Warren and student loan debt help? (Boston, Springfield: construction, taxi, income)

[sawyer2]

Certainly depends on the field but where you went to school absolutely matters in my and my wife's fields. It is also self serving in that it helps justify the outrageous fees and carry. I don't see that going way anytime soon.

[NewfieMama]

Originally Posted by massnative71

The thing is, "where you went to school" typical only matters at the initial start of one's career. The further you progress into the adult world, it becomes of less and less importance and it's a lot more "what you did" with your degree and the experience you built since receiving it. I'm speaking the majority of fields, there are a few exceptions to that.

Completely agree with this. When I was starting my career, my college and my internships were all I had on my resume. Granted, I think my internships still carried more weight, but now that I'm 20 years from graduation I would be surprised if a potential employer even looked at the education section of my resume.

My husband started college at age 14 and went to a state university to save money and it was close enough that his parents could drop him off and pick him up every day. He was a math major and ended up being an actuary. Actuaries have their own exams, so once you get your fellowship, it doesn't really matter if you went to a state school or Harvard. So that is a field where it really doesn't matter where your degree came from since you still have to pass all of the actuarial exams regardless.

[msRB311]

I have also found that in Boston area we get people all over the world from top colleges. I mean Harvard and MIT are here and many people stay here after graduation. It does seem like the ivy league degrees are a dime a dozen in this area.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by massnative71

The thing is, "where you went to school" typical only matters at the initial start of one's career. The further you progress into the adult world, it becomes of less and less importance and it's a lot more "what you did" with your degree and the experience you built since receiving it. I'm speaking the majority of fields, there are a few exceptions to that.

As others have stated, its depends highly on the industry and end goals.

If you wish to be an entry level ME with program management growth potential, attending a quality state program versus Dartmouth undergrad is likely the rational choice. Northeastern or MIT undergrad? Eh, I've encountered NE grads at plenty of desirable start-ups and fortune 500 ... Apple R&D has it's fair share. Private sector pays for performance, not prestige.

If you wish to be a quant for a hedge fund like Citadel, you should probably target MIT/Harvard or an equivalent institution. I'm sure you might find a rando UMass Amherst CICS grad within some dark corner of that scene, but they're not likely to be recruited. This said, other than my occasional options buying I have no overlap with this industry so I'm speaking at a very naive level.

IMO, a philosophy degree from some random state school has near zero value other than 'the joy it brought you' (TM Marie Kondo)

[NewfieMama]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

IMO, a philosophy degree from some random state school has near zero value other than 'the joy it brought you' (TM Marie Kondo)

This made me laugh The only part of my career that sparks joy for me is retirement...and that's still a couple of decades away.

[mdovell]

it also depends on the person. years ago I tried to give a young graduate some advice but I don't think she understands what's she's doing. she had these ideas of going to Tuck for business which is fine. She had some three week thing. But I got out of her that her real goal was to work for McKinsley. The chances of getting into both are slim and the initial payoff is quite low. Then factor in the 500+ million they just had to pay out and it gets to be oversold.. Anyway she's from Russia and knows English but it seems like she majored in it and then went to Texas to sell jewelry and then to NYC working at some place with....Russian. There's nothing wrong with majoring in a language but if it's your native one and there's no real plans to do anything other than teach it then it gets old. I went to high school with a woman that learned French and went to France to work. She showed she learned the language. But with this.... She asked how I got my job and how can I can afford my place. It's like the idea of making a living just didn't get in her head.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/b...n-sneader.html

"If you wish to be an entry level ME with program management growth potential, attending a quality state program versus Dartmouth undergrad is likely the rational choice. Northeastern or MIT undergrad? Eh, I've encountered NE grads at plenty of desirable start-ups and fortune 500 ... Apple R&D has it's fair share. Private sector pays for performance, not prestige."

that's it exactly it. Steve Jobs also said that no matter what "thing" you used today chances are it wasn't designed by anyone smarter than you. I'm not putting down higher education, I have three degrees myself. But what I can put down is the idea that somehow there's this "extra". Now if it's a school that specifically has a major in that field great I get that. But if you are telling me that somehow someone has deeper knowledge for another 250K I call bullocks.

Of course the other obvious factor is that if you are Ivy league you pretty much just overqualified yourself for most jobs. You might as well get a doctorate at age 25. I know we talk about "innovation" and "creativity" but you can't really say you want something new each day otherwise evaluation becomes impossible. In government it's taxation and policies and of course the law. You can't simply be creative when you have managerial, political, legal and constitutional restraints. Non profits? There's the fundraising and then the actual operations. That's pretty much it. Constant fundraising just turn on PBS for more than ten minutes and you'll see what I mean.

