still plenty in Afghanistan. No real decreases to the US's absurd military budget which looks to be over 1 trillion dollars this year. But god forbid we cut even a sliver of that and increase Pell Grant funding. Instead - they cut Pell Grant funding.
If they just withdraw from all wars they are involved in, then all their war efforts will be in vain. It is not as simple as 'we need more money so we'll withdraw our troops'. You just look at the present, but think of the past. They spent like 10 years. Once they withdraw, thats 10 years worth of time and resources used for nothing.
So if they wasted money already, maybe if they spend more it will turn out well? How did Iraq turn out, by the way? Keeping troops in Afghanistan is fruitless. Even if that weren't true however, there is still plenty of money that could be cut from the military budget to further more important things like education.
It might or it might not turn out well. But that is a discussion for another topic.
On April 19 2012 14:17 spbelky wrote: To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school like me, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
I agree.
40k a year for an "Entry level" job is a helluva lot of money for a 21 year old with ZERO job or life experience. Regardless, that means one heck of a nice apartment, a solid reliable car, good vacations 2 times a year, and their debts being managed easily.
I say: Choose to go to school, or work. If you choose to go to school for Post secondary education, then chose a career path for likely success and job stability.
I graduated from a middle to high-end university with a degree in hard science, with plenty of laboratory experience before I had completed my degree. Since my parents could not support me financially in any way, yet the FAFSA determined that they would be able to provide ~8k each year, I ended up with over 100k in student loans by the time I was finished. Around the time that I completed my degree, the economy took this downturn and a job that I was previously promised at the university was closed. Finding another at the university was impossible, as each opening had approximately 50 people applying for the positions, many of them holding masters and PhDs (these openings were entry level positions). Unable to find any gainful employment with my student loan grace period ending, I had to give up my apartment (for which I still owe money... they haven't tried to collect recently - I suspect legal fees are dissuading them from trying to take action against me) and move back home with my parents, to a location that has very little in the way of scientific industry.
Unable to find a job in anything even remotely related to my career, I am doing what many people seem to be suggesting - I got a job at a fast food restaurant at the entry level. I currently make 8 dollars an hour. This barely allows me to cover the reduced loan payments that I've received for economic hardship, but I'm not sure what's going to happen when that period ends and the full amount needs to be paid. I have no money to relocate anywhere with more lucrative job opportunities, and much of my free time not working is spent looking for jobs (I have not received any other interviews, besides another entry level sales position - it's been 3 months now).
I have spent a lot of time thinking about ways in which to better my situation, but I need a job to make enough money to go somewhere to get a better job. I would kill myself, but my parents are co-signed on my loans so if I died they would have to pay off the remaining balance, which is not at all a possibility for them. I couldn't leave them with that financial burden - that is the only thing preventing me from taking this logical step.
I understand that many people will post about how irresponsible I am for taking out these loans, but when I took them I was earnestly not expecting jobs to become so scarce and science to become as maligned as it currently is in the US. Regardless of what else could be said about my decision, the start of my university career was one of hope and a desire to better myself and the scientific community.
In any case, I just wanted to give an alternative perspective for those who seem to think it's all about laziness and a non-desire to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps", so to speak.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
And they can also tell the future.
To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school like me, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
Wow. So bitter. And not even remotely useful.
"Be a man and suck it up!"
Not even remotely useful? To what use are we supposed to post then? My intention was clearly to point out that the majority of people who claim they CAN'T afford their student loans actually CAN. So this entire proposed bill is useless. Or, if you are one of the people who is so far in to debt that even with employment you still can't afford your loans, then you're financially irresponsible, and those of us who ARE financially responsible shouldn't have to bail you out.
On April 19 2012 14:17 spbelky wrote: To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school like me, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
I agree.
40k a year for an "Entry level" job is a helluva lot of money for a 21 year old with ZERO job or life experience. Regardless, that means one heck of a nice apartment, a solid reliable car, good vacations 2 times a year, and their debts being managed easily.
I say: Choose to go to school, or work. If you choose to go to school for Post secondary education, then chose a career path for likely success and job stability.
Don't like your job? Get a new one.
40k/yr is what NYC entry level jobs pay if you want to suck it up and work in an office in midtown/downtown.
As someone who is going to be a high income worker out of college, meaning I will easily pay my student loans by myself, I support this. I am fine with the idea of my tax dollars going towards fixing a problem.
So long as high paying majors are encouraged. There need to be something done to make financially idiotic majors less sought. If you get some shitty liberal arts 4 year degree, don't be surprised when you can't pay bills. I don't think these majors should be disallowed, but there needs to be more in place to help more high paying majors graduate.
On April 19 2012 13:49 Grimmyman123 wrote: Why in the world should ANY government bail out ANY student that chose to attend college or university.
These students have the highest grades and have met the highest standards to be accepted to a college or university. As they possess this level of intelligence, they understand and know what financial commitment they are entering into, and the reward for having a degree or diploma will reap rewards later with higher incomes from their choice of employ over those without the slip of paper.
If you choose to go to college or university, you also choose to pay for it.
Except a lot of new grads are having trouble finding jobs. Who cares if they are going to make more money in 20 years if they default on their loans in 5?
A student of such a high caliber of grades should be able to deduce what career path they should choose to be successful.
I fail to see how their poor decisions should be rewarded by a free education, paid for by taxes which were in turn paid by hard working people who are employed.
That student, if they default on their loan(s), should pay the price for that default. They know fully well what they are getting into when they signed on the bottom line. They certainly can read the fine print. They are often top of their class' and can make complex decisions and can gather information and analyse it.
And they can also tell the future.
To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school like me, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
Wow. So bitter. And not even remotely useful.
"Be a man and suck it up!"
Not even remotely useful? To what use are we supposed to post then? My intention was clearly to point out that the majority of people who claim they CAN'T afford their student loans actually CAN. So this entire proposed bill is useless. Or, if you are one of the people who is so far in to debt that even with employment you still can't afford your loans, then you're financially irresponsible, and those of us who ARE financially responsible shouldn't have to bail you out.
Again, "not even remotely useful." how?
Maybe something about how the educational system in the US needs an overhaul, or some proposals would be useful. If someone like the above poster has a job with a supposed "good degree" is making $8.00 an hour I have a feeling he actually can't afford his loans. Of course that's his fault for getting a degree that was in demand and then being unable to find a job he expected due to the economy going kapoof. Then again - how many people just say these people are being too picky or not looking hard enough. Only applied to 500 jobs? Should have applied for 2000 you lazy bum! Live off 12,000 a year working full time? Work 4 full time jobs! Slacker! Stop buying name brand pop tarts!
It has everything to do with making good solid choices when selecting ones future employ.
You have a VERY specialized field of education. You unfortunately knew this when you signed up and started your studies.
There may not be employ for you, in the area you wish you reside, at this time. But there may be later, in which case, you will reap the rewards of your education.
If I, with no post secondary education, can go from living on welfare, and quite litterally wanting to off myself because I could not even feed myself on $600 a MONTH to cover my living expenses (Rent, Food, Utilities, laundry, public transit) and I managed to find meager employ, then better, and then even better emply to where I now rent an entire house to myself, have a stable job I enjoy (enough) and a fair vehicle to drive and recreational activities I REALLY enjoy - then there is hope for anyone in finding a job then enjoy. Some will find a job they LOVE. Some will find one that pays the bills.
There is a reason that pay is also called Compensation. You might not like your job, but it is a means to and end - likely temporary.
If you are having suicidal tendancies, I do strongly suggest you seek assistance and talk to someone. It does help, it does work, and there is light at the end of the tunnel, regardless of how long that tunnel might seem.
On April 19 2012 14:22 MrSerene wrote: I graduated from a middle to high-end university with a degree in hard science, with plenty of laboratory experience before I had completed my degree. Since my parents could not support me financially in any way, yet the FAFSA determined that they would be able to provide ~8k each year, I ended up with over 100k in student loans by the time I was finished. Around the time that I completed my degree, the economy took this downturn and a job that I was previously promised at the university was closed. Finding another at the university was impossible, as each opening had approximately 50 people applying for the positions, many of them holding masters and PhDs (these openings were entry level positions). Unable to find any gainful employment with my student loan grace period ending, I had to give up my apartment (for which I still owe money... they haven't tried to collect recently - I suspect legal fees are dissuading them from trying to take action against me) and move back home with my parents, to a location that has very little in the way of scientific industry.
Unable to find a job in anything even remotely related to my career, I am doing what many people seem to be suggesting - I got a job at a fast food restaurant at the entry level. I currently make 8 dollars an hour. This barely allows me to cover the reduced loan payments that I've received for economic hardship, but I'm not sure what's going to happen when that period ends and the full amount needs to be paid. I have no money to relocate anywhere with more lucrative job opportunities, and much of my free time not working is spent looking for jobs (I have not received any other interviews, besides another entry level sales position - it's been 3 months now).
I have spent a lot of time thinking about ways in which to better my situation, but I need a job to make enough money to go somewhere to get a better job. I would kill myself, but my parents are co-signed on my loans so if I died they would have to pay off the remaining balance, which is not at all a possibility for them. I couldn't leave them with that financial burden - that is the only thing preventing me from taking this logical step.
I understand that many people will post about how irresponsible I am for taking out these loans, but when I took them I was earnestly not expecting jobs to become so scarce and science to become as maligned as it currently is in the US. Regardless of what else could be said about my decision, the start of my university career was one of hope and a desire to better myself and the scientific community.
In any case, I just wanted to give an alternative perspective for those who seem to think it's all about laziness and a non-desire to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps", so to speak.
8k/yr turns in to a 100k debt? I'm pretty good with money, and I feel like you're leaving something out. Regardless, let's assume that you do in fact some how have 100k in student loans debt. You should have been able to do the math before you signed anything and realized, "holy fuck, $100,000... maybe I should go to a cheaper school or find a better way to pay for this one."
Lucky for me, merit + grants pretty much covers my major expenses, so I'll manage with little to no debt.
People certainly do need to make some better decisions. I researched the facts thoroughly regarding any major university decisions I've made, and I have no doubt everybody could and should do the same. Spending $100k+ on that which can't be profitable is a foolish decision. The community college option is a very nice way to save money, which is a great option for those who don't already have school paid for.
At the same time, costs are STILL ridiculous. Public universities are rising at a somewhat stable rate (because tuition changes must be approved by state boards), but private universities pretty much have no restrictions. To compensate, public universities try to sap even more money out of you in textbooks, "mandatory" dorm requirements, and the like. I mean, I like having improvements (especially since my tuition is pretty much paid), but building new $130m dorms almost on a whim seems beyond wasteful.
Something certainly needs to be done to stop tuition spikes, but I don't know if loan forgiveness is the best solution. Certainly fix the situation for those caught in the debt trap (with harsh but reasonable conditions) and then stop the education bubble. Tuition is overpriced and loans push it up further.
On April 19 2012 14:17 spbelky wrote: To all the people having trouble finding jobs: You aren't trying hard enough, or you're being too fucking picky about the jobs you're willing to do. End of story.
If you went to Harvard and were expecting to find like $75K+/yr job but can't find it, settle for the $40k entry level job for now and pay your fucking debt. Will you live the glamorous life you dreamed of during your years in college? No. Get disappointed, and get over it.
Similarly, if you went to a state school like me, settle for the best employment you can, and pay your fucking debt. Live at home, get disappointed, and get over it.
Oh you majored in English Literature and are having a hard time finding a job that gives a shit about your degree? That sucks, get a job doing something else. Oh you're not living your dream? QQ. You can either pursue your dream whilst unemployed and falling further and further into debt, or toughen up and earn a paycheck even if you don't like your job, pay the bills, and put your english lit dreams on the back burner until the opportunity arises.
The people that are saying they are having a hard time getting a job aren't communicating their problem effectively. If they're having a hard time finding a job, that's fine. So it was difficult to find a job, be glad you found one. If they claim they can't find a job, then they're either: picky, lazy, conceited, stubborn, or just unemployable for reasons unrelated to the rough job market. You [b]can find [b]a job. It might not be the one you wanted, it might not even be the 2nd 3rd 4th or 5th job you wanted, but if you took out student loans you can't afford, you better find a job.
I agree.
40k a year for an "Entry level" job is a helluva lot of money for a 21 year old with ZERO job or life experience. Regardless, that means one heck of a nice apartment, a solid reliable car, good vacations 2 times a year, and their debts being managed easily.
I say: Choose to go to school, or work. If you choose to go to school for Post secondary education, then chose a career path for likely success and job stability.
Don't like your job? Get a new one.
40k/yr is what NYC entry level jobs pay if you want to suck it up and work in an office in midtown/downtown.
Even better for the individual then. No need for a car. Nice Apt, good clothes, nice food, in a great city with a TON to do.
Believe it or not, 40K/year doesn't go as far as you may think it does, depending on where you live. In Vancouver, I have doubts it'd cover rent, utilities, groceries, transit costs, and debt - and you can forget about vacations. Or car payments.
On April 19 2012 14:32 Nightfall.589 wrote: Believe it or not, 40K/year doesn't go as far as you may think it does, depending on where you live. In Vancouver, it'll barely cover rent, utilities, groceries, transit costs, and debt - and you can forget about vacations. Or car payments.
It goes a lot farther than you think.
In TORONTO - the most expensive city in Canada it is sufficient to manage a decent lifestyle.
$40k translates into around around $31,200 annually after deductions for taxes (about 22% actual)
That in turn is $2600 monthly to pay the bills. That certainly is not poverty.
You might not be drinking premium wine and beer, but there will be meat and bread on the table, clean clothes on your back, and you will have an entertainment budget.
I find it AMAZING that students cannot budget, and that their job expectations immediately out of univeristy are so high, and that their income expectations are often even higher.
Therein lies the problem. A lot of people who go to college aren't, as you say, high caliber enough. There's schools out there that will take you with a 2.0 from high school and spit you out four years later with a 2.0 from college as long as you can pay. Unfortunately you can't do the same when you get to the real world-- in the end, a diploma or degree is only worth as much as you put into it.
Some are actually rich and can afford to get an "easy" degree and party. Others aren't as wealthy and squander the opportunity college is supposed t provide.
The student receives a diploma or a degree. They can now in turn apply for employ in their CHOSEN field, which they qualify for. A great number of employers require ANY degree or diploma for a range of positions, which pay quite well.
The diploma or degree doesnt say their grade on the front of it does it? I thought that was only reserved for Honors students etc.
If a student makes poor decisions and choices, fails to apply themselves to obtain a quality education and cannot hold down employ because of their lack of a quality education, I further fail to see how that becomes the tax payers responsibility.
I don't mean it quite so literally. Each diploma/degree as a piece of paper is more or less the same, but I mean a diploma/degree in the sense of it representing the sum of your college experience. When you apply for a job, you send in a resume and do an interview. There, you should show what you did-- what clubs were you in? Whats work experience? What relationships did you cultivate with teachers? What did you actually learn or do? Someone who has made use of their college experience will do better than someone who just got a degree because it was necessary to graduate.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
If I made 40,000 a year and 90k in debt it wouldn't be that bad. But it is bad if they have to work at Walmart.
"Have to work at Walmart" and "Choose to work at Walmart" and two completely different things.
Furthermore, when I was a retail store manager, I did not hire anyone that did not have previous McDonalds or similar crappy food/retail employ on their resume. My staff all paid their way though university with cash, not one took a loan.
One has to have a resume to build on to obtain better employment, and they need to be able to show they have learnt and are using those skills in a work environment, even if it is a minimum wage job.
A resume with ones contact information, followed by education information, and little to no work experience will NOT secure an interview for higher level employment.
On April 19 2012 15:29 Grimmyman123 wrote: "Have to work at Walmart" and "Choose to work at Walmart" and two completely different things.
Furthermore, when I was a retail store manager, I did not hire anyone that did not have previous McDonalds or similar crappy food/retail employ on their resume. My staff all paid their way though university with cash, not one took a loan.
One has to have a resume to build on to obtain better employment, and they need to be able to show they have learnt and are using those skills in a work environment, even if it is a minimum wage job.
A resume with ones contact information, followed by education information, and little to no work experience will NOT secure an interview for higher level employment.
Work at walmart or don't eat and be homeless. Seems like there's not much of a choice there.
On April 19 2012 15:29 Grimmyman123 wrote: "Have to work at Walmart" and "Choose to work at Walmart" and two completely different things.
Furthermore, when I was a retail store manager, I did not hire anyone that did not have previous McDonalds or similar crappy food/retail employ on their resume. My staff all paid their way though university with cash, not one took a loan.
One has to have a resume to build on to obtain better employment, and they need to be able to show they have learnt and are using those skills in a work environment, even if it is a minimum wage job.
A resume with ones contact information, followed by education information, and little to no work experience will NOT secure an interview for higher level employment.
Work at walmart or don't eat and be homeless. Seems like there's not much of a choice there.
Incorrect. There is a choice, just that one of the options is not very desirable.
On April 19 2012 15:29 Grimmyman123 wrote: "Have to work at Walmart" and "Choose to work at Walmart" and two completely different things.
Furthermore, when I was a retail store manager, I did not hire anyone that did not have previous McDonalds or similar crappy food/retail employ on their resume. My staff all paid their way though university with cash, not one took a loan.
One has to have a resume to build on to obtain better employment, and they need to be able to show they have learnt and are using those skills in a work environment, even if it is a minimum wage job.
A resume with ones contact information, followed by education information, and little to no work experience will NOT secure an interview for higher level employment.
Work at walmart or don't eat and be homeless. Seems like there's not much of a choice there.
Incorrect. There is a choice, just that one of the options is not very desirable.
I didn't say there was not a choice. I said there was not much of one. Obviously if someone wants to survive, they'll probably have to take the job making between 4,000 and 12,000 a year.
On April 19 2012 05:26 FabledIntegral wrote: The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school.
I just want to make sure I am fulling understanding your point here before I criticise it. Your premise, if I'm reading it correctly, is that those who don't outperform their peers don't succeed and don't deserve to succeed and therefore shouldn't whine. Your solution is that everyone works harder, outperforms their peers, all get the most competitive jobs and then nobody whines.
Sir, I can't help feeling like you overpaid for your education.
Did you intentionally cut off the next sentence of my post in order to post that critique? If you want to read the very next sentence...
The people without jobs are the ones that didn't work hard enough in college/university. Almost everyone that graduates top of their class gets jobs. You need to outperform your peers, you always have had to, it's just more drastic in this recession. Too many people have the mentality "C's get degrees." Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily right, I just think a lot of people whining out there simply haven't put the effort in while still in school. Does this mean they necessarily deserve the debt? Absolutely not. But I haven't met a single person with a high GPA in my major/minor (business econ/accounting) that hasn't landed a solid job.
On April 19 2012 06:31 Leporello wrote: Okay, I'll say this one last time, and then excuse myself.
People arguing against Bills like the one in the OP seem personally, chip-on-the-shoulder offended.
No one is arguing, as far as I can see, what the actual negatives are of unburdening our youngest generation of some of this debt.
I don't care that you're 'a self-made man who pulled himself up by his own boot-straps, so how can these kids expect me to pay for their "mistakes", blah, blah, blah, blah.'
All sorts of things are unfair about modern society -- and no one is going to have to pay the bill more than the future generations. We are screwing them over economically, environmentally, and culturally. So I don't give a **** about you, your life, and your moral objections to what is a financial, country-wide issue. I don't care. I really don't.
We, as a culture, continue to place more and more emphasis on college, while racketing the tuition costs and handing out loans. Is this the fault of the students, or society as a whole? Well, the correct answer is it doesn't ****ing matter whose fault it is!!! It doesn't matter if it's a "handout" that you didn't receive. All that matters is what's best for our country's future.
All I saw here was "I don't care if we fuck over the 25% that worked hard if it benefits the larger majority of 50% who didn't."
What kind of argument is that? Arguably the worst argument I've seen in this entire thread (namely because it was filled with "I really don't fucking care" etc. etc.)
No.
This thread is filled, filled, filled with personal anecdotes, ad nauseum.
We have a trillion dollar debt in this country of student loans, and the people who hold this debt are having a hard time finding jobs.
This is a unique and new situation, and I'm tired of hearing self-absorbed arguments that are based on personal experience. They don't mean anything. They strike at the "fairness" chord, and I don't care. No, of course it isn't fair that some people get help that others didn't,.
But. So. What?
So you keep socialising risks of bad decisions that others make... How is this going to ever lead to people actually making good decisions?
I would rather have the government sweep the rug from under the banks by making student loans cleanly defaultable again, than creating more moral hazards such as these.
You took out the loan you pay for it, it's as simple as that.
If you can't, you put up collateral and take the hit for it.
Got to love these people that got their jobs back when finding employment was easy mode telling new grads to suck it up. Most of them would sing a different tune if back in their day they had to compete with 5 year vets in a 4 round interview process + psychometrics straight out of uni.
I guess it's easy to tell other people to work harder and settle for shitter jobs when yourself only had to do decent in uni to secure a relevant job (back then if you couldn't land a relevant job you seriously fucked up and your own fault) whilst also paying peanuts for student loans compared to the mortgage sized ones today.
On April 19 2012 15:49 yandere991 wrote: Got to love these people that got their jobs back when finding employment was easy mode telling new grads to suck it up. Most of them would sing a different tune if back in their day they had to compete with 5 year vets in a 4 round interview process + psychometrics straight out of uni.
