4 ms·

Just make student loans dischargeable. The market will sort it out at that point. Loans for degrees that are valuable will be granted, and loans that are for se

Just make student loans dischargeable. The market will sort it out at that point. Loans for degrees that are valuable will be granted, and loans that are for selfish degrees that produce no skills anyone else wants or cares about won't be granted. And colleges would have to start cutting costs to make their degrees more affordable. And given the mind boggling increase in tuition over the last 40 years, there's an epic amount of fat to be trimmed.

zolthrowaway 8y ago
I totally agree this is the root of the problem. You wouldn't be giving out 50k loans for degrees that are looking at making 30k a year. I think the big problem with this approach is that it disproportionately effects poor people. If person A studies underwater basket weaving but their parents cosign and have great credit and income, that's much less of a risk than person B who is studying engineering but has no assistance. 18 year olds have very little credit history or net worth so you are mostly looking at their parents situation. If there is a way to overcome that aspect, I would totally support the ability to discharge loans.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
risotto_groupon 8y ago
Wait? What? You can't be serious? The market will sort "what is a worthwhile education"? Why not let the market sort out legislation? Or court cases? Or child custody? This is a pretty sad statement of your personal values if you're serious.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Why not let the market sort out legislation? We do. What do you think “money = speech” is?
  - geggam 8y ago
    Legalized Bribery
- thomascgalvin 8y ago
  The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative. It would be nice if we could all go to college to chase our childhood dreams, but the reality is that most of us need to prepare to support ourselves and, someday, a family. That's why I'm a software engineer and not a novelist, and that's why I got a CS degree and not a BFA in English. Are the humanities "worthwhile?" Certainly. But should the average person drop $100,000 on a humanities degree? Absolutely not. And the fact that we're willing to bury children under that kind of debt so that they can get a Master's in French Opera or whatever is a crime.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative." And those are completely separate things, and should not be conflated. Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.
    - bmelton 8y ago
      Grants, partial and full-ride scholarships, community colleges, etc. will all still exist, but while it will definitely limit the number of people taking out expensive loans to get advanced degrees for low-paying jobs, it probably would not exclude those who either had existing money, or who could keep the loan amounts to within repayable limits, by getting a cheaper undergrad, or what have you.
    - thomascgalvin 8y ago
      > Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff. I'm saying that only rich people are able to study non-STEM stuff. I mean sure, a disadvantaged person can study literature or interpretive dance or whatever, but that choice will make them a debt slave with no significantly increased earning potential. You don't need to go to college to improve yourself as a human being. You can be well-read and appreciative of the arts without paying $100,000. And for the vast majority of people, that is the only sensible course of action.
- strken 8y ago
  The important thing here is that with regards to US student loans, the market is already deciding everything, but it's backed up by the government having made it impossible to escape student loans by declaring bankruptcy. That system could potentially be a lot less unfair and a lot lower cost if the government didn't put its thumb on the scales in favour of lenders. This would be true even if the system was still unfair. There's probably a deeper conversation to be had once the system is closer to neutral, but the point is that it isn't anything like neutral: it's blatantly biased against students.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  Why is it a “sad statement”?
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  > This is a pretty sad statement of your personal values if you're serious. It's an indication how deep the rot has gone. Tech culture is deeply sick.
bgorman 8y ago
I believe this only applies to federal student loans.
cbr 8y ago
What would keep someone from getting an economically valuable degree, declaring bankruptcy on graduating, and then just waiting until that had expired from their credit record?
- revscat 8y ago
  It is my understanding that doing this is next to impossible. The way bankruptcy laws are structured student loans are almost never discharged as part of bankruptcy proceedings, and require a special hearing to justify their discharge. These hearings are only rarely successful, mainly due to physical or mental incapacitation, not financial stress.
  - kaishiro 8y ago
    The parent is replying to a comment specifically discussing making student loan debt dischargeable.
- AngryData 8y ago
  You can't just declare bankruptcy and then be all good, you have to go through a court and a judge is going to lambast you for attempting such a thing when it is obvious you didn't even try to pay your loan. Otherwise this same thing would be a problem for other forms of loans too. Someone gets a loan, stashes it in some form that can't be retrieved by debt collectors, declares bankruptcy. The judge is going to tell you go fuck yourself because you don't even have anything to liquidate and deny your bankruptcy declaration. If you do have something to liquidate, well now you aren't any better off because you just lost all your possessions. Plus there are criminal charges for fraud since it would be pretty obvious you took out the loan with this plan in mind.
- mrep 8y ago
  7 years of fucking up your credit?
  - cbr 8y ago
    Availability of credit over 7 years is generally much less valuable than $200k.
SiVal 8y ago
To obtain some market-based grounding in reality, I'd rather the universities be required to collect their fee as a fixed percentage of the students' incomes for a fixed number of years after graduation. Poor students wouldn't be handicapped by not having the money to pay for college, because the college wouldn't be paid until the student got paid. The "epic amount of fat to be trimmed" from the universities won't happen until the universities get off the guaranteed gov't money gravy train and have to adapt to a system where their success depends on their clients' success.
- bhuga 8y ago
  This is the model that Lambda School is using. It's early yet, but they're having some success.
- sylvainkalache 8y ago
  There are a number of institutions doing this including a formal college: Purdue University. Other alternative like Make School and Holberton School are successfully using the model since about 3 years.

