Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Student Loans

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:27:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Unless you are born to wealthy parents or win the lotto on your own, for most people the only way you can afford a post-secondary education is through student loans.

These rack up very quickly, and even if you are working through college, its almost impossible for you to be able to have an income anywhere close to the racked up tuition, books, lodging and other expenses while you are in school.

There is enormous pressure from society to go to college ... young people trying for the first time, coming out of the rebellious "parents are bores who don't know what they are saying" late adolescence, start to listen when they realize after highschool, you gotta start trying to be self-sufficient, but you never will be without a college degree.

The promised system is you go into debt attending college, and when you come out, you'll have a shiny degree that guarantees you will get a good wage job and that will let you pay it off.

So is it someone's own personal failing if something happens, they rack up the student loan debt but because of a paperwork messup in the financial aid office or some other error, your student loan gets snafu'd and cannot complete your degree, leaving you with a student loan debt but no degree to get the job to pay it off.

Such a person is left in a worse situation than someone who never went to college to begin with, because at least that person wouldn't be burdened with many thousands of dollars in debt.

Is it right to discriminate against such a person based on the bad credit rating that unsecured debt they cannot keep up with the same as someone who is truly reckless with buying a flashy car or getting a credit card? Bad credit ratings affect a lot of things, including what jobs you can get (its pretty standard for a 'background check' to include a credit history these days) which makes it even less likely someone can pay off their debt, what kind of housing or services they can get EVEN IF they save up to pre-pay several months in cash because businesses are allowed to give you higher prices to someone in renting a home or buying something for having a bad credit score, even if there is no loan involved and the person offers to pay cash up front several months ahead from what they have?
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:30:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'll cite the statistics later, but one should keep in mind that post-college students are currently rising in terms of homeless candidacy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:34:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So is it someone's own personal failing if something happens, they rack up the student loan debt but because of a paperwork messup in the financial aid office or some other error, your student loan gets snafu'd

It's a risk I took of my own free will, and the same with any other student :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:35:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have a middle of the road for Right wingers who want bootstraps and left wingers who want free education for all:

SUBSIDISATION THROUGH MEANS

Rich folk have to take out loans, but poor folk can have the gov'ment take some of the burden.

Some would argue college isn't a necessary part of a persons education, but it is necessary for the development of society.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:37:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes, college costs a lot of money. What's your point? If you go to a community college and then a public college - the four year total only costs about $25,000. If you work hard in high school, you could go to college for free. .....This is just another example of PervRat's annoying whining.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:38:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:35:42 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I have a middle of the road for Right wingers who want bootstraps and left wingers who want free education for all:

SUBSIDISATION THROUGH MEANS

Rich folk have to take out loans, but poor folk can have the gov'ment take some of the burden.

That already happens...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:38:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:37:08 PM, Nags wrote:
Yes, college costs a lot of money. What's your point? If you go to a community college and then a public college - the four year total only costs about $25,000. If you work hard in high school, you could go to college for free. .....This is just another example of PervRat's annoying whining.

Even if everyone still follows this ethos, only a handful will be picked for their super hard work, which will then be encouraged, so on and so forth
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:38:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:38:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:35:42 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I have a middle of the road for Right wingers who want bootstraps and left wingers who want free education for all:

SUBSIDISATION THROUGH MEANS

Rich folk have to take out loans, but poor folk can have the gov'ment take some of the burden.

That already happens...

Then keep the system in place. It's great :D!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:38:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:34:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So is it someone's own personal failing if something happens, they rack up the student loan debt but because of a paperwork messup in the financial aid office or some other error, your student loan gets snafu'd

It's a risk I took of my own free will, and the same with any other student :)

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by free will? Lets say you had grown up in a society which mainly favors getting a job straight out of highschool and working your way from there rather than going to college. Do you think you'd take the same risk while having had such a culture encompass your background?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:39:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:38:39 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:38:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:35:42 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I have a middle of the road for Right wingers who want bootstraps and left wingers who want free education for all:

SUBSIDISATION THROUGH MEANS

Rich folk have to take out loans, but poor folk can have the gov'ment take some of the burden.

That already happens...

Then keep the system in place. It's great :D!

