Let them declare bankruptcy at least
by czeche (2024-02-23 11:44:27)

In reply to: So, because we have a financially illiterate population,  posted by catripledomer

Cannot Reply Return to Political

These loans are nearly permanent.

I know that the bankruptcy laws were misused by doctors who declared bankruptcy right after medical school to discharge their debts, but there should be a way to allow loans to be discharged without showing allowing that sort of abuse.

If we go this direction, then we need to change how loans...
by EricCartman  (2024-02-23 13:01:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

are issued.

These are unsecured loans, issued to people with zero collateral. The way that we make the loans work is to force repayment, and charge high rates of interest to cover non-performing loans.

If we insert default via BK into the mix, then we need to change the origination process. Or, people will need to post collateral to obtain a loan. Something would need to change to prevent people from taking out loans, then filing for BK. Sure, the judge can deny their petition, but what happens when borrowers find a sympathetic judge that pushes through discharge? Is this the best course of action?
They should create a system where if you make good faith
by FaytlND  (2024-02-23 13:11:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

efforts to repay the unsecured loan over a period of time, particularly if that loan facilitates some broader value to society (which we might define in a variety of ways), the remainder is discharged.

EDIT: And I'll add this here to not go into another post subthread. I see your other points about "too many people in college". How do we fix that problem? Yeah, the world needs ditch diggers too. But who is going to decide who gets to go to college and who gets to be shuffled off into some other job? Fixing that system is bigger than the way colleges and universities are run, how much they cost, or the way counseling in high school happens.

Sure, we could adapt some European or Asian model where access to University-level curricula is rigidly guided by performance on exams or in school. However doing something like that now would lead to wildly inequitable outcomes. We'd need to tear things down and start at kindergarten to find some way to provide equal footing for potential access to those opportunities. And don't get me wrong. I'd be all for that. I just don't think there's any appetite for it.
Socialist nonsense
by airborneirish  (2024-02-25 14:52:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Rather than continue to throw taxpayer money at artificially inflated education cost. We ought to get the government the fuck out of this business and let the market drive down cost and improve quality as it has done and just about every goddamn thing else. Educational resources are ubiquitous. We don’t need the power of a government purchaser to incentivize spending or investment. This is a massive global industry.

Do you realize it is impossible to read the entire US tax code before it inevitably changes again? Do you think that continuing to make it more complex is sustainable?

If we want people to be able to afford education afford, housing, afford anything we need to get the fucking government out of the situation, not more into it.

Socialist nonsense
by airborneirish  (2024-02-25 14:44:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Rather than continue to throw taxpayer money at artificially inflated education cost. We ought to get the government the fuck out of this business and let the market drive down cost and improve quality as it has done and just about every goddamn thing else. Educational resources are ubiquitous. We don’t need the power of a government purchaser to incentivize spending or investment. This is a massive global industry.

Do you realize it is impossible to read the entire US tax code before it inevitably changes again? Do you think that continuing to make it more complex is sustainable?

If we want people to be able to afford education afford, housing, afford anything we need to get the fucking government out of the situation, not more into it.

That's the hard part.
by EricCartman  (2024-02-23 14:37:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I've argued that we have a supply-demand imbalance in higher ed. We have too few good schools, which makes the prestigious ones even more prestigious. We cannot easily fix this, because schools are brands. It is extremely difficult to open a new school, and create a brand that can compete with the established players.

I don't know the answer to this problem, I just know that this is a problem. Kids are being sold a fake narrative, and it is destroying them economically.

A variety of ways indeed
by El Kabong  (2024-02-23 14:12:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

My residency in my house provides a broader value to society in that I prevent squatters or criminals from taking possession of it, maintaining the safety and property values of all who live near me.

When can I expect my notice that the rest of my mortgage will be discharged?
I'm not sure that analogy works.
by FaytlND  (2024-02-23 14:46:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Is there really an equivalence between the societal benefits of an educated populace and private property ownership? Seems like very different things. Unless of course it was some government-administered "lease to own" situation, or you were a settler who benefitted from the Homestead Act.

