Schools that charge $60k also give out large amounts of need-based scholarships. The cost of attendance at the university I attended is now north of $80k/year. I got a full-tuition grant, good for 4 years. It made my actual out-of-pocket cost the same as for my state university with in-state tuition.
My nephew is a very bright and talented kid, got great test scores, and got accepted to the U of I in Urbana, which is a hugely competitive school to get accepted at, even for in-state students like him. But, his family is solidly middle-class, and he was offered essentially zero financial aid or scholarships from them – the only “aid” would be student loans.
He also got accepted to Valparaiso University, a small private college in northwestern Indiana; while their annual all-in fees is about $60K, they offered him a big package of scholarships and grants, meaning that he had to pay far less to go to Valpo than if he had chosen the U of I.
I’m enjoying those memes pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians who are up in arms about this decision.
Deuteronomy 15:1, New King James Version
In addition to what others have said, a student would be incentivized to attend the most expensive school they can, take out as many loans as they can, spend as much money as they can, and simply declare bankruptcy after they graduate. That would be their plan from the start, and who can blame them? After graduation they usually have very few assets, little to no money, and the temporary black mark on their credit rating is a lot more easy to deal with than trying to pay back $150K in loans over 20 years. And they still got the degree - for free! Heck, it would be foolish to not declare bankruptcy immediately upon graduation.
What hypocrisy? Very few Christians claim that the Mosiac law is still in effect.
Touché. My apologies. Selective enforcement of biblical passages is indeed typical of modern Christendom.
Except for that one teensy-weensy passage in Leviticus.
Yep. Jesus didn’t say anything about gay people. But let’s not turn it into a hijack.
Except a student is already incentivized to attend the most expensive school (presuming that expensive means prestigious), right? The cost has nothing to do with it - they aren’t going because it’s expensive, and they’d still want to go if it was cheaper.
And the loans are to cover the costs, right? So they are taking out the loans to cover school, meaning it doesn’t really follow that they can “take out as many loans as they can, spend as much as they can” - the loans they seek are based on the cost of their curriculum, which is itself limited by their time and ability to take and pass classes.
So I guess I don’t see how making it easier to escape the cost of student loans would cause people to accumulate excess loans.
I mean, if we made school totally paid through taxes, rather than tuition, would we expect students to each start getting multiple degrees, or just meander in school for a decade or so? I’m not so sure that would be the result.
Ultimately, i don’t think a university education is a unit of commerce that translates to traditional thinking about spending.
Bankruptcy ruins your credit (for seven years, I believe), whereas timely repayment does the opposite. If the debt wasn’t exorbitant, and you were not eligible to discharge it if you were making decent money, I must disagree that it would be a good idea to immediately declare bankruptcy.
Just make student loans dischargeable only after X years for some appropriate value of X. Problem solved. Easy peasy.
I think the Bible is filled with debt forgiveness, and I mean literal. Not just “Jesus paid for your debt(sin) even though he didn’t have to”. I mean it is filled with forgiving financial debts.
Perhaps what was meant is students borrowing and spending irresponsibly. For example, renting an off-campus apartment rather than the dorms or other, less expensive housing. And summer international travel (all summer). I know someone’s kid who did both of those and racked-up substantial un-necessary debt.
Bingo, it is more about the right returning to the dog whistles rather than the almost (for many on the right**) shameful things that they were lately saying in the open.
.
.
.
** Really, Trump showed that having no shame is in many cases a plus for the Republicans.
actually many colleges require you to live on campus for the first year or two of school then ya have to find ya own place
Huh? What I see from looking at sites that actually show quantitative data about labor market outcomes for different majors is quite different from what your generic anti-social-sciences sneering suggests.
In that list, the highest unemployment rate is for Physics majors (7.7%). The majors of Psychology (3.9%), Communications (3.6%), and Liberal Arts (4.3%; I don’t see a listing specifically for Gender Studies, possibly reflecting the fact that at many institutions it’s an academic minor but not a major) all have lower unemployment rates than Physics, Computer Science (5.2%), Mathematics (4.9%), and General Engineering (4.9%).
