|
Folly posted:The idea there is that there's no need to do risk assessment on things like "which major" so less profitable majors (with higher risk of default) can borrow money at the same rates as more profitable majors and the art department stays funded. I know this will sound like capitalism and thus evil, but interest rates for everything else on the planet are based partly on the ability of the borrower to pay back the loan. In that world the art department would bitch about students not being able to take out $200K loans which they would never be able to pay back, but you know what, maybe the art department shouldn't be burdening students with debt that they will never be able to pay back. And it's not like those departments would vanish in a puff of smoke, I was a CS major but took music classes, and I wasn't the only one doing that. My fellow classmates were taking classes in psychology, philosophy, etc.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Ashcans posted:I can run up thousands of collars in unsecured debt on food, drinks, entertainment, all sorts of things you can't repossess. There are also all sorts of things that the bank can repossess that aren't actually going to recover them much if anything of their money. You hit the nail on the head with the limit. Unsecured debt starts out with really low limits, and stays there until you demonstrate your creditworthiness. Student loans, by their nature, are unsecured loans. Without the special protections nobody (except the government) would lend dumb college kids any money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:You can also declare bankruptcy if you take out loans to blow them at Vegas, or if you bought a Tesla and drove it into a wall. An 18 year old won't find anyone willing to give them a large unsecured loan that they could then blow in Vegas, and if you owe any money on that Tesla you are required to carry comprehensive insurance to address just that possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I know this will sound like capitalism and thus evil, but interest rates for everything else on the planet are based partly on the ability of the borrower to pay back the loan. Capitalism, at least as it's structured in most English-speaking Western democracies, is really bad about looking at the big picture and long term. Purely discounting the increased income from a degree does not account for all of non-immediate impact on growth from education and the public good (both in economic and non-economic terms) that is a more educated population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
I Like Jell-O posted:An 18 year old won't find anyone willing to give them a large unsecured loan that they could then blow in Vegas, and if you owe any money on that Tesla you are required to carry comprehensive insurance to address just that possibility. Your point being?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
I Like Jell-O posted:An 18 year old won't find anyone willing to give them a large unsecured loan that they could then blow in Vegas Sure they will, Stafford loans and private banks, even an 18 year old with zero credit history will have no problem securing enough credit to pay for college (or spend half on tuition and party away the rest). Literally thousands of broke kids do this every year at every big college.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Capitalism, at least as it's structured in most English-speaking Western democracies, is really bad about looking at the big picture and long term. Purely discounting the increased income from a degree does not account for all of non-immediate impact on growth from education and the public good (both in economic and non-economic terms) that is a more educated population. Yet each time I see a Reddit thread about someone who racked up a ton of loans getting a degree that "degree does not account for all of non-immediate impact on growth from education and the public good", they always seem to be working at the Taco Hut or some other minimum wage job and not, you know, actually doing something you can point to and say "this was a public good." Remember this guy? quote:Hi, all. I'm 25 years old, three years out of college. I am feeling almost unbearable self loathing right now, and would like some advice in an FIER context. The only people who seemed to benefit from this kid getting a sociology degree was the sociology department at the school he went to. If the point of a traditional liberal arts degree is "no this isn't a ticket to making bank at a tech startup but you will contribute to society in other ways", it sounds like they loving failed him and society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Did something change where 18 year olds can't get student loans without an adult co-singer? Because my BWM sister-in-law had our nephew call us up asking if we'd cosign his student loan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Did something change where 18 year olds can't get student loans without an adult co-singer? Because my BWM sister-in-law had our nephew call us up asking if we'd cosign his student loan. No, they absolutely can. They are probably taking out A TON of them which is why they need the help
