Student Loan Bailout

[GGT]

...and liberal arts degrees lead to a much smaller wage premium than STEM degrees (which make up ~15% of awarded undergrad degrees). Which implies that general skills give you an edge up over high school alone, but it might merely be masking a selection phenomenon, but actual marketable skills matter from a wage perspective. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion in the past as well.

Yeah, we've had those discussions in the past. It's also fairly difficult for young HS grads to decide between "getting an edge up on employment" while they enter college and declare a major. It used to be conventional wisdom (in the last few decades) to encourage students to follow their dream, find a degree that fit their proclivities, and fine tune them.

Art, History, Sociology, Philosophy, and Language lovers were led toward Liberal Arts degrees based on the promise/premise that what they loved to study had value. That they could find employment in various tangential fields. Not just as managers, planners, evaluators, adjudicators, educators, facilitators, but also as creative thinkers, innovators, Big Picture People. Seamlessly and fluidly connecting their formal educations with the needs of the greater populace. Having some secret knowledge four years in advance, that what they're studying will mean a damn thing four years later.

It's what I've come to (personally) call the "Zoo Factor".

Michigan costs about $15k/year. That's a pretty damned good school. Illinois is about $16-17k. Maryland is under $9k. The Cal system is about $15k. Texas is under $12k. Virginia is about $12k. UNC is about $8k. Washington is under $11k. Wisconsin is about $8k. Penn State, btw, is about $16k. OSU is about $10k.

Most of those schools are in the top 50; they'll beat any education outside of the top 20 or so universities in the US (and the top 50 or so universities in the world).


Your numbers are wrong. We've been through this before. Even in this awful climate for financial aid/etc., it's currently about $25k average for students who graduated in 2010 (I don't recall seeing the 2011 numbers; they might not yet exist). Those numbers are also a bit skewed - I believe it only takes the average of students who actually have debt, which are only about two thirds of the total who graduate. The Project on Student Debt runs the numbers every year.


Oh, please. If you can't get into a top tier private school on merit, then go to a state school and walk out with minimal debt, likely all of it federally subsidized. And if you spend $200,000 getting a degree in French lit, I have no sympathy.


All short term concerns for anyone with a useful degree.

[GGT]

...and liberal arts degrees lead to a much smaller wage premium than STEM degrees (which make up ~15% of awarded undergrad degrees). Which implies that general skills give you an edge up over high school alone, but it might merely be masking a selection phenomenon, but actual marketable skills matter from a wage perspective. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion in the past as well.

Yeah, we've had these discussions before. "Marketable Skills" means more than those who find STEM degrees by affinity. What's the metaphor? Can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse?

Michigan costs about $15k/year. That's a pretty damned good school. Illinois is about $16-17k. Maryland is under $9k. The Cal system is about $15k. Texas is under $12k. Virginia is about $12k. UNC is about $8k. Washington is under $11k. Wisconsin is about $8k. Penn State, btw, is about $16k. OSU is about $10k.

Most of those schools are in the top 50; they'll beat any education outside of the top 20 or so universities in the US (and the top 50 or so universities in the world).

And those rates only apply to in-state residence. For our European members across the pond...yeah, education is "strategic". State university education and in-state tuition can mean a difference between less than $9,000 or nearly double that. But we don't have a way to compare those costs, or why one college degree is "worth" almost double of any other.

Your numbers are wrong. We've been through this before. Even in this awful climate for financial aid/etc., it's currently about $25k average for students who graduated in 2010 (I don't recall seeing the 2011 numbers; they might not yet exist). Those numbers are also a bit skewed - I believe it only takes the average of students who actually have debt, which are only about two thirds of the total who graduate. The Project on Student Debt runs the numbers every year.

Huh, in just two posts you've gone from saying the average debt for college grads was $20K and then $25K. A five thousand dollar difference is a lot of money to most people, especially to young grads entering the work force. Who may not have a job in their field anyway.

Oh, please. If you can't get into a top tier private school on merit, then go to a state school and walk out with minimal debt, likely all of it federally subsidized. And if you spend $200,000 getting a degree in French lit, I have no sympathy.