It's almost like watching every pawn show ever. Either something is so common it's worthless or it's so rare the applicability makes it unlikely to have value either.

I really don't see that many graduates staying after graduating. If all of them did Boston would have a population much larger, we're talking LA/Chicago size easily. Besides with the cost of living you make more relative to income in other areas of the country and in other countries. If they are from another country they have to convert the visa to a green card. If they are domestic it still costs quite a bit especially with student debt.

[id77]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

As a Massachusetts resident what do you think of our Senator Elizabeth Warren pushing the Biden admin. to erase up to $50,000 of a persons student loan debt?

Biden said that he thinks it is too much but believes that $10,000 is more appropriate.

I say how about zero.



Ok. As a guy that paid his own way through college and didn't need a loan I don't really have a horse in this dog and pony show but as a tax payer I am totally against it.

I can only imagine how parents that scrimped and saved to send their child to a university and the child worked extra hard in the classroom and in sports to earn a scholarship so they would not be saddled with a loan feels about this.



What is Warrens angle? Why is she so keen on getting $50,000 in loan forgiveness for a select few when there are so many in Mass. that are still on unemployment or in financial trouble due to the Corona crisis?



She claims that forgiving the loans will stimulate the economy among other things but so would paying down everyone's mortgage by $50,000. My truck is 19 years old and getting tired. I could stimulate the economy with $50,000 towards a new one. Mrs. Warren are you listening?



Student loan rates range from 4% to 7% which is high in today's low interest market so how about reducing the loan rate by 1% for everyone? Then again the students signed up for the agreement just as many people willingly racked up credit card debt. Should the taxpayers also pay that down to help people?


What is her angle for pushing for this payout to a select few?



How do you feel about our Senator skipping over so many needy people in our state to spend our hard "payed' tax dollars on such a ridiculous payout?

As a person who did use student loans through college and paid them off all on his own, and as a taxpayer, I'm alright with loan forgiveness. My reasoning behind this:

1. Tuition has gotten out of control expensive, much like healthcare. This costing should be addressed, but until the day it is addressed, we need some sort of valve to alleviate the pressure those costs are creating for students.

2. A college education is no longer a privilege for the select few. Like it or not, we live in the 21st century and the new American middle-class prosperity will come in the form of a global service-based economy. Workers for that economy require more education than a diploma, so this is also an investment in our workforce as a whole.

3. Education isn't a zero-sum game. Nothing is being taken away from my effort by helping others who came after me. I don't feel bad that I had to pay and someone else didn't. Not every program is about me, and there's plenty of things I get the benefit of that others help pay for. That's what societies do.

4. We already do things like this all the time, so why is this one suddenly a problem? Some kids get free lunch while others pay. We keep throwing stimulus money at people but I've yet to see a penny of it. Should I feel angry about that?

Should some common-sense controls and boundaries be placed on such a program? Absolutely. However, that shouldn't shut down the conversation from even taking place. Something like this will ultimately be a far more fruitful investment of tax dollars than throwing even more at the military industrial complex.

[msRB311]

A free lunch for someone who can't afford food feels a bit different than paying back their loan that costs thousands. If anything the free lunches are there so people have more money to pay for things like rent and loans. It's never enough I guess.

[id77]

Originally Posted by msRB311

A free lunch for someone who can't afford food feels a bit different than paying back their loan that costs thousands. If anything the free lunches are there so people have more money to pay for things like rent and loans. It's never enough I guess.

Fair enough, so pick a program that has much higher funding needs:

1. Child tax credits -- paying $1,400 - $2,000 to parents of children every year for no reason other than having a child. People without children or parents of adult children don't get this benefit but still help pay for it.

2. Public schools -- similar to the above, these are not an insignificant cost to a community, but only those with school-age children benefit from.

3. MBTA -- 1% of all non-meal MA sales tax goes to the MBTA whether you use it or not.

Or any of hundreds of other programs. These are all there because they help the greater good, and many also help people have more money for rent and other necessities. Forgiving student loans would have pretty much the same effect.

[bostongymjunkie]

Where is the cost benefit analysis of the "greater good" in this case? And how does this not enable the schools to keep increasing tuition? How does it resolve the underlying problem? Sound public policy requires that those questions be empirically addressed. I haven't even seen the actual problem be clearly defined and articulated. But then, that's not really how we run the government nowadays, is it?