3 ms·

"No. US students attend IF they get in. This is why we are in a student loan crisis. There is no lack of money backed by USA guaranteed loans." Can you help me

"No. US students attend IF they get in. This is why we are in a student loan crisis. There is no lack of money backed by USA guaranteed loans." Can you help me understand this logic? I don't understand the connection being made from admissions statistics to the student loans crisis.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lsc 9y ago
the idea being that if you are accepted, you can get a loan to go to school. A loan that you can't discharge in bankruptcy. A loan that can cause problems later on, if you can't get a job in a high paying field. Or, at least, I think that's what the post you are replying to was getting at. Another view is that the "student loan crisis" is a much bigger deal for people who take out loans for colleges that are easier to get into, colleges that have lower graduation rates and that don't have the same pipeline into higher paying jobs. Most of the elite schools have 90+% graduation rates, and if you graduate from one, you have a pretty decent crack at making good money (and thus paying off your loan without too much trouble.) The idea here being that the elite schools are what colleges promise to be (a path up the socioeconomic ladder) but they are extremely selective (I could totally pay, for example, but they wouldn't let me in; not without me taking two years off to go to community college first. My high school grades were terrible.) - many of the less prestegious schools don't have such high success rates. Community and state schools have graduation rates that are half what the elite schools have. San Jose State, a really pretty good 'state school' has a graduation rate around 50% (Of course, San Jose State is also pretty cheap) University of the pacific, a mid range (expensive) private school in Stockton has a 60% graduation rate. I personally feel that rating schools based on their graduation rates is super problematic; I mean, an elite school isn't going to 'take a chance' on a student who might not tough it out just because they take a reputational hit if the kid swings and misses. But it does make sense from a student loan perspective; if someone is accepted to Stanford, chances are they will graduate, and chances are, the student loans incurred won't be a huge burden, due to the opportunities available. - But a lot of this is simply that you aren't accepted to Stanford unless you are the sort of person who has a lot of opportunity. Maintaining these high graduation rates means that students who are less likely to succeed are not given a chance to try; Because a high graduation rate is part of what makes an elite school, and because high graduation rates generally mean an input filter that filters for people who would have succeeded anyhow, elite schools are not good ways for people who don't have opportunity to gain opportunity.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lsc 9y ago

the idea being that if you are accepted, you can get a loan to go to school. A loan that you can't discharge in bankruptcy. A loan that can cause problems later on, if you can't get a job in a high paying field. Or, at least, I think that's what the post you are replying to was getting at. Another view is that the "student loan crisis" is a much bigger deal for people who take out loans for colleges that are easier to get into, colleges that have lower graduation rates and that don't have the same pipeline into higher paying jobs. Most of the elite schools have 90+% graduation rates, and if you graduate from one, you have a pretty decent crack at making good money (and thus paying off your loan without too much trouble.) The idea here being that the elite schools are what colleges promise to be (a path up the socioeconomic ladder) but they are extremely selective (I could totally pay, for example, but they wouldn't let me in; not without me taking two years off to go to community college first. My high school grades were terrible.) - many of the less prestegious schools don't have such high success rates. Community and state schools have graduation rates that are half what the elite schools have. San Jose State, a really pretty good 'state school' has a graduation rate around 50% (Of course, San Jose State is also pretty cheap) University of the pacific, a mid range (expensive) private school in Stockton has a 60% graduation rate. I personally feel that rating schools based on their graduation rates is super problematic; I mean, an elite school isn't going to 'take a chance' on a student who might not tough it out just because they take a reputational hit if the kid swings and misses. But it does make sense from a student loan perspective; if someone is accepted to Stanford, chances are they will graduate, and chances are, the student loans incurred won't be a huge burden, due to the opportunities available. - But a lot of this is simply that you aren't accepted to Stanford unless you are the sort of person who has a lot of opportunity. Maintaining these high graduation rates means that students who are less likely to succeed are not given a chance to try; Because a high graduation rate is part of what makes an elite school, and because high graduation rates generally mean an input filter that filters for people who would have succeeded anyhow, elite schools are not good ways for people who don't have opportunity to gain opportunity.