All short term concerns for anyone with a useful degree.

Oh, please. Haven't you incorporated what I've posted about state or federal school funding, or the lack of academic and debt counseling, and how so many college grads end up with more debt than they could possibly repay in their first year (or ten) of employment?

[Ominous Gamer]

1 - So I have a problem with students living high on the tax payer funded hog and using those student loan funds for non-educational purposes. Besides what is the problem with working AND going to college? Millions do it. In fact I bet those millions who do that are more successful than the ones that don't on average.

So much bullshit in such few sentences How bad off is your life if you consider owning a PS3 as living high on the hog? I mean seriously, what the fuck? And why would anyone trust your interpretations of what is for an education purpose? The PS3 was a pretty powerful and well valued internet portal "back in the day." Are you also going to go after desktops and laptops? How about graphing calculators? Pencils, paper? Or maybe printers? Internet access perhaps? How about transportation to get to class? Thats not even getting into the concept that you either don't understand the importance of rest and relaxation, or you think students don't deserve such things. Point is, this is you sprouting off false outrage at concepts you don't understand, and you're to lazy to actually look into. As we can see by your over generalizations and sweeping statements without any sort of citation. Millions of people work and attend college, out of how many? what hours? graduation rates? time till degree completion? and (besides your ass), what do you have thats suggesting these people are being more successful with their educational and career path after college?

2 - You would argue that there is no correlation between SAT scores and success?

whoa, way to dodge the question. Lets try that again. What information do you have that suggest a 16-17 year old posting up passing SAT scores shows that person being more likely to repay college loans 10 years down the road? See, I haven't made a statement on this. I'm asking you to back up the bullshit you allowed to drip out of your keyboard.

3 - Yes most don't finish in 4 years. Because there is little incentive to do so. Letting the money spigot run dry will motivate students to actually work hard and NOT waste their time. Do you realize how many 18 year old's want to go to a 4 year university for the "college experience" (read socialization and partying) as opposed to going to a community college for two years and than transferring? If kids are sucking on the taxpayer teat then darn it they should have to get their ass in gear and not waste time. Four years and go. If you can't finish in 4 years well hell that doesn't mean you can't go to college that just means you *pay your own way.*

This statement makes very little sense, even when you remove the weasel words and overly broad generalizations without facts.
Maybe you're confusing scholarships with loans?

[agamemnus]

@Ominous: State schools are still pretty cheap, and well-subsidized.. it's not really just a loans situation.

[Momo]

2. Require standards for student loans. I'm not talking about credit worthiness, I'm talking about SAT scores. I'm sure there is going to be a high correlation between good students and repaying these debts compared to poor students.

I'm really not sure about it. Fewer students will have high scores, which means fewer loans, which means less credit power.

I also don't think that there's any credibility to the idea that higher-scoring students pay off their debts better than lower-scoring ones.

[wiggin]

Art, History, Sociology, Philosophy, and Language lovers were led toward Liberal Arts degrees based on the promise/premise that what they loved to study had value. That they could find employment in various tangential fields. Not just as managers, planners, evaluators, adjudicators, educators, facilitators, but also as creative thinkers, innovators, Big Picture People. Seamlessly and fluidly connecting their formal educations with the needs of the greater populace. Having some secret knowledge four years in advance, that what they're studying will mean a damn thing four years later.

No one says that learning doesn't have value in an abstract sense, but people definitely know that a literature degree is pretty damned useless in the real world.

And those rates only apply to in-state residence. For our European members across the pond...yeah, education is "strategic". State university education and in-state tuition can mean a difference between less than $9,000 or nearly double that. But we don't have a way to compare those costs, or why one college degree is "worth" almost double of any other.

How do you not have a way to compare those costs? You have the tuition information right there, you can get multiple financial aid packages, and you can look at average employment and starting salary numbers of people leaving the institutions. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Rarely is expensive private school worth it except for people going into academic disciplines or the very best private research universities.

Huh, in just two posts you've gone from saying the average debt for college grads was $20K and then $25K. A five thousand dollar difference is a lot of money to most people, especially to young grads entering the work force. Who may not have a job in their field anyway.