If we’re looking only at underemployment rates, fields like Liberal Arts (59.5%), Communications (54.1%), and Psychology (50.0%) rank higher, but so do fields like Criminal Justice (73.2%), Business Management (58.8%), Agriculture (58.7%), and General Business (55.0%).
Even many of what you would probably assume to be more intrinsically “useful” academic fields also have substantial underemployment rates, including Biology (46.1%), Engineering Technologies (40.4%), Economics (39.5%), and Chemistry (37.9%). If nearly 6 in 10 Liberal Arts majors are considered “underemployed”, but so are nearly 4 in 10 Chemistry majors, is that difference really indicating something so terribly significant about the relative social value of those fields?
All of which goes to show us that the sort of knee-jerk disdain for “non-STEM” fields routinely indulged in by the old farts who run conservative media outlets is not necessarily a reliable guide to the realities of the labor market.
Another reality of the labor market that anti-education conservatives tend to ignore is the fact that female-dominated fields tend to be paid less, not because their jobs are less “valuable”, but because their workers are women.
If you look at the “Median Wage Mid-Career” category in my previous link, you’ll see that the lowest slots are solidly dominated by various areas of Education. Is that because educating children isn’t actually a valuable activity for society? Horseshit: it’s because educating children is traditionally (since the early 20th century, at least) considered a woman’s job, and employers tend to take it for granted that they can and should pay “women’s jobs” less.
The “plumbers and carpenters” of your example, on the other hand, are fields still overwhelmingly dominated by men, which may help explain why society thinks they deserve to earn good money even with no college degree. (Not that I’m arguing that plumbers and carpenters, whether male or female, shouldn’t make good money, or that college ought to be required for all or even most jobs. I’m just calling bullshit on your naive assumption that pay rates are automatically a reliable measure of the social value of a profession.)
So yeah, we need to take labor market outcomes with a few grains of salt when considering what pay and employment levels really say about the true social value of fields of study. As for the sort of half-assed anti-academic prejudices that you’re describing, we’ll need to head to the supermarket and stock up considerably on salt.
By that reasoning, why don’t people take out huge loans to buy incredibly huge homes then declare bankruptcy? Homes - at least primary residences - ARE protected in bankruptcy. Why don’t people max out credit limits and declare bankruptcy on a regular basis? There was a time when student loans could, in fact, be discharged in bankruptcy. There was never a spate of post-graduation bankruptcies.
Past experience indicates that your worst case scenario would be a rare event.
Also, while you can file for bankruptcy you still have to go before a judge, it’s not automatically granted.
The current situation, where people have loans that potentially never go away over the course of decades, is untenable.
"The White House hit back at Republicans in an uncharacteristic manner Thursday by using its Twitter account to go after GOP lawmakers who are bashing President Joe Biden’s move to cancel some student debt after they personally benefited from having Paycheck Protection Program loans forgiven during the Covid pandemic.
In a series of tweets, the White House highlighted several congressional Republicans — Reps. Vern Buchanan of Florida, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Markwayne Mullin and Kevin Hern of Oklahoma — who it said had tens of thousands of dollars in PPP loans forgiven as part of a federal program intended to help those harmed by the coronavirus.
…
Greene, who said on Newsmax that “it’s completely unfair” for student loans to be forgiven, had $183,504 in PPP loans forgiven, according to the White House."
Every college I know of that has that requirement also has an exemption for local students and/or students not coming directly from high school - they aren’t trying to prevent people from living off-campus with their family. The particular people I had in mind ( there were three or four) were living in dorms at primarily commuter colleges a half-hour or so from their family home.
Personally, I’m stunned it took this long for people to sneer at gender studies in this thread. Usually, it’s right up top.
Thanks for bringing the stats!
Personally, I am loving that the White House is showing receipts on Republican hypocrisy about this.