I'm in Uni right now telling people to suck it up.
I guess it's easy to tell other people to work harder and settle for shitter jobs when yourself only had to do decent in uni to secure a relevant job (back then if you couldn't land a relevant job you seriously fucked up) whilst also paying peanuts for student loans compared to the mortgage sized ones today.
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.
On April 19 2012 15:49 yandere991 wrote: Got to love these people that got their jobs back when finding employment was easy mode telling new grads to suck it up. Most of them would sing a different tune if back in their day they had to compete with 5 year vets in a 4 round interview process + psychometrics straight out of uni.
I'm in Uni right now telling people to suck it up.
I guess it's easy to tell other people to work harder and settle for shitter jobs when yourself only had to do decent in uni to secure a relevant job (back then if you couldn't land a relevant job you seriously fucked up) whilst also paying peanuts for student loans compared to the mortgage sized ones today.
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.
It's true. Nobody has to go to college. They can spend the rest of their days working at Taco Bell.
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.
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.
I love australia. I have about 45k (AUD) worth of student debt (which is just government low interest loan). Some of you US folks with your 200grand debts wow.
studying physiotherapy btw which is a fairly high demand occupation in this country.
To be fair, I think tech/vocational school is a great idea instead of college for a lot of people. That said, Colleges in the US are too business oriented.
On April 19 2012 16:03 emjaytron wrote: I love australia. I have about 45k (AUD) worth of student debt (which is just government low interest loan). Some of you US folks with your 200grand debts wow.
studying physiotherapy btw which is a fairly high demand occupation in this country.
200k debts is the high end. At a state school i get 8k a year in tuition so in 4 years 32k.
Not too bad. The 200k is private schools which are exspencive as all hell. 100k a year is what they charge.
Physiotherapy. Is that like where you help people recover from debilitating accidents n shit?
Edit: FUCK! I lost my marine.. I'mma have to pull an ode to probe on this shit. I think i've become addicted to stim...
On April 19 2012 15:49 yandere991 wrote: Got to love these people that got their jobs back when finding employment was easy mode telling new grads to suck it up. Most of them would sing a different tune if back in their day they had to compete with 5 year vets in a 4 round interview process + psychometrics straight out of uni.
I'm in Uni right now telling people to suck it up.
I guess it's easy to tell other people to work harder and settle for shitter jobs when yourself only had to do decent in uni to secure a relevant job (back then if you couldn't land a relevant job you seriously fucked up) whilst also paying peanuts for student loans compared to the mortgage sized ones today.
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.
It's true. Nobody has to go to college. They can spend the rest of their days working at Taco Bell.
Yeah see... they can't happen because Taco Bell isn't gonna hire so many people. If less people were willing to go to college at these prices (thanks guaranteed loans,) then tuition would be cheaper, and then going to college would actually be more fiscally reasonable, both because it's cheaper and there wouldn't be as much competition.
And honestly since when is there anything wrong with not going to college? Not only is education put on some unreasonably overrated pedestal, but going to College/University is not even the only way to become educated.
Education is an asset... sure, but there are tons of other type of assets out there. Some are personal like education, or staying in good shape/health, or being social and being on good terms with tons of people. Others are material like buying some shares of a company...
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.
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 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.
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.
"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.
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 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...
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.
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^^.
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 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 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 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?
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 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 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 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 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 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.
that is true. did you have a point to make, or are you just making random true statements for the sake of it?
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: Anyway, have you ever gone to college with other teachers (people pursuing degrees to teach)? You make it sound like they are infallible experts in every way. Have you ever even been to public school?
Oboy. Here's the simple way I'm going to address this: you can no doubt give me numerous examples of poor public school teachers and I'm sure there are numerous examples of poor parents, homeschooling their children. Focusing on the individual exceptions, as you do when you say that
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote:
I'd love to meet all your past teachers. They must have been world class.
Isn't an effective way of discussing whether or not homeschooling as a category is better than public schooling. I just want to clear that up right off.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: You say "the reason why homeschool is awful [is]... ...there's no guarantee that the parent understands how to teach their child..." You don't see a problem with that?
Just because a parent can instruct their child on how to talk or walk doesn't mean the same pedagogy translates into situations in which the child needs to learn about basic plant biology.
In most situations, actually, I'd wager that any given teacher, who has been trained in different methods of education, can instruct a child better in an academic area than their own parent.
As somebody who's taken intensive courses on how to teach ESL students writing, I have to say that the lay population's ideas around how to teach others are grossly off-base. Even if the teacher is apathetic or awful in some other way, they at least have the training to be an effective teacher, whereas the parent does not.
On April 19 2012 05:41 danl9rm wrote: I took your quote a little out of context, however, I believe I stayed true to your argument, which is basically, 'even if the parent knew the subject matter, it doesn't mean they know how to teach "effectively."'
No, there's also a good chance they don't understand the subject material either. How many average parents could you honestly say can tell you whether a sentence was grammatically correct or not, and why?
Even in language arts, or in english, parents can tell a child if a sentence is right or wrong, and how to make a wrong sentence right, but cannot instruct on why the wrong sentence is wrong. I think you grossly overestimate the background of most of these people.
As a professional educator, I'm just going to tell you that you are wrong (as long as we are ignoring outliers, which we should) and you don't really understand how homeschooling works.
Most people who homeschool their children are: a) very smart (as smart as, or smarter than the average teacher) and more than capable of teaching K-12 subject matter b) smart enough to know that they aren't smart enough to teach K-12 subject matter and so they seek outside help
In both cases, the majority belong to co-ops, groups, learning associations, etc. that have access to a wealth of resources and professionals to bridge the gap. Studies show that homeschoolers, on average, outperform their public school counterparts in just about every area.
Cite your sources, and what you're saying isn't responsive.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
Mmm fired instantly? You could always let them know layoffs will most likely be coming in the future. Depends how desperately needed the layoffs are and how suspect you are it will cause employees to shirk though.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
I know it was sarcasm. My response was meant to show that the USPS and education systems aren't comparable examples.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
Actually USPS has generally been heralded as a very successful example of a government run public service. Well at least according to my economic classes. I have very little experience since I've grown up with email and online statements.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
Actually USPS has generally been heralded as a very successful example of a government run public service.
so, the fact that they cant cope with technology; they are being outdone by private companies (UPS, FedEx, etc.); and they are going bankrupt heralds success? up until the 1980/1990s, they may have been great (mostly because there was less competition), but they dont innovate and now they die.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion.
This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion.
This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
I would agree that tuitition should be cheaper and more opportunities should be give to students with parents in the low economic bracket with grades to back it up.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion.
This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
people should go into whatever field they will be most happy working for the rest of their life. it is never a bad decision to study something that you want to do in your life. however, people should not take out loans that they have no ability to pay back. thats not terribly bright.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion.
This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
Well, I agree that tuition costs are beyond ridiculous and that it is a major problem in the US. I don't think that's Wall Street's fault, though. The tuition crisis is why I made a post earlier saying that I think the federal government should take over public education. I think the government could get public universities down to under $5,000 a year in tuition, most of it through cost cutting. Administrators are very overpaid; the president of my current university receives a 7 figure salary.
As for private universities (like Harvard), I don't see any feasible way for the government to get involved without causing a shitstorm. These universities don't want any government involvement whatsoever.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
Do not be too harsh to deal out debt and judgement, even the very wise cannot truly see the consequences of either. How about as fellow human beings Instead of ruining peoples lives we could forgive the debt.
Erase it all. Its nothing more than vast numbers on a sheet that will keep growing until the debtors revolt. Debt and the forgiveness of it has existed since the dawn of humanity and it has happened in both small and larger scales since that time. Either in the name of religion or in the name of charity. Would the world not have been better if your mother who was working two jobs to let your father stay afloat could have studied with him?
To the economist it is an impossible insanity, but to the humanist it is simply being human. This bill while not perfect is trying to amend a broken system that currently pains a lot of young people and you need to realize that its not about what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future.
On April 20 2012 06:51 Voltaire wrote: The federal government needs to completely take over public education, even public higher ed. It's the only way to ensure equal access to education throughout the country and to end the for-profit attitude that has engulfed higher ed.
exactly. they have done a slam dunk job on the USPS compared to all those shoddy for-profit companies.
The demand for mail services has been continually dropping since the invention of e-mail. There were way too many workers for the amount of work. I was happy when I heard about the USPS laying off 20,000 workers. Workers who aren't needed should be fired instantly.
There's definitely a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, though.
that was sarcasm. the federal gov't can't run shit without it failing.
when they can provide all of that stuff without incurring trillions of dollars in debt, i will praise them.
edit: woh. that pic is interactive. it keeps going up if i refresh. rather depressing.
Indeed. We can stat by cutting the bloated military budget. Then we can make sure we don't waste potential by forcing our "best and brightest" from Harvard to choose a field of study where they end up on Wall Street and robbing the rest of us when they get bailed out by the feds.
Pro-lifers always argue, "what if an aborted fetus turned out to be another Einstein or someone that cured cancer"?Considering the state of our education system, that's pretty funny.
I don't get how we're "forcing" anyone to end up on Wall Street. Everyone who ends up working in finance chooses to do so. Also, most people I know who are either currently in finance or want to go into it were in fact against TARP. I agree that TARP was total bullshit, but I blame the government for choosing to do it, not Wall Street. Companies will always do whatever they think will make them the most profit. The government is supposed to keep that in line. The SEC is far more to blame for the crisis than anyone else, in my opinion.
This is coming for someone who wants to work in the industry colloquially known as Wall Street, so my opinion is probably worthless in your eyes anyways.
Have you not read the countless blame (even just in this thread) for people making "bad decisions" and picking "worthless majors"? Think about how much that stiffles creativity and innovation. We are supposed to accept less/lower standards. Students are being encouraged to go into a field of study that might not be their best subject, but rather to survive and pay back their loan.
Well, I agree that tuition costs are beyond ridiculous and that it is a major problem in the US. I don't think that's Wall Street's fault, though. The tuition crisis is why I made a post earlier saying that I think the federal government should take over public education. I think the government could get public universities down to under $5,000 a year in tuition, most of it through cost cutting. Administrators are very overpaid; the president of my current university receives a 7 figure salary.
As for private universities (like Harvard), I don't see any feasible way for the government to get involved without causing a shitstorm. These universities don't want any government involvement whatsoever.
I totally agree with all of that. I don't mean to single out 'Wall Street' and 'Harvard' specifically, was meant to be a 'for example'.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
Do not be too harsh to deal out debt and judgement, even the very wise cannot truly see the consequences of either. How about as fellow human beings Instead of ruining peoples lives we could forgive the debt.
Erase it all. Its nothing more than vast numbers on a sheet that will keep growing until the debtors revolt. Debt and the forgiveness of it has existed since the dawn of humanity and it has happened in both small and larger scales since that time. Either in the name of religion or in the name of charity. Would the world not have been better if your mother who was working two jobs to let your father stay afloat could have studied with him?
To the economist it is an impossible insanity, but to the humanist it is simply being human. This bill while not perfect is trying to amend a broken system that currently pains a lot of young people and you need to realize that its not about what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future.
But the reason it looks like an impossible insanity to the economist, is because he understands that there are consequences to such an action.
You can't just "make things better" for free - forgiving this debt will only come at the cost of damaging someone else's life. It's not removing suffering - it's shifting suffering from one group of people onto another. It's not even guaranteed to reduce the suffering either.
Difference is, at the moment the suffering is coming down on people who knew what they were getting into and chose to take a risk that might not work out. Forgiving the debt is just shifting their pain onto other people who had nothing to do with the decision.
Student debt won't wiped clean. If you pay 15% of your discretionary income for 10 years, assuming a 50k salary, that comes out to 75 thousand dollars if I'm not mistaken.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
Do not be too harsh to deal out debt and judgement, even the very wise cannot truly see the consequences of either. How about as fellow human beings Instead of ruining peoples lives we could forgive the debt.
Erase it all. Its nothing more than vast numbers on a sheet that will keep growing until the debtors revolt. Debt and the forgiveness of it has existed since the dawn of humanity and it has happened in both small and larger scales since that time. Either in the name of religion or in the name of charity. Would the world not have been better if your mother who was working two jobs to let your father stay afloat could have studied with him?
To the economist it is an impossible insanity, but to the humanist it is simply being human. This bill while not perfect is trying to amend a broken system that currently pains a lot of young people and you need to realize that its not about what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future.
i am not the one who is harsh, i am simply a messenger who gives you a harsh message, it is the world that is harsh. the very wise have always known the consequence of crippling debt, and that is why the very wise have always avoided it.
furthermore, it is not we who are ruining these people's lives. it is not even the world that is ruining their lives, if such a ruining is even occurring, which is doubtful. it is their own choices that are causing them to become indebted. they are the ones who signed up for the loan, and they are the ones who decided that they didn't want it after they already spent all the money.
erasing debt makes no sense whatsoever, and is impossible at such a large scale. payment's must be made by someone, because it is not just "numbers on a sheet", but actual money that has been lent and given. who will shoulder the burden of these payments if we erase it all? people who payed their debt and people who did not rack up a debt will have to shoulder the burden.
would the world have been better if my mother had been able to study? perhaps. perhaps not. such questions are irrelevant. what could have happened or should have happened is a distraction. the reality is that my mother could not have continued to study and support her children, so she did not. the world is not perfect, and it never will be perfect. trying to make it perfect only results in excusing the mistakes of others by putting the responsibility of those mistakes on those who did not make mistakes.
a true humanist would not value the life and debts of the foolish above the life and debts of the wise. nor would he reverse it and value the wise more than the foolish. the true humanist would not force one man to carry another man's burden, no matter how heavy the burden was or how strong the unburdened man is. the bill does not amend a broken system, it simply excuses and encourages a broken system.
what happened in the past is a guide to what will occur in the future. it is easy for you to say: "ignore the past" when the past contains things that you don't like and facts that you don't want to recognize. the fact is, people in the past have lived with their debt and have paid it off. people in the future will have to live with their debt and pay it off, somehow.
On April 20 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Student debt won't wiped clean. If you pay 15% of your discretionary income for 10 years, assuming a 50k salary, that comes out to 75 thousand dollars if I'm not mistaken.
i'm not sure how the legislation itself defines discretionary income, but its generally not considered to be your gross income (i.e., income before taxes).
On April 20 2012 08:14 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Student debt won't wiped clean. If you pay 15% of your discretionary income for 10 years, assuming a 50k salary, that comes out to 75 thousand dollars if I'm not mistaken.
i'm not sure how the legislation itself defines discretionary income, but its generally not considered to be your gross income (i.e., income before taxes).
The only reason this bill was drafted was because someone wants students to vote for them this election.
This bill will not make it into law, and if it does im taking out insurance policies against some of these loans and making money off it when they default.
Instead of absolving the loans after ten years I'd rather see them do something like have payments far more dependent on your current income and depending on that lower the interest rate significantly... say 1 or 2% to those in desperate situations. Maybe for the unemployed even make it 0%. Take it even further by allowing recently unemployed to stop payments for six months before it resumes etc.
The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
On April 20 2012 10:09 boxturtle wrote: The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
People who are able to go these top universities you're speaking of have much easier access to a lot more opportunities. I think everyone should have as fair and equal chance of attending one of these universities as possible. This means better K-12 public education and lower college tuition costs.
On April 20 2012 10:09 boxturtle wrote: The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
People who are able to go these top universities you're speaking of have much easier access to a lot more opportunities. I think everyone should have as fair and equal chance of attending one of these universities as possible. This means better K-12 public education and lower college tuition costs.
Well I guess we simply disagree. You can try to get a scholarship. That's your way in, really. Get a scholarship, or have money. Or take a gamble with your future that I simply disagree with.
On April 18 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote: Eh. Colleges are filled with people who shouldn't be there. That's their problem. I hope they don't forgive the loans, so the next generation won't get flooded with degrees who's value just keeps going lower and lower because everyone and their cat has a bachelors.
For everyone saying "we need education to be every more accessible" it's called the internet, books and personal ambition. You can learn SO much now even if you don't go to college as long as you're willing to take the time. You never stop learning if it's what you love.
Going to college doesn't make you smarter, it just means you can jump through hoops.
Microsoft, please hire me. I got my degree on THE INTERNET!
Being serious tho, I think education reform should come in some other form than just throwing money at people. We need to reform our education to make our college degrees worthwhile before helping people get them.
On April 20 2012 10:09 boxturtle wrote: The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
People who are able to go these top universities you're speaking of have much easier access to a lot more opportunities. I think everyone should have as fair and equal chance of attending one of these universities as possible. This means better K-12 public education and lower college tuition costs.
Well I guess we simply disagree. You can try to get a scholarship. That's your way in, really. Get a scholarship, or have money. Or take a gamble with your future that I simply disagree with.
But if the government can "pretend" you have the money and then once that is over you pay it back np than why should that (being born poor - this is honestly what you think?) stop the brightest minds in the country?
It would be really nice if anyone posting accusations would research the material first... I mean, the amount of anti-american hate here is just sad imo. (And it's not very well founded. I mean you cant critisise this, and then go on to complain about how the system favors the rich... thats the POINT, ( I mean thats why I love America, you dont punish the wealthy for making money.)
On April 20 2012 10:09 boxturtle wrote: The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
People who are able to go these top universities you're speaking of have much easier access to a lot more opportunities. I think everyone should have as fair and equal chance of attending one of these universities as possible. This means better K-12 public education and lower college tuition costs.
Well I guess we simply disagree. You can try to get a scholarship. That's your way in, really. Get a scholarship, or have money. Or take a gamble with your future that I simply disagree with.
But if the government can "pretend" you have the money and then once that is over you pay it back np than why should that (being born poor - this is honestly what you think?) stop the brightest minds in the country?
Ok, pay it back then. What's the issue? If you really want to use the "brightest minds" argument than they should have gotten a scholarship...
From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Tuition has skyrocketed since your parents went to school.
One of the reasons this bill is a good idea, is because this bill rewards people for becoming teachers, instead of punishing them. Teachers make far too little to make it really worth paying the money to become a teacher.
Furthermore, why am I even bothering to pay my student loan back? Sallie Mae took hundreds of millions of dollars in federal bailout funds because they couldn't pay their bills. Shouldn't that cover my debt?
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
Tuition is going up from 2-parts. 1. Inflation: It's healthy that the tuition is higher then your parents. Thats the way this economy is supposed to work. 2. Decrease in government subsidies. Less money is going to education, and it's being directed towards other things because the government doesn't have infinite amounts of money. Every sector is receiving cuts.
Making the government pay for defaulting loans will only hurt this situation.
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
Why should I have to pay an additional 80% when the following aren't happening: 1) My education is no different than it was in 2007 2) My pay has not increased even half that, in fact it has decreased 3) The fees and interest rate that I will be paying is going to be double what I could have done before.
With all of that said, it would have been more logical of me to take a loan out of 10k 5 years ago, and then used it toward my degree now. I just don't appreciate the tuition hikes. It's unfair to those that already cannot afford it, to put them in even more debt.
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
Why should I have to pay an additional 80% when the following aren't happening: 1) My education is no different than it was in 2007 2) My pay has not increased even half that, in fact it has decreased 3) The fees and interest rate that I will be paying is going to be double what I could have done before.
With all of that said, it would have been more logical of me to take a loan out of 10k 5 years ago, and then used it toward my degree now. I just don't appreciate the tuition hikes. It's unfair to those that already cannot afford it, to put them in even more debt.
im with you on the fact that tuition is bullshit insane, and the education is borderline worthless.
but, i didnt "have to" do anything. i chose to do it. now, i am going to be responsible, and pay back my debts that i voluntarily incurred.
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
Why should I have to pay an additional 80% when the following aren't happening: 1) My education is no different than it was in 2007 2) My pay has not increased even half that, in fact it has decreased 3) The fees and interest rate that I will be paying is going to be double what I could have done before.
With all of that said, it would have been more logical of me to take a loan out of 10k 5 years ago, and then used it toward my degree now. I just don't appreciate the tuition hikes. It's unfair to those that already cannot afford it, to put them in even more debt.
im with you on the fact that tuition is bullshit insane, and the education is borderline worthless.
but, i didnt "have to" do anything. i chose to do it. now, i am going to be responsible, and pay back my debts that i voluntarily incurred.
Of course I'm going to pay back my debts, but there's a difference between paying it back and getting royally *** in the ass if you know what I mean.
At the end of college I'll have the following: An AA degree, an AS degree and a BS degree. I will be 7-10k in debt. If the prices had stayed even 25% of normal inflation I would be zero dollars in debt.
On April 20 2012 10:09 boxturtle wrote: The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
People who are able to go these top universities you're speaking of have much easier access to a lot more opportunities. I think everyone should have as fair and equal chance of attending one of these universities as possible. This means better K-12 public education and lower college tuition costs.
Well I guess we simply disagree. You can try to get a scholarship. That's your way in, really. Get a scholarship, or have money. Or take a gamble with your future that I simply disagree with.
But if the government can "pretend" you have the money and then once that is over you pay it back np than why should that (being born poor - this is honestly what you think?) stop the brightest minds in the country?
Ok, pay it back then. What's the issue? If you really want to use the "brightest minds" argument than they should have gotten a scholarship...
This. Look at the housing market, did everyone who got loans (who generally KNEW they couldn't afford the damn house!) get help? How is this any different, aside from the monetary value? I think if you were going to do anything, you would help a larger # of people by doing some sort of thing for the people who were involved in the housing market pre-downturn. The housing market did have a huge downspiral - but right now it's stabilizing and going up!
