- This topic has 54 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM #730835October 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM #730836
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=zk]My point is that potential college students should be able to borrow enough to go to college, that they should be able to pay it off after college, and that they shouldn’t have to pay usurious rates. If you disagree with that, and I’m not sure whether you do, then why?
If they borrow more than they need, that’s their own fault. But if they can’t borrow as much as they need, then that’s not going to be good for the country.[/quote]
Define “need,” zk, as it applies to an unemployed or min-wage-earning student. Does “need” include an expensive apt in Santa Barbara (or even half or a third of one)? Monthly highlights and mani-pedi at a salon? Weekend “socializing $$?” Private dorm room? Maintenance on an expensive and/or gas-guzzling vehicle? A $3000+ new “wardrobe?” All new stuff for a dorm room? etc, etc.
I think not … but that is how a lot of college students live today.
Do you realize you can buy used college textbooks off Craigslist anywhere for 70-80% off “new” prices? Yeah, they may be “last years or the year-before’s edition” but this shouldn’t be a problem. When the instructor says, “turn to page 115,” you just turn to page 121 (or however the book is laid out). You will know how it is laid out when you compare it to your classmate’s “new” edition on the first day of class. Then follow it accordingly throughout the semester or year. Buying grossly overpriced textbooks is the biggest joke in college these days.
Regarding exorbitant tuition/fee rates, I don’t see public colleges going down in price. However, I DO see private colleges coming down in price if student-loan qualifications go up and/or the gov’t backed student loan-limits are reduced. Many private colleges (such as “Univ of Phoenix”) are a colossal ripoff, IMO.
We are not currently living in an economy where it makes sense to overspend on education, since there is little chance of landing a well-paying job with benefits right out of college in most fields. It’s wiser for a lot of young people to instead try to obtain on-the-job training while working FT and obtaining benefits (or get low-cost ROP training in the “trades.”) Four years later, a lot of these young workers’ *newly degreed* compadres are going to be indebted to the hilt with no way to pay the debt back and still live. Hence, the “usurious” practices you’re referring to here when their loans are repeatedly consolidated and deferred, adding endless late fees and deferred interest on the back end.
October 17, 2011 at 1:20 PM #730837Participant[quote=walterwhite] . . . Student loan debt requires you live a long time to make the debt pay.[/quote]
scaredy, I’m sure you meant to say here, “live a long time AND are able to obtain and keep a job with benefits in the field you majored in to make the debt pay off.”
October 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM #730838sdduuuude
ParticipantWe all hate the idea of bailing out the banks because it socializes the loss and privatizes the gain.
How is backstopping student loans any different ? The risk of default is on the backs of taxpayers and the student receives all the benefit.
Plus, because the government is pumping money into an industry, it increases the the amount of money people are willing to spend on educations and the cost goes up. And, they loan to anyone, not those who are most likely to repay the loan.
Thus, the government loan program seems to be the direct cause of the outrageous cost of education, which makes it more and more difficult for students to afford an education – which is the problem that the loans are intended to solve in the first place.
It is a perfect example of the government trying to solve a problem and making it worse because of the unintended consequences of their own actions.
Some limits or curbs have to be put in place or we will have ever more who cannot afford an education. Maybe the loans should be limited to degrees and colleges that turn out productive income-earning gradutes. Or we have hiring businesses backstop the loans and decide who receives them.
October 17, 2011 at 1:38 PM #730839ParticipantGreat post, sdduuuude, esp the part about employers deciding which of their employees is worthy of having a particular degree program employer-funded (employee does not get to choose).
LOTS of students major in areas they don’t have the aptitude or personality for and so are not successful in those jobs and their “degree” is wasted and they are often still left with student loan payments.
October 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM #730840ParticipantPlus, I’m sure the private schools fund a nice big lobbying effort to convince congress to increase these student loan funds for the poor underprivleged students who can’t afford a college education. Everyone thinks they are helping the students. In actuality, they are jacking up prices and pumping money into private educational corporations.
