https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/08121... There was a change as a rider to the 2010 affordable care act. But, older federally backed student loans are sold and resold.
Pre-Obama loans represent a small fraction of all student loan debt.
I think it’s still on the order of 3-400 Billion or so, but I am not sure of the numbers.
Either way loans go back 4+ years before graduation and people take 15+ years to pay them back. So I assume quite a few of these loans are out there even if the remaining balance is not that huge.
Free education only works when you have a selection system where you are tested and then put where you fit(shoveling dirt, laying bricks, trade school, college, university). In US any graduate from HS can go do 4 year degree in “something”. Try that in Germany or Netherlands.
Well, if he's not capable to receive that education then why he's trying to borrow money for something he can't handle?
There are pile of problems with this.
1. Testing 12-14 year olds to decide their lot in life is.. well unreliable. Not to mention brutal.
2. In US race card will be played once it is apparent that proportion of people with different ski color that get free education does not line up with demogrphic proportions(political suicide)
3. People WILL game it by hiring tutors to study to test, bribing teachers, teachers will cheat and give out solutions etc. In Netherlands they have what amounts to counter-intelligence apparatus to counter this. Good luck implementing that in all of the States.
> I think that the unfettered capitalistic worldview we have here in the US is the root problem. It seemed to me like the government subsidizing the market in stark contrast to unfettered capitalistic principles is the root of the issue. Perdue’s income sharing plan mentioned in the article seemed really interesting off the cuff. I think it would have been really beneficial had I been required to create a pitch deck…
ISAs are definitely interesting, it's nice to see a system that incentives the school to deliver value to its students. >It seemed to me like the government subsidizing the market in stark contrast to unfettered capitalistic principles is the root of the issue. My opinion was apparently unpopular, but I'm not claiming that the government is the cause of the problem. Instead I'm claiming that the government's noble ef…
It’s too controversial to raise the idea that both super-expensive sectors (education and healthcare) are both heavily regulated and funded through government. Most act like it’s a mad-max capitalist free-for-all already when in fact it’s quite the opposite.
> After years of projecting big profits from student lending, the federal government now acknowledges that taxpayers stand to lose $31.5 billion on the program over the next decade, and the losses are growing rapidly. Most civilized countries offer free or close to free education for their young population instead of trying to profit off of this segment of the population that barely knows what it wants out of life. I…
Free education only works when you have a selection system where you are tested and then put where you fit(shoveling dirt, laying bricks, trade school, college, university). In US any graduate from HS can go do 4 year degree in “something”. Try that in Germany or Netherlands.
We do have aptitude tests and a selection system in the US: the SAT/ACT. You can't get into competitive schools without not only doing well on that test but also doing well in high school and often outside of high school. Obviously, only people who pass and are admitted would get the free education. One can't just simply go to say Berkley and start studying anything. They have stringent admissions criteria. So I don't really see what point you're trying to make. There's absolutely no reason this couldn't work in the US. For people who don't test that well there's still community colleges and lesser state schools. Little about the testing and admissions process would have to change. Only the funding and cost would need to be reworked. That's far from impossible if we want to invest in future generations rather than using them to make a short-term profit.
At public schools, state funding cuts are part of it. States have been cutting funding for schools (directly or in proportion to expenses/inflation) for decades. At the same time many more students are going to college than they used to. These things combined increase funding share that needs to be made up by tuition significantly.
>At the same time many more students are going to college than they used to. In terms of cost this statement doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of economies of scale in education. One professor can educate an undergrad class of 100 people for barely more than what it costs to educate 10 people. While the effort for checking exams multiplies directly with the number of people, many of the costs are lowered the…
That's just not true. Many costs scale with the number of students. Dorms, food, academic buildings, administrative workers, faculty (no you can't teach every class in batches of 500 like Econ 101, even then there is an army of graders), software licenses, land underneath the buildings, utilities and infrastructure, roads and parking, IT infrastructure and people to run it, grounds maintenance, student healthcare, etc. You can't just keep packing an arbitrary number of students into the same classroom.
>At the same time many more students are going to college than they used to. In terms of cost this statement doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of economies of scale in education. One professor can educate an undergrad class of 100 people for barely more than what it costs to educate 10 people. While the effort for checking exams multiplies directly with the number of people, many of the costs are lowered the…
That's just not true. Many costs scale with the number of students. Dorms, food, academic buildings, administrative workers, faculty (no you can't teach every class in batches of 500 like Econ 101, even then there is an army of graders), software licenses, land underneath the buildings, utilities and infrastructure, roads and parking, IT infrastructure and people to run it, grounds maintenance, student healthcare, et…
An arbitrary number and not all costs misses the point that some costs scale roughly proportionally while others scale less than proportionally. Meaning tuition per student should definitely not increase with more students, there's actually more possibility for savings due to scale.
The story makes some very good points, but completely misses two other reasons that tuition costs have risen so much faster than inflation: 1) State aid has dried up considerably. Public colleges used to get a a huge amount of their budget from the state. However, cutting funding to higher education has always been more politically palatable when tightening the belt than other areas. When I was in college, the fundin…
Any idea where this arms race comes from? Were the colleges holding classes with empty seats because they couldn't get enough students?
One would like to think that this would allow new schools to materialize that opt out of that race to the top, though of course the overhead is very high. I've been watching Signum University, an online-only school, work its way to accreditation over the past several years, and they're nowhere close. (A big bolus of cash would probably help; they're trying to do it with only small-donor donations.)
I feel like college has become not-worth-it in the three decades since my degree, though unfortunately that's not true: even with the ballooning costs it's still a net positive. It just seems as if they're raising prices to absorb as much of that net positive as they can, and in doing so the people on the left side of the return curve go from positive to negative. Since the schools get theirs up front, that's pure positive for them.
That's just not true. Many costs scale with the number of students. Dorms, food, academic buildings, administrative workers, faculty (no you can't teach every class in batches of 500 like Econ 101, even then there is an army of graders), software licenses, land underneath the buildings, utilities and infrastructure, roads and parking, IT infrastructure and people to run it, grounds maintenance, student healthcare, et…
An arbitrary number and not all costs misses the point that some costs scale roughly proportionally while others scale less than proportionally. Meaning tuition per student should definitely not increase with more students, there's actually more possibility for savings due to scale.
You're missing my initial point that with constant dollars from the state, more students means the state's money gets stretched thinner over the student body, so each student has to pay a larger percentage of the cost of their enrollment.
I think a lot of the student debt crisis is self-inflicted. No one is forcing you to attend a 4 year straight from high-school, go to a community college and then transfer to a state school/4 year. (I spent 3 years at a CC, but I graduated from a UC and paid off my student loans within a year) Yes, college is expensive, but there is an existing alternative that everyone seems to forget about and it boggles my mind.
You left the best one - join the military!
Not only will your college be paid for while in, but you have the GI Bill when you separate and if you were forward-thinking choose a job that is marketable on the outside e.g., air traffic control.