Slashdot Mirror


Student Loan Interest Rankles College Grads

theodp writes "Like many recent college grads, Steven Lee finds himself unemployed in one of the roughest job markets in decades and saddled with a big pile of debt — he owes about $84,000 in student loans for undergrad and grad school. But what's really got Lee angry are the high interest rates on his government-backed student loans. 'The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%? The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?' Not only that, federal student loans are the only loans in the nation that are largely non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, have no statutes of limitations, and can't be refinanced after consolidation, so Lee can forget about pulling a move out of the GM playbook. And unlike mortgages on million-dollar vacation homes, student loans have very limited tax deductability. A spokeswoman for the Department of Education blamed Congress for the rates which she conceded 'may seem high today,' but suggested that students are a credit-unworthy lot who should thank their lucky stars that rates aren't 12% or higher. Makes one long for the good-old-days of 3% student loans, doesn't it?"

162 of 1,259 comments (clear)

  1. All mine were cheap! by dieman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Direct loans were cheap, and the consolidation brought them down to ~5% afair. I know the new loans are not as cheap, but thats because some idiot decided having non-direct loans and promising a profit to everyone who serviced them. Doh!

    --
    -- dieman - Scott Dier
    1. Re:All mine were cheap! by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not sure where the mentions loans were from, but my loans have all been cheap too. My lowest interest rate was 4.5% and the highest was around 6%.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:All mine were cheap! by dov_0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      All my student debts are in Australia. The system here is a one off 10% levy on student loans from the government then it gets taken out of your pay with your tax, after you reach a certain thresh-hold. Debts cease on death (a nice comforter if you've done a lot of study and don't want family saddled with debt.)

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    3. Re:All mine were cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Australia, an average degree costs about $20K to $30K (depending on arts vs science/law/engineering/etc) and there's no interest on the government loan. It is, however, indexed to inflation.

      If you go overseas, you don't have to keep paying it until you return to Australia, and it is terminated upon death. That maximum rate it is taken from you pay at is 7% and that only starts when you hit about $30K to $40K per year.

      This only applies to degrees taken at public universities, but most of the universities in Australia are public (certainly all the best ones are).

      So to hear about this system America uses is quite disturbing. The university attendance rate over there must be exceptionally low?

    4. Re:All mine were cheap! by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mostly it depends on when you went to school -- I consolidated my graduate loans in 2000. So my rate is 7.75%. Which does suck. I don't understand why I can't "re-finance" my loans every time rates go low.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:All mine were cheap! by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That seems to be an argument to reduce university tuition costs, not reduce interest rates.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    6. Re:All mine were cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Education should be FREE

    7. Re:All mine were cheap! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if it were free, then conservatives would have to throw up a bunch of other hurdles to keep the minorities that they don't like out of their little white world. Instead, they make it really damn expensive and declare that anybody who can't handle the debt is a loser who deserves to be poor and ignorant.

      So you see, it can't be free. Republicans would cry.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:All mine were cheap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      [ Disclaimer: I work for a non-profit company in the Student Loan business who has been around for 25+ years ]

      The reason loans rates were low had nothing to do with DIRECT loans. The FFEL (ie; non-DIRECT) program has exactly the same rates, and existed long before DIRECT was even a thought. These rates are determined by Congress, and are a supposedly based on the governments cost of getting loans from the private sector (T-Bills, etc...) DIRECT loans was an attempt to remove private enterprise from the student loan arena, and for the most part it has succeeded. Companies are no longer motivated to give benefits to students (interest rate reductions, forgiveness of debt, etc...). Any 'profits' made from student loans for a FFEL lender must be given back to the students and/or given back to the government. With DIRECT, this is no longer the case, since DIRECT *is* the government. Congress still will set the rates, and you'll still pay the same amount you always paid, and you'll get the same wonderful service you get from the IRS and other government agencies.

      As we all know, when government gets involved, effeciencies and such go through the roof. People's motivation to do a good job skyrockets, and for the most part everything will be well. (BTW, the former is sarcasm...)

