• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Student loan forgiveness and free college are bad ideas.

Ziggurat said:
snip



Harvard’s admissions are based directly on race.



The UC system can’t use race at all because voters in California made it illegal to even consider. But they used to, and still would if administrators had their way. And that prohibition is California-specific, it does not apply to most schools in the US.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I was too Cal centric!
 
Roboramma said:
The question isn't whether or not you should have some influence (if it's useful, of course you should), but rather what's most efficient. Giodano's argument is that those 18 year olds (and their parents and other advisors who do have at least some impact on what and where they study) will more efficiently gauge the market than government bureaucrats will.

I think that's true with the caveat that those bureaucrats will be able to foresee some ways in the 18 year olds will be incentivized to make poor choices (at least from the tax payer's perspective of poor uses of public funds), and can incentivize choices in the other direction. Which seems to be what you're advocating for.

So, to Giordano now: yes, free markets are more efficient than central planning, but a regulated free market can be more efficient still.
Click to expand...
I am an old hippie. People should be free to pursue their bliss. Life is more than one’s job.:)
 
Giordano said:
I am an old hippie. People should be free to pursue their bliss. Life is more than one’s job.:)
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But one needn't go to a state sponsored university in order to do so.

I'd actually favor some level of state sponsored "pursuing your bliss". For instance, I got a lot out of time spent at the Vancouver Public Library. But I thought the point of free college was that education is an investment in the economic future of the nation, that it also helps to lift people out of poverty and access previously inaccessible human capital, not just that it makes people happy.

Those should be separable goals and the degree to which they get mixed up will have a negative impact upon both, I'd expect.
 
Ziggurat said:
The current system with student debt not being dischargeable in bankruptcy is messed up. There needs to be an incentive to pay off debt, and there needs to be an incentive to not assume debt that's too risky to begin with, but if things go wrong and you just can't pay off the debt, then it should be dischargeable.
Click to expand...

This is not a true statement, it can be discharged. It may be harder to do than other debt, but most people apparently don't even try.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-out-bankruptcy-can-wipe-out-student-loan-debt-after-all
 
Giordano said:
Students have a right to decide what they wish to learn about. They are then paying the university to use its experience and understanding to tell them what they need to know to do that. To become well educated people. Just as you posted.

Sure you have a right to tell the government what to use your tax dollars for. So do I. And I am trying to convince others here what I think is obvious to me: education in the humanities does greatly benefit our country and society in many ways. Beyond the number of humanity majors that can use it as a direct basis for a job. College is not exclusively a vocational school. I’ve listed the reasons upthread. I’ve much enjoyed the “excess” oboe majors I know who have never gotten a job in it but who have brought pleasurable music into my life. But even beyond this, I’ve documented that many humanity majors do have good job success.

But I guess I have not convinced you fully... yet. Okay. I may keep trying. Damn, I’m a cancer researcher and nerd who loves everything techie and scientific. I majored in biochemistry. If I learned to also see the humanities as crucial to everyone I may be able to spread the idea more widely.

BTW I strongly respect you and your posts in the threads they appear. I often disagree but I respect how you present your arguments.
Click to expand...

In the post you quoted, I said that it should be up to the school administration whether engineering graduates should have to study something "not so technical", i.e., humanities.
 
Roboramma said:
The question isn't whether or not you should have some influence (if it's useful, of course you should), but rather what's most efficient. Giodano's argument is that those 18 year olds (and their parents and other advisors who do have at least some impact on what and where they study) will more efficiently gauge the market than government bureaucrats will.

I think that's true with the caveat that those bureaucrats will be able to foresee some ways in the 18 year olds will be incentivized to make poor choices (at least from the tax payer's perspective of poor uses of public funds), and can incentivize choices in the other direction. Which seems to be what you're advocating for.

So, to Giordano now: yes, free markets are more efficient than central planning, but a regulated free market can be more efficient still.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's basically it.

I would only add that an additional part of my position is that the efficiency that exists in the free market exists partly because of the economic incentives that steer people toward efficient outcomes. In other words, when you spend money on things, you pay attention to whether you are getting something of value for that money. If you are spending someone else's money instead of your own, there's less need to find the most efficient outcome.


In terms of economic theory, a subsidized market is not actually a free market.


The consequence is that free college would make the system less efficient.

ETA: Which I think you were getting at already by talking about students being incentivized to make poor choices. I was just elaborating on that.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
In the post you quoted, I said that it should be up to the school administration whether engineering graduates should have to study something "not so technical", i.e., humanities.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought I was indicating that you had posted this but I may not have made it adequately clear.
 
Francesca R said:
I see no reason why it should.

I do think it should be financed by those who benefit most from it though.
Click to expand...

There are proposals to make tuition reflect discipline in some way. In fact the very high costs of medical and law school tuitions already have education in these areas reflect the higher earnings potentials in these professions. Although it is increasingly clear that having a medical or law degree now a days is not a guarantee of an assured and wealthy career. At least some with these degrees struggle to pay off their loans.

