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

What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#31

Post by roguecoder »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #8
anonymoushn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying if we didn't have government guarantees on student loans or any other form of government subsidy, banks would just give 20somethings who want art degrees $200,000 completely unsecured?

> banks would just give 20somethings who want art degrees $200,000 completely unsecured? Of course they wouldn't. That's the idea though. Back-pressure. The idea is that it would then become unrealistic for institutions to try and charge 200k for an arts degree which no one can afford, even with loans. This should lead to lower tuition. Bear in mind that that what any institution wants to charge is the absolute maxim…

The demand for college education is still elastic. College loans merely allow colleges to extract values greater than the student's ability to pay.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#32

Post by maxharris »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #29
javert wrote: post #24

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I. This may seem cruel, but it's actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market in…

I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.

It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be.

Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. Please lay off the Rawlsian stuff - it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. Nor does it square with the experiences of many of my friends that started life out poor, and chose to make something of themselves.

At this point, some might say, "you didn't earn your brain/parent's money/etc." I say that's nonsense, because the entire idea of "earn" arises in order to distinguish real people who choose to act toward a goal from those that choose not to. To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults). Choice is the crucial thing here: nobody could arrive at the idea of "earning" or "deserts" or "justice" by studying newborns or fetuses.

Relying on "earn" (which depends on the idea of choice and free will, as I've indicated above) in a statement intended to undermine the idea of choice and free will is bogus.

EDIT: I am making some serious points here. Disagree all you want in comments, but downvoting me reflexively does not refute my argument.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#33

Post by Ihmahr »

billsix wrote: post #13
kyllo wrote: post #10

Colleges have responded to the availability of easy federal money by doing what subsidized industries generally do: Raising prices to capture the subsidy. Exactly. This is an American problem though, the Europeans figured out many years ago that making tuition free for the students is a win-win for society. Everyone wants to go to college, so just make everyone pay for it, progressively, over time.

I was under the assumption that college is free for students in many European countries, assuming the student passed certain tests. If those tests aren't passed, no college. Is that not correct?

That is correct.

For example, if you want to study engineering you have to have certain math skills. Otherwise university won't let you in, no matter how much you pay.

Oh, free college no. But tuition is something like $700 annual in germany/france. There is no housing or anything.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#34

Post by coryrc »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #6

It is criminal that serious student-loan reform isn't on the table. As a recent graduate making monthly payments towards a 5-figure principal, I say fuck capping the interest rates. Please cap tuition and fees. Don't give me that BS about how universities need the money. During undergrad, I squatted in a 600 sq. ft. apartment shared with 3 other people. I seriously doubt my health is unaffected by the mold, mildew, v…

"Market forces" are you making a decision to go to that school and not one of the thousands of others that offer reasonable tuition. None of that describes the school I went to.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#35

Post by enraged_camel »

maxharris wrote: post #32
chrisrhoden wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.

It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be. Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. Please lay off the Rawlsian stuff - it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. Nor does it square with the experiences of many of my friends that…

>>Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you.

How big a jump you can make in improving your lot is a function of where you start in life.

It is significantly more difficult for someone born into a poor, single-parent household to bootstrap and "choose to make something of themselves" compared to someone who is born into a white middle-class family.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#36

Post by enraged_camel »

pnathan wrote: post #16

College is an interesting situation. It might be argued that collectively we all have an interest in seeing a more educated society, regardless of the earning power. It might also be argued that collectively we need to focus more on not "going to college" but instead focusing on things like "learning a sustainable trade". And, for an individual looking to maximize earnings & employment, a bachelor's in STEM/business…

>>Anyway, that's my undercooked idea to help college education.

So undercooked, in fact, that consuming it would make everyone sick.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#37

Post by dnautics »

Ihmahr wrote: post #33
billsix wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the assumption that college is free for students in many European countries, assuming the student passed certain tests. If those tests aren't passed, no college. Is that not correct?

That is correct. For example, if you want to study engineering you have to have certain math skills. Otherwise university won't let you in, no matter how much you pay. Oh, free college no. But tuition is something like $700 annual in germany/france. There is no housing or anything.

this is all and good for something like engineering where it is possible and maybe desirable to set some reasonable, objective standards. What about something like political sciences? Almost all of the upper-level public servants in a country like France come from the same school (ecole sciences-po)... Doesn't this become dangerous? Who gets to be the gatekeeper?

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#38

Post by dnautics »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #6

It is criminal that serious student-loan reform isn't on the table. As a recent graduate making monthly payments towards a 5-figure principal, I say fuck capping the interest rates. Please cap tuition and fees. Don't give me that BS about how universities need the money. During undergrad, I squatted in a 600 sq. ft. apartment shared with 3 other people. I seriously doubt my health is unaffected by the mold, mildew, v…

how about making academic debt dischargeable without question during bankruptcy - so that the school is 100% on the hook for the balance of the funds if it educates the student poorly and can't get them a job, instead of keeping them in (albeit voluntary) virtual slavery to service their debt?

Yes, interest rates would go up, to cover the risk of defaulters, but then only serious students would go to college.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#39

Post by dnautics »

ebiester wrote: post #11

So.. We make it so that only people likely to pay the loan back get student loans. Then, we watch as the actuaries figure out that students frompoor families are the ones who disproportionately pay their loans (since they don't have the same familial support during and after college.) So, poor students are disproportionately denied loans, and we continue to see generational wealth inequality expand. There are no grea…

why is 'leaving it to the market' immoral? If you think the poor should be granted preferential financial treatment, then you should reach into your own pocket and help pay for them. Or help scholarship funds raise money. Or at least pressure your alma mater to set aside some funds for the economically underprivileged. If you don't do any of the above, then you don't really believe in it, do you?

It's also kind of insulting for you to assume 'the poor are the ones who won't be able to pay back'. In my experience (and it's possible that I had a unique college experience) it was the students who came from tougher backgrounds that buckled down, didn't get stupid degrees, or even if they did, managed to pull decent, well-paying jobs out of college, because they used their education, and it was the upper class students that were loafers or chose their degrees in a silly fashion, so in a way, the good education of the less privileged was subsidized by the poor choices of the rich.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#40

Post by krichman »

javert wrote: post #24

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I. This may seem cruel, but it's actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market in…

Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads. Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money to educate their children have snatched up the slightest fraction of what the wealthy extract from the economy, so I don't see why that's the problem to focus on if your concern is "entitlements".

> Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market industry: much better, much cheaper, much more widely available.

Yes, like the for-profit prisons.

Post reply on HN