Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#131

Post by desertedisland »

Lazare wrote: post #103
nimbius wrote: post #10

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…

The logic runs like this: A secured loan should be easy and cheap to get, because if it goes bad, the lender can reposes the collateral. This is like your house and the truck; you ran up some debt, it didn't work out, you lost them both, but you also lost the debt. An unsecured loan should be harder to get and pretty expensive, because it's riskier. If I run up $20k on my credit card paying for a fancy vacation, then…

Who is the 'we' exactly? Perhaps, in my cynicism, it's an attempt to sound like 'we're all in this together everyone! hugs'

Maybe this is not a kumbaya moment. I'm guessing the 'we' breaks down the moment someone defaults on their loan hey?

Maybe the reality is that student loans are a zero risk gravy train - a bonanza for greedy, rapacious companies who can lump 20 year olds - kids basically - just starting their working lives with a lifetime of indenture that they can never break free from - regardless of how their life circumstances may change.

It is the ultimate business model! (Of which I'm guessing you're a part).

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#132

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #75
alexhutcheson wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do 2 years at a community college, then 2 years at University of Maryland, your degree just says “University of Maryland”. There’s no reason to break it out on your resume either. Anecdotally, it seems like the people I know who went the community college route ended up finishing their degrees at more prestigious universities than they would have if they went straight to a 4 year school.

People are reasonably worried about the difficulty of changing schools mid-stream and whether they'll be able to pick up smoothly at the more prestigious school or be at an academic or social disadvantage relative to those who did their whole degree there. Also, these choices are faced primarily by young people who have no college experience and often little life experience in things like fiscal management. Meanwhile…

What "broader view" is there for employers to take? The parent comment is correct: if you do 2 years at community college and then 2 years at UMD, you're going to have a UMD degree. There's nothing for the employer to have an opinion about.

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#133

Post by rdiddly »

desertedisland wrote: post #131
Lazare wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic runs like this: A secured loan should be easy and cheap to get, because if it goes bad, the lender can reposes the collateral. This is like your house and the truck; you ran up some debt, it didn't work out, you lost them both, but you also lost the debt. An unsecured loan should be harder to get and pretty expensive, because it's riskier. If I run up $20k on my credit card paying for a fancy vacation, then…

Who is the 'we' exactly? Perhaps, in my cynicism, it's an attempt to sound like 'we're all in this together everyone! hugs ' Maybe this is not a kumbaya moment. I'm guessing the 'we' breaks down the moment someone defaults on their loan hey? Maybe the reality is that student loans are a zero risk gravy train - a bonanza for greedy, rapacious companies who can lump 20 year olds - kids basically - just starting their w…

Society - all of us, insofar as we are imperfectly represented by our Congresstrons.

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#134

Post by cjhanks »

downut wrote: post #117
cjhanks wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also do not understand this. For example, Arizona community colleges (2 years) are $2,400 while Arizona state universities are $10k. People are deciding to spend more money elsewhere. They have been convinced that to have a successful career and life they must be in a certain program at a specific university. And for those that wish to be academics or working as a part of the 1% at the cutting edge of their field -…

AZ parent just put a child through the public schools K-12 and then graduated U of AZ engineering BS without debt anecdotage: The local CC is a disaster for teaching anything to do with that cursed label "STEM": math end-game beginning calculus is almost non-existent, other math classes focus on "business math"[1] and subjects such as real english skills or heaven forbid a foreign language are just barely rudimentary…

I suspect you know better than I do. 10 years ago I took a lot of the busy-work classes at GCC. And yeah, the education is not great. "Business math" and their persistent description of integrals as "the area under the curve" is infuriating. That said, STEM seems to be one of the programs where state universities are more appropriate in terms of earnings-to-cost benefit.

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#135

Post by JamesBarney »

acct1771 wrote: post #126
Lazare wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic runs like this: A secured loan should be easy and cheap to get, because if it goes bad, the lender can reposes the collateral. This is like your house and the truck; you ran up some debt, it didn't work out, you lost them both, but you also lost the debt. An unsecured loan should be harder to get and pretty expensive, because it's riskier. If I run up $20k on my credit card paying for a fancy vacation, then…

> we also don't want to carefully vet applicants Sounds like you don't want to vet them at all, when carefully vetting would be a good answer.

What does vetting an 18 yr old for a 60k unsecured debt look like?

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#136

Post by p1necone »

anon1m0us wrote: post #112
larrywright wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Free college doesn't solve the problem, because the real problem isn't the cost of college, it's people pursuing degrees that aren't useful in the real world.

