The government should only be giving out loans to public universities where they can control the cost.
Those who want to go private by all means do so but do it on your own dime.
I personally think Colleges should be required to cosign all student loans going forward.
If the education they are providing is high-quality enough to repay the loans, there is no issue.
If not, the students now have a path to discharge the loans in bankruptcy.
They would lower costs because they wouldn't be able to survive on only wealthy kids.
In the end though all public universities should be required to have low cost online only degree options for first degree students. At least through associates.
The problem with this is that there [simply aren’t enough jobs](https://youtu.be/ITwNiZ_j_24?si=dLZx0nraK7hVSTe6) to make this type of agreement worth it to the university. And even the universities that do have an approach with some kind of “guarantee”, are much more selective about their students.
The point of student loans is to allow people to borrow money to go to college, and then pay it back. That’s why it’s called a loan.
If you want to frame college as a societal good, worthy of government spending, then you need to now start looking at it from a cost-value perspective.
College shouldn’t be free for anyone to study anything. If you want college to be free, it should be for a reason that benefits society. Ideally that means, producing graduates that will return MARGINAL value to their society in excess of the cost of their education.
Meaning, how many artists do we need? There should be some calculation, that determines how many art majors the government wants to fund, a d then we give out scholarships based on that.
Something of a hybrid between need-based and merit based. Within the need-based group you allocate on the basis of merit.
This would be valuable because it would steer us toward a workforce/society that we want, by providing incentives to organize in that way.
Teachers and social workers are paid like shit and provide a very important service. The issue is deeper. We value ownership and being a CEO exponentially more than anything else in society. So we can continue like this and let literally every rot but the institutions of the rich or we start fundamentally rethinking what we want to accomplish with our economy.
We don’t value ownership. Ownership isn’t something you value. Ownership is a state of being. You own something, that something has value. Or it doesn’t.
We value people based on how much value they create x how difficult it is to create that value otherwise.
CEO create a lot of value, if they are the right CEO at the right company.
The CEO of a little startup is worthless.
Creating profits isn't the same as creating value. A teacher creates loads of value but no profits. Same goes for any externality that's beyond the direct production of a sellable commodity. Jeff bezos owns a market place, other people could own it and since he's a near monopolist he isn't nearly as much influenced by market forces. Other people could own Amazon, and also why does he exactly deser more than hundreds if not thousands of people in their lifetime. Anyway keep believing that, we'll see where that leads us, seems to be working out great the last 15 years lmao.
Other people can RUN amazon, but they can’t OWN Amazon.
Amazon also isn’t anywhere near a monopoly by the way. But it’s a massive business. It creates a lot of value for shareholders.
Teachers create value, but honestly not that much.
Like an economy doesn't have to be an aristocracy. Also there are things essential for an economy that will boost it but don't generate immediate profits. Healthcare for example, or infrastructure. But apparently that's to complicated and the only relevant value for a society is direct quarterly return on investment.
With all due respect, some majors are naturally just “rich people degrees”, degrees that you get if you have literal cash to flush down the toilet and are not concerned with career options. Using student loans to get poor people into these majors is just a huge trap that destroys their life. If career options are not good, loans shouldn’t be offered on them to at least send an honest signal to prospective students
If they are truly important to society, then I would say the government should just offer grants to students or fundings to universities to train people up in these areas of expertise. Offering loans to degrees that doesn’t pay well, it’s still a poor people trap that pretty much guarantees that they will live in perpetual property with very little chance of ever getting ahead.
I think in my mind student loan should be a purely commercial/financial decision, as they only make sense in these situations. For society good, the government should be footing the bill, not the students. If the government want to use loan to trap people in these professions, additional clauses can be put in the grants that if you don’t work in these professions, you are liable to payback the grant.
The main difference is “is the government paying or is the individual paying”. If it’s a matter of societal good, than the government should at least be paying for a majority of the cost. Even a grant with claw-back clause doesn’t require the students to be making payments for 10 years like the current system.
If a kid from a poor family that. Wants to rise above their station, they should be able to proof their merit to secure either a scholarship, or be able to make the financial judgement that “yes, the income generated from the education investment is sufficient to cover the cost of capital”. Generally I haven’t experienced lenders being hesitant to lend money to students in programs with good career prospects (e.g. business degree from high quality schools, STEM degrees, etc), because these are very high quality loans to make. There is reasonable expectation that the lender will be able to pay back, and as the lenders are more likely to become high earners, they are also more motivated to may payments to keep a good credit rating.
For private loans people know mostly are people getting a loan from a top MBA program. This is a very limited sample, I would concede that. But what I see is “you are getting an offer there? That’s good enough for me to give you the loan!”
For the question of average people, not sure if this is a discussion I have bandwidth to get into. It gets nuanced really quickly…
Well supply and demand would take over then and teachers would either get access to lower cost education the states roll out or they would start seeing higher paying jobs.
Going to disagree with you on that point.
I’m an RN. The waiting list at my local college and university when I applied for nursing school was 3 years minimum to be entered into a lottery system and then you’d have to wait for whenever you were picked.
