Student loan problem. My solution for republicans to adopt

The price of higher education is going through the roof because the government guarantees the loan and will let anyone get a loan. This causes the schools to up the tuition price and keep the kids in school by any means necessary like keeping it easy enough for kids to pass that shouldn’t even be there. Having degrees in lesbian dance for $40k a year as an example or giving kids a teaching degree that can get them $33 k a year for the $200k they spent.

Two things will solve it. Stop guaranteeing the loans. If you can’t pay it back you can dissolve it through bankruptcy like any other debt. Also loans are to be paid back as a percentage of their earnings for ten years and that is all they should pay.

This will push schools to find and compete for the best students most likely to make the most money. They will end the lesbian dance degrees and push more engineering degrees that are useful. Kids that shouldn’t be in school will not be given loans because they are not likely to pass a degree that would make it worth their wild or the schools’s.

It will promote more community college, more trade schools, more entrepreneurs, and more degrees that can actually put the country to work in a meaningful way while simultaneously getting a lot of left wing nuts in ivory towers fired for not developing students that can bring money back to the schools.

That is my solution that republicans should back.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

I would back reforming the "degree" system to include only necessary classes for the specialty.

Streamline that crap, classify degrees by expected $ upon graduation and ban anything useless from Student Loan aid.


You want to go to college for crap, pay for it yourself.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

I think it would be better for any state funded school to be capped on tuition.

State schools don't need to compete for nicest campus. You don't need fountains and metal sculptures in every building or marble floors.

If you get tax payer dollars, offer a solid education and minimal infrastructure so people aren't going into crippling debt at the expense of the tax payer (often double because people default).

I don't think degrees on things like gender studies, or interpretative dance, etc should exist- but where there's a demand it will get filled.
Now, if you or someone you know thinks they can afford to pay back the tens of thousands of dollars in loans they need to take to get a degree in white-board-wiping, good for them! but if they think they can borrow that money and then make someone else pay it back... they deserve that debt.

The easiest solution is the most obvious one- make people pay back their debt.
If they can't make money with a given degree, they shouldn't borrow money to get that degree- unless the education is worth the debt to them.

That used to be common sense- but at some point that escaped many people.
This whole movement to forgive debt just because a bunch of kids made bad choices (given bad advice?) is just crazy to me.
That's like letting everyone buy these $500,000 houses in this market, and then when they can't afford to sell them in five years because the market has tanked and the houses aren't worth what they still owe, we let them just forget the debt and move out.
That simply isn't how money/loans work.

You'd think these people would be thrilled that given all the inflation as of late, their loans are hardly a problem anymore!

Student loan problem stems from the fact there are no real underwriting requirements that take into account future ability to pay. The only person on the hook for the debt is the borrower.

Because schools are not responsible for the loans of their students, they have no incentive to control costs or offer a cheaper product. The schools know that students will go into debt to attend, no matter the cost.

The easy fix is to put student loans back in the private market with no govt backing. In addition, require schools to guarantee a portion of their students' loans in case of default for a certain number of years. For example, a school guarantees say 10% of the loan up to five years post graduation. This way, schools are incentivized to ensure that hteir student not only graduate but also are gainfully employed so they can pay the student loans back.

If loans were in the private market with no guarantees, banks would underwrite them like they would any other debt. A straight A student might get a loan to attend MIT in engineering, but a mediocre student who wants to study art might find themselves hard to finance due to lack of earning potential.

What would happen is the tuition would go down for majors that generally aren't viewed as valuable due to lack of financing. You can study art, but no one is going to loan you money to do so. Therefore, you'd need to pay out of pocket and tuition costs would go down to reflect this reality. On the other hand, STEM tuition may remain higher due to financing availability but generally all tuition should go down since financing across the board would not be as plentiful.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I think it would be better for any state funded school to be capped on tuition.

Tuition is CHEAP. It is so much cheaper than people realize. You know what is not cheap, Room & board and books and starbucks and clothing and all the other crap people are putting on their student loans.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

Having degrees in lesbian dance for $40k a year

Is this a real subject that is taught in regular schools?

And then how many hours a week do physics, chemistry and mathematics get?

a reply to: JAGStorm

20k in state/ 40k out of state a year is what I usually hear. I wouldn't say that's cheap I'd you do 4 years.

80/160k with interest is a mortgage by the time you have a decent job.

