422
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
422 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2158 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm all for making college less expensive for students but, as good as this sounds, I think we need to enact some controls on the price of school before measures like this will be helpful. If credit becomes cheaper for borrowers, universities will just raise their prices. The economics are in the universities' favor here and they'd happily absorb more money to grow their administration.
It seems like getting some controls in place might be doable if democrats were to push for the. Republicans might be game to regulate the cost of university attendance since it would reduce the flow of money to the evil leftist universities, but maybe they'd see that as anti-capitalist?
The core problem is one you've narrowed in on: There's a positive feedback loop between schools and lenders to increase costs forever.
Student loan debt is (almost) impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. That shit will follow the student for the rest of their life, until it's paid off or the student dies. This is accomplished by allowing private lenders to make "federally-backed" loans, in which there is a quasi-private lender who is, by statute, able to collect interest on the loan, but has almost no risk because, should the student fail to pay, the federal government steps in, pays off the lender, and assumes the debt, at which point, the student still has to pay, but the lender got their money back, plus whatever interest the student had paid until that point.
I mean, if you were in the student loan business, why wouldn't you lend as much as possible? It's literally free, guaranteed revenue for decades. You'd be stupid not to enter this almost zero-risk business.
Meanwhile, while lenders want to lend as much as possible, they can't hand out insane loans for education if education costs little. Schools notice that students have no problem paying large sums of money, so.. they increase tuition, books, add fees, and suddenly, schools are bumping up against what students' would be able to borrow, so those lenders are more than happy to accept more risk-free revenue in the future in exchange for a pittance now, and suddenly, we have a feedback loop that spirals ever-upwards.
The absolutely quickest way to solve the problem is unwind the various bankrupcy laws that makde student loans essentially bankruptcy-proof. Lenders should have to do things like credit-worthiness checks on students.
The best way is to simply provide a free college education for every student that wants one, just like we do a high school education. The entire idea that you should have to assume a crapton of debt just to learn something is insane. The "student loan industry" shouldn't exist.
The US can look at how other countries, that don’t outright provide free education, do it instead of reinventing the wheel.
Getting rid of the discharge protection is only a small part of it.
It’s more important to set a legal maximum for college tuition for accredited institutions.
Then make any subsidies and funds contingent being accredited.
Lastly make federal loans contingent on enrollment to accredited institutions, with the additional benefit of being able to cap the loan amount at a level correlated to the legal maximum tuition (not to be confused with setting at the tuition level because living expenses need to be taken into account as well).
Make the interest rate sub 1%, because the government shouldn’t profit off of you as it is a service and do away with private middle men that administer the loans, instead establishing a special loan administration agency.
This will have as effect that institutions either get in line or lose all government funds and a significant portion of enrollments.
If you then also manage to uphold a uniform quality level that you regularly inspect at the accredited institutions, you’ll end up with a clear, affordable choice of quality education v. unknown quality education that may or may not be a huge waste of non-publicly provided money.
ETA:
You can even take it a step further and follow more examples from abroad in terms of acceptance.
Where you aim to get to a situation that everyone that applies with the pre-requisite prior education credentials, gets accepted.
The way this is often done abroad is with a centralized application process managed by the government, in which you indicate your top 3 preferred colleges, the portal verifies your prior education (as it's centrally registered) and then enrolls you in order of preference.
For some studies, like law school, med school and psychology they'll have more applicants than available spots, and in those cases it's decided by lottery with slightly weighted chances based on your grade average.
The end result is that the vast majority of people automatically get accepted and the ones that don't get in via the lottery are almost guaranteed to be placed the following year.
This solves the whole minority/legacy/etc. acceptance debacle, makes applying for schools less like applying for a job with writing essays and stuffing your resume with a bunch of extracurriculars and in the process makes the accredited institutions even more attractive compared to the potential hold outs that keep doing things the old fashioned way.
Yeah, you have this right. If we do undo the bankruptcy laws, though, we do still need to do something to support students who don't qualify for credit. Otherwise we will be making a university education even more difficult for less privileged people to attain.
We would probably need to expand grant programs to compensate for the extra barrier.
Yeah, I'm one of those. If credit checks like that were instituted there is absolutely zero chance I could have enrolled. My bank wouldn't give me 500 dollars to get my transmission fixed, much less the tens of thousands I need for a bachelor's. The solution is the nationalization of education. Fuck this nonsense. Public education from K-post doc. Let the rich have their Harvards and whatever, but we need good state schools and a new crop of federal colleges popping up all over rhe country, in addition to community colleges. For free. No questions asked. Do you make absolutely no money whatsoever? Study here. Are you literally Jeff Bezos? Who cares. Study here.
We also need to get back to the way things were a century ago or more, where students could just decide they wanted to know a thing, and then go learn that thing. No need to declare a major, or even enroll for a degree. Just go learn the things you want to learn. Education should be it's own reward, even if we also need it for other things. I'm not saying do away with degrees, just make it possible for people to audit classes, or use the resources of their local, public, universities.
You're absolutely right; only unwinding the bankruptcy stuff is problematic. It's a temporary measure to stop the spiraling upward costs and make lenders stop lending so much. And yeah, that has an almost immediate impact on people who need lending to go to school. Fixing bankruptcy needs to be married to some solution that makes schooling free for anyone that wants it. There's plenty of examples out there to model a solution after, it's not a novel idea.
In a world where a student can attend a public university for free, or hopefully pass a credit check to get into to Harvard, I'm okay with that. In fact, in such a world, I would love to see that college degrees come with an accreditation from both the institution ("Harvard") and the lender, demonstrating loan repayment is complete and/or in good standing, to specifically address the case people were so fearful of in the 70s -- someone takes out a loan, graduates, and immediately declares bankruptcy, "cheating" their way to a college degree for free.
In this fantasy world I've constructed, by the way, I also want a flying horse, and my dick is like 12 inches long, and I'm shredded but never have to go to the gym and can eat corn dogs all day long.
You've hit the nail on the head. The government has set up a perfect storm of crippling student loans. I'm with you up until the free education part, but I see where you're coming from.
The reason we got into this mess is because previously, you needed some form of wealth to attend college. The government didn't like the class divide, and backed federal loans so that anyone could get a loan. Then to address the concern of a student, with no assets, just immediately declaring bankruptcy after his degree, they made it impossible.
Free education would address this, but I'm not so sure that would do more than just adjust the problem. We have free education up through high school, and generally poor neighborhoods have shit education and can't afford private or to move. I don't see how that problem doesn't just expand to colleges.
We already have an issue getting good quality teachers and paying them, that problem will only explode when we take on professor salaries.
I'm a conservative libertarian, so I'd rather see the government get their hands out of it all, or let the local governments deal with it. I know that's not ideal, but I'd rather see the problems reset and then look for solutions. We have such a large stack of band aids right now, its tough to say what will happen when we start removing them, or adding different ones.
Why not go a step further and make huge education mandatory? We used to consider high school optional, but eventually we realized the immense value that comes with an educated society.
Especially when you have Ivy League schools that could spend a million dollars a year on dorms and still make profits from the donations they receive.
So many Universities have become a booming business, making me want to throw up. Knowledge is crucial. Putting it behind a giant paywall that keeps growing for its own selfish needs is a means of control.
Note that I'm not talking about every single college in the world. I'm just referring to a big problem with a lot of them.
Sincerely, A college student
I love how "politics is the art of the possible" and "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" evaporate instantly when the possible and the good are things that centrists don't want to do.