Forgive Student Loans?

[VolStrom]

College debt should really be conditioned on the median wage that graduates earn in their first 5 years after graduation. If you get a BS in engineering and make $100k a year after 5 years, you just might be qualified for a better loan. If you earn $29k as a barista at Starbucks after getting a degree in Russian history, maybe you shouldn't get a loan.

 

[AshG]

You should really reframe this as how people who have debt they want someone else to repay for them. It’s a very important distinction.

Most aren’t shaming people for having debt. It’s a reasonable position (though not everyone’s position) that if you took on the debt, you should repay it. The philosophy is as American as baseball.

That's the way I look at it. I pay on time every month. I will continue to do so until I am told there is nothing more to pay. I didn't take any of it on with the expectation someone else would erase it.

I advise my students against it as well, but several of them do get loans to pay for upgraded equipment. But that's neither here nor there.

Maybe it's the fact that I'm on the spectrum and highly sensitive to perceived intent, but it just feels like there's an undercurrent on this board that views higher Ed with harsher suspicion than they give their own beliefs and a lack of desire to understand the thought process of those who decide to take loans for their education.

 

[AshG]

College debt should really be conditioned on the median wage that graduates earn in their first 5 years after graduation. If you get a BS in engineering and make $100k a year after 5 years, you just might be qualified for a better loan. If you earn $29k as a barista at Starbucks after getting a degree in Russian history, maybe you shouldn't get a loan.

That would have to be through a private lender receiving no federal funding in order to make that kind of distinction.

And the problem with degrees in Russian history and African studies and the like is that you have to double major in political science for them to pay off. Both major parties employ people with those degrees, but those jobs are as rare as finding an orchestral saxophone gig.

 

[DC_Vol]

Maybe it's the fact that I'm on the spectrum and highly sensitive to perceived intent, but it just feels like there's an undercurrent on this board that views higher Ed with harsher suspicion than they give their own beliefs and a lack of desire to understand the thought process of those who decide to take loans for their education.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I agree. I do think society as a whole though is moving in a more sensible direction and todays youth aren’t being pushed as hard with the “go to college or be a loser” rhetoric.

But you’re right. They’re too young to make those decisions. That’s why getting government out of the loan process is the best move for all parties. Make the money less accessible

That would need to happen before we discuss debt relief.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Nope. Sorry. Work harder, buy an old flip phone and a beater car, get some roommates to share expenses and pay your ****ing debts. Like Dave Ramsey says, you don't need to be inside a restaurant unless you are working there. The ONLY room for ANY leniency here is that if any loan is forgiven, it is counted as income and they pay taxes on it. At least we will get some of that stolen money back.... sort of.

Why count it as income? The govt doesn't generate revenue off of your taxes anyway. They can just print whatever money they need.

 

[VolStrom]

That would have to be through a private lender receiving no federal funding in order to make that kind of distinction.

And the problem with degrees in Russian history and African studies and the like is that you have to double major in political science for them to pay off. Both major parties employ people with those degrees, but those jobs are as rare as finding an orchestral saxophone gig.

You just made my point. Why should the country spend money on a degree that is worthless? The amount of money that got funneled through student loans to pay major leadership is shameful.

 

[AshG]

What do you mean by this?

The constant **** posting that higher Ed is just an indoctrination mill that uses federal dollars to convert innocent little kids into raging liberal voters. Respond with lived experience and evidence to the contrary or discuss the evidence that homeschool and private schooling openly attempt to do the equivalent of what colleges and public school are alleged to do, and here comes the dogpile.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Don't be a deadbeat, pay your debts

Say it again louder for the people in the back.

before you hold student loan debtors to that standard, why don't we hold the Federal govt to that standard? There are people that are far older than these people racking up student loan debt that are agreeing to all of this spending in government.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Only if you change the meaning of debt. A debt is something agreed upon by both parties. You’re confusing that with a tax.

I'm not sure what difference that makes. What point or distinction are you really trying to make here, because the end result of both (with regards to the Federal govt) is the same. Taxes and debt are a way of controlling people.

 

[AshG]

You just made my point. Why should the country spend money on a degree that is worthless? The amount of money that got funneled through student loans to pay major leadership is shameful.

Who decides if the degree is worthless? Are we focusing on monetary production, or contribution towards the betterment of society?

And yes, the bolded part is right on the money. I'm certainly not seeing any of it. My salary as a professor is less than I'd make teaching public school, and combined with my wife's two jobs our children still qualify for Medicaid. But we make it work.

 

[85SugarVol]

Maybe it's the fact that I'm on the spectrum and highly sensitive to perceived intent, but it just feels like there's an undercurrent on this board that views higher Ed with harsher suspicion than they give their own beliefs and a lack of desire to understand the thought process of those who decide to take loans for their education.

Well of course they view higher education with a harsher suspicion.

You nailed that one.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm not sure what difference that makes. What point or distinction are you really trying to make here, because the end result of both (with regards to the Federal govt) is the same. Taxes and debt are a way of controlling people.

When you take on a debt you voluntarily agree to pay x. Taxes are not done on a voluntary basis.

 

[rekinhavoc]

before you hold student loan debtors to that standard, why don't we hold the Federal govt to that standard? There are people that are far older than these people racking up student loan debt that are agreeing to all of this spending in government.

I do but my vote falls on deaf ears. They are all crooks.

Paul Ryan republicans " It's the best deal we could get as the majority" crowd.

 

[Orangeburst]

Who decides if the degree is worthless? Are we focusing on monetary production, or contribution towards the betterment of society?

