Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That really is awful advice. Millions of underemployed liberal arts grads who are trying to pay back their loans on a barista salary stand as a testament to just how terrible that advice is.
Exaggeration. Far more go on and are successful. Critical thinking that's picked up during a good liberal education can serve well in a career. I have a liberal arts degree and the only time I've ever worked for barista money was when I chose to take off for a year and a half and teach English abroad. I went into that knowing how little it paid. Great experience and I'm glad I did it. If you're bitter because you weren't succesful, that's on you. I don't know if that's the case or not, but many people are successful with liberal arts degrees.
I remember being derided as a student that engineering school was just a trade school, and that I wasn't getting a real education. There was some truth to that then, and there is truth to that now.
Universities should be split up into trade schools that teach real useful stuff, like medicine, engineering, business etc., and schools that teach the aristocratic classes like history, english, economics, women's studies, and other subjects with no practical application. The trade schools could be heavily subsidized, while the aristocratic students would pay full freight for their education with the understanding that it was not preparing them to be productive members of society.
Drawing that line would be shocking to 18 year olds. I know a young woman with a bachelor's in archaeology who, at 34 years of age is still a tour guide in a museum not making enough to pay her rent. I know another woman pushing 40 with a master's degree in architecture who makes her living filling out log tickets in a lumber mill. OTOH I know a couple women the same ages who are making a very nice living with nothing but a community college associate's degree in bookkeeping.
The problem is that we are spending a fortune on subjects that don't really teach students anything. Nobody graduates from college with a "well rounded education." They are all still ignorant, they just think they know something. Many times, what they know is wrong. I recall a young woman with a degree in mechanical engineering who was assigned to assist my boss on a very complex project. He told her to keep the minutes of the project meetings. She quit, because she didn't want to be relegated to a secretary's job. She wouldn't even listen when we told her that the EIC always kept the project meeting minutes, and that her boss was doing a great job of mentoring her. She had been indoctrinated with false information.
Who wouldn't take advantage of that program.
Got get a government job, have your payments indexed to your salary and then the balance is written off in 10 years.
You can only take one or the other.
If you take the 10 year in public sector forgiveness, you must make normal payments.
If you take income indexed payments, they do not count towards your 10 years for loan forgiveness.
Of course, any balance under about $24k will be completely paid off in 10 years anyway, so the loan forgiveness program is only good for doctors and lawyers who go into the public sector.
So you rack up $80K in student loan debt and it's "our" responsibility to pay it back ?
I have a niece with an $80K student loan debt who just stopped paying.
She has a degree in Women's Studies and works as a receptionist at a day care center.
You can't "rack up $80k in student loan debt", at least not on a women's studies degree. The lifetime cap is $57.5k, only $23k of which can be taxpayer subsidized. If you go to professional school (which would not including women's studies), you can borrow up to you can borrow up to $138.5k lifetime, an additional $81k on the original cap.
Which means... you story about your niece is not true. If she has that much in loans, they are not federal loans and they certainly are not subsidized loans. Don't do that.
I remember being derided as a student that engineering school was just a trade school, and that I wasn't getting a real education. There was some truth to that then, and there is truth to that now.
Universities should be split up into trade schools that teach real useful stuff, like medicine, engineering, business etc., and schools that teach the aristocratic classes like history, english, economics, women's studies, and other subjects with no practical application. The trade schools could be heavily subsidized, while the aristocratic students would pay full freight for their education with the understanding that it was not preparing them to be productive members of society.
Drawing that line would be shocking to 18 year olds. I know a young woman with a bachelor's in archaeology who, at 34 years of age is still a tour guide in a museum not making enough to pay her rent. I know another woman pushing 40 with a master's degree in architecture who makes her living filling out log tickets in a lumber mill. OTOH I know a couple women the same ages who are making a very nice living with nothing but a community college associate's degree in bookkeeping.
