Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:47 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Read the polls. Your voters are saying it, not me:

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans...ke-news-634474
Unfortunately, your cite does not say what you think.

So, you aren't in favor of this particular plan, and anyone who points out the flaws in this particular plan hates children and education.

:shrugs: As I said, preposterous.

Regards,
Shodan
  #52  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:49 AM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,878
Nm, wrong thread (that was weird...)

Last edited by muldoonthief; 04-23-2019 at 11:49 AM. Reason: Wrong thread
  #53  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:53 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, I skimmed the paper in your linked article. Basically, the idea seems to be that the Government would take on the $1.4 trillion dollars by repaying the private institutes and that this would increase GDP, supposedly, between approx. $90 billion to $110 billion a year and lower unemployment by .22-.36% annually. There are a lot of assumptions I'm, frankly, not in a position to really talk about implicit in much of the paper. It would push our debt to close to $20 trillion by taking this on, which would increase our payments on the interest to over $400 billion a year or more, and I'm not seeing if they took that into account. They project a higher GDP, but don't really go into the details of whether that means increased tax revenue or what all that entails.

I suppose it's the banks or companies making student loans who would lose out and they would be the ones fighting this sort of thing the hardest, but I have to think that there are other catches too, or the projections are overly optimistic. Like I said, I have no issue changing the student loan process, it's definitely got issues, but I don't know if the US taking on $1.4 trillion in debt (to start...I presume that, after this we'll not want to allow kids to start racking up new debt, so we would probably need to fix that too going forward) would really have all the sunny upsides and no downsides as asserted in that paper. I haven't looked into debunking articles on it or anything, but it seems too good to be true and based on assumptions I'm unsure really hold up. And, frankly, I only skimmed it.
Well, thing is that when one looks at what other nations do, that does not sound as overly optimistic. This also comes by realizing that we do have a raw deal that is a drag on the economy.

https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2019...-not-a-bubble/
Quote:
Even for those of us who do not face the challenges of personally paying off massive balances, the overall crisis will hurt in other ways. Loan forgiveness programs are often tied to specific milestones that can take years to achieve, dragging repayment out over many years, or sometimes decades. This means a substantial fraction of young workers may struggle to save for retirement, emergency funds, house down payments or other financial goals until they are in their mid-to-late 30s or beyond. Young adults often just can’t afford to pursue financial milestones as soon as earlier generations could. And borrowers who have struggled to keep up with payments face all of the challenges created by a subpar credit score. Young adults with significant student loan debt are also less likely to pursue entrepreneurial ambitions.

Beyond the drag they create on gross domestic product and consumer consumption, student loans directly affect taxpayers, since the government guarantees the majority of these loans. Government programs that artificially lower borrowers’ repayment amount, such as income-based repayment plans, pass along inflated tuition costs to taxpayers, which is a drag on the economy at large. And if defaults continue to rise over time, it could create a growing financial burden for the federal government.
Quote:
The severity of the student loan debt crisis has led to a variety of proposed solutions. Some employers offer to help employees pay off student loans as a benefit. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have suggested forgiving more, or all, of the current outstanding loans owed directly to the government. Some lawmakers now advocate making public college tuition free to in-state residents, extending the state’s responsibility for education past grade 12. More moderate voices would like to concentrate on lowering college costs, if not all the way to zero, and on improving graduation rates to make sure that few if any students are stuck with serious debt and no degree to show for it. Making it harder to borrow for college is an understandably unpopular solution, but it could serve as a realistic check on colleges raising prices without consequences, year after year.

Reasonable people can disagree on the best way forward, but what seems clear is that we need to act. Student loan debt is a concern that the United States needs to address, not because it could trigger an economic crisis, but because it could act as a drag on our economy for years to come.
While the author is optimistic about this loan crisis to not burst like the housing bubble, I will say here that it was also thought by many economists that housing was not capable of ding so then.
  #54  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:55 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Well your current GOP Secretary of Education wants neither type of institution to face such regulations. ...
Unless you have some source that supports this claim, I'm inclined to believe that the thing the current GOP Secretary of Education opposed was the unlevel playing field between for-profit and other educational institutions created by the Obama-era rule. Here's another quote from GIGO's source:

Quote:
Ms. DeVos has tended to agree with critics and industry leaders who say that the Obama rules unfairly targeted for-profits. In statements, officials have maintained that Ms. DeVos is committed to “weeding out bad actors and doing what’s best for students, not capriciously targeting schools based on their tax status.”
  #55  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:59 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Well I mentioned in my OP that I generally agree here that worrying about fairness is a waste of time, but I'm less concerned with "I already went to college" fairness than "I couldn't afford to go to college" fairness. This is a handout to people well-off enough to be able to get into college and get the loans in the first place, and a big FU to poor and working classes who were kept out of college by the same screwed up system. I think the money could be better spent elsewhere, on that stratus of society, and that's something that concerns me about this plan.

I also think it's a bandaid but I've already said my peace there.
We can't fix yesterday.

We can work to make a better today and tomorrow for everyone though.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 04-23-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #56  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:00 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Unless you have some source that supports this claim, I'm inclined to believe that the thing the current GOP Secretary of Education opposed was the unlevel playing field between for-profit and other educational institutions created by the Obama-era rule. Here's another quote from GIGO's source:
But they didn't try to enact these regulations across the board, they want to remove them altogether, so they must not think the regulations are good. Or are you saying that they are working toward the opposite of what they actually want?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #57  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:02 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Unless you have some source that supports this claim, I'm inclined to believe that the thing the current GOP Secretary of Education opposed was the unlevel playing field between for-profit and other educational institutions created by the Obama-era rule. Here's another quote from GIGO's source:
Nope, that was the fig leaf. This is because there was no replacement plan that would be as effective as the past one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/u...-colleges.html
Quote:
But in rescinding the rule, the department is eradicating the most fearsome accountability measures — the loss of federal aid — for schools that promise to prepare students for specific careers but fail to prepare them for the job market, leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay back their taxpayer-backed loans.

The DeVos approach is reversing nearly a decade of efforts to create a tough accountability system for the largely unregulated for-profit sector of higher education. In recent years, large for-profit chains, which offer training for everything from automotive mechanics to cosmetology to cybersecurity, have collapsed under mountains of complaints and lawsuits for employing misleading and deceptive practices.

The implosions of ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges generated tens of thousands of complaints from student borrowers who said they were left with worthless degrees. The Obama administration encouraged the expansion of public community colleges as it forgave at least $450 million in taxpayer-funded student debt for for-profit graduates who could not find decent jobs with the degrees or certificates they had earned.

The regulations passed in the wake of those scandals remade the industry. Since 2010, when the Obama administration began deliberating the rules, more than 2,000 for-profit and career programs — nearly half — have closed, and the industry’s student population has dropped by more than 1.6 million, said Steve Gunderson, the president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the for-profit industry’s trade association.

Even for-profit leaders concede the gainful employment rule has had its intended effect. Mr. Gunderson said that for-profit institutions had to adjust programming to be more affordable and responsive to the job markets.

“The other side should declare victory and go home,” he said. “The reality is every school that has a program that was failing gainful employment metrics — and they knew it couldn’t be fixed — they’ve already closed. The sector today is so much better.”

Former Obama administration officials said this was no time to leave the field.

“By withdrawing the gainful employment regulations, the Trump administration is once again choosing the interests of executives and shareholders of predatory for-profit higher education institutions over protecting students and taxpayers,” said John King, the Obama-era education secretary charged with enforcing the rule, who called the move “outrageous and irresponsible.”
  #58  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:03 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Unfortunately, your cite does not say what you think.

So, you aren't in favor of this particular plan, and anyone who points out the flaws in this particular plan hates children and education.

:shrugs: As I said, preposterous.

Regards,
Shodan
Sure it does. From the cite:

"A Pew Research Center survey published Monday revealed voters have grown apart in their support of secondary education since the 2016 presidential election season, when a majority of Democratic and Republican Americans agreed the nation’s universities serve as a benefit for the U.S. Whereas 54 percent of Republicans said "colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country" in 2015, the majority now believe the opposite, with 58 percent saying such institutions negatively impact the state of the union."

58% of your fellow Republicans think that colleges and universities negatively affect America.