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:There's lots of hand waving and justifications possible for why your country likes to gently caress its young people financially so much, but it's really all irrelevant blathering when faced with "well Australia manages to do it so why can't you?" What's so great about Australia? Don't they basically just do IBR?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Sure they will, Stafford loans and private banks, even an 18 year old with zero credit history will have no problem securing enough credit to pay for college (or spend half on tuition and party away the rest). Literally thousands of broke kids do this every year at every big college. But those aren't really unsecured, right? They're guaranteed by the government. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't exist for the exact reasons stated. Krispy Kareem posted:Did something change where 18 year olds can't get student loans without an adult co-singer? Because my BWM sister-in-law had our nephew call us up asking if we'd cosign his student loan. Seriously, never co-sign. You get all the risk of the loan, but none of the benefit from the interest payments. The upside only exists in a very, VERY narrow set of circumstances. I mean, the only effect is has worth creating the legal framework that supports it, would be to trick responsible people into making an emotional decision to take out loans they wouldn't ever need (because they're responsible).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Yet each time I see a Reddit thread about someone who racked up a ton of loans getting a degree that "degree does not account for all of non-immediate impact on growth from education and the public good", they always seem to be working at the Taco Hut or some other minimum wage job and not, you know, actually doing something you can point to and say "this was a public good." I'd still say it's a public good because that person went to college, a place outside their comfort zone, and was forced to interact with (and probably live with) a bunch of people from all over the place that are very different, all while also doing gen ed requirements that cover history and social sciences infinitely better than highschool does. An informed electorate that's met at least a few people and encountered a few ideas outside of their home town cultural bubble is very valuable to a country. I mean I think it needs to cost probably an order of magnitude less (or be free for public schools) but I still think there's a lot more value in that taco hut guy who took glassblowing as a major or whatever than people tend to give credit for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Sure they will, Stafford loans and private banks, even an 18 year old with zero credit history will have no problem securing enough credit to pay for college (or spend half on tuition and party away the rest). Literally thousands of broke kids do this every year at every big college. Yes? That's exactly my point: student loans have special consideration in bankruptcy, which is why private lenders are willing to offer them. Otherwise, the only people who would be able to get private student loans would be older students with established credit or someone who has a relative with good credit willing to co-sign. The point I'm trying to make is that the bankruptcy system in the US is very good and doesn't need to be changed. If you want to fix the student loan debt problem, bankruptcy reform is one of the worst, least direct ways to go about it. If the government wants to fully fund college, great, that may be a good idea. Many countries do it that way and it seems to work fine. I think I've made my point, and any further discussion should probably be moved to it's own thread. I'll try and share my own BWM story to get back on track. My brother-in-law was a nuke in the Navy, and couldn't wait to get out. He married his girlfriend, and got a pretty good job in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming after he got out. The rental market was pretty high in the area, so he decided to buy a house out there after renting for a few months. He also bought a new SUV and ran up a fair amount of CC debt between him and his wife. He and his wife grew up in the Seattle area, so Wyoming was a big change. Him and his wife started to fight a lot, and eventually they got divorced. He, being depressed and far away from home, decided that the best thing to do was to quit his job, stop paying his mortgage, and move back up to the Seattle area. This was less that a year after moving to Wyoming. His house went into foreclosure, his SUV was repossessed, and he declared bankruptcy as soon as he saved up enough money to pay the filing fee. It turned out alright for him in the end (or at least not tragic). He bacame a full time student (payed for by the GI Bill), and lived in my spare bedroom for over 3 years rent free before moving out. He is still going to school, has a very nice girlfriend, and is working a steady job. With better planning, some more maturity, and a few better decisions he'd be in a much better position, though. His story is also a good example of how a good stable support network, particularly family, helps stupid kids become less stupid and more productive adults.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Folly posted:Seriously, never co-sign. Oh I know! Problem is I wasn't the one who was asked so I have to try and defuse this emotional blackmail. And apparently my sister-in-law can't cosign because she's still paying on a 20+ year old associates degree holyfuckingshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