The problem is that we are spending a fortune on subjects that don't really teach students anything. Nobody graduates from college with a "well rounded education." They are all still ignorant, they just think they know something. Many times, what they know is wrong. I recall a young woman with a degree in mechanical engineering who was assigned to assist my boss on a very complex project. He told her to keep the minutes of the project meetings. She quit, because she didn't want to be relegated to a secretary's job. She wouldn't even listen when we told her that the EIC always kept the project meeting minutes, and that her boss was doing a great job of mentoring her. She had been indoctrinated with false information.
While I would disagree that economics has no practical application (it can be an important business-related field of study), I was actually discussing the same concept of different levels of subsidy with my wife last night. I agree that it would make more sense to spend taxpayers' dollars on fields of studies that result in more tangible benefits for the country as a whole. Unfortunately, the idea of saying one person's field of study is superior to another's is too politically incorrect to likely receive any serious consideration.
Yes, I am saying exactly that. If you want an educated and functional society, either you push for pretty far-left wing candidates who believe in taking control of public universities and subsidizing them like in almost all developed nations we compete with or you suck it up and pay for it.
Of course you realize... Those other countries that provide "free" education also ration it off very carefully. Not everyone goes to college. Not even half. Maybe the top quarter are allowed a free ride. After that, if a student wants to attend, either they work for it, or their parents pay for it. By and large though, only the brightest and most capable can go to college. And some countries go a step further by telling students what they will study... That way, 90% don't graduate with a degree in law, thoroughly destroying the value of the degree.
Personally, I think this is a great arrangement. We won't be encouraging the bottom cohort to take on thousands of dollars worth of debt for a pursuit they are ill qualified for. The way the system operates today, we are only allowing them to cripple themselves financially, and for a long time.
You can only take one or the other.
If you take the 10 year in public sector forgiveness, you must make normal payments.
If you take income indexed payments, they do not count towards your 10 years for loan forgiveness.
Of course, any balance under about $24k will be completely paid off in 10 years anyway, so the loan forgiveness program is only good for doctors and lawyers who go into the public sector.
Not correct. I work in the public sector and am paying under an IBR program. My student loans will be forgiven in 2017. Am I getting a good deal? Not really. Most people in my profession make 2-3 times what I make. I didn't go into public service 20 years ago with the idea of having my loans forgiven, this program only started in 2007. But I'm certainly going to take advantage of it and not feel guilty. It comes out to about $5000 a year for each of the years I worked, hardly enough to put me in the same league as other people who do what I do.
You can only take one or the other.
If you take the 10 year in public sector forgiveness, you must make normal payments.
If you take income indexed payments, they do not count towards your 10 years for loan forgiveness.
Of course, any balance under about $24k will be completely paid off in 10 years anyway, so the loan forgiveness program is only good for doctors and lawyers who go into the public sector.
While it is somewhat helpful to these people, once your earnings reach a certain level, the income-based payments are just as high as the normal repayment plan. I am a lawyer and between my salary and my wife's who is a preschool teacher, we are about to that point. Plenty of government doctors and lawyers have household incomes that are too high to really see much benefit from this program.
Also, as noted by someone else, you can use the income-based plan to qualify for public sector loan forgiveness.
... Critical thinking that's picked up during a good liberal education can serve well in a career...
True.
Note that "Critical Thinking" also will be picked up when majoring in:
Electrical Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Materials Science
Chemistry
Physics
Aerronautical Engineering
Mathematics
Economics
Industrial Engineering
Civil Engineering
Structural Engineering
Computer Engineering
Software Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
Automotive Engineering
The choice of major provides the employer with a signal about the job-seeker. That signal contains information. Did the student major & excel in a difficult major? Did the student instead pursue a fuzzy major but was an "animal house" style student? Did the student work full-time & support a family while attending school? These signals matter.
When HP was founded pre-WWII, Bill Hewlett & Dave Packard realized that in the type of company they wanted to build, there were 3 very different types of people who were key.