Why are you trying to deny this? That is what seems preposterous. The data is right there.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #59  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Nope, that was the fig leaf. This is because there was no replacement plan that would be as effective as the past one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/u...-colleges.html
If you think the past plan was an "effective" one, would you support applying it to public colleges as well? Or, again, is what's good for the goose in this case not good for the gander?
  #60  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
But they didn't try to enact these regulations across the board, they want to remove them altogether, so they must not think the regulations are good. Or are you saying that they are working toward the opposite of what they actually want?
I suspect they realized there were two possible ways to level the playing field:

1) repeal the rule

2) enact the rule for all educational institutions.

Some very basic political calculus probably informed them that #2 would run into a buzz-saw of opposition, largely from Democrats, and wasn't really viable, so they went with #1.

If the Democrats came back to Secretary DeVos and said, "hey, look, we see your point about the playing field not being level, but we really think these reforms are going to be good for higher education, so we'll join you in applying them to ALL higher education institutions" I suspect they'd find a delighted ally in Secretary DeVos and the administration.
  #61  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:12 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Can you explain what, in your mind, is the difference between a private for-profit college, and a public not-for-profit university?

Do you think they are exactly the same? Do you think the government should treat them exactly the same?

Do you think for profit corporations and non-profit organizations are treated exactly the same by the government? Do you think they should be?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #62  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:14 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you think the past plan was an "effective" one, would you support applying it to public colleges as well? Or, again, is what's good for the goose in this case not good for the gander?
Public colleges are already accredited and with less reports of shady deals as part of oversight already in place, so yeah.

And that was a red herring, because that was not the plan that De Vos came up with.
  #63  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Sure it does. From the cite:

"A Pew Research Center survey published Monday revealed voters have grown apart in their support of secondary education since the 2016 presidential election season, when a majority of Democratic and Republican Americans agreed the nation’s universities serve as a benefit for the U.S. Whereas 54 percent of Republicans said "colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country" in 2015, the majority now believe the opposite, with 58 percent saying such institutions negatively impact the state of the union."

58% of your fellow Republicans think that colleges and universities negatively affect America.

Why are you trying to deny this? That is what seems preposterous. The data is right there.
This post is absurd nonsense. As Velocity already noted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Airbeck, you are straw-manning in this thread. Saying that the GOP doesn't like education because how shoddily the U.S. education model works is akin to war-hawks who say that Democrats who oppose $700 billion defense budgets "do not support our men and women in uniform."
It's perfectly possible to believe that education, in general, is a good thing, and not think that the current iteration of America's higher education system (which has resulted in mountains of student debt) has not, on net, had "a positive impact on the way things were going in the country".
  #64  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:16 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
We can't fix yesterday.

We can work to make a better today and tomorrow for everyone though.
Yes, but there will be many voters still pissed off about yesterday not being fixed. You can say that's a bad attitude, but human nature is human nature. Which is why this plan may end up winning Warren fewer votes than she hopes for, or may even cost her votes.
  #65  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:16 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Sure it does.
No it doesn't.

To adopt your form of argumentation, Democrats support the left-wing indoctrination of students, harassment and intimidation of all points of view beside the most extreme, and systematically saddling of students and families with unmanageable levels of debt to fund their already bloated senses of entitlement. Any one who says otherwise hates freedom. Cite.

Regards,
Shodan
  #66  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:17 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This post is absurd nonsense. As Velocity already noted:



It's perfectly possible to believe that education, in general, is a good thing, and not think that the current iteration of America's higher education system (which has resulted in mountains of student debt) has not, on net, had "a positive impact on the way things were going in the country".
That isn't the question that was asked in the poll. What you are doing is called spinning.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #67  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:20 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yes, but there will be many voters still pissed off about yesterday not being fixed. You can say that's a bad attitude, but human nature is human nature. Which is why this plan may end up winning Warren fewer votes than she hopes for, or may even cost her votes.
Well I think its incumbent upon all of us to try to be better than that, so that we can try to make society better for those that come after us.

Is that realistic? Sadly, no. But we all must decide where we stand and do what we can. The alternative is just accepting that we are too selfish as a species to improve ourselves if we personally can't get all of the benefits ourselves right now.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #68  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Public colleges are already accredited and with less reports of shady deals as part of oversight already in place, so yeah.

