That is utterly missing the point. They are 17 when they are being fed this line. That they don’t actually sign any papers until they turn 18 is completely irrelevant.
You know I didnt say that.
First let us dump medical debt.
Then, like I said, allow student loans to be dischargeable. That will cost but not as much, then each debt can be looked at on a case by case basis by a experienced bankruptcy judge.
You dont have to make #1 finish before going on the students, but priorities are priorities.
Now the other two… well, a extra $5000 tax credit towards a new US made Hybrid or electric car would kill two birds. (and yes, “US made” needs to be defined as some Honda’s qualify and some Fords dont, but lawmakers are good at that)…
No, it’s not nor is a elephant. 
Not necessarily. Everyone who has already paid off their student loans can be entitled to the next higher educational level for free. So, if you paid off your BS, you get a free MS, etc. This entitlement can be transferable to children and dependents.
Everyone with current debt can have that debt wiped out.
So, you either get your Bachelor’s for free, or if you paid for it, you get your Master’s free.
At that point, we look into an overhaul of the college tuition and student loan system. Even if we offer free college from that point on, it doesn’t need to include free graduate and post-graduate programs. This allows everyone to benefit equally, and allows future generations to benefit from free or reduced college education. Every living college graduate who paid for a Bachelor’s would be entitled to a free Master’s program. While everyone else has to pay for it.
Everyone wins. Otherwise, we just have everyone pay back their obligations. Nobody forced them to take on loans. I paid off my college loans the day after I received my Master’s Degree. What a sucker I must have been if Biden decides to just clear out student debt.
Well, no, not in so many words, it was an analogy. But you were saying that medical debt is a problem, and that student loans are just stupid college students.
Medical debt is dischargeable through bankruptcy already. I do think that any sort of comprehensive health care bill should address the current outstanding debts, as well as assist those who have already declared bankruptcy over it. But, that’s for another thread. I see discussion of medical debt in this thread as simply an excuse to not address the problem of student loans, the actual topic of this thread.
As I’ve said a few times, I think the fairest method is to allow someone to have their debt, or at least a portion of their debt up to a certain amount, forgiven, and in exchange, they pay at the next higher tax bracket for the next 10 years.
Once again, outside the scope of this thread, but doesn’t that just mean that those cars will be $5000 more? If the idea is to get more fuel efficient cars into the hands of drivers, then creating an incentive for less expensive cars would be preferable to simply subsidizing them.
This does relate to the thread here, as the problem is that any action to improve a student’s ability to take on or discharge debt is simply more money that can be charged by colleges.
I personally think that we need to deal with the cost of making yourself qualified for a good job before we do go about paying off loans or making them even easier to get.
My understanding on this is that most of the time, graduate and post-grad programs are “free”, in that they are paid for by grants or by the student working for the university and professors.
They aren’t just learning, they are teaching, and they are expanding our overall knowledge.
There’s the rub.
We want to make it possible for people with no money to access higher education. Plenty of brilliant people are born into poor families. We want to get those smart kids educated. It benefits us all.
But the more money the government throws at the problem only sees the universities raise their prices.
Which circles back to government guaranteed loans. They are meant for people who would have a hard time getting a loan but the universities and banks see free money…which it pretty much is for them. They can keep dialing up the costs because why not?
In the meantime Jane Doe has a choice of accepting that debt and hoping it will pay off or be a waitress for the rest of her life.
Stop the banks from getting a free ride. If the government incurs the risk the government should get the profit too.
I think it should be highlighted that “free college” likely wouldn’t mean a free degree from the college of your choice. It wouldn’t be the traditional college experience with a beautiful campus and football games. The experience of a free college education would likely be similar to a community college, but for 4 years instead of 2. And free college likely wouldn’t include room and board due to the high costs of supplying that. I suspect that only a small amount of students would go the free college route. I expect that most students would continue down the current college path of picking a college of their choice and taking on whatever debt is necessary to attend that campus. With CC being so reasonably priced anyway, a cheap college education can be had by first doing 2 years at CC taking transferable courses and then finishing with 2 years at college. And there’s other ways to drastically cut the cost of a college education, but obviously that’s not as fun to a 17-year-old who wants the traditional college experience.