Average debt for college graduates last year was $25k; most people who have graduated in the last decade or two started out with less. And $5k paid over 10 years at subsidized interest rates is hardly a lot of money.

Oh, please. Haven't you incorporated what I've posted about state or federal school funding, or the lack of academic and debt counseling, and how so many college grads end up with more debt than they could possibly repay in their first year (or ten) of employment?

I don't have sympathy for people who can't do simple math yet go to college. If they're taking out a loan, they should be able to figure out that they'll have to repay it at some point.

[Ominous Gamer]

Average debt for college graduates last year was $25k; most people who have graduated in the last decade or two started out with less. And $5k paid over 10 years at subsidized interest rates is hardly a lot of money.

You're a quick little bugger This info just came out didn't it? 25,250 on average, up 5% from last year. with public tuition jumping 8.3% this year over last (could make for some interesting loan figures for next year).

[wiggin]

There's quite a bit of delay between tuition rises and rises in student loans for graduates, actually, but yes, I agree that tuition and loans are increasing, much faster than the overall inflation rate. I'm still not particularly exercised about it - for one, some of the issues are cyclical (tuition rises for public institutions quite a bit during budget crunches, and private institutions have less financial aid when their endowments take a tumble in the markets); for another, college is still a fantastically good deal given the lifetime wage/economic benefits.

I graduated with slightly less than the average loan load for my year, mostly because I qualified for some hefty merit scholarships. My wife graduated with just about the average for her year. We both went to a very expensive private university, and neither of our families are particularly poor or wealthy (top quartile income-wise?). These loans are piddling - mine cost about $80/month (which I didn't even have to pay for 6 years while Uncle Sam picked up the interest during my graduate work), and hers cost a bit under $200/month. Given that our degrees increased our individual monthly income by well over $2k, I think that's pretty reasonable, especially since the loans are paid off in 10 years, but the wage benefits continue indefinitely. Even double our loan load would have been a great deal.

For the cost of a new car, a student can get a 4-year degree. Seems fine to me.

[GGT]

No one says that learning doesn't have value in an abstract sense, but people definitely know that a literature degree is pretty damned useless in the real world.

And yet there are professional jobs requiring degrees, that don't involve STEM. Art curators, anthropologists, journalists, language interpreters...

How do you not have a way to compare those costs? You have the tuition information right there, you can get multiple financial aid packages, and you can look at average employment and starting salary numbers of people leaving the institutions. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Rarely is expensive private school worth it except for people going into academic disciplines or the very best private research universities.

My point is that it's near impossible to gauge what the extra costs mean, especially comparing state university extension campuses. Do they have "better" professors or a fancier cafeteria and new dorms? Does paying less mean students are stuck in corn field towns, and they're trying to replace students that leave after the first year? Those things don't show up in web sites and can't be quantified by simple numbers. Now you've got to add in the costs of visiting and comparing campuses one weekend at a time, a cost many families can't afford in transportation and hotels, or time off work.

....college is still a fantastically good deal given the lifetime wage/economic benefits.

....These loans are piddling - mine cost about $80/month (which I didn't even have to pay for 6 years while Uncle Sam picked up the interest during my graduate work), and hers cost a bit under $200/month. Given that our degrees increased our individual monthly income by well over $2k, I think that's pretty reasonable, especially since the loans are paid off in 10 years, but the wage benefits continue indefinitely. Even double our loan load would have been a great deal.

For the cost of a new car, a student can get a 4-year degree. Seems fine to me.

I think you're over-simplifying things based on your personal experience. I agree a college degree is worthwhile to pursue, but not for everyone, and not based solely on wage/economic benefits. The old conventional wisdom used to be....go to college, get a degree, you'll secure a job at graduation, and can build a career faster/easier. But that's not really true today. Not in this labor market.

$200/month in loans is still hard to pay for those who don't have a job in their field, or are working as Starbucks baristas. (And a new car can be had for $10K, but I don't know of any four year degree that runs that cheap. )

[wiggin]

And yet there are professional jobs requiring degrees, that don't involve STEM. Art curators, anthropologists, journalists, language interpreters...

