5 ms·

> The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. Potential college

> The current situation of 70k a year college is predatory, but a student accepting that cost should be smart enough to know what that means. Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. Also, after thinking about it a little, your argument of "they should have been smart enough" pretty much applies to every bankruptcy situation. Homeowners, many of whom are much older than these students should be smart enough to know what they are getting into with that mortgage, et cetera.

Mirioron 7y ago
>Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. If they aren't responsible enough to take out that loans then they probably shouldn't have the ability to take out these loans. That would make it simple, right? If you're poor and can't get scholarships then no college for you. At some point, we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions. Otherwise we're going to lose a lot of privileges in society.
- freehunter 7y ago
  This is a country where people are able to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and kill or be killed in a foreign war before we trust them to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and before we trust them to rent a car. And the same country's legal system will treat a preteen child as an adult and sentence them to life in prison (Lionel Tate, 2001). Maybe "at some point we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions" but the first step might be figuring out an actual age where they can be held accountable. Perhaps the youngest age someone should be able to take out student loans is 21, when they're able to buy a pack of smokes and a case of beer? Or maybe 12, when they're responsible enough to serve life in prison?
  - Godel_unicode 7y ago
    Given that Tate's sentence was overturned for reasons of mental competency, I think we can safely put that example to bed.
    - harry8 7y ago
      But not overturned because he wasn't tried as a minor? If so the point absolutely stands nowhere near a bed if what is being discussed is the application of law based on age.
      - Godel_unicode 7y ago
        Mental competency in this case referers to the capacity of a 12 year old to reason about the consequences of his actions. In other words, 12 year olds are not adults and cannot be treated like adults.
  - pylua 7y ago
    I would argue that people are buying an expensive investment that doesn't pay off. It doesn't pay off because the product is defective -- college often doesn't lead to hire salaries. Often times admissions has turned into an unregulated used car industry where lemons are legally bought and sold each day.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
>Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. Are you saying 18 year olds aren't adults? I was a 17-turned-18 year old who chose a college that was inexpensive. Of course, I also didn't get _into_ an elite college, much like the 80-95% of folks that apply. I'd ask for more sympathy for the 80-95% of us before we infantilize the 1%.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Bringing up the age and maturity is always a red herring. It is effectively a choice of potential maximum wealth and social class. While some may rise high in spite of a lack of higher education they are outliers among outliers. Students know one essential aspect for the choice - do they want more schooling and are they remotely capable of handling it? Of course the other myth is that being smart enough is sufficient for the unknowns and bad hands that can make failure a foregone conclusion. What is normally the "smart" choice can bring about disaster and doijg something "stupid" at the right time can bring about success in a very narrow circumstance. Even a brilliant trust fund kis can wind up homeless if they will develop severe schizophrenia around twenty. Life isn't fair - I don't mean this to justify injustices but to note that it is possible for anyone to be screwed over for reasons beyond anyone's control. Victim blaming for such is wrong both morally and factually.
StillBored 7y ago
And yet we just passed another 21 year old age limit in the US. This time to buy cigarettes, with hardly any actual public debate. So again, we prove our double standard, you can't buy a drug that is harmful, but you can join the military and get killed, or take out loans that will make you an indentured servant for life.

Mirioron 7y ago

>Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. If they aren't responsible enough to take out that loans then they probably shouldn't have the ability to take out these loans. That would make it simple, right? If you're poor and can't get scholarships then no college for you. At some point, we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions. Otherwise we're going to lose a lot of privileges in society.

freehunter 7y ago
This is a country where people are able to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and kill or be killed in a foreign war before we trust them to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and before we trust them to rent a car. And the same country's legal system will treat a preteen child as an adult and sentence them to life in prison (Lionel Tate, 2001). Maybe "at some point we need to be able to hold people accountable for their actions" but the first step might be figuring out an actual age where they can be held accountable. Perhaps the youngest age someone should be able to take out student loans is 21, when they're able to buy a pack of smokes and a case of beer? Or maybe 12, when they're responsible enough to serve life in prison?
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  Given that Tate's sentence was overturned for reasons of mental competency, I think we can safely put that example to bed.
  - harry8 7y ago
    But not overturned because he wasn't tried as a minor? If so the point absolutely stands nowhere near a bed if what is being discussed is the application of law based on age.
    - Godel_unicode 7y ago
      Mental competency in this case referers to the capacity of a 12 year old to reason about the consequences of his actions. In other words, 12 year olds are not adults and cannot be treated like adults.
- pylua 7y ago
  I would argue that people are buying an expensive investment that doesn't pay off. It doesn't pay off because the product is defective -- college often doesn't lead to hire salaries. Often times admissions has turned into an unregulated used car industry where lemons are legally bought and sold each day.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

>Potential college students are 18-ish years old, hardly old enough to have enough mental composure to make the "no" choice in a country that bombards them with the message that going to an elite college is the ultimate goal. Are you saying 18 year olds aren't adults? I was a 17-turned-18 year old who chose a college that was inexpensive. Of course, I also didn't get _into_ an elite college, much like the 80-95% of folks that apply. I'd ask for more sympathy for the 80-95% of us before we infantilize the 1%.

Nasrudith 7y ago

Bringing up the age and maturity is always a red herring. It is effectively a choice of potential maximum wealth and social class. While some may rise high in spite of a lack of higher education they are outliers among outliers. Students know one essential aspect for the choice - do they want more schooling and are they remotely capable of handling it? Of course the other myth is that being smart enough is sufficient for the unknowns and bad hands that can make failure a foregone conclusion. What is normally the "smart" choice can bring about disaster and doijg something "stupid" at the right time can bring about success in a very narrow circumstance. Even a brilliant trust fund kis can wind up homeless if they will develop severe schizophrenia around twenty. Life isn't fair - I don't mean this to justify injustices but to note that it is possible for anyone to be screwed over for reasons beyond anyone's control. Victim blaming for such is wrong both morally and factually.

StillBored 7y ago

And yet we just passed another 21 year old age limit in the US. This time to buy cigarettes, with hardly any actual public debate. So again, we prove our double standard, you can't buy a drug that is harmful, but you can join the military and get killed, or take out loans that will make you an indentured servant for life.