Of course post graduation employers benefit from the state having trained certain majors and there are proposals to tax or charge fees to these employers for having educated their new employees in these areas.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
Absolutely.

But one needn't go to a state sponsored university in order to do so.

I'd actually favor some level of state sponsored "pursuing your bliss". For instance, I got a lot out of time spent at the Vancouver Public Library. But I thought the point of free college was that education is an investment in the economic future of the nation, that it also helps to lift people out of poverty and access previously inaccessible human capital, not just that it makes people happy.

Those should be separable goals and the degree to which they get mixed up will have a negative impact upon both, I'd expect.
Click to expand...

I do discuss my views in these areas upthread in some more detail than just following ones bliss and I think you and I do have some commonality.

And as for me I strongly believe liberal arts majors contribute to society. Better educated citizens of all kinds do. But most prominent in my thinking is that the “job”of colleges and universities is to provide knowledge. In some majors this knowledge is closely linked to future success in a specific location, in other majors less so. But the core purpose of colleges and universities is knowledge. It is just a bonus that in some cases this helps students also get jobs.
 
Meadmaker said:
In the United States, an awful lot of people start their working lives deeply in debt. The source of this debt is student loans. In order to get a higher education, they borrow very large sums of money, on the order of 100,000 dollars or more, which they start paying back after they graduate and get employed. Unlike ordinary loans, this debt cannot be forgiven in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with Meadmaker but the much of the premise in the op is based on very misleading news stories.

Almost nobody owes 100k or more, something like 5% of those who student debt owe more than 100k. It was basically just their and their parents poor decision making. The vast majority of folks who owe student debt its well under 30k. Which can generally get paid of in a few years.

Those that can't pay off their debt are mostly folks that don't graduate or complete whatever qualification they were aiming for and/or private for profit schools.

High tuition seen in all the stories is paid by almost nobody. Most folks actually qualify for steep discounts or other forms of aid. Its the rich scions of foreign aristocracy that end up paying the sticker price to subsidizing the few folks that get in on merit.

Until we completely over hall the education system, both free college and student debt forgiveness is just a wealth transfer to the upper middle class and wealthy, especially those that chose to follow their bliss rather than contribute to society. Poor folks that go to ****** schools from age 5 to 18 won't be getting in to the fancy schools for free. It will be the kids whose parents moved to the nice neighborhood with the good schools who spent money on the right extra curiculars.

Also the fewer and fewer STEM graduates will just end up subsidizing the the art school kids.

And no, I don't think theirs anything wrong with an art degree other than we have too many folks getting them at an marked up price with no way to pay for it, other than take money from folks who made good educational and economic choices.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Of course post graduation employers benefit from the state having trained certain majors and there are proposals to tax or charge fees to these employers for having educated their new employees in these areas.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you are in respect of "the state having trained . . . " I am calling for tuition fees to be paid by students (largely or entirely) not by tax. Under that idea the state doesn't have much claim to tax anyone.

Whatever tax arrangements are used to attempt to shift costs and benefits around, they only work partially, for example an extra tax on employers for hiring graduates might dent the same graduates' earnings but might also depress wages generally or raise prices etc. I am more bothered by taxes or transfers that outright point in the wrong direction with respect to redistribution, and this is what "free college" funded from general tax does compared to student fees (Or a graduate tax)

It is a pertinent observation that the excess return from a degree that is likely to be captured by graduates is diminishing and not just in the US. That's because everyone wants a piece of it. Academic institutions appear to have the most net power in that struggle in the states.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
I don't know where you are in respect of "the state having trained . . . " I am calling for tuition fees to be paid by students (largely or entirely) not by tax. Under that idea the state doesn't have much claim to tax anyone.

Whatever tax arrangements are used to attempt to shift costs and benefits around, they only work partially, for example an extra tax on employers for hiring graduates might dent the same graduates' earnings but might also depress wages generally or raise prices etc. I am more bothered by taxes or transfers that outright point in the wrong direction with respect to redistribution, and this is what "free college" funded from general tax does compared to student fees (Or a graduate tax)

It is a pertinent observation that the excess return from a degree that is likely to be captured by graduates is diminishing and not just in the US. That's because everyone wants a piece of it. Academic institutions appear to have the most net power in that struggle in the states.
Click to expand...

Got it all school is paid for by the students with debt upon graduation, a strong motivation to drop out early say 8th grade and cut your debt obligations. Why should we pretend there is some sudden moral distinction between education at the age of 18?
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Investing in universal education is an excellent investment in the future of society. Students should not enter the workforce burdened wit h debt so they have money for homes and cars and families, which society has a duty to support the development of.
Click to expand...

Typical nonsense, beating the podium with the obvious, BUT NEVER NEVER EVER OFFERS A SOLUTION!!!!!!!
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Where do you think the money stolen in all those bank robberies comes from?

From depositors. And where does the money for deposits come from?

People who have jobs.

And where do jobs come from come from?

The banks.


Just as nonsensical as your post.l
Click to expand...

You have no clue. Half the issue is University expense, and none of your ranting nonsense has addressed a solution. Reign in the model causing the expense and you can reign in the debt, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom