5 ms·

>How “discerning” could you be when making loans to teenagers with no income and no credit history? Very. They may very well take into account your grades and

>How “discerning” could you be when making loans to teenagers with no income and no credit history? Very. They may very well take into account your grades and SAT score to determine feasibility of repayment. >The only thing that would happen is that the banks would force all loans to be co-signed. They may and why shouldn't they? This will deter expensive colleges and push students to cheaper alternatives like trade schools, community colleges and state schools. What's wrong with that? >Guess who is statistically unlikely to get loans in that scenario? People who can't pay back loans? I don't follow your point. Are you saying that loans should be made without consideration of feasibility of repayment?

rayiner 7y ago
All of the policies you propose would have a disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic students, who generally come from families with less means to qualify for credit. Policies that disproportionately channel these students to trade schools and community colleges is a political non-starter.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  What are you really trying to say? That black and Hispanics families are disproportionally a higher risk of defaulting but should still get loans they cannot afford? Is that your argument? Loans are not grants nor gifts. You're not doing anyone a favour by giving them a loan they cannot afford to repay. There are other ways to subsidize education rather than distorting the lending market.
  - ak217 7y ago
    - The others are trying to tell you, in good faith, why they think such a move would be politically intractable. Grandstanding rhetoric doesn't help your argument. - Not requiring your parents to be rich is otherwise known as intergenerational upward mobility. If the effect of the current system is to externalize the costs of upward mobility on the rest of the society, then that's probably worth paying (to a point). The bigger problem is that government-issued loans suppress market pressure on colleges to operate efficiently.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You are expected to pay student loans based on future income not based on whether your parents are affluent enough to pay them.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Agreed. So I assume you’d be opposed to a policy that has the effect of requiring parental co-signing and discriminates in part based on the income and affluence of the parents?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Of course I’m opposed to that.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        My apologies. I crossed your upthread content with another poster’s.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >You are expected to pay student loans based on future income Sure. Let's go with that. Even under that assumption, there are multitudes of reasons why a bank would require cosigners, all coming down to you being a risk factor. For example, your grades may be low (risk of not graduating), you may be choosing an expensive art college with high tuition, or a degree wit no guarantee of reasonable income. Again, loans are not gifts. You do not do anyone a favour by giving them a loan they cannot afford.
cgriswald 7y ago
The requirement of a co-signer essentially means that the only people who get to go to college are the people who can afford to go to college before they go to college. You end up with a system where people who shouldn't go to college still go, because their parents can afford to send them; but people who should go to college can't, both because they can't get the funds (even though they could pay them back as a graduate) and because the first group is driving up prices.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >The requirement of a co-signer essentially means that the only people who get to go to college are the people who can afford to go to college before they go to college That's not what it means at all. College is not a binary option. There many schools with varying tuition. And even in a world where college tuition is much higher than it should be due to the distortion of subsidized and guaranteed federal loans, a student can make a decision that balances their financial situation and academic goals. That may involve choosing a less prestigious state school closer to home, working in the summers, or working part-time, or going to school part-time, etc. I also don't really understand your point. The requirement for consignment of a loan is because the loaner cannot afford the loan. That doesn't change if the loan is simply guaranteed as in the present system. >but people who should go to college can't, both because they can't get the funds (even though they could pay them back as a graduate) Why wouldn't that be incorporated into the loan application, i.e. the ability of the loaner to graduate and join a competitive field. That's the argument I'm making. The people who are most screwed by school debt are those that went to expensive schools to get non-competitive degrees that won't enable them to pay back their debt. Nobody is crying for doctors who may carry a large debt, but also make very good money. >because the first group is driving up prices. Funny you should reference market mechanics now ....
scarface74 7y ago
Very. They may very well take into account your grades and SAT score to determine feasibility of repayment. You act as if the SAT score is a predictive of future success. Do you know how easy it is for parents of means to pay for “sat tutorials” that will help their kids improve their scores significantly? Ask me how I know. They may and why shouldn't they? This will deter expensive colleges and push students to cheaper alternatives like trade schools, community colleges and state schools. What's wrong with that? So only the rich should go to the good schools? People who can't pay back loans? I don't follow your point. Are you saying that loans should be made without consideration of feasibility of repayment? Student loans are or should be based on the ability to pay back loans based on future earnings. Most loans are based on credit, prior repayment history and income - three things that students don’t have.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  College Board suggests that going from 0 to “6-8 hours” of prep is good for about 90 points and to 20 hours is good for only an additional 25 points. It would seem folly to take the test with 0 prep and there’s a Khan Academy free prep course that you could use for the 20 hours of prep. Given that, I’m not so sure that intensive prep is going to boost someone’s score significantly beyond basic prep.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Again of course the College Board has every reason to perpetuate the myth that the SAT is about college readiness and not about how much access you have to tutorials. Do you really think some free online tutorials are as good as $100/hour private tutor who is a college professor that we got for my son or in my case having a mother who was not only a high school Math teacher but also taught SAT tutorials? Do you really think the latter had no bearing on me having to highest SAT score in my school and the second highest in the district with 800 seniors? I’m not bragging. I didn’t exactly live in a top ranked school system in the small town south.
    - sokoloff 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

All of the policies you propose would have a disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic students, who generally come from families with less means to qualify for credit. Policies that disproportionately channel these students to trade schools and community colleges is a political non-starter.

macspoofing 7y ago
What are you really trying to say? That black and Hispanics families are disproportionally a higher risk of defaulting but should still get loans they cannot afford? Is that your argument? Loans are not grants nor gifts. You're not doing anyone a favour by giving them a loan they cannot afford to repay. There are other ways to subsidize education rather than distorting the lending market.
- ak217 7y ago
  - The others are trying to tell you, in good faith, why they think such a move would be politically intractable. Grandstanding rhetoric doesn't help your argument. - Not requiring your parents to be rich is otherwise known as intergenerational upward mobility. If the effect of the current system is to externalize the costs of upward mobility on the rest of the society, then that's probably worth paying (to a point). The bigger problem is that government-issued loans suppress market pressure on colleges to operate efficiently.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You are expected to pay student loans based on future income not based on whether your parents are affluent enough to pay them.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Agreed. So I assume you’d be opposed to a policy that has the effect of requiring parental co-signing and discriminates in part based on the income and affluence of the parents?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Of course I’m opposed to that.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        My apologies. I crossed your upthread content with another poster’s.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >You are expected to pay student loans based on future income Sure. Let's go with that. Even under that assumption, there are multitudes of reasons why a bank would require cosigners, all coming down to you being a risk factor. For example, your grades may be low (risk of not graduating), you may be choosing an expensive art college with high tuition, or a degree wit no guarantee of reasonable income. Again, loans are not gifts. You do not do anyone a favour by giving them a loan they cannot afford.

cgriswald 7y ago

The requirement of a co-signer essentially means that the only people who get to go to college are the people who can afford to go to college before they go to college. You end up with a system where people who shouldn't go to college still go, because their parents can afford to send them; but people who should go to college can't, both because they can't get the funds (even though they could pay them back as a graduate) and because the first group is driving up prices.

macspoofing 7y ago
>The requirement of a co-signer essentially means that the only people who get to go to college are the people who can afford to go to college before they go to college That's not what it means at all. College is not a binary option. There many schools with varying tuition. And even in a world where college tuition is much higher than it should be due to the distortion of subsidized and guaranteed federal loans, a student can make a decision that balances their financial situation and academic goals. That may involve choosing a less prestigious state school closer to home, working in the summers, or working part-time, or going to school part-time, etc. I also don't really understand your point. The requirement for consignment of a loan is because the loaner cannot afford the loan. That doesn't change if the loan is simply guaranteed as in the present system. >but people who should go to college can't, both because they can't get the funds (even though they could pay them back as a graduate) Why wouldn't that be incorporated into the loan application, i.e. the ability of the loaner to graduate and join a competitive field. That's the argument I'm making. The people who are most screwed by school debt are those that went to expensive schools to get non-competitive degrees that won't enable them to pay back their debt. Nobody is crying for doctors who may carry a large debt, but also make very good money. >because the first group is driving up prices. Funny you should reference market mechanics now ....

scarface74 7y ago

Very. They may very well take into account your grades and SAT score to determine feasibility of repayment. You act as if the SAT score is a predictive of future success. Do you know how easy it is for parents of means to pay for “sat tutorials” that will help their kids improve their scores significantly? Ask me how I know. They may and why shouldn't they? This will deter expensive colleges and push students to cheaper alternatives like trade schools, community colleges and state schools. What's wrong with that? So only the rich should go to the good schools? People who can't pay back loans? I don't follow your point. Are you saying that loans should be made without consideration of feasibility of repayment? Student loans are or should be based on the ability to pay back loans based on future earnings. Most loans are based on credit, prior repayment history and income - three things that students don’t have.

sokoloff 7y ago
College Board suggests that going from 0 to “6-8 hours” of prep is good for about 90 points and to 20 hours is good for only an additional 25 points. It would seem folly to take the test with 0 prep and there’s a Khan Academy free prep course that you could use for the 20 hours of prep. Given that, I’m not so sure that intensive prep is going to boost someone’s score significantly beyond basic prep.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Again of course the College Board has every reason to perpetuate the myth that the SAT is about college readiness and not about how much access you have to tutorials. Do you really think some free online tutorials are as good as $100/hour private tutor who is a college professor that we got for my son or in my case having a mother who was not only a high school Math teacher but also taught SAT tutorials? Do you really think the latter had no bearing on me having to highest SAT score in my school and the second highest in the district with 800 seniors? I’m not bragging. I didn’t exactly live in a top ranked school system in the small town south.
  - sokoloff 7y ago