Conquer Club

Impacts of the Plan to forgive student college loans: OVERALL, not good, except for those with big debts, up to $10,000 or even $20,000:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/24/bidens- ... ation.html

Wow… what a genius analysis.

The only people who will benefit from a free handout is the people who actually receive the handout.

What a deep understanding you have to be able to break it down for us like that! Amazing.

Anyone with half a brain understands this.
—-

I honestly don’t understand why anyone other than those with extreme debt would push for this.

I disagree with the dopey “I paid my $20K for my college 30 years ago, so these people should pay too.”
That’s a stupid argument against this policy… the comparison is invalid because the cost of education is drastically higher now.

I’m not opposed to modest debt relief… but ONLY IF CONGRESS CAN ALSO FIND A WAY TO REDUCE THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOING FORWARD AS WELL. If they don’t do this we’ll have the same debt ‘problem’ again in 5-10years.

The challenge is that addressing the underlying reasons why Higher Education costs are so high is much more difficult as it is nuanced and multi-faceted, and may not even be “solvable” by legislation alone. It’s much easier for a Congressman/woman to vote for debt relief and claim “victory”.

jimboston wrote:I disagree with the dopey “I paid my $20K for my college 30 years ago, so these people should pay too.”

Historical parity is actually a fairly logical argument. Giving people in 2022 more opportunities and favours than their ancestors had is basically discrimination against those ancestors on the basis of nothing other than their age, and age discrimination is illegal.

In the case of student loans, historically citizens didn't go to college and therefore had student loan debts of $0, so historical parity demands the immediate and full forgiveness of all student loan debt. There is also a compelling case for overturning bans on things like abortion (recently overturned) and corporal punishment of your wife (tbc), among others.

jimboston wrote: I’m not opposed to modest debt relief… but ONLY IF CONGRESS CAN ALSO FIND A WAY TO REDUCE THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOING FORWARD AS WELL. If they don’t do this we’ll have the same debt ‘problem’ again in 5-10years.

This.

bigtoughralf wrote:

jimboston wrote:I disagree with the dopey “I paid my $20K for my college 30 years ago, so these people should pay too.”

Historical parity is actually a fairly logical argument. Giving people in 2022 more opportunities and favours than their ancestors had is basically discrimination against those ancestors on the basis of nothing other than their age, and age discrimination is illegal.

In the case of student loans, historically citizens didn't go to college and therefore had student loan debts of $0, so historical parity demands the immediate and full forgiveness of all student loan debt. There is also a compelling case for overturning bans on things like abortion (recently overturned) and corporal punishment of your wife (tbc), among others.

Historically parity sounds like a crock of crap.

“Men in the past could beat their wives, so I should be able to as well.”

“In the past we had slaves, so I should be able to have a slave too.”

“People in the past had no health care, so we should kill all doctors and destroy all books/records related to medical care.”

Idiotic.

1) Just because people did something in the past does NOT mean we have to continue to do these things.
If that was the case you could argue it applies to individuals as well as groups.
“I used to be able to eat Big Macs everyday (when I was 16-20) and I was perfectly healthy… now that I’m 50 I should still eat Big Macs every day.”

2) ‘The Past’ is a very long time… who decides which past time-frame we look at when we look to achieve “parity”.
I mean 30years ago is the past and many people (myself included) did have significant student loans to pay.
So why is 30 years a less valid past then 300 years.

3) Even if we did want to look at “parity”, which as an absolute is a ridiculous concept, but if we did we’d have to factor in macro-changes that impact life…. things like technology, economic system, population density, etc. So for example in the case of education and student loans you’d have to compare our current educational system versus maybe the apprentice system of past ages. Doing that one could argue that students “paid” for their education by acting as apprentices for years. So yeah, when they “graduated” they didn’t have loans…. instead they provided free labor while in “school”. They were not able to do the “fun” things that today’s students do because they were too busy. So there was delayed gratification.

