Obama Tackles College Loan Relief

[FBM]

@ CES: It's much simpler than that. What's the average income ceiling of a person with a high school diploma or less compared to that of someone with an undergrad or higher? Exceptions like Bill Gates and auto workers aside.

Auto workers aren't exactly "exceptions." The average ceiling depends on industry. Plenty of construction workers have no degrees, and they can make some good money. Lots of them become developers and general contractors themselves. Mechanics and the like don't need college degrees, etc. Soldiers and sailors, etc., they don't have to have degrees. The guys who come around and mow people's lawns make more than minimum wage....

What's the percentage of auto workers, construction workers, mechanics and 'lawn care maintenance specialists' to the entire workforce? Each of them are exceptions, because they are all minorities. That approach is a no-go. English teachers are exceptions from that perspective.

The number of non-degreed workers on public assistance compared to the number of degreed workers on public assistance. That's the relevant perspective. I'd look it up myself, but I'm not going to. Bedtime here.

[Azathoth]

Rather than capping loans capping tuition fees is the best solution. The university you attend then becomes about your ability rather than your bank balance

It's not about bank balance now, what with all the grants and federally guaranteed loans available.

So you are saying that people don't shy away from top universities because of their insane prices. Even with grants and loans you are looking at a mountain of debt. The price should be standardised. Universities are supposed to be a seat of learning not a production line designed to fuck as much money out of students as possible

[Coito ergo sum]

@ CES: It's much simpler than that. What's the average income ceiling of a person with a high school diploma or less compared to that of someone with an undergrad or higher? Exceptions like Bill Gates and auto workers aside.

Auto workers aren't exactly "exceptions." The average ceiling depends on industry. Plenty of construction workers have no degrees, and they can make some good money. Lots of them become developers and general contractors themselves. Mechanics and the like don't need college degrees, etc. Soldiers and sailors, etc., they don't have to have degrees. The guys who come around and mow people's lawns make more than minimum wage....

What's the percentage of auto workers, construction workers, mechanics and 'lawn care maintenance specialists' to the entire workforce? Each of them are exceptions, because they are all minorities. That approach is a no-go. English teachers are exceptions from that perspective.

The number of non-degreed workers on public assistance compared to the number of degreed workers on public assistance. That's the relevant perspective. I'd look it up myself, but I'm not going to. Bedtime here.

How many "workers" are on public assistance? Aren't most of the recipients of public assistance unemployed?

[PsychoSerenity]

On balance, and with the premise that an educated population is a progressive one on many levels, I prefer to subsidise education for its benefits to society and to pragmatically absorb the waste while continuing to find ways to minimise it.

- so much

Also, I think it's bad when education is seen simply as something to make money, for the student, and for the college/university. There are great benefits to society in education, that just cannot and should not be accounted for with money.

[Jason]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ans27.html

Basically, if you borrow $75,000 to go to college, and you take a job for $25,000, you'll only have to repay about $28,000, lol.

Actually, assuming a discretionary income average of $24,000 (which is pretty close to reality I think) and the 20 year period which has to elapse before the debt is forgiven, at %10 of discretionary income for 20 years that person would pay back $48,000.

That's an extreme example. I seriously doubt many people who borrowed $75,000 for an education would remain long at a discretionary income of $24,000, much less for 20 years. That's just hyperbole.

[Jason]

On balance, and with the premise that an educated population is a progressive one on many levels, I prefer to subsidise education for its benefits to society and to pragmatically absorb the waste while continuing to find ways to minimise it.

- so much

Also, I think it's bad when education is seen simply as something to make money, for the student, and for the college/university. There are great benefits to society in education, that just cannot and should not be accounted for with money.

I would agree provided it is setup as a meritocracy.

In my view, those able to maintain a certain GPA should be eligible for government subsidized post-secondary education at varying levels. Applied mathematics is not for everyone, neither is electronic engineering or psychology or economics or history etc. Basically, I believe that people should be freely educated at the level and in the subject they do well in. If you're a lousy artist, unable to maintain your required GPA, but still want to study it then you may pay for the courses anyway and receive a diploma so long as you at least maintain a passing grade. This would, I think, be most beneficial to society as it would help educate those in fields where they may thrive and help eliminate Uni-bums (the people who just bum around campus and never accomplish anything).

[Feck]

Why is it that a basic level of education is seen as a human right ,and obviously a huge benefit to society but further education is seen just as a way to make more money ? Why is it that degrees are valued only by their ability to increase earnings ? Only Law Politics and 'Management' courses should be paid for by the student . How can you do a degree in management anyway WTF ? Again this assumption that unrestricted capitalism leads to a Meritocracy ...BULLSHIT .If you put up University fees and increase the debt you reduce the number of students from poor backgrounds receiving higher education .

[Coito ergo sum]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ans27.html

Basically, if you borrow $75,000 to go to college, and you take a job for $25,000, you'll only have to repay about $28,000, lol.

Actually, assuming a discretionary income average of $24,000 (which is pretty close to reality I think) and the 20 year period which has to elapse before the debt is forgiven, at %10 of discretionary income for 20 years that person would pay back $48,000.

That's an extreme example. I seriously doubt many people who borrowed $75,000 for an education would remain long at a discretionary income of $24,000, much less for 20 years. That's just hyperbole.

So, then why not make them pay back the whole thing?

[Coito ergo sum]

Why is it that a basic level of education is seen as a human right ,and obviously a huge benefit to society but further education is seen just as a way to make more money ? Why is it that degrees are valued only by their ability to increase earnings ? Only Law Politics and 'Management' courses should be paid for by the student . How can you do a degree in management anyway WTF ? Again this assumption that unrestricted capitalism leads to a Meritocracy ...BULLSHIT .If you put up University fees and increase the debt you reduce the number of students from poor backgrounds receiving higher education .

I don't think that is the dichotomy really.

I think higher education is very important. I just think that there is nothing wrong with both helping people get that education, and requiring that they foot the bill for the service they avail themselves of.

[MrJonno]

Why is it that a basic level of education is seen as a human right ,and obviously a huge benefit to society but further education is seen just as a way to make more money ? Why is it that degrees are valued only by their ability to increase earnings ? Only Law Politics and 'Management' courses should be paid for by the student . How can you do a degree in management anyway WTF ? Again this assumption that unrestricted capitalism leads to a Meritocracy ...BULLSHIT .If you put up University fees and increase the debt you reduce the number of students from poor backgrounds receiving higher education .

I don't think that is the dichotomy really.

I think higher education is very important. I just think that there is nothing wrong with both helping people get that education, and requiring that they foot the bill for the service they avail themselves of.

They can foot it with progressive taxation paying more taxes if it enabled them to earn more.

As for jobs like I don't know musueum curator for someone who has done a degree in ancient Crete wall painting which pays little well , well that comes down to should government be subsidising culture musuems/arts etc. To me thats a definite yes but others may disagree.

Of to be even more radical how about this any time someone employs a graduate that have to give a small? fee to that university

[Coito ergo sum]

Why is it that a basic level of education is seen as a human right ,and obviously a huge benefit to society but further education is seen just as a way to make more money ? Why is it that degrees are valued only by their ability to increase earnings ? Only Law Politics and 'Management' courses should be paid for by the student . How can you do a degree in management anyway WTF ? Again this assumption that unrestricted capitalism leads to a Meritocracy ...BULLSHIT .If you put up University fees and increase the debt you reduce the number of students from poor backgrounds receiving higher education .

I don't think that is the dichotomy really.

I think higher education is very important. I just think that there is nothing wrong with both helping people get that education, and requiring that they foot the bill for the service they avail themselves of.

They can foot it with progressive taxation paying more taxes if it enabled them to earn more.

However, progressive taxation applies also to those who don't go to university. What is wrong with just financing the education for those who get it, and having them pay it back over time? I would think that that would provide an incentive for people to try to keep the amount they expend low. If it's all just going to be covered by taxes anyway, then the incentive is for the student to borrow as much as possible. He won't pay any more later, anyway. At least if the student is the one paying it back, it's like the analysis for when you buy a car - you have to figure whether you'll be able to repay it.

[MattShizzle]

College should be completely tax funded.

[Coito ergo sum]

College should be completely tax funded.

Other than the fact that college students would love to go for free, why?

Maybe masters degree, law school and PHD programs should be covered too?

And, how about transportation, food, clothing and shelter?

[MattShizzle]

Son anyone can get an education and those not lucky enough to get a well-paying job afterwards aren't crushed by a mountain of debt the rest of their lives. The student loan people are almost as bad as the mafia - even bankruptcy doesn't get rid of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Son anyone can get an education and those not lucky enough to get a well-paying job afterwards aren't crushed by a mountain of debt the rest of their lives. The student loan people are almost as bad as the mafia - even bankruptcy doesn't get rid of it.

Shouldn't we start with food, clothing, shelter and transportation? If we just had everyone get the basics of food, clothing and shelter, and transportation, then they should be able to afford college on their own. Why do you pick college, and not other things?