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.
But less than 50% graduate in a 4 year college and less than 30% graduate in a 2 year college.
Sure we're pushing them all into college but not all of them are coming out at the other end with degrees.
The graduation RATE has not changed in 50 years. You can find a link for that in my posting history as well.
The graduation RATE has not changed in 50 years. You can find a link for that in my posting history as well.
With more entering college the numbers behind the rate are larger.
And more have student loans that have to be paid back regardless if they got a degree or not.
There is a debt burden on young adults today that didn't exist back then.
The bill says the student signs a contract. So non-payment will end up like non-payment of Fed student loans. They'll be chasing them via collection agencies.
But the article said it's not a loan.
Sure walks and quacks like a duck, though.
ETA: It's essentially a loan with a progressive repayment system. Two grads get a 4 year degree costing $X. One starts her own company and averages $250k/yr over 25 years, the other becomes assistant manager at Starbucks averaging $30k over the same 25 years. The former pays $187,500 for her degree, while the latter pays $22500.
With more entering college the numbers behind the rate are larger.
And more have student loans that have to be paid back regardless if they got a degree or not.
There is a debt burden on young adults today that didn't exist back then.
So what? That's not the issue we were discussing. The graduation rate has not changed in 50 years, method of payment changes or not.
ETA: It's essentially a loan with a progressive repayment system. Two grads get a 4 year degree costing $X. One starts her own company and averages $250k/yr over 25 years, the other becomes assistant manager at Starbucks averaging $30k over the same 25 years. The former pays $187,500 for her degree, while the latter pays $22500.
You are aware of what "pay it forward" means, right? Those that sign up for this program are agreeing to pay it forward, the one maligned $250K knows that their amount goes to help others also go to college who might not end up with as much of a high paying job. It also makes it easier for one to afford college and become something like a teacher which doesn't pay a high salary, but just as important.
No point in saddling students with high debt when they first get out of college because everyone knows it takes time to build up to higher salaries.
How is adding leverage into college tuition possibly anything but a terrible idea? Ideas like this is what led to the housing market crash in 2008. It is the reason SS has a massive unfunded liability. It is the reason the federal reserve does not have the capital to fund another collapse. This continues the deviation between payment balances on student accounts and cash flows to universities. That deviation is typically managed by interest on loans. Now, we want to remove that interest and replace it with a levered balance on a balance sheet. Every single industry that has embraced that model has eventually suffered a massive collapse due to it. Don't we learn anything from history?
You are aware of what "pay it forward" means, right? Those that sign up for this program are agreeing to pay it forward, the one maligned $250K knows that their amount goes to help others also go to college who might not end up with as much of a high paying job. It also makes it easier for one to afford college and become something like a teacher which doesn't pay a high salary, but just as important.
No point in saddling students with high debt when they first get out of college because everyone knows it takes time to build up to higher salaries.
I understand the concept. But it's really the same as taking on a student loan. The student signs a contract agreeing to pay a certain percentage of their income for a defined period of time. So they don't get a "free" education, they merely defer the payment until after they graduate.
For some, especially those making lower incomes after graduation, it may be a better deal than a traditional student loan. But for those who anticipate higher incomes, it might make in-state schools less attractive if they could get the same education or better for a lower total cost out-of-state.
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.
