http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/30/ron-paul-defends-eventual-end-to-federal-student-loans/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29

So The Honorable Dr. Paul M.D., OBGYN, has finally said what needs to be. For far too long, government has been subsidizing the education industry with federally guaranteed loans, inflating the cost of tuition. Makes sense, you put more money into a market and prices will rise, duh. Thing is, this hurts everybody, as we all have to pay more for education.

Ron has a great idea: Let's reduce that inflating effect by cutting out all those people who get loans to go to school. This way, the people who don't need loans can enjoy much cheaper tuition, and wont have to compete with the undeserving. Undeserving? Yes, if these kids who need loans were smart enough and ambitious enough to go to college, they would already be rich. Q.E.motherfuckin-D.

10/31/2011 9:42:36 AM

I believe you're taking the idea out of context.

Yes, education prices are incredibly inflated due to the easy access to tuition grants and loans. But stopping student aid won't lower costs.People will get into worse debt by taking out private loans to fund their higher education because of the marketing effort that brainwashed everyone into thinking that anyone can go to college. The unfortunate truth is, no, not everyone is cut out for college. I'd wager that half of the people enrolled in course today don't belong there, not because of their socioeconomic background, but because they aren't smart enough to be there in the first place.

10/31/2011 9:57:55 AM

Well something should be done about student loans. The fact that student loan debt is so huge is a problem and points to the idea that we're giving out loans to people who, even with a college degree, can't afford even a low interest loan, which points to the idea that we're giving people loans to get what are essentially worthless degrees.

Yes, I believe there should be loan programs for college education. No, I don't believe the tax payers should have to take on this risk.

What this means in the end, I don't know. But why should tax payers be forced to provide loans for people who don't need college degrees, or those that choose career paths that won't allow them to pay back these loans. We shouldn't be funding more business, art, history, etc. majors who may never be able to pay back loans and many of whom will never have a job requiring a college degree.

This country needs to get off the idea that everyone needs to go to college. Everyone does not. College needs to be more restrictive than lower education. One such way is increasing academic standards. Another is to make it just expensive enough for people to realize that a college education is not needed, nor feasible, for their chosen field. Maybe loans should be restricted to certain majors that are more likely to result in being better off financially, i.e. STEM majors.

10/31/2011 10:01:40 AM

The real truth is that not everyone's cut out for high school either. All this DOE nonsense trying to establish standards and throw money at the problem. The simple fact of the matter is that only certain people are really capable of learning such advanced topics as Algebra and Biology. This notion of "public education" unfortunately is trying to force an egalitarian utopian idea that people aren't wildly variable in their intellectual capacity. It is simply not the case. We should educate children to maybe the 5th or 6th grade, then let the market figure out who can continue beyond that point through private- and homeschooling.

10/31/2011 10:02:36 AM

Basically what I'm saying is these loan programs are just Affirmative Action for poor people. It's disgusting reverse-classism.

10/31/2011 10:04:39 AM

My entire medical school education is mostly subsidized by the Federal Government. Just because I'm qualified in all respects (except financial resources) to be admitted as a candidate for a degree does not mean I can attend.

My financial need exceeded the established unit loan level from Harvard with their offered financial aid package even after extensive scholarships and grants. After the spring term, I should be entitled to more grants and scholarships (if I don't fail). I am still very dependent on federal aid and do not take it for granted.

I am not against educating the masses and loaning money to help students receive quality education. We really need to examine how those that borrow pay back their student loans.

10/31/2011 10:15:23 AM

Hey maybe people will stop wasting their time with all these CHASS majors if they have to pay for their education and justify furthering their education!

Loan Officer: So why do you need a loan?
Student: I want to spend 4 years studying something that gives me no chance to land a job with the ability to pay back the loan.
Loan Officer: Next...

10/31/2011 10:17:41 AM

Yup. Another very serious matter that is straining our education system is all these kids getting Gender Studies/Pottery dual major degrees. In fact, if you look at unemployment data closely, you'll see that all this "unemployment" occurring is really just mass unemployability. I don't have the article in front of me, but I'm pretty sure 90-99% of unemployed right now have a degree in either Art History or Latin. All this talk of increasing tuition and decreasing public education equity is smoke and mirrors, the real issue here is that these kids see that free government cash and realize its the perfect opportunity to seize their dream of spending 4 years gaining an entirely worthless skillset that will get them nowhere in life..

10/31/2011 10:24:51 AM

As a society, we should feel responsible to educate our citizens.

We need to provide more avenues for affordable (or free), quality education to the masses--especially to those that have a passion to learn. A couple of reputable institutions have already established programs and begun a framework for open or affordable education.

We should seriously consider the adverse implications of restricting access to education.

10/31/2011 10:25:26 AM

There's nothing wrong with allowing as few people as possible to be corrupted by the Marxist Educational Industrial Complex. The problem is that too many people are being restricted from the most important education of all:

10/31/2011 10:27:53 AM

^ What's the annual tuition to attend one of these "churches" you speak of?

