Breaking the College Tuition Monopoly (Representatives, fast food, 18 year old, elect)
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.
Well I'm thankful we don't live in a society that you deem acceptable. I call that a dictatorship.
And yes, I do think credit card companies are backwards in terms of interest rates. How does it help anyone to keep raising interest rates on people? It doesn't. It's called greed. Something that unfortunately runs this country.
I don't like high interest rates. So I pay my credit bill in full every month. I pay zero. Why don't you do the same?
The reason credit card companies have high rates is because they make a lot of money doing so. For some reason, credit card holders are happy to oblige. Why????
Ok. So you approve of say low interest rates on a medical school loan that is hundreds of thousands of dollars but high rates on say an art therapy degree that would be only a few thousand? That makes no sense.
A bank charges different interest rates on loans based on the risk associated with the loan. A borrower with a strong credit score gets better rates. There is nothing wrong with that, wouldn't you agree?
If you loan money to a college student, wouldn't you be concerned with their ability to pay the loan back in a reasonable time? A person who earns a chemical engineering degree today can earn $80K with a bachelor's degree. If they borrow $100K to fund that degree, they'll pay it back quickly.
I don't have any idea what art therapy is - but I feel safe in guessing that the few jobs available don't pay well. So someone earning that degree and borrowing $100K to fund that degree might never be able to repay the loan. A bank loaning the money would charge a higher interest rate.
If it is the government loaning the money (which I oppose), it should do the same thing.
A bank charges different interest rates on loans based on the risk associated with the loan. A borrower with a strong credit score gets better rates. There is nothing wrong with that, wouldn't you agree?
If you loan money to a college student, wouldn't you be concerned with their ability to pay the loan back in a reasonable time? A person who earns a chemical engineering degree today can earn $80K with a bachelor's degree. If they borrow $100K to fund that degree, they'll pay it back quickly.
I don't have any idea what art therapy is - but I feel safe in guessing that the few jobs available don't pay well. So someone earning that degree and borrowing $100K to fund that degree might never be able to repay the loan. A bank loaning the money would charge a higher interest rate.
If it is the government loaning the money (which I oppose), it should do the same thing.
I didn't say the art therapy degree would cost that much. You could get that degree for much less yet that person will still be punished by a higher interest rate? No, it's not right.
I didn't say the art therapy degree would cost that much. You could get that degree for much less yet that person will still be punished by a higher interest rate? No, it's not right.
If it doesn't cost as much then maybe the interest rate shouldn't be as high if the loan amount is smaller. I treated art therapy as equal to chemical engineering in education cost.
But if the risk of failure to repay is higher, the interest rate deserves to be higher.
A higher interest rate simply based on their field of study is indeed punishment, not to mention blatant discrimination.
Wrong. As long as it is based on the employment market which impacts their liklihood to pay it back. The interest is partly than, a risk factor charge. 24 year olds pay more for auto insurance, and 24 year old boys pay more than 24 year old girls. Same principle.
No one is saying Bongo Drums III cannot be your major. The question is why any gov't should subsidize your stupid decisions.
Not only that it is stupid. If people are opposed to central planning then I can't think of a worst example than the government deciding in any budget year what fields of study are worthy and which are not based not on the quality of the program but on the title of the degree.
I think it is even stupider to fund post K-12 education with publicly funded loans, to people who cannot realistically pay back those loans. I am a strong supporter of public K-12 education, but college is a different matter entirely.
The US needs scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc. to solve pressing problems. We only need a few religion or art majors.
Smart students go to community college for 2 years and then transfer out. Lots of $$$ saved.
Saved myself a ton of money going this route. Started at a CC then transferred to a state college. My whole education cost the same amount as one semester at a private university.
I am in school at a state college. I go part time and for a semester, my tuition+fees+text books average about $1200. My school keeps offering me loan packages up to $8,000 per semester. As an experienced adult, I know better than to take that money. A kid usually doesn't have that sense. The high debt that students are graduating with was spent on more than just thier education. That needs to stop.
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.
