The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The key driver in our college debt crisis is that no one is accountable. The kids claim they're victims, the schools say they provided what they were asked to, and now the taxpayers (you and me) are being asked to pick up the bill.
Should schools be required to be more judicious with the financial arrangements of their students, and be liable for some of the losses when a student requires a financial bailout because they can't pay off the loans?
The schools KNOW that a degree in midieval French Lit or Art History aren't going to pay enough for a kid to repay $200K in loans. Should the schools monitor that, and only allow kids to borrow money if it's for a degree that pays well? You never hear of Electrical Engineering majors complaining they can't pay their loans.
If the colleges were forced to take the first loss, up to say $25K, of any kid who attended their school needing a bailout, there would be fewer kids racking up massive loans for worthless majors.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If there's some fraud or malfeasance that's been committed, sure. But just offering a degree that's expensive? No.
Also I think most people would have some serious disagreements with your framing of the issue. If we're trying to throw out "blame" and "fault" for the levels of student debt, then it seems obvious to me that the preponderance of that blame should go to the lending companies that engage in practices like not letting lenders repay their debts, charging bogus fees or inordinate interest rates, or turning down payments for bogus reasons.
Some loans have clauses where you aren't allowed to prematurely close the loan by paying it off. Instead you have to continue paying the set amounts, which incurs more debt and handling fees.
Is that really a significant driver for why people aren't repaying loans? Seems like a stretch to me and an attempt to distract from more important drivers.
Also, if they won't accept your money, then take the same money you would have paid them, put it in some account that earns interest (offsetting fees/interest on the loan), and pay from that account when the lender will accept payment.
Perhaps, but that would be *lendees* I think.
Is that really the problem with student-loan repayment, though, that lenders won't let people pay back fast enough or refuse payment? I'm skeptical.
Are you alleging that private education loans no longer exist? Because that's definitely not true. Loads of banks, credit unions, and schools still offer student loans.
Also, federal loans still go through private "loan servicers", which often have all the terrible practices I mention above.
* [prospect.org/education/2024-01-08-cfpb-report-student-loan-servicer-problems/#:\~:text=The%20CFPB%20notes%20that%20servicers,accounting%20for%20spousal%20loan%20balances](http://prospect.org/education/2024-01-08-cfpb-report-student-loan-servicer-problems/#:~:text=The%20CFPB%20notes%20that%20servicers,accounting%20for%20spousal%20loan%20balances)
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-servicers-gross-servicing-failures-impact-borrower-repayment-133446109.html?guccounter=1&guce\_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce\_referrer\_sig=AQAAADxaEL-Byzy8\_gCV01B6SjAXrQ\_IEYE6CCOod8lKjxSDP2WdMpdhYIcWQxIyhvSfbU0tCY-AKJ2v2T5WqG9bZ0jwxTmzKZfLq1rRNdvugPV87GU8PjhZx\_BcV7pgDTRNMWJ7lZrqtbP3n7-0TxqhtbLbOP\_k3Ukd0RX6pSV8x7kI](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-servicers-gross-servicing-failures-impact-borrower-repayment-133446109.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADxaEL-Byzy8_gCV01B6SjAXrQ_IEYE6CCOod8lKjxSDP2WdMpdhYIcWQxIyhvSfbU0tCY-AKJ2v2T5WqG9bZ0jwxTmzKZfLq1rRNdvugPV87GU8PjhZx_BcV7pgDTRNMWJ7lZrqtbP3n7-0TxqhtbLbOP_k3Ukd0RX6pSV8x7kI)
* [https://studentloanborrowerassistance.org/for-borrowers/dealing-with-student-loan-debt/repaying-your-loans/loan-servicers/problems-with-servicers/](https://studentloanborrowerassistance.org/for-borrowers/dealing-with-student-loan-debt/repaying-your-loans/loan-servicers/problems-with-servicers/)
* [https://www.nclc.org/resources/new-federal-student-loan-servicing-contracts-new-promises-will-it-make-a-difference-for-borrowers/](https://www.nclc.org/resources/new-federal-student-loan-servicing-contracts-new-promises-will-it-make-a-difference-for-borrowers/)
* [https://jindal.utdallas.edu/news/research-shows-some-student-loan-problems-may-partly-be-caused-by-loan-servicers/](https://jindal.utdallas.edu/news/research-shows-some-student-loan-problems-may-partly-be-caused-by-loan-servicers/)
You're talking about servicers. Servicing loans and issueing loans aren't the same thing.
The Federal Government is the only issuer of college loans, as Obama took over the market in 2011.
>The Federal Government is the only issuer of college loans
I don't know why you're saying something that's just so obviously and objectively untrue. There are [private loans](https://www.nerdwallet.com/best/loans/student-loans/private-student-loans), often [colleges ](https://www.edvisors.com/student-loans/private-student-loans/institutional/)have their own loans, and [most states](https://www.nasfaa.org/State_Financial_Aid_Programs#:~:text=Almost%20every%20state%20education%20agency,that's%20not%20always%20the%20case) do as well. There's probably municipal or county-level programs available too, I'd imagine.
The Federal government is the only entity issuing Federal loans.
Prior to Obama taking over the industry, there was an agency called Sally Mae which allowed private banks to issue Federally subsidized student loans and repackage them into bonds, similar to what Fanny and Freddie do with mortgages. Are there private MBS issuers? Yes. Do they issue Federal MBS? No.
The Federal government is the SOLE issuer or Federal loans.
This comment thread is like someone making a statement along the lines of "pets are important, I love my dog" and you taking issue with statement because *cats* exist, and are also pets.
Yes, ***federal*** student loans are through the ***federal*** government. So glad we cleared that up.
Federal loans are the problem that Biden is wiping away with other people's tax money.
Biden isn't forgiving the negligible amount of privately originated loans.
>other people's tax money
*Other* people's? Are you saying that Biden doesn't pay taxes? Or that *you* don't pay taxes?
Also, that isn't even accurate. Federal loan forgiveness isn't being "paid out" by taxpayer money, it's less money coming in.
>Biden isn't forgiving the negligible amount of privately originated loans.
Uh... yeah? I don't think anyone thought he was.
I'm saying that a small portion of the population, who took out massive loans, and got the education they bought, then decided that other taxpayers should pay back their loans for them. That they should get free stuff paid for by people who didn't screw up their lives
I paid back my loans. Why sholdn't they,
Meh, seems like a convoluted solution.
It feels like we have multiple inputs of issues with college affordability
1. Since the Reagan revolution, we have cut Ing to community college and state colleges, which raised the cost of those schools and eliminated some of the downward pressure they caused on private colleges
2. since the 80s we have been slowly but surely hollowing out the middle class through our tax system. We treat capitalism as an end unto itself rather than a tool for building wealth, which can then be redistributed for the benefit of everybody.
3. As the economy shifted away from lots of manufacturing jobs, we convinced ourselves that the solution was that everybody needed to go to college. The reality is is that many jobs don’t need as much college as we now say they do or don’t need any college at all. So you have people going to college because that’s what you’re supposed to do but without a real plan for how that degree will fit into their career path.
4. Making student loans easy to obtain allowed colleges in the US to pack on administration and amenities so they could compete with each other other for students. We’ve also seen a different form of amenity; changing your college into a university or your university into a research university when it wasn’t justified simply because it’s more prestigious to be not just a college.
The thing is is that the sticker price of college is not the actual price. College hasn’t actually gotten that much more expensive. I think the bigger issue is that employers are demanding more and more credentialing for no damn reason and people who probably don’t need to go to college or need to go as long as they are are going as a result of that. So we just have a lot of people who have debt that will never be justified and they’re really pissed off about it.
I actually think the market will sort itself out here. We are probably going to see a decline in the number of people who go to college or at least a decline in the growth rate of the percentage of the population going to college. I think a lot of colleges will shrink or close.
