Example of everything wrong with Student Loans

[Lewkowski]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/asking...120015289.html

"Laura Strong, a 29-year-old in suburban Chicago, owes $245,000 on student loans for the psychology Ph.D. she finished in 2013. This year, she says she hopes to earn $35,000 working part-time jobs as a therapist and yoga teacher—not enough to manage a loan payment of about $2,000 a month. But Strong isn’t paying anything close to that. She’s one of at least 3.8 million Americans who’ve qualified for federal programs that tie payments to income and eventually forgive debt for some struggling borrowers, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab."

Why the F are we providing funding to the tune of $245,000 dollars for someone's degree? Madness. Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I often wonder when liberals talk about student loan relief if they have an ulterior motive. Consider this if they are the party of paying off people's student debts which party do you think those students will support? And if they make it EASIER to get student loans that group of people will increase in size. We all know college campuses tend to be hotbeds of liberal extremism and political correctness which also correlates to people getting more liberal viewpoints. Sounds like it is a win/win for liberals and a lose/lose for the taxpayers.

Let's not forget student loans can be used for more than just tuition and school supplies. In many cases there are no checks and balances people use 'em for rent, food, parties, video games, drugs whatever. Student loans are more popular than ever and have led directly to the 'boomerang kids' generation of people who are not self sufficient enough to to live on their own *even in their 30s.* Oh hey and guess who these dependent parasites tend to vote for? The party the caters to dependent parasites.

[Being]

Sounds like it is a win/win for liberals and a lose/lose for the taxpayers.

How many liberals do you think aren't taxpayers?

[Aimless]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/asking...120015289.html

"Laura Strong, a 29-year-old in suburban Chicago, owes $245,000 on student loans for the psychology Ph.D. she finished in 2013. This year, she says she hopes to earn $35,000 working part-time jobs as a therapist and yoga teacher—not enough to manage a loan payment of about $2,000 a month. But Strong isn’t paying anything close to that. She’s one of at least 3.8 million Americans who’ve qualified for federal programs that tie payments to income and eventually forgive debt for some struggling borrowers, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab."

Why the F are we providing funding to the tune of $245,000 dollars for someone's degree? Madness. Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I often wonder when liberals talk about student loan relief if they have an ulterior motive. Consider this if they are the party of paying off people's student debts which party do you think those students will support? And if they make it EASIER to get student loans that group of people will increase in size. We all know college campuses tend to be hotbeds of liberal extremism and political correctness which also correlates to people getting more liberal viewpoints. Sounds like it is a win/win for liberals and a lose/lose for the taxpayers.

Let's not forget student loans can be used for more than just tuition and school supplies. In many cases there are no checks and balances people use 'em for rent, food, parties, video games, drugs whatever. Student loans are more popular than ever and have led directly to the 'boomerang kids' generation of people who are not self sufficient enough to to live on their own *even in their 30s.* Oh hey and guess who these dependent parasites tend to vote for? The party the caters to dependent parasites.

Holy crap, there is so much dumbdumb in that rant that I don't even know where to begin

[Veldan Rath]

Wait, she earned a Ph.D. to only work part time as a therapist?

Isn't that a bit over qualified?

Can I some how get in on this deal to pay off my remaining mortgage? 235k will take care of that my car and the rest of my debt!

[Lewkowski]

Holy crap, there is so much dumbdumb in that rant that I don't even know where to begin

Feel free to start in chronological order.

[Loki]

She also seems to have gone to a Ph.D. program where she had to pay for tuition (or lived far beyond her means). Either way, not a very smart decision.

[Being]

Feel free to start in chronological order.

Okay, your first conclusion was

Sounds like it is a win/win for liberals and a lose/lose for the taxpayers.

How many liberals do you think aren't taxpayers?

[Lewkowski]

Difficult to say though I gather we have different definations of 'taxpayer.' I've seen liberals say that people living primarily off of things like welfare/SSI/disability/foodstamps are still tax payers because they pay FICA taxes.

[Lewkowski]

She also seems to have gone to a Ph.D. program where she had to pay for tuition (or lived far beyond her means). Either way, not a very smart decision.

Correct an the governmental Student Loan programs enabled her.