10/31/2011 10:30:05 AM

Just a flat tax of 10% of your income, and you'll get all the soup kitchen training you'll ever need to land a job at McDonalds in literally any city or town in the country!

10/31/2011 10:34:45 AM

Quote :

"As a society, we should feel responsible to educate our citizens. We need to provide more avenues for affordable (or free), quality education to the masses--especially to those that have a passion to learn. A couple of reputable institutions have already established programs and begun a framework for open or affordable education. We should seriously consider the adverse implications of restricting access to education."

We should educate people wanting to earn marketable and valuable degrees. Aside from education tracks, many CHASS type degrees simply aren't needed. If someone wants to get one, then it should be on them to find a way to pay for it. Society in general shouldn't have to foot the bill/assume the risk on degrees that lead to unaffiliated careers that don't really require a college degree.

10/31/2011 10:46:44 AM

A few things

- Yes, yes we do need to brace for the fact that it makes sense to educate people further today than what we did before. If the economy is advancing at all, the aggregate sum of education needed is increasing. This means college for more, and probably most.
- The money we use to subsidize education isn't reverse class-ism. In many ways, it's straightforward class-ism.

There was a time when "Social Darwinism" was a valid political view. People ITT and everywhere seem to consistently confuse a class society with "old money". The American elite has a revolving door. Get used to the fact. Also, many of our subsidies to help poor people get educated just increase the size of that door.

Quote :

"My entire medical school education is mostly subsidized by the Federal Government. Just because I'm qualified in all respects (except financial resources) to be admitted as a candidate for a degree does not mean I can attend. My financial need exceeded the established unit loan level from Harvard with their offered financial aid package even after extensive scholarships and grants. After the spring term, I should be entitled to more grants and scholarships (if I don't fail). I am still very dependent on federal aid and do not take it for granted."

Fantastic example.

You have to consider, the federal money we spend on education is conflated with factors as large as the global political power balance. We intentionally confuse the line between education and research, and everyone should face this fact:

- Student loan hawks and free market advocates would see education become its own product if they had their way.

This might not be a bad thing. Our public university system is not optimized for education. In the most direct sense, it's a bureaucracy, and many different actors have many different motivations. If the focus was on teaching people useful skills and getting them jobs (which it's not) then you would create a fundamentally different institution.

No one brings up these facts in the discussion. I'd rather not participate in the perpetual bickering about student loans and subsidies while lacking any clear or coherent view of the objective educational system.

10/31/2011 10:52:29 AM

Eh. I think that's a slippery slope to say one concentration is more valuable than another.

Undergraduate education is greatly saturated with general education requirements to produce well-rounded graduates. This holds true for just about all universities in the US. A humanities concentrator is capable of crossing-over and filling in roles in unrelated fields. Same applies for a science concentrator.

10/31/2011 10:55:23 AM

^^ and ^, i agree with both of you, that a) unless we have a consensus understanding of the core objective of higher education, it'll be impossible to overhaul the system, and b) it's useless to assign relative "values" to different degrees or concentrations. the real differentiator is the person, not the degree.

10/31/2011 11:04:37 AM

every NCSU graduate should be required to have at minimum 1,000 TWW posts to demonstrate communication skills.

10/31/2011 11:06:37 AM

Sure we need to educate more people, but that doesn't mean all need to go to college or that we educate people in random topics that do little to help anyone. creating another entitlement program to create high school v2.0 will bankrupt this country more than help it. college will not get cheaper, even if you pay for everyone to go. it will only get more expensive.

10/31/2011 11:09:51 AM

I think there needs to be better options of education for the 25-45 year old working adult demographic. Those who chose to enter the workforce early to gain experience and save money before entering higher education. State colleges cater to those fresh out of high school with no experience and, sometimes not enough maturity, to succeed at this type of institution. It is difficult for a working adult to go back to school... someone who has the added responsibilities of family and work/career that they are trying to advance along with the right mindset to WANT to do well in their classes. Right now the options for a working adult are laughable. The only options that work around a working student's schedule are for-profit institutions like UofPheonix and DeVry Institute. And those degrees don't carry much weight at all.

10/31/2011 11:11:14 AM

Pikey , there are plenty of programs at respected universities that cater to working adults up here in New England.

http://www.cps.neu.edu/degree-programs/undergraduate/bachelors-degrees/
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/lps/undergraduate/
http://admissions.yale.edu/eli-whitney
http://www.extension.harvard.edu/
http://mitsloan.mit.edu/executivemba/

10/31/2011 11:19:33 AM

Quote :

"Sure we need to educate more people, but that doesn't mean all need to go to college or that we educate people in random topics that do little to help anyone."

And what will we educate them in????



