5 ms·

I agree. When the government subsidizes student loans (which I think they should in order to promote an educated/skilled society) there must be cost controls o

I agree. When the government subsidizes student loans (which I think they should in order to promote an educated/skilled society) there must be cost controls on the school (no NE private school art majors costing 100k+) and underwriting on the part of both the school and the student (the student doesn't successfully complete a degree, the government gets money back), in combination with monitoring.

des429 10y ago
They are private institutions. They can charge whatever they like. How about not providing easy money to absolutely anyone for a college degree?
- John23832 10y ago
  >> When the government subsidizes student loans...there must be cost controls on the school (no NE private school art majors costing 100k+) I never said that they couldn't. I said that when the government pays for student loans they should enforce price controls and underwriting of the loans.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  They are private institutions that ride on tons of government money because they are for some reason considered non-profit.
koolba 10y ago
> When the government subsidizes student loans (which I think they should in order to promote an educated/skilled society) there must be cost controls on the school (no NE private school art majors costing 100k+) and underwriting on the part of both the school and the student (the student doesn't successfully complete a degree, the government gets money back), in combination with monitoring. If the government really wants to get involved in this (which I really wish they didn't) they should build and operate more schools. Make them either at-cost, heavily subsidized, or (my preference) entirely free for anyone to attend. Forget income requirements, residency requirements, or anything else. Just make it entirely free to anyone that wants to show up and learn. This would force the private sector to actually compete against something meaningful and that would lead to lower prices. The current system of the government handing out loans to anybody for anything is what leads to $100K 4-year tuitions. We've already got a decent baseline of community colleges throughout the USA. If they closed off the student loan spigot and poured that same money into there we'd all be much better off. If someone wants to go to $EXPENSIVE_SCHOOL then fine, let them figure it out on their own or get the school to use their $N-billionaire dollar endowment to subsidize it.
- John23832 10y ago
  > If the government really wants to get involved in this (which I really wish they didn't) they should build and operate more schools. Make them either at-cost, heavily subsidized, or (my preference) entirely free for anyone to attend. Forget income requirements, residency requirements, or anything else. Just make it entirely free to anyone that wants to show up and learn. By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. If schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it also leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. No providing loans increases the demand side of things (more people capable of paying) without controlling costs or increasing supply. Building and operating more schools increases supply which would have a downward pressure on costs as private institutions would then be competing for students against (more) government run schools. > IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. The single if schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism.
    - John23832 10y ago
      > Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism. Well single payer isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism. I wasn't trying to represent it as Capitalism. In (this form) Capitalism, if one buyer and one seller can't agree (where the supply and demand meet), then that's ok because there are (most likely, given a supply/demand graph) other buyers and other sellers. In (this form) Socialism, if the sellers cannot agree with the single payer (or the payer that represents an overwhelming number of the potential buyers) then they don't get paid for services (or are relegated to the much smaller market segment). >> I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off. Not to imply that you were being disingenuous/malicious, but leaving out this part of my post misrepresents what I was trying to say.
runeb 10y ago
Are there not caps on student loans in the US? In Norway student loans are given by a government body and there is a capped amount per year of studies. This effectively caps the private schools tuition too.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  There is a cap on what the government will directly loan, which is fairly low for undergrad, but higher for grad school. http://studentaid.psu.edu/types-of-aid/loans/federal-direct/loan-limits http://studentaid.psu.edu/types-of-aid/loans/federal-direct/... Gives you about 31k as an undergrad, and 138k as a grad student. So combined you could be 160k in debt, which adds up especially if you don't do payments for a few years. Then there is a whole other product of "private loans" where a bank gives you a loan, but the government agrees to back against loss to some degree (unsure of exact rules). Seems like this limit varies by lender, but is in the 70-120k range https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/terms/loan-limits/ https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/terms/loan-limits/ So all said, you can end up with a LOT of debt.
- pnutjam 10y ago
  There are limits in the US as well, but I think there are ways around them. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsid...

des429 10y ago

They are private institutions. They can charge whatever they like. How about not providing easy money to absolutely anyone for a college degree?

John23832 10y ago
>> When the government subsidizes student loans...there must be cost controls on the school (no NE private school art majors costing 100k+) I never said that they couldn't. I said that when the government pays for student loans they should enforce price controls and underwriting of the loans.
dexterdog 10y ago
They are private institutions that ride on tons of government money because they are for some reason considered non-profit.

koolba 10y ago

> When the government subsidizes student loans (which I think they should in order to promote an educated/skilled society) there must be cost controls on the school (no NE private school art majors costing 100k+) and underwriting on the part of both the school and the student (the student doesn't successfully complete a degree, the government gets money back), in combination with monitoring. If the government really wants to get involved in this (which I really wish they didn't) they should build and operate more schools. Make them either at-cost, heavily subsidized, or (my preference) entirely free for anyone to attend. Forget income requirements, residency requirements, or anything else. Just make it entirely free to anyone that wants to show up and learn. This would force the private sector to actually compete against something meaningful and that would lead to lower prices. The current system of the government handing out loans to anybody for anything is what leads to $100K 4-year tuitions. We've already got a decent baseline of community colleges throughout the USA. If they closed off the student loan spigot and poured that same money into there we'd all be much better off. If someone wants to go to $EXPENSIVE_SCHOOL then fine, let them figure it out on their own or get the school to use their $N-billionaire dollar endowment to subsidize it.

John23832 10y ago
> If the government really wants to get involved in this (which I really wish they didn't) they should build and operate more schools. Make them either at-cost, heavily subsidized, or (my preference) entirely free for anyone to attend. Forget income requirements, residency requirements, or anything else. Just make it entirely free to anyone that wants to show up and learn. By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. If schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it also leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off.
- koolba 10y ago
  > By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. No providing loans increases the demand side of things (more people capable of paying) without controlling costs or increasing supply. Building and operating more schools increases supply which would have a downward pressure on costs as private institutions would then be competing for students against (more) government run schools. > IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. The single if schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism.
  - John23832 10y ago
    > Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism. Well single payer isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism. I wasn't trying to represent it as Capitalism. In (this form) Capitalism, if one buyer and one seller can't agree (where the supply and demand meet), then that's ok because there are (most likely, given a supply/demand graph) other buyers and other sellers. In (this form) Socialism, if the sellers cannot agree with the single payer (or the payer that represents an overwhelming number of the potential buyers) then they don't get paid for services (or are relegated to the much smaller market segment). >> I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off. Not to imply that you were being disingenuous/malicious, but leaving out this part of my post misrepresents what I was trying to say.

runeb 10y ago

Are there not caps on student loans in the US? In Norway student loans are given by a government body and there is a capped amount per year of studies. This effectively caps the private schools tuition too.

brianwawok 10y ago
There is a cap on what the government will directly loan, which is fairly low for undergrad, but higher for grad school. http://studentaid.psu.edu/types-of-aid/loans/federal-direct/loan-limits http://studentaid.psu.edu/types-of-aid/loans/federal-direct/... Gives you about 31k as an undergrad, and 138k as a grad student. So combined you could be 160k in debt, which adds up especially if you don't do payments for a few years. Then there is a whole other product of "private loans" where a bank gives you a loan, but the government agrees to back against loss to some degree (unsure of exact rules). Seems like this limit varies by lender, but is in the 70-120k range https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/terms/loan-limits/ https://www.edvisors.com/college-loans/terms/loan-limits/ So all said, you can end up with a LOT of debt.
pnutjam 10y ago
There are limits in the US as well, but I think there are ways around them. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsid...