Student Loan Bailout

[Aimless]

*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.

I spoke in jest Fuzzy

[Ominous Gamer]

all the freedom they want! Just don't use

Its not surprising you don't see the hiccup in this, after all this is coming from Lewk, who sees nothing wrong with the predatory actions of payday loan locations. Which wouldn't be all that relevant, except that the non-existent credit worthiness of fresh out of high school teenagers would push them to such places. Hell, I remember my freshman year and some of the students not being old enough to have the utilities in their name.

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.

more weasel words and blanket bullshit

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).

and I attended a college where entire floors of computers would be taken for large quanties of the day. What of it?
What do you think the ratio of computer : student was? Do you honestly believe there were enough machines for all the students to share on a regular basis, even if they worked in perfect shifts?

Access to the computers was 'free,' (there's an mandatory technology fee for all students that covered the cost of the labs)

Thats what I said

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.

I'm not really arguing that any students needs a PS3 (thanks for missing the point). Its more to the point that Lewk has such a short-sighted vision of the usefulnes of certain purchases, that trying to decide which is "worth" "his" money is simply pointless.

[Aimless]

Out of curiosity, what happens to the interest on these student loans?

[Enoch the Red]

and I attended a college where entire floors of computers would be taken for large quanties of the day. What of it?
What do you think the ratio of computer : student was? Do you honestly believe there were enough machines for all the students to share on a regular basis, even if they worked in perfect shifts?

What do you think the ration of parking to student was? What is the ratio of teachers to students?

Thats what I said

Which doesn't necessitate using your student loan to pay for a PS3 to get a top-notch education.

I'm not really arguing that any students needs a PS3 (thanks for missing the point). Its more to the point that Lewk has such a short-sighted vision of the usefulnes of certain purchases, that trying to decide which is "worth" "his" money is simply pointless.

Are you saying you wouldn't have any problem giving your average student a loan for a PS3 for educational purposes? Do you think that the majority of people who buy PS3's do so as an inexpensive way to browse the internet? To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, how it pertains to what Lewk wrote, or what you hope to achieve beyond piling on Lewk for having the gall to post.

Instead of acknowledging what is very likely true -- "You know, some people may abuse their student loans, but the system has merit because..." you tilted at windmills to rationalize something that is almost certainly had little to no educational value. It's okay to acknowledge a valid point, even if Lewk is the one making it.

[Ominous Gamer]

What do you think the ration of parking to student was? What is the ratio of teachers to students?

What is with this love of answering a question with a question (with a question)? Instead of you know, answering the question? Is the hole that obvious?

Which doesn't necessitate using your student loan to pay for a PS3 to get a top-notch education.

Which has fuck all to do with the idea of colleges having to wrap more fees and services into their tution in order to help their students make it day to day under Lewk's idea of a "better" system.

Are you saying you wouldn't have any problem giving your average student a loan for a PS3 for educational purposes? Do you think that the majority of people who buy PS3's do so as an inexpensive way to browse the internet? To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, how it pertains to what Lewk wrote, or what you hope to achieve beyond piling on Lewk for having the gall to post.

Instead of acknowledging what is very likely true -- "You know, some people may abuse their student loans, but the system has merit because..." you tilted at windmills to rationalize something that is almost certainly had little to no educational value. It's okay to acknowledge a valid point, even if Lewk is the one making it.

If you're done preaching from that high horse, the first thing I wrote was how the ability to purchase a PS3 may be a result of the poor planning in issueing out lump payments. See, I don't like the weasel words like most, some, etc because it shows a lack of understanding on the subject. If you want to claim something, how about some proof? Lewk presented a personal example as evidence to support his claim, an extremely poor example, and I dismantled it.

And no, I don't have a problem at all with college students using whatever funds they have to purchase educational or recreational items for their term through college, because I'm not as shortsighted as Lewk, and I understand what a loan is, and how both items are important for a well rounded student who isn't going to burn out.

[Enoch the Red]

What is with this love of answering a question with a question (with a question)? Instead of you know, answering the question? Is the hole that obvious?

A college doesn't usually have enough equipment, teachers, or parking spaces on hand for every single enrolled student at any given moment. We aren't talking about lifeboats on a sinking ship here. College's typically manage the number of students on campus to avoid just those problems.

