3 ms·

It kind of sounds like another hack on top of the current solution to me. Does the problem not stem from the fact that the government backs a lot of these loans

It kind of sounds like another hack on top of the current solution to me. Does the problem not stem from the fact that the government backs a lot of these loans and forbids to discharge them during bankruptcy? Why cant we rollback the government backing and the anti-bankruptcy protections at the same time? If less people secure these loans, the universities will have no longer find enough people to pay those insane tuition fees. That will force them to cut back on needless expenses.

nemo44x 2y ago
The problem is a person is loaned money without collateral. If not gov backed then there won’t be any loans. The idea was to make college something attainable. But it has become the monstrosity it is today. In lieu of collateral make the universities co-sign and put them on the hook.
- almatabata 2y ago
  > The problem is a person is loaned money without collateral. If not gov backed then there won’t be any loans. None sounds a bit hyperbolic but we would have a lot less of these loans though I agree. > The idea was to make college something attainable. But it has become the monstrosity it is today. In lieu of collateral make the universities co-sign and put them on the hook. I agree that universities currently have no incentive to lower their tuition. I just do not see why we need to create this new unique construct instead of rolling back what did not work. As far as I know, we would create a special loan where the entity receiving the money becomes responsible for it. We do not do this for any other product. If somebody goes into debt to buy a TV from walmart, walmart does not co-sign the loan. What makes education so special that we need to carve out such an exception? And let us assume this solution does not work, do we continue hotfixing it? What kind of results would it take for people to accept that this approach does not work? If you solution works great. But at this point I fear that even when it does not we always start from the premise that we cannot undo what came before. We can only add more stuff never remove anything.

nemo44x 2y ago

The problem is a person is loaned money without collateral. If not gov backed then there won’t be any loans. The idea was to make college something attainable. But it has become the monstrosity it is today. In lieu of collateral make the universities co-sign and put them on the hook.

almatabata 2y ago
> The problem is a person is loaned money without collateral. If not gov backed then there won’t be any loans. None sounds a bit hyperbolic but we would have a lot less of these loans though I agree. > The idea was to make college something attainable. But it has become the monstrosity it is today. In lieu of collateral make the universities co-sign and put them on the hook. I agree that universities currently have no incentive to lower their tuition. I just do not see why we need to create this new unique construct instead of rolling back what did not work. As far as I know, we would create a special loan where the entity receiving the money becomes responsible for it. We do not do this for any other product. If somebody goes into debt to buy a TV from walmart, walmart does not co-sign the loan. What makes education so special that we need to carve out such an exception? And let us assume this solution does not work, do we continue hotfixing it? What kind of results would it take for people to accept that this approach does not work? If you solution works great. But at this point I fear that even when it does not we always start from the premise that we cannot undo what came before. We can only add more stuff never remove anything.