I guess they'll just take LUE 101, Life, the Universe, and Everything, and find themselves with fantastic job prospects, excellent communication skills, and improved body odor. Perhaps you'll be eager to give these answers, which seem to always be the answer:

- STEM
- technical crafts

And you probably don't see any problem with them. But wait, how are our blue collar workers doing? In fact, where have the biggest earnings gains been? If you go by the data, we should train all of the incompetent loan-ridden college dropouts to be managers!

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/who-are-the-1-and-what-do-they-do-for-a-living/

To get the entire wealth pie on lockdown, all they have to do is hit a trust fund baby over the head with a club and we've fixed all the nation's socioeconomic problems.

10/31/2011 12:36:08 PM

Agreed, clearly we need to educate fewer people. Except few a handful of select-chosen individuals who will then build us a time machine that we'll take back to the 1950's. Once there, we'll put our population to work in the manufacturing sector and some other jobs that are more than matched by a high school education. If we do this every 30 years, we can run on the same economic model forever and never worry about competing with post-1970's China for the same market!

10/31/2011 12:41:03 PM

Bring back trade schools. Educate people based on their selected field and actually teach them things they need to know to apply in the workplace.

This whole business with force feeding students useless courses and outdated material to be "well rounded individuals" isn't working out so well when they can't even pick up a job after graduating.

10/31/2011 12:44:17 PM

Quote :

"In fact, where have the biggest earnings gains been? If you go by the data, we should train all of the incompetent loan-ridden college dropouts to be managers!"

We tried that, see MBA.

10/31/2011 12:48:41 PM

I am now a well rounded individual because I had to take a random CHASS course while I was in college.

I would like to see a breakdown between STEM and non-STEM majors:
Employed?
Student loan (amount, years taken to pay off, default, etc)
Individual Income
Job requires any college degree?
Job requires specific college degree?
College degree relates directly, or very closely, with job

My point is, is that the tax payers should not be on the hook for $40,000 loans for traditionally non-valuable degrees. trade schools, tech schools, community colleges, etc. are great and cheaper avenues. And if a person gets a worthless degree or drops out, but becomes a successful manager, then great, but that doesn't prove that a 4-year art degree was worthwhile.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 12:49:04 PM

^^^ In what world are trade school graduates doing well? I think many of those schools are guilty of the exact same "general ed" requirements, in addition to the fact that the 2 year colleges have vastly greater fractions of students funded by loans.

Your solution doesn't just suck, it makes the problem worse.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ^]

10/31/2011 12:49:07 PM

Quote :

"So The Honorable Dr. Paul M.D., OBGYN, has finally said what needs to be. For far too long, government has been subsidizing the education industry with federally guaranteed loans, inflating the cost of tuition. Makes sense, you put more money into a market and prices will rise, duh. Thing is, this hurts everybody, as we all have to pay more for education. Ron has a great idea: Let's reduce that inflating effect by cutting out all those people who get loans to go to school. This way, the people who don't need loans can enjoy much cheaper tuition, and wont have to compete with the undeserving. Undeserving? Yes, if these kids who need loans were smart enough and ambitious enough to go to college, they would already be rich. Q.E.motherfuckin-D."

In the first paragraph, you admit that federal subsidies drive up prices. In the second paragraph, you suggest that without loans, anyone that isn't rich wouldn't be able to go to college, and that we need to keep the current student loan model accordingly.

Assumption number one: it's just poor kids that are getting loans. In fact, it's pretty much everyone getting loans. In the majority of cases, parents are not able to shell out cash for even a public school, much less an out of state/private school. Even upper middle class kids have to take out really big loans if they want to do JD/MD, or even MBA at a good private school.

Assumption number two: If the loan industry is allowed to dry up, tuition will stay the same and universities will simply close their doors to anyone that can't pay cash.

This is, of course, absurd. Universities have grown at an alarming rate, and if they were to realize that loans were no longer accessible, enrollment would drop off and they would have a bunch of empty classrooms. Are they going to just let them stay empty? Of course not. They're going to start cutting costs, cutting tuition, and getting people back in the facilities, even if it means downsizing and trimming the fat.

It's also unlikely that loans would disappear entirely if the federal government got out of it. It's very likely that creditors would be willing to risk loaning money for, say, engineering degrees. It's very unlikely that creditors would be willing to risk money on someone getting an expensive humanities degree. It could be argued that you don't even need to go to school to learn the humanities...just read some books or browse the internet with purpose. It's certainly not worth the thousands of dollars of debt that people take out.

Education is yet another bubble blown up by excess credit, courtesy of the Federal Reserve. This is wasteful and is sending good money after bad. We can pretend there isn't a problem or watch as the United States gets further and further behind in the global economy.

