The scenario that I proposed was entirely hypothetical, but I image that they are revoked in the same way that any credential is revoked: if asked to verify that an individual holds it, indicate instead that they don't. I mean, this has happened a number of times to doctorate degree holders when it was later discovered that they falsified research for their dissertation.
Yeah, but publishing a statement that announces that you're a cheat, and that your education is a sham, actually damages your reputation and your career. Cutting up some paper so you can be debt free would just show that you're not a complete nit.
Even if you actually needed that paper to prove that you are in fact qualified, an entire industry would appear overnight dedicated to providing certified copies. The free market ultimately decides what credentials to trust.
While she doesn't have a job that pays enough to trigger repayment, is the loan accruing interest? If so, is the interest rate higher than the one on your mortgage? If so, you might want to reconsider your strategy...
Some of these income based payment plans have a forgiveness clause after 20-25 years, so it may still make sense.
Subject to many stipulations. One of them being that you are making regular payments...
The TARP bailout was not money just handed out to banks. It was loans to banking and other industries which was repaid in full overall. And in fact it was the auto industry which failed to repay the loan, not the banking industry. I'm not a fan of the financial sector but let's keep the facts straight here
And what of quantative easing where trillions of assets of banks (including junk mortgage backed securities) were purchased by the Fed, relieving banks of the full impact of their actions?
How about gov do quantitative easing for these student loans. Basically provide contracts and various incentives for companies that are employing these students who have loans. Also to various vendors like house owners etc who provide service to these students. This would create a negative impact on students who did not took loans or got good jobs and paid up in time etc. But that's how largely it was done for QE also.
A big problem is that at age 17, all of the adults are saying go to college & take out these loans. Guidance councilors, teachers, parents. The most compliant high schoolers will just do what they are told without thinking about it further. I imagine this will start changing. When I was a kid, that group of adults had the benefit of cheap degrees. Today, now that group of adults is us and we did not go to school chea…
> A big problem is that at age 17, all of the adults are saying go to college & take out these loans. Guidance councilors, teachers, parents. The most compliant high schoolers will just do what they are told without thinking about it further. > I imagine this will start changing. When I was a kid, that group of adults had the benefit of cheap degrees. Today, now that group of adults is us and we did not go to school…
I went to college for a number of reasons despite already being skeptical of the "party line" everyone was telling me about how important it was to go to college, but ultimately I was able to swallow the estimated $100k price tag at the place I wanted to go the most (which was small, private, and out of state) because I made the calculations that let me be confident that if I made it to the end it shouldn't be too difficult to get even an entry level job in some field of tech I already had experience in (my degree was computer engineering) at $60k/yr which wouldn't be too bad for paying off that debt. Things more or less worked out, I too don't use any of my degree knowledge on the job and the thing that gets me the most recruiter spam is my broad experience working for peanuts on/off at a local startup while I was still in school. Certainly the degree would have been cheaper by going to the state university, or a community college first, but even those figures are starting to rise and when you can't get any job $30k of interest-accumulating debt probably feels about as back-breaking as $100k. I don't know if I would go back and take the safer, cheaper path. I think I did alright given my information at the time, so I don't put all the blame on the system -- too many college students just don't do the steps of calculating the full program cost (including any loans for housing), the desirability of employees with this particular degree over a degree in general, and then figuring out a plan to actually pay back what they borrow for the degree.
A big takeaway from this article (for me) is that people are surprised that 17 year old kids don't understand what they're doing when they take out that college loan. Shock and astonishment despite there being little to no preparation for this kind of financial understanding previously in their education. That surprise and shock shocks and surprises me. Honestly it kind of reminds me of the whole Yelp minimum wage th…
> A big takeaway from this article (for me) is that people are surprised that 17 year old kids don't understand what they're doing when they take out that college loan.
Student loans are the only legal way to sell yourself into "debt slavery"[0] in the United States. It's not the 17 year olds that are screwing up, it's society as a whole by even allowing this situation to exist.
It was backstopping shitty loans with the full faith & credit of the gov't. Note that the person who received the shitty loan still got foreclosed on and lost their equity. The persons responsible, who made the loan, don't have to take a loss.
What sort of belief should I start from to be able to decide that people taking a loan they can't afford bear no responsibility? I imagine it's the same sort of thinking that leads to calling a property they never actually paid for theirs but I am not sure and when I am not sure, I ask.
They both bear responsibility, but only one party got the bailout.
The scenario that I proposed was entirely hypothetical, but I image that they are revoked in the same way that any credential is revoked: if asked to verify that an individual holds it, indicate instead that they don't. I mean, this has happened a number of times to doctorate degree holders when it was later discovered that they falsified research for their dissertation.
You'd need to drain them of their college memories too, somehow, for the hypothetical question of "was it worth it/can I give it back?" to have merit.