And that was a red herring, because that was not the plan that De Vos came up with.
It's not a red herring, I'm asking your opinion on a matter. If public colleges are doing a bang-up job and their students are graduating with good employment prospects and earning enough to pay back their student loans, what would they have to fear from such a rule being applied to them? Why would you oppose a level-playing-field rule like that? Is it because you know that public colleges aren't exactly doing a bang-up job these days?
  #69  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:23 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
That isn't the question that was asked in the poll. What you are doing is called spinning.
What was the poll question? The bit in quotes in my post came directly from your source, from the bit you cited in post #58, in quotes.
  #70  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:24 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No it doesn't.

To adopt your form of argumentation, Democrats support the left-wing indoctrination of students, harassment and intimidation of all points of view beside the most extreme, and systematically saddling of students and families with unmanageable levels of debt to fund their already bloated senses of entitlement. Any one who says otherwise hates freedom. Cite.

Regards,
Shodan
I would ask that you not try to put words in my mouth or tell me what I would say in your imagination.

You are also doing a lot of ... generous interpretation... of that poll result. It was a simple question, but you and HD are trying to spin the hell out of it to make it seem virtuous. It's painfully obvious and honestly a little awkward to watch the attempts.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #71  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:28 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What was the poll question? The bit in quotes in my post came directly from your source, from the bit you cited in post #58, in quotes.
Simply this:

Do Colleges and Universities have a positive or negative affect on the way things are going in the country.

58% of Republican respondents said that colleges and universities have a negative affect on the way things are going in this country.

Anything else you've said outside of those words of the actual question are spin. I'm taking the simplest interpretation which is the exact words that were asked and the response.

I'm sorry if this is a hard truth for you, but not everything we learn about ourselves or our political side is pleasant. If we are honest with ourselves, that is.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #72  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not a red herring, I'm asking your opinion on a matter. If public colleges are doing a bang-up job and their students are graduating with good employment prospects and earning enough to pay back their student loans, what would they have to fear from such a rule being applied to them? Why would you oppose a level-playing-field rule like that? Is it because you know that public colleges aren't exactly doing a bang-up job these days?
It is because it is our tax money that is involved, also there are many other oversight tools used.

And there you go again with straw men, read it again and see that I did say "yeah" to have rules like that.

The red herring is still here by noticing that De Vos was not planning on applying the rules that way to public schools.
  #73  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:41 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
58% of Republican respondents said that colleges and universities have a negative affect on the way things are going in this country.
I don't think that objection is so much to education itself per se (i.e., learning how to do calculus or organic chemistry,) but rather, that many Republicans consider the majority of U.S. colleges and universities today to be liberally biased.

I don't know of a single Republican who claims that Patrick Henry College, Bob Jones, or Liberty University etc. ought not to exist. Those are politically right-leaning colleges.

Last edited by Velocity; 04-23-2019 at 12:42 PM.
  #74  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:44 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think that objection is so much to education itself per se (i.e., learning how to do calculus or organic chemistry,) but rather, that many Republicans consider the majority of U.S. colleges and universities today to be liberally biased.

I don't know of a single Republican who claims that Patrick Henry College, Bob Jones, or Liberty University etc. ought not to exist. Those are politically right-leaning colleges.
It didn't differentiate. It asked about *all* colleges and universities.

It was a simple poll question, with simple words, and a clear answer.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #75  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:48 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well, thing is that when one looks at what other nations do, that does not sound as overly optimistic. This also comes by realizing that we do have a raw deal that is a drag on the economy.

https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2019...-not-a-bubble/




While the author is optimistic about this loan crisis to not burst like the housing bubble, I will say here that it was also thought by many economists that housing was not capable of ding so then.
Well, that's the thing. It certainly is a drag, the thing is, would it be better to put that drag on the Federal government by increasing our debt by over a trillion dollars, or by leaving it where it is with the people who borrowed the money, presumably because they felt it would help them? I don't really know, but nothing in your cite here clears that up one way or the other. I'm not sure what other countries have to do with it, unless the assertion is that some/most/all other non-US countries forgive or forgave their student loan debt to the tune of the equivalent respective to their GDP of $1.4 trillion dollars.

