4 ms·

I couldn’t disagree more. First of all college participants get more money, period: https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employmen

I couldn’t disagree more. First of all college participants get more money, period: https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuvalues/employment-earnings/ https://www.aplu.org/our-work/4-policy-and-advocacy/publicuv... Second of all, your emotional plea around students being disabled is salient but irrelevant. If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” No matter how you slice it there will be poor people who fit any scenario you can conceive who also did not participant in college. Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Your link appears to be about bachelor degree recipients. > If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” That then goes to paying off their debt. https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-student-loans https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-stude... "Student loans can’t stop you from getting Medicare. But defaulting on federal student debt can lead to your Social Security retirement and disability benefits being garnished." > Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive. For students who had federal loans for predatory schools an argument is that the government (through accreditation) was responsible for validating the school prior to giving loans to attend the school. The fact that it fell down on this job, leading to harm for the loan recipients (both money, and time, only one of which can be compensated), justifies eliminating the debt. Otherwise you can make the argument that the money from any compensatory judgement should go to the poorest first, and not the person seeking compensation (which would have a regressive effect of wronged parties not seeking to hold the people committing the wrong accountable - which is some of the force behind holding entities such as predatory schools accountable).

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

Your link appears to be about bachelor degree recipients. > If they’re that poor they would get money through a straight “give poor people money scheme.” That then goes to paying off their debt. https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-student-loans https://www.tateesq.com/learn/can-ssi-be-garnished-for-stude... "Student loans can’t stop you from getting Medicare. But defaulting on federal student debt can lead to your Social Security retirement and disability benefits being garnished." > Any sort of prioritizing or preference on college participation is regressive. For students who had federal loans for predatory schools an argument is that the government (through accreditation) was responsible for validating the school prior to giving loans to attend the school. The fact that it fell down on this job, leading to harm for the loan recipients (both money, and time, only one of which can be compensated), justifies eliminating the debt. Otherwise you can make the argument that the money from any compensatory judgement should go to the poorest first, and not the person seeking compensation (which would have a regressive effect of wronged parties not seeking to hold the people committing the wrong accountable - which is some of the force behind holding entities such as predatory schools accountable).