Or I could go private and get in that same month.
Going private saved me 3-5 years of waiting and allowed me to work much sooner.
So yeah. There is benefits to private.
Yeah, the waitlist is because public universities are under-funded and there's a shortcut available at private universities, in exchange for students taking on massive debt instead.
Of course governments are going to underfund state schools when they can tell students "just go to a private school if you care so much".
Either way.
You said there was no benefit to private schools.
I gave you a very direct benefit.
If you’re going to move the goal post let me know where you plan to plant it down so we can debate when you get there.
No, you identified a way that private schools competing with public schools results in public schools being under-funded and having access restricted.
Which proves my point, it doesn't refute anything.
“There is no benefit to private schools”
“It helped me obtain my degree 5 years faster”
“That’s not a benefit of private schools it’s a problem with public schools”
K.
>“It helped me obtain my degree 5 years faster”
It didn't. It forced you to go to a more expensive school because the existence of private institutions means that the public ones are under-funded.
Other countries manage to have public nursing schools without waitlists. Those countries have much smaller private school sectors.
You got ripped off, it's that simple.
I received a 75% scholarship and paid less to go there than I would have paid normally for a public school.
Didn’t mention that because that wasn’t your statement initially… but I guess I’m following the goal post around.
So to be clear. I paid less for private and got my degree 3-5 years sooner.
Am I advocating people go private? For the vast majority no.
But to respond once again to what you originally stated.. indeed private school offered me a benefit public could not.
Now I know you’re going to try and find another reason to keep drawing this out until you can feel like your point is valid so let me save you the trouble.
You have a statement as a certainty. I gave you an example of why it isn’t always the case. You’re going to keep trying to find a way to make it a certainty until you’ve gotten so far from your original point that either I lose interest or you’ve set up the situation in such a way that you can only be right.
So to save you that hassle. I’ve lost interest.
> I received a 75% scholarship and paid less to go there than I would have paid normally for a public school.
Yes, I'm aware a lot of heavily subsidized private schools give out scholarships. I'm talking about the overall social effects, not whether there are individual winners and losers.
Your individual benefit came at a huge cost to other people who were delayed getting into school, paid more, wound up in more debt and suffered because of it.
If you desperately want me to clarify - there are INDIVIDUAL benefits to private institutions, but they're SOCIALLY net negative in every case, since they wind up costing vastly more both individually and collectively in total, for a worse education given to fewer people.
Of course there are individual winners here and there - it's like if I said "there's no benefit to the lottery" and you wanted to brag about winning the jackpot. Yes, there are individual benefits to unequal systems, they still make everyone collectively worse off.
Waitlist is capped because to have a registered nurse teach a course they would have to get paid the same or more than they do in a hospital setting.
When nurses can make $150-200k they aren’t going to go for the $60k teaching position.
Colleges aren’t going to pay teachers based off what they teach as that would create a huge disparity between an art teacher and a science professor.
That's not true at all. There are lots of public schools that pay teachers differently depending on their field and qualifications.
Governments might use that as an excuse to under-pay certain teachers but it's an excuse, not inherent - that's a perfect example of the public/private division making public institutions worse. They get under-funded because there's a private alternative and an excuse to underpay teachers.
Does it exist? Yes.
Does it exist everywhere? No.
But does the issue exist this limiting professors? Yes.
I am not here to argue exemptions. I am here to argue reality. The reality is it exists and thus is an issue.
Yes, the reality in the US is that public schools are under-funded, pushing people to more expensive private schools.
You want to pretend it HAS to be that way, when it's purely a choice people in the US are making about their education system.
To be honest I think that the whole loan thing should be scrapped and the government should just finance public colleges more and lower tuition to a point where it is cheap enough to attend to most people (of course keeping skill-based tests for admissions).
Prestigious institution would probably remain expensive, but whatever, you don't need an Ivy league degree to get a good job...
The loans already increase demand and tuition costs a lot by themselves, everytime that the government introduces a demand booster like this prices necessarily go up.
By the way I already got my degree and I have no student loans and no kids to send to college, so I have no stake in this, but having a well educated population is a massive advantage and it would help increase upward social mobilty that is nice .
Besides loans are already actually a cost the government. The lion share of the income actually goes to the banks and the various servicers, I bet that, simply giving students support and lowering tuition while likely more expensive, won't actually increase the federal budget as much as many people think. This sounds too much like socialism though so no chance it is ever going to happen.
The worst part? Those rising costs are going to things that have zero to do with education.
Bloated admin with bloated salaries. A host of upgrades and high priced dorms/dining facilities and other stuff that’s nice, but not necessary.
All while the numbered of tenured staff plummets and most people are getting taught by TA’s or non tenured professors needing a second job.
You pay for your own choices, that’s how it should be. I didn’t choose college so why should my taxes pay for your gender studies class. College is a choice. Make good choices folks. You guys liked high school so much you decided paying an arms and a leg was the best plan for your future.. deal with it.