Here are my questions on this plan. Is this a one time good deal or will this go hand in hand with some sort of proposed new system for student loans? IOW, are we going to fix the problem as part of this, or just forgive debt right now with the possibility we'll be doing this again down the road? Or is this part of some system to make all higher education 'free' from here on out, and if so, how will that work? What is the balance between the US directly taking on over a trillion more in debt verse the purported economic drag of the people (44 million Americans IIRC) who are currently obliged to pay them off? I'm all for a GDP boost, but how realistic are those numbers, and what, exactly are we talking about? GDP is not a universal measure for a growing economy...a lot of things can go into GDP. It also might not be taking into account the drag on our economy going forward of adding a trillion plus dollars to the debt.

I don't have an issue, in theory, with forgiving the student debt...from a personal perspective, two of my kids have student loans that they are paying off, so my family would benefit directly. Many of my extended family and friends would also benefit...many wouldn't. I know the loan system itself is deeply flawed, and that seems a better target to go after first, to fix this and then, once it's fixed and working, to perhaps consider going back and bailing out those affected by the old (current) system. To me, THAT seems a better way to go, but this isn't a subject I'm really that familiar with except to say I've seen some videos on student debt and some on the issues the system has (off the top of my head, the one I most clearly recall is Adam Ruins Student Loans ).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #76  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:55 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Straw man.


Another straw man, because I did clearly said that there should be some limits.


The fact that there are industries that have potential that fizzle by the time people graduate, and also Trump like universities and colleges.

People should have the freedom to change course when they find how wrong they were.
Uh no. It’s definitely not a strawman. I’d rather everyone get a check. Not just the fiscally foolish.

The problem is just printing money to solve a problem in one sector is mainly inflationary. Do politicians and the public ever learn from history and prior asset bubbles?
  #77  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:01 PM
CoastalMaineiac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midcoast Maine, USA
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is going to piss off a lot of graduates who just finished paying off their loans, as well as many students who scrimped their way, saved or worked their way to get through college without loans.
"I had to suffer. Therefore, I want the next generation to suffer as much as I did, and will be angry if they do not have to." What's the logic for that? I'm one of the graduates of whom you speak, and I do not feel that way at all. "Misery loves company" is a terrible philosophy to run a society on.

I'm a firm believer that the debtor is a slave to the lender, and that debt is something that should be avoided, not encouraged by the government. If we want to give our young people a leg up in life, the way to do that is NOT by enslaving them to banks with debts that cannot (in most cases) be discharged in bankruptcy, but by just flat out paying the bill for those students who have the intelligence to make it.
  #78  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:06 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoastalMaineiac View Post
... I'm a firm believer that the debtor is a slave to the lender, and that debt is something that should be avoided, not encouraged by the government. If we want to give our young people a leg up in life, the way to do that is NOT by enslaving them to banks with debts that cannot (in most cases) be discharged in bankruptcy, but by just flat out paying the bill for those students who have the intelligence to make it.
I don't understand. You start out saying that "debt is something that should be avoided, not encouraged by the government" and then you conclude by saying that we should be "just flat out paying the bill". "We" don't have money for that. "We" would have to incur (more) debt to pay their bills. If "debt is something that should be avoided" then "we" should not be paying anyone else's bills, at least until we get our own financial house in order.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-23-2019 at 01:07 PM.
  #79  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:09 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
The reason this is bad idea is not just that it is a waste of money and a subsidy to the upper middle class, but that it fundamentally misunderstands what college is.

For about 5-10% of students college is about education and the acquiring of knowledge that will help them be more productive. For the rest of the students it is about certification of the fact that you are smart and conscientiousness and thus will be a better worker. The more people get a certification then the weaker the signal the certification sends. Before WW2 only a quarter of the population graduated high school so that was a good signal that you were smart and motivated. Now 80-90% of the population graduates high school so all it signals is that you are not the lowest in intelligence and motivation. Rates of college graduation are about what rates of high school graduation were and rates of advanced degrees are about what college graduation were.

From an individual perspective it is worth it to be certified and graduate college because it sets you apart from other job seekers. From a societal standpoint all the money spent to certify who the top job seekers are is a waste. Senator Warren's loan scheme would make everything worse, it would increase the cost of college while making the signal sent by college attendance. It would encourage people to spend less time in productive work and more time trying to get credentialed.
The result is not increased prosperity but credential inflation, more young people wasted a decade of their lives to get credentials.
  #80  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:16 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Uh no. It’s definitely not a strawman.
It is because I did not say or proposed that, you started your reply by claiming that "you could just print money"...
  #81  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:16 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The reason this is bad idea is not just that it is a waste of money and a subsidy to the upper middle class, but that it fundamentally misunderstands what college is.