How educated? *
by El Kabong  (2024-02-23 15:19:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Why do we even need master electricians?
by FaytlND  (2024-02-23 15:24:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Stopping everyone's training after apprenticeship should be sufficient.
The definition of "broader value to society"
by Raoul  (2024-02-23 14:42:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

is very slippery. Many here think plumbing and electrician do not provide a broader value to society and believe philosophy and music do. Well, society tell us its view (and its conclusion is the opposite).

It is not that society thinks ballerinas and composers should not be compensated well, it just thinks very few should (and they make most of the money - and can become fabulously wealthy). Many plumbers and electricians make a reasonable living, but very few people in the arts do. This is just reality.

We do a disservice to good governance when we indulge in the low income prospect vocational interests of a significant number of students in the name of some societal benefit by providing debt for those degrees when THEY CANNOT SUSTAIN ANY DEBT WHATSOEVER. They need 100% grants - perhaps from some major foundation - not low interest loans that will be wiped out in 10 years while we kid ourselves on the repayment prospects and hope 1 or 2 of them hits the lottery by becoming a great singer, actor or prima ballerina.

Yes, it is unfair that rich kids will get a better chance to take a flyer on a career in ballet or music or fine arts. It is also unfair that wealthy people can afford concierge medicine and experimental treatments. The place address this - if you feel it needs addressing - is NOT in the Title IV direct student loan program. Again, those who lack means but wish to study these lower prospect vocational paths need grants not wink and nod debt.

Below is a re-post of something I put back here in the PBR two weeks ago....

Below are the median debt levels of a selection of Master's programs. Note how there is almost an inverse relationship between the median amount of money borrowed and the likely financial prospects for said degree in the market place (not shown, but you can definitely envision it). So the most debt is going to those with the least favorable immediate job prospects. And a big reason is the guys at the bottom are probably working while they get their Master's and/or get tuition help from their place of work who actually values the extra education.

Visual and Performing Arts, General $63,830
Radio, Television, and Digital Communication $55,554
Social Sciences, General $54,554
Philosophy $54,260
Journalism $53,213
Clinical, Counseling, and Applied Psychology $51,888
Sociology $46,871
English Language and Literature, General $44,301
Political Science and Government $43,853
Arts, Entertainment, and Media Management $41,238
Information Sciences, General $40,579
Marketing $35,738
Computer Science $35,301
Education, General $29,434
Accounting $28,212
Mechanical Engineering $26,775
Civil Engineering $26,180

Note: Data from Education Initiative last updated August 2023

Do you have any evidence to support your second sentence?
by FaytlND  (2024-02-23 15:30:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

This sentiment seems to come up frequently whenever discussing this topic. That the people who might support subsidizing these types of "low economic value" endeavors must view them as better and/or more worthy. Except I've never seen anyone actually express that sentiment here. Though it does make for a convenient way to frame the discussion to make that one segment of people seem sufficiently out-of-touch. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people here--especially those than own a home or business--understand the value of skilled trades.

It is just my sense of the place
by Raoul  (2024-02-23 15:53:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Perhaps we have a few loud posters creating the impression.

At some level
by AquinasDomer  (2024-02-23 14:00:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

If everyone who goes to college ends up financially better off from going to college, not enough people are going.

There are a lot of kids who have an 80 or 90% chance of doing well. There are also careers that might look financially viable now but end up redundant because of advances in technology.

You don't want a system where going to college can ruin you if you guess wrong on your career. Then again you don't want to make it too forgiving and induce everyone to go.

This change seems pretty minor, and I doubt the details are going to cause a bunch of kids to defer the workforce and get basketweaving majors.
This is something I consider as well.
by FaytlND  (2024-02-23 12:48:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Sometimes it seems like the general perception is that "Millenials with art degrees" are the only people welching on their financial obligations at the expense of others. What if instead of going to college, they took out a loan to start some small business with a half-baked plan and then declared bankruptcy when it failed?