7 ms·

This is such a silly meme. Its not "due to government involvement." Its "due to the manner of government involvement." Loans that are guaranteed by the gover

by ep103 9y ago

This is such a silly meme. Its not "due to government involvement." Its "due to the manner of government involvement." Loans that are guaranteed by the government, for all students, that can't be discharged by bankruptcy, is an idea clearly put together by lenders. If we wanted government subsidies for private education, there are plenty of alternatives. Here's one: government guaranteed loans for all students; but repayment of those loans is capped as a percentage of the person's income, and interest rate is capped well beneath that. This would allow the government to subsidize students to go to college, while providing market pressure against universities raising their tuition yearly. It would also allow students who went to expensive institutions to pursue careers that aren't at the top of the financial spectrum, like, say, teaching.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Or we could make public college free, just like we did with high school.
- gbrown 9y ago
  That's far too direct and obvious, we prefer expensive, obfuscated "solutions" here.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 9y ago
  You need to remember what country "we" are discussing, and adjust your expectations accordingly.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  And when public college becomes the new high school continue to add layers of education as needed.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Nah, we just realize that we're demanding an excessive amount of education for most jobs because employers can demand it with no cost to themselves, forcing an entire generation to take on a debt burden their parents did not have to because the cost of education had not become overly inflated yet. The fix for this can be realized with a tax that funds education; if you need someone with a bachelors, you pay X as a tax. If you need someone with a masters, you pay 2X. A PhD? 4X. If the position doesn't require a degree and you train them, you pay no tax (ie journeyman or apprenticeship).
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Are you arguing against public high schools? I don't understand.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      Not at all, I'm just pointing out that many jobs that only required a high school degree now require a college degree without the job fundamentally changing all that much. More people attending college would likely worsen that trend to the point where "College 2" (whatever it would be called) would then be required to stand out.
      - wfo 9y ago
        And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothing, since those citizens wouldn't be able to generate extra wealth for their bosses. What a nightmare.
        KekDemaga 9y ago
        Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary.
- T2_t2 9y ago
  So... generic and not leading to a job? The problem is the proliferation of degrees, and thinking that hasn't caught up with the new reality (e.g. "getting a degree is good" -> "getting the RIGHT degree is good"). Not sure it gets better in a global world, where the vast majority of high IQ people live outside the west, and intelligent jobs not based on local legislation (like lawyers) can move easily internationally.
- binarymax 9y ago
  "Free" is covered by taxes already paid. So making university "free" would be an additional tax. But instead of the attendees paying for them directly, the pay would be spread out. Also, it would change the dynamic of which school you could attend. High School is covered based on taxes in the town paid for by property owners. Some university programs are subsidized by state taxes (like SUNY for New York) and are discounted for residents of the state. This would likely just extend these kinds of programs with a higher state tax.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    We just spent $80bil on the military. Free college is estimated at $65-75bil, so we just take that money, and move it over here and blammo. Free public university for everyone. (:
    - binarymax 9y ago
      One can only dream!
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      With that amount of money, can't you just end poverty directly? Why do so many people treat college like a terminal, intrinsic good?
      - freeflight 9y ago
        How would you propose to "end poverty"? Paying all the debt of the poor? But that wouldn't solve the actual problem, only a symptom. Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
        orangecat 9y ago
        To quote Dave Barry, from 1982 but still relevant: "Now the problem poor people have is obvious: they don't have enough money. They can't afford food, housing, or medical care. The simple, obvious, efficient way for the government to help them is to give them money so they can buy these things. So that is not how the government does it." This is basically the libertarian argument for a basic income: if we're going to have an expensive welfare state, it should be efficient and it should actually accomplish its stated goals. poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education. It's even more directly correlated with the level of money.