For about 5-10% of students college is about education and the acquiring of knowledge that will help them be more productive. For the rest of the students it is about certification of the fact that you are smart and conscientiousness and thus will be a better worker. The more people get a certification then the weaker the signal the certification sends. Before WW2 only a quarter of the population graduated high school so that was a good signal that you were smart and motivated. Now 80-90% of the population graduates high school so all it signals is that you are not the lowest in intelligence and motivation. Rates of college graduation are about what rates of high school graduation were and rates of advanced degrees are about what college graduation were.

From an individual perspective it is worth it to be certified and graduate college because it sets you apart from other job seekers. From a societal standpoint all the money spent to certify who the top job seekers are is a waste. Senator Warren's loan scheme would make everything worse, it would increase the cost of college while making the signal sent by college attendance. It would encourage people to spend less time in productive work and more time trying to get credentialed.
The result is not increased prosperity but credential inflation, more young people wasted a decade of their lives to get credentials.
That’s true as well. Used to be a high school diploma meant something. Now it doesn’t even ensure basic literacy or any competence in math.
  #82  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:21 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The reason this is bad idea is not just that it is a waste of money and a subsidy to the upper middle class, but that it fundamentally misunderstands what college is.

For about 5-10% of students college is about education and the acquiring of knowledge that will help them be more productive. For the rest of the students it is about certification of the fact that you are smart and conscientiousness and thus will be a better worker. The more people get a certification then the weaker the signal the certification sends. Before WW2 only a quarter of the population graduated high school so that was a good signal that you were smart and motivated. Now 80-90% of the population graduates high school so all it signals is that you are not the lowest in intelligence and motivation. Rates of college graduation are about what rates of high school graduation were and rates of advanced degrees are about what college graduation were.

From an individual perspective it is worth it to be certified and graduate college because it sets you apart from other job seekers. From a societal standpoint all the money spent to certify who the top job seekers are is a waste. Senator Warren's loan scheme would make everything worse, it would increase the cost of college while making the signal sent by college attendance. It would encourage people to spend less time in productive work and more time trying to get credentialed.
The result is not increased prosperity but credential inflation, more young people wasted a decade of their lives to get credentials.
Credentials like maybe a medical degree? Or law degree? Engineering? You do know that credentials can be very important in a lot of fields. Would you go to a doctor if the only thing on his wall was a GED certificate?

Education is good. The more educated we are as a population the better for us. I don't want to keep falling behind the rest of the world. How do we plan to compete in the global economy if we are hamstringing ourselves by reducing our education levels intentionally?

If conservatives don't want to be seen as anti-education, your arguments are doing a pretty poor job showing that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 04-23-2019 at 01:23 PM.
  #83  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:26 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That’s true as well. Used to be a high school diploma meant something. Now it doesn’t even ensure basic literacy or any competence in math.
It used to be people had to teach themselves how to read and life expectancy was less than 40 years.

Used to be != better.

We don't have to live how we used to anymore. We can be better.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #84  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:26 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
We need to build more colleges. Full stop. I think this plan Warren is proposing is bad for reasons already stated, but I think you're making a classic error here in accusing people of not wanting to fix the underlying issues just because we don't like this particular plan.

My sorta alma mater, Ohio State, hasn't drastically increased its in-state undergraduate enrollment in the 20 years since I left there. Instead, they've jacked up the prices to keep people out. If college is good, and I think it is, then Ohio should focus on building a second university to rival Ohio State so it can accept a lot more students at lower prices. But nobody is proposing this. Instead we're trying to figure out ways to gift existing colleges more taxpayer dollars and not demanding that they accept more students.
No, we do not need to build more colleges, full stop. Enrollment more or less peaked in 2010 and is expected to remain flat for another decade. This is largely a demographic phenomenon.