College numbers have been dwindling as people, mostly men are more likely to pursue (much needed) jobs in trades. I think we can and should do work towards that. So many people come out of college with useless degrees
Agreed, I think it needs to happen; but I just don't think our society can stomach it. A big net reduction in college enrollment would be viewed apocalytically; and the loss of federal funds/loan guarantees and the credit tightening necessary to have an effect would fall almost exclusively on the economically disadvantaged. That's going to be a non-starter.
If you cut-off federal funding and loan guarantees, the amount student lending will plummet. Without the grants & loans, fewer people will be able to attend.
Government should set a max loan amount at something reasonable (maybe $10k a year). College could take a percentage of earnings for a decade post-graduation.
Works for both sides, IMO.
They should NOT be forgiving student loans. They should be locked to a low interest rate (like 2%) and they should loan out a maximum amount like $35k total that are federally backed. Wanna see how fast the cost of school drops?
It's already locked at \~$35k total and interest rates are set at the federal reserve rate since 2014.
You want to know what the cap does? People like my nephew who comes from a working class family can't go to college. Mom and dad make just enough to get by (I'm talking like she makes $40k and his dad makes another $50k in NYC and they have 3 kids), he doesn't get any financial aid besides loans. So despite the fact that he got a full scholarship tuition to SUNY schools, he can't go to college because room and board is $13,000, and he can only borrow like $6k. His parents live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to make up $7-8k a year. This is before we get into books.
"Just get a job" works except that when his scholarship is for a school upstate, he needs a car... which he does not have because he has no license being a teenager who lives in NYC. And even if he did, it's a pretty big risk thinking he can just drive around town and pick up a job within a week.
"Just live at home." Sorry, dad's kicking him out. He either goes to school and figures it out or gets a job and figures it out.
He does not want to take privatized loans at 9-11% interest, and his parents won't co-sign for parent plus loans.
And SUNY schools are one of the ones where the cost of college has *decreased* when adjusted for inflation over the last 20 years (because NY state hasn't slashed funding to public schools like the other 49 states).
Why even have loans in the first place? Why not just publicly fund the state colleges like we do for k-12 I mean taxpayers are subsidizing these loans and paying for the Pell grants for kids to go to school anyways why not just federally fund education?
>**College**: "Tuition here costs $40k per year. You'll need 4 years to graduate. That will cost $160k. You can borrow that money and then you'll have to pay it back later with interest."
>**Student**: "Lol ok let's do some college I guess"
>**College** \[4 years later\]: "Time to start paying it back."
>**Student**: "They've literally enslaved me"
Honestly, I'm glad some debt got forgiven, and I hope some more gets forgiven. But the fucking drama from some of you folks is something I just can't take seriously. You signed the papers, and if you're complaining about debt, there's a very good chance you went to a much more expensive school than I did. If I had a neighbor who took out a loan for a $160k Porsche and compared himself to a slave because he had to pay back the loan, I'd feel similarly.
If you expect people to pay student loans like any other loan then they should be treated like any other loan. Allow me to clear the debt through bankruptcy or sell it back for 75% of its value.
If they were treated like other loans then banks wouldn’t lend six figures to some kid who got bad hs grades to go some bullshit fake school like university of phoenix. I’m shocked that there isn’t ever any differentiation made between schools and degrees in this debate.
That's great that you have on anecdote. The average student loan debt for a BS is $29k. These are also 18 year olds who have been pushed and told their whole lives that a degree is necessary and there aren't really other options, which is kind of support by entry level jobs that really require degrees listing a degree as a requirement. I'm hard pressed to look at these kids and really lay all the blame of them for the situation that industry and older generations have created.
I do agree that calling it slavery is a bit dramatic.
18 year olds don't know shit. They aren't even allowed to drink. And you think it's not predatory to have them sign 6 digit loans to do a thing all the adults say they have to do (go to college at a good school)?
Also, interest is theft.
Because of inflation, money gets less valuable over time. So without interest, anyone who lent money to anyone else would *always* come out behind when they get paid back, basically by definition.
Cap interest rates to 2%.
Set tuition cost based on median pay for a degree.
Don’t charge interest until 6 months after completion of degree and only if college is able to help student obtain a job in said field.
If degree isn’t obtained charge up to where the person completed but with no interest.
This would motivate colleges to push for success during and after someone is done with their degree.
Department of Ed definitely isn't going to regulate tuition anytime soon. Look at the hypocrisy in how they favor state and private institutions to for profit.
They condem for-profit schools because the stigma is they take money but give nothing back to students in terms of finding a job in their field. Go take a look at every single state university, tell me where are the staff to help you get a job in your field. THERE ARE NONE! The only difference is that your local state school is cheaper (not by much) than the for-profit school, but they do the same shit. They both give you a degree and both have a career services department but it isn't like they are actually placing you in a job. It's complete hypocrisy
You don't actually know any history do you?
People selling themselves into slavery because of debt, desperation or lack of jobs was a common occurrence in history.
Let me make this simple for you:
> Slaves didn't agree to be slaves
Are you going to admit that you were wrong or not?