Probably the most realistic solution to the excessive debt issue is to make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. With that, the bankers will look at the student as an individual and consider carefully how likely the loan is to be paid back. A student with poor grades in a low-paying major would have a harder time getting loans, so they would be less likely to get in a situation with excessive debt anyway.
Blue collar jobs aren’t gone. Nor is affordable post high school training. And why do you believe that there are no jobs? Surely, supply and demand would work in the labor market if we would let it. China is having no issue with employment or productivity.
Ultimately, people need to realize that decisions have consequences and voters who vote in absolutely dumb politicians who enact counterproductive but sounds oh-so compassionate policy need to deal with the rational evolution of the system. When will folks learn that pumping practically unlimited amounts of cheap money into a sector of the economy results in bubbles? We had it with housing. We are having it with education. I bet a lot of the stock market valuation right now is a bit of a bubble.
I am in favour of:
- limits to tuition fees
- linking tuition and average salaries
- low interest rates
- ample bursaries for the needy and smart
- workplace relevant, well-paying jobs for students who require them
- high teaching assistant salaries
- good teaching assistant conditions
- schools being forced to provide relevant learning experiences (if applicable)
- shutting down degree mills and scam schools which take undue advantage of foreign students or the would-be educated
- forgiving portions of a loan, eventually, if later salaries are low despite effort
- forgiving all of a loan in bankruptcy
And prefer all of these to free tuition (just one portion of expenses anyway) or forgiveness (has to be something in it for the lender, but reasonable) for everybody (some do not need it, schools will raise tuitions and take the extra as a handout).
A good high school student can graduate with 2 years of AP physics, AP calc, AP english, 2 years of AP history. All of these being taught at a higher standard than freshman college especially community college. Yet the same high school diploma that student receives will be given to a student that is functionally illiterate and innumerate. If a high school diploma had not been devalued with lessening of standards over time the demand for a BA/BS would not be as high. We, as a society, have done no favors by destroying the reliability of signals employers used to use.
Countries differ, but many offer some excellent secondary school programs. I agree high standards are appropriate, and standardized testing sometimes is. Advanced courses can help for part of the first year in some courses. But this is fair - since students start at different levels, it only applies to some courses (many not offered outside of university), and it’s not like classes are the only thing going on at university. Sure, raise standards. But don’t devalue skilled trades or discourage good students from learning these skills in secondary school - or let bad students from thinking they can never improve or are limited to these options. Rigid thinking is limiting.
Agreed with the rest of your post, but it should be pointed out that the govt does make a profit off of them.
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/government-profit-student-loans
Though, obviously the banks make more, I actually found that cite while I was trying to find how much banks make off of them. I wasn’t able to find that, BTW, but I assume it’s quite a bit.
I’ll also mention that some of the articles that I saw indicate that the student loan program may start operating at a loss for the govt, but I haven’t looked into that very much yet.
Agreed, except I think that there should be free room and board available on some sort of means tested basis. Students don’t learn well when they are homeless and hungry.
Not yet, but they are going. The ones that are left are seeing wages stagnate and fall.
Just in retail, food service, and truck driving, we have 20 million jobs at risk, those won’t be there by the time that young kids today are graduating HS.
Manufacturing is another 15 million jobs, and a substantial number of those will be automated. 7 million in construction are also at risk, I see rollouts of bricklaying and drywall hanging robots that will become fairly prevalent in the near future.
Trade school isn’t free, and it will only suffer the same sort of tuition inflation if that is where everyone starts seeing their path to a middle class future.
Ah, yes, we should be more like China. I think I hear some chuckles on their way to you from those who are against the idea of command economies. If we want to have a system where you are pretty much told what job you will have from the time that you are born, then that’s a great model to follow.
Sure, people. Does that include the banks that made buckets of cash making the loans, the colleges that made wads off or taking those loans, or just the students who were 18 when they were told that if they didn’t sign these loan documents, they would be relegated to making fries at McDonalds the rest of their life?
You are right that oftentimes easy solutions are what get implemented, rather than more complex solutions that are harder to explain to the public. That doesn’t mean that we should refuse to consider solutions, it just means that we should avoid making simple, slogan level arguments about them.
If they went to a good high school. Not all schools offer such classes. The ones that do are limited in their size, so it requires both good grades and connections to get into them.
A certification that they have completed the basic requirements that the state has determined will be awarded to both. They will have substantially different transcripts, and often times, even their diplomas will be different.
If you go to a company that requires a diploma, and point out all your AP classes, they will tell you, “Great, that means you should go to college, when you get your degree, come back and apply.”
I disagree that a HS diploma has become devalued by standards. I know quite a number of people that don’t even have that, not everyone gets one. Now, since it is based on state standards, maybe some states let people graduate HS that haven’t mastered the basic competencies, but that is not all states.
It could be said that it is devalued because more people have HS diplomas, but your alternative is simply to have fewer people who meet the educational requirements necessary to earn one.
It’s not a matter of reliability of signals, it’s that they can. When few people went to college, few employers demanded their employees went to college. Since more people go to college, more employers demand a college diploma.
There can be quite a bit said about the overall state of our education system and its flaws, but once again, the person to be punished for this shouldn’t be the student.
Just like any scholarships, they are the exception rather than the norm. Most students are paying $30,000 to $120,000 for their graduate degree. Maybe they use TA or other low paying gigs to help with the costs, or maybe they have a full-time job where their time is more valuable. If it were normal for graduate schools to be free, doctors would not be graduating with a median tuition debt of over $200,000. Students graduating with PhDs in the United States have average student loan debt from $98,800 to $132,000 depending on degree. (CITE)
You thought that people were getting these degrees for free most of the time? If that were the case, what did you think was the reason everyone didn’t pursue a Master’s or PhD? I’d think that if it were free, there would be a lot more than just 13% of adults in the US holding a Master’s and under 5% with a PhD.
Most arent. Just the ones that borrow way more than they can afford to pay back.
And so?
“Public colleges and universities were often free at their founding in the United States, but over time, as public support was reduced or not increased sufficiently to compensate for their growth in students and costs (faculty and staff salaries, utilities etc.), they moved first to a low tuition and eventually higher tuition policy,…Public higher education was often free when a very small percentage of students attended, said Roger L. Geiger,…”
Back in the days when a college degree was rare, sure states could afford free colleges, but as many in this thread have stated, a 4 year degree is almost de rigueur. When 5% of the students wanted college, it wasnt a big burden, but now with nearly 70% wanting college, free is simply not feasible. Showing that a handful of small Euro nations do it, doesnt mean that the USA can or should.
And many students want private colleges, borrow money, and now you want us to pay for that choice?
If you are a STEM PhD student at a research university, if your tuition and expenses aren’t covered, your university isn’t producing graduates with much worth. The reason there aren’t that many Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, etc. PhDs each year is because it is hard to get in and hard to get through.
And yet we educate 100% of kids K-12 on the public dime.
How do we manage?
Four more years is just unthinkable somehow.
I voted “other.” I would devise a formula that incorporates some different variables.
- Did the student make reasonably good grades? I knew several who just partied, never studied, etc. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for that.
- Did the student finish a degree? It takes some gumption to get through upper level classes, fulfilling even requirements that aren’t always exciting.
- Did the student get a job in the field for which he/she trained? More than one? That was the idea—become more marketable in the workforce.
A lot isn’t “either/or,” but “to what degree.” From that and maybe a few other criteria I would generate a percentage. I would make it like a 401K…the borrower puts in a certain amount and the government matches with a percentage. That encourages the borrower to pay what they can, helping those who help themselves.
So to be clearer suppose a guy name John Jones applies. He was a straight B student, and that’s good. He did finish the degree, which is also good. But he didn’t use his degree for what he planned…he’s selling cars instead. Maybe that information generates a score of 40%.
Suppose John owes $70,000. He pays $500 one month and the percentage means $200 is forgiven. In the long run if he pays $50K, $20K will be forgiven and that’ll take care of his debt. So we don’t just wipe the slate clean without expecting effort from him, and we don’t reward until the effort is made.
I remember a guy, Jay, who was borrowing money to go to school and we thought he was out of his mind. His major: forestry. Nothing wrong with that, except that we knew his dream job (forest ranger) would never pay enough to pay back the loans. So I think some guidance counseling is in order before letting students borrow.
But I also think universities have become businesses, much like medicine. Tuitions are through the roof. Borrowers have to spend wisely because they’ll be the ones who are primarily on the hook.
Because we always have.