[GGT]

As I understand it, student loan debt can't be discharged by filing bankruptcy (like other debts). And if you defaulted before the income-based repayment plan was initiated, the fines/penalties just kept accruing. That may not have been a problem when college costs were still relatively affordable....but since tuition (and other fees) have exploded, it's become a huge problem.

Many of these students got caught in schemes (sometimes downright scams) by for-profit schools and private lenders that didn't have any connection to public schools or governmental loans. But now there are ALSO indebted and underemployed people from public universities that can't repay their federal or state loans, even with post-grad degrees in the 'important' and 'valuable' STEM fields.

So what do you suggest instead, Lewk? I'm betting you don't want teh government, even at the state level, setting a tuition cap at public universities, or telling them how much professors or TAs should be paid, or what price to charge for dorms. You probably wouldn't want better bank lending regulations either....since that might mean withholding loans for building fancy new sports stadiums, and change the current dynamic of college sports as an income stream.

[Loki]

Public universities (and even most private ones) aren't responsible for the truly massive debt levels. Most people get out of college owing about $25k. The problem are the for-profit colleges, which cost a fortune (costs mostly covered by federal loans), fail to make their students employable, and do nothing about huge drop-out rates. There's a somewhat smaller problem of people getting non-subsidized graduate degrees, including law degrees from sub-par programs. The only way anyone should pay for a graduate degree is if they're getting an MBA, some engineering degrees, if they're in a top-5 program in their field (which generally offer scholarships/stipends anyway), or if they're guaranteed a raise in their current job with the more advanced degree. I really don't get the people who run up $200k in debt getting a Ph.D. in English at NYU. There's just no way in hell they'll ever make that money back. Same for people doing a law degree in a program outside of the top 100.

[GGT]

So what are YOUR suggestions, Loki?

I'm not sure anyone should pay the full cost of an MBA or engineering degree, even in "top-5" programs. But federal and state aid hasn't kept up with real costs. Enter the unpaid internship that can only be 'afforded' by people with other means?

I don't know why really smart and talented people think a degree in <insert field> think they can take educational loans, and pay them back after graduation, when employment in that <insert field> is tenuous, or in transition.

Loki, what made you decide to get an advanced degree, and how did you pay for it?

[Lewkowski]

Why do people think college needs to be done all at once? Go to a 2 year community college, work part time. Finish off your 4 year degree with minimal student loan debt and start your career. Take night classes while working. I'm not saying its ideal but what I am saying is that you shouldn't make taxpayers pay for some lazy millennial shit who wants to delay adulthood and responsibility.

[Loki]

Think of your proposal. You finish high school at 18. You finish community college at 20, making perhaps $10k a year working part-time for those two years. Then you get a $25k a year job, which you work for 4 more years while you finish your BA full time. You're now 24-25 and you've earned about $120k, mostly working on jobs you don't actually want. Or you can get a BA in 4 years, perhaps working a bit on the side, and get a $40k job. Not only that, but you're far more likely to actually finish that degree if you're doing it full-time (more than twice as likely as I recall). Unless your career doesn't require a BA or you and your parents are completely broke, you're best off doing a 4-year degree right away (in some cases, it might make sense to go to a community college first if they have programs that guarantee the transfer of all the credits to a good state school). If you have to get $20-40k in debt to do so, it really isn't a problem. You just have to make sure that you're either doing a degree that's in high demand or going to a good college. Otherwise, your tolerance for debt should be much lower.

[Lewkowski]

Think of your proposal. You finish high school at 18. You finish community college at 20, making perhaps $10k a year working part-time for those two years. Then you get a $25k a year job, which you work for 4 more years while you finish your BA full time. You're now 24-25 and you've earned about $120k, mostly working on jobs you don't actually want. Or you can get a BA in 4 years, perhaps working a bit on the side, and get a $40k job. Not only that, but you're far more likely to actually finish that degree if you're doing it full-time (more than twice as likely as I recall). Unless your career doesn't require a BA or you and your parents are completely broke, you're best off doing a 4-year degree right away (in some cases, it might make sense to go to a community college first if they have programs that guarantee the transfer of all the credits to a good state school). If you have to get $20-40k in debt to do so, it really isn't a problem. You just have to make sure that you're either doing a degree that's in high demand or going to a good college. Otherwise, your tolerance for debt should be much lower.