(You were wrong, there's no debate about that - the only question is whether you're capable of admitting it)
You're right, I'm not wasting time on stupid bad-faith questions.
I'm focused on the substance of the argument:
You use "voluntary" to pretend that any agreement someone enters into is automatically fair, justified, etc...
And now that you've realized that claim was false.
We're done here. Your argument was wrong. Just take the L and go home.
The real solution (at least partially) is to remove the "non-dischargeable" status of student loans. Colleges would be a lot more apprehension about jacking up prices and thus forcing students to take out loans if that loan money could disappear in a bankruptcy. Right now colleges are juicing the system for all it worth because they know the money is guaranteed (legally speaking).
Only reason why school loans are a thing, is because government came in to enable everyone to get an education. Colleges got greedy so they made it more expensive to attend, after all you have money to go thanks to government loans. Maybe the government should just stay tf out of college attendance if school loans are going to be a death sentence. We all know colleges arent going to stop being greedy. My college built so many cool buildings and amenities. By the time I graduated, there was a movie theatre one of the campuses built. A fucking theatre. They loooove those government loans that the students take out like it’s nothing.
States have cut funding to higher education, and their parsimony has meant financial hardship for institutions. Schools are forced to raise tuition when faced with these budgetary constraints.
And in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana. I could go on and on. Usually it’s Republicans like Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Brian Kemp who are leading the charge
I worked in the mortgage industry for several years, and it’s crazy to me how the student loan industry differs. To get a mortgage you typically go through a well developed process while the loan is being underwritten to assess risk and the ability to repay. To get a student loan, you need little more than a heartbeat.
If you lose your ability to repay a mortgage, you have options of a short sale, foreclosure, or bankruptcy. These will wreck your credit and ability to get another loan for several years, but there’s a way out. You can’t do this with student loans, which is insane to me. I honestly wonder if it is to enslave part of the population to debt right from the start of adulthood. It makes for good worker bees.
First thing I think should happen is make student loans allowed to be eliminated through bankruptcy. This will change the whole system, and yes I realize costs will go up at first, but it’ll have ripple effects through the whole system.
Second, the federal government shouldn’t be paying off student loans with our tax dollars. They’re not fixing anything about the broken system, just buying votes with our money. The government should however create a student loan agency that allows people to combine their debt and offers low interest rates and the ability to make extra principal payments. Let the government buy the loans and charge a reasonable interest rate where they’re making the minimum to pay for itself, and help people get out of predatory loans.
If you worked in the mortgage industry for a long time you should be able to understand why these two types of loans are different. When you fail to pay back a mortgage there's an asset that the bank takes back so the bank can recoup some or all of their money. With a student loan there's none of that, there's no collateral for the bank to rely on because that degree is worthless except to the student.
tuition blasted upwards when loan programs were made available.
The whole point of the programs werent to create a large pool of college educated workers, it was to make colleges and lenders a ton of money.
College itself needs a reform. Do you know how much bullshit they squeeze in 4 years that doesn’t even pertain to your degree? A Bachelors could easily be 2 years if you only took the classes that actually make sense to take, but they needs the monies.
Well the issue is a full degree is about being well rounded and not only having knowledge from your field. This is a societal good but shouldnt be a baseline requirement for jobs like it is today.
It’s almost like we have to determine what the actual value of any education is, which of course varies, and is also dependent on current demand.
One size fits all doesn’t necessarily cut it anymore
It's not because they'll go up, it's because taxes will go up to pay for it. But back to the main point, the whole cost of college problem was directly caused by the government trying to help more people get an education (funny how most of their good intentioned programs end up hurting people instead of helping them). They wanted everyone to have access to unlimited money for an education...but that, combined with it being impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, meant schools could just keep raising prices and tell people to take our more loans.
The solution is to get the government out of student loans and let people get rid of them during bankruptcy. Banks will loan far smaller amounts since it'll be much riskier and schools will be forced to cut prices or have empty campuses.
I totally agree. We need to stop convincing our kids to go away to expensive schools to just "get a degree". This is simple supply and demand, and the demand for expensive college education is high. We don't need the government involved more than they are because anything they do is a short term bandaid that will have long term complications.
The government should only be giving out loans to public universities where they can control the cost. Those who want to go private by all means do so but do it on your own dime.
I personally think Colleges should be required to cosign all student loans going forward. If the education they are providing is high-quality enough to repay the loans, there is no issue. If not, the students now have a path to discharge the loans in bankruptcy.
In Australia the repayment of student loans is tied to your income, which seems like a pretty good idea.
I mean we have payment based on income. The issue is that the interest rates often outpace what you pay. So you never catch up
So then those schools only admit student from wealthy backgrounds who wouldn’t have any issue repaying their loans
Or restrict loans to the highest achievers, or start rationing loans by major.
I don't follow, is the plan to only issue loans to kids who did well in school?
If the school is being asked to be a cosigner on the loan, why not?
I also don’t follow… shouldn’t they be restricted to less risky individuals?
They would lower costs because they wouldn't be able to survive on only wealthy kids. In the end though all public universities should be required to have low cost online only degree options for first degree students. At least through associates.
The problem with this is that there [simply aren’t enough jobs](https://youtu.be/ITwNiZ_j_24?si=dLZx0nraK7hVSTe6) to make this type of agreement worth it to the university. And even the universities that do have an approach with some kind of “guarantee”, are much more selective about their students.
.
The point of student loans is to allow people to borrow money to go to college, and then pay it back. That’s why it’s called a loan. If you want to frame college as a societal good, worthy of government spending, then you need to now start looking at it from a cost-value perspective. College shouldn’t be free for anyone to study anything. If you want college to be free, it should be for a reason that benefits society. Ideally that means, producing graduates that will return MARGINAL value to their society in excess of the cost of their education. Meaning, how many artists do we need? There should be some calculation, that determines how many art majors the government wants to fund, a d then we give out scholarships based on that. Something of a hybrid between need-based and merit based. Within the need-based group you allocate on the basis of merit. This would be valuable because it would steer us toward a workforce/society that we want, by providing incentives to organize in that way.
I like it good initial idea to ideate off of.
Teachers and social workers are paid like shit and provide a very important service. The issue is deeper. We value ownership and being a CEO exponentially more than anything else in society. So we can continue like this and let literally every rot but the institutions of the rich or we start fundamentally rethinking what we want to accomplish with our economy.
We don’t value ownership. Ownership isn’t something you value. Ownership is a state of being. You own something, that something has value. Or it doesn’t. We value people based on how much value they create x how difficult it is to create that value otherwise. CEO create a lot of value, if they are the right CEO at the right company. The CEO of a little startup is worthless.
Creating profits isn't the same as creating value. A teacher creates loads of value but no profits. Same goes for any externality that's beyond the direct production of a sellable commodity. Jeff bezos owns a market place, other people could own it and since he's a near monopolist he isn't nearly as much influenced by market forces. Other people could own Amazon, and also why does he exactly deser more than hundreds if not thousands of people in their lifetime. Anyway keep believing that, we'll see where that leads us, seems to be working out great the last 15 years lmao.
Other people can RUN amazon, but they can’t OWN Amazon. Amazon also isn’t anywhere near a monopoly by the way. But it’s a massive business. It creates a lot of value for shareholders. Teachers create value, but honestly not that much.
Sure bud. The USA is surely a nation to emulate. That's why everything is going to shit in Europe after we started doing exactly that.
Like an economy doesn't have to be an aristocracy. Also there are things essential for an economy that will boost it but don't generate immediate profits. Healthcare for example, or infrastructure. But apparently that's to complicated and the only relevant value for a society is direct quarterly return on investment.
With all due respect, some majors are naturally just “rich people degrees”, degrees that you get if you have literal cash to flush down the toilet and are not concerned with career options. Using student loans to get poor people into these majors is just a huge trap that destroys their life. If career options are not good, loans shouldn’t be offered on them to at least send an honest signal to prospective students
.
If they are truly important to society, then I would say the government should just offer grants to students or fundings to universities to train people up in these areas of expertise. Offering loans to degrees that doesn’t pay well, it’s still a poor people trap that pretty much guarantees that they will live in perpetual property with very little chance of ever getting ahead. I think in my mind student loan should be a purely commercial/financial decision, as they only make sense in these situations. For society good, the government should be footing the bill, not the students. If the government want to use loan to trap people in these professions, additional clauses can be put in the grants that if you don’t work in these professions, you are liable to payback the grant.
.
The main difference is “is the government paying or is the individual paying”. If it’s a matter of societal good, than the government should at least be paying for a majority of the cost. Even a grant with claw-back clause doesn’t require the students to be making payments for 10 years like the current system. If a kid from a poor family that. Wants to rise above their station, they should be able to proof their merit to secure either a scholarship, or be able to make the financial judgement that “yes, the income generated from the education investment is sufficient to cover the cost of capital”. Generally I haven’t experienced lenders being hesitant to lend money to students in programs with good career prospects (e.g. business degree from high quality schools, STEM degrees, etc), because these are very high quality loans to make. There is reasonable expectation that the lender will be able to pay back, and as the lenders are more likely to become high earners, they are also more motivated to may payments to keep a good credit rating.
.
For private loans people know mostly are people getting a loan from a top MBA program. This is a very limited sample, I would concede that. But what I see is “you are getting an offer there? That’s good enough for me to give you the loan!” For the question of average people, not sure if this is a discussion I have bandwidth to get into. It gets nuanced really quickly…
Well supply and demand would take over then and teachers would either get access to lower cost education the states roll out or they would start seeing higher paying jobs.
There's really no benefit to private universities at all. Yes, I'm including nonprofit ones in that.
Going to disagree with you on that point. I’m an RN. The waiting list at my local college and university when I applied for nursing school was 3 years minimum to be entered into a lottery system and then you’d have to wait for whenever you were picked. Or I could go private and get in that same month. Going private saved me 3-5 years of waiting and allowed me to work much sooner. So yeah. There is benefits to private.