The numbers of those jobs are vanishingly small compared to other fields. How many art curator positions open up in the US every year? A few dozen? Journalism is a dead field; my undergrad institution has one of the best journalism schools in the country, but no one leaving there could get jobs because newspapers are hemorrhaging jobs. Anthropologists are limited to a small group of academics. Interpreters are vaguely more in demand, but only in specific fields, and are still a pretty small number of jobs.

The very best people in a given field can get a job regardless. But unless you choose your discipline of study carefully (it doesn't need to be STEM, but it helps), you'll be stuck with a very tough job market.

My point is that it's near impossible to gauge what the extra costs mean, especially comparing state university extension campuses. Do they have "better" professors or a fancier cafeteria and new dorms? Does paying less mean students are stuck in corn field towns, and they're trying to replace students that leave after the first year? Those things don't show up in web sites and can't be quantified by simple numbers. Now you've got to add in the costs of visiting and comparing campuses one weekend at a time, a cost many families can't afford in transportation and hotels, or time off work.

*shrugs* Any decision has unknowns, but you can get a decent comparison from the huge volume of data available about each university. As for the costs of visiting campuses - really? That's a drop in the bucket.

I think you're over-simplifying things based on your personal experience. I agree a college degree is worthwhile to pursue, but not for everyone, and not based solely on wage/economic benefits. The old conventional wisdom used to be....go to college, get a degree, you'll secure a job at graduation, and can build a career faster/easier. But that's not really true today. Not in this labor market.

$200/month in loans is still hard to pay for those who don't have a job in their field, or are working as Starbucks baristas. (And a new car can be had for $10K, but I don't know of any four year degree that runs that cheap. )

No one guarantees you a job, least of all someone getting a degree in underwater basket weaving or left-handed glass blowing. You can improve your chances of getting a job by a lot with a good degree, though - HS unemployment is far higher than bachelors unemployment, and certain fields have huge job shortages. It's not a secret which jobs those are, either.

[Lewkowski]

So much bullshit in such few sentences How bad off is your life if you consider owning a PS3 as living high on the hog? I mean seriously, what the fuck? And why would anyone trust your interpretations of what is for an education purpose? The PS3 was a pretty powerful and well valued internet portal "back in the day." Are you also going to go after desktops and laptops? How about graphing calculators? Pencils, paper? Or maybe printers? Internet access perhaps? How about transportation to get to class? Thats not even getting into the concept that you either don't understand the importance of rest and relaxation, or you think students don't deserve such things. Point is, this is you sprouting off false outrage at concepts you don't understand, and you're to lazy to actually look into. As we can see by your over generalizations and sweeping statements without any sort of citation. Millions of people work and attend college, out of how many? what hours? graduation rates? time till degree completion? and (besides your ass), what do you have thats suggesting these people are being more successful with their educational and career path after college?

PS3 as a valued internet connection? Completely unnecessary for students who have access to free computers AT the college. In addition it would be far less expensive to buy a notebook than a PS3. The PS3 though is just one example. There are no checks and balances on the money, it could be used for anything. Durgs, alcohol, gambling, partying, food, rent... whatever. A student loan should be used for educational purposes *only.* The government should not be subsidizing all that other crap.

I think people who work and go to college tend to be more successful because they have drive and a work ethic. Any idiot can get a student loan and party at a college for 6 years.

As far as the SAT thing predicting people repaying student loans that's just logical common sense. Do I have statistics on it? Nope. But even if I did you wouldn't change your opinion. How many times have I banged my head against the wall arguing that lower credit scores are an indicator of a more likelihood of filing an insurance claim? And that has tons of data backing it up - so your request for proof is a bit disingenuous. If I found a study showing a correlation between SAT scores and income would you change your mind? If you answer yes than I might be tempted to take a bit of effort to look.

[Aimless]

I think students should have to submit to monthly drug screening tests in order to qualify for either loans or any other form of financial aid.