October 17, 2011 at 2:37 PM #730845bubba99
ParticipantBack in the day when I went to Berkeley, the tuition was only $212.24/quarter. There was one administrator for every 10 classroom employees – teachers/professors. Now that relationship is upside down. More administrators than classroom employee.
Tuition is now in the tens of thousands per semester. For those who believe that education is for the benefit of the students, think again. The major beneficiaries are the employees of the university system. With a chant of “we must protect the quality of education” they have improved the quality of their pay checks, at the expense of the students.
The loan scam has just been the vehicle to fund the new found legion of administrators and retirements that few/none of us will ever achieve. Without the loans, education would still need to be affordable. The loans bought the students very little compared to 40 years ago.
October 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM #730856UCGal
ParticipantThe other issue with student loans is that they are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Students are encouraged to take on this debt. Often they are young with little financial sense. So they just keep borrowing and not downsizing their lifestyle appropriately (as mentioned – putting living expenses on the student loans).
The biggest problem with student loans are that they are given to kids who’ve never lived on their own.
Financial education – the basics – should be mandatory in high school as part of the college requirements. Not just 2 years of a foreign language.
October 17, 2011 at 3:18 PM #730857Participant[quote=bubba99]Back in the day when I went to Berkeley, the tuition was only $212.24/quarter. There was one administrator for every 10 classroom employees – teachers/professors. Now that relationship is upside down. More administrators than classroom employee.
Tuition is now in the tens of thousands per semester. For those who believe that education is for the benefit of the students, think again. The major beneficiaries are the employees of the university system. With a chant of “we must protect the quality of education” they have improved the quality of their pay checks, at the expense of the students.
The loan scam has just been the vehicle to fund the new found legion of administrators and retirements that few/none of us will ever achieve. Without the loans, education would still need to be affordable. The loans bought the students very little compared to 40 years ago.[/quote]
Thanks for filling in the gap I left here, bubba99. Indeed, those were VERY REASONABLE tuition/fees for UC circa 1971.
Now that you bring this up, bubba, I’m going to do an about face and say that public tuition/fees need to go down in CA a bit to make it affordable for the masses. We don’t need to be funding anymore lavish retirements for professors and dept chairs who might only be present at the university 12-30 hrs a week for lecturing and meeting with students (with 14 paid holidays per year and 4-6 weeks paid annual vacation).
October 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM #730861zk
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]My point is that potential college students should be able to borrow enough to go to college, that they should be able to pay it off after college, and that they shouldn’t have to pay usurious rates. If you disagree with that, and I’m not sure whether you do, then why?
If they borrow more than they need, that’s their own fault. But if they can’t borrow as much as they need, then that’s not going to be good for the country.[/quote]
Define “need,” zk, as it applies to an unemployed or min-wage-earning student. Does “need” include an expensive apt in Santa Barbara (or even half or a third of one)? Monthly highlights and mani-pedi at a salon? Weekend “socializing $$?” Private dorm room? Maintenance on an expensive and/or gas-guzzling vehicle? A $3000+ new “wardrobe?” All new stuff for a dorm room? etc, etc.
I think not … but that is how a lot of college students live today.
Do you realize you can buy used college textbooks off Craigslist anywhere for 70-80% off “new” prices? Yeah, they may be “last years or the year-before’s edition” but this shouldn’t be a problem. When the instructor says, “turn to page 115,” you just turn to page 121 (or however the book is laid out). You will know how it is laid out when you compare it to your classmate’s “new” edition on the first day of class. Then follow it accordingly throughout the semester or year. Buying grossly overpriced textbooks is the biggest joke in college these days.
Regarding exorbitant tuition/fee rates, I don’t see public colleges going down in price. However, I DO see private colleges coming down in price if student-loan qualifications go up and/or the gov’t backed student loan-limits are reduced. Many private colleges (such as “Univ of Phoenix”) are a colossal ripoff, IMO.