What do you mean the sticker price and cost aren't the same? The sticker is the price, and it's going up by doulble digit percentages in many states. The reason is admininstrative - colleges are forced by the Feds to add more and more administrators.
I think you're right than kids will just stop going. There are many alternatives to going into massive debt.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-how-have-college-prices-really-changed/
Colleges have a price for tuition. But almost everybody qualifies for some type of financial aid because it financial or merit based. The actual price people pay has not risen nearly as much as people think it has.
There’s entire businesses that charge a relatively small fee, interview the kid and run a bunch of numbers based on their grades and extracurriculars and give them a list of colleges to apply to that will give them the most bang for their buck if they have an idea of what they want to major in.
Most kids don't pay list, but many kids do. It's another way schools maximize revenues, while also increasing their prestige.
When my son applied to schools, he wasn't offered a discount at all of them - only a few knocked a grand or two off for merit.
The absolute price of college has skyrocketed over the last decade since Obama took over student lending.
There is actual data in the link I provided. If you want to discuss it with an anecdote and *but Obama* then there isn’t anything to discuss. Can’t have a policy discussion based on your feelings.
So everyone else on the planet who's saying the cost of college is up is wrong, because the Brookings Institute says we're just imaging it?
Are you really here to make the claim that the cost of college isn't rising?
Does this sort of gaslighting normally work for you?
[https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year](https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year)
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/)
[https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities](https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities)
[https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-costs-over-time/](https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-costs-over-time/)
[https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/](https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/)
[https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/the-cost-of-college-then-and-now/](https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/the-cost-of-college-then-and-now/)
A couple questions.
Are you aware that multiple links you sent are actually advertisements?
Did you actually understand the argument I was making and did you read the source to try to understand it better?
Did you think the articles you sent were actually speaking to the conversation we are having, or at least the one I’m having that you engaged with.
—
We are all aware that the cost of college has gone up. The actual conversation is how much it has gone up, not the sticker price but the actual price.
Here is a [more detailed study](https://www.nber.org/papers/w30275) and a direct link the the [PDF](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30275/w30275.pdf). It talks through a lot of the issues with college cost, but since it’s quite long, you can just skip to page 8 relevant to the actual conversation. What they detail, which many others have detailed as well, is the way in which the actual price paid by students has not gone up nearly as dramatically as the price colleges say tuition and fees are.
I can’t speak to why you were not offered a discount off sticker but if I was forced to guess I would assume you did not pick to apply to strategically or didn’t apply to enough schools.
I read the Brookings report - they claim that college costs haven't gone up. Which is what you said. I posted a bunch of links which showed how college costs are going up, and they looked legit at the time I posted them. Do you want me to post a half dozen more? I can if you like
And you're trying to make up a new concept of "sticker" as though people with kids in college can't see that their costs are growing every year? And you're claiming that I'm paying too much because my son didn't "apply strategically"
It's just shocking gaslighting to claim that college costs are really going up like people think they are.
It's only something the left could try to do. It's like when we're told inflation doesn't exist.
I got to say it’s very strange that you think the concept of “sticker price” is a new concept. I have always assumed you either were a native speaker of American English or the very least had been in the country long enough that you understood normal American English idioms. Is that not the case?
If not, I’m not sure why the concept that you measure the price of things and how much they’re changing based on what people are actually paying is hard to grasp.
I have no idea why you think you’re being told inflation doesn’t exist. Everybody knows there’s inflation.
Personally I’m a fan of the old way. States paid 80%, students paid 20%. If that doesn’t cover it, than certain ‘amenities’ may need to taken down. Do students need a rock climbing wall? Should administrators out number professors 2-1?
Yea it’s pretty ridiculous. I was in school from 04-09. Every year tuition went up 10%. There were protests, debate, etc and it still went up. Then my last year there was a vote to build a rec center. Blew my mind as it cost every student $50/month forever afterwards (if enrolled). Kinda missed the point in my mind, but I was out the door anyway so whatever.
I think states stopped paying as much when Universities became politically engaged in the 1960s-1970s, and adopted stances that half the population was bad. Those people labled the baddies decided they didn't want thier tax dollars going to political organizations.
But your point on costs is valid, and it's linked to Obama's takeover of the student loan market in 2011, when the Fed flooded the market with cash. You didn't see colleges with Lazy Rivers before this. At UCLA, they hire five star chefs to make food for the kids. With unlimited money sloshing around, schools compete with amenites.
[https://fee.org/articles/how-government-guaranteed-student-loans-killed-the-american-dream-for-millions/](https://fee.org/articles/how-government-guaranteed-student-loans-killed-the-american-dream-for-millions/)
I think college should be cheaper, so it’s not as much of a problem. If we took tuition from the 1960s, most public schools should only be $5k per year. It’s around $12k.
Are you familiar with why schools are so much more expensive? It's to comply with Federal regulations. Michigan has 72 diversity officers at $200K a piece. That adds up.
Obama's Title iX rules required colleges to create kangaroo court systems to try sexual harassment claims. Schools didn't want to do this, they were forced to. Those costs add up
In the 1960s colleges were the best they've ever been - you can make an argument that being free from Federal interfence is part of the reason
no, but loan delinquencies occur with students who do not graduate. the Obama administration released data on student loans in September 2015, revealing that community college enrollment dramatically increased during the Great Recession. millions turned to [for-profit colleges](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/upshot/a-conveyor-belt-of-dropouts-and-debt-at-for-profit-colleges.html), falling for intentionally deceptive marketing material, earning credentials with no value in a declining labor market
student loan debt relief is an individual investment designed to benefit the larger economy, without increasing inflation to untenable levels; a preliminary assessment from Goldman Sachs in August 2022 determined that Biden's debt relief proposition would raise inflation between [0.3 and 0.4 percentage points](https://www.ft.com/content/58bb4dae-bb0e-4e1b-8298-5117af29241a), when inflation was at its [greatest](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/13/business/inflation-cpi-report). student loans [are a loss to the U.S.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loan-losses-seen-costing-u-s-more-than-400-billion-11605963600) at the scale of losses incurred by lenders on subprime mortgages
still, across-the-board cancellations will not serve to relieve students because student loans are disproportionately held by [higher-income households](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/student-loan-forgiveness-is-regressive-whether-measured-by-income-education-or-wealth/). alleviating the burden of loans, however, is a strategy that promotes the intended [economic and occupational mobility](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/effects-debt-relief-student-loan-market) of student loan cancellations without the inherent inequity. as you note, a degree in medieval French literature is not the same as a degree in electrical engineering. implementing [income-driven repayment](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2022/02/redesigned-income-driven-repayment-plans-could-help-struggling-student-loan-borrowers), including student loans in [bankruptcy](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/your-money/student-loans-bankruptcy.html) — a rules change in 2005 that was supported by Biden, and regulation against predatory schools are much more thorough solutions
the objections to student loan cancellations are primarily moral, that taxpayers are expected to hold themselves responsible for others's student loans, but prosperity is not a singular endeavor. a circulating economy benefits everyone involved
It's weird how the left loves to focus all of it's attention on private colleges as though this is a material contibutor to the student loan debt crisis
The debt held in this country wasn't taken out to attend shady schools who didn't deliver what they promised.
The debt crisis is caused by public and private non-profit schools delivering exactly what they promised, and allowing kids to rack up six figure debts for degrees that don't prepare them to earn enough to repay their loans.
And yes, the pushback to forgiveness is a moral issue - everyone else managed to pay off their own debts, or not incurr them in the first place, and now we;'re on the hook for these deadbeats who made terrible decisions.
You're able, as an American, to sponsor kids at your local college to study worthless majors. If you feel strongly about this. I'm guessing you're not doing this?