Now… that might be a “better” model… I don’t know…

I do know that that does call for “immediate and full forgiveness” of student loans. What it does call for is what I suggested based (not in historical parity) in common-sense; which is a complete overhaul of our educational system.

If you want specifics… I can suggest a few ideas…

1) Require colleges to reduce their costs and therefore reduce tuitions/fees. This is by far the biggest reason college costs are so high. I have first hand knowledge of how internal college structure encourages increased spending… and how there are NO incentives to people at these institutions to reduce expenditures. How could this be done by law…. you can;t force. private institutions to comply can you?
Yes… you can encourage this by discontinuing public funding of colleges that don’t comply…. and by public funding this would include;
- no eligibility for federal/state funded loans or grants to schools that don’t comply.
- no tax exempt status for schools that don’t comply.
- no federal/state grants of any kind for things like research… send research dollars to schools that comply.

You couldn’t make these changes overnight…. but you could implement this type of program and over time change the culture at these institutions.

2) Implement a required service program for all people… like a draft but it doesn’t have to be military, and can include testing options to allow people with exceptional skills to test into highly sought-after areas. This program (in my mind) would not apply to all people universally at a set age, but could be done within an age range (say between 12 - 22) to allow for difference in how/when people mature. Participation would be mandatory but failure to do so would not be a “crime”; rather participation would be required to attain full citizenship allowing a person to vote or run for office or hold a public-sector job, and participation would allow said individual to receive free/discounted higher education/vocational training.
What might count as participation?

- Military service

- “Red Cross” type service

- Public sector vocational training and service
(Think of a trade, like an apprenticeship, for jobs like electricians or plumbers or other skills… but instead of acting as an apprentice in the private sector you’d be learning and working on projects that benefit the public.)

- Brainics could test into niche programs that use their skills for the public good… for example you wouldn’t want the next genius IT guy or Physicist to “waste” years of his/her life as grunt in the army. You’d find these people and put them in apprentice type programs where they learn and at the same time do work in that field where it benefits the public.

- Ditto for elite athletes… these people would apply and test into programs where they use their skills. We’d win every Olympic event if all our elite athletes had to do was train and not work at BJ’s part time. They would compete on US National Teams, and if they served their time and didn’t “make it” it would still count and they could go get a college degree later (if that;s what they wanted). During down-time or off-season they could provide service in other ways… maybe helping out at youth programs or elementary schools, running gym classes or whatever.

These obviously are not absolutes and I’m sure smart people will find flaws and suggest improvements to these basic ideas.

jimboston wrote:People in the past had no health care

lolwut. The Hippocratic Oath that most American doctors take was written more than 2,000 years ago.

The societies of Classical Antiquity were actually very egalitarian and socialist in a lot of ways. Although yes, I do agree that if the USA were to adhere to its founding conditions then it would basically necessitate living in a permanent state of Mad Max, which is probably what has coloured your perceptions of historical parity.

Democrats running in battleground Senate and House races panned President Biden's student loan relief plan within hours of its release — a sign of fears that it could alienate swing voters in November.

Tim Ryan, the Democrats' Ohio Senate nominee, released a critical statement: "Waiving debt for those already on a trajectory to financial security sends the wrong message to millions of Ohioans without a degree working just as hard to make ends meet."

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, one of the most vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election this year, told Axios: "I don't agree with today's executive action because it doesn't address the root problems that make college unaffordable."

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/25/democr ... n-backlash

American Action Network is apparently taking out $3.5 MM in these ads to drop in 20 battleground contests where Rats are trying to defend their seats in close races. "Stop Biden's bailout for rich kids." Love it!

This bailout (college debt forgiveness) is:

1) inflationary; those with loans forgiven now have up to $10,000 (or for some, Pell Grant recipients, an extra $20,000) to spend. I have seen figures from $300 million up to $1,000 million (or $1 trillion, USA) extra money to spend. Extra money without an increase in supply of goods and services = INFLATION.

