[HN Gopher] NYU is top-ranked in loans that alumni and parents s...
___________________________________________________________________
NYU is top-ranked in loans that alumni and parents struggle to
repay
Author : alex504
Score : 113 points
Date : 2021-12-19 16:18 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| ianbutler wrote:
| As an NYU CS grad, can confirm it is egregious. If I had to do it
| over I would have gone to a different university, the education
| at NYU was not unlike other much less expensive universities in
| fact I had a lot of doubts about quality save some select
| professors. The only reason I'm fine with my loans is because I'm
| a _very_ well comped SWE.
|
| I don't personally have a lot of sympathy for people who do a
| liberal arts degree at NYU though. At least I knew I'd be able to
| pay this all back with some high degree of certainty.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Looking at rankings, NYU has a perfectly fine CS program, but
| you're right that there are better ranked, cheaper options, and
| if money isn't a concern, Columbia (6 miles uptown) is better
| ranked. That's a weird market position.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I don't personally have a lot of sympathy for people who do a
| liberal arts degree at NYU though. At least I knew I'd be able
| to pay this all back with some high degree of certainty.
|
| Liberal arts teaches people to deal with the problems that
| cannot be solved with algorithms or engineering, nor yield to
| the precise objective methods of science - which is the vast
| majority of them in the world, including the most critical
| ones, and even in IT. In fact, algorithms, engineering, and
| science are all ultimately subordinate to the other issues -
| ultimately, they are products of human nature. Those are some
| of the same issues about which many tech leaders like to
| advertize brazen ignorance, never a sign of good judgment!
|
| And not coincidentally, looking around our society, those are
| our biggest problems by far - we aren't suffering from a lack
| of algorithms (and other tech), we have far more than ever.
| Perhaps if more people at Facebook studied the humanities, they
| wouldn't make such obvious errors with their truly brilliant
| technologies - errors bizarrely elementary to people who
| understand these things. Technology is power, and power is
| orthogonal to good decisions and good outcomes. I suspect that
| the fact that the knowledge in humanities and social sciences
| conflicts with power - again, a bizarrely elementary situation
| - is why so many powerful people try to ridicule and destroy
| the reputation of liberal arts. I'm afraid that in IT they have
| too willing an audience - a population widely ignorant of and
| often uncomfortable with non-technical issues - and that we and
| the public have disarmed ourselves of all our protection againt
| the corruption of power and tyranny (many even celebrate
| corrupt personal power) - dropping our far superior weapons
| simply because the powerful pointed them and laughed.
|
| I watched William Shakespeare's play _Julius Caesar_ the other
| day. The issues of today were addressed brilliantly, and on a
| level no data could describe or express - one function of art
| going back to ancient Greece and probably through human
| history, to hold up a mirror. If more SV engineers would watch
| it and learn from that and the rest of the humanities, the
| world would be in much better hands. Heck, just studying
| Shakespeare would be a start.
|
| ...
|
| P.S. In employment, most well-paying jobs are outside IT and
| completely non-technical (if you can't think of any, you are a
| bit lost in the IT bubble). And more importantly, life is not
| all about work; there are more important things - wars aren't
| fought over job skills. Families aren't workplaces. Freedom in
| Hong Kong and peace in Ukraine aren't dependant on algorithms.
| Wages and markets, even, are dependant on politics.
| ianbutler wrote:
| You're arguing against claims I didn't make. Liberal Arts is
| perfectly valuable, but burying yourself financially to get a
| degree in one of the subjects, which is what will happen to
| most people who complete one of those degrees from NYU, isn't
| a smart move and that's where my lack of sympathy lies.
|
| No offense but you're arguing against some thought you have
| of me in your head not any of my actual stances on liberal
| arts. My only point is that if you're going to go to an
| expensive college then the trade off better be worth it
| otherwise there are far cheaper alternatives (reading is free
| mostly!) to get that value.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Liberal Arts is perfectly valuable, but burying yourself
| financially to get a degree in one of the subjects, which
| is what will happen to most people who complete one of
| those degrees from NYU, isn't a smart move and that's where
| my lack of sympathy lies.
|
| I'm saying that it is a smart move (if you are serious
| about learning). It benefits the students and society on an
| essential level.
|
| > there are far cheaper alternatives (reading is free
| mostly!) to get that value.
|
| It's not the same value: Learning from the world's leading
| experts, with all the resources you need (reading, just one
| tool, is certainly not free - try downloading some papers
| or buying a library of scholarly books), among smart,
| motivated, hard-working people, is invaluable. Do you want
| to learn software development from Google Fellows at
| Google, or from the local front end shop dev? What you get
| at top universities are Google Fellows in their fields. Do
| you want to study painting with world-class painters or the
| person at the mall? Someone I know is in undergrad at one
| of the top 10 schools in the world, and in every class my
| friend studies with someone who literally wrote the book in
| their field, whom personally guides their learning,
| lectures on it, and whom my friend personally and regularly
| meets with as a matter of course. My friend is serious
| about learning these things - can you imagine something
| more valuable?
| ianbutler wrote:
| Okay, people can enjoy being in debt then. I'm not going
| to agree with you, I think your take especially for an
| undergraduate degree is ridiculous and poorly weighted.
|
| You should check with your friend how much debt they're
| in. I'd imagine it's 0 and if that's the case they made a
| good call.
|
| You'll benefit no one with your education while scraping
| by under the thumb of a corp because you can't afford to
| stop working as a debt slave. That's the reality most
| people face which is something you seem to ignore.
| torbTurret wrote:
| Every response like this praising Liberal Arts seems to
| ignore two things:
|
| 1. Leaders (executives and management) at top companies
| almost always come from these top universities you rave
| about, and many with degrees in Liberal Arts. Yet they
| still always put profit > the ideals you just spent three
| paragraphs praising.
|
| 2. ALL students in the US receive a Liberal Arts
| education via general education requirements. On the
| contrary, only a select few take anything over remedial
| math/science.
|
| This also puts "leading experts" on a far higher pedestal
| than deserved. Take Robert Reich, a famous History
| professor at Berkeley. Despite raving about affordable
| housing and equality in courses, on Twitter, etc., he
| actively votes against such legislation [0]. Did his
| liberal arts education at Dartmouth, Oxford, and Yale
| fail him?
|
| 0: https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/robert-reich-
| tries-to-st...
| nojito wrote:
| You should have sympathy because those individuals were lied to
| in terms of employment opportunities post degree.
| ericmay wrote:
| What was the lie?
| gravypod wrote:
| Every college I've researched claims that their graduates,
| on average, make $XXX,XXX/year. That number is usually
| enough to pay back their tuition. Unfortunately, what they
| don't tell you, is that is very bimodal.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| Well at least by going to college you can finally
| understand how they misrepresented the data in order to
| get you onboard. It may not soften the financial burden,
| but hey at least you know you learned something!
| gravypod wrote:
| That's the one plus but, unfortunately, our CS program
| didn't have a stats requirement so many of the students
| didn't even learn about this in college :)
| Ekaros wrote:
| I'm thankful that we had probability and statistics as
| mandatory. Which to me looks like on the more useful side
| of anything math related for CS. Modelling and
| interpreting data would be useful for many jobs.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If you are researching colleges. Maybe we should already
| expect the students to do some basic research outside it.
| Or in general on college level education. Finding lot of
| discussion about loans and employability has been
| entirely possible for years now. There is no excuse not
| to do this research for one of the most important
| decisions in their life.
| snakeboy wrote:
| 17 year olds are known to not always act in their long-
| term rational self-interest.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Hmm, maybe then even crazier idea would be to set minimum
| age for college education. Let's say 25. Simply do not
| allow anyone to make the decision before that age.
| gravypod wrote:
| Throughout highschool I was told by many adults that the
| internet wasn't an "accurate source for information" and
| "don't believe what you read online" etc. I obviously
| ignored them. I was also told multiple times by my
| guidance counselor in highschool that Software Engineers
| needed to be very good at math and that I would never
| succeed in that field and I should choose something more
| realistic. I also ignored her. I'm now a SWE at a FAANG
| company. I've helped scale multiple start ups (multiple
| of which are successful and one of which was just
| acquired).
|
| Society is set up in such a way that people are trained
| to:
|
| 1. Respect authority figures
|
| 2. Follow what your parents tell you to do
|
| 3. Your education is the most important thing in your
| life (between 10 and 30 yo)
|
| All of these things lead to situations where people are
| more than willing to take out massive loans because
| everyone in their life tells them "it will be ok!" and
| "don't think about the money right now, it's about the
| experience" which is one of the most disgusting ideas
| that I think is perpetuated. Basically when your parents,
| your teachers, your politicians, your peers, etc are
| doing something it's hard to think "that's a bad idea".
| lowkey_ wrote:
| Sure, but you can't seriously fault the college for not
| declaring "Our $LiberalArtsMajor majors are usually
| unemployed."
|
| Graduating high school, it's incredibly clear that
| studying finance or engineering will give you a higher
| income than studying most liberal arts majors. That's so
| universally known in our culture -- and I say this as
| someone from a terrible neighborhood where nobody went to
| college -- that it's almost absurd.
|
| Nobody signs up for a liberal arts major, stays through
| it throughout college (even seeing their low to zero
| internship pay compared to high pay for other majors
| their peers are in), and then when they get out, says
| "wow, I'm shocked!".
| gravypod wrote:
| > Sure, but you can't seriously fault the college for not
| declaring "Our $LiberalArtsMajor majors are usually
| unemployed."
|
| Why not? We expect homeopathic medications to include
| "Not an FDA approved treatment for X" on the label.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| We don't expect books to include "Not guaranteed to make
| you smarter" on the label.
|
| Though we technically expect securities to include "Not
| guaranteed to make you rich," it's in small text nobody
| ever reads. I doubt a high school student would be
| reading it and rethinking their major...
|
| If you're American, you already know that liberal arts
| majors don't go to college thinking "people are going to
| pay me so much money for this degree in gender studies."