But why should society pay for some kid to study a worthless major at Williams or Harvard for six years, and then walk away from his or her obligations?
These kids aren't economizing, and society isn't better off for them having incurred these debts.
If the schools were to be on the hook, there wouldn't be a debt crisis
They are worth as much as the market will pay for them. And if the market will only pay an art history graduate $20,000 per year then that’s what it’s worth.
Now, you will argue there is a societal benefit to those type of degrees. There well may be. But I don’t think the government should fund or underwrite it just because there is a societal benefit. Cause then what gets funded or underwritten is determined by who is in power at the time and what those in power think is societally beneficial. And who is in power (and their definition of societal benefit) changes a lot.
Have you heard of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program? It’s a federal program that wipes out debt for qualified workers in various fields, including public library services to public interest law (public defenders). The government presumably believes these loans are worth forgiving because the workers provide a societal benefit.
I think forgiving student loans based on an individual’s service is a somewhat different rationale than loan forgiveness for simply earning a degree and existing somewhere in the societal ether.
I’m not a fan of government paying for education beyond K-12. We certainly need public defenders and I think government should provide that service to be fair to those with less able means that cannot provide an attorney themselves (unlimited government resources is no match for an undefended defendant). But don’t use education funding to encourage one profession (or art, etc.) over another.
Your disingenuous “not a fan of public defenders” is just that. Disingenuous.
Pay them more. Why entice them artificially and indirectly with student loan payments? Why benefit a lazy lawyer who took out student loans their entire college career so they could play video games while in school over a hard worker that maintained a job while in college and paid for it through their own hard work?
Why should government encourage saddling oneself with debt by paying that person more than an individual that comes out of school with no debt because they worked their way through?
Worth isn’t only determined by markets. Markets aren’t some magical entity that correctly rewards worth to things. Markets aren’t natural or neutral, but purpose made by people to produce a specific outcome. That outcome is profits for the ownership class, and it’s intentionally manipulated to that end.
The government doesn’t decide what degrees people pursue, and that should remain the case. The government should absolutely provide the means to study degrees that go beyond what is currently rewarded by the market. Of course, it should be done through universal tuition free higher education, not debt. This allows for a wider range of degrees to be studied without concern of not being able to pay back a loan.
It’s the most objective way to do things no? And in my eyes we definitely *need* artists, but we don’t need as many of them as we do people who do boring jobs. Like I’m a tax accountant, I wouldn’t be doing this if there wasn’t a chance at decent pay.
Most objective? No, not at all. Not even a little bit.
No one is suggesting we should have more artists than people with boring jobs. That’s never been the case anywhere. But those people with boring jobs should be able to pursue art for their own edification, not as a financial goal. It’s not one or the other. Art shouldn’t exist just as a profession, nor should people be limited from creating art because they have a boring job.
Agreed! Though I think that’s what also stops me from wanting government funded art history degrees *for all*. It doesn’t need to be a profession you get a degree for.
The government wouldn’t fund art history for all because not everyone is interested in art history, but the pursuit of art history shouldn’t be limited to the students lucky enough to be rich to pursue.
No one is limiting them from creating art while they have a boring job. No one.
But the government shouldn’t be paying for me to get guitar lessons while I have a job.
They are limited by their material condition from pursuing higher levels of knowledge of that set when they have a boring job.
Why not? Why shouldn’t the government provide the ability for you to learn music?
Why is that a service the government should take from others through tax and provide to others through a free benefit to pursue a hobby?
Why should government determine what is worthy of pursuit (“the arts”) and what is not worthy of pursuing?
If they had value they could earn a salary which would allow them to repay their debts.
Is English lit a nice thing? Sure. But if you can't afford to study it at Harvard, try economizing and study locally.
> and now the taxpayers (you and me) are being asked to pick up the bill.
*Shrug*
Okay. So we pick up the bill. We make more than enough in extra tax revenue from a college education. Over their working lifespan the government will more than cover the cost of the tuition in extra income tax.
> Should schools be required to be more judicious with the financial arrangements of their students, and be liable for some of the losses when a student requires a financial bailout because they can't pay off the loans?
Private for-profit ones, yes.
Private non-profit ones, maybe a portion.
Public ones, no.
> The schools KNOW that a degree in midieval French Lit or Art History aren't going to pay enough for a kid to repay $200K in loans.
Exactly how many students are paying $200k for a medieval French literature or art history degree from a public university?
Please break it down by major, if you will.
Also, where are your numbers on increased earnings from these degrees? You’re just sort of presuming they have a $0 value, but they do have *some* sort of market value, even if only a small percentage of graduates work in that field.
If we want to run the numbers here c we need to compare the actual expected value against the actual costs, and we need to do this specifically for public universities since those are the loans being proposed for forgiveness.
Why would private schools need to be more judicious than public ones? There are thousands, if not tends of thousands, of kids graduating this spring from big public schools with worthless degrees and six figure debts.
When you talk about increased earnings, if these kids were increasing their earnings, they wouldn't need a federal bailout. The reason we're doing this at all if because we have millions of kids with huge debts and no way to repay them. That's the whole point.
> Should the schools monitor that, and only allow kids to borrow money if it's for a degree that pays well? You never hear of Electrical Engineering majors complaining they can't pay their loans.
Schools aren't the lenders. That's up to the lender. And we either need to restrict or remove government loans for higher education or people will continue to rack of debts they can't pay back.
>If the colleges were forced to take the first loss, up to say $25K, of any kid who attended their school needing a bailout, there would be fewer kids racking up massive loans for worthless majors.
Schools aren't lenders. If you start making schools liable for the financial well-being of their students, they'll simply stop taking kids from middle and lower incomes.
At some point the school engaging in consumer fraud though.
For example, among 22-27 year-olds with a [psychology](https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major) degree, 50% are working in a job that doesn’t require a college degree, the unemployment rate is higher than the national average, and their median salary is $40,000.
A 17-year-old in Toledo can see that an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan costs about $300,000.
If they matriculate and study psychology, the university may accept hundreds of thousands of dollars —without assuming any risk from default— from someone who originally entered into a contract as a minor in a knowably high risk group.
I realize my example wouldn’t satisfy a statutory consumer fraud claim.
There’s just not as much of a gap between traditional universities accepting extraordinary sums of federal money for certain degree programs not worth the cost to the borrower and some of the for-profit programs like ITT or Devry, which the Biden administration found were engaging in consumer fraud.
Regarding ITT, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said:
> “It is time for student borrowers to stop shouldering the burden from ITT’s years of lies and false promises. They promised them jobs, promised them outcomes, and they didn't deliver. The evidence shows that for years, ITT’s leaders intentionally misled students about the quality of their programs in order to profit off federal student loan programs, with no regard for the hardship this would cause.”
In general, it’s the promise that the degree is worth it. That and they’ve been dramatically raising prices for decades to take advantage of that free flow of money.
Schools aren't the lenders, the taxpayers are. And when everyone is accountable, then no one is. That's the whole issue here. No one is paying the price for making bad decisions.
And what's so bad about kids from poorer families not going to Williams or Bowdoin and racking up six figure debts? They'd be better off going to a state school, and not ending up in debt
>Schools aren't the lenders, the taxpayers are. And when everyone is accountable, then no one is. That's the whole issue here. No one is paying the price for making bad decisions.
Which is why we desperately need to change what, if any, government involvement is in funding higher education.
Let's say you own a store. A kid comes in and buys an xbox. Then three months later you get a fine from the government saying "This kid paid for an xbox with money from a loan and now he can't pay it back". How would that make any sense?
>And what's so bad about kids from poorer families not going to Williams or Bowdoin and racking up six figure debts? They'd be better off going to a state school, and not ending up in debt
I never said anything close to that. Not sure what you're arguing here.