2) is a wealth transfer from essentially poor and less well-off to those who are well off and better off financially. I have heard around 48% of those with loans have graduate degrees, that includes med school and law school. Those with graduate degrees normally get a huge bump in salary. Those with graduate degrees typically earn 4X that of a high school graduate. A Bachelor's degree person, on average, earns 2X that of a high school graduate. Yes, those with more income pay more taxes, but OVERALL, wealth is transferred from the lower economic classes up to classes better off (i.e., wealthier). Why should those with only a high school diploma (and drop outs and those with only an AA 2-year degree) pay for those who are (OVERALL and likely) earning more and going to earn more over a lifetime?

Why is this NOT equitable? What hypocrites. EQUITY was the main rally cry for those protesting in 2020 and now in the political rallies for liberals.

3) The average college debt is $25-30K (undergrad), (without looking that up to get the actual #). The debt for most is NOT overburdening, IF that person got a decent paying job. Sorry, degrees in Marine Biology, Art, and Women "Studies" are not very good for earning above average salaries. If someone earns a graduate (or even undergraduate degree) in one of those or similar fields, they made BAD CHOICES and we taxpayers, whatever education we have, SHOULD NOT bail out their bad choices.

Graduate degrees, especially for law school and med schools are very expensive, much more that for undergrad degrees.

I think several made GOOD points about college costs being TOO expensive. Like the border crises, this short-term "NON FIX" will not solve the problem of college costs being TOO HIGH. [The same is true for Drug (Prescription, legal) prices; they are TOO high and there is no political solution is likely.] I agree that a college education is much too expensive and colleges are doing very well economically.

Many colleges and universities have BILLIONS of dollars of endowments. That means they earn LOTS from investments in stocks and such. The result? They pay larger salaries for Professors and college Administrators. They also buy more for Science Laboratory equipment. What is needed for Women "Studies"? More books and/or Journals?

4) Is this legal? Does the President have the legal authority to do this? I heard one argument that this is authorized by the CARES Act for COVID. REALLY?

5) President Obama exacerbated a bad economic situation of rising college costs by GUARANTEEING loans for college. I think the way it worked is that the loan was backed by the Federal Government. One result is that the Federal Government made it difficult to avoid paying loans. One does not escape such debt by declaring bankruptcies, unlike normal bank loans.

The bottom line of the Obama action is that colleges had less incentive to control their costs.

bigtoughralf wrote:

jimboston wrote:People in the past had no health care

lolwut. The Hippocratic Oath that most American doctors take was written more than 2,000 years ago.

The societies of Classical Antiquity were actually very egalitarian and socialist in a lot of ways. Although yes, I do agree that if the USA were to adhere to its founding conditions then it would basically necessitate living in a permanent state of Mad Max, which is probably what has coloured your perceptions of historical parity.

Really?

Just because they had an “oath” and some ideas, you want to compare ancient healthcare to modern healthcare?

Yeah… they had some herbs and could set broken bones…. but they had zero knowledge of viruses or bacteria.

Idiotic response dude… you’re better than this.
(Not much I’ll admit.)

I also noticed how you ignored all my other points. Nice “Saxi” type move there.
Ignore what you know you have no valid retort for…

jusplay4fun wrote:
I think several made GOOD points about college costs being TOO expensive. Like the border crises, this short-term "NON FIX" will not solve the problem of college costs being TOO HIGH.

… by “several” you mean me, right?

Come on… admit it..

jusplay4fun wrote:
The bottom line of the Obama action is that colleges had less incentive to control their costs.

This problem of increasing costs for colleges was not created by Obama. Federally backed student loans is NOT new, and is not the sole cause for colleges being more expensive. This is a multifaceted problems that has been going on for years and years.

Blaming Federally backed student loans is like blaming the housing bubble & crisis on Federally backed mortgages. Yes… these band-aid “fixes” do make things worse and have a compounding effect on the problem; BUT the problem is pre-existing.