It's far more expensive than it was for previous generations. And that's almost purely because campuses are competing to be the most boujie... There's also the fed backed loans that made them realize they could charge whatever.

a reply to: Edumakated

I agree there is definitely an opportunity to enable more of a market-driven approach to access to student loans.

One element I don't see mentioned as a contributing factor to student loan debt is the role that runaway institutional spending has on tuition and fees, which then consequently force students to borrow more money to enroll.

The small private college where I attended undergrad, and the medium size university where I got my graduate degree, have both undergone what can only be described as explosive facility and staff expansion over the past 20 years.

The small private college has a ridiculous endowment, so they can, to a degree, write off and defray the costs for this expansion as it pertains to what was already, when I was there, an outrageously high tuition, which for me was nearly 100% paid down from scholarship, financial aid and debt.

The medium size university does not have that kind of endowment, plus, by and large they are enrolling more students from lower end socioeconomic rungs (i.e. my rung growing up) and are not pulling in the immediate cash flow from parents paying outright for tuition, and then on top of that, opening up the checkbook for donations to the school.

The big business of education, and all of the trappings of the mega facilities, lavish dorms, top notch fitness centers, social/community buildings, exquisite dining halls, and on and on have taken on a life of their own, and if your institution isn't paying for that out of endowment, they will be jacking up the tuition, which will in turn inflate the debt most students incur to get in the door.

Sadly, many students' eyes light up at these beautiful facilities without inferring that the splendor of these facilities is what will be indirectly lengthening the debt runway they will have after their four years are complete.

The best bet, IMHO, especially in the era of COVID, is to promote remote learning, and online classes. If you want to partake of the "college" experience, that's fine, but perhaps the introduction of student debt should be offered on tuition and class fees, less so on room/board/meals etc.

It's a hard pill to swallow at age 17-21 that austerity and a focus on the academic side of why you're in college (rather than having the coolest dorms and dining halls) will, 10-20 years down the road, pay dividends.

The colleges and universities? Like I said, that is a big and growing business, and all they know or care about is growth, expansion, and keeping up with the competitive institutions. So the extent of debt that Joe or Jane student walks away with is, as they see it, not really "their problem".

So, anything that can be done to start making these educational institutions start focusing more on...education...and having "skin in the game" of the long term financial health of their alumni.....and less so on commercial development of their campus....is a good thing in my view.

originally posted by: turretless

Is this a real subject that is taught in regular schools?

And then how many hours a week do physics, chemistry and mathematics get?

Are you joking?

Here is how you do it.

1. Lower current loans to an interest of 2% so they can pay them off.
2. Stop the guarantee loan program completely as its a ripoff and predatory in nature.
3. Offer Government subsistence for skill based training programs.


This will stop colleges from creating crap degrees that have zero alignment with the business world.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
a reply to: Edumakated

I agree there is definitely an opportunity to enable more of a market-driven approach to access to student loans.

One element I don't see mentioned as a contributing factor to student loan debt is the role that runaway institutional spending has on tuition and fees, which then consequently force students to borrow more money to enroll.

The small private college where I attended undergrad, and the medium size university where I got my graduate degree, have both undergone what can only be described as explosive facility and staff expansion over the past 20 years.

The small private college has a ridiculous endowment, so they can, to a degree, write off and defray the costs for this expansion as it pertains to what was already, when I was there, an outrageously high tuition, which for me was nearly 100% paid down from scholarship, financial aid and debt.

The medium size university does not have that kind of endowment, plus, by and large they are enrolling more students from lower end socioeconomic rungs (i.e. my rung growing up) and are not pulling in the immediate cash flow from parents paying outright for tuition, and then on top of that, opening up the checkbook for donations to the school.

The big business of education, and all of the trappings of the mega facilities, lavish dorms, top notch fitness centers, social/community buildings, exquisite dining halls, and on and on have taken on a life of their own, and if your institution isn't paying for that out of endowment, they will be jacking up the tuition, which will in turn inflate the debt most students incur to get in the door.

Sadly, many students' eyes light up at these beautiful facilities without inferring that the splendor of these facilities is what will be indirectly lengthening the debt runway they will have after their four years are complete.

The best bet, IMHO, especially in the era of COVID, is to promote remote learning, and online classes. If you want to partake of the "college" experience, that's fine, but perhaps the introduction of student debt should be offered on tuition and class fees, less so on room/board/meals etc.