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
Why should I have to pay an additional 80% when the following aren't happening: 1) My education is no different than it was in 2007 2) My pay has not increased even half that, in fact it has decreased 3) The fees and interest rate that I will be paying is going to be double what I could have done before.
With all of that said, it would have been more logical of me to take a loan out of 10k 5 years ago, and then used it toward my degree now. I just don't appreciate the tuition hikes. It's unfair to those that already cannot afford it, to put them in even more debt.
im with you on the fact that tuition is bullshit insane, and the education is borderline worthless.
but, i didnt "have to" do anything. i chose to do it. now, i am going to be responsible, and pay back my debts that i voluntarily incurred.
Of course I'm going to pay back my debts, but there's a difference between paying it back and getting royally *** in the ass if you know what I mean.
At the end of college I'll have the following: An AA degree, an AS degree and a BS degree. I will be 7-10k in debt. If the prices had stayed even 25% of normal inflation I would be zero dollars in debt.
I don't think you know what loan companies actually do. You do realize they're not giving you free money, and the whole damn reason loan companies make money is because of interest rates? The faster you pay back, the less you pay for it. Anything and everything you take a loan out for is in the same boat. That's how they make money.
If you get a loan for a new car - you're always going to pay more than how much you would have paid if you bought the car in full.
On April 20 2012 10:09 boxturtle wrote: The forgiveness part of this bill sounds financially retarded, the other portions are more or less meh. One of the biggest problems I noticed in Uni was the fact that people who had no real interest of being there were coming to college because their "parents made them go." This is a cultural problem of middle class/upper middle class families. Forgiving debt will transform it into America's problem.
A lot of these people are getting tens of thousands of dollar in government aid, screwing around, concocting get-rich-fast schemes a la wannabe Zuckerberg or Gates, graduating in 5 or 6 years due to prioritize partying over education, then spending their time starting up various companies with whatever they remember from college. Most of these people are self motivated in things that aren't college (ex/ learning programing, music, or art by themselves). In 10 years the government would have made a grand total of $5,000 off their near nonexistent income (the parents that force kids like these to go to college usually sustain their kids after they get a degree), while having forgiven $50,000 worth of loans (with interest that'd be over $100,000 in 10 years, solid investments can double after 9 years).
Another type of student that ruins the functionality of a plan like this are the "smart" 4.0 high school GPA ones that get "stupid" degrees. There are plenty of people who graduated high school at age 17, listened to their Asian (not racist, I'm an Asian) parents who yelled at them to go to the most prestigious private institution (I know people who went to USC/Yale because they were only 17 when they picked a college and their parents tricked them into it) and then found out that not only do they hate the shit out of law, they actually wanted a liberal arts/sociology degree, and that's their life calling. They graduate in 3 years, but still have crippling debt they can't pay with their 35k a year starting salary. The government will be getting screwed by pretty much anyone who isn't rich that takes student loans to get a degree that doesn't have great starting wages at some place that isn't a community college.
Another type is the one you all know. The guy who drops out of college after being in there too long. This guy is going to be the worst for the plan especially if he plans on not holding a job for long.
Some people just shouldn't be going to college/going to a prestigious college. I had a high GPA in high school, and I maintained a decent one in college. I did not go to a prestigious university. My brother went to an expensive school off a scholarship. He would not have gone if he did not get a scholarship.
It's arrogance and stupidity to reach for the highest simply because you can touch it. If you can't hold onto it, it should be your problem for your own poor financial planning, not America's. There are people racking up over a hundred thousand dollars of college debt and then expecting it to be paid because "they were smart and they deserve an education." Nothing entitles you to having a $100,000-200,000 education except either scholarships or paying for it from with Daddy's credit card. You can't screw America because you tried reaaaaaaalllllllyyyy hard and got an English degree from a private school.
If you really want a degree you can go to a community college. My cousin came over from Guam not 4 years ago, and he went to a community college and ended up great. Education isn't free, good educators aren't free. Education isn't your right. It's not a heart sticker you get for doing good in your little free GPA high school. Education is an investment- America's investment. America shouldn't invest in social workers/"entrepreneurs" that cost $200,000 when they could be investing $20,000 and getting near the same quality, since a lot of professions like these are more about motivation and "soft" skills.
People who are able to go these top universities you're speaking of have much easier access to a lot more opportunities. I think everyone should have as fair and equal chance of attending one of these universities as possible. This means better K-12 public education and lower college tuition costs.
Well I guess we simply disagree. You can try to get a scholarship. That's your way in, really. Get a scholarship, or have money. Or take a gamble with your future that I simply disagree with.
But if the government can "pretend" you have the money and then once that is over you pay it back np than why should that (being born poor - this is honestly what you think?) stop the brightest minds in the country?
Ok, pay it back then. What's the issue? If you really want to use the "brightest minds" argument than they should have gotten a scholarship...
I guess I just find it weird that you prefer to ensure that those who don't deserve it don't get anything and screw some "unlucky" people over to do so than to ensure help for those who need it and "unfortunately" help some who don't as a by-product. Such a different view from my own, I'm mostly just wondering how/why someone would think that O_o"
It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
On April 21 2012 04:48 Defacer wrote: It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
that's...not too different from graduating from a public university in the US?
On April 21 2012 04:48 Defacer wrote: It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
that's...not too different from graduating from a public university in the US?
Really? Average tuition for undergrad's in Canada is $5,000 per year, with Ontario being the highest at $6,000 a year. What's average for the US?
On April 21 2012 04:48 Defacer wrote: It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
that's...not too different from graduating from a public university in the US?
Really? Average tuition for undergrad's in Canada is $5,000 per year, with Ontario being the highest at $6,000 a year. What's average for the US?
The big flagship state schools have around 4-5K per Semester tuition costs. The smaller public universities cost roughly 2-3K per semester, and will get you a degree too. This doesn't factor in anything else like housing and food though.
On April 21 2012 04:48 Defacer wrote: It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
that's...not too different from graduating from a public university in the US?
Really? Average tuition for undergrad's in Canada is $5,000 per year, with Ontario being the highest at $6,000 a year. What's average for the US?
The big flagship state schools have around 4-5K per Semester tuition costs. The smaller public universities cost roughly 2-3K per semester, and will get you a degree too. This doesn't factor in anything else like housing and food though.
Man ... are US university students just really shitty at managing money and debt then? Are they going to fancy pants schools at $40-45K a year they can't afford? what gives?
On April 21 2012 04:48 Defacer wrote: It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
that's...not too different from graduating from a public university in the US?
Really? Average tuition for undergrad's in Canada is $5,000 per year, with Ontario being the highest at $6,000 a year. What's average for the US?
The big flagship state schools have around 4-5K per Semester tuition costs. The smaller public universities cost roughly 2-3K per semester, and will get you a degree too. This doesn't factor in anything else like housing and food though.
Man ... are US university students just really shitty at managing money and debt then? Are they going to fancy pants schools at $40-45K a year they can't afford? what gives?
It really is a bit of both.
Alot of them are ending up going to private schools that do charge around the $30K range for just tuition in a year, factor in everything else and its roughly 40-45K ish for school.
TBH most of the reasons that people are struggling so hard is that in a down economy, employers literally have hundreds of employment applications to chose from when they're looking for someone to hire. This allows them to pick someone that is incredible specialized for the position that they are seeking to fill, meaning that people with more broad educational fields (The liberal arts) get tossed aside because there's always someone more qualified than them. Many of these people who are sitting a on a mountain of debt did get degrees from these notable Liberal Arts Private Colleges, but now have nothing to show for it because no one will hire them. Hence the reason so many of them are in a very tough spot.
Another issue is that the people that are taking these loans are 18 year old kids that have been ill-prepared for the real world, as they can' t even fathom how much money they are on the hook for when they sign on the dotted line.
I know for a fact that before I signed for my loans, I calculated if I could even pay them back if I worked minimum wage for the rest of my life, and It turned out that I could. To me it seems more people should do that, or at least wait before going to school and make some money in the mean time.
I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
i dont understand why people think this bill will be a benefit to the U.S. economy. can someone explain? or, are you saying its just a benefit to the people getting their loans forgiven?
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
i dont understand why people think this bill will be a benefit to the U.S. economy. can someone explain? or, are you saying its just a benefit to the people getting their loans forgiven?
I guess the idea is people can have some of their money to spend as they choose and continue the spirit of the free market instead of it all being funneled to one bank or just back to the government. These people can buy tvs and go out for dinner and shit again. That's better for everyone.
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
i dont understand why people think this bill will be a benefit to the U.S. economy. can someone explain? or, are you saying its just a benefit to the people getting their loans forgiven?
I guess the idea is people can have some of their money to spend as they choose and continue the spirit of the free market instead of it all being funneled to one bank or just back to the government. These people can buy tvs and go out for dinner and shit again. That's better for everyone.
by that logic, the government should pay off all debt (credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, etc.).
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
i dont understand why people think this bill will be a benefit to the U.S. economy. can someone explain? or, are you saying its just a benefit to the people getting their loans forgiven?
I guess the idea is people can have some of their money to spend as they choose and continue the spirit of the free market instead of it all being funneled to one bank or just back to the government. These people can buy tvs and go out for dinner and shit again. That's better for everyone.
Free market would be no government interference.
More money to spend would boost the economy, but at the same time the hit credit would be taking would counteract that.
In the UK we don't have this kind of law, but I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to fruition in the next few years with the way students are irresponsible at universities.
I've gone to University and commuted every single day, for an hour and half, with very little money and worked my ass off to get a fantastic grade for my degree, and there are so many people who just simply go out of their mind and abuse the system, like going into their overdraft a WEEK after being given £1,500 for the term, then living off virtually nothing for 3 months. None of the people who do this regularly have any drive to find a job. I'm graduating in a few months, and literally I can count the number of people on my hand that have got a job for when they leave university, or even have gotten interviews lined up for jobs when they leave.
Sadly people think University is a free ride into a £100,000 a year job with 10 hours a week and 10 weeks of holiday. Well it's like NonY said on SOTG, "guess what? Shit doesn't come for free".
Yes I would not have been able to pay for university if the loan system was not in place, but I am financially responsible enough and worked my way into a position where I can more than happily pay off all my debts in just a few short years. No one seems to do this anymore, and it makes me sad.
Everyone wants their share, but are never willing to actually put something into the pot to get their share.
On April 21 2012 04:48 Defacer wrote: It's threads like these that make me really glad to be Canadian.
You can graduate from a Canadian university with a Bachelor's degree in Bullshit entirely on student loans, and in the end you might owe -- I don't know -- $40,000 to $45,000 at 6% interest? Not sure about the exact numbers.
that's...not too different from graduating from a public university in the US?
Really? Average tuition for undergrad's in Canada is $5,000 per year, with Ontario being the highest at $6,000 a year. What's average for the US?
The big flagship state schools have around 4-5K per Semester tuition costs. The smaller public universities cost roughly 2-3K per semester, and will get you a degree too. This doesn't factor in anything else like housing and food though.
Man ... are US university students just really shitty at managing money and debt then? Are they going to fancy pants schools at $40-45K a year they can't afford? what gives?
Some state schools cost 10-12k a year tuition. Many, if not most, and every 'top' university charges the 30-40k per year that you hear about in this thread. There is very little middle ground.
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
i dont understand why people think this bill will be a benefit to the U.S. economy. can someone explain? or, are you saying its just a benefit to the people getting their loans forgiven?
I guess the idea is people can have some of their money to spend as they choose and continue the spirit of the free market instead of it all being funneled to one bank or just back to the government. These people can buy tvs and go out for dinner and shit again. That's better for everyone.
by that logic, the government should pay off all debt (credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, etc.).
Not quite, at least not by logic. Spoiler: I know nothing about economics.
Education debt is like investment pre-money debt. Plus you NEED it in a lot of cases just to be whatever job you want to be (surgeon, lawyer etc.). People with this are expected to make more money, mostly need it to make more money, and they will have more money to spend on shit. But if they are paying interest and commission and shit on loans than they are giving a larger portion of their income than 'natural' (free-market spirit) to these banks or the government. If they aren't doing this then they can spend their income as they choose and stimulate a relative and representative portion of the economy, something that better represents themselves and their wants. A freer market. Debt incurred through buying a big house, a fancy car, too many christmas presents is debt incurred through free choice. People didn't HAVE to buy this shit (one could argue that so-and-so didn't have to go to med school, but someone has to, and they shouldn't be limited by how rich their parents got (everyone deserves a fair chance) or whether someone was nice enough to fund it for them (scholarships)). But they do, incurring debt that was freely incurred, fairly incurred. This debt represents the will of the free market. This bill is trying to divert a couple major seaways into 100s of smaller rivers. At least that's what I got.
On April 21 2012 04:11 ranshaked wrote: From 2007-2010 I was able to afford my education. Since then, I've had to obtain loans to cover the rest. I don't necessarily think that the loan situation is the problem, but rather the inflated tuition that is occurring. Inflation is not meeting our pay.
The thing is, tuition skyrocketing is a big thing, but at least for public universities, it's not going to make a MASSIVE "omg I can't ever pay this back" difference. Tuition has increased to probably an additional 80% of what it was. Assuming tuition now costs 12.5k per year and used to cost 7k per year, then that's an additional 5.5k per year, over 4 years, and additional 22k. Yeah, it's a lot of money. But people are talking about 150k loans etc.
Grad school is an entirely different issue than undergrad and there's NO WAY I would support massive subsidazation of grad school. Education costs money, and no, I don't think you're entitled to as much education as you want, regardless of your potential, although if you have the potential from what I've seen grad school is generally not that bad at public universities since becoming a TA in a large majority of the fields means your tuition and a large portion of your rent is covered.
Why should I have to pay an additional 80% when the following aren't happening: 1) My education is no different than it was in 2007 2) My pay has not increased even half that, in fact it has decreased 3) The fees and interest rate that I will be paying is going to be double what I could have done before.
With all of that said, it would have been more logical of me to take a loan out of 10k 5 years ago, and then used it toward my degree now. I just don't appreciate the tuition hikes. It's unfair to those that already cannot afford it, to put them in even more debt.
Why should you have to pay more? Because the economy is in the shitter? What kind of question is that? The majority has to make sacrifices during a recession. What kind of question is that? Are you serious?
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for someone in your situation. You have a family to support already, it shouldn't be other people's burden to support your entire family. I'm already hard pressed to find the excuses people are making for their own situations, let alone their own situation + 2 other people. In short, you shouldn't have gotten married or had a kid yet.... that was incredibly financially irresponsible, or so it sounds.
Of course, you might have a specific situation that I'm not aware of from limited information, and if so, I'm sorry for coming off as a jackass ahead of time.
You do come off as a jackass, but I forgive you. You are in no place to assume anything of my situation. You dont give a lot of logic to your response, but I will try to expound on mine and a few other things.
I wasnt asking for your sympathy, nor do I want any. I was clearly stating my situation as an example. I understood the responsibility I took on when I accepted my invitation to a graduate program and the debt that I would have. I was not stating that I dont plan on paying my loans back, in fact...I plan on taking the 30 year payment plan and paying it back in 10 years unless situations permit or new ammendments to student loans occurs. I dont see your logic of how going to grad school to make 100k+ a year is financially irrespnsible for myself or my family? People are talking about sacrifice, well Im living in that sacrifice right now. I will more than pay off my debt not only monitarily, but through my contributions to the health care system and to every day people. but thats getting into another subject.
I said I had my reserves about the forgiveness plan, and that still holds true. I dont agree with people taking the easy way out of not paying back their responsibilities as do you. However there are things that need to be fixed within the system, and that is where I was trying to make the point of the education system being more the cause of the problem, leading to higher interest rates, bigger loans, and now starting in June thanks to Obama, I will start paying interest on my loans BEFORE I graduate. Now get this....how am I going to pay that interest? With my LOAN MONEY. Makes alot of sense right? The system is terrible. Did you also realize that a big chunk of the US debt owed is to itself and our own gold reserves? its not even to other countries. Thats how stupid our debt crisis is and why we probably will never come out of it, because its our own debt we owe to ourselves that makes the dollar weaker on the global market. This is also getting a bit off topic from the student loan forgiveness act so let me bring it back...
I think the purpose of this bill was to make it clear that student loan debt is out of control and action needs to be taken somewhere, not just giving people free passes to waive debt. This bill most likely will not pass as is or even at all, but a better bill will be presented because of it that will help solve not only the rediculous amount of debt that the future of America is in, but to hopefully improve our education system while still providing a competitive chance at making a good living. That is the main point I was trying to make in my first post, I apologize for not making it more clear. As I said in that post I feel that this bill has great intentions for the short and long term, although this bill is by no means foolproof or perfect.
On April 22 2012 13:02 Trankuil wrote: You do come off as a jackass, but I forgive you. You are in no place to assume anything of my situation. You dont give a lot of logic to your response, but I will try to expound on mine and a few other things.
I wasnt asking for your sympathy, nor do I want any. I was clearly stating my situation as an example. I understood the responsibility I took on when I accepted my invitation to a graduate program and the debt that I would have. I was not stating that I dont plan on paying my loans back, in fact...I plan on taking the 30 year payment plan and paying it back in 10 years unless situations permit or new ammendments to student loans occurs. I dont see your logic of how going to grad school to make 100k+ a year is financially irrespnsible for myself or my family? People are talking about sacrifice, well Im living in that sacrifice right now. I will more than pay off my debt not only monitarily, but through my contributions to the health care system and to every day people. but thats getting into another subject.
I said I had my reserves about the forgiveness plan, and that still holds true. I dont agree with people taking the easy way out of not paying back their responsibilities as do you. However there are things that need to be fixed within the system, and that is where I was trying to make the point of the education system being more the cause of the problem, leading to higher interest rates, bigger loans, and now starting in June thanks to Obama, I will start paying interest on my loans BEFORE I graduate. Now get this....how am I going to pay that interest? With my LOAN MONEY. Makes alot of sense right? The system is terrible. Did you also realize that a big chunk of the US debt owed is to itself and our own gold reserves? its not even to other countries. Thats how stupid our debt crisis is and why we probably will never come out of it, because its our own debt we owe to ourselves that makes the dollar weaker on the global market. This is also getting a bit off topic from the student loan forgiveness act so let me bring it back...
I think the purpose of this bill was to make it clear that student loan debt is out of control and action needs to be taken somewhere, not just giving people free passes to waive debt. This bill most likely will not pass as is or even at all, but a better bill will be presented because of it that will help solve not only the rediculous amount of debt that the future of America is in, but to hopefully improve our education system while still providing a competitive chance at making a good living. That is the main point I was trying to make in my first post, I apologize for not making it more clear. As I said in that post I feel that this bill has great intentions for the short and long term, although this bill is by no means foolproof or perfect.
Actually I'm most definitely in a place to assume things, because you posted (although limited) information on your current situation on a forum, which is meant for a discussion. To say I shouldn't assume things is silly in itself. Despite that, sorry again for coming off as a jackass. The way you structured your post most definitely sounded as if you were fishing for sympathy (stating you had to take max loans to support your wife and child as well).
I don't think it's financially responsible because I think it's quite the gamble - if you don't get a job your family is in quite the crap situation, so personally I think it's more financially responsible to get a job after you get your undergrad. That's simply how I view it. Just because you want to make a lot of money doesn't somehow mean you're financially responsible.... you made an investment in your future, but that investment to me is edging towards the "all eggs in one basket" if you ask me. That's my issue. To each his own however, and best of luck getting a job. It's not like I don't want the investment to pay off .
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
On April 21 2012 06:22 Trankuil wrote: I am in a graduate program (Pharmacy). I will graduate with close to 200,000 in debt because I also have to take max loans to live on to support my wife and child and not much time to work. I have my reserves even about student loan forgiveness even though it would benifit me a ton. Personally I think its the school system that is being greedy, but there are more students, especially grad students that are defaulting on loans because of the lack of work or the pay scale not moving with their loans and interest rates. Why be in grad school if you dont know if youll have a job after? The economy as a whole needs a make-over. I do think that this bill overall has great intentions and would be a benifit short and long term, and thats whats important.
i dont understand why people think this bill will be a benefit to the U.S. economy. can someone explain? or, are you saying its just a benefit to the people getting their loans forgiven?
I guess the idea is people can have some of their money to spend as they choose and continue the spirit of the free market instead of it all being funneled to one bank or just back to the government. These people can buy tvs and go out for dinner and shit again. That's better for everyone.
by that logic, the government should pay off all debt (credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, etc.).
Not a bad idea. Anceint Jews did that every 7 years called jubilee. You do realise debts can never be paid right? Cumulative private debt grows every year. You may it off, personally, but someone got into debt to pay you to pay it off.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
On April 22 2012 13:02 Trankuil wrote: You do come off as a jackass, but I forgive you. You are in no place to assume anything of my situation. You dont give a lot of logic to your response, but I will try to expound on mine and a few other things.
I wasnt asking for your sympathy, nor do I want any. I was clearly stating my situation as an example. I understood the responsibility I took on when I accepted my invitation to a graduate program and the debt that I would have. I was not stating that I dont plan on paying my loans back, in fact...I plan on taking the 30 year payment plan and paying it back in 10 years unless situations permit or new ammendments to student loans occurs. I dont see your logic of how going to grad school to make 100k+ a year is financially irrespnsible for myself or my family? People are talking about sacrifice, well Im living in that sacrifice right now. I will more than pay off my debt not only monitarily, but through my contributions to the health care system and to every day people. but thats getting into another subject.
