Am I the only one who does not believe the government should be giving student loans? My husband and I had the first fight in a long time over this. He accused me of saying only rich kids should be allowed higher education (not what I was saying); I called him a socialist (which he isn't). I just think that student loans should be given by financial institutions who are going to be a lot more professional about who should have them. Loaning people money who can't afford it is not a kindness; yet, the government seems bent on giving every single young person a loan. Many of these kids don't have a real interest in higher education, nor have they shown any responsibility by their grades or demeanor that would make any reasonable person think they would finish a degree or know what to do with it if they received it. A bank or professional lending institution would give loans if it makes sense. Also, they wouldn't be giving loans for degrees that are not going to translate to a job that justifies the price of the degree. Does anyone agree with me on this?
Yes, I do. I mean there are scholarships and many colleges and universities could tap their endowments to offer internal programs of reduced tuition or no tuition for low income gifted students or loans. And States could spend more on State schools and have oversight on how money is spent so these become again good no-frills schools if the Federal government pulled funding and by law supported these options I noted. The Federal interest should be the service academies, VA and military educational programs such as the ROTC and educational support for Federal employees and serving military persons. I'm also for various saving programs to help with education which get tax breaks and these could be expanded.
Student loans strangle young people with massive debt just when they are starting their professional lives, so it strangles family formation right off the bat. It's just not a very good deal unless you are getting a major that has a high payoff potential, like becoming a doctor or some other high salary field. I think maybe colleges should do student loans and allow them to be able to be discharged in bankruptcy. That way, the colleges are on the hook for their own promises, not the taxpayer.
Those student loans will be paid back via tax revenues and productivity. This unlike the many loans the USA has made to foreign countries which have not been paid back. And those beneficiaries don't even pay taxes to the USA! Why should we be enriching foreigners but not doing so for the needy youth of our own society???
''I think these are two different issues and don't have much to do with each other.'' Government intervention is justified when it promotes the "common welfare" as our Founding Fathers taught us. Nowhere, however, did they make any provision for foreign interventionism of any kind. Let's stick with their ideals as much as possible so that we can have a better society.
It is amazing to watch Yanks discuss this issue, as if we don't have a good example of functional higher education from nearly every other developed nation. Yes, the demosocialist developed world makes higher education available to all. You can move to Norway and the next day enroll in college for free. In none of the other developed nations does a degree require the acquisition of massive debt. But as usual, arrogant "American exceptionalist" Yanks just can't seem to figure it out. They can't understand that putting corporations into sectors like education and healthcare does not work except for the corporate bottom line. But conservative philosophy demands that even prisons be run by corporations. Look at the developed world! The 1st world we used to belong to, before 35 years of reaganomics pushed us backwards.
The big problems of student loans is that it will probably deeply be a burder for USA economy. Young US american will be more worried about repay debt rather than creatings new companies or having kids, what's making the economy alive. Fortunately, their is enough asian and european immigration to compensate that.
We can figure it out, we're just not going to do it. If we had colleges that were just devoted to teaching and nothing else, no fancy campus facilities, dorms with lazy rivers, sports teams and stadiums, and limited admission to only those scoring in the top 25% of standardized tests, we could afford free college for everyone too. We don't want to do that.
Who is this "we"? I don't think it includes the young adults $30-50k in debt for a BA degree. The U$A resists this because the politicians in power serve corporate interests. They don't want education to be accessible to the non-affluent. They don't want "diversity", because that means poor people and non-whites. What amazes me about Yanks is that y'all can clearly see that affordable college, like universal healthcare, WORKS in all those developed countries, whereas our system is a disaster. But somehow if we change, we'll suddenly be Venezuela or N Korea, lol. And so we remain a 2nd-world nation with 1st-world missiles.
(in theory, at least) people with college degrees are qualified for higher salaries - therefore, they pay more in taxes (again, in theory)
You clearly don't understand what's going on in US higher education. "They don't want education to be accessible to the non-affluent." College for the non affluent is the entire purpose of the student loan program. Right now it actually turns a profit for the government, and it's one of the debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. So they seem to be perfectly happy to loan tons of money for college whether it results in a marketable degree, or any degree, as long as you spend the rest of your life paying those loans. "They don't want "diversity", because that means poor people and non-whites." Almost the entire higher education system is geared towards diversity. That's why almost all colleges have some sort affirmative action program, otherwise the US student body would look like Caltech's which doesn't have affirmative action. http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/california-institute-of-technology/student-life/diversity/ 43% Asian 30% White 12% Hispanic 15% Everyone else
And therein is the problem (my bold). Student loans should be issued according to potential to be repaid. They should NEVER be issued for 'vanity' courses. Gender studies, arts, etc. Anyone prepared to spend years studying something that won't get you more than $10 an hour, is clearly rich enough not to need loans.
If they are genuinely needy, they will opt for higher income producing courses, obviously. Problem solved.
Those are the reasons it can't work in America, well put. But why don't Americans want to change that?
What you're saying doesn't make any sense at all. I know poor non-white people who've gained medical degrees and other high paying STEM type quals. Meantime, anyone stupid to go $50k into the red for a BA, deserves everything they get.