At the school I attended, parking was, far and away, a bigger issue than the availability of computers.

If you're done preaching from that high horse, the first thing I wrote was how the ability to purchase a PS3 may be a result of the poor planning to issueing out lump payments. See, I don't like the weasel words like most, some, etc because it shows a lack of understanding on the subject. If you want to claim something, how about some proof? Lewk presented a personal example as evidence to support his claim, an extremely poor example, and I dismantled it.

And no, I don't have a problem at all with college students using whatever funds they have to purchase educational or recreational items for their term through college, because I'm not as shortsighted as Lewk, and I understand what a loan is, and how both items are important for a well rounded student who isn't going to burn out.

Then you also understand that federal student loans aren't the same as other types of loans, right? That included in the agreement is a statement saying:

"You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include school charges such as tuition; room and board; fees; books; supplies; equipment; dependent childcare expenses; transportation; and rental or purchase of a personal computer."

Do you consider a PS3 to fall into any of those categories?

[Ominous Gamer]

A college doesn't usually have enough equipment, teachers, or parking spaces on hand for every single enrolled student at any given moment. We aren't talking about lifeboats on a sinking ship here. College's typically manage the number of students on campus to avoid just those problems.

At the school I attended, parking was, far and away, a bigger issue than the availability of computers.

then you should be able to understand the problems that would arise if Lewk's idea of students not being able to afford computers and instead all use what the college provides.

Then you also understand that federal student loans aren't the same as other types of loans, right? That included in the agreement is a statement saying:

"You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include school charges such as tuition; room and board; fees; books; supplies; equipment; dependent childcare expenses; transportation; and rental or purchase of a personal computer."

Do you consider a PS3 to fall into any of those categories?

you could make an argument that its a personal computer without much effort (especially with the resources we currently have, but even more so when OtherOS existed), or equipment depending on have many classes offer lectures in DVD format like my college did.

[Enoch the Red]

then you should be able to understand the problems that would arise if Lewk's idea of students not being able to afford computers and instead all use what the college provides.

You're fallaciously assuming that every student who attends college can't afford a computer. You're also assuming that a student who needed a computer couldn't use one provided by the college during the time they are scheduled to be on campus.

you could make an argument that its a personal computer without much effort (especially with the resources we currently have), or equipment depending on have many classes offer lectures in DVD format like my college did.

You could make any number of arguments for any number of things. Whether or not those are honest and in good faith is the issue here. It's clear that many students make purchases using federally guaranteed loans that don't meet those criteria. Why you're so intent on rationalizing those very real issues away is a good question. An even better question is: Even with the warts, is the current system preferable to a more strict, bureaucratic one?

Or better yet, should the government be making these loans at all?

[Dreadnaught]

This paradigm can change, and already has changed for some schools. More and more of the rich, elite schools are offering very generous financial aid packages with the aim of minimizing or eliminating student loans, especially for poorer students. Princeton famously did this recently, and a number of other top tier schools have followed suit. So for people who honestly can't afford it, it doesn't cost very much at all to go to a top tier private institution.

On a similar note, going to a four-year public institution is not going to break the bank - a top notch public institution costs about $60k for four years of in-state tuition, which is eminently reasonable. The real problem happens with mid-tier private institutions: the schools that cost a lot but don't have the resources to give much financial aid. To be honest, though, I don't understand why someone would attend a middle-of-the-road private institution when they could go to a perfectly good public institution for a much lower cost. The real advantage in private eduction only comes for the very cream of the crop.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - despite all of the worry about inflation in college costs and the middle class being unable to afford college, the fact of the matter is that the average graduating student has about $20k in debt. That's nothing given the wage advantages you get from having a college degree.

I think what the Ivy's are doing in financial aid only exacerbates the "notch penalties" for those in the middle. As the article Minx linked to mentions, there are people who can easily pay an elevated full price which effectively subsidizes the "bottom 25%" with a full ride. The loans at these institutions are going towards those in middle income brackets.