With a bit more subsidisation here or there.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:44:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:38:41 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:34:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So is it someone's own personal failing if something happens, they rack up the student loan debt but because of a paperwork messup in the financial aid office or some other error, your student loan gets snafu'd

It's a risk I took of my own free will, and the same with any other student :)

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by free will? Lets say you had grown up in a society which mainly favors getting a job straight out of highschool and working your way from there rather than going to college. Do you think you'd take the same risk while having had such a culture encompass your background?
Probably not until later (I'd still need a shiny degree to do the kinds of things I want that society DOESN'T favor though most likely.)

But this does not alter the fact that I chose to go after the incentives. Incentives are not bullets :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Personally, I would make it free. No student loans required, no need to have a rich background, nothing.

This isn't because I want everyone in, either. It is because I think some people should be out. By eliminating the requirement that you have to pay to go to university, it means that universities will have to accept students on their intelligence and good marks, instead of simply how much money they have.

I mean, a lot of poorer students are very bright, but they'll never get to university if they can't get funding, and to be frank, the funding granted by the government in the form of student loans will simply put them in debt. By eliminating the requirement to pay, those students can get in because they have the ability to think, instead of the ability to pay. And, really, universities are about an individuals ability to excel and think, not whether or not they have slush funds and are willing to be in debt for a good portion of their lives.

And before anyone asks, no, I don't have a crushing student debt. I never will. I'll have my entire tuition paid for, no problem. I just think this is a better way to make sure the proper students get into these universities and colleges.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:47:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:46:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
Personally, I would make it free. No student loans required, no need to have a rich background, nothing.

This isn't because I want everyone in, either. It is because I think some people should be out. By eliminating the requirement that you have to pay to go to university, it means that universities will have to accept students on their intelligence and good marks, instead of simply how much money they have.

I mean, a lot of poorer students are very bright, but they'll never get to university if they can't get funding, and to be frank, the funding granted by the government in the form of student loans will simply put them in debt. By eliminating the requirement to pay, those students can get in because they have the ability to think, instead of the ability to pay. And, really, universities are about an individuals ability to excel and think, not whether or not they have slush funds and are willing to be in debt for a good portion of their lives.

And before anyone asks, no, I don't have a crushing student debt. I never will. I'll have my entire tuition paid for, no problem. I just think this is a better way to make sure the proper students get into these universities and colleges.

I say make he rich boys cough up. I am for subsidising education of poorer people so they can have an opportunity.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:50:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:47:58 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I say make he rich boys cough up. I am for subsidising education of poorer people so they can have an opportunity.

That would be discrimination based on the fact that they're rich. Why would I do that if there is no need to?

I say, discriminate based on the ability for these students to actually do the work required of them. Rich or poor, if a student can show he can do the work, has the ability to think critically and be committed to their education, let them in.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:51:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:46:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
Personally, I would make it free. No student loans required, no need to have a rich background, nothing.
This means that education will not be economized on, and will be consumed far beyond what's useful to be productive. In other words, it's a terrible investment.


This isn't because I want everyone in, either. It is because I think some people should be out. By eliminating the requirement that you have to pay to go to university, it means that universities will have to accept students on their intelligence and good marks, instead of simply how much money they have.
And the government is excellent at measuring intelligence no?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:52:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:50:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:47:58 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I say make he rich boys cough up. I am for subsidising education of poorer people so they can have an opportunity.

That would be discrimination based on the fact that they're rich. Why would I do that if there is no need to?

I say, discriminate based on the ability for these students to actually do the work required of them. Rich or poor, if a student can show he can do the work, has the ability to think critically and be committed to their education, let them in.

Rich people already have the head start. Take the prosthetic leg impeding the progress of the poor person off and then they can both operate equally on the track (education system) based on their ability, not their kit (moneyz).
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:53:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:51:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And the government is excellent at measuring intelligence no?

IQ.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 2:54:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:51:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This means that education will not be economized on, and will be consumed far beyond what's useful to be productive. In other words, it's a terrible investment.

This is going on the assumption that I want education to be "economized" on.

And the government is excellent at measuring intelligence no?

I never said the government will measure the intelligence of students. The university will do that; the government will simply provide the funding for it.

