21–30 of 161 posts
It says the amount of money collected on delinquent student loans increased, but is that due to a policy change or due to tax cuts and improving economic conditions?
The chart shows an increase in collections every year since 2014, with the largest increases in collections between 2014 and 2016, so it seems likely it's just an improving economy.
But if there was a policy change, what changed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pressure on student loan repayments isn't going to change anything if the loans still have the same availability in the first place.
If the executive order signed in March does what it says it will I would not be surprised if that changes as well...IE: shifting some of the liability for non-payment back on the university and requiring them to state what the default rate is for graduate. IE: IF you take on this loan, how likely will you be able to pay it back later on. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-pursuing-ways-to-h...
Disclosure: I work as a blue-collar engine mechanic. Ive never been to college. That having been said, im familiar with debt after the 2008 housing collapse. I lost my truck and my trailer home, partly because of a shady home loan and partly because well, my employer went out of business. That having been said it was relatively easy to discharge these debts. the bank wasnt too upset about the home and offered to help…
All that's missing are weekly whippings...
Disclosure: I work as a blue-collar engine mechanic. Ive never been to college. That having been said, im familiar with debt after the 2008 housing collapse. I lost my truck and my trailer home, partly because of a shady home loan and partly because well, my employer went out of business. That having been said it was relatively easy to discharge these debts. the bank wasnt too upset about the home and offered to help…
When you initially took your loans, your lender assessed your credit and made the lending decision accordingly. Any individual loan won’t pan out, it on average the portfolio will, because the lender controls what loans are made. Student loans are completely different. The lender (the federal government—which originates almost all student loans) makes loans almost without assessing your credit or ability to repay. (There may be a filter, but if there is it’s extremely lax.) Your interest rate, moreover, doesn’t depend on your credit. Finally, there is no collateral the government can repossess to recoup its loss. It’s nothing like an ordinary loan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pressure on student loan repayments isn't going to change anything if the loans still have the same availability in the first place.
If the executive order signed in March does what it says it will I would not be surprised if that changes as well...IE: shifting some of the liability for non-payment back on the university and requiring them to state what the default rate is for graduate. IE: IF you take on this loan, how likely will you be able to pay it back later on. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-pursuing-ways-to-h...
It just requests reports from various agencies, which will then be used to help shape policy in 2020 when the Higher Education Act is reauthorized. Similar reports have been requested by previous administrations, to little effect.
The EO was largely about free speech at research universities, which is extremely narrow and ignores the really problematic institutions both in terms of free speech and in terms of student loan debt.
The free speech rules apply to places like UC Berkeley and UIUC (who are already obligated to follow 1A, and who the courts are adequately dealing with when the don't) but not places like Wheaton College and Cedarville University (both of whom will fire tenured faculty for not being Christian or Republican enough, and expel students for being unapologetically homosexual).
Because the oversight is targeted at research institutions, it also completely ignores for-profit institutions where 50% of students fall into default as well as non-research private institutions which are often far more expensive than their public counter-parts.
Both are by design -- requiring free speech and financial accountability from any recipient of federal student loan money would put lots of conservative christian colleges in very hot water...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your thoughts on the value of a degree are indicative of the massive disconnect we have in our society between an education and a credential. The reason student loans can't be discharged during bankruptcy is because the value of the degree can't be repossessed by a bank like a house or a car if you default. You attend college to learn and grow, not to pass an HR screening. I could very easily acquire a job as a devel…
> You attend college to learn and grow, not to pass an HR screening. What? No. I attended college because it let me be hired nearly everywhere with much less hassle than having to "work my way up" - nearly everything I learned was useless or rapidly obsolete (if it wasn't obsolete as it was taught). >You don't attend college for a degree you attend it for the knowledge and experience you gain - a degree is worthless,…
For the record though I don't have a degree myself and I've never been denied for it during the HR screening process, I'm a developer and I use my existing work to market myself. I understand that in other fields this is either very hard to do or near impossible (Doctors, for example, could never do that).
In an ideal world, if we could restructure society, we'd have corporations take on the burden of educating their workforce entirely - for instance perhaps out of high school if you were interested in being an accountant you'd intern or do a 2 year rigorous learning/onboarding process at company X where you'd agree to work for less or stay on for Y amount of years. I think a system like that would work a lot better for a lot of people and ultimately bring the cost of higher education down for the people who simply can't avoid it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a few people got fancy degrees and discharged their loans. I'd totally support discharging your loans and having your degree placed into some sort of ADMINISTRATIVE HOLD so it has no value until the loans are being paid back. You can easily pick up the payments once you're fully employed.
I don't understand how that would work. I can see 2 values in a degree: 1 the ability to put the degree on your resume, 2 the knowledge and enjoyment you got from the degree. I don't see how it's possible to remove 2. I guess you could remove 1 by making it illegal to put on your resume, but then how would you become "fully employed" when you can't put the degree on your resume?
It would also make lenders want to make your succeed (it is their money)
What's incredible is how politicians like Bernie Sandres and Elizabeth warren are sending messages to all these debtors that their debt is illegitimate and they shouldn't pay for it. I bet a beer you can trace delinquency to the politicians speeches