      As others have stated, the problems is NOT about student loans, the problem is the cost of education. (Unfortunately, the cost of not getting an education is much worse.. 'Would you like fries with your burger?')

    9. Re:All mine were cheap! by anotheregomaniac · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The cost of education always increases to match any increase in Government subsidies or funding.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+education+increases+with+subsidies

    10. Re:All mine were cheap! by White+Flame · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everything in life should be free, but it isn't. Grow up.

    11. Re:All mine were cheap! by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most ignorant post of the day award goes to you, Profane MuthaFucka (The name says it all, right?). How do you propose that College employees (Professors, Adjuncts, Non-teaching Staff, Maintanence, etc) get paid if education was free. I'm sure it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy to keep minorities out of college, right? Has nothing to do with economics, nahh that'd be nuts.

    12. Re:All mine were cheap! by jamesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The university attendance rate in the U.S. is way, way too high, and will get even worse if interest rates on student loans are lowered further below the free market rate.

      Yes but think of how good the youth unemployment figures look with so many young people studying!

    13. Re:All mine were cheap! by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Education is free. Diplomas are not.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    14. Re:All mine were cheap! by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can. Get a bank loan from somewhere else and pay off your student debt in full. Then it is not bound by the rules any more. Or have you promised to pay over a certain time span ?

    15. Re:All mine were cheap! by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Informative

      $20k to $30k sounds about right for a the average undergrad who isn't full fee paying. For most undergrad degrees where the students qualified through one of the standard mechanisms (and isn't an international student), the government still pays a good 2/3rds of the cost.

    16. Re:All mine were cheap! by EdIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He does bring up an interesting point though, admittedly in a stupid and ignorant way.

      Why isn't education free? It's sure as hell free right up to a high school diploma, so why not free after that?? Government subsidizes some enormously unimportant and stupid shit and don't even get me started on the bail outs. Too late...

      I'm sure his post can be seen as ignorant but it DOES create a question in many people's minds why Wall Street, the supposed bastion of white elitism, get's a bailout while the rest of America does not? I have yet to see any benefit from it. Other than the few in the service industries receiving large ridiculous payments for lavish "gloating" parties.

      So why don't we just clawback 90% of their pay, it's not like that would not leave them with multiple times the average American salary, and use that to forgive all student loans?

      Where is the *real* bailout for the American people?

      I understand capitalism and the supposed free market (fuck-it, it DOES NOT EXIST) but why does it have to be labeled as socialism and pinko-communism to have the idea that education should be one of the few things that is supported solely by the government? Why does free education always have to be instantly equated to unpaid teachers and staff?

      We are going to turn into a 3rd world country without education reform in our lifetimes. Part of that reform must be a federal education budget, that cannot be withheld from the states under any circumstances, and appropriately funded college educations. I am also definitely for removing high school and changing it to a trade school/college prep 5 year time period. Trade school does not have to a bad thing either. How about seriously training some of our young people for once? Paying local businesses, which can include IT firms, to take on young apprentices and actually give 5 years of subsidized real world experience. Operating tech/trade labs where young people can get hands on training in contemporary technology used in the field? Maybe instead of having a high school diploma we could just have certifications instead. Meaningful Certifications too, not worthless MCSE's. That's not a troll either, all of the MCSE's I have met have been near worthless and the ones that are not will candidly tell you how much they needed to learn outside of the certification to survive and get their jobs done.

      I am sure that a lot of people could tear this post to shreds, but you know what? Education is not working right now and the only thing we seem to be able to do is to churn out young people by the thousands that have no real skills and start out saddled with debt at unreasonable rates that cannot be erased.