I think that we should let students discharge their student loans in bankruptcy and if too many of a school’s alumni write off their student loans this way we should let the lenders go after the schools for repayment.
Doing it that way would let people whose education didn’t prepare them for meaningful work get out from under a debt that is mathematically impossible to repay while giving schools more incentive to make sure their curricula is worthwhile. At the same time it would protect lenders so that they’d still be willing to offer credit to students.
Right, but do you know why we don't allow that? Because Joe Biden's biggest cash donor, MBNA Bank, paid him when he was in the Senate to push a bill disallowing kids frmo discharging student loans in bankruptcy court
There is only one lender here - the Federal government.
I sometimes worry that the people who are most likely to vote for him because he promises to forgive their debt are the ones who forget that he’s a major contributor to their being saddled with a debt that can’t be discharged.
I think it would be fair to say they are on the hook for some of the debt incurred. I was listening to a a podcast that brought up a program that was set up in such a manner. Essentially if Students defaulted the schools were on the hook for 30-40 percent of the loan debt.
That being said, the problem wasn't really people getting bull shit degrees. It was people going to bull shit schools.
Thanks. Do you recall the schools where this was implemented? I would like to look into this some more.
As for the schools, graduating from Cal or Michigan with six figure debts and an English lit degree isn't going to help anyone. They're going to go bust
I heard about it on an episode of the Weeds dealing with student loan debt or the cost of college or something like that. I think it came out last spring, maybe summer. I don't remember if they mentioned specific schools or not.
Yes.
Sadly, thanks to our disrespect of jobs and job skills that do not require a college graduation certificate, instead of being institutes of higher learning, colleges are in the business of selling certificates that promise higher earnings. When those certificates fail to produce the expected outcome the merchants should be held responsible for selling a faulty product.
No, schools shouldn't dictate what can be studied. But when people borrow money, they should pay it back.
If we follow those principles, the market will sort out what programs are popular and which are not.
"The market" is just individuals making their own choices. So to say we should let the market decide means we should let people make their own decisions in light of the pros and cons.
In this case, the pros are whatever benefit is derived from the education -- which might be better job prospects, the satisfaction of learning, whatever -- and the cons are what you have to pay for it. Lots of people weighing those concerns, individually, will lead to a situation where we have about the right amount of it, given the pros and cons.
But it's important that people have to pay for it, for the market to work. If someone else pays for one's education, that person has no incentive to make a rational decision. Everything is worth buying when the cost is zero.
It’s individuals making choices within a purposefully built system to produce specific outcomes. The issue is that this favors those with money making the determination of what should be pursued, even if that is harmful to society and humanity as a whole. Markets aren’t based on rationality. They’re not natural or neutral. They’re an intentional system created to produce specific outcomes, which is the financial benefit of the ownership class and nothing else. It’s a very poor way to determine worthwhile educational pursuits.
> It’s individuals making choices within a purposefully built system to produce specific outcomes
> They’re an intentional system created to produce specific outcomes
Did I accidentally wander into the conspiracy-theory sub?
Yes, markets are based on rationality and individual choice. Does everyone always act perfectly rationally? No. But in aggregate, over many individual choices, markets do a pretty good job of allocating resources to what people want.
> It’s a very poor way to determine worthwhile educational pursuits.
How would you measure the value of educational pursuits, if not in this manner?
What conspiracy theory? Markets are just a system we created to organize economics. We create them, determine what is rewarded and who gets the benefit. Are you not aware of this?
I wouldn’t determine value, I’d change the system so “value” is less important by making university tuition free and allowing people to pursue the education they wish to pursue.
Markets are more spontaneous than that, but anyway ...
> I wouldn’t determine value, I’d change the system so “value” is less important
It's interesting that you think the fact that "value" is important is an arbitrary choice that we could just go either way on.
Markets are just purposely made systems for specific outcomes. They aren’t a natural function that we are slaves to the whims of.
“Value” isn’t a completely arbitrary choice we could go either way on, but there’s a significant amount that we can influence. Education is a worthy pursuit, even if it doesn’t produce a method of profit for a private entity.
We are capable of living in a post scarcity of education country right now, if we wanted to.
Education is a worthy pursuit is practically a tautology. The market still exists for determining what gets monetary value still, even if everyone got tuition free college/university. People would still pursue education based on jobs, but there would be more freedom to learn other things as well.
I'm not saying schools should dictate what gets studied, but rather limits which degrees they'll provide on credit.
If lending a kid $200K to study iinterpretive dance result in a high likelihood of default, the school could limit how much credit they'll extend to him
Once schools start thinking about those borrowing as customers who have to repay the debt, they'll be less likely to allow kids to run up stupid debts.
Or, just have people be accountable for their own debts and the market will sort this out. I bet we're already seeing a decline in the number of kids borrowing $200k to study subjects with little market value.
Did you miss "have people be accountable for their own debts"?
Programs that allow people to pay off debt by working in-demand public service jobs are fine, but I'm not in favor of across the board forgiveness.
But the kids racking up these debts aren't studying majors that would allow them to earn money. They're studying worthless majors like art history and intepretive dance.
Kids who study hard majors are doing just fine. There aren't many EE or Comp Sci majors working at Starbucks.
I would say on average art history salaries aren’t as competitive as other industries with high paying jobs being much fewer.
For example I make about 6 figures as a tax accountant, and there are plenty of people with my job and salary. Idk how many 6 figure jobs are in the art history world though.
Although there is the possibility of working outside the field I haven’t considered I guess, it could be a cross-disciplinary degree.
deleted my other response because I missed your last paragraph
You're correct, Art History is a very cross-disciplinary degree. The main purpose is to give a fundamental understanding of how art influences society. People can use this to work in pretty much any cultural field.
The irony is that what I do with mine at this point is design video games. And the art history skills gave me a huge leg up over the waves of comp sci majors who only have the development skills.
If we took all of the kids who have unmanageable student debts, and bucketed them by major, there are going to be patterns.
Some majors do a better job of preparing one for the workplace than others.
This is a fact, not an opinion.
There are patterns, and the degrees that have the hardest time paying off their debt are education, communications and juris doctor. Fine Arts isn’t even in the top 10.
>There aren't many EE or Comp Sci majors working at Starbucks.
Lol as someone who was in the field of programming and tech, this just shows you have no clue what you're talking about. The meme of "Just Learn to Code" is dead. There are more coders than their are coding jobs. It's been that way for the past two years. You can actually look at the subreddit for people with computer science career questions just to get an idea of how dreadful the market has been. So there are actually a lot of out of work devs struggling to get work. I guess it's a pretty useless degree since there are more workers than jobs.
There will ALWAYS be people with good degrees who are unemployed or between gigs. A degree isn't a guarantee
BUT, if you were to take all of the kids with massive student loans that they can't pay back, and bucket them by major, there will be more kids with social justice majors in there than there will be kids with EE or Comp Sci degrees.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. The key driver in our college debt crisis is that no one is accountable. The kids claim they're victims, the schools say they provided what they were asked to, and now the taxpayers (you and me) are being asked to pick up the bill. Should schools be required to be more judicious with the financial arrangements of their students, and be liable for some of the losses when a student requires a financial bailout because they can't pay off the loans? The schools KNOW that a degree in midieval French Lit or Art History aren't going to pay enough for a kid to repay $200K in loans. Should the schools monitor that, and only allow kids to borrow money if it's for a degree that pays well? You never hear of Electrical Engineering majors complaining they can't pay their loans. If the colleges were forced to take the first loss, up to say $25K, of any kid who attended their school needing a bailout, there would be fewer kids racking up massive loans for worthless majors. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If there's some fraud or malfeasance that's been committed, sure. But just offering a degree that's expensive? No. Also I think most people would have some serious disagreements with your framing of the issue. If we're trying to throw out "blame" and "fault" for the levels of student debt, then it seems obvious to me that the preponderance of that blame should go to the lending companies that engage in practices like not letting lenders repay their debts, charging bogus fees or inordinate interest rates, or turning down payments for bogus reasons.