To be honest, I don't think public universities can (or should) have the capacity to absorb all the people who go to the myriad private institutions out there. That would involve a different kind of public subsidy to support even larger state bureaucracies. And I think the diversity and independence of those institutions is important. It's good to have a reasonably deep sea of different places, instead of massive centralized state systems.

But you're right that the overall amount isn't terrible. What's terrible is the economy, and graduating into this economy.

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.

Not much different than the academic standards I have to maintain (and prove) for my privately-funded scholarship package.

[Aimless]

Dreadnaught, I wasn't being remotely serious, although this may be a better idea than the welfare drug tests are. As an added bonus it might save Mexico from the toxic effects of American money.

[Dreadnaught]

I know. Though I agree, it would probably help Mexico from our state-destabilizing addictions.

[Ominous Gamer]

You're fallaciously assuming that every student who attends college can't afford a computer. You're also assuming that a student who needed a computer couldn't use one provided by the college during the time they are scheduled to be on campus.

I'm making an assumption that students who are stripped of loans may not be able to afford a computer, correct. I'm also making the assumption that colleges may not be prepared to provide computer service to the influx of students who can't afford a computer, because up until this point, colleges have not been forced to handle such numbers.

You could make any number of arguments for any number of things. Whether or not those are honest and in good faith is the issue here.

Don't see why my stance would somehow be dishonest. In the timeframe Lewk is referencing, the PS3 shipped with OtherOS which allowed linux distros that supported OpenOffice. Thats a personal computer with better office capabilities than most similiarly priced machines at the time. Even now, with OtherOS removed, we have so many cloud productivity options, a $250 machine that allows access to those doesn't seem like a bad deal.
Not to mention that the PS3 does play DVDs, so its not like you can somehow be dishonest on that. Sure, its not the cheapest, but thats not part of the restrictions. If you want that angle, you're going to have a hard time justifying many PC buys.

It's clear that many students make purchases using federally guaranteed loans that don't meet those criteria. Why you're so intent on rationalizing those very real issues away is a good question. An even better question is: Even with the warts, is the current system preferable to a more strict, bureaucratic one?

Or better yet, should the government be making these loans at all?

I don't think I'm willing to call this a wart at all. I'm not the only one in this thread thats taken a stance in support about the loans being as open as they are. Sure, I know the wording, and I also know its not enforced. Its more of a rider that gets stacked against people who run afoul of the law. Some people here understand there are certain costs to being a student that isn't part of the educational aspect, others it appear, do not.

---------------------

I understand what Lewk is attempting to do, but I don't think loans are the correct field to be attacking so blindly. Perhaps he would have more fun going after food stamps and making that program more WIC like? I could stand behind that.

[CitizenCain]

Don't see why my stance would somehow be dishonest. In the timeframe Lewk is referencing, the PS3 shipped with OtherOS which allowed linux distros that supported OpenOffice. Thats a personal computer with better office capabilities than most similiarly priced machines at the time. Even now, with OtherOS removed, we have so many cloud productivity options, a $250 machine that allows access to those doesn't seem like a bad deal.
Not to mention that the PS3 does play DVDs, so its not like you can somehow be dishonest on that. Sure, its not the cheapest, but thats not part of the restrictions. If you want that angle, you're going to have a hard time justifying many PC buys.

I don't think I'm willing to call this a wart at all.

Weakest argument ever. Seriously.

"No, officer, I'm not raping this unconscious girl... I'm giving her a Pap smear... with, erm... the only thing I could find that was long enough."



Everyone knows what that PS3 was and is ACTUALLY used for, and no one's buying your ridiculous, implausible hypotheticals to the contrary, not even you. So you may as well stop it already.

[agamemnus]

Out of curiosity, what happens to the interest on these student loans?

It just piles up:

Their payments will be capped at 10% of income rather than 15%, but interest will continue to be applied to their underlying debt and may expand rather than contract over time.

I'd also be interested in what happens to your credit rating if you do this current 15% or the proposed 10% income option. It'd probably be in the gutter. I've never seen this 15% option for my loans on the government's federal student loans site, but maybe I didn't look hard enough.

[Ominous Gamer]

Weakest argument ever. Seriously.

"No, officer, I'm not raping this unconscious girl... I'm giving her a Pap smear... with, erm... the only thing I could find that was long enough."