10/31/2011 12:58:17 PM

Quote :

"I think there needs to be better options of education for the 25-45 year old working adult demographic. Those who chose to enter the workforce early to gain experience and save money before entering higher education. State colleges cater to those fresh out of high school with no experience and, sometimes not enough maturity, to succeed at this type of institution. It is difficult for a working adult to go back to school... someone who has the added responsibilities of family and work/career that they are trying to advance along with the right mindset to WANT to do well in their classes. Right now the options for a working adult are laughable. The only options that work around a working student's schedule are for-profit institutions like UofPheonix and DeVry Institute. And those degrees don't carry much weight at all."

lolwut? http://distance.ncsu.edu/

10/31/2011 2:36:40 PM

^^ i know State's bread and butter are the engineering and science programs, but i think in general there's too much bashing of liberal arts degrees. quite honestly, if private loan companies started risk-adjusting their student loans, the first factor would be the quality of university - not the type of degree the student is earning. For jobs focused specifically on engineering, yes, people want an engineer from State. for the 95% of other jobs, most companies would take an English major from Stanford over a State engineer any day of the week.

smart and motivated people are sought after regardless of what they choose to study. i don't think the problem is that U.S. universities are turning out too many humanities and social science majors. i think the issue is that university enrollment, in general, is larger than our current job market can handle. Has this been driven by federal loans? In part, I guess - but federal-backed student loans are nothing new, so they're clearly not the full cause. I would wager that public funding of state schools is a MUCH bigger driver of increased enrollment than federal loans. But pretty sure no one on an NC State message board will complain about that Know I won't!

And is it really a big problem to have TOO many college graduates in society? Personally, I don't think so - but I DO think that high school students should be given honest information regarding the financial risks/rewards of taking out loans for school, and given enough data to make an informed decision on what school/degree to choose. As well as given information regarding other alternatives available to them (trade schools, pimpin', strippin', etc).

10/31/2011 3:25:33 PM

Quote :

"And is it really a big problem to have TOO many college graduates in society?"

of course not. the issue here is the cost of having "over educated" people working in positions where they don't earn enough to pay for that degree. free college for all is a great idea, until you look at the economics of it. sure, in some countries it may be cheaper than in the U.S. or even free, but I'd wager to say that the fastest growing countries are producing STEM degrees and jobs; not art and history majors.

10/31/2011 3:51:22 PM

Quote :

"For jobs focused specifically on engineering, yes, people want an engineer from State. for the 95% of other jobs, most companies would take an English major from Stanford over a State engineer any day of the week. smart and motivated people are sought after regardless of what they choose to study."

I don't know of a better argument against our current higher education system than this. If the purpose that the universities are currently serving is to sort out the smart and motivated from the others, then close them all down right now. This is an example of companies taking the path of least resistance, and yes, they will hire from the top universities just because of the name. By doing so, they defer the work they would otherwise have to do themselves or pay someone else to do, which is identifying and fostering talent.

No where in this narrative is where the universities actually created value, although there's plenty about enforcing a perpetual class society. The goal of subsidizes to public education should be higher workforce utilization. NOT hiring the lackluster students, or otherwise accepting armies of students into programs that have piss-poor job placement rates accomplishes the opposite of this.

However idiotic you remember he people in your freshman English class were (in high school as well) - those are the people that our public policy must focus on. They're not going away, and effective utilization of their labor matters vastly more to the future of our economy than an elite few graduating from the top universities. You know, unless those elite few figure out a few more ways to crash our financial system.

10/31/2011 3:52:17 PM

Quote :

" This whole business with force feeding students useless courses and outdated material to be "well rounded individuals" isn't working out so well when they can't even pick up a job after graduating."

For real, the economy is overflowing with jobs right now but these Black Studies majors are just too lazy, shiftless, and uneducated to qualify for one!

10/31/2011 3:55:50 PM

Quote :

" In the first paragraph, you admit that federal subsidies drive up prices. In the second paragraph, you suggest that without loans, anyone that isn't rich wouldn't be able to go to college, and that we need to keep the current student loan model accordingly."

I never suggested that we need to keep the current model. This thread is about the proposal to eliminate the existing one entirely. Next.

Quote :

"Assumption number one: it's just poor kids that are getting loans. In fact, it's pretty much everyone getting loans. In the majority of cases, parents are not able to shell out cash for even a public school, much less an out of state/private school. Even upper middle class kids have to take out really big loans if they want to do JD/MD, or even MBA at a good private school."

"Everyone getting loans" does not equal "Everyone equally dependent on loans". You're trying to generate a strawman to beat up on. Next.

Quote :

"Assumption number two: If the loan industry is allowed to dry up, tuition will stay the same and universities will simply close their doors to anyone that can't pay cash."

Nope. Read my later posts and I specifically mention that those rich kids who didn't need loans in the first place will enjoy lower tuition rates. That's a pretty clear acknowledgement that the tuitions would fall. As far as universities closing their doors, they will do so to anybody with no cash and shitty credit (AKA poor people), unless they are really bad businessmen. Next.

Quote :

"This is, of course, absurd. Universities have grown at an alarming rate, and if they were to realize that loans were no longer accessible, enrollment would drop off and they would have a bunch of empty classrooms. Are they going to just let them stay empty? Of course not. They're going to start cutting costs, cutting tuition, and getting people back in the facilities, even if it means downsizing and trimming the fat."