I said I had my reserves about the forgiveness plan, and that still holds true. I dont agree with people taking the easy way out of not paying back their responsibilities as do you. However there are things that need to be fixed within the system, and that is where I was trying to make the point of the education system being more the cause of the problem, leading to higher interest rates, bigger loans, and now starting in June thanks to Obama, I will start paying interest on my loans BEFORE I graduate. Now get this....how am I going to pay that interest? With my LOAN MONEY. Makes alot of sense right? The system is terrible. Did you also realize that a big chunk of the US debt owed is to itself and our own gold reserves? its not even to other countries. Thats how stupid our debt crisis is and why we probably will never come out of it, because its our own debt we owe to ourselves that makes the dollar weaker on the global market. This is also getting a bit off topic from the student loan forgiveness act so let me bring it back...
I think the purpose of this bill was to make it clear that student loan debt is out of control and action needs to be taken somewhere, not just giving people free passes to waive debt. This bill most likely will not pass as is or even at all, but a better bill will be presented because of it that will help solve not only the rediculous amount of debt that the future of America is in, but to hopefully improve our education system while still providing a competitive chance at making a good living. That is the main point I was trying to make in my first post, I apologize for not making it more clear. As I said in that post I feel that this bill has great intentions for the short and long term, although this bill is by no means foolproof or perfect.
Actually I'm most definitely in a place to assume things, because you posted (although limited) information on your current situation on a forum, which is meant for a discussion. To say I shouldn't assume things is silly in itself. Despite that, sorry again for coming off as a jackass. The way you structured your post most definitely sounded as if you were fishing for sympathy (stating you had to take max loans to support your wife and child as well).
I don't think it's financially responsible because I think it's quite the gamble - if you don't get a job your family is in quite the crap situation, so personally I think it's more financially responsible to get a job after you get your undergrad. That's simply how I view it. Just because you want to make a lot of money doesn't somehow mean you're financially responsible.... you made an investment in your future, but that investment to me is edging towards the "all eggs in one basket" if you ask me. That's my issue. To each his own however, and best of luck getting a job. It's not like I don't want the investment to pay off .
You can make baseless assumptions because he didn't outline his entire life story in his original post? Good to know.
You say his decision to go to grad school is quite the gamble, and that you think its more responsible to just start working out of your undergrad. Many jobs in many markets 100% require more than a bachelors. I had an EE undergrad, but the field I specialize generally requires masters or Ph.D degrees. It depends on your field, and its not just true for liberal arts degrees.
I won't make assumptions about why you are so aggressive against people who take out student loans, but I will say this. You seem to have found a job out of undergrad that makes you happy and pays well. Congrats. For most people, this is not the case. I don't think you have a right to shit on people because they were stuck in a situation where their two choices were either A) Work a job they hate and/or doesn't pay well for their entire life, or B) go massively into debt to get the education they need for a job they want.
My government provided student loans have 6.7% interest. My field is small, and the cheapest school that offered what I needed charges 35k/year for tuition. Every other school I considered was similarly priced. Its a shit situation.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
I think everyone is taking a gamble. There is nothing robots and computers won't able to do in the future including surgury which they do now like on eyes and offshoring whole industries as well hurts prospects... but even they get replaced in poorer parts of the world with machines. Fact is we are going to have to find a way to deal with massive hords of unemployed people. My freind in Spain said no one can find jobs and that's a rich country comparitvly to like Mexico.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
Their perceived suffering is NOT an Excuse to not pay their loans. They knew and know what they were getting into.
On April 23 2012 02:41 Diizzy wrote: am i the only one who likes this... ?
You aren't the only one who thinks that this is a good idea. Several people have voiced support for it earlier in the thread. You would know this if you had read the thread.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
Their perceived suffering is NOT and Excuse to not pay their loans.
You don't know anything about anybody's particular situation. I agree that many chose fluff majors, signed off for loans without thinking about, and generally fucked up. Many others were responsible, worked hard, and are now fucked.
On April 23 2012 02:41 Diizzy wrote: am i the only one who likes this... ?
You aren't the only one who thinks that this is a good idea. Several people have voiced support for it earlier in the thread. You would know this if you had read the thread.
Who would support such stupdendous drabble?
The very students who want to cheat their way out of paying for their financial contracts.
On April 23 2012 02:41 Diizzy wrote: am i the only one who likes this... ?
You aren't the only one who thinks that this is a good idea. Several people have voiced support for it earlier in the thread. You would know this if you had read the thread.
Who would support such stupdendous drabble?
The very students who want to cheat their way out of paying for their financial contracts.
Whats your situation Grimmy? Did you go to college? Did you take loans?
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
Their perceived suffering is NOT and Excuse to not pay their loans.
You don't know anything about anybody's particular situation. I agree that many chose fluff majors, signed off for loans without thinking about, and generally fucked up. Many others were responsible, worked hard, and are now fucked.
They're not fucked. They just don't have the paychecks they dreamed of yet.
Fucked is owing a million dollars to a Dubai tycoon, being imprisioned until you can pay your debt, with no way to pay it. That's fucked.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
Their perceived suffering is NOT and Excuse to not pay their loans.
You don't know anything about anybody's particular situation. I agree that many chose fluff majors, signed off for loans without thinking about, and generally fucked up. Many others were responsible, worked hard, and are now fucked.
They're not fucked. They just don't have the paychecks they dreamed of yet.
Fucked is owing a million dollars to a Dubai tycoon, being imprisioned until you can pay your debt, with no way to pay it. That's fucked.
You're lack of empathy is amazing. Some students are just irresponsible, others are getting screwed by the system without any fault of their own.
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keanu Reeves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keannu Reaves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
Gambling is not a necessary prerequisite to meaningful employment. College is.
On April 23 2012 02:41 Diizzy wrote: am i the only one who likes this... ?
You aren't the only one who thinks that this is a good idea. Several people have voiced support for it earlier in the thread. You would know this if you had read the thread.
Who would support such stupdendous drabble?
The very students who want to cheat their way out of paying for their financial contracts.
Whats your situation Grimmy? Did you go to college? Did you take loans?
From a previous post I made in this thread:
If I, with no post secondary education, can go from living on welfare, and quite litterally wanting to off myself because I could not even feed myself on $600 a MONTH to cover my living expenses (Rent, Food, Utilities, laundry, public transit) and I managed to find meager employ, then better, and then even better emply to where I now rent an entire house to myself, have a stable job I enjoy (enough) and a fair vehicle to drive and recreational activities I REALLY enjoy - then there is hope for anyone in finding a job then enjoy. Some will find a job they LOVE. Some will find one that pays the bills.
I did not go to college or university, and I work my ass off to pay my bills and debts. I've paid off every loan I have ever had, and I am looking at now going to college or university next year as an adult mature student. When I take out my loans, I know what I am getting into, and fruitfull employment or not after I graduate, I fully intend and will pay those loans off. The banks responsibility is to pay for my schooling - my responsibilty is to PAY IT BACK.
I do however have every intent and plans to save enough to pay for my tuition in cash. No loans.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
Their perceived suffering is NOT an Excuse to not pay their loans. They knew and know what they were getting into.
Yes, I'm sure the host of students with massive debt out of college knew to expect record levels of unemployment out of undergrad, record setting increases in tuition, and were fully made aware of how student loans offer the least loanee protection out of any loan in the financial spectrum. I'm sure they expected government loan interest rates that were supposedly static to increase, while also being made aware of future massive cuts to state higher ed budgets that directly cut into scholarships/aid available. I'm sure........
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keanu Reeves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
IMO student shouldn't have to worry about financial decisions, society should take care of this as a whole. The younger generation should not be held back just because they/their family cannot afford proper education. And gambling debts/credit debts are very different then student loan debts.
I think the first part of the bill is the only one that matters but it's problematic because it creates an independent sliding scale for university and an accounting nightmare. It's not really clear what "forgiveness" means for the university. Are they forced to just write off the loss or does the government pay off the rest for you?
The reason why that matters is that you have to follow the money. Someone has to pay for that education and the resources devoted to it. So either the students pay for it, the taxpayers pay for it, or the university pays for it. Since the government already pays off the interest on subsidized loans, the taxpayers are already on the hook to a certain degree for it.
In turn, this is important to see how the system will change. If you say only the taxpayers and university should pay and the students shouldn't have to, then universities will probably revert back to the days when they were only accessible to the rich or to the future rich (very talented and motivated kids), closing off access to young people who don't show as much promise and sending them off to the working class, like the UK.
The way the system is now, students have the freedom to study anything they want but they're given enough rope to hang themselves with debt for a very long time. It's worth pointing out that Barack Obama himself still had law school debt just before his presidential run, and he only managed to pay it off because he wrote two best-selling books.
I worked my ass off in school to get a marketable degree and a high-paying job after graduation. I will be able to pay off my $32k in student loans in ~2 years. There are many people in school who decide to major in underwater basket weaving, or blow through $40k in government money by partying 4 days a week. We should not be responsible for paying off their debt.
Instead, perhaps we should educate people about the type of degree they are getting and the fact that loans are not your money. They are somebody elses money, and they should be repaid.
My word of advice to those of you in school: Live frugally, because when you graduate you will be paying for two people to live. 1. Your post-graduate self 2. Yourself while you were in school
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Statistics can say what ever you want them to say, it's the lack of information which says it.
What is the related statistic which shows how many of those unemployed persons between 18 and 24 choose NOT to work because they are in College or University?
--------
If you are a student, and you are smart enough to get into university, you are smart enough to realise the contract you are signing into for the financing. I do not care if there is no work for you when you finish your schooling - you should have thought about that when you were selecting your courses and field of education. I also do not care about your level of perceived poverty or your hardships. Get employment for the short term to pay the bills, and seek your dream job later.
Just because a student is unsuccessful after school does not mean that those taxpayers which DO WORK should pick up their slack and pay off their debts.
You sign into it? You pay it. I don't care if it takes you 50 years and you make good on your loan when you retire with your last paycheck.
Be responsible. Make good on your very first major financial agreement.
I don't care about about people who don't have sympathy for those who are in worse situations than them.
Their perceived suffering is NOT an Excuse to not pay their loans. They knew and know what they were getting into.
Yes, I'm sure the host of students with massive debt out of college knew to expect record levels of unemployment out of undergrad, record setting increases tuition, and were fully made aware of how student loans offer the least loaner protection out of any loan in the financial spectrum. I'm sure they expected government loan interest rates that were supposedly static to increase, while also being made aware of future massive cuts to state higher ed budgets that directly cut into scholarships/aid available. I'm sure........
These are the very people which qualify for the very best education that the continent has to offer. They are smart enough to realise and see the recession, and make suitable choices to secure employment in a sector which is not as easily affected by the recession.
This job market is not going to last for another 5 years. Nor did it occur overnight.
I, being an employee was affected by the recession, lost my job in the process of it due to a lack of commercial demand. I found and secured employment in an industry which was working around and with the recession.
If I can do it, why cannot an individual who is supposedly more intelligent than I and has the education to 'prove' it, cannot do the same?
On April 23 2012 02:41 Diizzy wrote: am i the only one who likes this... ?
You aren't the only one who thinks that this is a good idea. Several people have voiced support for it earlier in the thread. You would know this if you had read the thread.
Who would support such stupdendous drabble?
The very students who want to cheat their way out of paying for their financial contracts.
Whats your situation Grimmy? Did you go to college? Did you take loans?
If I, with no post secondary education, can go from living on welfare, and quite litterally wanting to off myself because I could not even feed myself on $600 a MONTH to cover my living expenses (Rent, Food, Utilities, laundry, public transit) and I managed to find meager employ, then better, and then even better emply to where I now rent an entire house to myself, have a stable job I enjoy (enough) and a fair vehicle to drive and recreational activities I REALLY enjoy - then there is hope for anyone in finding a job then enjoy. Some will find a job they LOVE. Some will find one that pays the bills.
I did not go to college or university, and I work my ass off to pay my bills and debts. I've paid off every loan I have ever had, and I am looking at now going to college or university next year as an adult mature student. When I take out my loans, I know what I am getting into, and fruitfull employment or not after I graduate, I fully intend and will pay those loans off. The banks responsibility is to pay for my schooling - my responsibilty is to PAY IT BACK.
I do however have every intent and plans to save enough to pay for my tuition in cash. No loans.
I agree with you that this bill is unfair; you and I shouldn't pay off the loans of other people.
That being said:
1- There is no way to predict whether an education will pay off. My EE degree was supposed to guarantee me certain jobs and salaries. By the time I graduate, shit was different, for the worse.
2- Its 18 year old kids making this decision. Their parents, their teachers, everybody has been setting them up for college their entire lives.
3- Interest rates have soared during my education experience. I started out with interest rates of 2-3 percent. Now, my government provided loans have an interest rate of 6.7%. Do I quit my education midway with nothing to show for it, or do I suck it up and pay the ridiculous rates?
4- Your situation is not universal. Given how shitty the job market is, maybe try to have a little sympathy for people who work hard and are still getting fucked every day.
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keanu Reeves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
IMO student shouldn't have to worry about financial decisions, society should take care of this as a whole. The younger generation should not be held back just because they/their family cannot afford proper education. And gambling debts/credit debts are very different then student loan debts.
And we should have bubblegum houses and streets paved with chocolate and everyone should be a millionaire.
On April 23 2012 03:07 Kimaker wrote: Adults need to stop grooming children for college, and start grooming them for what they're good at. Current MS/HS education system doesn't help that.
True, but not supporting college also undermines general public k-12 education. Why even bother w/ a GED? You can learn anything you need on the job, or in a book (assuming you can read).
On April 23 2012 02:41 Diizzy wrote: am i the only one who likes this... ?
You aren't the only one who thinks that this is a good idea. Several people have voiced support for it earlier in the thread. You would know this if you had read the thread.
Who would support such stupdendous drabble?
The very students who want to cheat their way out of paying for their financial contracts.
Whats your situation Grimmy? Did you go to college? Did you take loans?
From a previous post I made in this thread:
If I, with no post secondary education, can go from living on welfare, and quite litterally wanting to off myself because I could not even feed myself on $600 a MONTH to cover my living expenses (Rent, Food, Utilities, laundry, public transit) and I managed to find meager employ, then better, and then even better emply to where I now rent an entire house to myself, have a stable job I enjoy (enough) and a fair vehicle to drive and recreational activities I REALLY enjoy - then there is hope for anyone in finding a job then enjoy. Some will find a job they LOVE. Some will find one that pays the bills.
I did not go to college or university, and I work my ass off to pay my bills and debts. I've paid off every loan I have ever had, and I am looking at now going to college or university next year as an adult mature student. When I take out my loans, I know what I am getting into, and fruitfull employment or not after I graduate, I fully intend and will pay those loans off. The banks responsibility is to pay for my schooling - my responsibilty is to PAY IT BACK.
I do however have every intent and plans to save enough to pay for my tuition in cash. No loans.
I agree with you that this bill is unfair; you and I shouldn't pay off the loans of other people.
That being said:
1- There is no way to predict whether an education will pay off. My EE degree was supposed to guarantee me certain jobs and salaries. By the time I graduate, shit was different, for the worse.
2- Its 18 year old kids making this decision. Their parents, their teachers, everybody has been setting them up for college their entire lives.
3- Interest rates have soared during my education experience. I started out with interest rates of 2-3 percent. Now, my government provided loans have an interest rate of 6.7%. Do I quit my education midway with nothing to show for it, or do I suck it up and pay the ridiculous rates?
4- Your situation is not universal. Given how shitty the job market is, maybe try to have a little sympathy for people who work hard and are still getting fucked every day.
1) Yes, one can look at the job market, demographics and population denisty, and select a career which suits the demands of an area and field which will be needed in 3 or 4 years time. Securing entry level positions prior or during their education gets a foot into the door before they qualify for the higher paying position upon graduation.
2) They may be 18, but their grades say they are smarter than half the populous.
3) 6.7 percent is peanuts. Take a look at the interest rates during the 1980's and early 1990's. 18% for a home mortgage for gods sake. Now that is something worth crying about. Shit, I paid over 10% for my car loan.
4) I've been in the shitter and got out of it, and a helluva lot worse than these students profess. A lot of these graduates are able to find employ, just not neccesarily in their prefered field, or for a level of compensation that they would prefer. If they cannot find employ, get a job, and wait it out until you can locate, secure, and relocate to where that preferred employ and compensation is available.
1- There is no way to predict whether an education will pay off. My EE degree was supposed to guarantee me certain jobs and salaries. By the time I graduate, shit was different, for the worse.
See, that's bullshit. You weren't guaranteed anything. You were probably given the facts: engineering degrees are profitable, and have good job placement.
You can't blame society if you are less sucessful than your peers.
1- There is no way to predict whether an education will pay off. My EE degree was supposed to guarantee me certain jobs and salaries. By the time I graduate, shit was different, for the worse.
See, that's bullshit. You weren't guaranteed anything. You were probably given the facts: engineering degrees are profitable, and have good job placement.
You can't blame society if you are less sucessful than your peers.
Agreed.
An employment guarantee is a contract, in writing, for a particular position and compensation. If an employer has defaulted on thier contract, then I suggest that individual persue them for damages.
If the student did not have a contract, they did not have a guarantee.
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keanu Reeves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
IMO student shouldn't have to worry about financial decisions, society should take care of this as a whole. The younger generation should not be held back just because they/their family cannot afford proper education. And gambling debts/credit debts are very different then student loan debts.
And we should have bubblegum houses and streets paved with chocolate and everyone should be a millionaire.
Other countries are doing a much better job than the US is doing.
Also both bubblegum houses sound more like the creatures of nightmares.
1- There is no way to predict whether an education will pay off. My EE degree was supposed to guarantee me certain jobs and salaries. By the time I graduate, shit was different, for the worse.
See, that's bullshit. You weren't guaranteed anything. You were probably given the facts: engineering degrees are profitable, and have good job placement.
You can't blame society if you are less sucessful than your peers.
Agreed.
An employment guarantee is a contract, in writing, for a particular position and compensation. If an employer has defaulted on thier contract, then I suggest that individual persue them for damages.
If the student did not have a contract, they did not have a guarantee.
'Guarantee' was obviously being used in the colloquial sense rather than the legal sense. In that sense, it would certainly be accurate to apply it to EE/CS degrees at various points in time.
1- There is no way to predict whether an education will pay off. My EE degree was supposed to guarantee me certain jobs and salaries. By the time I graduate, shit was different, for the worse.
See, that's bullshit. You weren't guaranteed anything. You were probably given the facts: engineering degrees are profitable, and have good job placement.
You can't blame society if you are less sucessful than your peers.
Agreed.
An employment guarantee is a contract, in writing, for a particular position and compensation. If an employer has defaulted on thier contract, then I suggest that individual persue them for damages.
If the student did not have a contract, they did not have a guarantee.
'Guarantee' was obviously being used in the colloquial sense rather than the legal sense. In that sense, it would certainly be accurate to apply it to EE/CS degrees at various points in time.
And that's the problem. These incredibly smart people have the illusion that by having a diploma and an education is a guarantee to employ and success.
Employ and success is acheived by the individual, not the diploma. A guaranteed job is an employment agreement, not a diploma.
One of the more frequent arguments made by students is that they were bred or sculpted for a particular field - one which does not have an employment future in the short term. I say that is no excuse. These individuals are amazingly smart and know the concept of cause and effect.
I've had the pleasure of employing students which were in every way more intelligent and educated than I, and I set them up for success in their positions so they could make the money they needed to pay for their schooling, and live life with a degree of comfort and entertainment. All of them have gainful employment, all of them obtaining salaries and packages which I have never personally equalled. One was applying for a senior position with a major shoe brand, and when that was not successful, he had already courted and secured a senior account manager with a major cellular phone provider with a 6 digit salary. Another became a very successful pottery artist. Another immediately out of school became an area manager for a home renovation company, and a few short years later she moved to Boston to take a vice president role before the age of 26. They all worked hard, studied hard, and during their schooling they created the foundation for their resume's and background so that when it came to seeking their career employ, they could do so with enthusiasm and a success that they created for themselves.
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keanu Reeves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
IMO student shouldn't have to worry about financial decisions, society should take care of this as a whole. The younger generation should not be held back just because they/their family cannot afford proper education. And gambling debts/credit debts are very different then student loan debts.
And we should have bubblegum houses and streets paved with chocolate and everyone should be a millionaire.
Other countries are doing a much better job than the US is doing.
Also both bubblegum houses sound more like the creatures of nightmares.
Also no other countries have their post-secondary paid for by the government but run and profited from by private institutions. Do you know why? Because it's a terrible fucking disastrous idea. Tuition would be $50k/year within five years and people will still attend because they won't have to pay for it. The USA will end up paying twice as much as any other country for a far inferior system.
On April 23 2012 02:38 tdt wrote: I think everyone is taking a gamble. There is nothing robots and computers won't able to do in the future including surgury which they do now like on eyes and offshoring whole industries as well hurts prospects... but even they get replaced in poorer parts of the world with machines. Fact is we are going to have to find a way to deal with massive hords of unemployed people. My freind in Spain said no one can find jobs and that's a rich country comparitvly to like Mexico.