I'm not suggesting that getting a loan for education is a bad idea. I am suggesting that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it.

[Loki]

A solution would be to not allow loans that are unlikely to be paid back. The taxpayer gets interest on the loans. As long as they're paid back, what's the problem?

And do you think society benefits from having more people with college degrees? If so, it's not unreasonable to expect society to contribute some (not a majority, but enough to matter) of the cost.

[Being]

Difficult to say though I gather we have different definations of 'taxpayer.' I've seen liberals say that people living primarily off of things like welfare/SSI/disability/foodstamps are still tax payers because they pay FICA taxes.

Are there more liberals or more conservatives raking in the entitlements?

[GGT]

I'm not suggesting that getting a loan for education is a bad idea. I am suggesting that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it.

Then you're not saying much. It's either ironic or paradoxical, that your wife's cancer diagnosis and treatment is related to student loans and publicly funded research.

I don't mind paying the taxes that helped your wife and son. What I don't understand is how you can dismiss the value of those taxes for other people.

[Loki]

Are there more liberals or more conservatives raking in the entitlements?

The poorest income bracket is overwhelmingly Democratic...

GGT, please invest in getting a conscience.

[Lewkowski]

A solution would be to not allow loans that are unlikely to be paid back. The taxpayer gets interest on the loans. As long as they're paid back, what's the problem?

And do you think society benefits from having more people with college degrees? If so, it's not unreasonable to expect society to contribute some (not a majority, but enough to matter) of the cost.

Do you think they are going to be paid back in the example provided?

I actually don't see a benefit in the majority of the population getting college degrees. Folks who end up doing a huge portion of jobs have no need for a degree. If you're an engineer, doctor, nurse, architect, forensics specialist ect college is useful. We've got people getting degrees in history and 'education' (there's a crap degree) that is being paid for by student loans that in many cases won't be repaid.

And even in fields where college is useful, there is an overemphasis on spending 1-2 years on learning 'core' subjects unrelated to their speciality (something HS should have already provided a working knowledge of, oh and guess what many HS math courses are MORE ADVANCED than the college maths because so man people suck at math they have remedial classes THAT ARE STILL WORTH CREDIT).

Then we take a look at the loss of productivity for society when you have people in classes that don't provide a net benefit to the person's eventual job skills. Pretty damn hard to measure but how many people do you know who have went to college and aren't even in a career that their degree was in? And then there is the social costs of allowing lazy twits to delay adult responsibilities, further ingraining their parasitic behaviors that lead them back to their moronic parents who enable them well into their 20s and 30s.

To answer your question no I don't see society benefiting from "more people with college degrees." Absolutely some people with college degrees is better than NO people with college degrees. In many ways it is like the Laffer curve. There is a break even point somewhere and beyond that break even point it is a net negative for society to have more people with college degrees.

[Loki]

I see that you don't have much confidence in the market to create jobs for the skills that exist in that market. More people with degrees means more jobs for people with degrees, jobs that are usually higher paying.

[Lewkowski]

I see that you don't have much confidence in the market to create jobs for the skills that exist in that market. More people with degrees means more jobs for people with degrees, jobs that are usually higher paying.

Not really. Four years of work experience > 4 years of college when it comes to skills accumulation in the majority of the labor market. Learn by doing is a thing.

[Loki]

That explains why people with college degrees earn substantially higher wages and have a significantly lower unemployment rate, right?

[Lewkowski]

That explains why people with college degrees earn substantially higher wages and have a significantly lower unemployment rate, right?

Two parts to this.

1. Society places a value on college degrees. I feel it is misplaced value but it absolutely does. At my own work I had similar results to a peer but I went to college. When a position opened up we both applied, I got the interview and he didn't. Later I learned that our HR area screens applicants and filters them by 6-7 categories. Based on the size of the applicant pool you could only interview applicants who matched ALL preferred criteria - effectively making a college degree a REQUIREMENT for some positions due to the amount of interest. While I was happy I got the interview and the job I was annoyed on a macro level because I know I learned very little in college. Now that's just a personal example but from what I've seen this is almost universal. A college degree opens doors even if you have fewer skills than someone else.

2. Partially due to #1 you have a situation where successful people know that getting a degree opens doors. Therefore successful people will jump through the hoops necessary to be successful. You are putting the cart before the horse. Is college making them smarter/more skilled? Or does college attract the smart and skilled?