Even though you're basing this on the false reading above, I'll bite anyway. You're trying to imply here that it'd be a wash. That prices would go down and everyone would go back to school cheaper. Right? Or do you admit that significantly fewer people would be able to attend overall?

Quote :

"It's also unlikely that loans would disappear entirely if the federal government got out of it. It's very likely that creditors would be willing to risk loaning money for, say, engineering degrees. It's very unlikely that creditors would be willing to risk money on someone getting an expensive humanities degree. It could be argued that you don't even need to go to school to learn the humanities...just read some books or browse the internet with purpose. It's certainly not worth the thousands of dollars of debt that people take out."

There are already private lenders of college loans. Go out and find some, get some data on them, and report back. Or continue speculating on what happens in magical Libertopia. I have a feeling which of these options you'll choose.

Quote :

"Education is yet another bubble blown up by excess credit, courtesy of the Federal Reserve. "

I just have no more patience for Fed conspiracists anymore. I've seen you make blatantly false charges against the Fed that are clearly based on rumors spread by the CREEPY MUSIC+MONEY PRINTING MACHINE youtube videos. Here's a good start on de-brainwashing yourself on this topic http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Quote :

"This is wasteful and is sending good money after bad. We can pretend there isn't a problem or watch as the United States gets further and further behind in the global economy."

If you want to talk about the global economy then maybe we can look at countries like, say Finland, where higher education is free for everyone (including foreigners) regardless of what degree you get. Strangely, they get some of the best test scores and job placement on planet Earth, and their citizens pay less money per capita for education than US citizens by a longshot.


[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 4:07:04 PM

^^^ while i don't totally disagree, i wouldn't oversimplify that the sole value of schools in the current system is to filter out candidates...the technical training is still needed in many fields (medicine, law, engineering, etc), just not all of them (i.e. most jobs in business, gov't, services, etc). universities help serve both purposes, and i was just trying to point out that employers do look at more than simply the technical training.

and really, i just wanted to stop the liberal-arts-degree-bashing, as I think as State students/grads we take that a bit too far...

10/31/2011 5:34:23 PM

Quote :

"their citizens pay less money per capita for education than US citizens by a longshot"

less money for higher education or for all of education?
"pay" out of pocket or including tax dollars spent on it?

10/31/2011 5:34:33 PM

Quote :

"i know State's bread and butter are the engineering and science programs, but i think in general there's too much bashing of liberal arts degrees. quite honestly, if private loan companies started risk-adjusting their student loans, the first factor would be the quality of university - not the type of degree the student is earning. For jobs focused specifically on engineering, yes, people want an engineer from State. for the 95% of other jobs, most companies would take an English major from Stanford over a State engineer any day of the week. "

It's not about bashing liberal arts. I have a B.A. in a Humanities degree. I just don't think that you need to go to school for 4 years to learn Humanities, and certainly it's not worth the cost. Most of what I learned was actually done outside of the classroom.

We need people that can compete in new, high tech fields, not creative writing majors. Skills like that can be gained by reading/browsing the web.

Quote :

"smart and motivated people are sought after regardless of what they choose to study. i don't think the problem is that U.S. universities are turning out too many humanities and social science majors. i think the issue is that university enrollment, in general, is larger than our current job market can handle. Has this been driven by federal loans? In part, I guess - but federal-backed student loans are nothing new, so they're clearly not the full cause. I would wager that public funding of state schools is a MUCH bigger driver of increased enrollment than federal loans. But pretty sure no one on an NC State message board will complain about that Know I won't! "

Except universities clearly are turning out too many humanities and social science majors. IT-related jobs are hiring. Skilled labor jobs are hiring. No one is hiring History majors, because they aren't qualified for shit.

Quote :

"I never suggested that we need to keep the current model. This thread is about the proposal to eliminate the existing one entirely. Next. "

Who said anything about eliminating the existing one entirely? I said remove federal subsidies for loans because they encourage malinvestment. You don't want to do that, so yes, you are suggesting that we stick to current model, which is stupid as hell.

Quote :

""Everyone getting loans" does not equal "Everyone equally dependent on loans". You're trying to generate a strawman to beat up on. Next."

Even upper middle class kids don't have the kind of cash it takes to get a law degree from a top tier school. Yes, a rich kid might have to borrow less, but they still have to borrow some. Yet again, you think you're helping "the poor" by subsidizing them, but you're just driving up prices for them while reducing the quality of their education at the same time.

Quote :

"Nope. Read my later posts and I specifically mention that those rich kids who didn't need loans in the first place will enjoy lower tuition rates. That's a pretty clear acknowledgement that the tuitions would fall. As far as universities closing their doors, they will do so to anybody with no cash and shitty credit (AKA poor people), unless they are really bad businessmen. Next."

So businesses (universities) will only cater to less than 1% of the population, while ignoring the untapped market in the rest of the population? I understand that you hate capitalist institutions, but this makes no sense.