And yes, the bolded part is right on the money. I'm certainly not seeing any of it. My salary as a professor is less than I'd make teaching public school, and combined with my wife's two jobs our children still qualify for Medicaid. But we make it work.

If you cannot expect a return greater than the cost....yes..worthless buggery.

Contribution towards betterment of society....non measureable metric for any loan. Fail.

 

[VolStrom]

Who decides if the degree is worthless? Are we focusing on monetary production, or contribution towards the betterment of society?

And yes, the bolded part is right on the money. I'm certainly not seeing any of it. My salary as a professor is less than I'd make teaching public school, and combined with my wife's two jobs our children still qualify for Medicaid. But we make it work.

I thought I addressed that question, in that the amount of earnings decides whether a degree is worthless or not. If your degree can't earn enough money to pay back your loan in a reasonable time, it's worthless.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Let them bankrupt those loans. That will fix everything. guaranteed.

Would certainly fix the issue of being able to finance your “dream degree” of medieval social studies and cultures from that liberal arts college with $100k a year tuition if it could be extinguished by bankruptcy

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

JMO but I don’t feel like I knew that much more at 21 than I did at 18. At mid-20’s I think one really gets an idea of what life is all about.

I agree with this, I was simply answering the hypothetical question that you gave me. Also, in this hypothetical situation, if I were on the negotiating team for this debt relief scheme, I would be willing to make that deal if it were presented.

But 18 is where we are as a society for adulthood and this is coming from somebody who was smart enough to know the consequences of taking on $100k in debt at 18.

I'm sure the number of 18 year olds that are able to make that decision are in the minority. I would be willing to be my life on that. The overwhelming majority of 18 year olds, either are following poor advice or are not bright enough to follow good advice even if given to them. Either way, the government, universities and lending institutions shouldn't be put in a position to shackle ignorant people with what in many cases is debt that they will never payoff. Again, I'm not talking about $50,000-$75,000 in debt, I'm talking about debt in the hundreds of thousands. There is simply no way anyone should have been allowed to have loans past a certain point.

I think bankruptcy should be an option for student loans like any other debt and the government shouldn’t be backing these loans, but if we are agreeing in totality 18 is the age then these should be paid back per terms. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what one is getting into.

I think bankruptcy should be an option and that lending institutions should weigh the risk and rewards of each loan. Meaning, they should consider if the student will actually be a default risk.

But even saying this, I am assuming that these lending institutions aren't just printing money into existence anyways, so what real harm is it on them? They printed money out of nowhere and then are able to charge interest on it.

At a minimum, anybody that did pay back these loans should get re-imbursed if we forgive the debt for others. Otherwise you are punishing being smart and responsible.

Responsible people get punished anyways all the time. Do I get any mortgage relief or stipends because we have people that couldn't pay their mortgage and bought McMansions, F-250s and boats? Do most productive people get any targeted tax relief or stimulus money injected into our accounts? You are mad and butthurt (understandably, btw) that people are now on the verge of getting student loan debt relief while you were responsible and played by the rules. But the govt played a big part in creating this issue and the universities and banks helped to make it worse.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Who decides if the degree is worthless? Are we focusing on monetary production, or contribution towards the betterment of society?

And yes, the bolded part is right on the money. I'm certainly not seeing any of it. My salary as a professor is less than I'd make teaching public school, and combined with my wife's two jobs our children still qualify for Medicaid. But we make it work.

The lender or the bank would. They would treat each loan under the same scrutiny that they would any other loan.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If you cannot expect a return greater than the cost....yes..worthless buggery.

You are expecting (most) students to make ROI decisions that (most) people in government can't do.

 

[VolStrom]

Who decides if the degree is worthless? Are we focusing on monetary production, or contribution towards the betterment of society?

And yes, the bolded part is right on the money. I'm certainly not seeing any of it. My salary as a professor is less than I'd make teaching public school, and combined with my wife's two jobs our children still qualify for Medicaid. But we make it work.

I'm sorry, but I find it unbelievable that you work as a professor and your wife works 2 jobs and your kids qualify for medicaid. I'm really not sure that 3 jobs at minimum wage would qualify for medicaid. Your story doesn't add up.

 

[AshG]

I'm sorry, but I find it unbelievable that you work as a professor and your wife works 2 jobs and your kids qualify for medicaid. I'm really not sure that 3 jobs at minimum wage would qualify for medicaid. Your story doesn't add up.

I am a full time lecturer, which is the rank below assistant Professor. I am on a ten month contract and make less than $50k. My contract (and my health) do not allow me to get a second job.

My wife works 35 hours a week as a library aid at a local middle school (which is the de facto librarian, as there are no middle school librarians in our county) and also does 15+ hours of college writing tutoring to fill in the gaps. She's looking for full time, or as close to it as possible, employment this summer.

 

[VolStrom]

I am a full time lecturer, which is the rank below assistant Professor. I am on a ten month contract and make less than $50k. My contract (and my health) do not allow me to get a second job.

My wife works 35 hours a week as a library aid at a local middle school (which is the de facto librarian, as there are no middle school librarians in our county) and also does 15+ hours of college writing tutoring to fill in the gaps. She's looking for full time, or as close to it as possible, employment this summer.

Why don't you have health care benefits if you're full time? Even McDonalds advertises healthcare benefits for employees.

 

[AshG]

@VolStrom I would have no problem sharing more details with you about this, but I'm not so sure this forum is the right place to leave that kind of information just sitting out.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Why don't you have health care benefits if you're full time? Even McDonalds advertises healthcare benefits for employees.

Well he did say full time, but then you have to also look and see that he also added in "contract". I'm sure that there are probably limits on benefits (if any benefits) that come with that.

Just spit-balling and speculating...