Prices are not high due to demand exceeding supply. They are high because demand for college is relatively inelastic. Hell we have a poster in this thread who admitted to taking out tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get an out-of-state chemical engineering degree instead of opting for cheaper options. If people respond to rising prices by just accepting them and borrowing more, then there's no pressure to stem the rise.
  #85  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:28 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
It used to be people had to teach themselves how to read and life expectancy was less than 40 years.

Used to be != better.

We don't have to live how we used to anymore. We can be better.
Devaluing credentials and inflating prices is doing worse.
  #86  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:31 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
I disagree that more people being educated devalues being educated. If I have an MD, and my friend also gets an MD, does that devalue my MD?

More people being educated is better for our society.

Unless you think we need more uneducated people, for some reason? I mean Trump said he loves the uneducated, so seems like that may be the view of your side.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #87  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:37 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
No, we do not need to build more colleges, full stop. Enrollment more or less peaked in 2010 and is expected to remain flat for another decade. This is largely a demographic phenomenon.
The high cost of college has nothing to do with it? 65% of the country wouldn't get a 4 year degree if it were affordable? I'm skeptical but if you have some data I'd be interested.

Demand is inelastic at certain colleges because the alternatives aren't seen as equal. People without means are regularly told to do two years at a community college and then transfer to a more reputable state school, but that's not seen as an equal path. Why should that even be necessary? The state school shouldn't cost 10x as much as the community college in the first place, and it wouldn't if there were more of them to go around. If students could choose between big state school X, Y, Z, D, Q, and R instead of big state schools X and Y and other, crappier options, they totally would.
  #88  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:44 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I disagree that more people being educated devalues being educated. If I have an MD, and my friend also gets an MD, does that devalue my MD?

More people being educated is better for our society.

Unless you think we need more uneducated people, for some reason? I mean Trump said he loves the uneducated, so seems like that may be the view of your side.
When standards are ignored or dumbed down it sure does devalue the credentials.
  #89  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:47 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
When standards are ignored or dumbed down it sure does devalue the credentials.
That is not responsive to what you quoted. I asked specific questions.

Is it better for the US to have more educated people or more uneducated people?

Better for the US that is, not better for the electoral prospects of the GOP.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #90  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:55 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
I like how the rising tide that lifts all boats is great when it means millionaires get a tax cut, but not so great when smart kids get to go to college where they might learn how to make the millionaire's factory more efficient.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #91  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:00 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
That is not responsive to what you quoted. I asked specific questions.

Is it better for the US to have more educated people or more uneducated people?

Better for the US that is, not better for the electoral prospects of the GOP.
Useful education is obviously a good. But eliminating student loan debt is not necessarily linked to useful education. There is a lot of time and money wasted on useless or less than useless degrees. Further incentivizing foolishness is not good. It might be good politics but it’s not good for productivity.
  #92  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:03 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Useful education is obviously a good. But eliminating student loan debt is not necessarily linked to useful education. There is a lot of time and money wasted on useless or less than useless degrees. Further incentivizing foolishness is not good. It might be good politics but it’s not good for productivity.
Who decides what is useless education? You? The GOP?

Knowledge is a good in and of itself. Who are you to try to take access to that away from anyone because you consider it useless?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #93  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The best thing we could do for future college students is to cease giving gobs of debt to so many people who barely understand it.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you about something.


In my opinion, were I god-emperor of the world (well, country), I'd do the following.

1) Make all state-run colleges free. Completely free. Don't gotta even pay for textbooks free. (You know, like we already do with elementary and high school.)

2) Build more of them to help meet demand.

3) Start shutting down student loans. (Including private ones - regulation, baby! Socialism! Dogs and cats living together!) It doesn't have to be cold turkey, but I'd start instituting caps on how large of loans can be issued, with the idea of making the most outrageous of tuitions basically unaffordable. Private colleges can lower their prices or shut down. (Free market pricing only works when people have to pay for things themselves.)

4) As the max student loan caps drop, forgive outstanding debt as needed such that no individual owes more than the new caps. It ain't fair to those who already paid, but any effort to improve things is unfair to people who suffered through the old system. Doesn't mean we shouldn't improve things.
  #94  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:08 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Who decides what is useless education? You? The GOP?