Quote :

"Even though you're basing this on the false reading above, I'll bite anyway. You're trying to imply here that it'd be a wash. That prices would go down and everyone would go back to school cheaper. Right? Or do you admit that significantly fewer people would be able to attend overall?"

Fewer people would be able to attend, yes, and fewer people would be given the opportunity to put themselves in debt for a degree that isn't worth what they paid for it. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Quote :

"There are already private lenders of college loans. Go out and find some, get some data on them, and report back. Or continue speculating on what happens in magical Libertopia. I have a feeling which of these options you'll choose."

Yes, and the government says that it's illegal to default on those loans. I think that the government should not enforce student loan contracts at all. If you default, it should wreck your credit, but you should be allowed to default. Banks would be much, much more careful if this is how things were set up.

Quote :

"I just have no more patience for Fed conspiracists anymore. I've seen you make blatantly false charges against the Fed that are clearly based on rumors spread by the CREEPY MUSIC+MONEY PRINTING MACHINE youtube videos. Here's a good start on de-brainwashing yourself on this topic http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html"

I have no patience for your endless bitching about evil capitalism and corporations, while you give a free fucking pass to the Federal Reserve and the private banking cartel. You don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion because you don't know shit about how banking works in this country. You also don't know anything about pre-Fed banking, and that's becoming more and more clear when you post these cop-out responses.

Quote :

"If you want to talk about the global economy then maybe we can look at countries like, say Finland, where higher education is free for everyone (including foreigners) regardless of what degree you get. Strangely, they get some of the best test scores and job placement on planet Earth, and their citizens pay less money per capita for education than US citizens by a longshot."

You're looking at a country with superior culture. Are you living in this country? You're an ignorant shitstain, but you're still more intelligent than the average American.

U.S. culture is so backwards that it's useless to look at the successful programs of other, superior nations. They are superior because their people, on the aggregate, are superior. There are many reasons for this, but no amount of government intervention will improve the culture here. There has to be widespread change in people's views, which will come about when the people have no choice but to care and to make their children care as well.

10/31/2011 5:43:40 PM

Quote :

"You're an ignorant shitstain, but you're still more intelligent than the average American."

One of the most endearing things I've read on TWW.

10/31/2011 5:49:58 PM

^^ dude, you gotta chill out!

btw, just so i get called a shitstain too - yes, companies are absolutely hiring history majors right now. but just the smart ones. and companies are hiring engineering/CSC majors too right now, but just the smart ones. it's not that we have a disproportionate number of smart people who choose to study useless things - it's that the number of smart people right now is pretty much where it's always been while the number of available jobs has kinda shrunk lately. i know that's an oversimplification, but the real issues here are way more complex than a few message board posts could communicate. and it's def more complex than simply "fed loans=more students=higher costs=worthless grads in debt" as dude from Texas wants people to believe, which i think was the OP's point.

anyhow, i think we're all probably fans of higher education, but all think the system could be better somehow... regardless of how libertarian of democrat we may be

10/31/2011 6:19:44 PM

A qualified insult, just like a qualified compliment, sort of looses it's emotional power

10/31/2011 6:33:35 PM

I can't believe I typed "it's" in that post and it's over 30 min.

10/31/2011 10:38:40 PM

The Universities are already built and staffed. As has been said, people are brainwashed into believing college is important, so at best all people will do is downgrade to cheaper universities. In response, ending federal student loans would merely reduce prices as upscale universities try to fill their classes with people that are now willing to downgrade to a cheap community college.

Quote :

"But stopping student aid won't lower costs."

Absolutely 100% untrue. Almost none of the tuition hikes of the past decade have gone towards teachers and maintaining classrooms. All of the money has gone towards making school housing more comfortable (see Wolf Village), hiring an army of administrators to fill out paperwork, and buying bling for campuses ($10k a piece digital signage in all lobbies). Look at centennial campus compared to main campus.

11/1/2011 11:58:43 AM

Quote :

"Who said anything about eliminating the existing one entirely? I said remove federal subsidies for loans because they encourage malinvestment. You don't want to do that, so yes, you are suggesting that we stick to current model, which is stupid as hell."

Lmao. "Who said anything about eliminating the model? I said REMOVE the model." Who said remove it? Read the title of the thread again, then tell us more about the reading skills you've developed from browsing the web, lol.

Quote :

"So businesses (universities) will only cater to less than 1% of the population, while ignoring the untapped market in the rest of the population? I understand that you hate capitalist institutions, but this makes no sense."

There is a minimal cost to give a good (better than a typical community college) education to a person. In order for a market to qualify as "untapped" its constituent consumers have to at least meet it. That's why nobody is springing on the "untapped market" of poor people who want helicopters. I'm not surprised though, I've seen in threads on anarcho capitalism that you basically believe that a person wanting or needing something automatically means a market will spring up to provide it, regardless of how poor that person is.