      P.S - I would gladly pay a 5% tax rate on all good, services, and income if I KNEW it went straight into the education system in a way that it could not be diverted to anything else like SS has been in the past. At some point I might be retired and will have to rely on all those stupid young people for 20-40 years not to fuck things up too much till I die. The last thing I want to be is 75 in a grocery store being told by a 19 year old that they can't give me change because the machine is, "like all broke or something", while the cash tray is open and all they have to do is reach in and grab it. Oh wait... that was last week. Of course there are the good days too. When another young person get's handed a 100 dollar bill to pay for something and I get handed back 160 dollars as change. Of course I sweetly pointed out that she should check her math again and she blushed and said thank you. I wish I was kidding about those two incidents. Sadly I am not.

    17. Re:All mine were cheap! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here in the UK our student loans are linked to inflation. My current APR is -0.40 :)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    18. Re:All mine were cheap! by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I take it that you didn't notice you were living in a democracy. Degrees like history or philosophy that have no direct application to employment (although the skills developed in doing such a degree have a general application) are exactly the sort of degrees that engender an informed and capable citizenry capable of properly holding its representatives to account. A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.

      It has long been a dream of fascists to eliminate such forms of education for precisely that reason.

      And before anyone starts, you should already have noticed that the same phenomenon occurs with science degrees. Some of those who think science degrees are great as long as science graduates are making useful widgets tend to get very agitated when science graduates start using their education to hold policy makers to account (climate change is an obvious example, as is teaching evolution in schools).

      Beware those who say that all education must be "useful". They often have a hidden agenda.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    19. Re:All mine were cheap! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless you're Thrawn, I doubt an art history degree is going to be useful.

    20. Re:All mine were cheap! by Elky+Elk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me that most of the people who study philosophy, economics, politics and history are the people who go into politics and proceed to f**k everyone else. The less of them the better.

    21. Re:All mine were cheap! by gnud · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in Norway, you don't have to pay interest if you're unemployed, and can put off the downpayments on the loan itself.

    22. Re:All mine were cheap! by twostix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the west from 1900-1980ish the ugliest forms of ideology; Marxism, Facism, Eugenics, Totalitarianism were at one stage or another broadly and openly supported and advocated for by student bodies, senior faculty and universities in the west. Unapologetic support for the methods and madness of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and yes - even Hitler (in the '20s and '30s before it became a faux pas to support him) accompanied loving gazes and embarrassing wistful looks over to Russia and China.

      It was the "citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history" aka "the average person" who kept *them* in check - the "useful idiots" as Lennon so lovingly referred to them were born out of western higher education.

      As I've constantly found in my life a university degree in philosophy or social history in the hands of someone who doesn't have the experience of life to temper what they're being told often by "true believer" lecturers who like to try and be evangelicals for their own radical political beliefs causes more harm than good. Radical, violent support for Mao during the 60s and 70s among privileged middle and upper class kids in western universities while he was starving 30 million or more of his own country men out of their farms proves this indisputably.

      Beware those who say that all education must be politicised, they *always* have a hidden agenda.

    23. Re:All mine were cheap! by icebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Degrees like history or philosophy that have no direct application to employment (although the skills developed in doing such a degree have a general application) are exactly the sort of degrees that engender an informed and capable citizenry capable of properly holding its representatives to account. A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.

      The problem isn't history/philosophy/sociology majors themselves. Quite a number of them do good, valuable things for the country and their fellow people (especially if their academic and intellectual experience is tempered with some real-world experience). The problem is the number of people who don't go to school for those things, but who go because "everyone needs to go to college" and they choose a major like that because they need to choose something. Coorectly or not, they pick something that sounds easy just so they can have a degree--and everyone knows that "you need to go to college to have a good job".

      Part of the problem is that we're encouraging people to go to college when they aren't going to use it or even care about it. We've elevated the office job and made skilled trades a thing of contempt. The guy who sits in a cubicle churning out TPS reports a five-year-old could write is automatically elevated over a master CNC machinist and programmer simply because he has a degree and works in an office. There ought to be no shame in taking up a trade like machining or welding; a good machinist, for example, is as valuable to a company as any engineer.

      Now don't get me wrong--it's always great for people to go and learn more. It's always a good thing to have a better-educated populace. But I think the current pushes of "everyone must go to college" and "you need a degree to get a decent job" force too many people to go befre they can afford it, and therefore take on piles of debt for something they don't need. Ideally, it would be far better to wait until they could afford it.

      To put it another way, going tens of thousands into debt just to get a generic degree is stupid.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    24. Re:All mine were cheap! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      the "useful idiots" as Lennon so lovingly referred to them

      It wasn't Lennon, it was McCarthy.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:All mine were cheap! by beatsme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you always search purposefully with that confirmation biased strategy, or is that just a coincidence?

    26. Re:All mine were cheap! by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Higher education isn't free for several reasons.

      First, kids don't value free stuff, but they'll take it anyway. University is already "13th grade" to many people, and by telling kids that they can shirk responsibility and stay in high school as long as they want without paying for it is just crazy. Who wouldn't want to live the college life as long as possible? It's certainly a lot less stressful than "the real world." The only thing saving college from the unmitigated mediocrity of high school is the fact that they know they'll eventually pay for this lifestyle (or their parents are on their case because *they're* already paying for it.)

      Second, it isn't required for survival. Many people get along just fine without college degrees, and indeed, don't need them in their day to day lives.

      Third, it increases the number of people staying because of the Mom and Dad factor. I'm of the opinion that even the upper grades of *high school* are a waste on a significant number of people, because they simply don't care and are only there because they "have to be." Yes, they could theoretically drop out at 16, but Mom and Dad won't hear of it because they're convinced that little Johnny is throwing away his opportunity to become President one day. The fact that Johnny harbors an *active disdain* for the idea of school and learning in general doesn't ever seem to sink in.

      The fact that people pay for University and take on a certain amount of risk means that people have to *think about it* before going or sending their kids. Do they really want to do it? Are they willing to put in the work necessary? How long are they willing to pay for it? Maybe in other countries the culture is different, but I fear in America, the disdain for learning that I observed during my time, and continue to observe in kids today, guarantees that government funding of higher education will be nothing more than another money sink with no tangible benefit. Scholarships, grants, and tuition assistance exist for a reason. Let them pick the people who are qualified for the privilege.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    27. Re:All mine were cheap! by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the same way here in the US. People just don't want to mention that because it implies paperwork for them. All 5 minutes worth of paperwork.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    28. Re:All mine were cheap! by EdIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An interesting point and I agree that your concerns are valid. However, what about the idea of figuring out which kids are qualified for higher learning early on? That you don't have the right to receive a higher education, only the right to the opportunity to prove you are worthy of it?

      I would argue that a lot of your concerns could be mitigated quite well by starting a "sorting" process in 7th, 8th, or 9th grade. Give every child a free and basic, but well rounded education throughout elementary school right up to around 14-16 years old.

      In Johnny's case I don't think it as much an active disdain for learning as it is a deep frustration with how it is being done and whether or not it will ever apply to him. He might be bored, disinterested, and probably just does not give a fuck about most of what they are trying to jam into his skull in high school. He is probably overwhelmed, or just fixated on jamming something else into Suzy.

      So why not revisit the idea of trade schools? Johnny might really like the idea "pimpin' other people's cars". Johnny might be really interested in how to build houses with cool new technology. Why not teach him hands on how to create a pre-fab house? Install wiring, plumbing, solar panels, and actually CREATE something. Instead of learning a bunch of "useless" uninteresting crap and taking multiple choice tests Johnny might find an exciting sense of accomplishment in working his peers and adults to create something that actually has an immediate and practical real world use. One in which he is immediately acknowledged to have some value, and perhaps... even paid a small amount. More importantly Johnny is not treated like he is worthless and stupid. He chose to enter the adult world with contemporary skills he can apply now. His choice.

      For those children that truly have a passion for learning, research, and science we can put them into programs designed to prepare them directly for a College/University environment. These children would understand the only way they get to make it to a College or University is by merit. They would need to demonstrate that they WANT it. For those that choose the hard path, understanding the rewards it contains, they would be allowed to study with teachers that are actually well paid. Better equipment, smaller classes, more attention to the students individual pace and requirements. Those that can prove they can absorb the knowledge and apply it get to advance and ultimately be tested. Those that pass are entitled to choose the particulars of their higher education.