- 13of40 9y ago
  Maybe the real problem is that we've developed this caste system over the last 50 years where people who don't get college degrees are excluded from careers that can sustain a middle class lifestyle. What if free college just moves the goal post and in a couple more decades nearly everyone has a Master's degree and you need a PhD to earn a decent living? What happens if the most talented segment of our work force ends up spending their most creative years trying to achieve meaningless credentials instead of actually contributing to the GDP? (Preemptive Edit: I know they have free college in some European countries, but maybe they have the same problem.)
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Interesting, if you think that education is a race to the bottom in credentialling though, what is your solution? If you were running a business wouldn't you prefer a PhD to a MS to a BS holding everything else equal?
    - 13of40 9y ago
      I think it really depends on the job. I've managed people who were in entry level software jobs who had PhDs, and having the higher degree didn't translate into better performance.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Yeah but that's what I'm saying, once you've hired them then you might find out different but purely within the hiring process a PhD is preferrable to a BS. And the predicament may be tough but if there is no solution to it, why even take it into consideration? That's why I asked what you would do about it.
        13of40 9y ago
        "All things being equal" is a very contrived situation. I think a better question is whether you'd pick a PhD candidate over a BS who, for example, could code a little bit better. (And for me the answer is I'd probably pick the BS, but I'd have to justify it to the people above me, which could be a challenge.)
- gozur88 9y ago
  Why would we?
mtgx 9y ago
> but repayment of those loans is capped as a percentage of the person's income, Depending on what you mean by this, it could be either a good idea or nothing would change. So can you clarify? If you simply mean that the students would only have to pay back a portion of the loan, but the government would still have to fund the rest to the university, then nothing would change from how things work right now. The universities would keep raising the prices.
- ep103 9y ago
  I meant as in, student loans (whether private or public) have a maximum mandatory monthly repayment rate of, say, 10% of the individual's monthly income. So let's say I took in $1000 before taxes this month. The highest my minimum monthly payment can be on my student loans (total) is $100. That puts pressure back on the university to keep their tuition rates in line with what can actually be repaid, ie, the actual financial value of the degree itself. Not saying this is the ideal solution, it just shows how much of a canard the parent poster's answer is. There are plenty of solutions to this issue, depending on what we want to do.
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    This puts zero pressure on the actual university to do anything with tuition. The universities aren't the ones loaning the money or counting on your repayments. That's handled by private or government subsidized lenders. It's not a solution at all.
    - ep103 9y ago
      Perhaps we misunderstand each other. The vast majority of people who take out federal financial aid, also take out private loans, because it is very difficult (if even possible anymore) to cover tuition costs with federal loans. If private loan repayment rates were capped, then private institutions would have a very, very strong incentive not to loan student loan rates larger than a certain amount to students, depending on the major and university. Quite frankly, a student asking for 200k for an english degree at Drexel would be denied. Why? Because Drexel isn't known for its english program. Average salary of a Drexel graduating English major is, let's guestimate, 50k a year for the majority of their lifetime. At 50k a year, at a 10% rate, the bank isn't going to get its funds back for 40 years, before interest. If the average age of death/retirement in this country is in the early 70s, the student will literally die of old age or retire before finishing repaying the loan. Now students will be unable to attend financial unviable options. The university will understand that if it raises its tuition beyond a certain level, it will be unable to support its english department, because no sane bank would back the loans required to graduate. Again, the above is a very contrived example with BS numbers. And I'm not suggesting that the above is the way we would want to fix the issue. But it could work, and it certainly puts pressure on the universities.
toast0 9y ago
If we want government subsidies for private education, why don't they subsidize private education, not private education loans. (Incidentally, public schools have a lot of loans too) This is the same probably I have with the affordable healthcare act: it started off about healthcare, but became about healthcare insurance.

