4 ms·

> It's a massive problem A massive problem compared to what? That's the problem I have with most published statistics in this area: they're aggregated and repo

by wahern 4y ago

> It's a massive problem A massive problem compared to what? That's the problem I have with most published statistics in this area: they're aggregated and reported in a manner that attempts to answer that question from the outset. They start from the presumption that it is a massive problem, and then aggregate and report data in a way that exaggerates effects. I personally would be happy to vote for policies that increase public funding of public universities with the aim to reduce or eliminate the need for loans when attending such schools. But beyond that, it seems difficult to address these problems without greater specificity regarding the problems and potential solutions. Based on most popular reporting, Federal-subsidized loan programs seem massively exploitative on their face, but if the vast majority of people are able to pay them back, and given the percentage of Americans with postsecondary degrees (50% ages 25-64 as of 2020 according to https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cac/intl-ed-attainment https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cac/intl-ed-attai..., behind only Canada, Luxembourg, Korea, and Israel among OECD countries), then it's not nearly as obvious that they're a net negative overall (notwithstanding the seemingly intuitively obvious inflation potential), and perhaps more targeted policies are appropriate. Pointing out that reporting is misleading doesn't put someone on one side of a debate or another. Moreover, figuring out alternatives is far more difficult than identifying problems. If someone is actually earnest about adopting constructive remedies, I would think an accurate understanding of the nature of the problem(s) would be highly valued. If you're primarily concerned about issues regarding PhD programs, hooking your wagon to general solutions principally targeting undergraduate financing could backfire.

lapcat 4y ago
I find your position a little strange. For example, you say "students who never had to borrow (wealthier parents, or poor enough to receive free rides through grants and scholarships) are excluded from balance numbers", speaking as if that's a "bias" in the statistics that makes them "misleading", rather than being the fundamental problem itself: the unfairness of some students having to borrow huge amounts of money to get an education, while others don't have to borrow anything, despite going to the same schools! Student loans getting repaid doesn't automatically mean that student loans aren't a problem. They're effectively a highly regressive tax imposed on kids based on the income of their parents. Or if not precisely a tax, then an entry fee to certain import parts of society, job markets, politics, etc. But the entry fee is waived if you belong to the right family.
- dominotw 4y ago
  > wealthier parents, or poor enough to receive free rides through grants and scholarships Some of my nieces and nephews are going to college this year. They all seem to have gotten free rides for tuition( they have to pay for room and board). They are all solidly middle class. I don't think what you are saying here is correct.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    That was a quote from wahern, not something that I said.
    - dominotw 4y ago
      yes but you said > They're effectively a highly regressive tax imposed on kids based on the income of their parents. > entry fee is waived if you belong to the right family. So i thought you agreed with that statement.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        It's simple: rich kids don't have to borrow for college, but millions of other kids do. Who exactly has to borrow and how much? Well, that's complicated and depends on many different factors. I'm not sure what your anecdote is supposed to disprove? Obviously people have to borrow for college, given $1.7 trillion in student loan debt.
        dominotw 4y ago
        > depends on many different factors > They're effectively a highly regressive tax imposed on kids based on the income of their parents. why is it just 'income of their parents' in your statement if there are 'many different factors'.
        lapcat 4y ago
        Me: Who exactly has to borrow and how much? Well, that's complicated and depends on many different factors. You: You are making it out as if its only either poor or rich get a free ride. Me: No. You can willfully misinterpret me, despite my own clarifications, but this goes against the HN guidelines. It should be needless to say, but kids don't have to borrow for college if their parents pay for it, right? So it's very dependent on a kid's family. This seems indisputable. I'm not trying to say anything surprising here, just the obvious. I'm done replying to you now. This conversation is not interesting and is going nowhere fast.

by wahern 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

I find your position a little strange. For example, you say "students who never had to borrow (wealthier parents, or poor enough to receive free rides through grants and scholarships) are excluded from balance numbers", speaking as if that's a "bias" in the statistics that makes them "misleading", rather than being the fundamental problem itself: the unfairness of some students having to borrow huge amounts of money to get an education, while others don't have to borrow anything, despite going to the same schools! Student loans getting repaid doesn't automatically mean that student loans aren't a problem. They're effectively a highly regressive tax imposed on kids based on the income of their parents. Or if not precisely a tax, then an entry fee to certain import parts of society, job markets, politics, etc. But the entry fee is waived if you belong to the right family.

dominotw 4y ago
> wealthier parents, or poor enough to receive free rides through grants and scholarships Some of my nieces and nephews are going to college this year. They all seem to have gotten free rides for tuition( they have to pay for room and board). They are all solidly middle class. I don't think what you are saying here is correct.
- lapcat 4y ago
  That was a quote from wahern, not something that I said.
  - dominotw 4y ago
    yes but you said > They're effectively a highly regressive tax imposed on kids based on the income of their parents. > entry fee is waived if you belong to the right family. So i thought you agreed with that statement.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      It's simple: rich kids don't have to borrow for college, but millions of other kids do. Who exactly has to borrow and how much? Well, that's complicated and depends on many different factors. I'm not sure what your anecdote is supposed to disprove? Obviously people have to borrow for college, given $1.7 trillion in student loan debt.
      - dominotw 4y ago
        > depends on many different factors > They're effectively a highly regressive tax imposed on kids based on the income of their parents. why is it just 'income of their parents' in your statement if there are 'many different factors'.
        lapcat 4y ago
        Me: Who exactly has to borrow and how much? Well, that's complicated and depends on many different factors. You: You are making it out as if its only either poor or rich get a free ride. Me: No. You can willfully misinterpret me, despite my own clarifications, but this goes against the HN guidelines. It should be needless to say, but kids don't have to borrow for college if their parents pay for it, right? So it's very dependent on a kid's family. This seems indisputable. I'm not trying to say anything surprising here, just the obvious. I'm done replying to you now. This conversation is not interesting and is going nowhere fast.