Student Loan Idiocy

[jwoodie]

Why on Earth would anyone take out large student loans to attend an expensive four year college when there are much cheaper alternatives (i.e., community and state colleges)?

 

[whitehall]

Why would loan institutes lend money for a two or three year party? They are forced to by government policies? The problem with student loans is that there is no equity. If a deadbeat kid flunks out the next deadbeat kid has to make up the difference until the system collapses or democrats decide that taxpayers should step in and make up the difference.

 

[AmyNation]

You're talking about young naive 18 year olds who, many times, don't fully understand what they are getting themselves into. They go to the college all their friends are going to, or the college that has the best program for their major and don't think about added cost.

My 1st year of college I didn't even fill out the loan applications or request the specific amount, my advisor did. He told my what classes I needed, signed me up for them, explained what extra money I'd need, filled out the paperwork and had me sign on the dotted line.

 

[DGS49]

For a lot of people, COLLEGE has become something other than a means to an end. It is a right of passage that every young adult is entitled to, involving a bit of education, but more importantly four years to party and be irresponsible.

The public perception of college life is largely created by show business folks who never actually had to get through college or get a Normal Job. They make it seem like a four-year-long beer bash, and kids who can't afford to do that with their own resources fool themselves into thinking that their post-college prosperity will make paying off those loans easy.

When I interact with high school juniors and seniors who are thinking about college, I often ask them if they have any understanding of the expression, "after-tax dollars," and how difficult it will be to pay off a loan while you are at the same time trying to support yourself. They have no fucking idea.

To be blunt about it, the main culprits are the parents, who simply refuse to do their job and guide the kids into something that is less than the kids dream of. Don't want to disappoint the little darlings, do we?

 

[nia588]

I think part of the problem is the media like in movies and shows they ridicule community colleges. A lot people also think community college isn't as good as a 4 year university.

It is a whole lots cheaper to go to community college first then transfer. But too many people think it's beneath them.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Esmeralda]

Why on Earth would anyone take out large student loans to attend an expensive four year college when there are much cheaper alternatives (i.e., community and state colleges)?

Because if you have a better degree, i.e., a degree from a prestigious university, you get a better, higher paying job and more probability for a career where you make a lot more money. A degree from a run of the mill state university, when up against a degree from a prestigious university, will not be competitive when going for really good, high paying jobs.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why on Earth would anyone take out large student loans to attend an expensive four year college when there are much cheaper alternatives (i.e., community and state colleges)?

Because if you have a better degree, i.e., a degree from a prestigious university, you get a better, higher paying job and more probability for a career where you make a lot more money. A degree from a run of the mill state university, when up against a degree from a prestigious university, will not be competitive when going for really good, high paying jobs.

Having recruited for Silicon Valley companies, that's only partly true.. MANY companies are snobbish about degrees, but ANY degreed student who read a couple "trade magazines" in the library their senior year, will do better in interviews than a fancy pants degreed grad.

Depends on what REAL TANGIBLE effort the student has put into preparing for the job.. MOST ALL universities do a very poor job of that. Would be better to have them take a subscription to a trade journal and get credits for reading it....

 

[Esmeralda]

Why on Earth would anyone take out large student loans to attend an expensive four year college when there are much cheaper alternatives (i.e., community and state colleges)?

Because if you have a better degree, i.e., a degree from a prestigious university, you get a better, higher paying job and more probability for a career where you make a lot more money. A degree from a run of the mill state university, when up against a degree from a prestigious university, will not be competitive when going for really good, high paying jobs.

Having recruited for Silicon Valley companies, that's only partly true.. MANY companies are snobbish about degrees, but ANY degreed student who read a couple "trade magazines" in the library their senior year, will do better in interviews than a fancy pants degreed grad.

Depends on what REAL TANGIBLE effort the student has put into preparing for the job.. MOST ALL universities do a very poor job of that. Would be better to have them take a subscription to a trade journal and get credits for reading it....

