Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantAnybody tried or know much about p90x? I’ve always been skeptical about stuff like “muscle confusion.” It always seems like a gimmick to sell something. But a guy at work did it and he swears by it. He’s been running 30-40 miles a week for years (still does) and still, he says the p90x transformed him.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]
And yes, I know that Wolfram and Hart is not real.[/quote]But the law firm you really have to fear is Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.
Participant[quote=paramount]Little opportunity (perceived or real) leads to disaffected youth.[/quote]
Being young leads to disaffected youth.(In a percentage of any population.)
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Timing……………………………………………………………….is everything.[/quote]
Where’s the “rimshot” emoticon when you need it?
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]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.[/quote]
In your opinion. Not every opinion should be funded by the government.
One reason why we shouldn’t bail out the banks is because it keeps weak banks alive that shouldn’t be alive. Same with students and colleges. The loans keep people going to school who simply aren’t willing to work for it and it keeps schools in business who would otherwise go broke.
You don’t have to fix it, really. In fact, stopping the attempts to fix it may fix it.
Instead of borrowing cash from Uncle Sam, people can go to school part-time and work part time, they can room together to save money, they can find employers or bosses to sponsor them, borrow from relatives, work on research projects, work as an intern, and otherwise suffer a bit to get an education they really want. Or they can attend a 2-year program, or a trade school instead of a 4-year college.
I have a friend, now an IT Vice President, who came from nothing, lived in a 20-foot trailer in Encanto while he scrapped his way through SDSU, worked while he was in school, and made it in life. We need more of that and less of debt-financed education. If you aren’t willing to do that, then maybe college isn’t for you and I just don’t see how it is the responsibility of taxpayers to fund people’s schooling who aren’t willing to make the sacrafices.
Limiting per-student loans would certainly help. Limiting to less expensive programs would help. Limiting loans to those with the best grades who attend programs in schools that produce graduates who can actually use their education to get a well-paying job would help. Blank checks don’t help.
More and more student loans is simply not a sustainable way to get more people into school. It is just like government-sponsored programs to increase home ownership, which subsequently failed once the market realized that the value of the homes hadn’t gone up – only the amount of funding.
They made it easy for people to go into debt, so people spent more on houses, and the result is housing prices went up, which made it more difficult to increase home ownership.[/quote]
I’m not advocating blank checks. And I agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. And I think a lot of the ideas you mention are good ones. But I think that, in the long run, after you get the system fixed, there should be a willingness to subsidize college education to a certain point. You’ll never have a perfect loan system where everyone pays every nickel back. You’ll never have a perfect university system where there’s not a nickel of waste. So those shouldn’t be our goals. Our goals should be to minimize the losses – and I agree that we have a lot of work to do there – but to continue to make college available to those who can’t pay cash for it. If it costs us some money in the short run, in the long run that money will more than be made up for in increased production and competitiveness with the rest of the world. (Whereas subsidizing risky investments by banks results in no such advantage.)
Participant[quote=bubba99]Back in the day when I went to Berkeley…[/quote]
I’m pretty sure no one called “Bubba” has ever gone to Berkeley. (Insert emoticon indicating the previous is an attempt at humor)
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, if the school is paid directly for tuition/fees/books on the student’s behalf.[/quote]
That sounds reasonable.
Participant[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.
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?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]I’m not sure I get your point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you agree with “if you can’t afford to pay for college without a loan, you’re screwed.”
If you want this country to be even less competitive in the global economy than it already is, then that’s a good place to start.
btw, according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
$4400 in 1975 dollars is $18,527 in 2011 dollars.[/quote]Well, it was earlier than that, but tell us, what will $18,527 yr buy today? Let’s start with CA, shall we?[/quote]
If it was earlier than that, then it would be more than $18,527 in 2011 dollars. And $18,527, according to the link provided by CDMA ENG, will pay for 2 semesters of tuition and fees at Berkeley (for an in-state student), leaving $4066 for books and other expenses.[/quote]
So, does $14,461 tuition/fee costs apply to the entire UC system (for 3 quarters)? Why does a UC undergrad student need a loan for more than say, $16K yr then (to include new and used books)? And why does a student who is lucky enough to get admitted to UC need to borrow living expenses? That seems to be what is getting them in trouble (typical student has loans totaling over $60K for a Bachelor’s degree). Why not work and/or attend a UC campus close to home?? Lots of (smart) students do this.