[Lewkowski]

Do I think financial aid should be available for pretty much anyone attending college? Yes. Because it doesn't actually cost the government that much since, these being loans, so much of the money does get paid back. The marginal return on trying to filter out people who might not be good for it aren't worth the increase in marginal exclusions of people who would have succeeded despite falling afoul of the filters. And then there's the increase in costs to research, create, administer, update, etc the filtering formulas, appeals, and all other sundry necessary new parts in the process.

I'm not even suggesting extremely difficult filters, I'm talking about requiring just some basic knowledge before taking money out of the pockets of some people and loaning it out willy nilly.

[Lewkowski]

You're a quick little bugger This info just came out didn't it? 25,250 on average, up 5% from last year. with public tuition jumping 8.3% this year over last (could make for some interesting loan figures for next year).

You do realize that student loans given to everyone with a pulse IS one of the reasons for the rising cost of tuition?

[Lewkowski]

I think students should have to submit to monthly drug screening tests in order to qualify for either loans or any other form of financial aid.

See that is inefficient. If you just have direct payment to the school for tuition/fees you don't have to worry about the student squandering their loan money on drugs.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not even suggesting extremely difficult filters, I'm talking about requiring just some basic knowledge before taking money out of the pockets of some people and loaning it out willy nilly.

Like, the knowledge of how to use the multiquote-button or the edit-feature?

[Aimless]

http://www.google.se/search?hl=en&sa...56l270l0.2l2l0

Interestingly, a
higher SAT verbal score was weakly linked to loan default, a
result that remained constant across all regressions. The
counterintuitive results of the SAT verbal score are not easily
explained. In this author’s experience of retention modeling, the
SAT verbal score is often more strongly correlated to student
persistence than either the SAT combined score or SAT math
score. While the dependent variable of this model is loan de-
fault, the result remains puzzling. Neither the SAT math nor
SAT combined score entered as significant explanatory variables.

English majors

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...sXEmdm0DKq2uBA


The second one is funny:

Turning to comparisons across SAT/ACT test score quartiles, we find an interesting pattern.12

Default rates are highest for the most able (quartile 4) at 8.6%, followed closely by the lowest ability

quartile, which had a default rate of 7.5%. Default among those in the third ability quartile was by far

the lowest with only 2.4% choosing not to re-pay their loans. Total loan amounts were quite similar

across ability quartiles, with the the least able borrowing the most at $11,425 (about $1,000 more

than all other ability categories). Despite the non-monotonic relationship between ability and default,

family income is positively correlated with ability as shown in the final column. Fewer than 14% of

all high ability borrowers had family income levels below $25,000 in both 1993 and 1996, while more

than 19% of the lowest ability borrowers did.

[Ominous Gamer]

PS3 as a valued internet connection? Completely unnecessary for students who have access to free computers AT the college. In addition it would be far less expensive to buy a notebook than a PS3. The PS3 though is just one example. There are no checks and balances on the money, it could be used for anything. Durgs, alcohol, gambling, partying, food, rent... whatever. A student loan should be used for educational purposes *only.* The government should not be subsidizing all that other crap.

connection ≠ portal. And computers aren't free (nothing truely is) at colleges. Sure, they have open labs, but not nearly enough for all students. Because they expect some students to be unable to use them, they expect some students to have their own resources. How many computers did you own before 2005 that allowed you to plug it into your regular old TV without extra connections, equipment (its own desk, screen, keyboard, etc) or fiddling? And a notebook 6 years ago would have set you back what? Netbooks didn't start changing that playing field until a few years after the PS3. Even now, a PS3 is cheaper than a quality netbook.

But I'm starting to see that you understand this. That your example was shortsighted crap. Which is what I was getting at. You have no idea what should and shouldn't be classified as needed for facilitating educational learning. Perhaps that is why you didn't touch on any of the possible examples I gave?

I think people who work and go to college tend to be more successful because they have drive and a work ethic. Any idiot can get a student loan and party at a college for 6 years.

You think a lot of shit that turns out to be bunk. Is being required to hold down 2 activities, ignoring all performance in such activities, really all you need to claim they have better work ethic? Really?

