581–590 of 771 posts
I remember getting lunch freshman year and one day, the signs in the student union cafeteria were printed on poster board and the next they were flat screen TVs. When I asked the on duty manager why, they just said "because it's more eco friendly."
My entire world view shifted in that moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When students can file for bankruptcy Agree with everything you say, except for this. Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy will result in millions of students pulling that lever as soon as they graduate. They, of course, get to keep their degrees and use them to make money their entire lives. If you file for bankruptcy and, for example, want to keep your car (which has a loan), you have to reaffirm…
> Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy will result in millions of students pulling that lever as soon as they graduate. What happened in the days before student loans become exempt from bankruptcy?
That might as well be another century. My guess is not many loans discharged by BK. I would also guess loan amounts were not insane, as they are today. I would further guess the no-discharge rule had to have origin in excessive defaults. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Won't it go up more if colleges can be assured that students will be bailed out?
You're confused. Colleges and universities have made (poor) decisions that have increased their cost, ostensibly to attract enrollment because of all the tuition/fee dollars out there for the taking. If those tuition/fee dollars dry up, then that money isn't out there floating around to chase after with poor decisions. However, all the previous poor decisions were still made, and they're still paying for all the extr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They study in a field which has a high likelihood of loan repayment, or study at a less expensive school. If a really smart poor person wants to become a really smart rich person by pursuing a degree in film studies, it's reasonable (in my opinion) for a bank to say "borrowers whose only education is a bachelors in film studies tend to have trouble paying back loans, so we won't lend you very much". If that very smar…
I'm not sure loan companies want to get into the business of rating specific programs at specific universities and their ability to produce students who can get good jobs. And also if they did do that, we get back to other problem which is that schools will only offer programs that lead to high paychecks making them just job training and not places of overall learning.
After Rounds of laughter. “If I failed to pay, the government will pay you back.”
Bank. “Here’s 10 million dollars. Let us know if you’d like more. “
Banks and other lenders do basic sue diligence all the time. It’s government that screws this up.
One thing that was mentioned in the article, but which seems to be missing from the discussion is the decrease in state funding for higher education. When I was looking for colleges in the 80s, the most expensive private schools were on the order of $20K all in. Those same schools are on the order of $85K all in, which is an increase of "only" (hah) 450%. However, my alma mater (SUNY Buffalo) has increased in-state t…
Since you could earn about $1500 working each summer, your maximum shortfall was $1500 per year (assuming no loans or grants), or $6000 per bachelor degree. At the CPI's 194% inflation, today that would equate to less than $12k of debt.
I'd also like to know how much nonacademic college costs like R&B have inflated -- when provided by the rapacious university system. They should have followed the CPI. But I'd lay strong odds they haven't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is it the governments fault that Universities are now behaving like scammers and charging more for less and leaving the 'customer' stuck. Because the government is not doing its due diligence as a lender, because current voters and government employees have no problem soaking future taxpayers. And crippling uninformed 18 year olds’ futures.
> "Because the government is not doing its due diligence as a lender" That is called regulation, and once you start putting in regulations, then everyone starts screaming about big government and over-regulation. There is no winning, put in protections and you are some big government commie bastard, don't put in protections and you are heartless and ineffectual. And, I dare say, banks even in other areas where they c…
The government offering loans in the first place is regulation, and choosing not to do underwriting is part of that regulation.
I.e. the government regulated that they would lend tens of thousands of dollars to any student, so student A can no longer bargain with the school for a lower price because student B, C, and D are lined up to pay whatever is asked.
A little anecdote that made me realize the college I went to was running a racket: I remember getting lunch freshman year and one day, the signs in the student union cafeteria were printed on poster board and the next they were flat screen TVs. When I asked the on duty manager why, they just said "because it's more eco friendly." My entire world view shifted in that moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lenders that are taking on too much risk The lenders are taking no risks since these loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. There are also very large late fees and penalties that can triple (or more) the amount owed.
Now I read that Wall Street is creating CDO's based on these loans, like they (continue to) do on mortgages. Some people die "early" without paying back these loans, and sometimes, they will owe more than they took out. Given the mounting problems with the numbers here, it seems a whole generation of people in the middle of this bubble are going to go to the grave while still owing on these loans. What happens to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medical school is education, and in the US it’s astronomically expensive (some people graduate with half a million dollars of debt). Residency is more like on-the-job training (a hospital still makes money when a resident sees and treats you). It just takes longer to train a physician because there are human lives at stake. Yes, teaching fellows and others in academia are often taken advantage of and work for free, b…
> a hospital still makes money when a resident sees and treats you Hospitals lose money on residencies. That's why there aren't enough and the ones that do exist need to be subsidized by the federal government.
I _have_ been a patient going to a specialist appointment where the only doctor I saw was a resident, and I don't think I or my insurance were charged any less. So if their work brings in the same amount of revenue for the same services, and if resident often do a lot of hours (I seem to recall several years ago their hours were capped to not be _dangerous_ but are still a lot), and they're paid less during their residency than after it ... why _don't_ hospitals make money off residents? Is there some training going on parallel to seeing/treating patients which is really expensive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am afraid you are woefully confused. A good friend had $150k in debt from undergrad and $200k in additional debt from law school, and this was 10 years ago.
Your friend spent the cost of a new house on education, lol. There's only one country where I hear of things like this...
Looked up the prices just now. Undergrad + postgrad can come up to the price of small town houses.