You gotta be smart, if nobody has a job, nobody has money, therefore nobody can buy the services/products. As machines replace some jobs people do, people just expand into other areas so we produce more, because everyone can afford more.
Anyways my program for mechanical engineering is going to cost me about $25,000/4 years, and this is at University of Calgary, and I'm going to be living at home next year. This is before any scholarships, which right now $5k seems like a good estimate of what I'll get, this still seems quite a lot to me compared to what others pay in the country I was born in (free), but compared to the US it's nothing.
I think there's a serious flaw in the mentality of people if education is being treated as a business instead of a high-quality public service. A good education is the foundation to a society, and the US SEVERELY lacks this in the public department. Privatized education is possibly the worst creation on the planet, instead focus should be placed on high-level public education so everyone has the same opportunity if they put in the effort, which is what democracy is about, or should be about at least.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
wowee.. In the uk we pay 9% of our earnings over £15,000, or £21,000 for new student loans taken out this year. And anything left after 30 years from the date the loan was taken out is forgiven...
The system seems pretty fair - I hardly notice it coming out of my pay, even as quite a high earner.
The spectacular amount of debt higher education puts you in in the USA completely bemuses me..
On April 22 2012 13:02 Trankuil wrote: You do come off as a jackass, but I forgive you. You are in no place to assume anything of my situation. You dont give a lot of logic to your response, but I will try to expound on mine and a few other things.
I wasnt asking for your sympathy, nor do I want any. I was clearly stating my situation as an example. I understood the responsibility I took on when I accepted my invitation to a graduate program and the debt that I would have. I was not stating that I dont plan on paying my loans back, in fact...I plan on taking the 30 year payment plan and paying it back in 10 years unless situations permit or new ammendments to student loans occurs. I dont see your logic of how going to grad school to make 100k+ a year is financially irrespnsible for myself or my family? People are talking about sacrifice, well Im living in that sacrifice right now. I will more than pay off my debt not only monitarily, but through my contributions to the health care system and to every day people. but thats getting into another subject.
I said I had my reserves about the forgiveness plan, and that still holds true. I dont agree with people taking the easy way out of not paying back their responsibilities as do you. However there are things that need to be fixed within the system, and that is where I was trying to make the point of the education system being more the cause of the problem, leading to higher interest rates, bigger loans, and now starting in June thanks to Obama, I will start paying interest on my loans BEFORE I graduate. Now get this....how am I going to pay that interest? With my LOAN MONEY. Makes alot of sense right? The system is terrible. Did you also realize that a big chunk of the US debt owed is to itself and our own gold reserves? its not even to other countries. Thats how stupid our debt crisis is and why we probably will never come out of it, because its our own debt we owe to ourselves that makes the dollar weaker on the global market. This is also getting a bit off topic from the student loan forgiveness act so let me bring it back...
I think the purpose of this bill was to make it clear that student loan debt is out of control and action needs to be taken somewhere, not just giving people free passes to waive debt. This bill most likely will not pass as is or even at all, but a better bill will be presented because of it that will help solve not only the rediculous amount of debt that the future of America is in, but to hopefully improve our education system while still providing a competitive chance at making a good living. That is the main point I was trying to make in my first post, I apologize for not making it more clear. As I said in that post I feel that this bill has great intentions for the short and long term, although this bill is by no means foolproof or perfect.
Actually I'm most definitely in a place to assume things, because you posted (although limited) information on your current situation on a forum, which is meant for a discussion. To say I shouldn't assume things is silly in itself. Despite that, sorry again for coming off as a jackass. The way you structured your post most definitely sounded as if you were fishing for sympathy (stating you had to take max loans to support your wife and child as well).
I don't think it's financially responsible because I think it's quite the gamble - if you don't get a job your family is in quite the crap situation, so personally I think it's more financially responsible to get a job after you get your undergrad. That's simply how I view it. Just because you want to make a lot of money doesn't somehow mean you're financially responsible.... you made an investment in your future, but that investment to me is edging towards the "all eggs in one basket" if you ask me. That's my issue. To each his own however, and best of luck getting a job. It's not like I don't want the investment to pay off .
You can make baseless assumptions because he didn't outline his entire life story in his original post? Good to know.
You say his decision to go to grad school is quite the gamble, and that you think its more responsible to just start working out of your undergrad. Many jobs in many markets 100% require more than a bachelors. I had an EE undergrad, but the field I specialize generally requires masters or Ph.D degrees. It depends on your field, and its not just true for liberal arts degrees.
I won't make assumptions about why you are so aggressive against people who take out student loans, but I will say this. You seem to have found a job out of undergrad that makes you happy and pays well. Congrats. For most people, this is not the case. I don't think you have a right to shit on people because they were stuck in a situation where their two choices were either A) Work a job they hate and/or doesn't pay well for their entire life, or B) go massively into debt to get the education they need for a job they want.
My government provided student loans have 6.7% interest. My field is small, and the cheapest school that offered what I needed charges 35k/year for tuition. Every other school I considered was similarly priced. Its a shit situation.
I'm saying everyone has to make assumptions because they don't have the entire life story. That's how it works. You go off the information given. It's also why I clearly stated that they were assumptions and very well had the potential to not be true, or completely accurate.
I said yes, his decision to go to grad school, at the very least, seems to be quite the gamble. I'm not saying it's overall. But he's someone that took out loans not just to support himself through schooling, but his wife and child apparently. That was the issue I had.
My personal situation isn't as relevant as the fact the vast majority of people that are left jobless or underemployed have at least one of the following traits
1) Didn't even go to any of the career fairs/apply to at least 50 (and that's a hell of a small number) jobs. Most didn't even apply to 3. 2) Took out more student loans than they needed so they could live "comfortably." This may have been extra money to socialize, party, buy a disneyland pass, eat out at a restaurant 2-3 times a week, etc. 3) Didn't have a job during college for a decent duration of time.
My student loans are 6.7% interest as well. All I can say is that I think it's stupid, personally (and I know a lot of people disagree with me), that people are so set on going into one particular profession. You need to be flexible and take what you can get. If your field is small and you have 35k tuition, maybe you should have reconsidered going into that field, even if it's what you want to do. I'm not saying you need to take a job that you hate, but life doesn't necessarily work out so you'll get your #1 job either. If you had simply gone to a public university you could have avoided that entire situation you faced now, no? Or gone to a CC first?
Overall, if you don't have any money to start with, and you know your dream job requires a PhD, maybe you should realize that it's not feasible to get your dream job so soon. Maybe you'll have to do other stuff in the meantime, then go back to school, etc.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
It wouldn't be 10% of your wages. For someone on minimum wage the payment would be virtually zero.
I think it's fair. Back when my parents went to school you could declare bakrupcty on them - now you are chained to debt for life in a market with 50% youth unemployment. Plus the fact school should be free anyway like any civilized country. They actually tax people who have it and make investment in thier kids rather than chaining them to debt for life out of the starting gate.
Except unemployment rate is no where near that much. It's less than 10%. Some estimates say it's between 5.5-7.5% unemployment for recent college grads. Which is at the highest it's been in decades, yes. But it's not quite as bad as this thread is portraying it.
"And, according to Time Magazine, 54% of all Americans between the ages of 18 to 24 are unemployed."
Those numbers are heavily skewed by high school dropouts and high school graduates without any college degrees, who have been hit significantly, significantly harder than college graduates in terms of employment.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
On April 22 2012 16:06 W2 wrote: I'm going to be $200k+ in debt when I graduate, which will probably mean getting ass raped by Sallie Mae for 20 years if not for this bill.
I know it is not fair to those who did paid off their loans completely. But let's get some perspective. From what I gather, next year the best loan you can get, which they call goverment subsidized, is at 6.8% interest. That adds up fast...
So what's the current status on this bill?
So you made a horrible/stupid financial decision and now you want everyone else to chip in and bail you out? Should we do the same for people who fall in debt from gambling? Think of the consequences of this. Imagine if the world had never been introduced to Hardball with Keanu Reeves. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
IMO student shouldn't have to worry about financial decisions, society should take care of this as a whole. The younger generation should not be held back just because they/their family cannot afford proper education. And gambling debts/credit debts are very different then student loan debts.
And we should have bubblegum houses and streets paved with chocolate and everyone should be a millionaire.
Other countries are doing a much better job than the US is doing.
Also both bubblegum houses sound more like the creatures of nightmares.
Also no other countries have their post-secondary paid for by the government but run and profited from by private institutions. Do you know why? Because it's a terrible fucking disastrous idea. Tuition would be $50k/year within five years and people will still attend because they won't have to pay for it. The USA will end up paying twice as much as any other country for a far inferior system.
I'm not sure what a post-secondary is. In fact I'm not even sure I know what you're saying at all. However, if you are saying what I think you're saying, I'd just like to point out that education is free in Sweden. You are even paid to study, and have access to a generous 1,5% interest loan on top if you want it (which, if you live frugally, will cover everything).
I'm not sure what a post-secondary is. In fact I'm not even sure I know what you're saying at all. However, if you are saying what I think you're saying, I'd just like to point out that education is free in Sweden. You are even paid to study, and have access to a generous 1,5% interest loan on top if you want it (which, if you live frugally, will cover everything).
While that may be true in Sweden, and perhaps many countries of the world, I would like to point out that most of the best universities in the world are located in the United States. People come from all over the globe to attend school here.
Now, we could argue about the price of education all day, but I can guarantee that these institutions would not be as highly ranked if education here was free. To be the best, you have to attract top talent (ie: the best faculty in the world), have the best facilities, and have global outreach. That sort of thing is not cheap.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
Of course. There's no reason not to do extensive research. I know I did when I planned out my career path. But for something like med school, law school, business etc., you could easily wind up with a massive debt just because you aren't prepared for a sudden downturn in employment. The best and brightest lawyers, doctors, businessmen, engineers, teachers, and even humanities/history majors will find their way around a poor job market, and probably be able to avoid loans with the help of merit scholarships and work. But the best and brightest are a select few, and those who suddenly get the short end of a change in job openings shouldn't be doomed to spend their entire life paying off debt off a minuscule salary.
On April 19 2012 05:05 GrayArea wrote: As a future grad student who is going to be going into 300k+ debt, I can easily say that it's simply ridiculous how high tuition and interest rates are. If they are going to be putting us this deep into the hole, they need more programs that offer loan forgiveness. Signed the petition. You don't truly appreciate how much debt, work, time, effort it all is until you actually go into that much debt yourself. Support this.
How many years did you spend in university and what kind of a degree did you get?
Unless you got a degree with actual job prospects and can be paid over 100K / year, than you've wasted 300K$ and should be responsible for it yourself.
And if you can make over 100K a year with whatever degree you get, you should still pay for it yourself.
I will be going to medical school. Sure, I will be able to pay it off, but it will take me 10 years, if not more, to do it.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
Difference between you and I is that you accept that the world has to be harsh and mean. I don't believe it HAS to be that way.
On April 23 2012 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote: Those numbers are heavily skewed by high school dropouts and high school graduates without any college degrees, who have been hit significantly, significantly harder than college graduates in terms of employment.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
We pay significantly more than our parents ever had to....you're trolling right? kids trolling.
you take out higher loans and you will pay more, sure, that's how the world works.
kid? yep, that's me. just a tiny little youngin...
edit: my father finished law school with ~$65,000 in student loans. the job he got with the DA afterwards started at ~$20,000, the job now starts at ~$60,000. say you go through law school with ~$200,000 of debt, you would be paying about the same amount compared to your income that my parents did.
Really? So according to you there is no loan crisis? You think the loan situation in this country is the same?
...
Let me answers this for you: there is a new loan crisis. Student debt is near 1 trillion in this country. While your father's law school debts were pricey back in the day, he is a lawyer, and he is blessed with a high paying job that can do that. Nowadays, people getting four year undergraduate degrees (who don't make as much as lawyers) are paying exorbitant amounts of moneys and aren't getting jobs that pay like lawyers. Some are making 40,000 dollars a year after college....if someone went to the generic large public institution in my state and had parents who couldn't help them afford it they would be 88,000 dollars in debt. That will take a long time to pay off with a 40,000 dollar year job. (That's assuming they get a job - unemployment has been pretty bad recently with tumbling economy, you know? Not like 15 years ago.) Do you understand?
blessed with a high paying job, huh? yeah, he sure was blessed. had nothing to do with working hard and busting his ass. nope, it was all luck of the draw.
$40,000/yr with $88,000 of debt.
my parents had $65,000 of debt, with a $22,000/yr job, 3 kids with another on the way. my mom had to drop out of school and work two full-time jobs while pregnant and taking care of an infant. we had some pretty crappy times, but we got through it. took my parents 25 years to pay off their student loans. it will take them another 25 years to pay off the mortgage on the house, if they ever are able to.
so you'll forgive me if i'm not exactly sympathetic to someone who is going to have to pay less in proportion to their income than my parents did and most likely doesn't have kids. everyone in this thread seems to have some idea that life was just a breeze before 2008 and college was so cheap that anyone at all could just waltz in and get it, and that there was ninety jobs for every one college graduate. it's funny to hear the excuses.
"it will take a long time to pay off!!"
yeah. it will. you may be in debt for the rest of your life, if you weren't careful. and you know what? that sucks, but that's the way stuff works. you take out a loan, you have to pay it back. i don't care what excuses you have, because everyone has excuses: if you did not think you could or would pay back your loans then you should not have taken them. but you did take them. OK, that's fine, you'll have to be uncomfortable. but now you want all the people who did pay their debts, and who did keep their promises, to come in and save you from your own bad choices. you can give me any reason or excuse why we should that you want, but i'm not gonna buy it. earlier someone said, basically:
"what a depressing life! i wouldn't want to live like that!" in response to someone saying that they may have to take 20 years paying off their student loans. can i laugh or should i cry at that? so my parents, who took 25 years to pay off their debts, are supposed to now foot the bill so that you don't have to take 20 years to pay off your debt? so I, who am doing everything i can to keep my loans extremely low, have no entertainment budget whatsoever and have no car, am supposed to foot the bill for someone who took out over $100,000 in loans and spent every penny of it in 4 years or less? you want to talk about fairness? how is that fair to me? how is that fair to my parents?
no, but you see "lawyer" and you think that we're just swimming in money and we could totally spare some. never-mind that my parents are in huge debt themselves due to bad decisions in their lifetimes, but have not once asked for a handout or forgiveness, and won't get it even if they wanted it. never mind the fact that you made the choice to take out loans and you made the choice to pursue a degree in an area that didn't give you benefit, never mind that none of your debt is anyone elses responsibility. let's just force the responsibility onto other people so that you don't have to take a long time paying back your loans. let's just give everyone grants, because a loan that doesn't have to be payed back is a grant.
i have heard all the sob stories. i have heard all of the tales of woe about there being no jobs and no money and crushing debt. i have heard all of it and i sympathize, but at the same time, i don't care. taking care of you and your debts is not my job, is not my parent's job, and is not CEO Richy Rich's job either, and forcing that responsibility on us is not only unfair, it makes no economic sense. colleges will have no incentive whatsoever to lower tuition and costs, and working people who are driving the economy will have another burden added upon their already weighted shoulders.
if it sounds harsh and mean, it's because the world is harsh and mean. for the love of christ, how was that not taught to you people in college?
Difference between you and I is that you accept that the world has to be harsh and mean. I don't believe it HAS to be that way.
No, I think the difference is that he sees the world as it IS, and you don't.
most people waste money in college, they get all these loans and just party and play video games, then when they graduate nobody wants to hire them cause they had terrible grades.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Also, for us high and mighty business majors who get off on being the step above liberal arts in the degree food chain, I urge you to not completely discount what liberal arts does for all students. I can proudly say that studying philosophy has enhanced my abilities as an accountant, but I'm only one story. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576556553753330210.html
Though I do agree with most liberal arts degree bashing in the thread, I only do so because I recognized its drop in value while I was attending school during and after the 2008 crash. I don't think it's fair to hold that standard of "I saw it coming why didn't you" for everybody because what about the Freshman class of 2008 who in 2006 and 2007 where told by their parents, teachers, pop culture, and society that they MUST go to college or flounder financially. There are a million different scenarios that played out during that crash and once the dust settled, we saw that the Liberal Arts majors are now deemed worth "less" than other majors. There is no easy way to reverse this mentality that college is essential because it is has been so deeply engraved in our culture by the baby boomers and their children.
Just to tease out a personal antidote and help illustrate a bit, back in 2007 when I was considering which colleges to go to, my reasoning for not attending a JC was because that's where I thought failures went. That's where I thought the people who messed up during high school regained their footing. This way of thinking permeated throughout most of my high school peers because a) it held a lot of truth at the time since most students from my very good high school went to college, and b) I had been taught throughout my education that college is where you go if you succeeded (to any degree) in high school.
Obviously I do not view JC the same anymore, but I clearly remember that being a reason for me NOT to go to a JC in 2007. I think what we are witnessing now as the student debt bubble readies to burst is a sharp change in ideology and eventually consumers (parents, students, etc) will view college more as an investment rather than a necessity. Unfortunately, this clashes with the old wisdom of college education automatically leads to a better life. This idea that college is necessary will take a long time to uproot out of our culture and be replaced. It's also sad because I believe that college can be the gateway to an advanced civilization, but not in its current form.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's worse in states like Georgia where I live. There are a few others too where the minimum wage is $5.15/hour. That's $2.10 lower then the federal minimum wage. Blows my fucking mind. What the hell is the point of having a federal minimum wage if states can set there own?
I'm pretty sure people around here working minimum wage live with their parents. I don't see how its possible to afford even a basic apartment by yourself.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's worse in states like Georgia where I live. There are a few others too where the minimum wage is $5.15/hour. That's $2.10 lower then the federal minimum wage. Blows my fucking mind. What the hell is the point of having a federal minimum wage if states can set there own?
I'm pretty sure people around here working minimum wage live with their parents. I don't see how its possible to afford even a basic apartment by yourself.
When a state's minimum wage is lower than the federal, minimum wage workers are paid the federal rate. It's still ludicrously low, however, and insufficient to avoid death in many cases without any sort of other assistance.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's worse in states like Georgia where I live. There are a few others too where the minimum wage is $5.15/hour. That's $2.10 lower then the federal minimum wage. Blows my fucking mind. What the hell is the point of having a federal minimum wage if states can set there own?
I'm pretty sure people around here working minimum wage live with their parents. I don't see how its possible to afford even a basic apartment by yourself.
When a state's minimum wage is lower than the federal, minimum wage workers are paid the federal rate. It's still ludicrously low, however, and insufficient to avoid death in many cases without any sort of other assistance.
Cost of living in places where the minimum wage is low is also low. In cali minimum wage is 8, but the cost of living is high. The less programs you have the cheaper it is to live somewhere, so in cali we got a shitton. I got relatives up in North Dakota where they don't have many state sponsored programs, and the cost of a million dollar home here costs about ~160k there. With the oil rush it might have changed, lodging is in demand.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Also, for us high and mighty business majors who get off on being the step above liberal arts in the degree food chain, I urge you to not completely discount what liberal arts does for all students. I can proudly say that studying philosophy has enhanced my abilities as an accountant, but I'm only one story. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576556553753330210.html
Though I do agree with most liberal arts degree bashing in the thread, I only do so because I recognized its drop in value while I was attending school during and after the 2008 crash. I don't think it's fair to hold that standard of "I saw it coming why didn't you" for everybody because what about the Freshman class of 2008 who in 2006 and 2007 where told by their parents, teachers, pop culture, and society that they MUST go to college or flounder financially. There are a million different scenarios that played out during that crash and once the dust settled, we saw that the Liberal Arts majors are now deemed worth "less" than other majors. There is no easy way to reverse this mentality that college is essential because it is has been so deeply engraved in our culture by the baby boomers and their children.
Just to tease out a personal antidote and help illustrate a bit, back in 2007 when I was considering which colleges to go to, my reasoning for not attending a JC was because that's where I thought failures went. That's where I thought the people who messed up during high school regained their footing. This way of thinking permeated throughout most of my high school peers because a) it held a lot of truth at the time since most students from my very good high school went to college, and b) I had been taught throughout my education that college is where you go if you succeeded (to any degree) in high school.
Obviously I do not view JC the same anymore, but I clearly remember that being a reason for me NOT to go to a JC in 2007. I think what we are witnessing now as the student debt bubble readies to burst is a sharp change in ideology and eventually consumers (parents, students, etc) will view college more as an investment rather than a necessity. Unfortunately, this clashes with the old wisdom of college education automatically leads to a better life. This idea that college is necessary will take a long time to uproot out of our culture and be replaced. It's also sad because I believe that college can be the gateway to an advanced civilization, but not in its current form.
I agree with this. I was raised to get good grades in school, my parents and siblings went to college, my friends went to college, and it was (and is) as much a part of me as anything else.
And on a side note, though I got a EE degree, I took lots of 'soft' classes for my own enjoyment. I believe they did good things for me that can't be measured by its marketability.
I think its extremely naive to believe that the government will reimburse student loan debt in any significant way.. Not only are financial institutions dependent on collecting on that debt in order to shore up their balance sheets, but the amount of money you would need to cover any significant portion of all student debt would be significantly larger than what the government has available.. Sorry kids, you're now debt slaves.. go get a a job.
On April 23 2012 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote: Those numbers are heavily skewed by high school dropouts and high school graduates without any college degrees, who have been hit significantly, significantly harder than college graduates in terms of employment.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Also, for us high and mighty business majors who get off on being the step above liberal arts in the degree food chain, I urge you to not completely discount what liberal arts does for all students. I can proudly say that studying philosophy has enhanced my abilities as an accountant, but I'm only one story.