by ep103 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Or we could make public college free, just like we did with high school.

gbrown 9y ago
That's far too direct and obvious, we prefer expensive, obfuscated "solutions" here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
krapp 9y ago
You need to remember what country "we" are discussing, and adjust your expectations accordingly.
KekDemaga 9y ago
And when public college becomes the new high school continue to add layers of education as needed.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Nah, we just realize that we're demanding an excessive amount of education for most jobs because employers can demand it with no cost to themselves, forcing an entire generation to take on a debt burden their parents did not have to because the cost of education had not become overly inflated yet. The fix for this can be realized with a tax that funds education; if you need someone with a bachelors, you pay X as a tax. If you need someone with a masters, you pay 2X. A PhD? 4X. If the position doesn't require a degree and you train them, you pay no tax (ie journeyman or apprenticeship).
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Are you arguing against public high schools? I don't understand.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Not at all, I'm just pointing out that many jobs that only required a high school degree now require a college degree without the job fundamentally changing all that much. More people attending college would likely worsen that trend to the point where "College 2" (whatever it would be called) would then be required to stand out.
    - wfo 9y ago
      And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothing, since those citizens wouldn't be able to generate extra wealth for their bosses. What a nightmare.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary.
T2_t2 9y ago
So... generic and not leading to a job? The problem is the proliferation of degrees, and thinking that hasn't caught up with the new reality (e.g. "getting a degree is good" -> "getting the RIGHT degree is good"). Not sure it gets better in a global world, where the vast majority of high IQ people live outside the west, and intelligent jobs not based on local legislation (like lawyers) can move easily internationally.
binarymax 9y ago
"Free" is covered by taxes already paid. So making university "free" would be an additional tax. But instead of the attendees paying for them directly, the pay would be spread out. Also, it would change the dynamic of which school you could attend. High School is covered based on taxes in the town paid for by property owners. Some university programs are subsidized by state taxes (like SUNY for New York) and are discounted for residents of the state. This would likely just extend these kinds of programs with a higher state tax.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  We just spent $80bil on the military. Free college is estimated at $65-75bil, so we just take that money, and move it over here and blammo. Free public university for everyone. (:
  - binarymax 9y ago
    One can only dream!
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    With that amount of money, can't you just end poverty directly? Why do so many people treat college like a terminal, intrinsic good?
    - freeflight 9y ago
      How would you propose to "end poverty"? Paying all the debt of the poor? But that wouldn't solve the actual problem, only a symptom. Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
      - orangecat 9y ago
        To quote Dave Barry, from 1982 but still relevant: "Now the problem poor people have is obvious: they don't have enough money. They can't afford food, housing, or medical care. The simple, obvious, efficient way for the government to help them is to give them money so they can buy these things. So that is not how the government does it." This is basically the libertarian argument for a basic income: if we're going to have an expensive welfare state, it should be efficient and it should actually accomplish its stated goals. poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education. It's even more directly correlated with the level of money.
13of40 9y ago
Maybe the real problem is that we've developed this caste system over the last 50 years where people who don't get college degrees are excluded from careers that can sustain a middle class lifestyle. What if free college just moves the goal post and in a couple more decades nearly everyone has a Master's degree and you need a PhD to earn a decent living? What happens if the most talented segment of our work force ends up spending their most creative years trying to achieve meaningless credentials instead of actually contributing to the GDP? (Preemptive Edit: I know they have free college in some European countries, but maybe they have the same problem.)
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Interesting, if you think that education is a race to the bottom in credentialling though, what is your solution? If you were running a business wouldn't you prefer a PhD to a MS to a BS holding everything else equal?
  - 13of40 9y ago
    I think it really depends on the job. I've managed people who were in entry level software jobs who had PhDs, and having the higher degree didn't translate into better performance.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Yeah but that's what I'm saying, once you've hired them then you might find out different but purely within the hiring process a PhD is preferrable to a BS. And the predicament may be tough but if there is no solution to it, why even take it into consideration? That's why I asked what you would do about it.
      - 13of40 9y ago
        "All things being equal" is a very contrived situation. I think a better question is whether you'd pick a PhD candidate over a BS who, for example, could code a little bit better. (And for me the answer is I'd probably pick the BS, but I'd have to justify it to the people above me, which could be a challenge.)
gozur88 9y ago
Why would we?

mtgx 9y ago

> but repayment of those loans is capped as a percentage of the person's income, Depending on what you mean by this, it could be either a good idea or nothing would change. So can you clarify? If you simply mean that the students would only have to pay back a portion of the loan, but the government would still have to fund the rest to the university, then nothing would change from how things work right now. The universities would keep raising the prices.

ep103 9y ago
I meant as in, student loans (whether private or public) have a maximum mandatory monthly repayment rate of, say, 10% of the individual's monthly income. So let's say I took in $1000 before taxes this month. The highest my minimum monthly payment can be on my student loans (total) is $100. That puts pressure back on the university to keep their tuition rates in line with what can actually be repaid, ie, the actual financial value of the degree itself. Not saying this is the ideal solution, it just shows how much of a canard the parent poster's answer is. There are plenty of solutions to this issue, depending on what we want to do.
- cableshaft 9y ago
  This puts zero pressure on the actual university to do anything with tuition. The universities aren't the ones loaning the money or counting on your repayments. That's handled by private or government subsidized lenders. It's not a solution at all.
  - ep103 9y ago
    Perhaps we misunderstand each other. The vast majority of people who take out federal financial aid, also take out private loans, because it is very difficult (if even possible anymore) to cover tuition costs with federal loans. If private loan repayment rates were capped, then private institutions would have a very, very strong incentive not to loan student loan rates larger than a certain amount to students, depending on the major and university. Quite frankly, a student asking for 200k for an english degree at Drexel would be denied. Why? Because Drexel isn't known for its english program. Average salary of a Drexel graduating English major is, let's guestimate, 50k a year for the majority of their lifetime. At 50k a year, at a 10% rate, the bank isn't going to get its funds back for 40 years, before interest. If the average age of death/retirement in this country is in the early 70s, the student will literally die of old age or retire before finishing repaying the loan. Now students will be unable to attend financial unviable options. The university will understand that if it raises its tuition beyond a certain level, it will be unable to support its english department, because no sane bank would back the loans required to graduate. Again, the above is a very contrived example with BS numbers. And I'm not suggesting that the above is the way we would want to fix the issue. But it could work, and it certainly puts pressure on the universities.

toast0 9y ago

If we want government subsidies for private education, why don't they subsidize private education, not private education loans. (Incidentally, public schools have a lot of loans too) This is the same probably I have with the affordable healthcare act: it started off about healthcare, but became about healthcare insurance.