I don't have a good answer to that. Periodically it's addressed. Community Colleges were started with that idea in mind and were wildly successful for a while, and recently former Texas Governor Rick Perry proposed devising a $10,000 BA degree system in Texas State Colleges, but I don't think that went anywhere. The problem that will sabotage any reform is the student loan system. It wildly inflates college costs for no reason. College cost inflation far exceed any other consumer price increases, including healthcare but getting rid of student loans is politically impossible.
People don't look at history back when my grandmother was young in her home state the State university had ZERO tuition and room and board and books were affordable so she could work summers to pay for them, parents helped and/or banks would look at the student and determine risk and give a personal loan if needed based on the degree. Since she was in an accounting program at the State school and just having a degree was a huge boost to assure employment getting loans to help wasn't hard. But State schools never tried to compete with private ones save in sports and academics the campuses were good basic schools, the facilities and libraries were good but the frills modest. The goal was to get poor people who were qualified to do university work educated at a low cost and make sure the degrees were sound and offered post-graduate studies with the same philosophy. She earned her degree for what would be in modern dollars $10k and she did a semester abroad in Europe to learn Spanish in Spain, a frill her parents and she paid for, so it added some cost to her degree. So my take why did States decide their schools should be easy to get into, full of stupid frills not needed for ones degree like fancy buildings and that further force it to the point poorer students couldn't afford to go without much debt, if any? It would also help if apprenticeships, work place education on the job and in classes on worksite and specialized schools for business for example were still a focus as well as technical educations in High Schools tracking students into work and making sure they are qualified to work. I'm not against academics as a track either but shouldn't it lead to an affordable degree.
If we were to have free college education, the first thing we'd have to do is what the rest of the world does--make it extremely competitive to go to college. We don't do that, which would make universal college tuition expensive and worthless. Also, the problem isn't Reaganomics, in terms of colleges. The problem is that academia has developed a lot of administrative bull*$%&, and has over doubled the amount of admin staff since that time. College dorms have gone from being like cut-rate military barracks to being the equivalent of luxury hotels. When I was in college (1983-1987), it was possible for a college student to work at service jobs fulltime over the summer, and part-time in the school year, and pay tuition and expenses at a state school. That is no longer possible, due to the fact that college costs have risen much faster than the rate of inflation. It's the colleges that did that, not Reaganomics.
I went to college on the G.I. Bill. The advantage was that the interest rate was significantly lower than any financial institution offered. And the G.I. Bill didn't hurt the nation at all. On the contrary, education of the population is a national asset. Look how the U.S. has progressed since 1970. And yet government loans are not the Grand Solution. The cost of higher education is still outrageous. Steps can be taken to reduce that cost. Those steps were in effect in the 1970s and 1980s and could be brought back. But it does take some government intervention. That's a problem for the rigid right. You say you "just think that student loans should be given by financial institutions who are going to be a lot more professional about who should have them." But that is a strawman argument because the decision of who should go to college is always that of the college via entrance exams, etc. So the source of the loan is irrelevant and the college doesn't even care. You say "the government seems bent on giving every single young person a loan." I say this is your imagination and partisan dogma, -not fact. The government under the G.I. Bill granted loans to students who were accepted by colleges and proved that they attended. So your argument that you are so worried that kids with little or no aptitude for higher education might be given money for college and not "finish a degree or know what to do with it if they received it" is ridiculous, grossly mistaken, and utterly bogus. And banks make no judgement as to the likelihood of the student finding a job upon graduation. Your husband is right. You should listen to him more.
If the government got out of the student loan business, banks would create special departments just for school loans. They would have their own standards, not the same as other loans, such as was the student responsible academically in high school (grades??) What field do they intend to go into, and does it make sense compared to the cost of the degree? I think it would have the following rewards for all of us: 1. We wouldn't have so many young people starting their real life with a mountain of debt for the degree they almost got or a degree that has absolutely nothing to do with the field they wound up going into. 2. It would drive the cost of college down for the kids who truly need/ want it. 3. It would drive out the degree requirement from jobs that don't really need a degree to do, like secretary. 4. (beginning to think this is the most important), it would be good for our culture in general. We would have more young people out in the real world working, which would tailor their beliefs, as well as actions. And less kids in school who have no real reason to be there except to major in protest or dissent. How could that not be a good thing?
Oddly that used to be the case when my uncle went to Medical School he needed help so went to his family bank, applied he has his acceptance to the UW - Madison Medical School and had excellent grades and a medical doctor in 1950ish was guaranteed a pay of a skilled master tradesman and a . career. So they gave him the loan and he earned his degree then paid it back a large loan at the time of $4000. But it was based on knowing the family, his character and the risk which was low. And he had a degree in biology with a secondary school teaching credential so could always teach as his backup career. And of course just having a degree back then mattered a lot. So this could be a good idea in addition to college saving accounts for parents and I would argue more government support for State schools to keep tuition down for residents.
Will the Military Pay Off Student Loan Debt?... Will the Military Pay Off Student Loans? You're sitting on a lot of school debt. Is joining the military a good option for getting rid of it? Will the military pay off student loans? See also: Three Biggest Advantages of a VA Loan Since its inception in 1944, the VA loan program has helped over 18 million veterans and their families become homeowners.