      Other countries have similar attitudes and ideas about education and the U.S is probably lucky to still be in the top 20 for education. Perhaps we should take some lessons from these countries, or at least recognize that what we have right now does not work.

    29. Re:All mine were cheap! by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even better.
      Here in Ireland I have no student loans.
      3rd level education is regarded as similar to first and second level and everyone gets one 3rd level course covered by the government.

    30. Re:All mine were cheap! by uncledrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the number of people who don't go to school for those things, but who go because "everyone needs to go to college" and they choose a major like that because they need to choose something. ....
        The guy who sits in a cubicle churning out TPS reports a five-year-old could write is automatically elevated over a master CNC machinist and programmer simply because he has a degree and works in an office. There ought to be no shame in taking up a trade like machining or welding; a good machinist, for example, is as valuable to a company as any engineer.

      As someone who lives in a Uni town, worked in a machine shop, got some college, and now sits in a cubical (well.. I do not to turn out TPS reports.. thank the FSM); I wholey endorse the parent and agree with what the comment said.

      I see tons of people that think college is just a 4-year extension of High School, and the degradation of the K-12 US schooling system (or it seems like it's dumber then when I was in it), means that often HS grads are in fact not qualified for basic jobs.

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    31. Re:All mine were cheap! by StellarFury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having met a large number of history and philosophy majors, I can tell you that they are no more politically and/or civically informed or capable than the average engineering or physics major.

      It is not the field of study that counts for "an informed citizenry." The seeds for "informed and capable" are sown well before high school. The prejudice against arts & humanities majors isn't because those fields are less important, but because those fields have made more allowances for jackasses who don't belong in college, and permit the graduation of citizens who are not informed or capable and will never be, thanks to the indoctrination in the culture of "know-nothing" by their parents and early teachers.

      Also, please refrain from implying that us lowly widget-makers are somehow beneath the likes of Al Gore. By claiming science lobbyists as more important than actual researchers, you demean the work of thousands upon thousands of scientists actually producing the technology required to combat climate change.

    32. Re:All mine were cheap! by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the same way here in the US. People just don't want to mention that because it implies paperwork for them. All 5 minutes worth of paperwork.

      You can get forebearance on student loans, but interest still accumulates.

      Best I can see, since student loans aren't dischargable in bankruptcy, if you're largely without assets and without sufficient employment, the sensible thing is just plain default on them and take the hit on your credit record. If you try to pay them and end up behind on your rent as a result, you'll find yourself out in the cold and _still_ unable to pay your student loan.

    33. Re:All mine were cheap! by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "We've elevated the office job and made skilled trades a thing of contempt."

      I agree absolutely. I think it is disgraceful that people hold trades in contempt. There is nothing degrading about being a plumber or an electrician.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    34. Re:All mine were cheap! by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DUH, Public school was designed to churn out good factory workers. The world moved past the design and we no longer have lots of factories. so now our indoctrination system we call public school is failing.

      Charter schools and private schools are picking it up, but very few people get to go to those compared to those that can only afford public school.

      I know not ALL are set up badly, but most are. They squash children's free thought, creativity, and focus on things that make you a good worker.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    35. Re:All mine were cheap! by tmosley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you don't think that colleges charge whatever the market will bear?

      Have you been to a US college recently? The one near me is still on a building spree that it has been on at least since I started there, eight years ago (I graduated and found a job in town). They have spent AT LEAST a half a billion dollars since I started paying attention, with the largest chunk being the first 100 million dollar expansion of the stadium to build box seats for rich donors. All this for a school with 30,000 students.

      Also, you don't think the housing boom was caused by freely available cheap credit? Hell, while I was still in school, I was able to get a mortgage while I didn't even have a job! The mortgage payment was cheaper than rent!