I would sure hope so, and I also hope you aren't the only story, since philosophy classes are mandatory if you want to become a CPA. I'm an accounting minor (my backup plan, which everyone should have one), so I know all the prerequisites for the CPA exam. Although I'm not sure if the philosophy, specifically ethics, classes are mandatory nationwide or just in California. Regardless, I've already taken it.
Also, how you view JC is no excuse. That doesn't mean the system is broken.
On April 24 2012 07:16 Cytokinesis wrote: Only in America
Happy birthday dude, enjoy your maple syrup...
Crazy shit happens here all day. Whats the situation like for education up north?
Can't say school is free but the government pays for something like 80% of your tuition just because. You'd be hard pressed to have a loan over 50k for a degree (50k meaning living off of nothing but student loans). Only costs about 500$ a class per semester. Plus it's quite easy to pay back compared to the loans in the US, they forgive a lot of the debt once you graduate. (Out of my 40 thousand loan I only ended up having to pay back something like 20 thousand, in a lot of cases you only pay back the loans you got for living expense and not the actual classes). But things could have changed since I last checked.
I just think it's so crazy the situation in the US. Just seems so weird coming from a place where education is (relatively) cheap. It's not even like our taxes are much more than yours either. (A couple percent at most)
My friend from China says that the government there only pays for the education of people who it considers to be worth while to society and produce wealth, aka people who want to become engineers and other similar fields. Dont know if it is actually true or not, anyone else heard anything like this?
They say that debt is not a problem as long as it is manageable.
The problem with United states is the interest rates on the student loans. You guys in the USA are paying ridiculous interest rates for loans on which people do not have a proper income to pay with. If the student loans was only affected by the CPI (like in Australia), there will be no problem, people can work even on minimal wages and still able to pay it off. At the moment, it seems like people are even having trouble with interest repayments which is a complete joke IMO.
US government needs a real wake up call fast. 8% loans (I hear from this thread) is just plain ridiculous, and if the government does really believe that education is the only way out of poverty then you need to treat the young citizens better.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
depends LARGELY where you live. if you live in a state like california where i am for example, cost of living is much much higher than most of the country.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
Minimum wage covers rent, but it doesn't cover:
Food Heat Beer Internet Car Bus pass
Yeah it does and nobody is going to feel sorry for you because you can't have beer and a car (with a bus pass too lol). If you want more you need to produce more. If anything blame the government because of payroll taxes.
EDIT: oh and Silidons Cost of living in US is a lot lower than other 1st world countries. Plus minimum wage varies state by state so you cant use the location excuse. In SF minimum wage is $10.15
On April 24 2012 13:12 Zariel wrote: They say that debt is not a problem as long as it is manageable.
The problem with United states is the interest rates on the student loans. You guys in the USA are paying ridiculous interest rates for loans on which people do not have a proper income to pay with. If the student loans was only affected by the CPI (like in Australia), there will be no problem, people can work even on minimal wages and still able to pay it off. At the moment, it seems like people are even having trouble with interest repayments which is a complete joke IMO.
US government needs a real wake up call fast. 8% loans (I hear from this thread) is just plain ridiculous, and if the government does really believe that education is the only way out of poverty then you need to treat the young citizens better.
It's 6.8% if you don't qualify for any of the extra help, otherwise it's 5.4%. If you're taking 8% you're usually delving into "plus" rate loans, which means you're taking out more than you need, since the basic loans should adequately cover your tuition + books.
The biggest group getting hit right now as we see are the people that are in the 6.8% section. These are the middle or middle-upper class usually (well, the parents. The kids themselves might be well off or shit broke depending on their parents generosity towards them). Those who are super poor usually get almost all of their tuition covered in financial aid, as well as rent.
Don't get me wrong though, 6.8% can still be a total bitch. As I've stated prior, I'd much sooner see the government simply lower the interest rate depending your status of employment and your income rather than simply forgive the debt. For example, 0% interest and defer payment for the first 6 months you're unemployed, maybe gradually climbs up to 2% after that (say if you're unemployed for 2 years it would hit 2%)... those making minimum wage 2.5%, etc.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
As said earlier btw, at least according to this thread, it isn't 10% of your income earned/taxable income, but 10% of your discretionary income, which for a minimum wage person should be near 0.
Say you're working 40 hours per week making $7.25 an hour, or $290 a week. You're also receiving welfare if you're making this much. How much rent should you expect to pay? $500 to split a place with someone else? Surely you don't think someone on minimum wage should be living alone? If you have a wife, she's making $290 as well and paying half.
You're also probably on food stamps, so that cuts the cost of food. You're paying essentially $0 tax because of how little you make - especially since you're going to qualify most likely for tax credits. I imagine the biggest hit would be social security.
You could go to worse areas for less than $500 as well, but meh. I don't know if I could advocate that. Other things like car insurance, gas, etc. are where it will really hit you. If you're making minimum wage though, you should highly consider switching to public transportation. That's what a lot of people do. I used to take the bus to work back when I was making $6.75 per hour when I was 15, you save your money a lot faster that way.
On April 24 2012 13:12 Zariel wrote: They say that debt is not a problem as long as it is manageable.
The problem with United states is the interest rates on the student loans. You guys in the USA are paying ridiculous interest rates for loans on which people do not have a proper income to pay with. If the student loans was only affected by the CPI (like in Australia), there will be no problem, people can work even on minimal wages and still able to pay it off. At the moment, it seems like people are even having trouble with interest repayments which is a complete joke IMO.
US government needs a real wake up call fast. 8% loans (I hear from this thread) is just plain ridiculous, and if the government does really believe that education is the only way out of poverty then you need to treat the young citizens better.
It's 6.8% if you don't qualify for any of the extra help, otherwise it's 5.4%. If you're taking 8% you're usually delving into "plus" rate loans, which means you're taking out more than you need, since the basic loans should adequately cover your tuition + books.
The biggest group getting hit right now as we see are the people that are in the 6.8% section. These are the middle or middle-upper class usually (well, the parents. The kids themselves might be well off or shit broke depending on their parents generosity towards them). Those who are super poor usually get almost all of their tuition covered in financial aid, as well as rent.
Don't get me wrong though, 6.8% can still be a total bitch. As I've stated prior, I'd much sooner see the government simply lower the interest rate depending your status of employment and your income rather than simply forgive the debt. For example, 0% interest and defer payment for the first 6 months you're unemployed, maybe gradually climbs up to 2% after that (say if you're unemployed for 2 years it would hit 2%)... those making minimum wage 2.5%, etc.
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
As said earlier btw, at least according to this thread, it isn't 10% of your income earned/taxable income, but 10% of your discretionary income, which for a minimum wage person should be near 0.
Say you're working 40 hours per week making $7.25 an hour, or $290 a week. You're also receiving welfare if you're making this much. How much rent should you expect to pay? $500 to split a place with someone else? Surely you don't think someone on minimum wage should be living alone? If you have a wife, she's making $290 as well and paying half.
You're also probably on food stamps, so that cuts the cost of food. You're paying essentially $0 tax because of how little you make - especially since you're going to qualify most likely for tax credits. I imagine the biggest hit would be social security.
You could go to worse areas for less than $500 as well, but meh. I don't know if I could advocate that. Other things like car insurance, gas, etc. are where it will really hit you. If you're making minimum wage though, you should highly consider switching to public transportation. That's what a lot of people do. I used to take the bus to work back when I was making $6.75 per hour when I was 15, you save your money a lot faster that way.
The thing about minimum wage jobs is that they usually don't come with 40 hours a week. And with many employers, it's difficult to get a second job, since they like you to have "open" availability rather than a set schedule of hours. And yea, maybe at the end of the day you can pay for rent, food, utilities, and gas without a negative balance. But then the day that your car breaks down and you need a $500 repair, well, tough luck. Random things happen in your financial life, additional costs that are not part of your monthly bill cycle. And it's this that pretty much makes minimum wage very difficult to live off of.
Of course, I say this from the perspective of not receiving any sort of welfare or government aid.
On April 24 2012 14:52 shinosai wrote: The thing about minimum wage jobs is that they usually don't come with 40 hours a week. And with many employers, it's difficult to get a second job, since they like you to have "open" availability rather than a set schedule of hours. And yea, maybe at the end of the day you can pay for rent, food, utilities, and gas without a negative balance. But then the day that your car breaks down and you need a $500 repair, well, tough luck. Random things happen in your financial life, additional costs that are not part of your monthly bill cycle. And it's this that pretty much makes minimum wage very difficult to live off of.
Of course, I say this from the perspective of not receiving any sort of welfare or government aid.
I hope I didn't imply it was easy or anything of that sort. Yeah, it'd be a complete bitch, and with no safety net or health insurance you'd always be living on edge.
On April 24 2012 13:12 Zariel wrote: They say that debt is not a problem as long as it is manageable.
The problem with United states is the interest rates on the student loans. You guys in the USA are paying ridiculous interest rates for loans on which people do not have a proper income to pay with. If the student loans was only affected by the CPI (like in Australia), there will be no problem, people can work even on minimal wages and still able to pay it off. At the moment, it seems like people are even having trouble with interest repayments which is a complete joke IMO.
US government needs a real wake up call fast. 8% loans (I hear from this thread) is just plain ridiculous, and if the government does really believe that education is the only way out of poverty then you need to treat the young citizens better.
It's 6.8% if you don't qualify for any of the extra help, otherwise it's 5.4%. If you're taking 8% you're usually delving into "plus" rate loans, which means you're taking out more than you need, since the basic loans should adequately cover your tuition + books.
The biggest group getting hit right now as we see are the people that are in the 6.8% section. These are the middle or middle-upper class usually (well, the parents. The kids themselves might be well off or shit broke depending on their parents generosity towards them). Those who are super poor usually get almost all of their tuition covered in financial aid, as well as rent.
Don't get me wrong though, 6.8% can still be a total bitch. As I've stated prior, I'd much sooner see the government simply lower the interest rate depending your status of employment and your income rather than simply forgive the debt. For example, 0% interest and defer payment for the first 6 months you're unemployed, maybe gradually climbs up to 2% after that (say if you're unemployed for 2 years it would hit 2%)... those making minimum wage 2.5%, etc.
On April 24 2012 13:18 -_-Quails wrote:
On April 24 2012 07:28 FabledIntegral wrote:
On April 24 2012 03:20 -_-Quails wrote:
On April 23 2012 04:35 Figgy wrote:
On April 18 2012 09:25 acerockolla wrote: I don't like it either. Last time I read it, it only forgives the debt of those not earning beyond a certain threshold. What's the point of making bad decisions consequence free and penalizing those that are successful? If anything, they should simply make student loans harder to receive. Too many people see it as free money and gobble up as much as they can.
10% of your income for 10 years is still huge when you are making minimum wage. It just means that those leaving university not able (or capable) to get a job won't be completely boned their entire life. Being able to pay back $20,000 when making 7$ (Yes, the minimum wage in the USA is an absolute joke, it's even lower in some states) an hour in the USA is a terrible spot to be in. There is a reason there is so much poverty and crime compared to other first world countries.
...I knew the minimum wage was low in the US, but that's insanely low. How do you even make rent on that kind of wage?
It's more than enough to make rent. What it isn't enough is to support a family. Thus, if you're making minimum wage, you're in no financial situation to start a family, and if you try to do so anyways, you're financially irresponsible.
Cost of living and rent must be much lower in the US than here.
As said earlier btw, at least according to this thread, it isn't 10% of your income earned/taxable income, but 10% of your discretionary income, which for a minimum wage person should be near 0.
Say you're working 40 hours per week making $7.25 an hour, or $290 a week. You're also receiving welfare if you're making this much. How much rent should you expect to pay? $500 to split a place with someone else? Surely you don't think someone on minimum wage should be living alone? If you have a wife, she's making $290 as well and paying half.
You're also probably on food stamps, so that cuts the cost of food. You're paying essentially $0 tax because of how little you make - especially since you're going to qualify most likely for tax credits. I imagine the biggest hit would be social security.
You could go to worse areas for less than $500 as well, but meh. I don't know if I could advocate that. Other things like car insurance, gas, etc. are where it will really hit you. If you're making minimum wage though, you should highly consider switching to public transportation. That's what a lot of people do. I used to take the bus to work back when I was making $6.75 per hour when I was 15, you save your money a lot faster that way.
Is the $500 per week or per month?
Per month. It'd definitely be on the lower end of things but you could manage. I mean, I personally for the first three places I lived in spent $375, $250, and $480 per month (in that order) for places, finally upped it to $520 and my own room (first time!) where I'm living now. It's not a family environment, but as I said before, minimum wage isn't meant to support families.
On April 24 2012 12:17 lordofsoup wrote: My friend from China says that the government there only pays for the education of people who it considers to be worth while to society and produce wealth, aka people who want to become engineers and other similar fields. Dont know if it is actually true or not, anyone else heard anything like this?
You can only get into the top high schools in China if you score very well on entrance exams (yes high schools have entrance exams). If you aren't up to snuff by the time you're 14, you get shunted to worse schools.
Uni in China is insanely cheap though. Full ride scholarships are not really common, even for pretty good students at top engineering Unis. I talked to a bunch of EE guys at Beijing Institute of Technology, for instance (like top 10 EE in the country there), basically nobody was on a full ride.
Still really, really fuggin' cheap. Cheaper housing too, unlike US college dorms which are a complete racket.
And yes, they have a higher emphasis towards technical degrees (a large number of unemployed technical graduates too). Also they have class and study for like 10~14 hours a day. So... yea. Hard to find a seat to study in open classrooms / libraries even at like 8 am on a Saturday towards the beginning of a semester at a good Uni.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
Not true. There are lots of degrees that are in demand. It's just folks never look at current demands and projected demand (take it with a grain of salt, but it's better than not looking at all) over the next four years. I would almost always recommend people to go down a route that provides another person value...which means really find a job that will always be in want or demand. Some examples would be pretty much most medical degrees, almost all vocational / technical AS / BS / Certificates / etc., Engineering, Math / Accounting, etc.
If you want to pursue cultural and art degrees afterwards fine, do so, but don't expect to make a living with degrees that provide nearly no value to others. That's just setting yourself up to be royally screwed. People need to have some common sense.
^Agree I would also like to add that many liberal arts degrees aren't exactly dead end, but they require you start at pretty much the bottom. Many companies just want college-level grads over high school and through gaining experience by working you can form a career. My sister had a degree in sociology and was doing clerical work for low pay but she learned the ropes of a salesman of advanced machinery and is now making as much as an engineer would. This is just an example, but work experience can affect careers just as much as degrees.
On April 24 2012 22:08 xavra41 wrote: ^Agree I would also like to add that many liberal arts degrees aren't exactly dead end, but they require you start at pretty much the bottom. Many companies just want college-level grads over high school and through gaining experience by working you can form a career. My sister had a degree in sociology and was doing clerical work for low pay but she learned the ropes of a salesman of advanced machinery and is now making as much as an engineer would. This is just an example, but work experience can affect careers just as much as degrees.
How did the Sociology degree prepare her for doing clerical work ? My guess is that any high school grad could have done the exact same thing, and thus it's not much of an argument that her degree isn't useless. If the company required 'a college degree', then wouldn't she have been better off if her degree prepared her for 'something' ?
On April 24 2012 22:08 xavra41 wrote: ^Agree I would also like to add that many liberal arts degrees aren't exactly dead end, but they require you start at pretty much the bottom. Many companies just want college-level grads over high school and through gaining experience by working you can form a career. My sister had a degree in sociology and was doing clerical work for low pay but she learned the ropes of a salesman of advanced machinery and is now making as much as an engineer would. This is just an example, but work experience can affect careers just as much as degrees.
How did the Sociology degree prepare her for doing clerical work ? My guess is that any high school grad could have done the exact same thing, and thus it's not much of an argument that her degree isn't useless. If the company required 'a college degree', then wouldn't she have been better off if her degree prepared her for 'something' ?
Many companies won't even consider you for bottom-rung work unless you have a college degree. College grads are likely to be hard-working and intelligent (college ain't easy, although some colleges aren't hard either) and less likely to be flighty (many grads have a huge student debt, which means they're unlikely to just get bored and quit). Not a guarantee, just a broad generalization of the sort that HR workers are forced to make every day.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Some crazy people think that maybe, just maybe, they can somehow make a living without living in front of a computer 50 hours a week. Most of them are wrong.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
Most uneducated post I have seen on this website in a long time.
I have a degree in chemistry and I make well over $18/ hour. I'm salaried with good benefits performing quality controll on many products, some of which Im betting you have in your house right now. There's a little thing called the FDA that makes our positions mandatory and pretty permanent. Do you even work in the real world or are you still a student? I hope you're still a student so that we can chalk this up to ignorance rather than just flat-out stupidity.
Back on topic, there is no reason to forgive student loans. You know what you are borrowing before you sign you name. This bill would make the easy train even easier, I swear that people just dont want to be responsible for anything these days....
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Well, I think it's a bit more than you're making it seem to be. Tuition is say 12k per year, so you're looking at around 48k now assuming tuition isn't going to increase, which it will. If you need to cover books as well say another 1k per year, or 4k total. All the stupid fucking fees that come out of university probably accumulate another $500 per year, not to mention that many universities mandate you have health insurance or you cannot attend, which is around $1,300 per year (heavily subsidized by the school to be so cheap for the coverage you get). 12k + 1k + .5k + 1.3k = 14,800. I always like to assume rent, food, and car issues are covered by working a part time job during the school year and full time during summer. So we're looking at about 15,000 per year, or 60,000 for a four year education. At least in California UC schools, that's how it works, heavily generalized. Of course, that's if you go the public education route and not the JC route.
Assuming compounding interest that begins the moment you take out each payment because you don't qualify for subsidized loans, an annual interest rate of 6.8%, a quarterly schedule where you don't attend summer, four years of attendance, and taking out loans each quarter before they start, you'd have
N = 12, I/Y = 2.667, PMT = 5,000 and thus around $68,075 of loans when you graduate with $8,075 of it being interest. Someone feel free to correct me if I did that wrong, but not in any corporate finance courses this quarter.
The numbers are slightly off as well since you don't take out each $5,000 payment on Jan 1, May 1, and Sept 1, but it should be close enough....
dunno about the US, but a simple BSc (bachelor of science) will never land you an industry related job in chemistry/physics or whatever in toronto. it's just not possible. i know one guy that got a food inspection gig at the government with a bachelors a couple years ago, but since then they upped the requirements to a postgrad degree in microbiology or related field. so if he quit and reapplied to the same job, he would not qualify.
most of the people i know that graduated with only a BSc just switched careers, switched programs or are enrolled in a professional school.
The amount of money you have to pay for a COLLEGE is HUGE !!! Why not learn a foreigen language and go and make the college in another country where you will pay about nothing compared to USA. There are lots of countries where the grass is greener like ROMANIA. You look for places where the diploma is recongnized and the quality of education can be better and way more cheaper. Plus you will feel like a boss with the amount of money you take with you from USA.
With 400$ a month you could eat the whole time only in restaurants or if you cook with 150$. Rent 250$ a studio. Charges 70$ a month. The payed university is about 1000$ a year. That is (150+250+70)*12 + 1000$ = 6640$ a year and for 4 years = 6640*4 = 26560$. This will be the cost if you don't work at all the whole time and you know how to cook for your self. If you also work you will get about 400$ a month so you will gain like 400*12*4 = 19200$ year and substracting from 26560$ you whole education will only cost you 7360$
On April 25 2012 02:58 mmagic wrote: The amount of money you have to pay for a COLLEGE is HUGE !!! Why not learn a foreigen language and go and make the college in another country where you will pay about nothing compared to USA. There are lots of countries where the grass is greener like ROMANIA. You look for places where the diploma is recongnized and the quality of education can be better and way more cheaper. Plus you will feel like a boss with the amount of money you take with you from USA.
With 400$ a month you could eat the whole time only in restaurants or if you cook with 150$. Rent 250$ a studio. Charges 70$ a month. The payed university is about 1000$ a year. That is (150+250+70)*12 + 1000$ = 6640$ a year and for 4 years = 6640*4 = 26560$. This will be the cost if you don't work at all the whole time and you know how to cook for your self. If you also work you will get about 400$ a month so you will gain like 400*12*4 = 19200$ year and substracting from 26560$ you whole education will only cost you 7360$
I'm glad to see that you can do numerical exercises, but how about considering non-monetary costs and travel costs. Your assumptions are too thin and don't paint the real picture. You assume a U.S. student would willingly fly out to Romania, but you need to remember that the U.S. student probably has family he/she will want to visit several times a year. On top of that, I don't know how many people would value a Romania degree in relationship with its cost savings. My guess is that if it's not recognized in the local area, it's not going to carry much value. Why would an U.S. employer consider a Romania degree candidate for which he/she knows nothing about when he/she could hire a local state school candidate and know with greater certainty what kind of employee he/she is hiring.
Much a degree's value comes from society's deemed value of the university itself. This societal value accumulates over time and rises and falls as its graduates succeed or fail among other things.
