351–360 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permitting bankruptcy would instantly add more risk to the lender and thus instantly boost the interest rate on the loan, potentially pricing it out of the range of the student.
And permiting indenture is better? College is a signalling racket status good. Cut the loans and watch as tuition magically decreases to maintain equilibrium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permitting bankruptcy would instantly add more risk to the lender and thus instantly boost the interest rate on the loan, potentially pricing it out of the range of the student.
If we accept that the risk of student loan is covered by the state in any rate and not by the bank then we can just cut out the middle man and have the state give out the loan in the first place under what ever condition that satisfy the public who is paying for it. Sweden has that system. Can't say it is that terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permitting bankruptcy would instantly add more risk to the lender and thus instantly boost the interest rate on the loan, potentially pricing it out of the range of the student.
If any given thing is "too expensive", then an important fact is being conveyed: that thing takes too many resources to produce, relative to the value it is providing. Trying to hide or subsidize the price only prevents people from acting on that fact. (and thereby acquiring that value in a more efficient manner, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So people who do everything right and delayed purchasing a house/etc to pay student loans just get screwed? If I can make my loan payments, they can too. Student loan forgiveness is a solution that only helps a narrow slice of those affected by the student loan problem. It's not something that just affects those making payments, it affects literally everyone who ever had a loan. Jubilees are only going to decrease re…
Maybe lending should be risk based like other types of lending. 250k for med school, sure. 100k for undergrad in women's studies - no government guarantees for you I'm sure there's enough data already on the RoI of various programs. Seems like there should be a floor / bar based on the RoI for programs to qualify for government backed loans to students.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If any given thing is "too expensive", then an important fact is being conveyed: that thing takes too many resources to produce, relative to the value it is providing. Trying to hide or subsidize the price only prevents people from acting on that fact. (and thereby acquiring that value in a more efficient manner, etc.)
Well, I mean... you just described Economics 101 basically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That way universities would likely focus their courses on areas that get people employed, while cross subsidising some areas they feel add value to the educational environment. As if that would happen! The "unproductive" courses (aka everything but STEM) will all be eliminated as there isn't money for them. Society will lose as a result. Fund everything by taxpayers instead like Europe does.
What do you think about these data for the number of students in Europe stratified by course of study compared to the United States? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/... https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 Your assertion that society will lose if gender studies majors for instance decrease in output is debatable. In fact, a decent argument can be made that certain majors have a…
Or maybe because minorities actually (thanks to social media and progressive whites) have a meaningful voice now? Of course white men are frightened by the prospects of them no longer being the sole rulers.
> Your assertion that society will lose if gender studies majors for instance decrease in output is debatable.
It's not just about "gender studies". How can you, for example, quantify the "productivity" of an archaeologist, a historian, or an artist? You can't.
I've wondered if an good way to fund universities would be offer them x% of a students tax return for X years after graduation. That way universities would likely focus their courses on areas that get people employed, while cross subsidising some areas they feel add value to the educational environment. Or require popular courses that dont deliver returns as for some upfront payment. Even use data if it's that granul…
> That way universities would likely focus their courses on areas that get people employed, while cross subsidising some areas they feel add value to the educational environment. As if that would happen! The "unproductive" courses (aka everything but STEM) will all be eliminated as there isn't money for them. Society will lose as a result. Fund everything by taxpayers instead like Europe does.
1) So most people doing accounting, economics, history, design, law, journalism, marketing, philosophy etc dont get jobs?
2) This is assuming universities will specialise to the most profitable vs being self funded.
3) This assumes that universities wont value lower returning education disciplines enough to cross subsidise areas they feel are important vs 'most profitable'
.... so I dont doubt there would be issues in this funding model but cant see too much STEM focus being one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Own your choices. You decided to go to college as opposed to not going. You decided to go to the college that you did in favors of others. You knew the cost of tuition and room and board. You knew how much you would have to borrow to afford the college you chose. You voluntarily borrowed the money that you did. You knew the amount of $ that you would owe. You knew the payment schedule. You had a reasonable idea of ho…
Wow. Fuck you, tbh. Just fuck right off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you get rid of them? Term limits? Then we go back to the problem of having people who can get things done...
By default, after one term they are dismissed. Only exception is that few of them (like one or two) that are judged as good are kept. Think evolution algorithm on a government scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You're turning people into serfs for the better part of their adult life for a decision they made as a teenager. That's not justice, that's cruelty.
$22K in debt isn't serfdom, that's the price of a Honda Civic. It takes few grand a year to keep up with interest.
I think there are a lot of issues with the system, not least of which is that it's possible to accrue that much debt without any credit check. But let's not pretend that the system isn't rigged to saddle people with debt.