It is a combination of both. It would be difficult to test but I suppose you could take a group of college bound students that test similar in terms aptitude and intelligence. Place one group into college and have them go for 4/6 years depending on what you are looking at. Take a second group and put them in the work force. Then alter the 2nd group's resumes and remove all of their work history and replace it with identical college transcripts of the first group. Then see how they do for 10 years.

I'm not arguing that college creates an economic benefit for ambitious hard working individuals. It absolutely makes economic sense for smart kids looking for upper middle/upper class life style. I'm arguing that it doesn't create skills/abilities/knowledge that are useful outside of specific career fields. I'm also suggesting that college has some profound negative socio-political effects.

[Being]

The poorest income bracket is overwhelmingly Democratic...

Really? Have you heard of the bible belt?

[Loki]

Really? Have you heard of the bible belt?

Ever heard of facts?

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/...014/#education

http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/08/8-23-12-3.png

[agamemnus]

Public universities (and even most private ones) aren't responsible for the truly massive debt levels. Most people get out of college owing about $25k. The problem are the for-profit colleges, which cost a fortune (costs mostly covered by federal loans), fail to make their students employable, and do nothing about huge drop-out rates.

I agree, although I am wary about your price tag quote. Have you heard about the Trump University stuff resurfacing? Well, most private universities are really the same... and the public universities...? Yeah, I don't know about those, either.

[Aimless]

Lewk's extraordinarily asinine conspiracy theories and despicable rants notwithstanding, I can't imagine this situation is the best possible one for the US to be in. If we consider for a moment that the extremely high debts may signal some problems with the current system perhaps we can learn something from looking more closely at the group with extremely large loans.

While your typical (nedian?) college educated American has <30 in outstanding loans upon graduation, about 1% have > 200K and perhaps 3% have > 100K. The overwhelming majority of those with more than 200K in student loans have taken loans for studies at the graduate level. Half of them are doctors and lawyers and, though there may be problems associated with created armies of heavily indebted doctors and lawyers, I expect most of them will be able to make their payments and eventually pay off their debt while making use of every tax break available to them. The remainder seem mostly to be people who made poor decisions like studying theology, English, history etc at the graduate level. The majority of people with such a high level of student debt racked up that debt at private and usually prestigious and selective institutions. However, many likely made the fatal mistake of letting themselves get suckered by the likes of the University the person in the OP attended, a university that misled and ultimately failed many of its psychology students. Their debts may be large but I suspect their numbers are not great enough to account for the large amount of money the taxpayer loses on bad student loans.

A system that lets students end up so deeply in debt with no hope of being able to repay it obviously needs to be examined for problems. It is impossible to end up owing so much without the help of private loans and to me that suggests we should encourage private lenders to be more responsible when evaluating loan applicants while discouraging them from making irresponsible decisions. I don't believe the govt should pick up the tab for private loans if it can be avoided, because that would in effect encourage dangerous business practices.

However, if it is so that the greater portion of the money the taxpayer loses on other people's student loans is due to smaller debts then we may have to tackle problems that have no or few good solutions. The evidence seems to suggest that a college education still remains a relatively reliable way to improve your life in many ways, but the risk will be greater for some people. Some people will be more vulnerable to economic downturns for example, or severe setbacks such as debilitating illness etc. Maybe your parents aren't rich enough. Maybe you got fired. There are many financial dangers that can fuck up the average western life and I can't really think of many solutions that can protect a person from all those dangers apart from good fortune, including the good fortune of being born to the right parents. If we want a society of people who take risks in order to attain a good life then we have to accept some of the risk that comes with encouraging/enabling people to take risks... and that means we have to be ready to pay for it.

With all that said, I do think society may have an interest in showing young people ways to have a good life without being saddled with large loans, eg. by promoting a positive attitude towards various forms of entrepreneurship. I honestly think that millennials may have been done a great disservice by society. They've been sold a ton of bad ideas, been conditioned to hold many half-truths and have never gotten the guidance necessary to evaluate their riskier decisions.

[Aimless]

For the record, I haven't really considered those who don't graduate.

[Aimless]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfree...-fund-college/

This was an interesting way of looking at the problem (just part 1 of a series).