Everyone knows what that PS3 was and is ACTUALLY used for,

rape and capslock, we're into serious business now!

What is a PS3 actually used for? Because personally, I used ubuntu on mine, Brent and I play far more DVDs on it than games (as evidenced by our totally awesome trophy count ), and I've posted to these forums and the other place from it more then once; as well used it for protein research. Which shows that the PS3 is/was capable of performing as an educational tool, which is the only point that needed made. Whats an Alienware actually used for it? Hell, take your average computer and try to honestly tell me that they are used for college learning more than anything else.
These loans aren't just blank checks, they do have limits, and I suspect you would may be amazed at the usefulness college students can extract from certain items, especially stuff thats got more than one selling point.

[CitizenCain]

Still a ridiculous and infantile argument.

Or do I drive a flashlight into work every morning? I mean, just the other weekend I had to use my car headlights to get some light up under a buddy's truck, so that means I don't drive a motor vehicle, I drive a flashlight.

[Aimless]

You poor fools... you shoulda made it a condition of the bailout that bankers and traders would not be allowed to buy PS3s with their bonuses.

[GGT]

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.

Agreed. The very best in any field will find a job, even if it's studying Dead Languages.

Vanishing numbers of jobs doesn't mean the field of study disappears. In fact, I'd say great investigative journalists and writers are still in great demand, with billions of people hooked up to internet and cable, demanding more, and more diverse information. Traditional "newspapers" aren't a good source of jobs, because that field is in Transition from paper print to digital content. Anthropologists/Archaeologists will always be in demand as we continue to dig and build, expanding in areas that reveal buried history, but it's always been a fairly small field of academics. Same for art curators and historical art renovators. Interpreters will be in greater demand as people move and migrate, bringing native languages with them. The US already has an urgent need for Spanish translators in schools, hospitals, and courts because we're so English-centric (and don't mandate Spanish as a second language in public schools). Maybe China will teach all their students English and we won't have to learn their dialects, or every nation our military 'inhabits' will teach them English and we won't have to learn Aramaic or Arabic---who knows.

I do think higher education/universities have a responsibility to counsel their students on career-availability in any field they push teach; to limit the numbers of students applying to a program, and be especially careful with student loans. First, so it doesn't devalue a degree, where they'll accept anyone to study anything, in order to fund things like vaulted marble atriums with fountains or NFL grade football stadiums. Second, so those loans and student aid doesn't turn into a form of usury, where kids graduate with a worthless piece of paper and tons of debt, and no way to pay it down. I'd say gov't loans and grants should rely on universities to lead the way on that, instead of the other way around.

*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.

It all adds up. Applications also have a cost, and (many) HS counselors are loath to limit students' prospects. They'll even say Apply to a dozen schools to increase your odds of acceptance, and choices even if each application is $100. Some college web site info is pathetic when it comes to using stats to show graduate employment, either by using outdated numbers, or lumping all employment in with field-specific employment.

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.

Of course! But even people trying to "upgrade" their education and job prospects have gotten burned by The Great Recession. Getting a degree to be a Teacher or Nurse used to be seen as recession-proof jobs, necessary positions for any developed nation, but not any more. College grads will probably always have a better employment rate than just HS grads, but not necessarily better income. Especially not if we create a society where auto mechanics need a college degree to work on cars' internal computers, but changing the oil isn't in their job description. Or if we utilize computers "as teachers" because it's cost-efficient, and only hire baby-sitters class room monitors. Plenty of those supposedly great healthcare jobs are actually openings for aides and assistants, not professionals with degrees. Hell, I rarely have to use a Veterinarian these days, because of on-line info and internet-meds. But a cat-sitter, dog-walker, groomer or kennel can pull an income equal to Mets. Unskilled/uneducated workers can make over $100,000/year working oil rigs in the Dakotas now. Long-distance big rig truck drivers can make more money than any teacher or nurse.

I watched something on CNN about our economy in transition over the weekend, and they cited some alarming stats (from BLS I think, but not sure):

26% of ALL unemployed (US) are 16-24 years old. That includes recent college graduates.
The unemployment rate for 2010 college grads is 9.1%. That's almost double of previous 5% rates.