That being said, all top colleges are either in the United States/Canada, or Western Europe and maybe China/S.Korea. Romania never comes to mind, nor does many Eastern European countries. And if you're one of the majority of students not attending a top college, you strive for the "best" you can or what you can afford (hopefully both). http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
On April 25 2012 02:58 mmagic wrote: The amount of money you have to pay for a COLLEGE is HUGE !!! Why not learn a foreigen language and go and make the college in another country where you will pay about nothing compared to USA. There are lots of countries where the grass is greener like ROMANIA. You look for places where the diploma is recongnized and the quality of education can be better and way more cheaper. Plus you will feel like a boss with the amount of money you take with you from USA.
With 400$ a month you could eat the whole time only in restaurants or if you cook with 150$. Rent 250$ a studio. Charges 70$ a month. The payed university is about 1000$ a year. That is (150+250+70)*12 + 1000$ = 6640$ a year and for 4 years = 6640*4 = 26560$. This will be the cost if you don't work at all the whole time and you know how to cook for your self. If you also work you will get about 400$ a month so you will gain like 400*12*4 = 19200$ year and substracting from 26560$ you whole education will only cost you 7360$
I'm glad to see that you can do numerical exercises, but how about considering non-monetary costs and travel costs. Your assumptions are too thin and don't paint the real picture. You assume a U.S. student would willingly fly out to Romania, but you need to remember that the U.S. student probably has family he/she will want to visit several times a year. On top of that, I don't know how many people would value a Romania degree in relationship with its cost savings. My guess is that if it's not recognized in the local area, it's not going to carry much value. Why would an U.S. employer consider a Romania degree candidate for which he/she knows nothing about when he/she could hire a local state school candidate and know with greater certainty what kind of employee he/she is hiring.
Much a degree's value comes from society's deemed value of the university itself. This societal value accumulates over time and rises and falls as its graduates succeed or fail among other things.
That being said, all top colleges are either in the United States/Canada, or Western Europe and maybe China/S.Korea. Romania never comes to mind, nor does many Eastern European countries. And if you're one of the majority of students not attending a top college, you strive for the "best" you can or what you can afford (hopefully both). http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
As this person said, the actual quality of education isn't really as important as the name of the university and the prestige that comes along with it, not to mention unless it's a top foreign school, I'm fairly sure national schools are preferred.
The quality of education is fucking terrible at many of the classes I've attended, with professors who are only there to do research and don't know how to teach themselves. But we're ranked infinitely higher than a junior college, where the quality of education is significantly better a lot of the time. Which is why I'm so incredibly glad we have the guaranteed transfer system, so students can guarantee transfer from a JC (junior college costing a few hundred per semester) to a UC (University of California) as long as they maintain a certain GPA and take certain classes. It's truly a system that works and significantly helps the financially struggling with getting an identical degree, and potentially even a better education, than someone who attends a four year from the start.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
First, you are completely wrong in thinking that a job at the FBI is not hard to get. Second, the fact that they are less strict in their requirement for a particular degree type has more to do with the fact that they hire "people", then train them to do the job. This is also the situation with certain large investment banks mentioned earlier in the thread. They have their own extended training program which teaches what is necessary for the job, These employers are a very small minority. Most jobs are with small business, or even larger business, but without a training program of several months in place, they expect you to know how to do the job coming in. Therefore, non-job related degrees are basically next to worthless.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
One might think of 'professional degrees' as one that leads to a career where some certification is required. Medicine, law, accounting, actuarial, engineering, nursing, etc. I'm not of the opinion that 'business' is a professional degree, only certain business degrees would be, IMO. When I was in college, there was a 'general business' major, which was a little bit of everything, but prepared you for nothing type of business degree. Business degrees in marketing and management, imo, fall short of 'professional degrees' in my eyes.
On April 23 2012 07:25 phar wrote: I do not understand why people pay $30~$40k a year for Uni and major in fields where there are no jobs.
Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
First, you are completely wrong in thinking that a job at the FBI is not hard to get. Second, the fact that they are less strict in their requirement for a particular degree type has more to do with the fact that they hire "people", then train them to do the job. This is also the situation with certain large investment banks mentioned earlier in the thread. They have their own extended training program which teaches what is necessary for the job, These employers are a very small minority. Most jobs are with small business, or even larger business, but without a training program of several months in place, they expect you to know how to do the job coming in. Therefore, non-job related degrees are basically next to worthless.
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
One might think of 'professional degrees' as one that leads to a career where some certification is required. Medicine, law, accounting, actuarial, engineering, nursing, etc. I'm not of the opinion that 'business' is a professional degree, only certain business degrees would be, IMO. When I was in college, there was a 'general business' major, which was a little bit of everything, but prepared you for nothing type of business degree. Business degrees in marketing and management, imo, fall short of 'professional degrees' in my eyes.
What I said about the FBI was just based off what I heard from a family friend who has worked there ~15 years. He told me the hardest part about getting hired was passing the background check, but he might have been exaggerating.
Anyways, I don't think your major is as important as you make it out to be. Hardly anyone uses anything they learned in college in their day-to-day work, honestly. I think landing a good job upon graduation is a lot more dependent on having relevant internships and your ability to prove that you are a capable worker than anything else. The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
On April 23 2012 09:22 Lightwip wrote: [quote] Because no one has perfect foresight.
While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
First, you are completely wrong in thinking that a job at the FBI is not hard to get. Second, the fact that they are less strict in their requirement for a particular degree type has more to do with the fact that they hire "people", then train them to do the job. This is also the situation with certain large investment banks mentioned earlier in the thread. They have their own extended training program which teaches what is necessary for the job, These employers are a very small minority. Most jobs are with small business, or even larger business, but without a training program of several months in place, they expect you to know how to do the job coming in. Therefore, non-job related degrees are basically next to worthless.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Pillage wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:46 0mar wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:37 phar wrote:
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
One might think of 'professional degrees' as one that leads to a career where some certification is required. Medicine, law, accounting, actuarial, engineering, nursing, etc. I'm not of the opinion that 'business' is a professional degree, only certain business degrees would be, IMO. When I was in college, there was a 'general business' major, which was a little bit of everything, but prepared you for nothing type of business degree. Business degrees in marketing and management, imo, fall short of 'professional degrees' in my eyes.
What I said about the FBI was just based off what I heard from a family friend who has worked there ~15 years. He told me the hardest part about getting hired was passing the background check, but he might have been exaggerating.
Anyways, I don't think your major is as important as you make it out to be. Hardly anyone uses anything they learned in college in their day-to-day work, honestly. I think landing a good job upon graduation is a lot more dependent on having relevant internships and your ability to prove that you are a capable worker than anything else. The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
I'm assuming you have not yet graduated college. I bolded the part where you are just flat out wrong. The problem now is that people are figuring out the true value of their degrees and those degrees which provide general "critical thinking skills" in analyzing English prose are worth far less than degrees that provide "critical thinking skills" while applying technical knowledge. That's why the general consensus is that jobs with technical applicability fare better in the job market e.g. engineering, math, statistics, some business degrees (not marketing or management) etc...
For example, I'm an accounting major and I've needed to know the basics of ACCT 101 debits and credits and the accounting cycle before I can even begin to function in the accounting world. If you can't do debits and credits for double journal entry book keeping, there is nowhere for you to go because you can't get to the critical thinking aspect and application of your analysis if you don't understand the problem.
Also, you said
The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
Quite frankly I think college students know what employers are looking for: experience. We just can't get the needed experience without relevant jobs and the relevant jobs we apply to require experience that you would get by doing the job. It's a vicious catch 22 due to the fact that overqualified employees who have been downsized are desperately competing for the entry level jobs that used to go to college grads. In turn, college grads are taking the non-skill jobs that are left and not getting any pertinent work experience upon graduation.
Also, fun fact: Internships did not used to be a necessity for a job, but now they are and employers are taking advantage of the free labor we can provide for "school credit". I'm not blasting all internships, only unpaid internships. It's getting to the point where college students are expected to work for free to get "experience" that we so direly need to put on our resume. How is set-up any different than exploitation? More and more grads are getting locked into a permanent subservient working position because of these increased and often unattainable expectations for "entry level" career jobs. I say unattainable because most college kids cannot get 2-3 years of relevant working experience while in college. Some do, most can't because of the catch 22. Edit: here's an interesting read: http://www.youthandwork.ca/2011/09/generation-free-are-universities.html
On April 23 2012 09:37 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote] While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
First, you are completely wrong in thinking that a job at the FBI is not hard to get. Second, the fact that they are less strict in their requirement for a particular degree type has more to do with the fact that they hire "people", then train them to do the job. This is also the situation with certain large investment banks mentioned earlier in the thread. They have their own extended training program which teaches what is necessary for the job, These employers are a very small minority. Most jobs are with small business, or even larger business, but without a training program of several months in place, they expect you to know how to do the job coming in. Therefore, non-job related degrees are basically next to worthless.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Pillage wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:46 0mar wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:37 phar wrote:
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
One might think of 'professional degrees' as one that leads to a career where some certification is required. Medicine, law, accounting, actuarial, engineering, nursing, etc. I'm not of the opinion that 'business' is a professional degree, only certain business degrees would be, IMO. When I was in college, there was a 'general business' major, which was a little bit of everything, but prepared you for nothing type of business degree. Business degrees in marketing and management, imo, fall short of 'professional degrees' in my eyes.
What I said about the FBI was just based off what I heard from a family friend who has worked there ~15 years. He told me the hardest part about getting hired was passing the background check, but he might have been exaggerating.
Anyways, I don't think your major is as important as you make it out to be. Hardly anyone uses anything they learned in college in their day-to-day work, honestly. I think landing a good job upon graduation is a lot more dependent on having relevant internships and your ability to prove that you are a capable worker than anything else. The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
I'm assuming you have not yet graduated college. I bolded the part where you are just flat out wrong. The problem now is that people are figuring out the true value of their degrees and those degrees which provide general "critical thinking skills" in analyzing English prose are worth far less than degrees that provide "critical thinking skills" while applying technical knowledge. That's why the general consensus is that jobs with technical applicability fare better in the job market e.g. engineering, math, statistics, some business degrees (not marketing or management) etc...
For example, I'm an accounting major and I've needed to know the basics of ACCT 101 debits and credits and the accounting cycle before I can even begin to function in the accounting world. If you can't do debits and credits for double journal entry book keeping, there is nowhere for you to go because you can't get to the critical thinking aspect and application of your analysis if you don't understand the problem.
The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
Quite frankly I think college students know what employers are looking for: experience. We just can't get the needed experience without relevant jobs and the relevant jobs we apply to require experience that you would get by doing the job. It's a vicious catch 22 due to the fact that overqualified employees who have been downsized are desperately competing for the entry level jobs that used to go to college grads. In turn, college grads are taking the non-skill jobs that are left and not getting any pertinent work experience upon graduation.
Also, fun fact: Internships did not used to be a necessity for a job, but now they are and employers are taking advantage of the free labor we can provide for "school credit". I'm not blasting all internships, only unpaid internships. It's getting to the point where college students are expected to work for free to get "experience" that we so direly need to put on our resume. How is set-up any different than exploitation? More and more grads are getting locked into a permanent subservient working position because of these increased and often unattainable expectations for "entry level" career jobs. I say unattainable because most college kids cannot get 2-3 years of relevant working experience while in college. Some do, most can't because of the catch 22. Edit: here's an interesting read: http://www.youthandwork.ca/2011/09/generation-free-are-universities.html
Most unpaid internships are only like 2-3 months and aren't full time though, so it's not that bad. It's not unreasonable at all to have an internship and part time job at the same time ... there are also plenty of paid internships out there.
Why do people say that going to college lowers the value of a college degree? I get the idea behind it, but most people from college do not even graduate. This means that it really does not lower the value of a college degree. Sure, going to college counts, but staying in college is what makes you earn a degree.
On April 25 2012 11:17 Housemd wrote: Why do people say that going to college lowers the value of a college degree? I get the idea behind it, but most people from college do not even graduate. This means that it really does not lower the value of a college degree. Sure, going to college counts, but staying in college is what makes you earn a degree.
I just don't understand. Someone like to clarify?
Apparently you don't, because this is blatantly false. The graduation rate for college students is very high.
Edit: To enlighten, it lowers the value of a college degree because the supply of college graduates increases while the demand stays the same or even decreases. Meanwhile, the supply of non-graduates or technical/vocational graduates becomes lower, so these are more highly desired. Source: common fucking sense.
At least now your belief that it is hard to graduate from college now makes sense in light of your lack of knowledge of, like, middle-school level economics.
On April 25 2012 11:17 Housemd wrote: Why do people say that going to college lowers the value of a college degree? I get the idea behind it, but most people from college do not even graduate. This means that it really does not lower the value of a college degree. Sure, going to college counts, but staying in college is what makes you earn a degree.
I just don't understand. Someone like to clarify?
Apparently you don't, because this is blatantly false. The graduation rate for college students is very high.
Edit: To enlighten, it lowers the value of a college degree because the supply of college graduates increases while the demand stays the same or even decreases. Meanwhile, the supply of non-graduates or technical/vocational graduates becomes lower, so these are more highly desired. Source: common fucking sense.
At least now your belief that it is hard to graduate from college now makes sense in light of your lack of knowledge of, like, middle-school level economics.
Oops. I made a wrong turn in assuming that the graduation rates from colleges is very low. If I had known better by getting more facts (which I now have because of you), I would of been able to apply my "middle-school level economics".
On April 23 2012 09:37 FabledIntegral wrote: [quote] While there are plenty of people who indeed can't predict the market, etc. Its hard to feel bad for the jobless history major that took out loans. That segment at least. I mean its true that it used to just be that a degree qualified you for things, but at the same time you're building a near zero safety net with it. You're at the bottom of the food chain of bachelors degree holders.
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
First, you are completely wrong in thinking that a job at the FBI is not hard to get. Second, the fact that they are less strict in their requirement for a particular degree type has more to do with the fact that they hire "people", then train them to do the job. This is also the situation with certain large investment banks mentioned earlier in the thread. They have their own extended training program which teaches what is necessary for the job, These employers are a very small minority. Most jobs are with small business, or even larger business, but without a training program of several months in place, they expect you to know how to do the job coming in. Therefore, non-job related degrees are basically next to worthless.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Pillage wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:46 0mar wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:37 phar wrote:
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
One might think of 'professional degrees' as one that leads to a career where some certification is required. Medicine, law, accounting, actuarial, engineering, nursing, etc. I'm not of the opinion that 'business' is a professional degree, only certain business degrees would be, IMO. When I was in college, there was a 'general business' major, which was a little bit of everything, but prepared you for nothing type of business degree. Business degrees in marketing and management, imo, fall short of 'professional degrees' in my eyes.
What I said about the FBI was just based off what I heard from a family friend who has worked there ~15 years. He told me the hardest part about getting hired was passing the background check, but he might have been exaggerating.
Anyways, I don't think your major is as important as you make it out to be. Hardly anyone uses anything they learned in college in their day-to-day work, honestly. I think landing a good job upon graduation is a lot more dependent on having relevant internships and your ability to prove that you are a capable worker than anything else. The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
I'm assuming you have not yet graduated college. I bolded the part where you are just flat out wrong. The problem now is that people are figuring out the true value of their degrees and those degrees which provide general "critical thinking skills" in analyzing English prose are worth far less than degrees that provide "critical thinking skills" while applying technical knowledge. That's why the general consensus is that jobs with technical applicability fare better in the job market e.g. engineering, math, statistics, some business degrees (not marketing or management) etc...
For example, I'm an accounting major and I've needed to know the basics of ACCT 101 debits and credits and the accounting cycle before I can even begin to function in the accounting world. If you can't do debits and credits for double journal entry book keeping, there is nowhere for you to go because you can't get to the critical thinking aspect and application of your analysis if you don't understand the problem.
The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
Quite frankly I think college students know what employers are looking for: experience. We just can't get the needed experience without relevant jobs and the relevant jobs we apply to require experience that you would get by doing the job. It's a vicious catch 22 due to the fact that overqualified employees who have been downsized are desperately competing for the entry level jobs that used to go to college grads. In turn, college grads are taking the non-skill jobs that are left and not getting any pertinent work experience upon graduation.
Also, fun fact: Internships did not used to be a necessity for a job, but now they are and employers are taking advantage of the free labor we can provide for "school credit". I'm not blasting all internships, only unpaid internships. It's getting to the point where college students are expected to work for free to get "experience" that we so direly need to put on our resume. How is set-up any different than exploitation? More and more grads are getting locked into a permanent subservient working position because of these increased and often unattainable expectations for "entry level" career jobs. I say unattainable because most college kids cannot get 2-3 years of relevant working experience while in college. Some do, most can't because of the catch 22. Edit: here's an interesting read: http://www.youthandwork.ca/2011/09/generation-free-are-universities.html
There are some majors that are basically "professional" majors. Someone was just talking about this on the other page. These majors provide a skill set for a very particular job, which is usually only filled by people who took that major. Accounting, architecture, and engineering are all examples of these. Most people who major in mechanical engineering become mechanical engineers, most people who major in architecture become architects, etc. These majors are not all that popular, though. Most people end up in a field not related to their major. There is statistical data to back this up. Not everyone, but most.
I'm not here to say getting a job is easy. I'm just defending majors that are too often thrown under the bus, like English and Biology. These majors can open up all sorts of opportunities if you let them.
Sorry, I don't know why I decided to be such a dick. Just try not to say things after only thinking them through half-assedly. This is a lesson I need to remember more often too.
On April 24 2012 00:06 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
The whole thing about your staple liberal arts degree being the majority of the unemployed is a myth. Read earlier in the thread.
By the way, history majors have some very high employment rates coming out of college.
Are we reading the same statistics? >50% of liberal arts degree holders (undergrad) < age 25 have no jobs.
It's not just liberal arts, it's the sciences as well. It's a widely known fact that degrees in Biology/Chemistry/Psychology/Physics (if you want to do physics and not quantitative finance) are essentially useless unless you want to be stuck in dead-end, $18/hour jobs with no benefits. A quick google search will show thousands of students with these degrees being stuck in dead end jobs because the companies that used to hire these graduates no longer exist or have severely curtailed their R&D departments.
Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
This is totally, totally wrong. The fields you mentioned, like biology and psychology, often require graduate degrees to land the good jobs. But that doesn't mean that majoring in one of those subjects will cause you to be stuck in a "$18/hour job." You can do a lot with a bachelors in biology, but if you're planning on doing like, pharmaceutical research or something most bio majors seem to want to go into, you're probably going to need a Masters or even PhD.
In some fields, though, going to graduate school is virtually useless, unless you're just trying to rebrand yourself with a much better school.
If you need graduate training for jobs, then your BS is useless because without graduate training, you are stuck in a dead-end job or no job at all.
You don't need graduate training for "jobs" though, just CERTAIN jobs. For instance, the FBI hires people of all majors, with a starting salary of something like $60k not counting full health benefits, etc. These jobs aren't that hard to get, either (unless you have a criminal record of course), because the FBI has a bit of a social stigma. That's just one example of a job opportunity you could easily get with a bio, crim, or psych major.
First, you are completely wrong in thinking that a job at the FBI is not hard to get. Second, the fact that they are less strict in their requirement for a particular degree type has more to do with the fact that they hire "people", then train them to do the job. This is also the situation with certain large investment banks mentioned earlier in the thread. They have their own extended training program which teaches what is necessary for the job, These employers are a very small minority. Most jobs are with small business, or even larger business, but without a training program of several months in place, they expect you to know how to do the job coming in. Therefore, non-job related degrees are basically next to worthless.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Pillage wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:46 0mar wrote:
On April 25 2012 01:37 phar wrote:
On April 24 2012 20:44 0mar wrote:Basically, the only degrees worth anything are professional degrees (almost always >100k in debt though) and business degrees. That's it. Literally every single other degree is worthless and setting you up for failure.
An engineering degree from any big public state school gets you like a 98% chance of getting a job, and costs like <$40k.
I do not understand the perception that you have to pay >$25k/year for Uni, it makes no sense.
Engineering degrees are professional degrees.
Honestly though, what constitutes a professional degree? I've never heard that term used.
One might think of 'professional degrees' as one that leads to a career where some certification is required. Medicine, law, accounting, actuarial, engineering, nursing, etc. I'm not of the opinion that 'business' is a professional degree, only certain business degrees would be, IMO. When I was in college, there was a 'general business' major, which was a little bit of everything, but prepared you for nothing type of business degree. Business degrees in marketing and management, imo, fall short of 'professional degrees' in my eyes.
What I said about the FBI was just based off what I heard from a family friend who has worked there ~15 years. He told me the hardest part about getting hired was passing the background check, but he might have been exaggerating.
Anyways, I don't think your major is as important as you make it out to be. Hardly anyone uses anything they learned in college in their day-to-day work, honestly. I think landing a good job upon graduation is a lot more dependent on having relevant internships and your ability to prove that you are a capable worker than anything else. The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
I'm assuming you have not yet graduated college. I bolded the part where you are just flat out wrong. The problem now is that people are figuring out the true value of their degrees and those degrees which provide general "critical thinking skills" in analyzing English prose are worth far less than degrees that provide "critical thinking skills" while applying technical knowledge. That's why the general consensus is that jobs with technical applicability fare better in the job market e.g. engineering, math, statistics, some business degrees (not marketing or management) etc...
For example, I'm an accounting major and I've needed to know the basics of ACCT 101 debits and credits and the accounting cycle before I can even begin to function in the accounting world. If you can't do debits and credits for double journal entry book keeping, there is nowhere for you to go because you can't get to the critical thinking aspect and application of your analysis if you don't understand the problem.