Knowledge is a good in and of itself. Who are you to try to take access to that away from anyone because you consider it useless?
Depends...who is paying for it? If you are paying for it, then you get to decide. If I'm paying for it, then I get to decide. If we, collectively are paying for it well...then it gets really complicated deciding what is, or isn't 'useless', doesn't it? I mean, personally, I think that theological degrees are useless as is woo medicine and some other things along those lines. I also think a lot of the humanities type degrees are...well, not useless, but less than useful for a career, and part of this program is being sold on the presumption of economic benefit to society.

But if you are going to talk about society as a whole paying for or paying off the debts for the education choices people made, then it is going to come up. Unless we just want to say that any education for anything is good, here's some money. Which, I seriously doubt anyone would actually advocate if they really thought about it.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #95  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:14 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
My position is that the greater the knowledge available to everyone, and the more knowledge acquired by everyone, the better for society and humanity.

Ignorance is one of the main things holding us back as a species from reaching our potential.

I don't trust the government to decide what knowledge I'm allowed to access or acquire.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #96  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:18 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Who decides what is useless education? You? The GOP?

Knowledge is a good in and of itself. Who are you to try to take access to that away from anyone because you consider it useless?
I don’t decide. The market does. I didn’t get a degree in a subject that would have been of more interest to me. I got a degree in a field that has market value.

And I’m not trying to take “access” away from anyone. If people can afford useless degrees I’m not going to stop them. But I will argue against society borrowing or printing money to pay for useless or even counterproductive degrees.
  #97  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:19 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Do you think art is useless? Music?

Because I wouldn't want to live in a society without either.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 04-23-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #98  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:23 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think art is useless? Music?
No. But it’s foolish to spend 4 years of one’s life and 200k for a degree in art or music if there is no realistic return on investment. I’m all for expanding arts programs, PE, etc. in k-12 and establishing low cost vocational tertiary education. I’m not for programs that severely distort the cost of college such as guaranteed student loans nor am I for dumbing down standards for PC reasons.

I’d even pay more taxes for rational education reform. But senator warren isn’t being rational.
  #99  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:25 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,649
Of all the things that aren't blatantly ridiculous, student loan forgiveness is one of the worse things I can think of to spend our money on, ranking behind most reparations, which I am not even in favor of. It would be an additional several trillion over the long haul coming out of nowhere. Healthcare and even a UBI would be a better use of our tax money (I say healthcare because while actually a net saver, it would look like it cost money because taxes would have to go up a little bit even if the country as a whole saves money.) With regards to the HBCU, I wonder if that money wouldn't be better spend on underperforming high and primary schools, to make underprivileged children better prepared for college.

That said we could use more subsidies for state and local colleges and trade schools.
  #100  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:26 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
My position is that the greater the knowledge available to everyone, and the more knowledge acquired by everyone, the better for society and humanity.

Ignorance is one of the main things holding us back as a species from reaching our potential.

I don't trust the government to decide what knowledge I'm allowed to access or acquire.
If you have us, collectively pay for it, then you ARE trusting the government to decide...unless, again, we just basically go with anything anyone wants to study, here is some money. The thing is, I don't agree that every subject anyone would want to study is a benefit to society. Personally, I think mainly the engineering, science and the tech related stuff are beneficial, but that's just me. But I think there are things that most in this thread WOULD agree are bullshit that society shouldn't pay for. If an individual wants to study that shit, well, it's their dime. But who decides what is or isn't beneficial, or what the limits are? You? Me? Our politicians? It's an issue and one I think you and others are glossing over in these types of discussions.

I don't know if college should be 'free'. That seems...wrong to me. I don't know if the education would be as valued if it was a gift anyone could get anytime. By the same token, I agree with some of your point...an educated society is a better society. I think it should be, at best, a combination of our collective society chipping in some dough for part of an education (which would need to be defined wrt what we, collectively, want to pay for) and part of it should come from the person who wants that education...that way, everyone has some skin in the game, so to speak. The details are irrelevant at this point, but I don't think that the US collectively taking on $1.4 trillion is something to take lightly, and, frankly, it doesn't solve anything unless there are plans to rectify the core issues, as all it would do is give a loan now to folks who have already taken the classes...it won't do shit to folks taking future classes. Saying we'd just pay for that too means we are talking about taking on half a trillion dollars or more additional spending every year, which doesn't seem...optimal...either.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017