Quote :

"Fewer people would be able to attend, yes, and fewer people would be given the opportunity to put themselves in debt for a degree that isn't worth what they paid for it. I don't see that as a bad thing."

I know it's very common now to take the uninformed populist position of "COLLEGE AINT WORTH IT YOU AINT GONNA GET NO JORB WIT A POTTERY DEGREE" but the fact is that college graduates still consistently earn more than folks who stopped at high school. Even disregarding that, I'm not sure what kind of economy you envision in the future where people will be getting paid for jobs that require even less education than now. A weird vision of progress you must have, where a society has a brief boom of which higher education forms the backbone, then sinks bank to manual labor and McDonalds jobs?

Quote :

"Yes, and the government says that it's illegal to default on those loans. I think that the government should not enforce student loan contracts at all. If you default, it should wreck your credit, but you should be allowed to default. Banks would be much, much more careful if this is how things were set up."

I agree with this in theory but in practice such a measure would burst the higher ed loan bubble overnight and that kind of bubble bursting would hit the market like a meteorite hits dinosaurs.

Quote :

"I have no patience for your endless bitching about evil capitalism and corporations, while you give a free fucking pass to the Federal Reserve and the private banking cartel. You don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion because you don't know shit about how banking works in this country. You also don't know anything about pre-Fed banking, and that's becoming more and more clear when you post these cop-out responses."

Lmao this is just plain delusional. Tell us about how the Fed murdered JFK, comon let's hear it. Or maybe the one about how the Fed profits from the interest paid by the Treasury.

Quote :

"You're looking at a country with superior culture. Are you living in this country? You're an ignorant shitstain, but you're still more intelligent than the average American."

Lmao that superior culture is a pro-Socialist one where education is highly valued such that they pay their teachers more than double what they do here, but these arguments always crack me up. "What works in that country could never work here because American culture is just different in some undefinable, unprovable way."

Quote :

" U.S. culture is so backwards that it's useless to look at the successful programs of other, superior nations. They are superior because their people, on the aggregate, are superior. There are many reasons for this, but no amount of government intervention will improve the culture here. There has to be widespread change in people's views, which will come about when the people have no choice but to care and to make their children care as well."

Step 1 in improving our culture: Be willing to stop thinking of ourselves as so exceptional and actually try to take a cue from superior, more successful countries instead of making vague excuses about some immutable cultural factor that makes other models entirely useless to us.


[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2011 12:01:14 PM

Quote :

"As has been said, people are brainwashed into believing college is important."

Actually it's folks like you have been brainwashed into believing those ivory tower elitist liberal college professors are just trying to teach you to be a transexual Marxist Minority Studies major, and that the American economy of the 50's can be recreated today if people just stop learning pottery and get back to steelworking! We don't need those fancy book learnin's, a day's work is a day's pay, it's that simple folks!

11/1/2011 12:20:21 PM

You laugh your ass off a lot, bro.

Quote :

"Lmao. "Who said anything about eliminating the model? I said REMOVE the model." Who said remove it? Read the title of the thread again, then tell us more about the reading skills you've developed from browsing the web, lol."

So the entire model is federally subsidized student loans? That doesn't constitute a model - that's one aspect of the model. There's a lot more to it.

Quote :

"There is a minimal cost to give a good (better than a typical community college) education to a person. In order for a market to qualify as "untapped" its constituent consumers have to at least meet it. That's why nobody is springing on the "untapped market" of poor people who want helicopters. I'm not surprised though, I've seen in threads on anarcho capitalism that you basically believe that a person wanting or needing something automatically means a market will spring up to provide it, regardless of how poor that person is."

The infrastructure is already there. People have teaching degrees. We have a shit ton of facilities. Your argument is that universities will only fill 1-10% of their seats when they have the ability to make a lot more money if they just lower their price. For some reason you don't think they're capable of doing that, and I'm telling you you're wrong.

Quote :

"I know it's very common now to take the uninformed populist position of "COLLEGE AINT WORTH IT YOU AINT GONNA GET NO JORB WIT A POTTERY DEGREE" but the fact is that college graduates still consistently earn more than folks who stopped at high school. Even disregarding that, I'm not sure what kind of economy you envision in the future where people will be getting paid for jobs that require even less education than now. A weird vision of progress you must have, where a society has a brief boom of which higher education forms the backbone, then sinks bank to manual labor and McDonalds jobs?"

It's usually not worth it to get a pottery degree if it costs 50,000 dollars. There are better, cheaper environments to learn pottery in. You don't need a university for it, you just need experience, the tools, and teacher(s).

Yes, college is valuable in the sense that people learn something, and usually that can be used in some job. No one is saying a college education is worthless. I'm saying that the cost of a degree exceeds its value at an increasing rate. That's a very different claim. The second part of the claim is that the cost of degrees are exceeding their value because of credit injections, which are ultimately supported by the federal government and the Fed.

The cost of a degree should track its value, roughly. It's weird to see people arguing against that.

