3 ms·

> Lenders [...] should not be absolved of blame or have less outrage directed at them. I was with you until this point. What part do you blame them for? The f

> Lenders [...] should not be absolved of blame or have less outrage directed at them. I was with you until this point. What part do you blame them for? The federal loan guarantees were created for the express purpose of allowing people who otherwise couldn't get the loans to get them. The lenders are doing exactly what they're supposed to, and would be expected. Lenders should be in the position of determining risk, but it's not their fault federal policy means they don't need to. They're not the ones raising the costs of higher education, they're just facilitating them as intended and expected. If your outrage is directed at the lenders, you're barking up the wrong tree. Put the lenders back in the business of evaluating risk (like they do for home, auto, business, and other loans) and they'll do that.

skh 8y ago
Lenders, through lobbying and regulatory capture, created the system. At least as I see things.
- moduspol 8y ago
  I don't doubt they contributed, but this isn't like a coal company getting emissions restrictions relaxed. There's a pretty common world view that financial viability should not even be a concern in young people's choices of what field to pursue, and subscribers to that are what created this policy. Lenders benefit, but this is driven by what a large group of people want society to look like. Even if the government subsidized all higher education and removed the lenders from the equation completely, we'd still have increasing numbers of young people graduating in their early and mid-twenties with degrees in fields like gender studies. They won't be in significant debt, but they're still comparatively behind by four years and woefully unprepared for the workforce. Are the students better off from being financially enabled to get in that situation? Is society better off from enabling thousands of people to do it? I don't think so.
  - skh 8y ago
    I can’t think of a reason why the number of gender studies students would increase under a universal higher education system for qualified students. Europe does not appear to be overwhelmed by gender studies graduates. Given the sexual harassment problem at Google, Uber, etc perhaps it would be good for there to be an increase in gender studies. California has free higher education until Reagan became governor. It worked well then and provided it is only available to qualified students I don’t see why it can’t work now.
    - moduspol 8y ago
      > I can’t think of a reason why the number of gender studies students would increase under a universal higher education system for qualified students. It's fairly simple--if you incentivize people to do something, they are more likely to do it. If universities start offering degrees in Starcraft or beer brewing or marijuana cultivation, there will not be many students if the students are responsible for paying. If they have a free ride regardless of what they choose, more of them will choose them despite unfeasible economic prospects. It's not absolutist, either--the easier you make it to pay (like by guaranteeing federal loans for lenders), the more you will see. Even if it does load them with a lot of debt. And that's what we've been seeing. > Europe does not appear to be overwhelmed by gender studies graduates. They don't need to be overwhelmed--just creating a lot more than the market demands. And gender studies is just one example, of course. The root problem is subsidizing and turning out graduates who are then unsuited for the market in which they intend to find work, and the lost opportunity cost of those who would have been more successful entering the workforce instead (and perhaps attending college later with a broadened perspective). > Given the sexual harassment problem at Google, Uber, etc perhaps it would be good for there to be an increase in gender studies. Maybe, but the market would provide those incentives. How many gender studies graduates do Google and Uber need? If they're not hiring, do gender studies graduates working a coffee shop help solve the problem? > California has free higher education until Reagan became governor. It worked well then and provided it is only available to qualified students I don’t see why it can’t work now. It depends on how you define "well," and any redistributive program can "work" well enough until it runs out of someone else's money.
      - 8y ago
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Even if the government subsidized all higher education and removed the lenders from the equation completely, Which it mostly has; private student loans dropped off a cliff with the late 2000s financial crisis, and then private lenders were cut entirely out of the federally guaranteed student loan program, which is where most loans for study at fully accredited schools come from. For guaranteed loans, the only lender is the federal government, so everyone talking about the supposed effect of federal guarantees on lender behavior is missing a very important fact. So, the federal guaranteed loans, with below market interest, various forgiveness options, income-based repayment, etc., are basically an erratic, bureaucratically complicated, inconsistent, method of federal subsidy which excludes private lenders.

skh 8y ago

Lenders, through lobbying and regulatory capture, created the system. At least as I see things.

moduspol 8y ago
I don't doubt they contributed, but this isn't like a coal company getting emissions restrictions relaxed. There's a pretty common world view that financial viability should not even be a concern in young people's choices of what field to pursue, and subscribers to that are what created this policy. Lenders benefit, but this is driven by what a large group of people want society to look like. Even if the government subsidized all higher education and removed the lenders from the equation completely, we'd still have increasing numbers of young people graduating in their early and mid-twenties with degrees in fields like gender studies. They won't be in significant debt, but they're still comparatively behind by four years and woefully unprepared for the workforce. Are the students better off from being financially enabled to get in that situation? Is society better off from enabling thousands of people to do it? I don't think so.
- skh 8y ago
  I can’t think of a reason why the number of gender studies students would increase under a universal higher education system for qualified students. Europe does not appear to be overwhelmed by gender studies graduates. Given the sexual harassment problem at Google, Uber, etc perhaps it would be good for there to be an increase in gender studies. California has free higher education until Reagan became governor. It worked well then and provided it is only available to qualified students I don’t see why it can’t work now.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    > I can’t think of a reason why the number of gender studies students would increase under a universal higher education system for qualified students. It's fairly simple--if you incentivize people to do something, they are more likely to do it. If universities start offering degrees in Starcraft or beer brewing or marijuana cultivation, there will not be many students if the students are responsible for paying. If they have a free ride regardless of what they choose, more of them will choose them despite unfeasible economic prospects. It's not absolutist, either--the easier you make it to pay (like by guaranteeing federal loans for lenders), the more you will see. Even if it does load them with a lot of debt. And that's what we've been seeing. > Europe does not appear to be overwhelmed by gender studies graduates. They don't need to be overwhelmed--just creating a lot more than the market demands. And gender studies is just one example, of course. The root problem is subsidizing and turning out graduates who are then unsuited for the market in which they intend to find work, and the lost opportunity cost of those who would have been more successful entering the workforce instead (and perhaps attending college later with a broadened perspective). > Given the sexual harassment problem at Google, Uber, etc perhaps it would be good for there to be an increase in gender studies. Maybe, but the market would provide those incentives. How many gender studies graduates do Google and Uber need? If they're not hiring, do gender studies graduates working a coffee shop help solve the problem? > California has free higher education until Reagan became governor. It worked well then and provided it is only available to qualified students I don’t see why it can’t work now. It depends on how you define "well," and any redistributive program can "work" well enough until it runs out of someone else's money.
    - 8y ago
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Even if the government subsidized all higher education and removed the lenders from the equation completely, Which it mostly has; private student loans dropped off a cliff with the late 2000s financial crisis, and then private lenders were cut entirely out of the federally guaranteed student loan program, which is where most loans for study at fully accredited schools come from. For guaranteed loans, the only lender is the federal government, so everyone talking about the supposed effect of federal guarantees on lender behavior is missing a very important fact. So, the federal guaranteed loans, with below market interest, various forgiveness options, income-based repayment, etc., are basically an erratic, bureaucratically complicated, inconsistent, method of federal subsidy which excludes private lenders.