Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by miles, Jan 19, 2017.
That's a decision that the kid solely should make
They're the ones giving the loan.
Great, but not on the government's dime. You're basically implying that the borrower should be able to determine what their max debt/income ratio should be.
I'm on board with your 2nd point.
No I'm saying that the federal government has not shown that they can choose what is considered a profitable major. That's a slippery slope I'm not willing to go down. I would prefer flat rate loan caps or better free public colleges
Probably need to normalize it across the country. You would be seeing a whole lot of schools cutting costs to get under that number. Schools aren't to blame because states have slashed their budgets but they could do more to give college students a better value for the education.
Also adjusting the costs on a university level for different majors could help. Getting a communications degree at local state school would cost you less money than getting a degree in engineering.
We could also do ourselves a favor and push for 2.5-3 years of college instead of 4. Why are there summer breaks again????
It's not so much the back end (ie profitability) as the front end that they can improve on. Projecting future value of a certain degree is sketchy at best, and I agree it's not the government's business, but saying out of state private school is 4x over in-state public school is concrete and factual and would be easier to govern.
For the opportunity to work at internships, the only way to get gainfully employed after college?
Because kids are out of school and most university employees who aren't professors (including some associate professors) can't afford child care?
Summers aren't spent getting wasted at bars, kids use it to get experience. Logistically it's difficult to have a full campus at summer since kids are out too. Some students help take care of their younger siblings too
So, internships are only purposeful during undergrad?
Giving university employees June and July off helps with childcare??? How do those university employees pay their bills while they're off for the summer?
Invest your point about the logistics, but those same logistics exist throughout the year since schools have conflicting breaks.
That's because the 1% are smarter and more driven so of course their children will be as well.
I didn't say that, where did you get that out of my statement? That's the most misleading and confusing shit
They probably do it by getting paid through a 12 month contract, just because they're off doesn't mean they don't get paid.
Right, I'm not saying that. But a holiday break is a couple weeks over a few months. The time difference is worth considering
The quality of students will suffer not just because there's a surge, but because some capable kids just pick a major that's covered. Without picking something they actually enjoy, it's likely they'll be kinda miserable until they turn retirement age. That's almost as bad as being saddled with debt.
Will this be that much different than now?
ah, ok. i read that as you being sarcastic and i was so fucking thrown off
i was like "why would anyone want that life, money doesn't matter that much"
yeah go down that route
saying "why can't everyone do college in 3 years" is dim, people use the summer time for plenty of reasons other than getting drunk at home
You know, I don't really know. I know a lot of kids who took out loans to go to school, couldn't make it in accounting/STEM, etc., but ignored advice on sunk costs and stayed a total of five years for a psychology degree they don't use because they don't want the first year to yield loans with no degree. If they can walk away for free, and wait until they have more direction and maturity, maybe that's better.
I picked my major because I asked my high school advisor what made the most money without having to go to grad school. Other than growing up a bammer, I chose my school because every ChE student got a scholarship from the department. I stayed in my major I wasn't crazy about because my full ride scholarship through the university was for 8 semesters only.
I've been at my job a decade and I finally appreciate that money doesn't matter that much. It strongly influenced every choice I made, because growing up without money removed the luxury of even having a choice from every situation. I can't imagine busting my ass for four years and being right back into that situation for decades.
I don't know what this means, or if I even have a point other than "free" money made my decisions for me. The crushing debt that follows a lot of
Americans for decades...I can't even imagine. It's certainly a system that needs improving.
look what the game of life has in store for you! toil
a place where only people wealthy enough to pay out of pocket are allowed to study things outside of like business and engineering sounds like the premise for a bad dystopian sci-fi story
Wait you think universities close during the summer?
I don't know how much it would help. Teenage brains are not good at appreciating long term consequences and risk assessment. Couple that with the overwhelming stigma associated with deciding not to go to college and you will likely still end up with large numbers of your students making a poor financial decision
Where did I ever say only rich people could study what they want? That's a completely different premise from what I'm advocating.
I'm not talking just about college. Understanding investment and debt decisions will be important for the rest of their lives, as is something like building a budget and saving for retirement. College is a piece of the puzzle but not the whole thing.
Plenty of high school students out there who don't understand how a credit card works, how to pay/do their taxes, how to open a bank account, how to choose health insurance, etc.
I'll never forget my ECON 102 class where the professor spent the last class of the year giving his own personal lecture about how important it is to save for retirement early. He put up a graph of 7% compounding growth of $1,000 and explained that, by rule of thumb, your money would double about every 10 years. He explained that if you waited 10 years to start saving for retirement, the amount you would miss out on wasn't the first 10 years (i.e. $1,000). It was the last 10 years (about $32,000). That had a profound impact on me.
But that's a collateral consequence of your plan because the only people who wouldn't need to get their major ok'd are the rich
I'm always amazed at how people, even those with business degrees so they should understand compound interest, simply won't open up a 401k with their company or purchase a stock index fund. The math is scary as fuck if you look at how much money you'd have if you put money in your 401k at 22 versus waiting until your late 20's. Back at my old job I put roughly 20% of each check into my 401k.