Also, you said
The thing is, most college students have no idea what employers are actually looking for.
Quite frankly I think college students know what employers are looking for: experience. We just can't get the needed experience without relevant jobs and the relevant jobs we apply to require experience that you would get by doing the job. It's a vicious catch 22 due to the fact that overqualified employees who have been downsized are desperately competing for the entry level jobs that used to go to college grads. In turn, college grads are taking the non-skill jobs that are left and not getting any pertinent work experience upon graduation.
Also, fun fact: Internships did not used to be a necessity for a job, but now they are and employers are taking advantage of the free labor we can provide for "school credit". I'm not blasting all internships, only unpaid internships. It's getting to the point where college students are expected to work for free to get "experience" that we so direly need to put on our resume. How is set-up any different than exploitation? More and more grads are getting locked into a permanent subservient working position because of these increased and often unattainable expectations for "entry level" career jobs. I say unattainable because most college kids cannot get 2-3 years of relevant working experience while in college. Some do, most can't because of the catch 22. Edit: here's an interesting read: http://www.youthandwork.ca/2011/09/generation-free-are-universities.html
There are some majors that are basically "professional" majors. Someone was just talking about this on the other page. These majors provide a skill set for a very particular job, which is usually only filled by people who took that major. Accounting, architecture, and engineering are all examples of these. Most people who major in mechanical engineering become mechanical engineers, most people who major in architecture become architects, etc. These majors are not all that popular, though. Most people end up in a field not related to their major. There is statistical data to back this up. Not everyone, but most.
I'm not here to say getting a job is easy. I'm just defending majors that are too often thrown under the bus, like English and Biology. These majors can open up all sorts of opportunities if you let them.
My point in short is: the majors being thrown under the bus are being thrown under the bus for a reason. The opportunities that you claim open up from undergrad English or Biology is quickly evaporating in the job market as employers can be extremely picky, especially when they get 32.6 applications per job posting (http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/apr/22/positions-wanted/). An undergraduate degree in English or Biology doesn't have much muster when there are graduate level educated candidates jockeying for the same jobs undergrads are. The only real opportunities these majors give you now is the chance to continue studying in that field aka graduate school so that you can beat out the undergrads when you apply for relevant jobs. Or ending up in a irrelevant field like retail or the service industry which is where the majority of grads are going to right now.
On April 25 2012 02:58 mmagic wrote: The amount of money you have to pay for a COLLEGE is HUGE !!! Why not learn a foreigen language and go and make the college in another country where you will pay about nothing compared to USA. There are lots of countries where the grass is greener like ROMANIA. You look for places where the diploma is recongnized and the quality of education can be better and way more cheaper. Plus you will feel like a boss with the amount of money you take with you from USA.
With 400$ a month you could eat the whole time only in restaurants or if you cook with 150$. Rent 250$ a studio. Charges 70$ a month. The payed university is about 1000$ a year. That is (150+250+70)*12 + 1000$ = 6640$ a year and for 4 years = 6640*4 = 26560$. This will be the cost if you don't work at all the whole time and you know how to cook for your self. If you also work you will get about 400$ a month so you will gain like 400*12*4 = 19200$ year and substracting from 26560$ you whole education will only cost you 7360$
I'm glad to see that you can do numerical exercises, but how about considering non-monetary costs and travel costs. Your assumptions are too thin and don't paint the real picture. You assume a U.S. student would willingly fly out to Romania, but you need to remember that the U.S. student probably has family he/she will want to visit several times a year. On top of that, I don't know how many people would value a Romania degree in relationship with its cost savings. My guess is that if it's not recognized in the local area, it's not going to carry much value. Why would an U.S. employer consider a Romania degree candidate for which he/she knows nothing about when he/she could hire a local state school candidate and know with greater certainty what kind of employee he/she is hiring.
Much a degree's value comes from society's deemed value of the university itself. This societal value accumulates over time and rises and falls as its graduates succeed or fail among other things.
That being said, all top colleges are either in the United States/Canada, or Western Europe and maybe China/S.Korea. Romania never comes to mind, nor does many Eastern European countries. And if you're one of the majority of students not attending a top college, you strive for the "best" you can or what you can afford (hopefully both). http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
As this person said, the actual quality of education isn't really as important as the name of the university and the prestige that comes along with it, not to mention unless it's a top foreign school, I'm fairly sure national schools are preferred.
The quality of education is fucking terrible at many of the classes I've attended, with professors who are only there to do research and don't know how to teach themselves. But we're ranked infinitely higher than a junior college, where the quality of education is significantly better a lot of the time. Which is why I'm so incredibly glad we have the guaranteed transfer system, so students can guarantee transfer from a JC (junior college costing a few hundred per semester) to a UC (University of California) as long as they maintain a certain GPA and take certain classes. It's truly a system that works and significantly helps the financially struggling with getting an identical degree, and potentially even a better education, than someone who attends a four year from the start.
The University diploma is important only for the first job in the desired field, for the second job they will ask you what did you do at your previous job and what did you learn there and soo on for your entire career, they will always ask you of your previous jobs. So to get the starting job, you finish the university in a country where the cost of schooling and living is cheap, friendly people, beautifull women, no terrorism danger. Then you return in US because you have chitisenship and get hired in the desired field because you have the diploma, you just accept any salary they give you just to kick in you field of interest. For the future knowing a new language will help you fill positions at companies having relations with that country. I never said that is easy to move to another country, you have to take life in your own hands and not wait for parents to help you and pay your schooling. As for what you can do with a diploma from Romania, you can work for Microsoft as developer for a wooping 10.000$ a month like a cousin of mine does. And I have many university coleagues which work in the whole word France, Germany for 4.000€ a month and they left Romania beacuse they pay in Romania is small and the grass is greener in other countries. But that cousin is very smart and also my coleagues so I thing that if you are smart and just need a diploma then that is a good alternative. Don't know about China, India, Brazil where the cost of living will also be cheap, you should check.
Why can't they just pay back the debt like normal people? Maybe if they're struggling to pay it off, they shouldn't have gotten a crap GPA which makes them unattractive to employers!
On April 25 2012 17:38 arbitrageur wrote: Why can't they just pay back the debt like normal people? Maybe if they're struggling to pay it off, they shouldn't have gotten a crap GPA which makes them unattractive to employers!
On April 25 2012 17:38 arbitrageur wrote: Why can't they just pay back the debt like normal people? Maybe if they're struggling to pay it off, they shouldn't have gotten a crap GPA which makes them unattractive to employers!
Employers don't even care about GPA. I've never once been asked about my GPA nor prove that I went to college.
GPA really only matters for graduate/professional school, not employment.
On April 25 2012 02:58 mmagic wrote: The amount of money you have to pay for a COLLEGE is HUGE !!! Why not learn a foreigen language and go and make the college in another country where you will pay about nothing compared to USA. There are lots of countries where the grass is greener like ROMANIA. You look for places where the diploma is recongnized and the quality of education can be better and way more cheaper. Plus you will feel like a boss with the amount of money you take with you from USA.
With 400$ a month you could eat the whole time only in restaurants or if you cook with 150$. Rent 250$ a studio. Charges 70$ a month. The payed university is about 1000$ a year. That is (150+250+70)*12 + 1000$ = 6640$ a year and for 4 years = 6640*4 = 26560$. This will be the cost if you don't work at all the whole time and you know how to cook for your self. If you also work you will get about 400$ a month so you will gain like 400*12*4 = 19200$ year and substracting from 26560$ you whole education will only cost you 7360$
I'm glad to see that you can do numerical exercises, but how about considering non-monetary costs and travel costs. Your assumptions are too thin and don't paint the real picture. You assume a U.S. student would willingly fly out to Romania, but you need to remember that the U.S. student probably has family he/she will want to visit several times a year. On top of that, I don't know how many people would value a Romania degree in relationship with its cost savings. My guess is that if it's not recognized in the local area, it's not going to carry much value. Why would an U.S. employer consider a Romania degree candidate for which he/she knows nothing about when he/she could hire a local state school candidate and know with greater certainty what kind of employee he/she is hiring.
Much a degree's value comes from society's deemed value of the university itself. This societal value accumulates over time and rises and falls as its graduates succeed or fail among other things.
That being said, all top colleges are either in the United States/Canada, or Western Europe and maybe China/S.Korea. Romania never comes to mind, nor does many Eastern European countries. And if you're one of the majority of students not attending a top college, you strive for the "best" you can or what you can afford (hopefully both). http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
As this person said, the actual quality of education isn't really as important as the name of the university and the prestige that comes along with it, not to mention unless it's a top foreign school, I'm fairly sure national schools are preferred.
The quality of education is fucking terrible at many of the classes I've attended, with professors who are only there to do research and don't know how to teach themselves. But we're ranked infinitely higher than a junior college, where the quality of education is significantly better a lot of the time. Which is why I'm so incredibly glad we have the guaranteed transfer system, so students can guarantee transfer from a JC (junior college costing a few hundred per semester) to a UC (University of California) as long as they maintain a certain GPA and take certain classes. It's truly a system that works and significantly helps the financially struggling with getting an identical degree, and potentially even a better education, than someone who attends a four year from the start.
The University diploma is important only for the first job in the desired field, for the second job they will ask you what did you do at your previous job and what did you learn there and soo on for your entire career, they will always ask you of your previous jobs. So to get the starting job, you finish the university in a country where the cost of schooling and living is cheap, friendly people, beautifull women, no terrorism danger. Then you return in US because you have chitisenship and get hired in the desired field because you have the diploma, you just accept any salary they give you just to kick in you field of interest. For the future knowing a new language will help you fill positions at companies having relations with that country. I never said that is easy to move to another country, you have to take life in your own hands and not wait for parents to help you and pay your schooling. As for what you can do with a diploma from Romania, you can work for Microsoft as developer for a wooping 10.000$ a month like a cousin of mine does. And I have many university coleagues which work in the whole word France, Germany for 4.000€ a month and they left Romania beacuse they pay in Romania is small and the grass is greener in other countries. But that cousin is very smart and also my coleagues so I thing that if you are smart and just need a diploma then that is a good alternative. Don't know about China, India, Brazil where the cost of living will also be cheap, you should check.
It doesn't work like that whatsoever.
First, many employers are still asking about university beyond your first job, although first job is definitely when it counts. However, if you plan on switching anytime soon after getting it, university is still completely relevant.
Have you not read the thread itself? How in the world are you going to get that initial job, when it's already been stated people with degrees in the U.S. can't get hired in their desired field? Friendly people, beautiful women, and no terrorism danger are all borderline retarded arguments as well. Accept any salary? Wtf? Employers don't want you if you switch around between jobs. If you get hired for $25,000 per year, what makes you think you can transfer to a $50,000 salary in your next job? You can't.
On April 25 2012 17:38 arbitrageur wrote: Why can't they just pay back the debt like normal people? Maybe if they're struggling to pay it off, they shouldn't have gotten a crap GPA which makes them unattractive to employers!
Employers don't even care about GPA. I've never once been asked about my GPA nor prove that I went to college.
GPA really only matters for graduate/professional school, not employment.
100% false. Every single interview I've attended thus far has had a minimum GPA requirement. Over 60% of the 2,500 jobs on the UCI career board have minimum GPA requirements that the system won't even LET you apply for if you don't have the GPA. If you're in a business major, GPA is EVERYTHING for almost EVERY job out there. It's cool you were able to find a job with an employer that didn't care, but name me a single major business, or in fact any business in the Fortune 500 that doesn't give a shit about GPA.
I know at my school, EMC, Google, Microsoft, Deloitte Consulting, Deloitte & Touch (accounting), KPMG, Ernst & Young, BDO, McGladdery, PwC, Experian, Liberty Mutual, Hitachi, Wells Fargo, Ford Motor Credit, all have minimum GPAs of at LEAST 3.0, many with 3.3 or 3.5.
EMC might be the only exception since it's a firm that hires almost exclusively engineers, but even then GPA is highly relevant. Give me a break, many you get hired at a super small company, or lucked out with a larger one, but that doesn't mean that's the general rule. I even only listed these companies because they were some of the bigger ones I went to the career fairs for and talked to recruiters about, except EMC/Google/Microsoft, which were 3 my roommate had interviews with.
I was explicitly told by my employer that the main reason I got the job over competition was that I had a 3.8 GPA. Also, any decent employer AFTER you get hired will perform a background check on you. Which means they'll verify you went to college... honestly...
On April 25 2012 17:38 arbitrageur wrote: Why can't they just pay back the debt like normal people? Maybe if they're struggling to pay it off, they shouldn't have gotten a crap GPA which makes them unattractive to employers!
Employers don't even care about GPA. I've never once been asked about my GPA nor prove that I went to college.
GPA really only matters for graduate/professional school, not employment.
bullshit, this has to be a very specific example or a low demanding occupation, i've given transcripts following job interviews for positions that required a high GPA of any new grads coming in. Hell, I've been out of school for four years and the last job I applied to still had my GPA on the resume.
On April 25 2012 02:58 mmagic wrote: The amount of money you have to pay for a COLLEGE is HUGE !!! Why not learn a foreigen language and go and make the college in another country where you will pay about nothing compared to USA. There are lots of countries where the grass is greener like ROMANIA. You look for places where the diploma is recongnized and the quality of education can be better and way more cheaper. Plus you will feel like a boss with the amount of money you take with you from USA.
With 400$ a month you could eat the whole time only in restaurants or if you cook with 150$. Rent 250$ a studio. Charges 70$ a month. The payed university is about 1000$ a year. That is (150+250+70)*12 + 1000$ = 6640$ a year and for 4 years = 6640*4 = 26560$. This will be the cost if you don't work at all the whole time and you know how to cook for your self. If you also work you will get about 400$ a month so you will gain like 400*12*4 = 19200$ year and substracting from 26560$ you whole education will only cost you 7360$
I'm glad to see that you can do numerical exercises, but how about considering non-monetary costs and travel costs. Your assumptions are too thin and don't paint the real picture. You assume a U.S. student would willingly fly out to Romania, but you need to remember that the U.S. student probably has family he/she will want to visit several times a year. On top of that, I don't know how many people would value a Romania degree in relationship with its cost savings. My guess is that if it's not recognized in the local area, it's not going to carry much value. Why would an U.S. employer consider a Romania degree candidate for which he/she knows nothing about when he/she could hire a local state school candidate and know with greater certainty what kind of employee he/she is hiring.
Much a degree's value comes from society's deemed value of the university itself. This societal value accumulates over time and rises and falls as its graduates succeed or fail among other things.
That being said, all top colleges are either in the United States/Canada, or Western Europe and maybe China/S.Korea. Romania never comes to mind, nor does many Eastern European countries. And if you're one of the majority of students not attending a top college, you strive for the "best" you can or what you can afford (hopefully both). http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
As this person said, the actual quality of education isn't really as important as the name of the university and the prestige that comes along with it, not to mention unless it's a top foreign school, I'm fairly sure national schools are preferred.
The quality of education is fucking terrible at many of the classes I've attended, with professors who are only there to do research and don't know how to teach themselves. But we're ranked infinitely higher than a junior college, where the quality of education is significantly better a lot of the time. Which is why I'm so incredibly glad we have the guaranteed transfer system, so students can guarantee transfer from a JC (junior college costing a few hundred per semester) to a UC (University of California) as long as they maintain a certain GPA and take certain classes. It's truly a system that works and significantly helps the financially struggling with getting an identical degree, and potentially even a better education, than someone who attends a four year from the start.
The University diploma is important only for the first job in the desired field, for the second job they will ask you what did you do at your previous job and what did you learn there and soo on for your entire career, they will always ask you of your previous jobs. So to get the starting job, you finish the university in a country where the cost of schooling and living is cheap, friendly people, beautifull women, no terrorism danger. Then you return in US because you have chitisenship and get hired in the desired field because you have the diploma, you just accept any salary they give you just to kick in you field of interest. For the future knowing a new language will help you fill positions at companies having relations with that country. I never said that is easy to move to another country, you have to take life in your own hands and not wait for parents to help you and pay your schooling. As for what you can do with a diploma from Romania, you can work for Microsoft as developer for a wooping 10.000$ a month like a cousin of mine does. And I have many university coleagues which work in the whole word France, Germany for 4.000€ a month and they left Romania beacuse they pay in Romania is small and the grass is greener in other countries. But that cousin is very smart and also my coleagues so I thing that if you are smart and just need a diploma then that is a good alternative. Don't know about China, India, Brazil where the cost of living will also be cheap, you should check.
It doesn't work like that whatsoever.
First, many employers are still asking about university beyond your first job, although first job is definitely when it counts. However, if you plan on switching anytime soon after getting it, university is still completely relevant.
Have you not read the thread itself? How in the world are you going to get that initial job, when it's already been stated people with degrees in the U.S. can't get hired in their desired field? Friendly people, beautiful women, and no terrorism danger are all borderline retarded arguments as well. Accept any salary? Wtf? Employers don't want you if you switch around between jobs. If you get hired for $25,000 per year, what makes you think you can transfer to a $50,000 salary in your next job? You can't.
On April 25 2012 17:38 arbitrageur wrote: Why can't they just pay back the debt like normal people? Maybe if they're struggling to pay it off, they shouldn't have gotten a crap GPA which makes them unattractive to employers!
Employers don't even care about GPA. I've never once been asked about my GPA nor prove that I went to college.
GPA really only matters for graduate/professional school, not employment.
100% false. Every single interview I've attended thus far has had a minimum GPA requirement. Over 60% of the 2,500 jobs on the UCI career board have minimum GPA requirements that the system won't even LET you apply for if you don't have the GPA. If you're in a business major, GPA is EVERYTHING for almost EVERY job out there. It's cool you were able to find a job with an employer that didn't care, but name me a single major business, or in fact any business in the Fortune 500 that doesn't give a shit about GPA.
I know at my school, EMC, Google, Microsoft, Deloitte Consulting, Deloitte & Touch (accounting), KPMG, Ernst & Young, BDO, McGladdery, PwC, Experian, Liberty Mutual, Hitachi, Wells Fargo, Ford Motor Credit, all have minimum GPAs of at LEAST 3.0, many with 3.3 or 3.5.
EMC might be the only exception since it's a firm that hires almost exclusively engineers, but even then GPA is highly relevant. Give me a break, many you get hired at a super small company, or lucked out with a larger one, but that doesn't mean that's the general rule. I even only listed these companies because they were some of the bigger ones I went to the career fairs for and talked to recruiters about, except EMC/Google/Microsoft, which were 3 my roommate had interviews with.
I was explicitly told by my employer that the main reason I got the job over competition was that I had a 3.8 GPA. Also, any decent employer AFTER you get hired will perform a background check on you. Which means they'll verify you went to college... honestly...
I was going to ride the guys' ass about the GPA comment too, but you hit the nail on the head. I'm quoting for emphasis and adding that Big4 won't even look at your application unless a) you meet their minimum GPA or if your GPA is low b) you have TONS of relevant business world experience. Most GPA cutoffs are 3.3-3.5. Some are 3.0. Anyhow, as I said, I'm not going to repeat what's quoted too much.
Obama would veto Republican student loan bill, says White House
The pitched political battle over student loans isn't going away. On Friday, the White House threatened to veto a bill to keep interest rates on a popular kind of loan from doubling come July 1 because the Republican-crafted legislation pays for it by tapping a special fund in President Barack Obama's landmark health care law. The House ignored the veto threat and passed the bill anyway on Friday, with a 215-195 vote.
Obama criss-crossed the country this week in support of legislation that would keep more money in the pockets of cash-strapped college students. Republicans initially resisted the idea, but Mitt Romney quickly moved to neutralize the issue as a political weapon by embracing it in principle. House Republicans adapted by finding a clever "pay-for" solution to defray the cost of the legislation (lower interest rates = lower payments = lower revenue for the government). They chose the Prevention and Public Health Fund included in what all sides have now agreed to call "Obamacare," which Republicans have vowed to repeal.
"The Administration strongly supports serious, bipartisan efforts to prevent interest rates from doubling for over 7 million college students in the coming year," Obama's Office of Management and Budget said in a "statement of administration policy," the formal mechanism for announcing where the president stands on legislation.
"Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground on a way to pay for this critical policy, H.R. 4628 includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, created to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe," OMB said, warning that "women, in particular" would suffer. "This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America's college students deserves. If the President is presented with H.R. 4628, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill," it said.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office pounced. "The president is so desperate to fake a fight that he's willing to veto a bill to help students over a slush fund that he advocated cutting in his own budget. It's as simple as this: Republicans are acting to help college students and the president is now getting in the way," said Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck.
Obama's budget, unveiled earlier this year, calls for tapping into the same fund to cover other programs. The Senate's Democratic majority, which will likely kill the Republican bill, has proposed covering the nearly $6 billion tab for the student loan proposal by raising taxes on wealthy Americans.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B1Gs7.jpg)
(I wasnt the best student in the universities defense, but its not like anything in any of the classes I have taken has proven useful. At best it would be like reading a brochure on a topic and then having to actually learn it at work)
And there is nothing more to get academically from basic school. You should get from it basic knowledge, something that 95+% of population can get. There should be no "more" or "less". The more or less part comes from out of school/extracurricular activities. And you are correct I post too much. I will make the special post in the same way as special Daily 200 was done, so when I reach 10000 I will make special post for 2500 
![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b260/Tahkira/loans.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif)