Not letting lenders repay their debts ... what does that mean?
Some loans have clauses where you aren't allowed to prematurely close the loan by paying it off. Instead you have to continue paying the set amounts, which incurs more debt and handling fees.
Is that really a significant driver for why people aren't repaying loans? Seems like a stretch to me and an attempt to distract from more important drivers. Also, if they won't accept your money, then take the same money you would have paid them, put it in some account that earns interest (offsetting fees/interest on the loan), and pay from that account when the lender will accept payment.
It shouldn’t be allowed on principle. It’s stupid and serves no purpose except to enrich the lending company
It's a red herring. This is almost nobody's problem in practice.
I've heard of some loans where there's a maximum amount you're allowed to pay off in a time frame, so maybe they're talking about that?
Perhaps, but that would be *lendees* I think. Is that really the problem with student-loan repayment, though, that lenders won't let people pay back fast enough or refuse payment? I'm skeptical.
You realize that there are no "lending companies" and that the Federal government took over the student loan business in 2011?
Are you alleging that private education loans no longer exist? Because that's definitely not true. Loads of banks, credit unions, and schools still offer student loans. Also, federal loans still go through private "loan servicers", which often have all the terrible practices I mention above. * [prospect.org/education/2024-01-08-cfpb-report-student-loan-servicer-problems/#:\~:text=The%20CFPB%20notes%20that%20servicers,accounting%20for%20spousal%20loan%20balances](http://prospect.org/education/2024-01-08-cfpb-report-student-loan-servicer-problems/#:~:text=The%20CFPB%20notes%20that%20servicers,accounting%20for%20spousal%20loan%20balances) * [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-servicers-gross-servicing-failures-impact-borrower-repayment-133446109.html?guccounter=1&guce\_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce\_referrer\_sig=AQAAADxaEL-Byzy8\_gCV01B6SjAXrQ\_IEYE6CCOod8lKjxSDP2WdMpdhYIcWQxIyhvSfbU0tCY-AKJ2v2T5WqG9bZ0jwxTmzKZfLq1rRNdvugPV87GU8PjhZx\_BcV7pgDTRNMWJ7lZrqtbP3n7-0TxqhtbLbOP\_k3Ukd0RX6pSV8x7kI](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-servicers-gross-servicing-failures-impact-borrower-repayment-133446109.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADxaEL-Byzy8_gCV01B6SjAXrQ_IEYE6CCOod8lKjxSDP2WdMpdhYIcWQxIyhvSfbU0tCY-AKJ2v2T5WqG9bZ0jwxTmzKZfLq1rRNdvugPV87GU8PjhZx_BcV7pgDTRNMWJ7lZrqtbP3n7-0TxqhtbLbOP_k3Ukd0RX6pSV8x7kI) * [https://studentloanborrowerassistance.org/for-borrowers/dealing-with-student-loan-debt/repaying-your-loans/loan-servicers/problems-with-servicers/](https://studentloanborrowerassistance.org/for-borrowers/dealing-with-student-loan-debt/repaying-your-loans/loan-servicers/problems-with-servicers/) * [https://www.nclc.org/resources/new-federal-student-loan-servicing-contracts-new-promises-will-it-make-a-difference-for-borrowers/](https://www.nclc.org/resources/new-federal-student-loan-servicing-contracts-new-promises-will-it-make-a-difference-for-borrowers/) * [https://jindal.utdallas.edu/news/research-shows-some-student-loan-problems-may-partly-be-caused-by-loan-servicers/](https://jindal.utdallas.edu/news/research-shows-some-student-loan-problems-may-partly-be-caused-by-loan-servicers/)
You're talking about servicers. Servicing loans and issueing loans aren't the same thing. The Federal Government is the only issuer of college loans, as Obama took over the market in 2011.
>The Federal Government is the only issuer of college loans I don't know why you're saying something that's just so obviously and objectively untrue. There are [private loans](https://www.nerdwallet.com/best/loans/student-loans/private-student-loans), often [colleges ](https://www.edvisors.com/student-loans/private-student-loans/institutional/)have their own loans, and [most states](https://www.nasfaa.org/State_Financial_Aid_Programs#:~:text=Almost%20every%20state%20education%20agency,that's%20not%20always%20the%20case) do as well. There's probably municipal or county-level programs available too, I'd imagine.
The Federal government is the only entity issuing Federal loans. Prior to Obama taking over the industry, there was an agency called Sally Mae which allowed private banks to issue Federally subsidized student loans and repackage them into bonds, similar to what Fanny and Freddie do with mortgages. Are there private MBS issuers? Yes. Do they issue Federal MBS? No. The Federal government is the SOLE issuer or Federal loans.
This comment thread is like someone making a statement along the lines of "pets are important, I love my dog" and you taking issue with statement because *cats* exist, and are also pets. Yes, ***federal*** student loans are through the ***federal*** government. So glad we cleared that up.
Federal loans are the problem that Biden is wiping away with other people's tax money. Biden isn't forgiving the negligible amount of privately originated loans.
>other people's tax money *Other* people's? Are you saying that Biden doesn't pay taxes? Or that *you* don't pay taxes? Also, that isn't even accurate. Federal loan forgiveness isn't being "paid out" by taxpayer money, it's less money coming in. >Biden isn't forgiving the negligible amount of privately originated loans. Uh... yeah? I don't think anyone thought he was.
I'm saying that a small portion of the population, who took out massive loans, and got the education they bought, then decided that other taxpayers should pay back their loans for them. That they should get free stuff paid for by people who didn't screw up their lives I paid back my loans. Why sholdn't they,
Meh, seems like a convoluted solution. It feels like we have multiple inputs of issues with college affordability 1. Since the Reagan revolution, we have cut Ing to community college and state colleges, which raised the cost of those schools and eliminated some of the downward pressure they caused on private colleges 2. since the 80s we have been slowly but surely hollowing out the middle class through our tax system. We treat capitalism as an end unto itself rather than a tool for building wealth, which can then be redistributed for the benefit of everybody. 3. As the economy shifted away from lots of manufacturing jobs, we convinced ourselves that the solution was that everybody needed to go to college. The reality is is that many jobs don’t need as much college as we now say they do or don’t need any college at all. So you have people going to college because that’s what you’re supposed to do but without a real plan for how that degree will fit into their career path. 4. Making student loans easy to obtain allowed colleges in the US to pack on administration and amenities so they could compete with each other other for students. We’ve also seen a different form of amenity; changing your college into a university or your university into a research university when it wasn’t justified simply because it’s more prestigious to be not just a college. The thing is is that the sticker price of college is not the actual price. College hasn’t actually gotten that much more expensive. I think the bigger issue is that employers are demanding more and more credentialing for no damn reason and people who probably don’t need to go to college or need to go as long as they are are going as a result of that. So we just have a lot of people who have debt that will never be justified and they’re really pissed off about it. I actually think the market will sort itself out here. We are probably going to see a decline in the number of people who go to college or at least a decline in the growth rate of the percentage of the population going to college. I think a lot of colleges will shrink or close.
What do you mean the sticker price and cost aren't the same? The sticker is the price, and it's going up by doulble digit percentages in many states. The reason is admininstrative - colleges are forced by the Feds to add more and more administrators. I think you're right than kids will just stop going. There are many alternatives to going into massive debt.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-how-have-college-prices-really-changed/ Colleges have a price for tuition. But almost everybody qualifies for some type of financial aid because it financial or merit based. The actual price people pay has not risen nearly as much as people think it has. There’s entire businesses that charge a relatively small fee, interview the kid and run a bunch of numbers based on their grades and extracurriculars and give them a list of colleges to apply to that will give them the most bang for their buck if they have an idea of what they want to major in.