You can argue that he who controls the funding, controls the university, but there are ways of getting around that.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 3:24:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:54:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:51:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This means that education will not be economized on, and will be consumed far beyond what's useful to be productive. In other words, it's a terrible investment.

This is going on the assumption that I want education to be "economized" on.

And the government is excellent at measuring intelligence no?

I never said the government will measure the intelligence of students. The university will do that; the government will simply provide the funding for it.

You can argue that he who controls the funding, controls the university, but there are ways of getting around that.

SOCIALIST! GET HIM!!!

I've never been able to do that until now :P!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 3:35:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Both public and private college tuition has been skyrocketting well above inflation, which means it costs a lot more in real terms (how much it costs vs. how much you or your parents can make) every passing year. This puts college out of reach for more Americans, and for those who do go, there is a bigger chance it will destroy their future by ruining their credit without sufficienly making up for it with increased job opportunities.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 3:45:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 3:24:29 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
SOCIALIST! GET HIM!!!

I've never been able to do that until now :P!

"Socialist" implies that I want everyone to get university level education. That simply isn't the case.

I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to get university level education, but that they cannot get it unless they prove they have enough ability to. The current situation, where you're admitted based on how much money you have, simply doesn't do that, as it gives a cruel and silly disadvantage to those that have the intelligence, but no money. Free scholarships aren't enough, either.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 4:18:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 2:54:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/3/2009 2:51:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This means that education will not be economized on, and will be consumed far beyond what's useful to be productive. In other words, it's a terrible investment.

This is going on the assumption that I want education to be "economized" on.
You don't want a decent economy?

I never said the government will measure the intelligence of students. The university will do that; the government will simply provide the funding for it. You can argue that he who controls the funding, controls the university, but there are ways of getting around that.
Like what?

Can the government even measure the ability to measure intelligence effectively?

"Socialist" implies that I want everyone to get university level education.
Not really. It has more to do with wanting everyone to be forced to pay for it. If you were a mega-trillionaire in the free market, and decided to pay a charity that would get everyone a university-level education, that wouldn't be socialist :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 4:34:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 4:18:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't want a decent economy?

I want a decent economy, but I want fair education.

Like what?

You can create publicly-funded universities without giving the keys to the government entirely. It isn't hard to put in legislation requiring the government to stay out of the university administration's business. You can also have universities funded by a private-public partnership, where some commercial businesses foot a portion of the bill in exchange for the ability to set up employment booths or whatever in the university - hard to describe, but I base it off the idea that some companies, like Microsoft, come directly to some universities, like the University of Waterloo, in order to woo graduating students to come work for them.

But, I digress. If commercial businesses have a say in the funding in exchange for some perks, they'll be able to have some sway over what exactly the university teaches, which puts it into competition with the government which also has sway - balances out some priorities. You can do this with private donors as well.

Can the government even measure the ability to measure intelligence effectively?

Why wouldn't they be able to? Are you somehow assuming all government officials are not intelligent? That would be a very ignorant, though not surprising, statement.

Not really. It has more to do with wanting everyone to be forced to pay for it. If you were a mega-trillionaire in the free market, and decided to pay a charity that would get everyone a university-level education, that wouldn't be socialist :).

Tomato, tomato.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 4:54:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 4:34:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/3/2009 4:18:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't want a decent economy?

I want a decent economy, but I want fair education.
Fair?
A pays, B gets.
What's fair about that? :P.


Like what?

You can create publicly-funded universities without giving the keys to the government entirely. It isn't hard to put in legislation requiring the government to stay out of the university administration's business.
A publicly funded university responds to incentives. It IS a government agent. Maintaining an illusion of independence does nothing, unless you're going to claim that the funding should go to any fool who calls their organization a "university."

You can also have universities funded by a private-public partnership, where some commercial businesses foot a portion of the bill in exchange for the ability to set up employment booths or whatever in the university - hard to describe, but I base it off the idea that some companies, like Microsoft, come directly to some universities, like the University of Waterloo, in order to woo graduating students to come work for them.
That's not a partnership, that's advertising space.


