61–70 of 116 posts
The amount of money coming from students incentivizes a university to provide worse education to more students.
Easy loan money discourages discernment all along the pipeline--at universities, lenders, students, parents...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solution: lower tuition.
Which was the status quo before federal student loans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solution: lower tuition.
Which was the status quo before federal student loans.
Or was the tuition so low it didn't matter? (E.g., somebody who gets a psychology degree and winds up making $40k/year doing data entry still can afford to pay the relatively small amount)?
It'll be a good learning experience for the next generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which was the status quo before federal student loans.
I'm just curious, before federal loans, were private lenders willing to fund anybody, or only degrees they found lucrative? Or was the tuition so low it didn't matter? (E.g., somebody who gets a psychology degree and winds up making $40k/year doing data entry still can afford to pay the relatively small amount)?
Here's a link that shows 2-3x increase in adjusted dollars:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has...
Often times when student loans come up people blame exclusively the borrower. We should keep in mind that in a properly functioning lending market both the borrower and lender take on risk. The lender should not left out of the equation on who to blame. Both parties are at fault. But we don’t have a properly function student loan industry. Lenders assume very little risk in this market but they should not be absolved…
Do we, as a society want to let the free market decide what education is valuable and what education is not? Giving lenders a lifetime claim on the maximum wage garnishment is undeniably one of the most backwards ways to decide we don't want to let them pick which educations to fund. But if we want lenders to decide what educations are worth funding, and incentivize them to do so, what factors can they consider? You…
Using taxpayer funds to make those idealistic and unrealistic choices more appealing and less immediately problematic doesn't help the student or society in the long term.
Two major possibilities come to my mind:
- US employers don't accept non-US diplomas.
- Studying in the US gives you networking opportunities. If you come back after Europe, you don't have enough connections to compete with local graduates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which was the status quo before federal student loans.
I'm just curious, before federal loans, were private lenders willing to fund anybody, or only degrees they found lucrative? Or was the tuition so low it didn't matter? (E.g., somebody who gets a psychology degree and winds up making $40k/year doing data entry still can afford to pay the relatively small amount)?
Often times when student loans come up people blame exclusively the borrower. We should keep in mind that in a properly functioning lending market both the borrower and lender take on risk. The lender should not left out of the equation on who to blame. Both parties are at fault. But we don’t have a properly function student loan industry. Lenders assume very little risk in this market but they should not be absolved…
"Both parties are at fault". Or we can have a tuition-free public education system like we used to. But you know...