Quote :

"I agree with this in theory but in practice such a measure would burst the higher ed loan bubble overnight and that kind of bubble bursting would hit the market like a meteorite hits dinosaurs."

Quote :

"Lmao this is just plain delusional. Tell us about how the Fed murdered JFK, comon let's hear it. Or maybe the one about how the Fed profits from the interest paid by the Treasury."

What's delusional about it? The Fed was created by bankers for the benefit of bankers. It's just a fact that primary dealers can borrow money at .25% and lend it out at higher rates of interest. Do you know a single thing about the run up to the creation of the Fed in 1913?

Quote :

"Lmao that superior culture is a pro-Socialist one where education is highly valued such that they pay their teachers more than double what they do here, but these arguments always crack me up. "What works in that country could never work here because American culture is just different in some undefinable, unprovable way." "

That's not pro-socialist! They still have private property. They understand that incentives work. They're fine with having a social safety net, but they still understand markets. The United States doesn't.

We have large sections of the population here that simply don't give a shit about anything except what's next on TV. You can pump as much money as you want into the public education system, but many people don't want to get smarter. They don't want to improve. They just want to live in complacency until eventually they die. I'm fine with that, but I also accept that I have nothing in common with those individuals except nationality. We are dealing with a failure of culture in the United States.

Quote :

"Actually it's folks like you have been brainwashed into believing those ivory tower elitist liberal college professors are just trying to teach you to be a transexual Marxist Minority Studies major, and that the American economy of the 50's can be recreated today if people just stop learning pottery and get back to steelworking! We don't need those fancy book learnin's, a day's work is a day's pay, it's that simple folks!"

I've been accused of hyperbole, but holy shit man...you take it to the next level.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2011 12:47:51 PM

Str8Foolish you are doing very little to argue against any of the points brought up in this discussion.

All of your responses go something like this...

"LMAO your arguement of XYZ is dumb because ZYX. It won't work cause it won't work. lmao."

Do you actually have any substantial arguments or evidence to refute any of the points brought up by previous posts?

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ;]

11/1/2011 12:54:20 PM

ITT garden variety Republicans are on the side of an anarchist.

A lot can change in 4 years.

Also, Re: Finland

Quote :

"You're looking at a country with superior culture."

Explain? You've thrown this out before. I don't think you "get" the Scandinavian model. Where's this study that shows that this is more in line with your anarchism compared to...well, take your pick on any other western country.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM. Reason : x]

11/1/2011 2:10:57 PM

the loans themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing, there just needs to be more scrutiny when doling them out...or atleast have a maximum amount loanable based on your degree. if someone really wants a humanities degree, so be it, but the feds shouldn't give 30 grand/year in loans all willy nilly for someone to go to a high priced private school to get one.

11/1/2011 2:45:36 PM

Quote :

"Explain? You've thrown this out before. I don't think you "get" the Scandinavian model. Where's this study that shows that this is more in line with your anarchism compared to...well, take your pick on any other western country."

I'm not saying that Finland is more in line with anarchism, just that they aren't socialist. They definitely have a state, so they aren't anarchist in any sense of the word.

I'm not sure how else to phrase it. The average person in Finland is better than the average person in America. That's why I asked, "Do you live in this country?" As in, do you go out, talk to people, figure out what drives them and makes them tick. Even in a relatively urban setting like Raleigh, the general level of intellectual curiosity is very low. Talk to basically anyone in public, and they're way more likely to care about American Idol or "the game" than anything of consequence. Escapism is present wherever human civilization is, but it has taken on a different, more destructive form in the United States. You hear about "American Exceptionalism", but Americans are only exceptional in areas they should be ashamed of.

Intellectualism is shunned by a substantial percentage of the population in the United States, and that's what I'm saying won't turn on a dime. The government can't make people care about learning. In fact, the government has removed the incentive to learn by nurturing dependence, which I believe has been intentional.

That's why I like federalism. I can choose to move to an area where there are like-minded people, rather than being forced to pool resources with an entire nation that doesn't give a damn about the future and is not likely to give a damn in my lifetime.

Quote :

"the loans themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing, there just needs to be more scrutiny when doling them out...or atleast have a maximum amount loanable based on your degree. if someone really wants a humanities degree, so be it, but the feds shouldn't give 30 grand/year in loans all willy nilly for someone to go to a high priced private school to get one."

Market discipline would be present if banks were ever actually on the hook for losses. As it stands now, the government says you cannot default on your student loans, so issuing a student loan is literally a zero risk proposition for the bank.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2011 2:49:35 PM

I like this thread because wdprice is a narrow-minded jackass arguing for the creation of more narrow-minded jackasses

I like that

11/1/2011 3:16:58 PM

so what did you major in and did you pay for it yourself?

are you currently employed?

**this questionnaire is required for continued participation in this thead (at least in a serious capacity)**

wdprice's first post was terrific.

11/1/2011 3:25:41 PM