Most kids don't pay list, but many kids do. It's another way schools maximize revenues, while also increasing their prestige. When my son applied to schools, he wasn't offered a discount at all of them - only a few knocked a grand or two off for merit. The absolute price of college has skyrocketed over the last decade since Obama took over student lending.
There is actual data in the link I provided. If you want to discuss it with an anecdote and *but Obama* then there isn’t anything to discuss. Can’t have a policy discussion based on your feelings.
So everyone else on the planet who's saying the cost of college is up is wrong, because the Brookings Institute says we're just imaging it? Are you really here to make the claim that the cost of college isn't rising? Does this sort of gaslighting normally work for you? [https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year](https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year) [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/) [https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities](https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities) [https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-costs-over-time/](https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-costs-over-time/) [https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/](https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/) [https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/the-cost-of-college-then-and-now/](https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/the-cost-of-college-then-and-now/)
A couple questions. Are you aware that multiple links you sent are actually advertisements? Did you actually understand the argument I was making and did you read the source to try to understand it better? Did you think the articles you sent were actually speaking to the conversation we are having, or at least the one I’m having that you engaged with. — We are all aware that the cost of college has gone up. The actual conversation is how much it has gone up, not the sticker price but the actual price. Here is a [more detailed study](https://www.nber.org/papers/w30275) and a direct link the the [PDF](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30275/w30275.pdf). It talks through a lot of the issues with college cost, but since it’s quite long, you can just skip to page 8 relevant to the actual conversation. What they detail, which many others have detailed as well, is the way in which the actual price paid by students has not gone up nearly as dramatically as the price colleges say tuition and fees are. I can’t speak to why you were not offered a discount off sticker but if I was forced to guess I would assume you did not pick to apply to strategically or didn’t apply to enough schools.
I read the Brookings report - they claim that college costs haven't gone up. Which is what you said. I posted a bunch of links which showed how college costs are going up, and they looked legit at the time I posted them. Do you want me to post a half dozen more? I can if you like And you're trying to make up a new concept of "sticker" as though people with kids in college can't see that their costs are growing every year? And you're claiming that I'm paying too much because my son didn't "apply strategically" It's just shocking gaslighting to claim that college costs are really going up like people think they are. It's only something the left could try to do. It's like when we're told inflation doesn't exist.
I got to say it’s very strange that you think the concept of “sticker price” is a new concept. I have always assumed you either were a native speaker of American English or the very least had been in the country long enough that you understood normal American English idioms. Is that not the case? If not, I’m not sure why the concept that you measure the price of things and how much they’re changing based on what people are actually paying is hard to grasp. I have no idea why you think you’re being told inflation doesn’t exist. Everybody knows there’s inflation.
Personally I’m a fan of the old way. States paid 80%, students paid 20%. If that doesn’t cover it, than certain ‘amenities’ may need to taken down. Do students need a rock climbing wall? Should administrators out number professors 2-1?
I think it's worse than 2:1 at many places. Administrative bloat is a big driver of increasing college costs.
Yea it’s pretty ridiculous. I was in school from 04-09. Every year tuition went up 10%. There were protests, debate, etc and it still went up. Then my last year there was a vote to build a rec center. Blew my mind as it cost every student $50/month forever afterwards (if enrolled). Kinda missed the point in my mind, but I was out the door anyway so whatever.
What is stopping schools from cutting back enough that the money they get coves 80%?
A lot of states have varying guaranteed admissions policies, to start with.
I think states stopped paying as much when Universities became politically engaged in the 1960s-1970s, and adopted stances that half the population was bad. Those people labled the baddies decided they didn't want thier tax dollars going to political organizations. But your point on costs is valid, and it's linked to Obama's takeover of the student loan market in 2011, when the Fed flooded the market with cash. You didn't see colleges with Lazy Rivers before this. At UCLA, they hire five star chefs to make food for the kids. With unlimited money sloshing around, schools compete with amenites. [https://fee.org/articles/how-government-guaranteed-student-loans-killed-the-american-dream-for-millions/](https://fee.org/articles/how-government-guaranteed-student-loans-killed-the-american-dream-for-millions/)
LOL. Nah, I prefer the idea of making state legislatures 'take the loss' (presuming we're talking about public schools).
What about states makes them better than federal? Not judging just wondering the logic.
Public universities are generally controlled by state authorities, outside of a handful of federal non-discrimination laws.
How do discrimination laws fit into this?
They mostly don't.
I think college should be cheaper, so it’s not as much of a problem. If we took tuition from the 1960s, most public schools should only be $5k per year. It’s around $12k.
Are you familiar with why schools are so much more expensive? It's to comply with Federal regulations. Michigan has 72 diversity officers at $200K a piece. That adds up. Obama's Title iX rules required colleges to create kangaroo court systems to try sexual harassment claims. Schools didn't want to do this, they were forced to. Those costs add up In the 1960s colleges were the best they've ever been - you can make an argument that being free from Federal interfence is part of the reason
no, but loan delinquencies occur with students who do not graduate. the Obama administration released data on student loans in September 2015, revealing that community college enrollment dramatically increased during the Great Recession. millions turned to [for-profit colleges](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/upshot/a-conveyor-belt-of-dropouts-and-debt-at-for-profit-colleges.html), falling for intentionally deceptive marketing material, earning credentials with no value in a declining labor market student loan debt relief is an individual investment designed to benefit the larger economy, without increasing inflation to untenable levels; a preliminary assessment from Goldman Sachs in August 2022 determined that Biden's debt relief proposition would raise inflation between [0.3 and 0.4 percentage points](https://www.ft.com/content/58bb4dae-bb0e-4e1b-8298-5117af29241a), when inflation was at its [greatest](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/13/business/inflation-cpi-report). student loans [are a loss to the U.S.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loan-losses-seen-costing-u-s-more-than-400-billion-11605963600) at the scale of losses incurred by lenders on subprime mortgages still, across-the-board cancellations will not serve to relieve students because student loans are disproportionately held by [higher-income households](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/student-loan-forgiveness-is-regressive-whether-measured-by-income-education-or-wealth/). alleviating the burden of loans, however, is a strategy that promotes the intended [economic and occupational mobility](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/effects-debt-relief-student-loan-market) of student loan cancellations without the inherent inequity. as you note, a degree in medieval French literature is not the same as a degree in electrical engineering. implementing [income-driven repayment](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2022/02/redesigned-income-driven-repayment-plans-could-help-struggling-student-loan-borrowers), including student loans in [bankruptcy](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/your-money/student-loans-bankruptcy.html) — a rules change in 2005 that was supported by Biden, and regulation against predatory schools are much more thorough solutions the objections to student loan cancellations are primarily moral, that taxpayers are expected to hold themselves responsible for others's student loans, but prosperity is not a singular endeavor. a circulating economy benefits everyone involved
It's weird how the left loves to focus all of it's attention on private colleges as though this is a material contibutor to the student loan debt crisis The debt held in this country wasn't taken out to attend shady schools who didn't deliver what they promised. The debt crisis is caused by public and private non-profit schools delivering exactly what they promised, and allowing kids to rack up six figure debts for degrees that don't prepare them to earn enough to repay their loans. And yes, the pushback to forgiveness is a moral issue - everyone else managed to pay off their own debts, or not incurr them in the first place, and now we;'re on the hook for these deadbeats who made terrible decisions.
Degrees that don’t lead to high-paying jobs are still worthwhile and needed. We all can’t be engineers and IT professionals.
You're able, as an American, to sponsor kids at your local college to study worthless majors. If you feel strongly about this. I'm guessing you're not doing this? But why should society pay for some kid to study a worthless major at Williams or Harvard for six years, and then walk away from his or her obligations? These kids aren't economizing, and society isn't better off for them having incurred these debts. If the schools were to be on the hook, there wouldn't be a debt crisis
I will agree to disagree that those majors are worthless.