As far as the SAT thing predicting people repaying student loans that's just logical common sense. Do I have statistics on it? Nope. But even if I did you wouldn't change your opinion. How many times have I banged my head against the wall arguing that lower credit scores are an indicator of a more likelihood of filing an insurance claim? And that has tons of data backing it up - so your request for proof is a bit disingenuous. If I found a study showing a correlation between SAT scores and income would you change your mind? If you answer yes than I might be tempted to take a bit of effort to look.

You problem is that you don't understand how to interpret indicators. You're a real glass half empty type of guy, and any time someone comes along and presents a more complete explaination, you go into hiding. Are you truely playing the victim to get out of providing a valid source for your rambling nonsense? Have you not learned yet, with all the head bashing from just about everyone that converses with you, that your "logical common sense" isn't logical, isn't common, and usually lacks all sense?

student squandering their loan money on drugs.

Where I have heard the drug line before? Oh yeah, our governor tried that. Turns out less than 1% of the applicants (without a drop in enrollment) turned out to be positive. how truely worried are you about that less then 1%?

Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't try to start this off with illicit connections instead of that PS3 nonsense.

[Lewkowski]

I didn't bring up drugs I was responding to the post made by Aimless.

Oh and the PS3 example, the guy actually did have a working computer. It was used for playing games. Though your really missing the point of the example. Should tax payer subsidized loans be used for recreational activity? It would be cumbersome to prove all expenses are school related so why don't we just have the funds go directly to the college and skip the hands of the student who is likely to use them irresponsibly?

[Aimless]

I know I perform a lot better when I have two demanding things to focus on instead of just one. I can't believe you guys haven't caught on to what everyone has always known, namely that students perform much better when they have to spend a significant portion of their day and their energy doing work that is totally unrelated to their studies.

[Ominous Gamer]

I didn't bring up drugs I was responding to the post made by Aimless.

I know, and thats kinda the point. Aimless is welcome to call me an idiot if I misread him, but he was pulling from the same thread I was. You're willing to put the livelihood of what could be a large percentage of college going teens and adults in jeopardy because of what you think is abuse, because of threats you haven't actually shown to materalize yet, from what could very well be a very small part of said population. Of course you don't understand that, you wouldn't know either way, because you refuse to do any type of research into your "common sense" gut feelings. Its all very Glenn Beckish.

Oh and the PS3 example, the guy actually did have a working computer. It was used for playing games.

Which one was used for playing games? See what I just did there? Using your line of reasoning, I just removed a computer, computer, as an educational tool.

Though your really missing the point of the example. Should tax payer subsidized loans be used for recreational activity?

No, I get the point just fine, in fact I even mentioned about the need for R&R, but you ignored that.

It would be cumbersome to prove all expenses are school related so why don't we just have the funds go directly to the college and skip the hands of the student who is likely to use them irresponsibly?

Lewk, wanting to take the decisions away from the individual, and here I am standing against that idea. I'd be shocked, if this didn't boil down to another case of "I've got mine, so fuck you". How exactly, or when exactly, is a good time for students to learn good financial responsibility, if not in college?

[Catgrrl]

Okay, obviously your college loan money shouldn't go to a video game console, no matter how someone may spin its usefulness. But, it's a loan. So, he's going to have to pay it back regardless, does it matter if he's a fool for wasting his education money on it? To me I look at it as you would someone qualifying for a car loan or any other type. If you blow the money of trivial shit you still have to pay it back.

Unless we are arguing for people to get out of their loans. Then maybe I could see how using your money "fraudulently" would be a problem.

You should see what people do with their leftover scholarship money (some of the smaller scholarships just cut you a check, so it's free money in the bank!)

[Wraith]

Okay, obviously your college loan money shouldn't go to a video game console, no matter how someone may spin its usefulness. But, it's a loan. So, he's going to have to pay it back regardless, does it matter if he's a fool for wasting his education money on it? To me I look at it as you would someone qualifying for a car loan or any other type. If you blow the money of trivial shit you still have to pay it back.

I agree with this. Since it's just a loan, I don't really give a shit how the money gets used, as long as it's paid back.