Ah, I see. So we should have free practical education. Free engineering universities and such, but not free ... let's call them, humanities universities? I'd be ok with that. If you want a humanities degree, then you have to pay. Maybe those still have student loans, but not big ones.

What are these "good" degrees, and what are the "bad" degrees? Have you actually looked at data or are you just going off gut feeling here?

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#137

Post by anticensor »

anigbrowl wrote: post #73
TallGuyShort wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't find gainful employment with your new degree, not much worth repossessing, is there?

We teach kids they can be whoever they want to be, then stick them with a massive bill and say 'ha ha only kidding you miserable debt slave.'

You are not required to apply for student loan. You can earn a tutition waiver and/or scholarship if you are deemed successful (OK, not in all cases); or you can pay the expenses by yourself if you are rich enough. All student loan does is enabling lower-middle income not-so-successful people to climb the income ladder more easily and/or faster.

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#138

Post by Lazare »

desertedisland wrote: post #131
Lazare wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic runs like this: A secured loan should be easy and cheap to get, because if it goes bad, the lender can reposes the collateral. This is like your house and the truck; you ran up some debt, it didn't work out, you lost them both, but you also lost the debt. An unsecured loan should be harder to get and pretty expensive, because it's riskier. If I run up $20k on my credit card paying for a fancy vacation, then…

Who is the 'we' exactly? Perhaps, in my cynicism, it's an attempt to sound like 'we're all in this together everyone! hugs ' Maybe this is not a kumbaya moment. I'm guessing the 'we' breaks down the moment someone defaults on their loan hey? Maybe the reality is that student loans are a zero risk gravy train - a bonanza for greedy, rapacious companies who can lump 20 year olds - kids basically - just starting their w…

"We" in this case, means US society. You can look at the laws, and the debates, and the campaigns of different political candidates, and the debates over bankruptcy law reforms, and the jokes on late night comedy shows, and you can see fairly clearly the consensus that society has settled on. We have clearly decided that higher education should be open to almost everyone, and that it should be affordable, although we're deeply conflicted on what that means.

> I'm guessing the 'we' breaks down the moment someone defaults on their loan hey?

I mean, we have a major political candidate campaigning in part on forgiving all student loans and making tuition free at state schools, so...apparently not? I mean, she's not doing that well in polling so far, but it's clearly a topic on the table for discussion.

> a bonanza for greedy, rapacious companies who can lump 20 year olds - kids basically - just starting their working lives with a lifetime of indenture that they can never break free from

That's not how it works in the US, as has been discussed a fair bit in this thread. Get into an income based repayment program and you can pay 10% of your discretionary income a year for 20 years, and then the balance will be forgiven.

> It is the ultimate business model! (Of which I'm guessing you're a part).

I don't even live in the US, have never had a student loan, and have never worked for an educational institution or a company involved in making student loans, so perhaps you should try making better guesses. :)

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#139

Post by [deleted] »

nordsieck wrote: post #125
mikeash wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of credit scores isn’t to punish the borrower, it’s to allow future lenders to better gauge risk. No value is destroyed when you put a negative mark on someone’s credit report. Revoking degrees would be equivalent to burning down houses in foreclosure. Such destruction of value is obvious madness.

> Revoking degrees would be equivalent to burning down houses in foreclosure. While I agree with your larger point, I think this particular bit is a little weak. A revoked degree can easily be un-revoked, while a burned down house needs to be re-built from scratch. This is why it is socially acceptable for schools to withhold transcripts for students who owe money to the school.

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Stepping Up Enforcement on Delinquent Student Loans

#140

Post by jogjayr »

larrywright wrote: post #91
AngryData wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It works for high school, I don't see how college is any different.

High school is a guided path, there are choices to be made but everyone comes out of it with a similar set of skills and knowledge. College is self-guided and people can choose the degree they want to pursue. The problem today is that there are a lot of people who pursue degrees with little regard for the cost and the applicability of the degree they're pursuing. If they do that now, when they have some skin in the g…

> Sure, they don't have debt (the rest of us will foot the bill),

If taxpayers only agree to foot a much smaller bill, universities will be forced to cut all the frivolous stuff and get serious about education. I'm all for taxpayer-funded college but not at the prices these colleges charge at present. You don't see college football and all the other non-educational nonsense in Germany (using that because it's an example of a country with a free college system). "Free" college should pay only for classrooms and labs, professors and TAs - no dorms, meal plans, overpriced textbooks, sports or extra-curricular activities (unless paid for by students or donors), huge admin staff and the rest.

Post reply on HN