Many CA public university students seem to be borrowing more than they need for tuition/fees/books so the residual not used by the school will be returned to them (or their parents) and used for “living expenses.” We all know that a “social life” (depending on where the campus is located) has varying costs if the student goes out every weekend. While in school, these students aren’t even thinking about what this debt will do to their lifestyles after they graduate.
edit: zk, this country wasn’t competing in a “global economy” circa 1975. Jobs were plentiful for every American, even HS dropouts, but especially those who could read, write, type and spell English flawlessly. At that time, a young person could even quit if they didn’t like a job and have another one waiting in the wings without even a missed day of work :)[/quote]
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.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]I’m not sure I get your point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you agree with “if you can’t afford to pay for college without a loan, you’re screwed.”
If you want this country to be even less competitive in the global economy than it already is, then that’s a good place to start.
btw, according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
$4400 in 1975 dollars is $18,527 in 2011 dollars.[/quote]Well, it was earlier than that, but tell us, what will $18,527 yr buy today? Let’s start with CA, shall we?[/quote]
If it was earlier than that, then it would be more than $18,527 in 2011 dollars. And $18,527, according to the link provided by CDMA ENG, will pay for 2 semesters of tuition and fees at Berkeley (for an in-state student), leaving $4066 for books and other expenses.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=AN]Mark Cuban have a good solution to the student loan and high cost of college education problem. He propose limiting student loan to $2k/year. The worse a student can do with this applied is $8k in debt for 4 year degree.[/quote]
[quote=Jacarandoso]How about letting students use debt to finish a semester, or maybe a year, but they have to pay it back before starting the next one?[/quote]
How are these good ideas? The whole purpose of student loans is to allow a person who can’t afford to pay cash for their education to get an education, and to then get a job that enables them to afford to pay for college. If you can only borrow 2k/year, you can’t get an education. If you have to pay back your loan each semester, you’re trying to pay back your student loan on a burger-flipping salary.
Sure, the system is screwed up right now. But just saying, “if you can’t pay cash for college, you’re screwed” is certainly not the fix. And both of the above ideas are basically saying that.[/quote]
Nationally, the maximum “Perkins Loan” in the 70’s was about $4400 yr and the maximum “BEOG Grant” was about $2000 yr. MANY HS GRADS did not attend college at that time because they could not afford it. In my case, my parents made $900 year too much for me to qualify for “aid.” (Believe it or not, I still have my [now brittle, lol] “FAFSA” where I was turned down for aid.) I ended up working FT after HS and paid my way thru three semesters of college and then quit (too hard, too many people majoring in what I wanted to major in and too few jobs avail in that field). (This was in CO where college [for residents] cost MUCH MORE than CA at the time.)
Those who could not afford to go college back then typically did not. Only about 17% of HS grads went on to college back then. The rest got married and began families right away and/or began working FT.
I don’t consider college a “right.” I consider it a “privilege.”
edit: btw, I scored a “30” on my ACT exam. :)[/quote]
I’m not sure I get your point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you agree with “if you can’t afford to pay for college without a loan, you’re screwed.”
If you want this country to be even less competitive in the global economy than it already is, then that’s a good place to start.
btw, according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
$4400 in 1975 dollars is $18,527 in 2011 dollars.Participant[quote=AN]Mark Cuban have a good solution to the student loan and high cost of college education problem. He propose limiting student loan to $2k/year. The worse a student can do with this applied is $8k in debt for 4 year degree.[/quote]
[quote=Jacarandoso]How about letting students use debt to finish a semester, or maybe a year, but they have to pay it back before starting the next one?[/quote]
How are these good ideas? The whole purpose of student loans is to allow a person who can’t afford to pay cash for their education to get an education, and to then get a job that enables them to afford to pay for college. If you can only borrow 2k/year, you can’t get an education. If you have to pay back your loan each semester, you’re trying to pay back your student loan on a burger-flipping salary.
Sure, the system is screwed up right now. But just saying, “if you can’t pay cash for college, you’re screwed” is certainly not the fix. And both of the above ideas are basically saying that.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]”The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?'”
-From Sigmund Freud: Life and Work by Ernest Jones, 1953http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundfreud/p/freud_women.htm%5B/quote%5D
Yeah, well, Freud was pretty good. But he was no temeculaguy.
-
AuthorPosts