Really good R&D engineers were the types of people who took all the hard classes, purchased the books 2 days before the mid-term & pulled all-nighters & got "As" in their classes.
Great manufacturing engineers are the types who know, 2 years in advance, just which classes they will take with which professors, and they already have every test question every & homework problem cross-indexed, and take hard classes & earn "As".
Great marketing engineers & sales engineers took lots of easy classes, mostly earned Bs but partied a lot & had a great time.
Bill & Dave realized these 3 types of people in general don't voluntarily socialize with one another, and they designed systems to encourage interaction among the 3.
While there is a role for traditional liberal arts majors, that role frequently can be filled by someone technical.
The cost of going to university in this country is absolutely ridiculous.
And you are to blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
We need to move to a European-stlye university subsidization system.
Which is something you don't understand.
In the US, if you can breathe, you're admitted to a university. That is not true in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
No, no, no. It wasn't the banks in isolation. It was the Baby Boomer generation that lowered taxes on themselves at the expense of future generations, stopped subsidizing public schools so that tuition spiraled out of control, bought into the deregulation of the financial sector and most other sectors, and pursued policies that made the banking sector vastly more powerful.
In which Universe did that happen?
There are no federal universities. They're State-owned and operated, or privately owned, or owned at the municipal level usually in conjunction with the county.
That destroys your silly claim.
The federal government does not fund universities, and before you go into a tizzy, learn to make the distinction from research grants and research funding, which is not the same as paying the salaries for administrators, faculty and staff, or for facilities maintenance.
If we were to review the tax histories of all 50 States & Commonwealths, your claim would be refuted there as well.
Worse than that, if we review tertiary education spending at the State-level, many States have increased funding, which also destroys your baseless argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
It really does irk me to no end to see people who are 50 or 60 and graduated college with 5k in debt (and got a job straight away) complaining about how unfair it is that kids graduating with 40k or 100k in debt (or more if getting a graduate degree) might get some subsidy. And the 50 and 60 year olds might have to pay a little for it?! The horror! The travesty!
And the reason the price of tuition increases is due to the fact that people who have no intelligence are allowed to attend college.
It's a Supply & Demand thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Spare me. We live in a society, not an unrelated series of human islands. It is your/our duty and responsibility to pay it back down the line.
My duty and responsibility does not include wasting money, time and resources attempting to educate people who cannot be educated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Yes, I am saying exactly that. If you want an educated and functional society, either you push for pretty far-left wing candidates who believe in taking control of public universities and subsidizing them like in almost all developed nations we compete with or you suck it up and pay for it.
You have no clue how the tertiary education system in Euro-States works.
And no "far-left wing candidates" would ever support such a system.
I would absolutely love to adopt the German or French or Romanian system for America.
It's real freaking simple: either you score 2100 on the SAT, or have a happy life re-treading tires or flipping burgers.
And, why, no, there are no exceptions based on socio-economic class, or race or ethnicity or any other silly things.
Why do you think so many Europeans come to the US for university education?
It's because they were not allowed to go to university in their own country. But their families have money, and so they can bring their 1500-SAT equivalent score here to the US and get admitted to any university.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Still, are you really blaming an eighteen year old for not thinking long-term? If so, I've got some studies in behavioral psychology and neurology that should clear that up fast; most young people are - quite literally - incapable of consistent, structured long-term rationality.
And yet they have parents and guidance counselors and many many other types of support to make the best choices possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
What do you think the GI Bill was!? Charity?
Compensation.
Soldiers don't exactly pull six-figure salaries.
By 1944 the pay-rate had risen to $50/month....$600/year compared to civilians earning $1,600 to $3,600 per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
It was taxpayers providing generous benefits for the good of society (and not just themselves).
Technology created Surplus Labor leading to the Great Depression. WW II put 6 Million men and women under arms and then the war-time production absorbed the rest.
When the war ended, you went right back into a major recession, since you were still in the Great Depression and had not resolved the problem of Surplus Labor.
