7 ms·

Do you see a responsibility of the federal government in lending money to students who have no ability to reasonably pay back their loans because their degrees

Do you see a responsibility of the federal government in lending money to students who have no ability to reasonably pay back their loans because their degrees don't have a high rate of return? Do you see a problem with universities increasing the quality of student housing, sports programs like football, and college administration, and that this desire to spend more to get more students to pay more tuition dollars is an undesirable feedback loop that perpetually increases tuition costs over time?

Matticus_Rex 8y ago
> Do you see a responsibility of the federal government in lending money to students who have no ability to reasonably pay back their loans because their degrees don't have a high rate of return? Can we all agree that this is an awful idea societally and for the individuals involved? If you couldn't get credit to go, it's because the market is sending a signal that it's a really bad idea to go. Yeah, it sucks if your dream is to do [insert unmarketable degree here] and there are few jobs for people who do that and the training costs just as much as an engineering degree. The idea that "society" should subsidize that is narcissistic at best.
- prater 8y ago
  We absolutely cannot all agree on that. As you point out - the fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree in business, engineering or medicine costs the same as a degree in art, social work or childhood education and pays about 3-4 times as much. So it's individually quite stupid to major in anything _other_ than engineering, business or premed. Do you really think a society is going to function without teachers, psychologists, lawyers and artists? So in that case can we all agree that arranging the incentives so that the only thing Universities produce are engineers, MBA's and medical professionals is an awful idea societally and for the individuals involved?
  - assblaster 8y ago
    But why does the "degree" require paying for college football or fancy dorms or student entertainment? College has lost its focus on education and, nationally, colleges are competing on providing amenities and costs of college are skyrocketing. Wouldn't it make sense to bring college education back to its original purpose?
    - CamTin 8y ago
      Which original purpose? The elite school one of allowing the next generation's ruling class to network with one another, or the land grant one of doing the same thing for flyover country, but also discovering new ways of applying fertilizer at the same time?
  - dpau 8y ago
    Thank you for this. Can we start backwards from a model of what we believe a rich, healthy society should look like, and then figure out how to get there? A society that depends only upon "market signals" to determine which jobs have value is not one I would wish to live in.
    - assblaster 8y ago
      But, our current society already does this, since we're not living under communism and centralized price fixing. Even "public" school salaries are determined by the market.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    do you think it's likely that the number of teachers, psychologists, etc. could actually approach zero without significant increase in pay for these positions?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > As you point out - the fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree in business, engineering or medicine costs the same as a degree in art, social work or childhood education and pays about 3-4 times as much. And one of the major reasons for that is that we continue to produce an oversupply of liberal arts graduates, who then get stuck in food service rather than actually working as a teacher or psychologist, while their existence suppresses wages for anyone who can actually find work in those occupations because the employers can choose the lowest bidder from a desperate population of qualified applicants. It's like saying corn farmers are having a hard time, so let's subsidize the production of corn. Well, then there's too much corn, and what does that do to the price of corn?
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > Do you really think a society is going to function without teachers, psychologists, lawyers and artists? This is a loaded question based on a faulty assumption. A societal shortage of people in these professions would cause their compensation to increase accordingly, incentivizing more people to enter them until an equilibrium is reached. This is basic supply and demand. Also... > So it's individually quite stupid to major in anything _other_ than engineering, business or premed. This is based on the faulty premise that everyone has the same skill set and can succeed at engineering, etc. as opposed to other fields where they may have a comparative advantage.
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      The thing is, society doesn't survive a drought of teachers, for example. If the number of teachers fall below a certain amount, the new generation will not be correctly educated and the knowledge transmission link is broken. This is similar to any other area, really.
      - assblaster 8y ago
        I think the education market is ripe for disruption with increased online education and collectives for socialization. Homeschooling 2.0, which doesn't require expensive physical plants for every neighborhood.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    Arranging the incentives to be responsive to market signals would move us towards a situation where there are paying jobs for all who graduate, not one where everyone graduates in what are currently the top-paying fields given a different system.
- analog31 8y ago
  Do you have a source of data on the costs for the different degrees? I'm skeptical for a couple of reasons. First, there may be disparities in the cost of hiring teachers in different disciplines. Second, to exaggerate just a wee bit, engineers need big expensive labs and modern computers, whereas French literature majors only need a supply of French literature.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    As far as I know (at least in the US) college tuition is constant at each college across majors, though there are occasionally extra materials costs for particular classes.
    - analog31 8y ago
      Ah yes. I was thinking of the overall cost of running the program, not the out-of-pocket cost to the student. In fact, two students within the same major don't necessarily pay the same tuition.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  The government has decided that it's unethical for a bank to market a credit card to a college student (maybe a $5,000 credit limit and dischargeable in bankruptcy) yet we permit 18-22 year olds to take out $50,000+ in loans without regard for the return on the investment and make it almost impossible for them to get a fresh start if it turns out to be a bad investment.
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    When did they decide that? I started getting 5 credit card offers a day as soon as I applied for college.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      Title III of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure ("Credit CARD") Act of 2009[1] and the CFPB's Reg. Z[2] which implements it. It amended the Truth In Lending Act to prohibit a lot of the "sign up for a credit card and get this free poster" marketing that had been happening on college campuses. It also requires that card issuers evaluate a consumer’s ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing a credit limit. That requirement effectively stopped the issuance of credit cards to full-time college students without a co-signer. It also had the unintended side effect of making it much more difficult for stay-at-home parents to get a credit card without their spouse as a co-signer because the regulation only permitted card issuers to consider the applicant's income/assets. Reg. Z was amended a few years ago so now card issuers only need to evaluate someone's ability to pay if they're under the age of 21. [1]https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/credit-card-accountability-responsibility-and-disclosure-act-2009-credit-card-act/credit-card-pub-l-111-24_0.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/c... [2]https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1026/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking...
      - dwighttk 8y ago
        Yep that’s after my time.