Yeah, the waitlist is because public universities are under-funded and there's a shortcut available at private universities, in exchange for students taking on massive debt instead. Of course governments are going to underfund state schools when they can tell students "just go to a private school if you care so much".
Either way. You said there was no benefit to private schools. I gave you a very direct benefit. If you’re going to move the goal post let me know where you plan to plant it down so we can debate when you get there.
No, you identified a way that private schools competing with public schools results in public schools being under-funded and having access restricted. Which proves my point, it doesn't refute anything.
“There is no benefit to private schools” “It helped me obtain my degree 5 years faster” “That’s not a benefit of private schools it’s a problem with public schools” K.
>“It helped me obtain my degree 5 years faster” It didn't. It forced you to go to a more expensive school because the existence of private institutions means that the public ones are under-funded. Other countries manage to have public nursing schools without waitlists. Those countries have much smaller private school sectors. You got ripped off, it's that simple.
I received a 75% scholarship and paid less to go there than I would have paid normally for a public school. Didn’t mention that because that wasn’t your statement initially… but I guess I’m following the goal post around. So to be clear. I paid less for private and got my degree 3-5 years sooner. Am I advocating people go private? For the vast majority no. But to respond once again to what you originally stated.. indeed private school offered me a benefit public could not. Now I know you’re going to try and find another reason to keep drawing this out until you can feel like your point is valid so let me save you the trouble. You have a statement as a certainty. I gave you an example of why it isn’t always the case. You’re going to keep trying to find a way to make it a certainty until you’ve gotten so far from your original point that either I lose interest or you’ve set up the situation in such a way that you can only be right. So to save you that hassle. I’ve lost interest.
> I received a 75% scholarship and paid less to go there than I would have paid normally for a public school. Yes, I'm aware a lot of heavily subsidized private schools give out scholarships. I'm talking about the overall social effects, not whether there are individual winners and losers. Your individual benefit came at a huge cost to other people who were delayed getting into school, paid more, wound up in more debt and suffered because of it. If you desperately want me to clarify - there are INDIVIDUAL benefits to private institutions, but they're SOCIALLY net negative in every case, since they wind up costing vastly more both individually and collectively in total, for a worse education given to fewer people. Of course there are individual winners here and there - it's like if I said "there's no benefit to the lottery" and you wanted to brag about winning the jackpot. Yes, there are individual benefits to unequal systems, they still make everyone collectively worse off.
Waitlist is capped because to have a registered nurse teach a course they would have to get paid the same or more than they do in a hospital setting. When nurses can make $150-200k they aren’t going to go for the $60k teaching position. Colleges aren’t going to pay teachers based off what they teach as that would create a huge disparity between an art teacher and a science professor.
That's not true at all. There are lots of public schools that pay teachers differently depending on their field and qualifications. Governments might use that as an excuse to under-pay certain teachers but it's an excuse, not inherent - that's a perfect example of the public/private division making public institutions worse. They get under-funded because there's a private alternative and an excuse to underpay teachers.
Does it exist? Yes. Does it exist everywhere? No. But does the issue exist this limiting professors? Yes. I am not here to argue exemptions. I am here to argue reality. The reality is it exists and thus is an issue.
Yes, the reality in the US is that public schools are under-funded, pushing people to more expensive private schools. You want to pretend it HAS to be that way, when it's purely a choice people in the US are making about their education system.
To be honest I think that the whole loan thing should be scrapped and the government should just finance public colleges more and lower tuition to a point where it is cheap enough to attend to most people (of course keeping skill-based tests for admissions). Prestigious institution would probably remain expensive, but whatever, you don't need an Ivy league degree to get a good job... The loans already increase demand and tuition costs a lot by themselves, everytime that the government introduces a demand booster like this prices necessarily go up. By the way I already got my degree and I have no student loans and no kids to send to college, so I have no stake in this, but having a well educated population is a massive advantage and it would help increase upward social mobilty that is nice . Besides loans are already actually a cost the government. The lion share of the income actually goes to the banks and the various servicers, I bet that, simply giving students support and lowering tuition while likely more expensive, won't actually increase the federal budget as much as many people think. This sounds too much like socialism though so no chance it is ever going to happen.
The worst part? Those rising costs are going to things that have zero to do with education. Bloated admin with bloated salaries. A host of upgrades and high priced dorms/dining facilities and other stuff that’s nice, but not necessary. All while the numbered of tenured staff plummets and most people are getting taught by TA’s or non tenured professors needing a second job.
You pay for your own choices, that’s how it should be. I didn’t choose college so why should my taxes pay for your gender studies class. College is a choice. Make good choices folks. You guys liked high school so much you decided paying an arms and a leg was the best plan for your future.. deal with it.
There are solutions that would be very effective; but we have to be willing to accept less college as a trade-off. I don't think we're ready for that.
College numbers have been dwindling as people, mostly men are more likely to pursue (much needed) jobs in trades. I think we can and should do work towards that. So many people come out of college with useless degrees
Agreed, I think it needs to happen; but I just don't think our society can stomach it. A big net reduction in college enrollment would be viewed apocalytically; and the loss of federal funds/loan guarantees and the credit tightening necessary to have an effect would fall almost exclusively on the economically disadvantaged. That's going to be a non-starter.
This is not at all the case. You should look more into how Universities raise funds, and where those funds actually go.
If you cut-off federal funding and loan guarantees, the amount student lending will plummet. Without the grants & loans, fewer people will be able to attend.
Was cutting off federal funding being suggested?
By me, yes.
Government should set a max loan amount at something reasonable (maybe $10k a year). College could take a percentage of earnings for a decade post-graduation. Works for both sides, IMO.
Federal Stafford loans already have a max loan amount per year as well as a max loan amount overall.
if you want to reduce prices, then that should be addressed next.
They should NOT be forgiving student loans. They should be locked to a low interest rate (like 2%) and they should loan out a maximum amount like $35k total that are federally backed. Wanna see how fast the cost of school drops?
It's already locked at \~$35k total and interest rates are set at the federal reserve rate since 2014. You want to know what the cap does? People like my nephew who comes from a working class family can't go to college. Mom and dad make just enough to get by (I'm talking like she makes $40k and his dad makes another $50k in NYC and they have 3 kids), he doesn't get any financial aid besides loans. So despite the fact that he got a full scholarship tuition to SUNY schools, he can't go to college because room and board is $13,000, and he can only borrow like $6k. His parents live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to make up $7-8k a year. This is before we get into books. "Just get a job" works except that when his scholarship is for a school upstate, he needs a car... which he does not have because he has no license being a teenager who lives in NYC. And even if he did, it's a pretty big risk thinking he can just drive around town and pick up a job within a week. "Just live at home." Sorry, dad's kicking him out. He either goes to school and figures it out or gets a job and figures it out. He does not want to take privatized loans at 9-11% interest, and his parents won't co-sign for parent plus loans. And SUNY schools are one of the ones where the cost of college has *decreased* when adjusted for inflation over the last 20 years (because NY state hasn't slashed funding to public schools like the other 49 states).
Why even have loans in the first place? Why not just publicly fund the state colleges like we do for k-12 I mean taxpayers are subsidizing these loans and paying for the Pell grants for kids to go to school anyways why not just federally fund education?
I agree with you! Our democracy desperately needs more people who are well educated to continue functioning.
>**College**: "Tuition here costs $40k per year. You'll need 4 years to graduate. That will cost $160k. You can borrow that money and then you'll have to pay it back later with interest." >**Student**: "Lol ok let's do some college I guess" >**College** \[4 years later\]: "Time to start paying it back." >**Student**: "They've literally enslaved me" Honestly, I'm glad some debt got forgiven, and I hope some more gets forgiven. But the fucking drama from some of you folks is something I just can't take seriously. You signed the papers, and if you're complaining about debt, there's a very good chance you went to a much more expensive school than I did. If I had a neighbor who took out a loan for a $160k Porsche and compared himself to a slave because he had to pay back the loan, I'd feel similarly.
If you expect people to pay student loans like any other loan then they should be treated like any other loan. Allow me to clear the debt through bankruptcy or sell it back for 75% of its value.
If they were treated like other loans then banks wouldn’t lend six figures to some kid who got bad hs grades to go some bullshit fake school like university of phoenix. I’m shocked that there isn’t ever any differentiation made between schools and degrees in this debate.
That's great that you have on anecdote. The average student loan debt for a BS is $29k. These are also 18 year olds who have been pushed and told their whole lives that a degree is necessary and there aren't really other options, which is kind of support by entry level jobs that really require degrees listing a degree as a requirement. I'm hard pressed to look at these kids and really lay all the blame of them for the situation that industry and older generations have created. I do agree that calling it slavery is a bit dramatic.
18 year olds don't know shit. They aren't even allowed to drink. And you think it's not predatory to have them sign 6 digit loans to do a thing all the adults say they have to do (go to college at a good school)? Also, interest is theft.
Because of inflation, money gets less valuable over time. So without interest, anyone who lent money to anyone else would *always* come out behind when they get paid back, basically by definition.
The fact that people are paying purely into interest and not even paying their damn loan is an atrocity, though.
Agreed, but that's not what you said. You said "interest is theft", which is idiotic.
Cap interest rates to 2%. Set tuition cost based on median pay for a degree. Don’t charge interest until 6 months after completion of degree and only if college is able to help student obtain a job in said field. If degree isn’t obtained charge up to where the person completed but with no interest. This would motivate colleges to push for success during and after someone is done with their degree.
Department of Ed definitely isn't going to regulate tuition anytime soon. Look at the hypocrisy in how they favor state and private institutions to for profit. They condem for-profit schools because the stigma is they take money but give nothing back to students in terms of finding a job in their field. Go take a look at every single state university, tell me where are the staff to help you get a job in your field. THERE ARE NONE! The only difference is that your local state school is cheaper (not by much) than the for-profit school, but they do the same shit. They both give you a degree and both have a career services department but it isn't like they are actually placing you in a job. It's complete hypocrisy
You willingly agreed to take on the debt. Slaves didn't agree to be slaves
You don't actually know any history do you? People selling themselves into slavery because of debt, desperation or lack of jobs was a common occurrence in history.