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I live practically within one of their main campuses here in
| NYC.
|
| I'm a self-taught developer who's thought about maybe attending
| a school part-time, and they have an awesome makerspace here,
| so I figured why not try one of their non-matriculated
| programs?
|
| -
|
| Even as a senior developer making a higher end salary for New
| York City, I found it unaffordable.
|
| It absolutely blew my mind because new grads wouldn't make this
| kind of money for _years_ out of school.
|
| If someone nearing the later parts of the degree's "ideal
| career" can't afford it, how is someone supposed to afford it
| with interest?!
| Aunche wrote:
| At least while I was applying to college, NYU was notorious for
| offering very generous first year scholarships, and being very
| stingy with 4 year scholarships, which led to students believing
| it was more affordable than it actually was.
| m_ke wrote:
| Same thing happened to me at Columbia, I was paying 10K a year
| until my senior year when they randomly decided that I didn't
| qualify for any aid and was forced to take out a 60K loan to
| finish my degree.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| sounds like a trap
|
| "Arbitrary and Capricious means doing something according to
| one's will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a
| tendency to abuse the possession of power. In U.S this is one
| of the basic standards for review of appeals."
| gruez wrote:
| Is that any different than various services (eg. cable)
| that offer a first year discount?
| yardie wrote:
| Not just NYU. My school had generous scholarships for freshmen.
| Then each subsequent year, as your loan limit was allowed to
| increase, you were expected to take on more loans. You could
| reapply every year for some of those scholarships but many were
| need based or one time only. As a first generation student it
| felt very bait and switch like.
| seibelj wrote:
| Boston University was well known for having high GPA
| requirements and being notorious for grade deflation and
| mandatory scaling of grades. B's were very common, but with
| most scholarships requiring a 3.3 average it was easy to slip
| right under and need debt. I had several friends who lost
| their scholarships after freshman year.
| 65 wrote:
| Maybe part of the issue here is more about financial incompetence
| causing these bad decisions in the first place.
|
| Teaching a kid how to be wise with their money is unbelievably
| valuable. Just teaching kids how to spend and save their money
| can point them in the right direction when making a huge
| financial decision for college.
|
| I had the experience of managing, saving, and earning my own
| money as a kid, and when the time came to go to college, I had
| the choice between a more expensive school and my local state
| school. I chose my local state school, got basically the same
| education, and was able to pay off my debt in a year after
| graduating. I'm at a good spot professionally so it didn't end up
| mattering if I went to the more expensive school.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I never understood why the government role in higher education is
| fixated on the financing.
|
| Pay cash for school, live modestly - no bailout.
|
| Get a loan for school, use cash for immodest lifestyle - free
| money!
|
| If college loans are a problem, then the cost of college is the
| real problem. Let's not use government to selectively reward
| individuals based on how they paid rather than the price they
| paid.
|
| I oppose any student loan reform or student loan bailouts for
| this reason. Do not believe the magician's misdirection, focus on
| the real issue.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Reform is clearly needed. Possibly moving toward more market
| based approach, allowing bankruptcies or hugely limiting
| allowed amounts.
|
| Bailouts just look like rewarding poor decisions...
| HPsquared wrote:
| If anything, student loans are already too subsidized, and
| their prevalence pushes up the cost of education. If student
| loans were on similar terms to a standard loan, most people
| wouldn't take them.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| Fair point. Reversing the mess the government created through
| subsidized loans would help address prices.
|
| For several years the press has reported "government bailout
| for student loans is coming" and you add to this historically
| low interest rates. And then we are surprised when people
| take out lots of student loans and defer repaying them as
| long as possible. And now the press uses that as evidence of
| why we need a bailout.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > use cash for immodest lifestyle
|
| Do you have evidence of this? Most students I know who have
| borrowed are struggling. Many can't afford books, housing,
| food. People are living on ramen.
|
| > free money
|
| Loans aren't free money. Do we say the same about loans to
| wealthy people and corporations?
|
| I think there is often (I don't know about you) a bias against
| students or the poor as inherently untrustworthy or just
| unworthy, and therefore credit to them will just be used for
| bad things. That is, the issue is the preconceived notions, not
| the economics or policy.
|
| > If college loans are a problem, then the cost of college is
| the real problem. Let's not use government to selectively
| reward individuals based on how they paid rather than the price
| they paid.
|
| Education is essential to the general welfare. We can't wait
| for the perfect system and lose another generation of talent to
| waste (not developing) or bankruptcy; we need to address that
| is happening now.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| > Most students I know who have borrowed are struggling.
|
| Many people that didn't borrow money are also struggling. No
| reason to make the existence of a loan a pre-requisite to
| receive a bailout. Why isn't the fact that you paid for
| college sufficient? Why is the conversation only about debt?
|
| > Loans aren't free money
|
| Yes, bailing out student loans is free money. That is the
| conversation we are having.
|
| And considering only bailing out student loans without a
| provision for reimbursing students with similar backgrounds
| that didnt finance college or did but paid off loans early is
| incredulous. There is no reason the solution to the price of
| college is to selectively bail out people that choose not to
| repay their student loans and ignore everyone else.
| gravypod wrote:
| > And considering only bailing out student loans without a
| provision for reimbursing students with similar backgrounds
| that didnt finance college or did but paid off loans early
| is incredulous. There is no reason the solution to the
| price of college is to selectively bail out people that
| choose not to repay their student loans and ignore everyone
| else.
|
| This is a very crabs in a bucket mentality. From the
| perspective of a society we should ask: what is the effect
| of removing this debt burden? Many people are repaying
| loans at a very high monthly amount. My loans are currently
| >400/month. If that debt "poofed" I'd be spending that in
| my local economy (instead of going to a bank to then issue
| another student loan for). Much better for the economy.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| Your reasoning has nothing at all to do with college,
| student loans, etc. Anyone that has any debt at all could
| also benefit from free money. People with no debt could
| also benefit from free money.
|
| Why should the government give you money to pay off your
| debt when for less administrative burden they could drop
| money out of a plane instead? Both would help the economy
| the same, so you haven't made it clear why people with
| student loans helping the economy and no one else is the
| antidote we've been missing.
| gravypod wrote:
| > Why should the government give you money to pay off
| your debt when for less administrative burden they could
| drop money out of a plane instead?
|
| Well, for one, I don't think the recovery rate of money
| thrown out of a plane will be too high.
|
| > Both would help the economy the same, so you haven't
| made it clear why people with student loans helping the
| economy and no one else is the antidote we've been
| missing.
|
| I'm not against distribution of money to make sure
| everyone has the means to live a survivable lifestyle.
| gruez wrote:
| Here's a proposal: let's have the federal government bail
| out all credit card debt. Would you support it? Many of
| the arguments you gave would also apply to credit cards,
| if not more (eg. 20+% APR compared to 7% for PLUS loans).
| gravypod wrote:
| > Here's a proposal: let's have the federal government
| bail out all credit card debt. Would you support it?
|
| I haven't read any studies done on the effect that this
| could have but if it was: 1) researched and 2)
| financially doable (results in net gain) then yes I
| would. If as a society we can find that doing X will
| improve the quality of life for all Americans for very
| little financial cost to us and only a long term positive
| impact, I don't see why anyone would say no to that?
|
| > Many of the arguments you gave would also apply to
| credit cards, if not more (eg. 20+% APR compared to 7%
| for PLUS loans).
|
| Just to note I have ~20k of loans @ 12.625% APR. 7% is
| what government backed loans are like. Not at all what a
| majority of private loans are like. Comparing credit card
| companies to private student loans is more fair.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It's a popular trend here, and in other places, to dismiss the
| value of higher education - e.g., 'it's all the same'.[0] (I hear
| it often from people who already have such educations and expect
| their children to have them too!)
|
| But if we use our educations, we know that popular trends are an
| exceedingly poor means of understanding the world - it's hard to
| think of more dangerous, less reliable signals. Popular trends
| are astrology, witchcraft, conspiracy theories, lynchings, etc.
|
| Thinking about it just a little, probably anyone serious would
| much rather learn personally from the world's leading experts in
| the field, with every resource (labs, research libraries, etc.),
| and among brilliant, hardworking, serious classmates. Or would
| you be happy learning from just any person, with uneven resources
| and among people of questionable talent and motivation? In our
| industry, you want to learn software development from Google
| Fellows or the local front end shop? If the latter seems
| sufficient, or if you just want to hang out and take some classes
| like high school, I agree: Don't waste money on a top school
| (unless you do it cynically, just for the status and
| connections). If you're serious, I don't see how there is any
| question.