In terms of college costs it has more to do with…
- Colleges and Universities expanding student services and frills because there’s big competition for student dollars.
- College / University cultures that reward managers for departmental growth (and therefore reward managers for essentially increasing costs)… while at the same time essentially punishing managers who shrink departments and reduce costs.
- Colleges and Universities paying more attention to things outside their primary ‘mission’… spending money on community involvement, “prestige” projects like new buildings and museums, etc.
- College growth and expansion… in Massachusetts we’ve had several “Community Colleges” grow to become true 4-year colleges and/or universities. The whole idea of Community Colleges was to provide local and low-cost opportunities for kids to start their degree, maybe earn an Associate… maybe go on to a Bachelor. Now they expand and what happens? Tuitions go up!

Yes… many large and/or prestigious colleges and universities have large endowments. This is not universal… many smaller colleges and universities have shut down because they can’t compete. I have no problem with this in principle… but if it continues you wind up with fewer options and only large mega-institutions. This will drive costs up more.

Mh prior comments and ideas stand… even these big schools with huge endowments still benefit from public dollars in the form of…
- Students receiving federal grants and loans.
- Federal research grants
- Tax Exempt Status

If you use these sources of funding intelligently you can impact the behavior of colleges and universities without trampling on their “rights”.

Colleges and Universities have no “Right” to public funding of any kind… so my proposal to use these sources of revenue to influence behavior seems reasonable and legitimate to me.

Tax Exempt status is big big big to a lot of schools especially in areas (like Boston) where land is expensive. Harvard pays ZERO property tax. Harvard has the largest endowment of any school in the country. They do pay a PILOT fee (“Payment In Lieu Of Taxes”) but it’s a tiny tiny fraction of what they would pay if their property was taxed at it’s true assessed value.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/gra ... xemptions/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020 ... t-program/

Additional notes…
- They claim money they provide “to the community” as part of the fee. So for example they have a arboretum and they count the cost of running that as a payment. Or if they give a small grant to some local school they count that as part of their PILOT. This reduces their contribution even further.
- It’s also true that the existence of Harvard raises the prestige of Cambridge and Boston… and the existence of this institution increases the value of the land in their immediate vicinity. So you can argue that their tax burden should be less because without them the land would be worth less.
- It’s also true that the existence of Harvard (and other colleges in their respective areas) brings in other revenue to the community. Students bringing in and spending money. People visiting for a variety of reasons… so see the school, museum, athletics, etc. Businesses looking to setup nearby. to benefit from the local brainpower of students and faculty. Etc.
- It’s also true that college facilities provide benefits to their local communities in other ways. Local youth sports can often use fields, courts, pools. They often have summer camps. They have plays, speakers, other events, that people attend.

So I do think we have to weigh these factors… I’m not suggesting we immediately strip tax-exempt status…. but I do think there is room for action.

JimB said:

Wow… what a genius analysis.

I am glad that you agree.

Yes, BRILLIANT that I brought the matter up for discussion and tied it to a political thread, where it got looks and several replies, and NOT just you and me.

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Aug 27, 2022 12:13 pm

jimboston wrote:
I’m not opposed to modest debt relief… but ONLY IF CONGRESS CAN ALSO FIND A WAY TO REDUCE THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOING FORWARD AS WELL. If they don’t do this we’ll have the same debt ‘problem’ again in 5-10years.

This.

… by “several” you mean me, right?

Come on… admit it..

You and Duk; ralph, on the other hand, seems off-topic and irrelevant.

You did not accurately quote me:

JimB quoted me, but missed something:

jusplay4fun wrote:

The bottom line of the Obama action is that colleges had less incentive to control their costs.

This problem of increasing costs for colleges was not created by Obama.

Here is what I did say about President Obama on this topic:

5) President Obama exacerbated a bad economic situation of rising college costs by GUARANTEEING loans for college.