[Lewkowski]

Okay, obviously your college loan money shouldn't go to a video game console, no matter how someone may spin its usefulness. But, it's a loan. So, he's going to have to pay it back regardless, does it matter if he's a fool for wasting his education money on it? To me I look at it as you would someone qualifying for a car loan or any other type. If you blow the money of trivial shit you still have to pay it back.

Unless we are arguing for people to get out of their loans. Then maybe I could see how using your money "fraudulently" would be a problem.

You should see what people do with their leftover scholarship money (some of the smaller scholarships just cut you a check, so it's free money in the bank!)

The problem is that these are tax payer subsidized loans. They would not get those rates with an unsecured loan. They would not have loan forgiveness after 20 years. They would not have to only have 10% of their income go towards those loans. That's the problem. Your taking money away from people who don't get a say in the matter. The least the government should do is make sure its spent appropriately.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, wanting to take the decisions away from the individual, and here I am standing against that idea. I'd be shocked, if this didn't boil down to another case of "I've got mine, so fuck you". How exactly, or when exactly, is a good time for students to learn good financial responsibility, if not in college?

Oh by ALL means give the individual all the freedom they want! Just don't use a government program for it... let them get their loans from the private sector.

[Lewkowski]

I know I perform a lot better when I have two demanding things to focus on instead of just one. I can't believe you guys haven't caught on to what everyone has always known, namely that students perform much better when they have to spend a significant portion of their day and their energy doing work that is totally unrelated to their studies.

The majority of the day is not spent studying I can assure you of that. Heck did you know a lot of the Occupy "blank" place folks are college students? They have time to spend all day protesting AND I'm sure they are still passing all of their ridiculously easy courses.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not even suggesting extremely difficult filters, I'm talking about requiring just some basic knowledge before taking money out of the pockets of some people and loaning it out willy nilly.

Who gives a shit what you suggest, what matters is what form it might actually take if implemented. And that is going to involve a new and expanding office and bureaucracy over at the loan divisions in the Department of Education.

[Enoch the Red]

connection ≠ portal. And computers aren't free (nothing truely is) at colleges. Sure, they have open labs, but not nearly enough for all students. Because they expect some students to be unable to use them, they expect some students to have their own resources. How many computers did you own before 2005 that allowed you to plug it into your regular old TV without extra connections, equipment (its own desk, screen, keyboard, etc) or fiddling? And a notebook 6 years ago would have set you back what? Netbooks didn't start changing that playing field until a few years after the PS3. Even now, a PS3 is cheaper than a quality netbook.

There are a number of fallacies here, but I'll address the one that stuck out the most to me. I worked in a computer lab when I was in college, and it rarely was at capacity. All told, there might have been a total of a week every semester that it neared capacity, (typically at the beginning and end of the semester). Access to the computers was 'free,' (there's an mandatory technology fee for all students that covered the cost of the labs) and many labs were open 24/7. To argue that a student needs a PS3 to do their homework is more than disingenuous, it's fatuous. For most college students access to technology is not the limiting factor to their success.

[LittleFuzzy]

I know I perform a lot better when I have two demanding things to focus on instead of just one. I can't believe you guys haven't caught on to what everyone has always known, namely that students perform much better when they have to spend a significant portion of their day and their energy doing work that is totally unrelated to their studies.

*glowers* You mean a SUBSET of students. Don't go trying to declare something I know to be untrue for at least some people, most notably myself, to apply to all students.

[Catgrrl]

The problem is that these are tax payer subsidized loans. They would not get those rates with an unsecured loan. They would not have loan forgiveness after 20 years. They would not have to only have 10% of their income go towards those loans. That's the problem. Your taking money away from people who don't get a say in the matter. The least the government should do is make sure its spent appropriately.

Which is why I said, if we are talking about a situation where loans are being forgiven, then yes I understand that would be something to be considered fraudulent. The student should then be required to pay back the portion spent. If a student pays back his entire loan, whether that loan went to a ps3 or a chicken sandwich in the college cafeteria, it really shouldn't be a problem.

I'm guessing that this discussion was originally focused on the loan forgiveness versus how students use the loans, so my point probably doesn't apply.