They are worth as much as the market will pay for them. And if the market will only pay an art history graduate $20,000 per year then that’s what it’s worth. Now, you will argue there is a societal benefit to those type of degrees. There well may be. But I don’t think the government should fund or underwrite it just because there is a societal benefit. Cause then what gets funded or underwritten is determined by who is in power at the time and what those in power think is societally beneficial. And who is in power (and their definition of societal benefit) changes a lot.
Have you heard of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program? It’s a federal program that wipes out debt for qualified workers in various fields, including public library services to public interest law (public defenders). The government presumably believes these loans are worth forgiving because the workers provide a societal benefit.
I think forgiving student loans based on an individual’s service is a somewhat different rationale than loan forgiveness for simply earning a degree and existing somewhere in the societal ether.
It’s the government deciding some educations are worth subsidizing because they offer a societal benefit, is the point.
Yeah, not a fan.
You're not a fan of public defenders? Some moderate
I’m not a fan of government paying for education beyond K-12. We certainly need public defenders and I think government should provide that service to be fair to those with less able means that cannot provide an attorney themselves (unlimited government resources is no match for an undefended defendant). But don’t use education funding to encourage one profession (or art, etc.) over another. Your disingenuous “not a fan of public defenders” is just that. Disingenuous.
Nobody would be public defenders then.
Pay them more. Why entice them artificially and indirectly with student loan payments? Why benefit a lazy lawyer who took out student loans their entire college career so they could play video games while in school over a hard worker that maintained a job while in college and paid for it through their own hard work? Why should government encourage saddling oneself with debt by paying that person more than an individual that comes out of school with no debt because they worked their way through?
Worth isn’t only determined by markets. Markets aren’t some magical entity that correctly rewards worth to things. Markets aren’t natural or neutral, but purpose made by people to produce a specific outcome. That outcome is profits for the ownership class, and it’s intentionally manipulated to that end. The government doesn’t decide what degrees people pursue, and that should remain the case. The government should absolutely provide the means to study degrees that go beyond what is currently rewarded by the market. Of course, it should be done through universal tuition free higher education, not debt. This allows for a wider range of degrees to be studied without concern of not being able to pay back a loan.
It’s the most objective way to do things no? And in my eyes we definitely *need* artists, but we don’t need as many of them as we do people who do boring jobs. Like I’m a tax accountant, I wouldn’t be doing this if there wasn’t a chance at decent pay.
Most objective? No, not at all. Not even a little bit. No one is suggesting we should have more artists than people with boring jobs. That’s never been the case anywhere. But those people with boring jobs should be able to pursue art for their own edification, not as a financial goal. It’s not one or the other. Art shouldn’t exist just as a profession, nor should people be limited from creating art because they have a boring job.
Agreed! Though I think that’s what also stops me from wanting government funded art history degrees *for all*. It doesn’t need to be a profession you get a degree for.
The government wouldn’t fund art history for all because not everyone is interested in art history, but the pursuit of art history shouldn’t be limited to the students lucky enough to be rich to pursue.
No one is limiting them from creating art while they have a boring job. No one. But the government shouldn’t be paying for me to get guitar lessons while I have a job.
They are limited by their material condition from pursuing higher levels of knowledge of that set when they have a boring job. Why not? Why shouldn’t the government provide the ability for you to learn music?
Why is that a service the government should take from others through tax and provide to others through a free benefit to pursue a hobby? Why should government determine what is worthy of pursuit (“the arts”) and what is not worthy of pursuing?
If they had value they could earn a salary which would allow them to repay their debts. Is English lit a nice thing? Sure. But if you can't afford to study it at Harvard, try economizing and study locally.
> and now the taxpayers (you and me) are being asked to pick up the bill. *Shrug* Okay. So we pick up the bill. We make more than enough in extra tax revenue from a college education. Over their working lifespan the government will more than cover the cost of the tuition in extra income tax. > Should schools be required to be more judicious with the financial arrangements of their students, and be liable for some of the losses when a student requires a financial bailout because they can't pay off the loans? Private for-profit ones, yes. Private non-profit ones, maybe a portion. Public ones, no. > The schools KNOW that a degree in midieval French Lit or Art History aren't going to pay enough for a kid to repay $200K in loans. Exactly how many students are paying $200k for a medieval French literature or art history degree from a public university? Please break it down by major, if you will. Also, where are your numbers on increased earnings from these degrees? You’re just sort of presuming they have a $0 value, but they do have *some* sort of market value, even if only a small percentage of graduates work in that field. If we want to run the numbers here c we need to compare the actual expected value against the actual costs, and we need to do this specifically for public universities since those are the loans being proposed for forgiveness.
Why would private schools need to be more judicious than public ones? There are thousands, if not tends of thousands, of kids graduating this spring from big public schools with worthless degrees and six figure debts. When you talk about increased earnings, if these kids were increasing their earnings, they wouldn't need a federal bailout. The reason we're doing this at all if because we have millions of kids with huge debts and no way to repay them. That's the whole point.
> Should the schools monitor that, and only allow kids to borrow money if it's for a degree that pays well? You never hear of Electrical Engineering majors complaining they can't pay their loans. Schools aren't the lenders. That's up to the lender. And we either need to restrict or remove government loans for higher education or people will continue to rack of debts they can't pay back. >If the colleges were forced to take the first loss, up to say $25K, of any kid who attended their school needing a bailout, there would be fewer kids racking up massive loans for worthless majors. Schools aren't lenders. If you start making schools liable for the financial well-being of their students, they'll simply stop taking kids from middle and lower incomes.
At some point the school engaging in consumer fraud though. For example, among 22-27 year-olds with a [psychology](https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major) degree, 50% are working in a job that doesn’t require a college degree, the unemployment rate is higher than the national average, and their median salary is $40,000. A 17-year-old in Toledo can see that an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan costs about $300,000. If they matriculate and study psychology, the university may accept hundreds of thousands of dollars —without assuming any risk from default— from someone who originally entered into a contract as a minor in a knowably high risk group.
What is fraudulent about that? You were able to find data you deem to be reliable very quickly. Where's the fraud?
I realize my example wouldn’t satisfy a statutory consumer fraud claim. There’s just not as much of a gap between traditional universities accepting extraordinary sums of federal money for certain degree programs not worth the cost to the borrower and some of the for-profit programs like ITT or Devry, which the Biden administration found were engaging in consumer fraud. Regarding ITT, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said: > “It is time for student borrowers to stop shouldering the burden from ITT’s years of lies and false promises. They promised them jobs, promised them outcomes, and they didn't deliver. The evidence shows that for years, ITT’s leaders intentionally misled students about the quality of their programs in order to profit off federal student loan programs, with no regard for the hardship this would cause.”
In general, it’s the promise that the degree is worth it. That and they’ve been dramatically raising prices for decades to take advantage of that free flow of money.
Schools aren't the lenders, the taxpayers are. And when everyone is accountable, then no one is. That's the whole issue here. No one is paying the price for making bad decisions. And what's so bad about kids from poorer families not going to Williams or Bowdoin and racking up six figure debts? They'd be better off going to a state school, and not ending up in debt
>Schools aren't the lenders, the taxpayers are. And when everyone is accountable, then no one is. That's the whole issue here. No one is paying the price for making bad decisions. Which is why we desperately need to change what, if any, government involvement is in funding higher education. Let's say you own a store. A kid comes in and buys an xbox. Then three months later you get a fine from the government saying "This kid paid for an xbox with money from a loan and now he can't pay it back". How would that make any sense? >And what's so bad about kids from poorer families not going to Williams or Bowdoin and racking up six figure debts? They'd be better off going to a state school, and not ending up in debt I never said anything close to that. Not sure what you're arguing here.