From what I know, I disagree with JimB here:

Blaming Federally backed student loans is like blaming the housing bubble & crisis on Federally backed mortgages.

I would have to research the matter before making an intelligent post, since several do not like it when I copy and paste lots.

I will admit that much of the rest of JimB's post has merit. One major point that he left out is that there is no real incentives for colleges and universities to significantly curb expenses. They are constantly SOLICITING ("begging for") money from alumni; I get such appeals from the two VA colleges from which I have degrees. They lobby the State Legislature for money. They write grants to the Federal Government and Foundations for funds.

Tuition and fees paid by students do not cover all the costs of college; I do not have a number on the actual percentage; I would conjecture that it may be as low as 50% and may be decreasing. Further, I think that an increasing amount come from state and federal government sources. Their endowments allow lower costs to some students (mostly to those who get scholarships), but college costs have soared to at least 250% above the inflation rate since 1970 or so.

More on Obama and student loans:

first:

President Obama’s horrible, terrible legacy on student loans

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... ent-loans/

The Real Student Loan Crisis Is The One Obama Created

FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare Licensing
07:00 PM ET 04/16/2015
Irresponsibility: A new report finds that 27.3% of student loans are delinquent. Why does this matter? Because thanks to President Obama, about $1 trillion dollars of student loan debt is owed to the federal government.

Obama keeps trying to portray the student loan crisis as a problem suffered by students burdened by a mountain of debt when they graduate, and who are unable to make enough money to pay it back.

But that's not the real crisis.

First, average student loan debt is only a little over $20,000. A student who gave up his $5-a-day Starbucks habit could pay off the principal in about a decade.

Second, despite the endless hue and cry about rising tuitions, the amount students actually pay to go to college — net of grants, aid, discounts, and what not — has barely budged, according to the College Board.

The problem isn't even that, at nearly $1.2 trillion, the total amount of student loan debt now exceeds that of auto loans or credit card debt.

The real crisis is one Obama himself manufactured since taking office.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now, the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

What did happen was an explosive growth in the amount of federal student loan debt. President Clinton phased in direct federal lending in 1993 as an option, but over the next 15 years the amount of loans was fairly stable. The result of Obama's action is striking. In each of the past six years, federal direct student loan debt has climbed by more than $100 billion. (See chart.)

And since Obama keeps making it easier and easier to avoid repaying those loans, it's a problem that taxpayers will eventually have to shoulder.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full. Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as you earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago.

"This overall level of delinquency is very concerning," concluded authors Juan Sanchez and Lijin Zhu.

A 2013 Consumer Financial Protection Board report found that less than half of this federal loan money was actually being paid. About 30% was held by borrowers still in school or in a grace period, another chunk in deferment or forbearance, and almost 14% was in default.

No wonder Obama keeps trying to distract the public by focusing everyone's attention on student sob stories.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... -in-loans/

and
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student- ... inflation/

There’s no question that compared to previous generations, colleges are charging today’s students more for higher education. Between 1980 and 2020, the average price of tuition, fees, and room and board for an undergraduate degree increased 169%, according to a recent report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

But as a result of the Covid pandemic, there’s more to the story. Average college tuition and fees have stayed about the same since September 2019, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, even though inflation has led to rising prices for all other goods and services. Here’s what to know about the historical increase in college costs, and how recent trends have affected it.

And there is much more in the above cited article, such as:

Here are some trends that have likely contributed to higher costs for colleges over time.

1. Colleges Provide More Student Support Services
Colleges have stepped in to fill many roles for students outside of educating them. This includes mental health support, which has become even more necessary as college students navigate the pandemic, plus help securing housing, food, transportation, child care and more. Academic advising is also important to help ensure students graduate on time or meet their transfer goals.
These supports can make a real difference in student outcomes. The City University of New York’s (CUNY) Accelerated Study in Associate Programs initiative, for example, has been shown to almost double graduation rates among community college students over three years, according to a report by social policy evaluation organization MDRC.

Adding these services requires hiring nonfaculty personnel to staff and manage them. Programs at community colleges that provide academic and personal guidance to students through individual advising can cost $1,000 to $5,700 per student annually, according to the Brookings Institution.

2. Changes in State and Local Funding
Aside from tuition payments, public institutions depend on funding from states and localities to operate. State and local funding made up 55% of public two-year college revenues and 44% of public four-year college revenues in 2018-19, according to the College Board.

The amount states and local governments give to colleges fluctuates depending on market conditions and tax revenues. Economic downturns like the Great Recession in 2008 led to funding cuts, and in 2020, average education appropriations per full-time equivalent student were still 6% lower overall than in 2008, according to a report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO).

When public colleges have less state and local funding, it’s more likely they’ll pass costs on to students in the form of tuition increases, according to a 2019 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. State and local support for colleges is on the upswing, however. As of 2020, average public higher education funding increased for eight years in a row, according to the SHEEO report, and 18 states have brought funding up to pre-2008 levels.

That’s good news for today’s students. When we look further back, though, we can see how state and local disinvestment in higher education funding has affected college costs overall. State and local funding per student for higher education dropped about 25% between 1988 and 2018, according to an analysis by Douglas A. Webber, an associate professor of economics at Temple University.

3. Overall Increase in Costs for Service Industries Like Education
One primary reason for the huge jump in college prices since 1980 is a concept called cost disease, argue Robert B. Archibald and David H. Feldman, economics professors at the College of William & Mary.

Unlike other areas of the economy, like manufacturing, it’s difficult to increase productivity in higher education while maintaining the same experience. New technology and improved methods can increase production at a steel mill, for example, but there’s not much innovation to introduce in a traditional 10-person literature seminar without sacrificing quality.

So while productivity gains in the overall economy keep the cost of producing goods from growing too fast, higher education and other services haven’t benefited from that productivity boost. That means it costs colleges more to produce an education, and that has led to higher prices for students.

Plus, it costs more to hire highly educated professors and administrators than it did in the past. Colleges are also likely to invest in the latest technology on campus, and in innovations in other areas that serve students, including career counseling, which raises costs.

PERSONAL FINANCE

Students now pay more of their public university tuition than state governments

By Danielle Douglas-Gabriel
January 5, 2015 at 2:23 p.m. EST

It used to be that attending a public university all but guaranteed graduating with little to no debt. State governments funneled enough money into higher education that families could send their kids to a local school without worrying about taking out a second mortgage or private loans to pay their way.

Not so anymore. These days students pay more of the cost of attending public universities than state governments, a shift that is making college less affordable, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

Researchers found that the money public colleges collect in tuition surpassed the money they receive from state funding in 2012. Tuition accounted for 25 percent of school revenue, up from 17 percent in 2003. State funding, meanwhile, plummeted from 32 percent to 23 percent during the same period. That’s a far cry from the 1970s, when state governments supplied public colleges with nearly 75 percent of their funding, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get ... vernments/

Classic Dave Ramsey segment from 3 years ago about a guy who went $1 million into debt to become a mid tier dentist just because he liked SC football and didn't want to go to Sacramento State.

Make student loans bankruptable: no other reform is necessary.

saxitoxin wrote:
Make student loans bankruptable: no other reform is necessary.

I kinda agree with Saxi here. What just happened wasn't 'students get their loans forgiven' it was 'USA bails out troubled lenders. No former students are getting checks, it's all going to banks/pseudo-banks and the banks are getting the money because they made bad bad bad loans, and they did that because there is no risk for them. You can't get out of student loans through bankruptcy. If bankruptcy risk was real for the lenders, they wouldn't have lent Sally 400,000 to get her doctorate in Native American basket weaving.

Everything else your seeing is the news is just kabuki.

mookiemcgee wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
Make student loans bankruptable: no other reform is necessary.

I kinda agree with Saxi here. What just happened wasn't 'students get their loans forgiven' it was 'USA bails out troubled lenders. No former students are getting checks, it's all going to banks/pseudo-banks and the banks are getting the money because they made bad bad bad loans, and they did that because there is no risk for them. You can't get out of student loans through bankruptcy. If bankruptcy risk was real for the lenders, they wouldn't have lent Sally 400,000 to get her doctorate in Native American basket weaving.

Everything else your seeing is the news is just kabuki.

Exactly, everything flows from bankruptcy reform.

• - First, lenders stop making loans to anyone with a pulse.
  
  - Second, with fewer students now able to afford university, universities have to start charging less for tuition. (Not by cutting professor salaries but through consolidation of theory programs. Do all 23 CSU campuses in California need their own sociology departments as they currently have? Or can the discipline of sociology in California be adequately advanced if just San Diego State and Chico State have sociology departments?)
  
  - Third, with universities charging less for tuition, more students can afford university.

But having periodic Loan Jubilees where gold coins are thrown at the masses like some Roman potentate is not any kind of reform.

saxitoxin wrote:
But having periodic Loan Jubilees where gold coins are thrown at the masses like some Roman potentate is not any kind of reform.

You are just bitter because you've been posting for two years that Biden impeachment is coming after this election but now it seems like you'll have to wait for 2024.

Still, high five on agreeing on Student Loan reform! I always knew you were a centrist in Maga clothing.

mookiemcgee wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
But having periodic Loan Jubilees where gold coins are thrown at the masses like some Roman potentate is not any kind of reform.

You are just bitter because you've been posting for two years that Biden impeachment is coming after this election but now it seems like you'll have to wait for 2024.

Still, high five on agreeing on Student Loan reform! I always knew you were a centrist in Maga clothing.

Do you know how many left wing friends I have who ended up with degrees in sociology because, in college, they wanted to major in social work and didn't realize they were totally different things until they were 15 credits in?

Two.

saxitoxin wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
But having periodic Loan Jubilees where gold coins are thrown at the masses like some Roman potentate is not any kind of reform.

You are just bitter because you've been posting for two years that Biden impeachment is coming after this election but now it seems like you'll have to wait for 2024.

Still, high five on agreeing on Student Loan reform! I always knew you were a centrist in Maga clothing.

Do you know how many left wing friends I have who ended up with degrees in sociology because, in college, they wanted to major in social work and didn't realize they were totally different things until they were 15 credits in?

Two.

I only have one friend with a degree in Sociology, and he quite blatantly chose that field because he wanted a university degree with the least work.

And, no, I don't mean he listened to propaganda or innuendo. He actually downloaded course descriptions for many programs and did a detailed analysis of exactly how many words would have to be written and handed in, and Sociology came out a clear winner.

saxitoxin wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
But having periodic Loan Jubilees where gold coins are thrown at the masses like some Roman potentate is not any kind of reform.

You are just bitter because you've been posting for two years that Biden impeachment is coming after this election but now it seems like you'll have to wait for 2024.

Still, high five on agreeing on Student Loan reform! I always knew you were a centrist in Maga clothing.

Do you know how many left wing friends I have who ended up with degrees in sociology because, in college, they wanted to major in social work and didn't realize they were totally different things until they were 15 credits in?

Two.

Oh man, thanks Saxi. I needed a good laugh today

Saxi claiming to have friends, bahahahaha

In addition to allowing student loans to be bankrupted, the Federal government should be completely out of the student loan business. If student loans were handled via private banks the same way any other unsecured loans were handled, there would be a clear risk/reward analysis during the application process. No private bank would ever agree to a $300,000 loan to someone getting a degree with an average starting salary of $30,000, yet the Federal government is perfectly happy to do so. This will snowball into economic pressures to lower the cost of such degrees and (as the number of people graduating with those degrees declines) higher salaries in the longer term.

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
But having periodic Loan Jubilees where gold coins are thrown at the masses like some Roman potentate is not any kind of reform.

You are just bitter because you've been posting for two years that Biden impeachment is coming after this election but now it seems like you'll have to wait for 2024.

Still, high five on agreeing on Student Loan reform! I always knew you were a centrist in Maga clothing.

Do you know how many left wing friends I have who ended up with degrees in sociology because, in college, they wanted to major in social work and didn't realize they were totally different things until they were 15 credits in?

Two.

I only have one friend with a degree in Sociology, and he quite blatantly chose that field because he wanted a university degree with the least work.

And, no, I don't mean he listened to propaganda or innuendo. He actually downloaded course descriptions for many programs and did a detailed analysis of exactly how many words would have to be written and handed in, and Sociology came out a clear winner.

I am not surprised one bit. So much for SOME Social "Science" degrees; many are the proverbial "dime a dozen."

jusplay4fun wrote:
I would have to research the matter before making an intelligent post, since several do not like it when I copy and paste lots.

(...)

Tuition and fees paid by students do not cover all the costs of college; I do not have a number on the actual percentage; I would conjecture that it may be as low as 50% and may be decreasing. Further, I think that an increasing amount come from state and federal government sources. Their endowments allow lower costs to some students (mostly to those who get scholarships), but college costs have soared to at least 250% above the inflation rate since 1970 or so.

I did some research:

How College Prices Ballooned Over 40 Years
In 1980, the price to attend a four-year college full-time was $10,231 annually—including tuition, fees, room and board, and adjusted for inflation—according to the National Center for Education Statistics. By 2019-20, the total price increased to $28,775. That’s a 180% increase.

College prices have soared across all institution types, but private nonprofit institutions continue to cost more than public colleges. A full-time student paid $48,965 at a private nonprofit college on average in 2019-20 compared to $21,035 at a public university.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student- ... inflation/

The Forbes article is very good.

I was in the ball park, at least; my estimate was for a 50+ year period, since 1970.

and, from same Forbes article cited above:

Why Have College Prices Risen So Dramatically Over Time?
Even if college prices have stabilized for now, they’re still unmanageable for many students. More than half of bachelor’s degree recipients from public or private four-year colleges graduated with debt in 2020, and the average debt load was $28,400, according to the College Board.

How did prices rise so substantially? There is a range of possibilities, many of which researchers aren’t in agreement on. For example, increases in both federal student loan availability and administrative positions at colleges are widely debated as contributing factors. But data doesn’t conclusively show that these factors cause prices to rise in a significant way.

I thought I read (and quoted) that tuition only covers about 25% of college costs, but I cannot find that citation.

NOTE too that college costs have outstripped the pace of inflation, so more money allocated by state legislatures does not mean an increase in their portion to support higher (i.e., college) education.

Doc_Brown wrote:In addition to allowing student loans to be bankrupted, the Federal government should be completely out of the student loan business. If student loans were handled via private banks the same way any other unsecured loans were handled, there would be a clear risk/reward analysis during the application process. No private bank would ever agree to a $300,000 loan to someone getting a degree with an average starting salary of $30,000, yet the Federal government is perfectly happy to do so. This will snowball into economic pressures to lower the cost of such degrees and (as the number of people graduating with those degrees declines) higher salaries in the longer term.

There’s definitely merit in this argument… but the gov’t can also take action to encourage schools to reduce their costs.

jimboston wrote:Yeah… they had some herbs and could set broken bones…. but they had zero knowledge of viruses or bacteria.

They used to quarantine people to stop diseases spreading.

Anyhoo, I never said that people in ancient Greece had access to keyhole surgery and heart stints. I said they had healthcare, which they did.

I think your responses are biased by your desire to reject my egalitarian proposition of historical parity. You must be a Republican.