quote:$300k from my residency This is the weirdest part to me. You don't pay tuition and they pay you (~50k for medicine, probably less for dentist) during residency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:I'd still say it's a public good because that person went to college, a place outside their comfort zone, and was forced to interact with (and probably live with) a bunch of people from all over the place that are very different, all while also doing gen ed requirements that cover history and social sciences infinitely better than highschool does. An informed electorate that's met at least a few people and encountered a few ideas outside of their home town cultural bubble is very valuable to a country. I will debate the first. For forcing people to be outside their comfort zone and interact with people with different beliefs and backgrounds, you can do that just by moving to a different city (and I'd argue it's a better experience because you are interacting with people from all sorts of socio-economic groups, not just 18-21 year old college students who managed to get a loan or whose families had money.) College doesn't even force you to do that; after the first year or so, once you have chosen a major, most of your classes will be in that major and so you end up seeing the same people because you all have to take the 3XX class which is only offered in the fall semester. Then you end up eating together after/before studying, and now you're in your own little bubble. Which isn't surprising because that's how people tend to work. And the guy I quoted seems downright miserable, it doesn't sound like he thinks he is contributing to society even though he's working at a non-profit albeit in a low-level position. To me that's sad. He's definitely BWM but also I think the system failed him, and I place a lot of the blame at the college which just seemed to insulate him from the real world. I think he would have done better in the real world for a few years before attending college. College is also getting absurdly expensive but I read about all the capital campaigns in the magazine my alma mater sends me and think they are spending way too much being a destination for lack of a better word.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Yet each time I see a Reddit thread about someone who racked up a ton of loans getting a degree that "degree does not account for all of non-immediate impact on growth from education and the public good", they always seem to be working at the Taco Hut or some other minimum wage job and not, you know, actually doing something you can point to and say "this was a public good." -Even working outside of their specialty, someone with a post-secondary education is more likely to be able to contribute in innovative ways, benefit from training, introduce additional perspectives, etc. In a minimum wage fast food situation (which is in and of itself a failure of private entities to distribute resources, it's not like society lacks a need for more social workers and such), someone with additional education is more likely to function well and get promoted. And if they do decide that working in fast food is not for them, having additional post-secondary education is going to make the transition easier than for someone who doesn't have that. -If someone with a degree loses their job due to structural shifts in their industry or the economy as a whole, they are going to have a broader skillset and are likely to (all else being equal) face less difficulty finding another job. This makes them less likely to draw on public assistance like a miner with a high school education that's effectively disabled when they get laid off. -As ate all the Oreos points out, a post-secondary education, even if it's 'just' liberal arts, makes someone more likely to be an informed and engaged member of society. This is pretty damned important in a democratic system. -When someone has children, having a more advanced education even if it's not immediately relevant to someone's career field, is going to allow them to better educate their own children. One of the best predictors of childrens' success in school is the parents' engagement. This may have long-term value even if they never leverage that education to impact their own earnings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
This is a super derail, but the biggest reason why only funding "certain majors" wouldn't work is that it would artificially inflate the supply of certain professions and would require the government/lenders to be able to predict the relative value and use of degrees 20-30 years into the future. Think of the lack of value in Arabic Studies and Language degrees before 9/11, the rise and fall of "Emergency Management/Homeland Security" programs, the explosions and relative declines in tech and finance, the glut of law degrees, and the massive increase in healthcare compensation and R&D. You would have never gotten a consensus on funding for those in the 20 years before they became in vogue and under-supplied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:This is the weirdest part to me. You don't pay tuition and they pay you (~50k for medicine, probably less for dentist) during residency. Dental residencies often cost money. I think it's because they don't get federal funding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is a super derail, but the biggest reason why only funding "certain majors" wouldn't work is that it would artificially inflate the supply of certain professions and would require the government/lenders to be able to predict the relative value and use of degrees 20-30 years into the future. Everything you described happened under the current system though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:This is the weirdest part to me. You don't pay tuition and they pay you (~50k for medicine, probably less for dentist) during residency. Dental residents pay tuition, which can be quite significant for "lucrative" specialties such as orthodontics and endodontics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
I Like Jell-O posted:You hit the nail on the head with the limit. Unsecured debt starts out with really low limits, and stays there until you demonstrate your creditworthiness. Student loans, by their nature, are unsecured loans. Without the special protections nobody (except the government) would lend dumb college kids any money. The bankruptcy laws weren't changed until something like 2006 though, right? Were there no private loans prior to that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Everything you described happened under the current system though. The difference would be that instead of relatively few loans for Arabic language degrees pre 9/11, there would be 0 loans for Arabic language degrees before 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:The bankruptcy laws weren't changed until something like 2006 though, right? Were there no private loans prior to that? Rates were higher for private loans before the 2005 bankruptcy bill. By making them nearly impossible to discharge and having the federal government act as guarantor for all the loans, they made them extremely profitable and risk-free for private lenders. That allowed them to reduce interest rates and much more aggressively expand the amount of student loans they gave out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The difference would be that instead of relatively few loans for Arabic language degrees pre 9/11, there would be 0 loans for Arabic language degrees before 9/11. Arabic wasn't even the biggest problem after 9/11, it was Pashto and other languages used in and around Afghanistan. There would have been programs for Arabic at schools anyway because there are 300 million speakers around the world and businesses and government need translators just for routine stuff like contracts and negotiations when dealing with countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Arabic wasn't even the biggest problem after 9/11, it was Pashto and other languages used in and around Afghanistan. You can copy and paste anything, like Pashto, over Arabic and you would still have the exact same problem with only funding "the right" degrees 20 years in advance. It wouldn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Endodontists make boatloads of money. Easy to talk yourself into loans for that kind of career prospects
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
I'll see if I can find the link again, but there was a great libertarian self-own BWM story I read that was along the lines of "Since I knew that the government was inherently inferior to the Free Market, I opted only to take out private student loans."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:You can copy and paste anything, like Pashto, over Arabic and you would still have the exact same problem with only funding "the right" degrees 20 years in advance. It wouldn't work anyway. Colleges weren't going to ramp up programs in Pashto pre-9/11, and even if they did it's not like students would be lining up to get a degree in a language only used in a country that had UN sanctions at the time. At best you'd have a 100 level class or something which as the article I linked to explained is not useful. The number of degree programs, which is a constraint, is already effectively set by private organizations, either private universities or public universities (which have pretty wide latitude in managing their own degree programs.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:I'll see if I can find the link again, but there was a great libertarian self-own BWM story I read that was along the lines of "Since I knew that the government was inherently inferior to the Free Market, I opted only to take out private student loans." A true libertarian would only spend money on education that he had earned with the sweat of his brow (or daddy's money, whichever is easier.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Phooey. Why spend lots of money learning an obscure language when you can hire local translators for pennies on the dollar. GWM! What happens to those translators after the Americans leave is just the free market getting rid of excess supply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
You are right, we should have degree programs in the hundreds languages of Africa just in case we decide to go to war with someone there. I'm sure we can find something for the graduates to do in the meantime, maybe they can stream on Twitch or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:You are right, we should have degree programs in the hundreds languages of Africa just in case we decide to go to war with someone there. I'm sure we can find something for the graduates to do in the meantime, maybe they can stream on Twitch or something. Linguists often learn dozens of languages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Linguists often learn dozens of languages. Yeah, you don't get a degree in "Russian," you get a linguistics degree and your focus is on Slavic languages etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