It may depend on the type of job and/or company, but my experience is that where one earns a degree is very important. A degree from Harvard is far more influential than a degree from a mediocre state university.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because if you have a better degree, i.e., a degree from a prestigious university, you get a better, higher paying job and more probability for a career where you make a lot more money. A degree from a run of the mill state university, when up against a degree from a prestigious university, will not be competitive when going for really good, high paying jobs.

Having recruited for Silicon Valley companies, that's only partly true.. MANY companies are snobbish about degrees, but ANY degreed student who read a couple "trade magazines" in the library their senior year, will do better in interviews than a fancy pants degreed grad.

Depends on what REAL TANGIBLE effort the student has put into preparing for the job.. MOST ALL universities do a very poor job of that. Would be better to have them take a subscription to a trade journal and get credits for reading it....

It may depend on the type of job and/or company, but my experience is that where one earns a degree is very important. A degree from Harvard is far more influential than a degree from a mediocre state university.

For GRADUATE degrees? Certainly.. Undergraduate? not so much.. Even the snobby companies recognize the general equivalence of an Undergrad degree. So why shouldn't the Preppy schools be required to compete in price for an undergrad degree?

And why would anyone waste money on the 1st 4 years at one of the most expensive schools if they are motivated to learn?

DO they think they're BUYING prestige instead of earning it? Save the money for graduate work -- where your professor sees you as USEFUL LABOR and not a burden...

 

[DGS49]

As a community college grad with a law degree, I had no trouble transferring my credits to a better school for ed and 4th year, and was accepted in the MBA program at Carnegie Mellon U (close to Ivy League) with no problem.

There are a couple local doctors who were noted several years ago for their minimum cost strategy: They took accelerated classes in HS, then took the GED as soon as they were eligible (I think it was 16 Y.O.), and went to CC for two years. Then they transferred to a state school for the last two years, and were accepted to more than one med school at a very young age. Top grades, of course.

It can be done "cheaply," but who has that kind of maturity at 17-18 years old? I sure as hell didn't. I got my education after military service.

 

[jwoodie]

As a community college grad with a law degree, I had no trouble transferring my credits to a better school for ed and 4th year, and was accepted in the MBA program at Carnegie Mellon U (close to Ivy League) with no problem.

There are a couple local doctors who were noted several years ago for their minimum cost strategy: They took accelerated classes in HS, then took the GED as soon as they were eligible (I think it was 16 Y.O.), and went to CC for two years. Then they transferred to a state school for the last two years, and were accepted to more than one med school at a very young age. Top grades, of course.

It can be done "cheaply," but who has that kind of maturity at 17-18 years old? I sure as hell didn't. I got my education after military service.

Ditto. Why is it that lenders are excoriated for making unaffordable mortgage loans to adults, but applauded for making unaffordable student loans to children?

 

[Whereisup]

For students going to college to get a job, colleges and universities are free job training programs for the corporations. Thus, those students are talking our large loans to pay for this job training which benefits corporations, who aren't paying directly, and who are paying less and less indirectly in the form of taxes on corporate profits are reduced.

Those students who go to college or university because they want to learn knowledge end up doing research which greatly benefits everyone.

Now, is increasingly forcing students to take out large student loans of actual benefit to corporations and to America as a whole?

First, when students start work with a large debt, they aren't able to buy as many goods and services that the corporations produce. That causes the corporations to have lower sales, and therefore lower earning, than if the students could start their jobs able to buy more goods and services from the corporations.

Second, students often have to work as part of the package. It is warm to see students trying to do what they think is the right thing. However, there is much to learn and students need to spend full time learning. If they work, that only causes them to come out with an education much less than it would be if they had been able to study full time.

Those of you who identified the entertainment media as part of the problem are of course on to something important. America is quite anti-intellectual, and this is an attitude which has come from the culture. It seems to have started more than a hundred years ago when various writers began pushing the idea that Americans were superior to pointy headed European intellectuals who spent their time thinking.

It has carried forward in many ways. For example, the idea that there is something wrong with teachers and no good red blooded American boy or girl wants to learn things in school. As an example, there was a commercial showing a dried up schoolteacher leading children through an art gallery, and then the commercial saying that the race track it was touting was much more interesting.

