Amazon.com Widgets
  • Students should not be considered government income

    The statistics regarding student loans are staggering. Whether you're talking about the number of students taking out loans, the interest rate percentages applied to student loans, or the overall outstanding student loan debt, the statistics are staggering. Long before the current generation faced student loan repayment issues, the previous generations making up society determined that education was a top priority; however, that thought was never carried out. No one ever thought about who would be paying for an individuals education. While enrollment increased and the economy soared, education costs continued to increase. Granted, it was difficult to expect the ramifications of the economic crisis we are currently in, education continued to be a priority. It is near impossible to get a decent job without some form of education. At this point in time, the students who are enrolled in higher education can't even fathom the meaning of several thousands of dollars needing to be paid back. Many students are moving back in with their parents and working in non-degree-related jobs just to try to pay back their loans. Ironically, most students are barely touching their principle balance, but rather, they are only able to pay back the accrued interest. The interest rates on student loans are astronomical, and the government seems to be viewing them as a form of income.

  • Student loan prices should be lowered for sure!

    As a graduate, I experienced it so much. Student loan prices should be lowered as the interest rate is extremely unaffordable. When we return the loan after graduation, basically, most part of it goes to the interest part instead of the principle. When we go to work, we are basically working for the loan interest instead of improving our living standard. To help ease the college students and graduates' burden, the loan prices should be lowered.

  • education should be cheaper

    Of course, education can't be free at all, but the problem of expensive loans is real. Students, who graduated after 5-6 years have huge debts and have to find ways to earn money. not always it means that they will work according their profession. So what the reason to study then?

  • Even tho 'Yes' Votes could benefit from Econ 101

    What this really means is that the cost will be subsidized by taxpayers; government can't just wave a magic wand and make costs lower. What does that mean? At best, demand will artificially increase, meaning the cost of education will continue to skyrocket into the future. At worst, students will take college less seriously, and/or pursue worthless degrees, because they have no skin in the game. Our student loan system needs to be more restrictive, specifically by tying loan eligibility to expected future earnings for that degree (I.E. You shouldn't be able to get a loan for a liberal arts degree to a pricy out-of-state college). Our system already encourages students to make idiotic life choices. Subsidizing those bad choices will only make the problem worse.

  • No absolutely not.

    Nobody forces students to engage in student loan debt, whether private or Federal. Students voluntarily enter into debt themselves. Regardless of what anyone tells you, student debt is not necessary to get a college degree. I believed that it was when I was in college, that's why I racked up over $30,000 of it. Then I met and married a woman from a lower socio-economic background than myself, and who had the same degree that I did (plus an extra endorsement) and zero dollars in student loan debt.

    Let's not forget the simple fact that student loans would not have such high interest rates if people like me were not stupid enough to agree to them. Otherwise lenders would HAVE to lower interest rates to cope with the lack of demand.

    Don't punish the lenders for the poor lack of education and bad decision making of the lendees.

  • The cost of a loan should be set by the lender.

    People are entirely missing the point of a free market if they think the prices should be set by someone other than the parties to a transaction. For the state to come in and assume a regulatory function in a given transaction is violent, coercive and destructive to the price signals being sent in the transaction.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.