We are not currently living in an economy where it makes sense to overspend on education, since there is little chance of landing a well-paying job with benefits right out of college in most fields. It’s wiser for a lot of young people to instead try to obtain on-the-job training while working FT and obtaining benefits (or get low-cost ROP training in the “trades.”) Four years later, a lot of these young workers’ *newly degreed* compadres are going to be indebted to the hilt with no way to pay the debt back and still live. Hence, the “usurious” practices you’re referring to here when their loans are repeatedly consolidated and deferred, adding endless late fees and deferred interest on the back end.[/quote]
So, unless I’m missing something, your beef is with students who spend their student loan money on things other than education. Sure, that’s not a good idea. But what about a student who wants to live at home and go to, say, the nearest UC or CSU campus? Shouldn’t he be able to get a loan to cover that?
October 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM #730863Participant[quote=sdduuuude]We all hate the idea of bailing out the banks because it socializes the loss and privatizes the gain.
How is backstopping student loans any different ? The risk of default is on the backs of taxpayers and the student receives all the benefit.
Plus, because the government is pumping money into an industry, it increases the the amount of money people are willing to spend on educations and the cost goes up. And, they loan to anyone, not those who are most likely to repay the loan.
Thus, the government loan program seems to be the direct cause of the outrageous cost of education, which makes it more and more difficult for students to afford an education – which is the problem that the loans are intended to solve in the first place.
It is a perfect example of the government trying to solve a problem and making it worse because of the unintended consequences of their own actions.
Some limits or curbs have to be put in place or we will have ever more who cannot afford an education. Maybe the loans should be limited to degrees and colleges that turn out productive income-earning gradutes. Or we have hiring businesses backstop the loans and decide who receives them.[/quote]
Well, it is different from bailing out the banks. Risky investments by banks are not necessary for our country to be competitive. Availability of college, in my opinion, is.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that student loans, the way they’re currently structured, are the reason that tuition costs have gone up. What do we do to fix it? I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know what it isn’t, and that’s making college unavailable to those who can’t pay cash for it.
October 17, 2011 at 5:04 PM #730870Participant[quote=zk]So, unless I’m missing something, your beef is with students who spend their student loan money on things other than education. Sure, that’s not a good idea. But what about a student who wants to live at home and go to, say, the nearest UC or CSU campus? Shouldn’t he be able to get a loan to cover that?[/quote]
Yes, if the school is paid directly for tuition/fees/books on the student’s behalf.
October 17, 2011 at 5:07 PM #730871Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, if the school is paid directly for tuition/fees/books on the student’s behalf.[/quote]
That sounds reasonable.
October 17, 2011 at 8:01 PM #730873scaredyclassic
ParticipantMy kids have been watching sons of guns nonstop… Now they all aspire to be gunsmiths…
October 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM #730881EconProf
ParticipantBack in the day when I went
Submitted by bubba99 on October 17, 2011 – 2:37pm.
Back in the day when I went to Berkeley, the tuition was only $212.24/quarter. There was one administrator for every 10 classroom employees – teachers/professors. Now that relationship is upside down. More administrators than classroom employee.Tuition is now in the tens of thousands per semester. For those who believe that education is for the benefit of the students, think again. The major beneficiaries are the employees of the university system. With a chant of “we must protect the quality of education” they have improved the quality of their pay checks, at the expense of the students.
The loan scam has just been the vehicle to fund the new found legion of administrators and retirements that few/none of us will ever achieve. Without the loans, education would still need to be affordable. The loans bought the students very little compared to 40 years ago.
replyquote
I’m afraid I must agree with most of what you say here Bubba. In recent decades teaching loads have fallen (often with class sizes increasing, thus degrading the quality), administrative bloat has grown, and part-timers and Teaching Assistants do more and more of the teaching. Quality instruction is not rewarded. Mindless research and never-read publications are. Tenure often protects the incompetent, and incidentally discourages research and publishing once tenure is awarded. Student demonstrators whine about rising costs, but are often indoctrinated by the faculty to ignor the inefficiencies all around them. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.