It's a hard pill to swallow at age 17-21 that austerity and a focus on the academic side of why you're in college (rather than having the coolest dorms and dining halls) will, 10-20 years down the road, pay dividends.

The colleges and universities? Like I said, that is a big and growing business, and all they know or care about is growth, expansion, and keeping up with the competitive institutions. So the extent of debt that Joe or Jane student walks away with is, as they see it, not really "their problem".

So, anything that can be done to start making these educational institutions start focusing more on...education...and having "skin in the game" of the long term financial health of their alumni.....and less so on commercial development of their campus....is a good thing in my view.

The tuition increases are driven by the availability of the loans. Schools can spend like drunken sailors on worthless administrators and rock climbing walls because students are willing to continue to take on more debt to attend.

If debt wasn't available (or significantly restricted), tuition would fall dramatically.

Anytime you have easy financing available, it will lead to an increase in prices. See housing. See healthcare. See student loans. See car prices.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Are you joking?

I am not joking.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Also loans are to be paid back as a percentage of their earnings for ten years and that is all they should pay.

That's not a bad idea, but the logistics are kinda painful. Colleges make money based on tuition; stop them from making a profit and they'll close their doors. Some here will say that's fine, but I do not; we need good schools, not no schools.

So here's a counter to that proposal: every school which receives any Federal or state monies, for any reason (yes, that includes grants) must show that their tuition for a degree, if financed via student loan, can be paid back by 10% of the expected average income working in that field for ten years, or that degree is blacklisted and cannot be offered. If an engineering degree can translate into 100k/year, then it has to be capable of being paid by in payments of 10K/year ($883 per month for 120 months). if that equation works out, fine; if not, they have to either cut tuition or stop offering the degree... or do it without any taxpayer assistance.

There's no reason for taxpayers to fund some kid who wants a degree in "polysexual studies"...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: turretless

I am not joking.

There are totally sh!t degrees out there for people who should not be in college much less handle a STEM degree. They are told by the college this degree will get you 100k a year job and it ends up getting them head fryer at BK.

The average student loan is 39k, so some people seem to want to inflate it to seem it is unpayable, but it is basically the cost of a mid level car. It is payable and they should pay it back, but if they have 15% interest then it is unpayable.

Here is a funny fact, the student average loan in UK where school is "free" is actually more than the US.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

There are totally sh!t degrees out there for people who should not be in college much less handle a STEM degree. They are told by the college this degree will get you 100k a year job and it ends up getting them head fryer at BK.

The average student loan is 39k, so some people seem to want to inflate it to seem it is unpayable, but it is basically the cost of a mid level car. It is payable and they should pay it back, but if they have 15% interest then it is unpayable.

Here is a funny fact, the student average loan in UK where school is "free" is actually more than the US.

This is certainly interesting information, but I was asking about a different thing.

About lesbian dancing as a subject taught in schools.

a reply to: infolurker

I would back reforming the "degree" system to include only necessary classes for the specialty.

That's already being done; the result is an "Applied Associates" (two-year) degree. Those are simply not worth as much as a full Associates, but they do help one get started in a position. After that, they can advance as they are able. A full Associates makes the starting point a little higher.

(That's based on how things worked before everyone and their brother started getting online degrees... not sure about now.)

But I disagree with degrees being so specialized. There are two benefits to college: one is obviously to get a better job, but the other, which I believe is just as important, is to give a well-rounded education that helps with general needs one might have in that job. For instance, I had to take several English classes for my engineering degrees... hated them! But they also gave me a more advanced ability to write, useful when communicating with peers about projects.

I had to take speech class... now I would feel comfortable addressing an audience to explain something I did.

I had to take history... now I have a deeper insight into how society would likely react to new concepts.

I had to take business classes... which gave me an idea of how my work might affect my empoyer's bottom line.

There's a lot to be said for those "superfluous" classes.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: turretless

About lesbian dancing as a subject taught in schools.

Alt liberal schools like Berkley in CA I'm sure have something like that or even more not really education type degrees...lol

a reply to: turretless

About lesbian dancing as a subject taught in schools.

Here's a dissertation for PhD in a subject pretty similar.

Be warned, .pdf file.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Well ya, but you still got an eng degree, how about Hospitality and Tourism degree with an average pay of 24k per year.