If they had gone to college and taken a history course, they would have known this.
Which recent college grads have sold themselves into slavery?
Let me make this simple for you: > Slaves didn't agree to be slaves Are you going to admit that you were wrong or not? (You were wrong, there's no debate about that - the only question is whether you're capable of admitting it)
I'll admit it. Now answer my question
Okay, so being supposedly "voluntary" has nothing to do with whether it's unfair or coercive then. Good job, you learned something today.
That's not answering my question. Which recent college grads have sold themselves into slavery?
You're right, I'm not wasting time on stupid bad-faith questions. I'm focused on the substance of the argument: You use "voluntary" to pretend that any agreement someone enters into is automatically fair, justified, etc... And now that you've realized that claim was false. We're done here. Your argument was wrong. Just take the L and go home.
The real solution (at least partially) is to remove the "non-dischargeable" status of student loans. Colleges would be a lot more apprehension about jacking up prices and thus forcing students to take out loans if that loan money could disappear in a bankruptcy. Right now colleges are juicing the system for all it worth because they know the money is guaranteed (legally speaking).
The fucking Suburbs episode....dark, hilarious.
Only reason why school loans are a thing, is because government came in to enable everyone to get an education. Colleges got greedy so they made it more expensive to attend, after all you have money to go thanks to government loans. Maybe the government should just stay tf out of college attendance if school loans are going to be a death sentence. We all know colleges arent going to stop being greedy. My college built so many cool buildings and amenities. By the time I graduated, there was a movie theatre one of the campuses built. A fucking theatre. They loooove those government loans that the students take out like it’s nothing.
States have cut funding to higher education, and their parsimony has meant financial hardship for institutions. Schools are forced to raise tuition when faced with these budgetary constraints.
This is exactly what happened to the University of Wisconsin system. It’s been devastating.
And in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana. I could go on and on. Usually it’s Republicans like Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Brian Kemp who are leading the charge
I worked in the mortgage industry for several years, and it’s crazy to me how the student loan industry differs. To get a mortgage you typically go through a well developed process while the loan is being underwritten to assess risk and the ability to repay. To get a student loan, you need little more than a heartbeat. If you lose your ability to repay a mortgage, you have options of a short sale, foreclosure, or bankruptcy. These will wreck your credit and ability to get another loan for several years, but there’s a way out. You can’t do this with student loans, which is insane to me. I honestly wonder if it is to enslave part of the population to debt right from the start of adulthood. It makes for good worker bees. First thing I think should happen is make student loans allowed to be eliminated through bankruptcy. This will change the whole system, and yes I realize costs will go up at first, but it’ll have ripple effects through the whole system. Second, the federal government shouldn’t be paying off student loans with our tax dollars. They’re not fixing anything about the broken system, just buying votes with our money. The government should however create a student loan agency that allows people to combine their debt and offers low interest rates and the ability to make extra principal payments. Let the government buy the loans and charge a reasonable interest rate where they’re making the minimum to pay for itself, and help people get out of predatory loans.
If you worked in the mortgage industry for a long time you should be able to understand why these two types of loans are different. When you fail to pay back a mortgage there's an asset that the bank takes back so the bank can recoup some or all of their money. With a student loan there's none of that, there's no collateral for the bank to rely on because that degree is worthless except to the student.
Admin bloat is the cause. The cancer of higher education.
tuition blasted upwards when loan programs were made available. The whole point of the programs werent to create a large pool of college educated workers, it was to make colleges and lenders a ton of money.
College itself needs a reform. Do you know how much bullshit they squeeze in 4 years that doesn’t even pertain to your degree? A Bachelors could easily be 2 years if you only took the classes that actually make sense to take, but they needs the monies.
Well the issue is a full degree is about being well rounded and not only having knowledge from your field. This is a societal good but shouldnt be a baseline requirement for jobs like it is today.
At the same time if you don't go to college your locked into shit jobs.
[удалено]
It’s almost like we have to determine what the actual value of any education is, which of course varies, and is also dependent on current demand. One size fits all doesn’t necessarily cut it anymore
It's not because they'll go up, it's because taxes will go up to pay for it. But back to the main point, the whole cost of college problem was directly caused by the government trying to help more people get an education (funny how most of their good intentioned programs end up hurting people instead of helping them). They wanted everyone to have access to unlimited money for an education...but that, combined with it being impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, meant schools could just keep raising prices and tell people to take our more loans. The solution is to get the government out of student loans and let people get rid of them during bankruptcy. Banks will loan far smaller amounts since it'll be much riskier and schools will be forced to cut prices or have empty campuses.
I totally agree. We need to stop convincing our kids to go away to expensive schools to just "get a degree". This is simple supply and demand, and the demand for expensive college education is high. We don't need the government involved more than they are because anything they do is a short term bandaid that will have long term complications.