|
| I do agree that there's a bit of a mismatch - many people see
| college as High School Part II, just with harder classes and more
| personal independence - and colleges seem to cater to that. Not
| enough students conceive of what college really is, which is
| understandable given their high school backgrounds and lack of
| experience in the world: K-12 is all they know and they are
| experts in it with deeply engrained perspectives and habits after
| 13 years. The colleges need to help them see that it's a
| different world, and far wider and greater possibilties.
| Optimally, IMHO, college should wait for about 5-10 years of real
| world experience; how can you study the world without ever having
| experienced it? But as with anything, we have to work with
| imperfect institutions, systems, and people.
|
| [0] And that fits the general trend of degrading anything that
| stands in the way of elite power.
| malshe wrote:
| Without paywall:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/nyu-college-graduate-parent-stu...
| throwaway_224 wrote:
| I graduated NYU last year. I posted in reddit one of the top
| posts on NYU's page something like "how to make nyu cheap." All
| said and done I ended with roughly 60k in debt, which isn't bad
| since I work in finance. That said, I know someone who went to
| NYU to become a teacher and ended with 280k in debt. At this
| point a lot of people I know are "debtmaxxing" and banking on USD
| hyperinflation. For myself, I suspect that student loans will be
| forgiven before 2030, so I just pay the absolute minimum.
| gentle wrote:
| I went to a state school rather than an expensive private school,
| went into a well paying career and paid off my student loans in 3
| years.
|
| I'm sorry these students chose a different path, but there's no
| way the rest of us should take care of their terrible decisions.
| If you want to mandate some super low interest rate, then I'm
| fine with that, but just having the government pay off their
| loans is extremely offensive.
|
| If these people got into NYU in the first place then they're
| almost certainly from more well off families. They don't need the
| help.
| pledess wrote:
| The WSJ article doesn't talk about differences in student-loan
| balances between men and women. It mentions one income source
| (egg harvesting) used by women students to reduce their amount of
| borrowing, but doesn't comment on other income sources, largely
| used by women, that have been discussed elsewhere (e.g., see the
| https://nyunews.com/2018/02/18/02-20-daddy-features/ article).
| Data points such as "borrowed a median $74,000" might not be a
| good characterization of the experience of women at NYU. For the
| women borrowing much less than 74k, did their college career
| include traditional employment-based income sources that required
| skill sets learned at NYU, traditional employment-based income
| sources that didn't require anything learned at NYU, or other
| income sources that potentially have long-term effects on
| physical and mental health?
| tyingq wrote:
| The top two majors at NYU, by percentage, probably don't end in a
| high average salary after graduation. Visual and
| Performing Arts 17% Social Sciences 14%
|
| Then, $77k/year cost before aid, plus the high cost of living for
| the area.
|
| No surprise then.
| rayiner wrote:
| This is why I refuse to support college loan bailouts, despite
| generally supporting welfare. Instead let's give a bunch of
| money to kids who forwent an expensive art or social sciences
| degree to get a solid, practical job.
| nojito wrote:
| The "bailouts" are for students of community colleges and
| state universities.
|
| Definitely a worthwhile policy to pursue.
| tptacek wrote:
| Flagship state universities are an expensive luxury
| product. Means-tested relief is worth pursuing, but "state
| school graduates" writ large are not an especially
| sympathetic cohort.
| nojito wrote:
| SUNY still costs way less NYU and calling state
| universities luxury in the same sentence as NYU is quite
| hilarious.
| tptacek wrote:
| I agree with you, though you should consider means-tested
| loan bailouts targeting working class people, victims of for-
| profit colleges, and particularly people with relatively low
| (compared to NYU grads) burdens that didn't graduate. The
| median college debt burden is surprisingly low; the problem
| is that the media is preoccupied by the plights of people
| like those who work in the media --- high-earning-potential
| vanity-university graduates.
|
| Relief for NYU students though seems pretty far-fetched.
| [deleted]
| rayiner wrote:
| Fair point, particularly people who didn't graduate.
| There's a lot of people being pushed into college that
| aren't ready for it and won't really benefit.
| eunoia wrote:
| Oh nice, looks like we finally figured out the meaning of
| life, the universe, why we're here, etc:
|
| > a solid, practical job.
|
| ffs
|
| Edit to be a bit less flippant: As a holder of a "solid,
| practical job" for over a decade I definitely feel there
| should be more to life and don't fault those who aspired for
| more than just practicality at the age of 17/18.
| tptacek wrote:
| There is more to life than a solid, practical job, but
| there isn't much more to what the government should
| subsidize, for the same reason the government shouldn't
| provide universal free yacht moorings ("don't you
| understand that the journey", proponents would argue, "is
| about so much more than the destination!").
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > there isn't much more to what the government should
| subsidize, for the same reason the government shouldn't
| provide universal free yacht moorings
|
| Let's be aware of our bias toward our own knowledge and
| work.
|
| Knowledge of humanities and social sciences is not a
| luxury; it addresses almost all the critical issues in
| society - freedom, peace, war, prosperity, politics,
| economics, human nature through which it all happens,
| communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism,
| communism, etc. etc. All things more important than
| whatever most of us do.
| tptacek wrote:
| A post-secondary 4-year education in the humanities is a
| luxury almost by definition, since it is not available to
| a substantial portion of the population (including many
| who attend 4-year college!), and wouldn't be even if
| tuition were free. The arts are important too, but owning
| a Renoir is still a luxury.
|
| I reject the argument that taking 4 years of courses on
| "communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism,
| communism, etc" is "more important" than "whatever most
| of us do", and I reject it for a bunch of reasons, not
| just the obvious one that taking a class on power is not
| the same thing is engaging with power.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Perhaps cutting to the chase: I'm aware that it's popular
| to discount those issues and education in those areas,
| but I think that just a little critical thought shows
| that the situation is quite the opposite, and on a very
| serious, urgent level: The issues are tearing apart our
| society and world, and it doesn't hold any water to say
| that we do not need to study these very difficult issues
| (we can see how human society has performed through most
| of history) and that we won't benefit from all the prior
| and contemporary knowledge in humanity. Why wouldn't you
| study what the ancient Greeks, Enlightenment thinkers,
| etc. have to say about it, and study it now, urgently?
|
| Addressing some details, in case the paragraph above
| misunderstands you, thought I think these are a bit too
| much in the weeds:
|
| > A post-secondary 4-year education in the humanities is
| a luxury almost by definition, since it is not available
| to a substantial portion of the population (including
| many who attend 4-year college!)
|
| Availability doesn't define luxury. When food is
| unavailable to most of the population, it still isn't a
| luxury. But we're not here to define words; I think the
| core issue is that, IMHO, such issues in the liberal arts
| are critical to the individuals and to our society.
|
| > 4 years of courses on "communication, conflict, power,
| democracy, capitalism, communism, etc"
|
| Reducing essential knowledge on these issues to just
| "courses" is like reducing knowledge about food supply to
| 'courses'. It's not 'courses', obviously, any more than
| nuclear weapons nonproliferation agreements are 'paper'.
| The idea that you know without studying is hard to fathom
| (beyond the popular trend) - how does the knowledge get
| into your head? Should we all rediscover through personal
| experience the most brilliant in human history have
| discoverd over billions of lifetimes? It seems a bit
| unlikley and inefficient.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Which is why lawyers and media operators run the country.
| While you're rejecting the argument, they're using it
| against you.
|
| And you're being persuaded by them. Successfully. While
| still being convinced that the status quo isn't just the
| best of all possible worlds, everything you believe about
| it is your own idea.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I definitely feel there should be more to life...
|
| I agree, I just have no interest in subsidizing it.
| friedman23 wrote:
| This feely bullshit thinking is what got these dumb kids
| into the problem in the first place. There is more to life
| than a job? Sure maybe there is, maybe there isn't either.
| The point is that people that make dumb decisions cuz feels
| and passion don't get bailed out by people that make
| practical and rational decisions. Live with your feels in
| massive debt, not my problem.
| soared wrote:
| Yea, let's punish the 18 year olds who hoped they might
| be able to follow their passion instead of getting a
| business degree and sitting behind a desk for 40 years.
|
| Are their decisions good ones? No, not really. But at 18
| I can't really fault someone for not understanding the
| decades long implications of interest payments and job
| market dynamics.
| rayiner wrote:
| We should make the boomers who told kids to "follow their
| passion" co-liable on the debt. Barbara Walters have this
| speech about "follow your bliss" to my brother's
| graduating class at Yale:
| https://speakola.com/grad/barbara-walters-bliss-yale-2012
|
| Yalies know this is just something upper class people say
| but don't mean. Half the kids in this audience are now in
| banking, tech, or management consulting. Because of
| course they are--doing that was in their 10 year plan
| that they sketched out at 15. It's the proles that are
| duped by the message and get themselves into trouble.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Should we bail out 18 year olds making other bad
| decisions. Let say entering some type of illegal
| business. Or maybe just maxing out credit-cards, payday
| loans and so on and gambling all that money?
| lostdog wrote:
| Yes, and for all adults we should too.
