4 ms·

These seems like the reasonable free-market approach.

by redorb 8y ago

bduerst 8y ago
Except you're back at the colonial-era nepotism model because you now have to put up assets to take a student loan, and only wealthy families can afford it.
- iguy 8y ago
  Make non-dischargeable loans more like an investment for the bank, in which they get back something tied to your income, when you earn it. And let them offer what they will according to school/major/SAT score/etc. Then indeed expensive useless degrees will (like a gap-year in first-class hotels) be available only to the rich. But useful job training will not be.
- danschumann 8y ago
  Slavery and debt have this in common: You work and you don't get products for your labor. In slavery, you don't get money. In debt, you get money which goes away before you can spend it. I think nepotism is less bad than slavery. I had debt with no degree, nothing to show for it. I had to work and not get to keep the money. I felt like a slave. I don't want other people to be in debt slavery. Nepotism only would affect me via envy. Debt affected me daily, mentally, harshly. There were days when I could think of nothing else, miserable at my situation. Nepotism is nothing compared to being in debt slavery. Who cares what other people are doing. Am I free?
  - bduerst 8y ago
    That's true, but we're not limited to dichotomies of nepotism or slavery. I would put the current system (student loans) at indentured servitude, but that model still achieves the goal of created an educated, skilled public. Nepotism is a step backwards from this goal. It is only a solution to a symptom of the current means, without achieving the same ends.
- jayess 8y ago
  Except university education doesn't need to be that expensive. Anecdotal - I had a law school professor who went to the University of Michigan Law School in the 60s and his tuition was $18 per credit. That's about $150 today. That would be about $13,500 for the entire law degree. The unlimited student loan situation has directly caused the bloat of university administration, salaries, and spending. It doesn't cost $40,000 a year to educate someone.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Well I agree, but that's definitely different than opening it up to the free market that GP proposed.

These seems like the reasonable free-market approach.

by redorb 8y ago

These seems like the reasonable free-market approach.

Except you're back at the colonial-era nepotism model because you now have to put up assets to take a student loan, and only wealthy families can afford it.

iguy 8y ago
Make non-dischargeable loans more like an investment for the bank, in which they get back something tied to your income, when you earn it. And let them offer what they will according to school/major/SAT score/etc. Then indeed expensive useless degrees will (like a gap-year in first-class hotels) be available only to the rich. But useful job training will not be.
danschumann 8y ago
Slavery and debt have this in common: You work and you don't get products for your labor. In slavery, you don't get money. In debt, you get money which goes away before you can spend it. I think nepotism is less bad than slavery. I had debt with no degree, nothing to show for it. I had to work and not get to keep the money. I felt like a slave. I don't want other people to be in debt slavery. Nepotism only would affect me via envy. Debt affected me daily, mentally, harshly. There were days when I could think of nothing else, miserable at my situation. Nepotism is nothing compared to being in debt slavery. Who cares what other people are doing. Am I free?
- bduerst 8y ago
  That's true, but we're not limited to dichotomies of nepotism or slavery. I would put the current system (student loans) at indentured servitude, but that model still achieves the goal of created an educated, skilled public. Nepotism is a step backwards from this goal. It is only a solution to a symptom of the current means, without achieving the same ends.
jayess 8y ago
Except university education doesn't need to be that expensive. Anecdotal - I had a law school professor who went to the University of Michigan Law School in the 60s and his tuition was $18 per credit. That's about $150 today. That would be about $13,500 for the entire law degree. The unlimited student loan situation has directly caused the bloat of university administration, salaries, and spending. It doesn't cost $40,000 a year to educate someone.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Well I agree, but that's definitely different than opening it up to the free market that GP proposed.