Matticus_Rex 8y ago

> Do you see a responsibility of the federal government in lending money to students who have no ability to reasonably pay back their loans because their degrees don't have a high rate of return? Can we all agree that this is an awful idea societally and for the individuals involved? If you couldn't get credit to go, it's because the market is sending a signal that it's a really bad idea to go. Yeah, it sucks if your dream is to do [insert unmarketable degree here] and there are few jobs for people who do that and the training costs just as much as an engineering degree. The idea that "society" should subsidize that is narcissistic at best.

prater 8y ago
We absolutely cannot all agree on that. As you point out - the fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree in business, engineering or medicine costs the same as a degree in art, social work or childhood education and pays about 3-4 times as much. So it's individually quite stupid to major in anything _other_ than engineering, business or premed. Do you really think a society is going to function without teachers, psychologists, lawyers and artists? So in that case can we all agree that arranging the incentives so that the only thing Universities produce are engineers, MBA's and medical professionals is an awful idea societally and for the individuals involved?
- assblaster 8y ago
  But why does the "degree" require paying for college football or fancy dorms or student entertainment? College has lost its focus on education and, nationally, colleges are competing on providing amenities and costs of college are skyrocketing. Wouldn't it make sense to bring college education back to its original purpose?
  - CamTin 8y ago
    Which original purpose? The elite school one of allowing the next generation's ruling class to network with one another, or the land grant one of doing the same thing for flyover country, but also discovering new ways of applying fertilizer at the same time?
- dpau 8y ago
  Thank you for this. Can we start backwards from a model of what we believe a rich, healthy society should look like, and then figure out how to get there? A society that depends only upon "market signals" to determine which jobs have value is not one I would wish to live in.
  - assblaster 8y ago
    But, our current society already does this, since we're not living under communism and centralized price fixing. Even "public" school salaries are determined by the market.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  do you think it's likely that the number of teachers, psychologists, etc. could actually approach zero without significant increase in pay for these positions?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > As you point out - the fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree in business, engineering or medicine costs the same as a degree in art, social work or childhood education and pays about 3-4 times as much. And one of the major reasons for that is that we continue to produce an oversupply of liberal arts graduates, who then get stuck in food service rather than actually working as a teacher or psychologist, while their existence suppresses wages for anyone who can actually find work in those occupations because the employers can choose the lowest bidder from a desperate population of qualified applicants. It's like saying corn farmers are having a hard time, so let's subsidize the production of corn. Well, then there's too much corn, and what does that do to the price of corn?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Do you really think a society is going to function without teachers, psychologists, lawyers and artists? This is a loaded question based on a faulty assumption. A societal shortage of people in these professions would cause their compensation to increase accordingly, incentivizing more people to enter them until an equilibrium is reached. This is basic supply and demand. Also... > So it's individually quite stupid to major in anything _other_ than engineering, business or premed. This is based on the faulty premise that everyone has the same skill set and can succeed at engineering, etc. as opposed to other fields where they may have a comparative advantage.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    The thing is, society doesn't survive a drought of teachers, for example. If the number of teachers fall below a certain amount, the new generation will not be correctly educated and the knowledge transmission link is broken. This is similar to any other area, really.
    - assblaster 8y ago
      I think the education market is ripe for disruption with increased online education and collectives for socialization. Homeschooling 2.0, which doesn't require expensive physical plants for every neighborhood.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  Arranging the incentives to be responsive to market signals would move us towards a situation where there are paying jobs for all who graduate, not one where everyone graduates in what are currently the top-paying fields given a different system.
analog31 8y ago
Do you have a source of data on the costs for the different degrees? I'm skeptical for a couple of reasons. First, there may be disparities in the cost of hiring teachers in different disciplines. Second, to exaggerate just a wee bit, engineers need big expensive labs and modern computers, whereas French literature majors only need a supply of French literature.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  As far as I know (at least in the US) college tuition is constant at each college across majors, though there are occasionally extra materials costs for particular classes.
  - analog31 8y ago
    Ah yes. I was thinking of the overall cost of running the program, not the out-of-pocket cost to the student. In fact, two students within the same major don't necessarily pay the same tuition.
elliekelly 8y ago
The government has decided that it's unethical for a bank to market a credit card to a college student (maybe a $5,000 credit limit and dischargeable in bankruptcy) yet we permit 18-22 year olds to take out $50,000+ in loans without regard for the return on the investment and make it almost impossible for them to get a fresh start if it turns out to be a bad investment.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  When did they decide that? I started getting 5 credit card offers a day as soon as I applied for college.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    Title III of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure ("Credit CARD") Act of 2009[1] and the CFPB's Reg. Z[2] which implements it. It amended the Truth In Lending Act to prohibit a lot of the "sign up for a credit card and get this free poster" marketing that had been happening on college campuses. It also requires that card issuers evaluate a consumer’s ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing a credit limit. That requirement effectively stopped the issuance of credit cards to full-time college students without a co-signer. It also had the unintended side effect of making it much more difficult for stay-at-home parents to get a credit card without their spouse as a co-signer because the regulation only permitted card issuers to consider the applicant's income/assets. Reg. Z was amended a few years ago so now card issuers only need to evaluate someone's ability to pay if they're under the age of 21. [1]https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/credit-card-accountability-responsibility-and-disclosure-act-2009-credit-card-act/credit-card-pub-l-111-24_0.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/c... [2]https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1026/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking...
    - dwighttk 8y ago
      Yep that’s after my time.