|
| It shouldn't be possible to take out so much debt on such
| bad terms that you fuck up your life. Bankruptcy should
| be available for these cases, and lenders should be
| responsible for checking that an applicant is capable of
| paying back a loan.
| soared wrote:
| We have protections around those things so kids don't do
| them. With student loans we have the exact opposite of
| protections.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I'm pretty sure we don't have protections against cc
| debt. An 18 year old can get 10 cards and run up 100k
| debt
| stemlord wrote:
| There likely won't be more to the lives of those in deep
| loan debt after receiving a visual arts degree, except that
| their jobs may be less than solid
| rayiner wrote:
| There is more to life--a solid practical job is just how
| you pay for that.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I would reasonably support these bailouts if everyone else
| could get the same money as lump sum... But that would be
| insane in itself...
| notjulianjaynes wrote:
| > Visual and Performing Arts 17%
|
| The NYU Tisch School of the Arts is widely considered one of
| the best film schools in the world. I'm sure it graduates
| plenty of starving artists, but certainly also a
| disproportionate number go on to be incredibly successful
| compared to the same degree from your standard community
| college. It should still be less expensive.
|
| Take a look at some of the alumni:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NYU_Tisch_School_of_th...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| We should end student loans as they exist today. Too easy to get,
| and the interest rate is usurious given they can never be
| discharged in bankruptcy. If we as a society want college to be
| more attainable, we should build more of them and subsidize the
| tuition so kids can afford to pay for it with private loans of a
| reasonable size, or through working part time while in school.
|
| For so many reasons, we cannot do loan forgiveness. This is not a
| one-time problem with a one-time solution. It would present a
| huge moral hazard to do it once with a naive expectation it
| wouldn't need to be done again in a few years. Plus, it amounts
| to a giveaway to people who are _by definition_ elite, which is
| political suicide. I get that the people paying student loans
| feel like it is a crushing debt they can never seem to escape,
| but college graduates earn significantly more, on average, so
| they are the least deserving of a handout.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.md/fjnf1
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| you can get a masters in public health at a school that doesn't
| cost 80k a year in one of the most expensive cities in the world
| you know
|
| I'm getting real tired of hearing these sob stories about not
| being able to pay for rent and food and being saddled with a
| lifetime of debt because you make very poor decisions
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| Even crazier is that tuition went up at its fastest rate last
| year apparently -- _even during the pandemic!_.
|
| People are more thirsty than ever for college.
|
| This is one of the things I got most wrong about the Pandemic
| (the other being they wouldn't dare attempt a third lockdown).
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > the other being they wouldn't dare attempt a third lockdown
|
| A Marxist government will do 100 lockdowns, because a crisis
| gives them more power. Just watch. In fact, the only
| "successful" thing done by the Biden admin is lockdowns.
|
| (Biden admitted that vaccination mandates were
| unconstitutional, then did them anyway. That's why they lost
| most of the court cases. The first case was literally laughed
| out of court.)
| cm2187 wrote:
| I think it is rather the result of money printing, and
| particularly how it was introduced (financial system). Plus
| labour shortage for highly educated people which drove up
| their salary. As a result all the activities of the upper
| middle class have known high inflation: expensive
| restaurants, prime real estate, art, college tuitions, etc.
|
| [edit] I guess also the explosion of the chinese upper middle
| class should also be a big factor.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| The general consensus on HN seems to have coalesced around "it
| matters relatively little where you go for your undergrad but
| relatively high for where you go for your postgrad".
|
| That advice doesn't seem to have percolated through to the hoi
| polloi yet though.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| What makes the general concensus on HN the Truth, superior
| what the hoi polloi believe (especially about their own
| lives)?
|
| (And the bigger questionn: people who aren't on HN are hoi
| polloi? Wow. What does that make us? And it's so easy to get
| an HN account ...)
| grogenaut wrote:
| one can flip that statement though, it matters a lot where
| you go for undergrad, eg pick a school solidly in thr
| "totally fine" rep wise and "very cheap" in the money side
| and come out with much more options instead of mandataory
| work to immediately begin repayment.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > you can get a masters in public health at a school that
| doesn't cost 80k a year in one of the most expensive cities in
| the world
|
| While I agree, there is a clear benefit to the student, and to
| society (through the student's productivity), in learning from
| the best teachers with better resources, and in a community of
| the most brilliant people (which tend to become very
| expensive). I want public health professionals that come up
| with brilliant solutions to our problems. Anyone in any
| profession I think would choose that avenue of skill
| acquisition over the discount option. People in finance go to
| NY, people in IT go to SV, etc., for good reasons.
|
| That said, it is a matter of degree. NYU seems to be near one
| pole of extra cost. If you are in California, for example,
| there are at least two public universities that are considered
| better than NYU.
| Hydraulix989 wrote:
| What do MPHs even do? What kinds of jobs do they get, and how
| much do they pay?
|
| Sounds like a very low ROI degree.
|
| If you're interested in getting an advanced education in the
| healthcare field, you might as well either get an MD (to make
| the advanced degree worth it) or go to a less expensive city
| and become a PA, DPT, or OT at a public university.
|
| Out of all of the options in healthcare, MPH at NYU seems like
| the most excessive waste of money.
| clusterhacks wrote:
| An MPH is very different from an MD or PA degree and it is a
| mistake to conflate the MPH with those programs. Despite the
| name, it usually isn't a degree that puts you into a direct
| "patient-care" healthcare setting.
|
| Many graduates from the top MPH programs go onto leadership
| and management positions - for these programs, my experience
| is that there is a significant focus on the leadership aspect
| layered with specialist knowledge in policy, epidemiology,
| biostatistics, health care administration, etc. Many MPH
| programs will offer subspecialties like that - so you get,
| for example, an MPH _in biostatistics or epi_ rather than a
| generic MPH without a focus.
|
| Pay can vary greatly. Some MPH graduates will work in non-
| profits and others will wind-up running clinical trials at
| big pharma. You can imagine the kind of salary range those
| very different job types cover.
|
| I would be extremely cautious about making a ROI judgement of
| the MPH. I know MPH grads who have worked as direct advisors
| to US senators, MPH grads who write biostats software, and
| MPH grads who help run rape crisis centers in underserved
| communities. There are also combined programs for MD/MPH
| linking up a school of medicine at a university with its MPH
| program. Those grads are often looking to lead research
| efforts or county-level health departments.
|
| More generally speaking, I think you aren't wrong about NYU
| being an "excessive waste of money" but I don't think that
| has much to do with the degree in question. I have met too
| many successful people with "low ROI" degrees just in the
| software industry to feel confident about judging these
| programs in general. Which, of course, is very different than
| saying it is a good idea to rack up $157,000 in debt (like
| the student FTA) for any program from any school.
| chmod600 wrote:
| There's something to be said about whether we are encouraging
| bad decisions, though. We're talking about an 18 year old (many
| of whom have never had any financial responsibility at all)
| making a decision that could saddle them with hundreds of
| thousands in debt that can't be escaped even by bankruptcy.
|
| We need to stop literally underwriting (as taxpayers) bad
| decisions. And private banks that do underwrite such decisions
| need to face the possibility of bankruptcy in some form (maybe
| not quick and easy bankruptcy after 2 years, but _something_ ).
| gentle wrote:
| This is something that students and parents should take into
| account when they're trying to figure out what school students
| should go to.
|
| In other words, stop going to NYU. It's a bad investment of time
| or money.
| paxys wrote:
| The only solution to fixing the student loan crisis is the one no
| one wants to hear - end federally backed student loans, and make
| the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. The economic brunt of a
| bad loan needs to be felt by the issuing bank, not be distributed
| among taxpayers.
|
| When lenders get more stringent about handing out hundreds of
| thousands of dollars to teenagers, colleges will automatically
| have to scale back fees in order to get people to apply. No more
| 5-star hotel rates for shoebox dorms and cafeteria food. No more
| multi-million dollar pay packages for administrators and sports
| coaches. No more textbooks which cost $300 per class and need to
| be "refreshed" every year to prevent reuse. Prioritize lending
| for degrees which have a higher earning potential and so a higher
| chance of paying back. Favor students with a better academic
| record. Enforce a minimum GPA in order to keep getting funded.
| Issuing loans is a business, so treat it like a business rather
| than a social service with privatized gains and public losses.
|
| Conversely, the worst thing you can do for the problem is forgive
| existing loans. What do you then do when universities jack up
| tuition even more and students run up a tab of another trillion
| dollars over the next decade and refuse to pay, knowing that the
| government will bail them out anyways?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Yup. Also interest rates are a big factor.
|
| In the 80s interest rates on long term treasuries were around
| 10%, so I imagine student loans were much higher. Very
| expensive to finance high dollar amounts with those kind of
| rates. Most of the gains in housing have been due to rates
| trending lower for decades, for example.
|
| But I'd advocate a more radical change towards shorter term
| vocational focused programs (e.g. coding bootcamps) to college.
|
| Many benefits to that, but shorter also means easier to switch
| professions if you feel you've made a mistake. Due to duration
| and financial commitment, college is hard to swallow twice
| through.
|
| Really just need somebody in a position of power to advocate
| for this kind of radical change in education, to shift public
| perception and culture.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > In the 80s interest rates on long term treasuries were
| around 10%
|
| It's only useful to talk about interest rates in the 80's in
| the context of fighting inflation. In other cases, it's a
| cherry-picked number.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Not clear what you're even implying. Cost of financed goods
| was lower in 70s and 80s due to higher rates.
|
| So when people talk about how easy it was for the last
| generation to buy a house or pay for college, part of that
| was due to higher rates suppressing prices.
|
| The lower rates go, the higher prices go, and the ability
| to live a debt free life becomes diminished. Some say it's
| ok because the lower rates offset the increase in price.
| user743 wrote:
| Why do we need someone in power to advocate it. Why don't we
| advocate it to each other? Parents are the ones mostly
| influencing kids to go, or at least that was my experience.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Well, a movement can be grassroots for sure.
|
| But I don't see this being a big part of current public
| discussion on education. So I doubt the idea would really
| get any traction without e.g. a candidate in a presidential
| election pushing for it.
|
| Similar to Yang and Basic Income. Even though that idea is
| more far fetched/challenging to implement, he was able to
| give it a lot of public mindshare. I believe if somebody
| did the same for streamlining college education to make it
| more economical to students it would be a broadly popular
| position. That lights the match for the grassroots movement
| to kick off and grow.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| I think the multi-million pay packages for football coaches
| more often than not makes the schools money
| paxys wrote:
| This is largely a myth. Sports are a huge money sink for
| colleges. From
| https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-
| col... :
|
| > In total, then, only 25 of the approximately 1,100 schools
| across 102 conferences in the NCAA made money on college
| sports last year
| SilasX wrote:
| Yes, that's looking at the college's _entire_ academic
| department, which covers very unprofitable sports (in part
| because of mandates). Parent's comment was about (massively
| popular) football.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy."
|
| I am sorry people, what the fuck is going on over there,
| slavery-lite? The bank's job is to access risk, if I want to
| get a loan that will knee-cap me for the rest of my life I
| might as well go to the Mob.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| Completely agree with all of the above, but there are also some
| structural problems to resolve, for example:
|
| 1) We've dumbed down public education to the point that college
| has become a near necessity just to function in society - or
| certainly to get a job in a society with over the top education
| requirements.
|
| 2) We would need to provide a "third way" where those skill
| paths that don't really belong in universities can be met. We'd
| need to further fix decades of telling our kids that they have
| to go to university and instead convince them that they will do
| just as well being welders and plumbers.
|
| 3) We'd need to accept as a society that there are worthwhile
| skill areas that just aren't profitable to higher education.
| For example, I'd argue society benefits from anthropologists
| and classicists, but if I'm being realistic I acknowledge that
| widely and cheaply available student loans make departments
| like these possible. So it brings up some uncomfortable truths
| about the society we want to be if loans are only available to
| those departments and future professions most likely to yield a
| profit - for the uni or the individual.
| gruez wrote:
| >2) We would need to provide a "third way" where those skill
| paths that don't really belong in universities can be met.
| We'd need to further fix decades of telling our kids that
| they have to go to university and instead convince them that
| they will do just as well being welders and plumbers.
|
| but the third way already exists? ie. vocational schools,
| community colleges, and apprenticeships. it's just that
| they're not as prestigious as university, and people go with
| university because they want the best.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| You are completely right, and I certainly thought about
| whether I should explicitly refer to these programs... I
| guess the crux of my issue is that employers still want to
| see people have a college degree + trade skills, and not
| just trade skills alone. Reasons being that they simply
| aren't getting enough educational foundation in high school
| anymore, plus it creates an overall better skilled /
| prepared individual. So if there is a way we can get people
| both practical skills AND at least a two year degree's
| worth of general ed, we're better off as a society.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I feel like there may be a middle ground between 100% on
| taxpayers and 100% on the issuing banks that still deals with
| some of the problems the current system was intended to fix.
|
| Pricing the risk of an 18 year old trying to get through school
| is a crap shoot, so banks just won't do it. That effectively
| shuts out kids from poor backgrounds. I know I wouldn't have
| been able to go to school without loans, and saving money for a
| few years wouldn't have been an option because of my
| area/family.
|
| Current laws were made to solve a problem. Now we know that
| they create a new problem. Let's try something new rather than
| reverting back to the old problems.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I'm on board with most of these ideas except minimum GPA & high
| school academic record.
|
| A GPA varies by school, private, public, etc.
|
| kids in disadvantaged situations often have less support & less
| extra curricular opportunities. Also less opportunity for AP/IB
| which i think some colleges use as a GPA 'bump'
|
| I did find research that shows the correlation to college GPA
| and high school GPA is way more than ACT. research says ACT
| doesn't predict success (defined as college GPA).
|
| But that's part of my point in that GPA in college doesn't mean
| a ton from my perspective and doesn't factor in a bunch of way
| more important things like social, leadership, and the
| connections you can make by being born into it or ideally new
| opportunities from college that you couldn't get growing up.
|
| in terms of strict future earning there is also research to
| back this up. The 2nd link says even IQ was only 1-2% bump in
| $.
|
| I would guess that colleges and banks that use that type of
| strict minimum standard score would tend to discriminate
| against bright kids in difficult circumstances. Similar to not
| lending in D zip codes, which tended to be black (funny how
| that grade aligns).
|
| https://www.k12dive.com/news/high-school-gpa-5-times-more-li...
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2020/10/19/do-college-gr...
| twblalock wrote:
| I don't buy the idea that this is a crisis.
|
| Is it bad that some people have high student loan balances?
| Yes. But is it so bad that it's a crisis? I don't see why.
|
| These loans generally have generous repayment terms, including
| income-based repayment, forbearances, etc. And the average
| balance is about $36k, which happens to be less than the
| average price of a new car sold in the past few years. A
| college education for the price of a car -- it's not the end of
| the world. There will always be some people who borrow too
| much, but the only way to prevent that is to get rid of loans
| altogether -- getting rid of Federal loans will simply push
| students towards private loans which are much worse.
|
| What part of this situation is going to cause an economic
| crisis?
| phaedryx wrote:
| There is a lot more to it than you might think. 1 in 14
| people with student loans has seriously considered suicide.
| benatkin wrote:
| It's that hard working and caring doctors, teachers, and
| nurses are unable to buy houses and/or save money. The
| repayment terms help them be able to pay bills using their
| income but not to thrive.
|
| I don't think blanket forgiveness is a good approach partly
| because of unfairness to those without loan balances and
| partly because it would drive up the cost of education, but I
| would like to see some programs to reduce the burden of
| education expenses that both those who owe money for loans
| and those who don't would be eligible for.
| gravypod wrote:
| How does "I don't buy the idea that this is a crisis. Is it
| bad that some people have high home loan balances? Yes. But
| is it so bad that it's a crisis? I don't see why." sound
| around 2008?
|
| The problem isn't that "some people have made bad choices"
| it's that we are lending money to people they will not be
| able to pay back. When people default on their loans what
| happens to the lenders who are ultimately fed backed banks?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Is it bad that we are screwing the younger generation? Yes.
| But is it so bad that it's a crisis? I don't see why.
| brightball wrote:
| IMO there are a few solutions.
|
| I'm a big fan of the proposal that people should be able to pay
| down student loans pretax just as easily as investing in a
| 401k.
|
| IMO, structure the payment as a mandatory 5% of your paycheck
| until it's paid off.
| vmception wrote:
| The other downside being even less inclusivity in higher
| education, as these uncollateralized loans just won't be made
| to those without capital and credit criteria
|
| So restructuring of the loan program has to be in conjunction
| with other education and access reforms
| syki wrote:
| This isn't the only solution. The government could provide
| higher education at little or no cost to qualified students. As
| state funding per college student has declined loans have
| risen. There are other reforms to the system that would help
| lower costs. Your proposal might work too and I don't
| necessarily disagree with them. I just want to point out that
| it's not the only solution.
| paxys wrote:
| I agree, but the purpose of government funded higher
| education should be to get you a job, period. Trade schools,
| tech schools, community colleges and smaller public
| universities all exist and are significantly cheaper than a
| fancy private school in the middle of Manhattan. There's zero
| reason for the government to be involved in the latter.
| yaacov wrote:
| Governments already do this! My brother goes to a school only
| a few miles from NYU that's totally paid for by NY city+state
| government. I think he pays a couple hundred dollars per
| semester.
|
| But students choose NYU over those schools...
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Only STEM education, apprenticeships and trade schools. I
| don't want my taxes to fund some obscure PhD in babylonian
| dance history and then their only contribution to the society
| is brewing coffee at a Starbucks while living a greek life in
| college party town. We need liberal arts but the reason why
| they become Baristas is because there isn't much need for
| them.
|
| Liberal arts education in universities is a disaster. 10% of
| the students are actually passionate about it, take it
| seriously and go on to contribute to the society. Rest of
| them are rich kids who are out there to party.
|
| We need to push students to think about their career choices
| before picking them.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| The whole college system is quite inefficient. 4 years of
| education, with a lot of the material being superfluous to
| what you end up doing.
|
| A more focused system could be much more economical and
| societally beneficial.
|
| You can always elect to "broaden" your education on the side,
| but should not be the baseline path. Most would not be
| willing to pay for the extracurriculars, if you gave them the
| choice.
| Ekaros wrote:
| From European perspective it feels strange that more of the
| general education isn't effectively done in High School.
| Then you could have 2-3 year Bachelor level education.
| atty wrote:
| Because of how each state handles education separately,
| and the presence of private schools, in the US you have a
| wide variety of high school outcomes. From kids that
| aren't literate, to kids who could probably earn a
| bachelors in less than a year, if their high school
| education was considered in a more holistic fashion.
| Therefore, university programs that are set up to cater
| to the largest population possible necessarily aim for
| the lowest common denominator. And of course there is
| always the perverse incentive that colleges and
| universities are paid by the credit, so reducing course
| loads would probably never make it past the bean
| counters.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| I believe schools should only earn based on percentage of
| post education wages.
|
| Need to think through the exact mechanism, but at least
| public schools should operate this way. Once college has
| skin in the game, education would change so fast for the
| better your head would spin
| Ekaros wrote:
| I wonder in some cases how far the standards would
| drop... That would incentivise to pass just about
| everyone with glowing credentials. Ofc, the employers
| should wisen up in year or a few... But hey, at that
| point the cohort is already out making money...
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Well, schools have the incentive to do this today,
| already. Any student they take on is additional revenue,
| even if they perform horribly/are not qualified. Yet we
| don't see most schools lowering standards for revenue
| purposes.
|
| But there are always second order effects and perverse
| incentives to any system. I agree if it were enacted as I
| stated that outcome could be something along lines of
| what you're suggesting.
|
| Of course, we already have that now with the university
| of Phoenix type of schools.
|
| I meant moreso aligning incentive of school and student.
| But exact mechanism of implementation would need to be
| refined to avoid any obvious perverse incentives
| bosie wrote:
| > 4 years of education, with a lot of the material being
| superfluous to what you end up doing.
|
| Not sure that is the problem of universities though. Look
| at computer science, I wish I would be able to apply my
| bsc/msc education in my job but that simply is not the
| case.
|
| Sure, university taught me how to think in a different way
| but the actual course work is not so helpful. I would not
| fault the university for this.
|
| It sounds like what you want is an apprenticeship-system
| and not a university.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Do people go to university to become "educated" or to get
| a job?
|
| The answer to that question should motivate the shape of
| the education system. The answer is implied, of course,
| but pretty obvious people go into debt for hopes of
| better employment opportunities.
| bosie wrote:
| Not sure I understand the question. Universities are for
| shaping future researchers and teaching you the
| foundations. If you don't need the foundations for your
| future job, do not attend a university. To me at least,
| this does not imply changing universities...
| julienchastang wrote:
| > end federally backed student loans
|
| Unfortunately, higher education will be completely opposed to
| this plan, because they get paid upfront, take on zero risk,
| and can charge whatever they want. (Yet another example of
| moral hazard. When the loan cannot be repaid the taxpayers foot
| the bill. Remember, "gains are privatized and losses are
| nationalized.") Also as incredibly flawed as the present system
| is, I wonder if it provides an avenue to higher education to
| students that would otherwise have no such path. I propose that
| the universities should be financially responsible (instead of
| the federal government) when the student cannot repay the loan.
| That would provide a strong incentive for universities to have
| A. the student graduate B. have a manageable amount of debt
| with respect to future income.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I agree with you. Of course everyone in higher education
| would be against it. It would force universities to consider
| a student's likelihood of repayment, and in doing so it would
| ruin their enrollment and cost them a bunch of money. Every
| school would probably have to halve their faculty if they
| didn't have a federally guaranteed honeypot. It would
| completely upend the current state of affairs. Imagine how
| many kids go to University of Alabama strictly because of the
| football team. Imagine how much enrollment would drop if most
| of those students couldn't get any more loans because they
| weren't likely to repay them without federal protections
| (either going to a different school that provided a better
| value or exiting higher education completely). Now imagine
| this going on in some form or other at literally every
| college/university in America.
|
| With all that said about how drastic it would be, I agree
| with GP that it is the only real solution, and everything
| else is either temporary or addresses a symptom instead of
| the cause.
| leereeves wrote:
| > I propose that the universities should be financially
| responsible (instead of the federal government) when the
| student cannot repay the loan.
|
| I suspect there would be widespread opposition to this idea
| on the grounds that "education is about more than getting a
| job".
|
| If universities were paid based on students' future earnings,
| would they still teach liberal arts?
| roenxi wrote:
| If something of value is being lost, let them that see that
| value pay for it.
|
| It is a bit unfair to go to a teenager, set them up with
| debts in exchange for something that doesn't measurably
| impact their earnings and turn them loose. The reason they
| are even in education is because their brain isn't fully
| formed yet and they have no practical experience. Relying
| on their judgement of what is a good long-term idea is a
| bad move.
| leereeves wrote:
| > If something of value is being lost, let them that see
| that value pay for it.
|
| Absolutely, but that's not what was proposed above. This
| quote suggests the usual model in which the government
| pays for education (which I support, most nations use,
| and even the US uses for K-12), not the income dependent
| repayment model proposed by julienchastang.
| nerdponx wrote:
| > I wonder if it provides an avenue to higher education to
| students that would otherwise have no such path.
|
| Was that not the original purpose?
| wdn wrote:
| This would be a great idea. However, in those wokism world,
| it would not work.
|
| School are dropping standardize test in the name of fairness
| (of the skin color).
| [deleted]
| mrep wrote:
| And what do you think the top schools will do? Massively cut
| costs to reduce tuition rates which will probably make their
| school seem worse and lower their competitive ranking or just
| accept more kids with rich parents who can pay cash or get
| secured loans?
| treis wrote:
| This leaves higher education for the rich which isn't a real
| solution.
|
| Real solutions would be cost control or changing our economy so
| that useless degrees are no longer a requirement/advantage
| heartbeats wrote:
| Couldn't they just tell universities to-
|
| 1. Forgive all loans, or 2. Never receive any federal funding
| ever again
| schoolornot wrote:
| > end federally backed student loans
|
| I agree, the government should have no place in this
| whatsoever.
|
| > and make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy
|
| Toss personal responsibility out the window? No, sorry, someone
| who wasn't financially prudent and _chose_ to attend a college
| that was obscenely expensive should be putting in 15 hour days
| until their loans are paid back in full. Why should society or
| the banks bear any responsibility here?
| m_ke wrote:
| Another option is to cap loans and financial aid at like
| 10K/year and force all of the schools to adjust.
| twblalock wrote:
| Schools won't adjust in the way you want them to -- they will
| start shifting admissions further toward international
| students (who already pay a lot more than local students) and
| the outcome will be that rich American kids are the only
| Americans who get to go to college.
| firstplacelast wrote:
| Oh well. Then all of these companies will have to start
| adjusting to the work-force available. Outside of careers
| like doctor/lawyer, you can do most jobs without a college
| degree, but currently you can't get hired without one in
| many, many cases.
|
| If very few have a degree, companies will adjust and people
| will end up in similar careers without the massive
| time/money investment of college.
| heartbeats wrote:
| Surely, they would be able to get their education
| somewhere?
|
| It's not like it's physically impossible to provide
| education at $10k/year. I live in Europe, I went to a
| normal university, and I think the "market rate" for non-EU
| students was something like that.
|
| If you capped it to $10k/year, are you saying there simply
| wouldn't be anyone around to give you an education at that
| price in the whole country?
| twblalock wrote:
| It would be very unlikely to find a bachelor's degree
| program in the United States that would cost less than
| $10k per year, particularly when cost of housing and
| other expenses is considered.
|
| For example, this is the tuition and expenses for CSU
| East Bay, one of the less expensive public universities
| in California:
| https://www.csueastbay.edu/financialaid/prospective-
| students...
|
| A tuition of about $7k balloons to over $20k when the
| cost of books, housing, etc. are added.
| caymanjim wrote:
| The biggest problem I have with the idea of student loan
| forgiveness is that it punishes people who worked hard and paid
| their loans back and rewards people who didn't. If we're going
| to do a massive wealth distribution and cancel student loans,
| we should first pay back the people who actually paid off their
| loans. If that sounds ridiculous to people, then so should
| forgiving the outstanding loans.
| mindslight wrote:
| The comment you're responding to was not advocating any sort
| of "forgiveness", but rather ending regulatory subsidies to
| the lenders.
|
| If student loans were made dischargeable in bankruptcy, I
| don't foresee many people with good jobs quitting those jobs
| just to declare bankruptcy. Furthermore, that feels like the
| kind of thing a bankruptcy judge would see right through.
| Rather, those borrowers will continue to service their debt
| as per their agreement.
|
| It's the people who are unemployed or underemployed that
| would be in the position to declare bankruptcy, and them
| doing so will result in the true value of their loans being
| made apparent to the bondholders. And for the cases somewhere
| in the middle, it will help with more voluntary restructuring
| (due to a real BATNA) which won't involve the courts at all.
| GongOfFour wrote:
| This is silly. What if you chose to go to a smaller school so
| you paid for college out of pocket? Should you get paid for
| the opportunity cost of not going to the expensive liberal
| arts school?
|
| Forgiving debt isn't about you, it's about unburdening an
| entire generation of working people so they aren't forever
| under the thumb of financial institutions. Undoing federal
| guarantees is also about rightsizing academia, which has
| bloated itself on these ever growing loan numbers.
| leereeves wrote:
| > What if you chose to go to a smaller school so you paid
| for college out of pocket?
|
| Another reason that loan forgiveness would be unfair. And
| what about people who learned a trade instead of paying for
| an overpriced college? Or poor people who didn't go to
| college because their underfunded neighborhood high school
| didn't prepare them for college?
|
| America has already had too many bailouts to save the
| privileged from the consequences of their own decisions.
| benatkin wrote:
| Not only that, it's a reason that those who don't owe
| money on their loans might be struggling financially due
| to missed career or even social opportunities of going to
| a smaller (read: often crappy) school.
| benatkin wrote:
| > Forgiving debt isn't about you
|
| You're helping to make GP's point. You are saying that
| those who owe money are more important to this conversation
| without knowing anything else about them.
| 310260 wrote:
| Yes because those who still owe money are who it affects.
| Sure it sucks that people who already paid off their
| loans can't have them forgiven now but what's done is
| done. Can't accommodate every single person perfectly.
| ketzo wrote:
| From an economic standpoint, _they are more important_.
|
| People with massive, life-ruining debt are more important
| for us to help than people who graduated debt-free or who
| got jobs/careers that let them pay off their debt.
|
| If you can divorce yourself from a kindergarten-esque
| "fairness" complaint, it's pretty obvious that yeah, we
| should (unfairly!) help people who are being destroyed by
| debt.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And also punish those who choose or were not able to get
| these loans or education in first place. Should they also get
| same amount of money?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Then give a stipend to people who have already paid off their
| loans.
| Osmium wrote:
| > The biggest problem I have with the idea of student loan
| forgiveness is that it punishes people
|
| First, I completely get how some people feel this way. It's
| valid.
|
| However, as someone who's almost paid off their own student
| loan, I would not feel punished by student loan forgiveness.
| I would be glad to see it. The money I have repaid is already
| gone; yes, if I could turn back time knowing it would be
| forgiven, I needn't have repaid it, but if I could turn back
| time there are lots of investments or choices I would do
| differently. Student loan forgiveness would take a huge
| existential burden off an entire generation. It would do so
| much for mental wellbeing of so many of my peers. I can't
| think of something I'd rather see. And the truth is, I've
| almost paid off my loans because I'm doing alright. I'll be
| fine.
|
| Now, the fact it got this bad to start with...doing student
| loan forgiveness without also making serious reforms is just
| promising it will happen again. But that doesn't mean we
| shouldn't help people who are suffering today.
| gruez wrote:
| >Student loan forgiveness would take a huge existential
| burden off an entire generation. It would do so much for
| mental wellbeing of so many of my peers. I can't think of
| something I'd rather see. And the truth is, I've almost
| paid off my loans because I'm doing alright. I'll be fine.
|
| You might be fine right now, but what about all the people
| who scrimped and saved for years to pay off their student
| loans. Are their efforts for nothing?
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| As someone who paid off my student loans (and struggled to
| do so, put off marriage to do so) I'm more than happy for
| student loan forgiveness. That aside, going forward,
| college is not much of a choice for many white collar jobs
| these days. Not necessarily to do them, but to be
| considered for them. If community colleges were state
| funded and made into four year institutions, available like
| high school extensions with degrees in the most needed
| areas, tuition free (no housing, buy your own supplies)...
| I don't see a huge down side. There are plenty of bloated
| budget costs that can be cut to bolster needed education in
| sectors where we are lacking trained people. If people want
| to go to a more prestigious college that a community
| college, they can pay for it. If they want a degree outside
| of the limited scope offered from the needed degrees, then
| they might have to pay for it. It sounds a bit draconian,
| but it's a service contract of sorts =/
| bosie wrote:
| If the forgiveness-plan is done, how do you feel that you
| are now behind on the real estate market compared to
| someone 10 years your junior? Why not forgive (past and
| current) tuition rather than debt? At least that would
| equal the playing field and would acknowledge that tuition
| was horrible, rather than empahsing the debt aspect of it.
| adreamingsoul wrote:
| I don't think of it as being punished and don't expect to be
| reimbursed for having paid back my loans and my spouse's
| loans. The benefits of loan forgiveness or even providing
| free college tuition greatly outweighs the cost of what you
| and I had to pay for. Either way we are going to pay for it,
| directly or indirectly.
| catillac wrote:
| It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that
| generally things improving is an affront to people who lived
| before improvement. To me it sounds like saying we shouldn't
| have indoor plumbing because it's unfair to people who lived
| without it before it was invented, or don't have it now.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| This is a very American thing though, unfortunately...
| various demographic groups have been easily persuaded over
| the years that they are "special" because they "pulled
| themselves up by their bootstraps" and that if they could
| do it then others should as well. It's a very specific kind
| of gaslighting such that it's a miracle we have _any_
| degree of social services, even if the ones we do have are
| shit.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The significant part of the affront is asking people who
| paid for their own tuition to then pay for someone else's
| in addition.
|
| It costs money to forgive loans, which either could have
| been spent elsewhere or must be raised in new taxes.
|
| The analogy is if you build a house with plumbing, and your
| neighbor builds without, then the city uses tax money from
| you to pay for their upgrade.
| dehrmann wrote:
| It might not have been before, though. Maybe two people
| graduated at the same time. One person lived it up, making
| the minimum loan payment so they could afford to eat out,
| go on vacations, etc. The other person was "responsible"
| and paid off the loans early. Now the government is
| effectively rewarding less responsible behavior.
| Retric wrote:
| Student loan forgiveness in bankruptcy is hardly _free._
| There would be a huge advantage to having paid back the
| loan.
|
| Which is why I think forgiveness should be an option ~7
| years after leaving school. You still have to convince a
| bankruptcy judge that you can't pay but wrecking your
| finances at 30+ would discourage most from going down
| that path.
| nr2x wrote:
| Or the US government is taxing the poor kid who worked at
| a non-profit more, relative to his wealthy classmate who
| graduated debt free and landed a job at his dad's hedge
| fund.
| paxys wrote:
| While I agree with you on this specific topic of student loan
| forgiveness, government action to avert an economic crisis
| isn't about being individually fair or unfair. Not everyone
| qualifies for every benefit, and that's fine. Otherwise we
| would never be able to make any progress because _someone_
| would always be left behind.
| nr2x wrote:
| What exactly is the "punishment" here? Serious question, how
| are you negatively impacted by loan forgiveness?
|
| Anybody currently holding student debt is required to pay the
| US government an interest rate exceeding what the Fed gives
| banks. Student loan interest a tax on the poor levied by the
| US government. My wife and I have the same degree from NYU:
| her parents paid her tuition, I took out loans. Over time I
| pay more for the same degree because of interest.
|
| Furthermore, we already do wealth redistribution via
| corporate welfare of all varieties. There's countless subsidy
| programs for all manner of environmental harmful activities
| that will pass huge financial burden to my kid. A small fix
| to loan interest isn't much to ask.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I won't say this is a perfect argument, but I think the
| issue comes down to the fact that forgiving loans is
| incompatible with the common Puritanical view in America
| that hard work and delaying personal gratification are
| virtues. It's not that anyone is being punished but a non-
| equal distribution of wealth feels unfair, since a lot of
| people would have made different decisions if they had
| known that debt would be restructured or forgiven in some
| drastic way. There are a bunch of people that lived on
| tight budgets, or worked extra hours instead of taking on
| debt, or just didn't go to college at all. Those people
| delayed personal gratification with the expectation that
| they would be better off later. It is similar for the case
| where someone's parents paid for their college, their
| family took on a financial hardship and get no reward
| compared to families that didn't take on any burden and
| took out loans. You can imagine how unfair it feels to
| those people if they saw someone else get $100k in loans
| forgiven, but they receive nothing. Nobody got punished but
| someone else gets a leg up and the people that were being
| "virtuous" get nothing.
|
| And consider this other view: It's not a perfect analogy
| but imagine that the federal government decides to give
| $10k to every white man. Of course everyone would scream
| that was racist and sexist. But nobody is being punished by
| giving a reward to one race and gender and not the others.
| There are obviously issues with the analogy, but it might
| at least show another angle of why some people don't want
| others to get loan forgiveness when they get nothing.
| nr2x wrote:
| Except the people who'd benefit the most from loan
| forgiveness are POC, so there's no need to float
| hypotheticals.
| dartharva wrote:
| The punishment is obvious: the opportunity cost you incur
| by paying student loans is too high. Those who paid their
| loans have lost money they could have used for other
| investments to build wealth. Now if you were to forgive
| current outstanding debts, it would be a punch in the gut
| to those who did pay off their loans. They had to work and
| go through much more pains, and missed several wealth-
| building opportunities they could have had if they were
| allowed to keep their money. It is an unfair disparity
| against those who were unfortunate enough to go to college
| a bit earlier and thus, a punishment.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| that's not punishment, that jealousy of someone else
| getting a windfall or relief. A real 'punishment' would
| set you to a worse position than you had before.