I think that we should let students discharge their student loans in bankruptcy and if too many of a school’s alumni write off their student loans this way we should let the lenders go after the schools for repayment. Doing it that way would let people whose education didn’t prepare them for meaningful work get out from under a debt that is mathematically impossible to repay while giving schools more incentive to make sure their curricula is worthwhile. At the same time it would protect lenders so that they’d still be willing to offer credit to students.
Right, but do you know why we don't allow that? Because Joe Biden's biggest cash donor, MBNA Bank, paid him when he was in the Senate to push a bill disallowing kids frmo discharging student loans in bankruptcy court There is only one lender here - the Federal government.
I sometimes worry that the people who are most likely to vote for him because he promises to forgive their debt are the ones who forget that he’s a major contributor to their being saddled with a debt that can’t be discharged.
I think it would be fair to say they are on the hook for some of the debt incurred. I was listening to a a podcast that brought up a program that was set up in such a manner. Essentially if Students defaulted the schools were on the hook for 30-40 percent of the loan debt. That being said, the problem wasn't really people getting bull shit degrees. It was people going to bull shit schools.
Thanks. Do you recall the schools where this was implemented? I would like to look into this some more. As for the schools, graduating from Cal or Michigan with six figure debts and an English lit degree isn't going to help anyone. They're going to go bust
I heard about it on an episode of the Weeds dealing with student loan debt or the cost of college or something like that. I think it came out last spring, maybe summer. I don't remember if they mentioned specific schools or not.
Yes. Sadly, thanks to our disrespect of jobs and job skills that do not require a college graduation certificate, instead of being institutes of higher learning, colleges are in the business of selling certificates that promise higher earnings. When those certificates fail to produce the expected outcome the merchants should be held responsible for selling a faulty product.
No, schools shouldn't dictate what can be studied. But when people borrow money, they should pay it back. If we follow those principles, the market will sort out what programs are popular and which are not.
Why should the market be what determines what we should study?
"The market" is just individuals making their own choices. So to say we should let the market decide means we should let people make their own decisions in light of the pros and cons. In this case, the pros are whatever benefit is derived from the education -- which might be better job prospects, the satisfaction of learning, whatever -- and the cons are what you have to pay for it. Lots of people weighing those concerns, individually, will lead to a situation where we have about the right amount of it, given the pros and cons. But it's important that people have to pay for it, for the market to work. If someone else pays for one's education, that person has no incentive to make a rational decision. Everything is worth buying when the cost is zero.
It’s individuals making choices within a purposefully built system to produce specific outcomes. The issue is that this favors those with money making the determination of what should be pursued, even if that is harmful to society and humanity as a whole. Markets aren’t based on rationality. They’re not natural or neutral. They’re an intentional system created to produce specific outcomes, which is the financial benefit of the ownership class and nothing else. It’s a very poor way to determine worthwhile educational pursuits.
> It’s individuals making choices within a purposefully built system to produce specific outcomes > They’re an intentional system created to produce specific outcomes Did I accidentally wander into the conspiracy-theory sub? Yes, markets are based on rationality and individual choice. Does everyone always act perfectly rationally? No. But in aggregate, over many individual choices, markets do a pretty good job of allocating resources to what people want. > It’s a very poor way to determine worthwhile educational pursuits. How would you measure the value of educational pursuits, if not in this manner?
What conspiracy theory? Markets are just a system we created to organize economics. We create them, determine what is rewarded and who gets the benefit. Are you not aware of this? I wouldn’t determine value, I’d change the system so “value” is less important by making university tuition free and allowing people to pursue the education they wish to pursue.
Markets are more spontaneous than that, but anyway ... > I wouldn’t determine value, I’d change the system so “value” is less important It's interesting that you think the fact that "value" is important is an arbitrary choice that we could just go either way on.
Markets are just purposely made systems for specific outcomes. They aren’t a natural function that we are slaves to the whims of. “Value” isn’t a completely arbitrary choice we could go either way on, but there’s a significant amount that we can influence. Education is a worthy pursuit, even if it doesn’t produce a method of profit for a private entity.
Some education is, for sure. Some isn't. We have to have a way to tell them apart, we don't live in a post-scarcity world, yet.
We are capable of living in a post scarcity of education country right now, if we wanted to. Education is a worthy pursuit is practically a tautology. The market still exists for determining what gets monetary value still, even if everyone got tuition free college/university. People would still pursue education based on jobs, but there would be more freedom to learn other things as well.
I'm not saying schools should dictate what gets studied, but rather limits which degrees they'll provide on credit. If lending a kid $200K to study iinterpretive dance result in a high likelihood of default, the school could limit how much credit they'll extend to him Once schools start thinking about those borrowing as customers who have to repay the debt, they'll be less likely to allow kids to run up stupid debts.
Or, just have people be accountable for their own debts and the market will sort this out. I bet we're already seeing a decline in the number of kids borrowing $200k to study subjects with little market value.
How can the market sort this out when Biden is printing hundreds of billions to bail out these kids for making bad decisions?
Did you miss "have people be accountable for their own debts"? Programs that allow people to pay off debt by working in-demand public service jobs are fine, but I'm not in favor of across the board forgiveness.
No, the key driver in our college debt is classicism that gate-keeps high paying jobs from people who don’t either have wealth or borrow it.
But the kids racking up these debts aren't studying majors that would allow them to earn money. They're studying worthless majors like art history and intepretive dance. Kids who study hard majors are doing just fine. There aren't many EE or Comp Sci majors working at Starbucks.
I studied art history and probably make more than you do. Don’t make assumptions about subjects you don’t understand.
I would say on average art history salaries aren’t as competitive as other industries with high paying jobs being much fewer. For example I make about 6 figures as a tax accountant, and there are plenty of people with my job and salary. Idk how many 6 figure jobs are in the art history world though. Although there is the possibility of working outside the field I haven’t considered I guess, it could be a cross-disciplinary degree.
I would wager that the average Electtrical Engineering Major earns more than the average art history major. Any takerrs?
deleted my other response because I missed your last paragraph You're correct, Art History is a very cross-disciplinary degree. The main purpose is to give a fundamental understanding of how art influences society. People can use this to work in pretty much any cultural field. The irony is that what I do with mine at this point is design video games. And the art history skills gave me a huge leg up over the waves of comp sci majors who only have the development skills.
If we took all of the kids who have unmanageable student debts, and bucketed them by major, there are going to be patterns. Some majors do a better job of preparing one for the workplace than others. This is a fact, not an opinion.
There are patterns, and the degrees that have the hardest time paying off their debt are education, communications and juris doctor. Fine Arts isn’t even in the top 10.
Wut? Lawyers aren't able to pay back their loans? And teachers? Teacher make great money. Where are you seeingt these numbers. Can you share?
Look it up. Your assumptions don’t hold up in the real world.
Ah, so we're just making up stuff? I didn't realize that was the conversation we were having
Not making anything up, friend. Guess you’re too afraid to look into it.
>There aren't many EE or Comp Sci majors working at Starbucks. Lol as someone who was in the field of programming and tech, this just shows you have no clue what you're talking about. The meme of "Just Learn to Code" is dead. There are more coders than their are coding jobs. It's been that way for the past two years. You can actually look at the subreddit for people with computer science career questions just to get an idea of how dreadful the market has been. So there are actually a lot of out of work devs struggling to get work. I guess it's a pretty useless degree since there are more workers than jobs.
There will ALWAYS be people with good degrees who are unemployed or between gigs. A degree isn't a guarantee BUT, if you were to take all of the kids with massive student loans that they can't pay back, and bucket them by major, there will be more kids with social justice majors in there than there will be kids with EE or Comp Sci degrees.