zolthrowaway 8y ago

I totally agree this is the root of the problem. You wouldn't be giving out 50k loans for degrees that are looking at making 30k a year. I think the big problem with this approach is that it disproportionately effects poor people. If person A studies underwater basket weaving but their parents cosign and have great credit and income, that's much less of a risk than person B who is studying engineering but has no assistance. 18 year olds have very little credit history or net worth so you are mostly looking at their parents situation. If there is a way to overcome that aspect, I would totally support the ability to discharge loans.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

risotto_groupon 8y ago

Wait? What? You can't be serious? The market will sort "what is a worthwhile education"? Why not let the market sort out legislation? Or court cases? Or child custody? This is a pretty sad statement of your personal values if you're serious.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Why not let the market sort out legislation? We do. What do you think “money = speech” is?
- geggam 8y ago
  Legalized Bribery
thomascgalvin 8y ago
The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative. It would be nice if we could all go to college to chase our childhood dreams, but the reality is that most of us need to prepare to support ourselves and, someday, a family. That's why I'm a software engineer and not a novelist, and that's why I got a CS degree and not a BFA in English. Are the humanities "worthwhile?" Certainly. But should the average person drop $100,000 on a humanities degree? Absolutely not. And the fact that we're willing to bury children under that kind of debt so that they can get a Master's in French Opera or whatever is a crime.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative." And those are completely separate things, and should not be conflated. Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    Grants, partial and full-ride scholarships, community colleges, etc. will all still exist, but while it will definitely limit the number of people taking out expensive loans to get advanced degrees for low-paying jobs, it probably would not exclude those who either had existing money, or who could keep the loan amounts to within repayable limits, by getting a cheaper undergrad, or what have you.
  - thomascgalvin 8y ago
    > Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff. I'm saying that only rich people are able to study non-STEM stuff. I mean sure, a disadvantaged person can study literature or interpretive dance or whatever, but that choice will make them a debt slave with no significantly increased earning potential. You don't need to go to college to improve yourself as a human being. You can be well-read and appreciative of the arts without paying $100,000. And for the vast majority of people, that is the only sensible course of action.
strken 8y ago
The important thing here is that with regards to US student loans, the market is already deciding everything, but it's backed up by the government having made it impossible to escape student loans by declaring bankruptcy. That system could potentially be a lot less unfair and a lot lower cost if the government didn't put its thumb on the scales in favour of lenders. This would be true even if the system was still unfair. There's probably a deeper conversation to be had once the system is closer to neutral, but the point is that it isn't anything like neutral: it's blatantly biased against students.
throwaway37585 8y ago
Why is it a “sad statement”?
Gibbon1 8y ago
> This is a pretty sad statement of your personal values if you're serious. It's an indication how deep the rot has gone. Tech culture is deeply sick.

bgorman 8y ago

I believe this only applies to federal student loans.

cbr 8y ago

What would keep someone from getting an economically valuable degree, declaring bankruptcy on graduating, and then just waiting until that had expired from their credit record?

revscat 8y ago
It is my understanding that doing this is next to impossible. The way bankruptcy laws are structured student loans are almost never discharged as part of bankruptcy proceedings, and require a special hearing to justify their discharge. These hearings are only rarely successful, mainly due to physical or mental incapacitation, not financial stress.
- kaishiro 8y ago
  The parent is replying to a comment specifically discussing making student loan debt dischargeable.
AngryData 8y ago
You can't just declare bankruptcy and then be all good, you have to go through a court and a judge is going to lambast you for attempting such a thing when it is obvious you didn't even try to pay your loan. Otherwise this same thing would be a problem for other forms of loans too. Someone gets a loan, stashes it in some form that can't be retrieved by debt collectors, declares bankruptcy. The judge is going to tell you go fuck yourself because you don't even have anything to liquidate and deny your bankruptcy declaration. If you do have something to liquidate, well now you aren't any better off because you just lost all your possessions. Plus there are criminal charges for fraud since it would be pretty obvious you took out the loan with this plan in mind.
mrep 8y ago
7 years of fucking up your credit?
- cbr 8y ago
  Availability of credit over 7 years is generally much less valuable than $200k.

SiVal 8y ago

To obtain some market-based grounding in reality, I'd rather the universities be required to collect their fee as a fixed percentage of the students' incomes for a fixed number of years after graduation. Poor students wouldn't be handicapped by not having the money to pay for college, because the college wouldn't be paid until the student got paid. The "epic amount of fat to be trimmed" from the universities won't happen until the universities get off the guaranteed gov't money gravy train and have to adapt to a system where their success depends on their clients' success.

bhuga 8y ago
This is the model that Lambda School is using. It's early yet, but they're having some success.
sylvainkalache 8y ago
There are a number of institutions doing this including a formal college: Purdue University. Other alternative like Make School and Holberton School are successfully using the model since about 3 years.