But, I digress. If commercial businesses have a say in the funding in exchange for some perks, they'll be able to have some sway over what exactly the university teaches, which puts it into competition with the government which also has sway - balances out some priorities. You can do this with private donors as well.
We already have this. It amounts to approximately a raindrop in the ocean, and that's WITH students having to take out loans and thus economize on educational value themselves.


Can the government even measure the ability to measure intelligence effectively?

Why wouldn't they be able to? Are you somehow assuming all government officials are not intelligent?
Does intelligence mean you can create a standard, incorruptible measure of intelligence? IQ isn't well liked.
You can create a test of moneymaking potential-- but only to the extent have experience making money, which government officials do not have much of, and government official selection mechanisms are not tailored to changing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 5:12:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 4:54:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Fair?
A pays, B gets.
What's fair about that? :P.

A pays because A has a duty to pay, B gets because B has the ability required which can benefit A, and C, D, E and F, in the long run.

Seems fair to me.

A publicly funded university responds to incentives. It IS a government agent. Maintaining an illusion of independence does nothing, unless you're going to claim that the funding should go to any fool who calls their organization a "university."

I never said it was independent. I said the university administration should and can keep their education and hiring policy independent of what the government wants, not that the university was entirely independent itself.

That's not a partnership, that's advertising space.

That is still a partnership, even if it is just "advertising space."

We already have this. It amounts to approximately a raindrop in the ocean, and that's WITH students having to take out loans and thus economize on educational value themselves.

Then increase it, if you want. It doesn't really matter to me; I prefer the government handling it anyways.

Does intelligence mean you can create a standard, incorruptible measure of intelligence? IQ isn't well liked.

I'll leave it up to the university teachers and administrators to decide what the "standard" is.

You can create a test of moneymaking potential-- but only to the extent have experience making money, which government officials do not have much of,

I disagree with the idea that government officials don't have experience making money. I just inaugerated a new candidate for this riding that brought a 32-million dollar company to 200-million dollars in worth in under a decade. Isn't that "experience" enough? I can list off a bunch more members that have the same, if not more, experience.

and government official selection mechanisms are not tailored to changing.

I see no proof of that.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 5:26:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/3/2009 5:12:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/3/2009 4:54:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Fair?
A pays, B gets.
What's fair about that? :P.

A pays because A has a duty to pay
What duty? When did they choose to take on this duty?

B gets because B has the ability required which can benefit A and C, D, E and F, in the long run
How does it benefit A? Or the rest significantly, but especially A, especially net?

A publicly funded university responds to incentives. It IS a government agent. Maintaining an illusion of independence does nothing, unless you're going to claim that the funding should go to any fool who calls their organization a "university."

I never said it was independent. I said the university administration should and can keep their education and hiring policy independent of what the government wants
Only if the government gives funding to any fool who calls their education a "university." Anything else would be requiring certain things of the education policy :).


We already have this. It amounts to approximately a raindrop in the ocean, and that's WITH students having to take out loans and thus economize on educational value themselves.

Then increase it, if you want.
Advertising on campuses won't increase very far-- that's why they call it "private," because a politician isn't allowed to increase what it does somewhere willy-nilly.


Does intelligence mean you can create a standard, incorruptible measure of intelligence? IQ isn't well liked.

I'll leave it up to the university teachers and administrators to decide what the "standard" is.
The administrators whose value is decided upon by the government (unless, again, the government just hands out willy-nilly). Which means the rest follows.


You can create a test of moneymaking potential-- but only to the extent have experience making money, which government officials do not have much of,

I disagree with the idea that government officials don't have experience making money. I just inaugerated a new candidate for this riding that brought a 32-million dollar company to 200-million dollars in worth in under a decade. Isn't that "experience" enough?
"Much of" means in comparison to the private sector. Are all politicians just as successful fellows, and all low-level bureaucrats too? And are they incentivized to continue acting like it?


and government official selection mechanisms are not tailored to changing.

I see no proof of that.
So you're saying that offering jobs under very tight restrictions for secure but rather low wages (with a especially low upside) fosters an entrepreneurial spirit among bureaucrats?
And this is the way the elected officials have set it up, so even if they themselves are successful in business, the bureaucrats who actually handle the details seem to demonstrate that the ones getting elected change their hiring and incentivizing behavior in response to the differing mechanism by which they get the money they play with :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.