potatoducks posted:What's so great about Australia? Don't they basically just do IBR? Basically. You pay something like 10% of your income once you make over a lower-middle-class amount of money. The loan balance does accrue interest but it's pretty modest, I think just covers inflation pretty much. Another thing is that higher-earning degrees (law, medicine, etc) cost more than stuff like arts, social work, teaching, nursing. I think the government can play around with which cost bracket the degree is in to address shortages/surpluses (IIRC nursing got moved down to a cheaper bracket to address a shortage some time ago). Krispy Kareem posted:Phooey. Why spend lots of money learning an obscure language when you can hire local translators for pennies on the dollar. GWM! Local translators sure as hell ain't getting a security clearance. I was a recipient of the National Security Education Program scholarship as an undergrad. Basically Uncle Sam paid a year's expenses, up to 20k, to study a lesser taught language (anything other than a Western European one), to address the shortage of foreign language experts among US graduates. In return, you have to work for a year in something involving national security. They give you a special hiring exemption that is supposed to streamline getting a job. This was 10 years ago and I am STILL on the hook*. There were no jobs for my language whatsoever and the hiring exemption was realistically only useful if you had contacts in DC. The government agencies doing the hiring don't really even value language skills; I got passed over for an internship at the US embassy in that country by someone who didn't speak a word of the language or have any experience there, just because they were in a Master's program at a mediocre state school and I just had a BA. The internship was unpaid. *the contract I signed said "3 years of making a good faith effort to find a job" should discharge my obligation, but they have extended it every year because I guess they hold all the cards. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Yeah, you don't get a degree in "Russian," you get a linguistics degree and your focus is on Slavic languages etc. But as the Telegraph article pointed out, post-9/11 the problem wasn't necessarily finding speakers of a language, it was finding people who spoke at an expert level. Take translators; yes there are a lot of people who have taken Polish, but precious few who can do great translations; there's a reason there are two guys who can handle translating Stanisław Lem (Michael Kandel and Bill Johnston.) As far as I know, they don't do anything but Polish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
If the government wants translators, paying for a 4 year degree sounds like just about the least efficient way you could possibly do that because you spend half your time on fluff classes. Would be much better off paying for intensive classes that focus on the language and culture they need translators for. I bet they could learn more with 1 year of that than 4 years of college.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:If the government wants translators, paying for a 4 year degree sounds like just about the least efficient way you could possibly do that because you spend half your time on fluff classes. Would be much better off paying for intensive classes that focus on the language and culture they need translators for. I bet they could learn more with 1 year of that than 4 years of college. http://www.dliflc.edu/, the longest courses are 64 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
potatoducks posted:What's so great about Australia? Don't they basically just do IBR? University fees are loaned by the government and the government alone; the money goes directly from the govt to the university, so it can't be used for other purposes; you can get a discount for paying over a certain amount (in my day, $500) back at a time; otherwise repayment begins when your income reaches a certain threshold (I think about $50,000 p.a. now) and is withheld by your employer; the accrued debt is indexed to the consumer price index, but not charged interest. Basically a fair system that takes its users' (institutions and students) needs into account and doesn't screw people over. At the same time though, it doesn't give the Free Market™ a felch and a reach-around at the same time, so I can see why certain countries wouldn't like it. I Like Jell-O posted:If you think university should be paid for by the government, that's fine, but it really doesn't have anything to do with bankruptcy laws. The United States has probably the most generous, most consumer friendly bankruptcy system in the world. It's a really good thing. Can you name any country where student loan debt is easily dischargeable in bankruptcy? I didn't say uni should be paid for by the government, either in my initial post or above. Also "Can you name any country where student loan debt is easily dischargeable in bankruptcy?" is a massive miss of the point—why the gently caress should student loans be coming from the private (profit-seeking) sector and non-dischargeable in bankruptcy to start with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Weatherman posted:I didn't say uni should be paid for by the government, either in my initial post or above. Also "Can you name any country where student loan debt is easily dischargeable in bankruptcy?" is a massive miss of the point—why the gently caress should student loans be coming from the private (profit-seeking) sector and non-dischargeable in bankruptcy to start with? If the loans are from the government and dischargeable, then the public is going to end up paying for it. There's no reason not to declare bankruptcy at 22. Your credit will be fine by the time you want to buy a house. When everyone is doing it it'll lose its stigma quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:57
|
|