You had another recession in 1949 and then 3 more recessions between 1953 and 1960 during the reign of Eisenhower.
The GI Bill was more about compensation and absorbing Surplus Labor than anything else. As it stands, it was also key to the US adopting a world leadership role, since without scientists and engineers, you would have fallen flat on your face.
The GI Bill was successful precisely because students did not major in "The Role of Hermaphrodite Dwarfs During the Renaissance in Genoa (Italy)."
Liberal control of education resulted in a total collapse of the system, barring the US from advancing to the 5th Level Economy of Research & Development. Had you moved to the 5th Level Economy when you should have -- mid-1990s -- then every lost manufacturing job out of the 2nd Level Economy would have been replaced by a good paying R&D job.
The point is that to advance the US into the 5th Level Economy, you need to be graduating engineers and math majors and scientists, not people with degrees in "The Family Life of Transvestite Lesbian Agricultural Workers in 17th Century France."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Second, your decision to work part-time was counterproductive. Studies have shown that the more you work during college, the worse your grades are. In a more competitive society with higher unemployment, that becomes even more crucial.
And such studies are biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Even so, in your day, working part-time would have put a big dent in your college bills (or eliminated them). That's not even an option, which makes the value of working in college even less attractive. I worked part-time during law school and all it did was make me miserable and unhealthy and monstrously stressed out.
Then maybe you're not cut out for university.
I already had a degree...bumbled around taking more classes for a few years after.
I went back this Century, finished two undergrad degrees and two graduate degrees. I worked full-time and part-time, shared living accommodations with others, did without a car and other things, and never had Student Loans.
I was paid a stipend by the university and taught 1st and 2nd year classes getting my Masters and PhD -- plus worked part-time jobs at restaurants, and you can't handle working part-time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
You do realize that most EU countries use some sort of tracking system which involves extensive testing often by middle school years.
Okay...here's someone who knows what they're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Wow. And you're hanging out in the Economics forum? Wow.
"... increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase." Our Greedy Colleges - NYTimes.com
"...As it did in the housing market, free or reduced-priced money has artificially inflated the price of a college education. Federal student aid, whether in the form of grants or loans, is the main factor behind the runaway cost of higher education." Subsidized Loans Drive College Tuition, Student Debt to Record Levels | Mercatus
"...It’s not that the subsidies aren't making colleges affordable. It’s that the subsidies are actually making college more expensive." -- The Washington Post The Tuition is Too Damn High, Part VII
"...grants, aid, and subsidized loans will boost student demand and lead to higher "sticker prices." Colleges do not pass on to students all the revenue generated from Pell Grants and the Stafford Loan Program by offering lower net tuitions." https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Do...Go-Up-/131372/
"...Much like the effects of subsidies on health care and the housing market, increasing student aid was insulating colleges from having to make market-driven cost-cutting measures, like improving productivity or efficiency." Stop subsidizing soaring college costs - CNN.com
"...Among the best private universities, though, we find strong evidence of sharp increases in net tuition associated with increases in Pell aid." (Larry D. Singell and Joe A. Stone, “For Whom the Pell Tolls: Market Power, Tuition Discrimination, and the Bennett Hypothesis,” University of Oregon Economics Working Paper No. 2003-12, April, 2003.)
"...“we find that higher education institutions raise net-price and lower their average institutional
financial aid award when their states increase need-based awards, an indication that they are
capturing increased state financial generosity.” (Bradley R. Curs and Luciana Dar, “Do Institutions Respond Asymmetrically to Changes in State Need and Merit Based Aid?,” November, 2010)
"...[aid eligible] institutions may indeed raise tuition to capture the maximum grant aid available." (Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Claudia Goldin, "Does Federal Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges," National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 17827, February, 2012)
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Yes, as I have said 50 Million times, that is called Interest Inflation.
No, the Federal Reserve is not to blame.
Ending tax-payer funded federal Student Loans will cause college tuition to rapidly deflate.
Economically....
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