It has gone in deep. There is something of a movement that children should not have to do homework, because then they wouldn't have time for a good childhood. My mother deliberately got lower grades in school, rather than the top grades that she could have, because if she had gotten top grades, she would have been unpopular with the other girls. There are stereotypes which really come down hard on boys who do well in school.

As a result, American children score below the children of about 30 other nations in various achievement tests.

So of course, many college students don't go to college to learn, but think they have to go because their parents said so, and it would lead to a job with higher pay.

The solution would be to just give full scholarships to everyone who wants to go to college.

It wouldn't really require all that much of America's 15 trillion dollars per year Gross Domestic Product. A $30,000 per year scholarship per student, assuming 10 million students in college in any one year, would only be 300 billion dollars per year. 300 billion dollars per year would only be 2% of America's Gross Domestic Product. We could easily afford it, and if we reformed the culture so that it encouraged people to be interested in learning knowledge, the combination would produce a much better educational system.

Jim

 

[flacaltenn]

For students going to college to get a job, colleges and universities are free job training programs for the corporations. Thus, those students are talking our large loans to pay for this job training which benefits corporations, who aren't paying directly, and who are paying less and less indirectly in the form of taxes on corporate profits are reduced.

Those students who go to college or university because they want to learn knowledge end up doing research which greatly benefits everyone.

Now, is increasingly forcing students to take out large student loans of actual benefit to corporations and to America as a whole?

First, when students start work with a large debt, they aren't able to buy as many goods and services that the corporations produce. That causes the corporations to have lower sales, and therefore lower earning, than if the students could start their jobs able to buy more goods and services from the corporations.

Second, students often have to work as part of the package. It is warm to see students trying to do what they think is the right thing. However, there is much to learn and students need to spend full time learning. If they work, that only causes them to come out with an education much less than it would be if they had been able to study full time.

Those of you who identified the entertainment media as part of the problem are of course on to something important. America is quite anti-intellectual, and this is an attitude which has come from the culture. It seems to have started more than a hundred years ago when various writers began pushing the idea that Americans were superior to pointy headed European intellectuals who spent their time thinking.

It has carried forward in many ways. For example, the idea that there is something wrong with teachers and no good red blooded American boy or girl wants to learn things in school. As an example, there was a commercial showing a dried up schoolteacher leading children through an art gallery, and then the commercial saying that the race track it was touting was much more interesting.

It has gone in deep. There is something of a movement that children should not have to do homework, because then they wouldn't have time for a good childhood. My mother deliberately got lower grades in school, rather than the top grades that she could have, because if she had gotten top grades, she would have been unpopular with the other girls. There are stereotypes which really come down hard on boys who do well in school.

As a result, American children score below the children of about 30 other nations in various achievement tests.

So of course, many college students don't go to college to learn, but think they have to go because their parents said so, and it would lead to a job with higher pay.

The solution would be to just give full scholarships to everyone who wants to go to college.

It wouldn't really require all that much of America's 15 trillion dollars per year Gross Domestic Product. A $30,000 per year scholarship per student, assuming 10 million students in college in any one year, would only be 300 billion dollars per year. 300 billion dollars per year would only be 2% of America's Gross Domestic Product. We could easily afford it, and if we reformed the culture so that it encouraged people to be interested in learning knowledge, the combination would produce a much better educational system.

Jim

Anyone making the statement that "universities are free job training for corporations" is so brain-numbed by leftist agi-prop -- that they don't even know what motivates an individual to learn. And are obviously not giving folks any credit for creating their own destinies..

You might make more sense -- if you pulled the plug on your political umbilical cord for awhile.. Just to see how NORMAL folks actually think and behave..

 

[Whereisup]

Personal comments about me aren't exactly data, but people have a free speech right to not answer with data. So I'm not going to complain to you.

The rest is a matter of the United States being in terrible trouble. Normal people aren't helping, but I don't want to try to shove that down their throats. I just mention it so they can think about it if they wish to do so.

We could save ourselves if even five or ten percent of the population were to become clear about things. So it's also not necessary that most people change. We only need a small percentage to change.

Jim