>I don't trust the government
>They should decide who gets to major in what
I went to two separate seminars my Freshman year that really drove this home. One was a speech by some economist, who I can't remember at this point, who said to never plan on getting social security because it's untenable. The second was a seminar on compound interest and retirement savings. It made a huge impact and I've tried to be a compound interest and retirement evangelist for my friends but you have to show them the numbers. It doesn't mean anything unless somebody puts it on paper.
Is putting a limit on borrowing based on expectation of future earnings really deciding who gets to major in what? That seems like a dramatic interpretation.
yes because they rich people can afford to do what they want. let's say a middle class kid needs to borrow $10k to get an art degree. the rich kid needs to borrow nothing. the broke kid has to borrow $20k because his parents don't pay for his car, clothes, health insurance, car insurance, gas, apartment, etc etc
The baseline of access is different, so a bright line rule where you can only borrow X based on future earnings fucks people who need a greater percentage of X.
And none of this is more efficacious than just making it fucking cheaper.
the loan/earnings ratio idea is flawed for the same reason as the flat tax. the poorer you are, the more of your money goes to necessities, the more you're hurt by a proportional tax. dark age landed gentry even figured out that this doesn't work.
Of course making it cheaper is ideal. But mostly we're talking about people going to private schools if they're ending up 100k in debt with a teaching degree. I'm just talking about encouraging schools with cheaper tuition. There was a poster, leroi I believe, who said his father sat him down and told him it was not a wise financial decision to attend an out of state school with considerably higher tuition than an in-state school based on things that really don't mean anything (where your friends are going, getting the fuck out of Dodge, etc.).
I admittedly have no idea what kind of impact placing a disincentive to attending private schools (without scholarships) and out of state schools might have. But we're just having a discussion on hypos here.
This could also be encouraged in other ways, I imagine.
Not only that it would force kids to be in majors because it's the one the government would pay for
So you have apathetic people and way more people in those majors. So the operating costs would rise at colleges because you'd likely have a considerable bump in classes needed
I think it's fair to limit what types of schools are eligible for federal loans. I also think it's fair to tax those of us who had educated parents who were like 'yo don't go to UNC when you can go to USC for like six dollars' so that future generations don't have to make the call. I also think it's fair to stop letting private companies charge interest on federally guaranteed loans for which they have no risk.
well, looks like I work for Low SES U. We need sixty new business faculty, forty new STEM faculty, and we're cutting all liberal arts classes.
oh, shit son, I work at wealthy white state u. we have art shows and curations and performances and all sorts of cool shit. of course we have a b school and tech school too because if you can afford it, you should have it!
Is this really that different than our current state of affairs?
How many b school majors are U.S. colleges pumping out? How many apathetic students decided to end up with a business degree by default? Some state schools have very good liberal arts programs but is that really an area of focus now? I'm not making a qualitative judgment. It just seems like the biggest focus is in STEM already.
And if we're talking about rich private schools having way better things than public schools, well.
This is neither here nor there but I know someone who went to Harvard for under to get a teaching degree who ended up being a high school teacher and volleyball coach. Because Harvard. Good for her but that seems extraordinarily stupid to me.
notice in my example both schools were public
yes there's a groundswell of shitty majors and it's leading to universities doing dumb shit like cutting philosophy as a major
but that would all be exacerbated by, not fixed by, these loan tags. moreover, why get into the weeds on it if we agree that it's a terrible model?
And what puts it in even better perspective is when you see two graphs where one shows your expected fund when you put in money at 24 compared to 30. For me at my old salary (left that job and am working a menial ass job while I look for another) I'd be missing out on about $800,000. I did buy a car 18 months ago and wish I had the payment every month to put into a index fund but nothing I can do about it now.
Schools really really really need to teach personal finance. I was an Econ major so I learned this stuff in my 1st semester, but in my high school Econ class we didn't learn about it and just learned about S/D curves and opportunity costs, neither of which are helpful to 99.9% of the students in the long run.
I honestly don't even know the difference if we're talking about state schools (I know you are quite familiar, obviously). Since I'm familiar with this, there are multiple different state schools and branches of the University system in Nebraska. The flagship school, which also costs the most, has the best shit. Easily. Better buildings, classrooms, major offerings, everything. The two other branches of the University system have amenities that aren't quite as nice and have fewer options for majors and it basically reflects the tiered tuition at each. The state schools have far fewer programs and mostly garbage facilities but can pump out teachers like crazy. It would cost around $7,500 more for a teaching degree from UNL than Wayne State College, for instance.
What's different? The person could either figure out a way to pay the additional $60/credit (Iin-state in person rates for both) out of pocket or go to the smaller school that has a teaching program that's probably comparable.
the difference is the degree of choice. you really don't want UNL to be the exclusive purview of the rich while UNBumblefuckwesternNub is where the poors stagnate in huge classes with no resources.
Where are you going to find loan officers and shit that are so well versed in the thousands of options and reasons to chose one school or major over another?
It doesn't even need to be that involved. You want to be a ________. You get $40,000 to borrow. Pick which school you would like to attend. Anything above that and you get to pay for it out of pocket.
Have to get that undergrad first though so what does it matter if they eventually got an MBA as well?
And why would you do that as opposed to just addressing cost?
Valuing majors differently is so problematic though
No way we should do that