|
| If you are going to focus on other people getting
| windfall they don't deserve, there are much better places
| to focus your energies - I am sure anyone here has a few
| candidates, but in UK we had government award
| multimillion dollar contracts for COVID supplies to
| companies started a month ago, who copied their terms and
| conditions from a pizza delivery company.
| TearsInTheRain wrote:
| If you have two people in a system, subsidizing person A
| and keeping B the same is exactly the same as keeping A
| the same and taxing person B. Your changing everyone's
| relative place in society and whats more you are
| elevating the people that have behaved less responsibly
| nr2x wrote:
| The boomers who went earlier went for a fraction of the
| price, had far more government assistance, then decided
| they didn't like paying tax and hauled the ladder up from
| under themselves and made their children and
| grandchildren take out loans. That is the "unfair"
| "punishment" if there is one.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| I anticipate there will be a lot of comments about how these
| folks should not have gone to an expensive private uni, could
| have made choices to avoid debt, the burden is on the borrower
| and it is their responsibility, etc - all true and valid points.
|
| However, the US is approaching a situation where the student loan
| problem will be an "everyone" problem, not just a borrower - I
| believe a ~$1.6 Trillion debt burden is a significant enough drag
| on the economy to be felt by everyone, and will be more painful
| not only for borrowers who can not pay but also non-borrowers who
| are indirectly affected.
|
| The money that could have been used to pay for housing, services,
| etc, will instead go to student loans. If I was a local business
| owner, I would think about that. If you are homeowner, imagine
| what the price of you home could be if buyers did not have
| student loans.
|
| I hope people realize this soon.
| Aunche wrote:
| > I believe a ~$1.6 Trillion debt burden is a significant
| enough drag on the economy to be felt by everyone
|
| If you're implying that this debt should be cancelled, note
| that it doesn't go away if the President decides to cancel it.
| It just gets passed on to the broader tax base in the form of
| more national debt.
|
| The reason student loans are a problem for the US is that the
| government keeps on pumping money into higher education but has
| no incentives for them to control costs. Universities have
| fairly inelastic supply, so they can swallow up most the money
| the government pumps in. Cancelling student loans would just
| exacerbate this.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Actually it does go away. A sovereign country can only go
| bankrupt when its currency stops being respected.
| Unless/until that happens, it can spend whatever it wants on
| its own people.
|
| A country that can afford trillions in tax cuts for the very
| rich, financial stimulus, and defence spending can _easily_
| afford a one-off loan jubilee.
|
| The real reasons this won't happen are political. Loans are a
| slaver's whip, and financial freedom is a horror that can't
| be tolerated for those who live below decks and need to be
| available to work on demand.
| gruez wrote:
| The parent's point stands. If you print money, you get
| inflation. That just turns into a tax for everyone that
| holds cash. Inflation also raises interest rates, which is
| a tax on people directly (ie. the amount they pay to banks)
| and indirectly (the interest government borrows at).
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Loans are a slaver's whip, and financial freedom is a
| horror that can't be tolerated for those who live below
| decks and need to be available to work on demand.
|
| The joke here is believing that college graduates are the
| slaves. What about the 2/3 of the population who have no
| degree and will earn significantly less through their life,
| who struggle from paycheck to paycheck and can't even look
| forward to eventually paying off a student loan?
| seneca wrote:
| > The real reasons this won't happen are political. Loans
| are a slaver's whip, and financial freedom is a horror that
| can't be tolerated for those who live below decks and need
| to be available to work on demand.
|
| Comparing degree-holders who willingly took on loans to
| slaves, and with such wildly inflammatory rhetoric, is
| absurdly (and typically) out of touch.
|
| Degree holders are the managerial class. It is essentially
| a prerequisite to be part of the elite class. Those below
| the decks in our society are those who never had a chance
| at higher education. The exact same people who would be
| paying more taxes to pay for a hand out to the professional
| class if loans were forgiven.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "Comparing degree-holders who willingly took on loans to
| slaves, and with such wildly inflammatory rhetoric, is
| absurdly (and typically) out of touch."
|
| I wonder who is out of touch.
|
| "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an
| individual might sell himself or a family member into
| slavery...Slavery was the standard penalty for failure to
| pay off a debt"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
| [deleted]
| mindslight wrote:
| Why does the massive regulatory giveaway to student loan
| lenders continue to be a given? Why does everything have to
| be some sort of top-down bailout? The straightforward
| approach is to extend bankruptcy protection to student loans,
| and let the courts sort out the mess based on need. Some
| bondholders will end up losing, but the risk of the
| regulatory giveaway disappearing should have been priced in
| to begin with.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| > The straightforward approach is to extend bankruptcy
| protection to student loans, and let the courts sort out
| the mess out based on need.
|
| Agreed.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Allow students loans to be forgiven 10 years after graduation
| through bankruptcy.
|
| Then expensive programs that don't have a career path to
| support them will have trouble getting students needing
| financial aid.
| tdfx wrote:
| This is a much more palatable option than just wholesale debt
| forgiveness. I think there could be a lot of bipartisan
| support for a policy like this. It doesn't fix the problem
| entirely, but it finally frees people from the life sentence
| of their student loans. I would imagine the collection rates
| would be almost zero for any borrowers in this situation,
| anyway.
| jjcon wrote:
| So bail them out cause it will trickle down to those less
| fortunate? I've heard that somewhere before. Only about 12
| percent of Americans have student loans and the largest burden
| is among those with advanced degrees.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Only about 12 percent
|
| IIRC the fed puts it at more like 30%. But your point stands.
| jjcon wrote:
| Its 12.9% as of May 2021
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-
| loans/how-m...
|
| I think you are thinking about the percent of Americans
| with a bachelor's degree (32.1%).
| rootusrootus wrote:
| You're right (though the estimate seems to vary depending
| on who is reporting it, for some reason). What I saw was
| 30% of attendees take on student loans to pay for their
| education, according to the fed [0]. I misinterpreted
| that to mean that 30% had student loans right now.
|
| [0] https://www.investopedia.com/student-loan-
| debt-2019-statisti...
| random314 wrote:
| Well, don't bail out the advanced degree holders.
|
| I like your rhetoric of the liberal POV as actually
| conservative - "trickle down". But it's not working.
| jjcon wrote:
| Just because a position is held by some progressives in the
| US to appeal to their young student base does not make it a
| 'liberal position'.
|
| Those with just Bachelors degrees still make almost twice
| as much as those without (average 38k vs 64k). And their
| median net worth is more than 2x those with just HS
| diplomas (74k vs 198k). Arguing that the poor should help
| bail out those more wealthy than them is extremely
| regressive any way you slice it.
|
| EDIT: To those saying 'why not just tax the rich more':
| That comes at the cost of (again) more equal and broad uses
| for that money - that doesn't make a regressive policy less
| regressive it just pushes the can down the road. We're
| talking about a 1.7T bailout for just 12% of Americans with
| far higher than average earning potential.
| random314 wrote:
| It's an old rhetorical tactic to pitt one class of poor
| vs the other while ignoring the elephant in the room. For
| eg - Pitting rural white Americans against Mexican
| immigrants. You could just raise the minimum wage - a
| solution that would be "class warfare".
|
| You can have the rich pay for undergraduate degrees
| instead of the poor - as you have conveniently assumed. A
| rather hilarious assumption given that tax slabs for the
| poor are the lowest.
|
| Pitting one class of poor/middle class against the other
| is a fairly well known conservative tactic. Intraclass
| "warfare" is what conservatives want to focus on, instead
| of the big elephant- interclass "warfare".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Just because a position is held by some progressives in
| the US to appeal to their young student base does not
| make it a 'liberal position'.
|
| Well, yeah, liberal and progressive positions are
| generally opposed.
| jjcon wrote:
| Agreed though only in the past few years (and primarily
| only in the USA) have progressives started to push
| against classical liberalism towards more illiberal
| views, that has not generally been the case in the past.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I'm not talking about classical liberalism (which has no
| coherent clear application out of the context of the time
| and conditions around the mid-18th to early 19th Century;
| there's an infinite number of mutually incompatible
| applications of it to other contexts, including most of
| the modern American political spectrum.)
|
| I'm talking about liberal and progressive as modern
| American political factions (which in major partisan
| terms, though the factions aren't tightly bound to a
| major party, map roughly to the right and left wings of
| the Democratic Party.)
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| Well, if it's specifically about taxing the poor - we
| could levy a higher tax on the ultra-rich and earmark how
| that funding is used.
|
| FWIW I actually think you make a good point, but it's
| ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich are grossly (I'd
| argue an order of magnitude) undertaxed right now.
| jjcon wrote:
| > ultra-rich are grossly (I'd argue an order of
| magnitude) undertaxed right now
|
| Couldn't agree more on that point. I don't however think
| earmarking 1.7T for a very select 12% of Americans that
| have a far higher than average earning potential fixes
| the problem with the policy though. That 1.7T could be
| used in far broader more equal ways.
| xuki wrote:
| > If you are homeowner, imagine what the price of you home
| could be if buyers did not have student loans.
|
| Are you saying student loan reduces house price? Sound like a
| win.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Imagine what the price of your house could be if a mortgage
| loan was guaranteed by the US government. You could set a
| price wherever you want, the buyers could get a loan from a
| lender for any amount.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-19 23:02 UTC)