    36. Re:All mine were cheap! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We've elevated the office job and made skilled trades a thing of contempt.

      When the richest people make the most money by pushing buttons to move virtual pieces of paper, can you really blame them???

    37. Re:All mine were cheap! by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hypothetical question. Would it be possible to "repay" a student loan by taking money from credit card cash advances, paying off the student loan, then defaulting on the credit card and filing bankruptcy? Or perhaps during the housing bubble someone could have done the same with a home equity loan? I'm just curious what the legal implications would be here.

    38. Re:All mine were cheap! by ColdSam · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am the walrus.

    39. Re:All mine were cheap! by Swanktastic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Another lesser known factoid: the cost of ammunition always increases with the frequency of zombie outbreaks:

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cost+of+ammunition+increases+with+frequency+of+zombie+outbreaks

    40. Re:All mine were cheap! by Monsuco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.

      Yes, but that is an excuse to cover the subject in high school and make it available in college, not to devote extensive amounts of time to it. Your view of what is important doesn't matter nearly as much as a prospective employer's view.

      It has long been a dream of fascists to eliminate such forms of education for precisely that reason.

      Actually most fascist governments have been thrilled to have science, math, and other intellectual pursuits. It makes an excellent tool to manipulate the masses. I hate to prove Godwin's law, but Nazi Germany was perhaps the most scientifically advanced society in the world at its time. The USSR also devoted large amounts of money to science (though rarely could they actually put any of their discoveries to good use. Heck Woodrow Wilson was the first President with an advanced college degree and when WWI ended he tried to convince the US to continue with its "War Socialism" (the term for the centralized comand and control economic policies we enacted during WWI and abolished at the end), when members of congress refused and when there was public outcry he used his education to try to "prove" that others were just simply not smart enough to know he was right, but that his educated opinion should be the only one people listen to. Crying out the term "science" is no substitute for the democratic process.

      And before anyone starts, you should already have noticed that the same phenomenon occurs with science degrees. Some of those who think science degrees are great as long as science graduates are making useful widgets tend to get very agitated when science graduates start using their education to hold policy makers to account (climate change is an obvious example, as is teaching evolution in schools).

      Global Warming can be studied, but there are a mix of political, scientific, and economic realities here. A scientist can study global warming, but that doesn't mean that it is economically worth the money to fight it or that one method of fighting it is economically better than the other. There is also the question of whether or not it is worth the loss of freedom that companies and individuals will suffer from due to regulation. There is also the political reality that while fighting it might possibly be in every countries best interest (debatable) it is pretty much undeniable that the countries that bother to act will suffer economic losses for it (a "tragedy of the commons") but turning it over to some international agency (such as the U.N.) likely will leave it open to corruption and political gaming (as well as a serious threat to the sovereignty of different nations). As for the teaching of evolution, that is not exactly a purely scientific issue. Yes, evolution is a proper scientific theory and creationism is not, but school curriculum and standards are something to be decided upon by the publicly elected or appointed officials (such as the school board, state legislature, and to some extend the federal, county, and municipal government) and/or by those involved in education (such as the PTA, student council, the school's administration, teachers, and staff). I would much rather those involved make a decision. I personally believe evolution should be taught, but if whatever powers that be oppose that, then the law is the law, whether or not it is actually scientific has very little meaning (of course ID may be taught in a way that violates the establishment clause or some other legal code, but that is once again a legal question, not a scientific question.

      Beware those who say that all education must be "useful". They often have a hidden agenda.

      I wouldn't describe pragmatism as a "hidden agenda". It is pretty open. There is no vast right wing conspiracy here, there is just a question of what level of education is practical.

    41. Re:All mine were cheap! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm jerking off. And I'm also not giving a shit what you might think of me.

      But it's obvious that you like talking, and you don't do much thinking.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    42. Re:All mine were cheap! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to read a little more.

      You need to read a little more. I told you straight out that I was distorting what you said to mean what I wanted it to mean.

      Why? To fucking troll you. Why? Because you let me do it.

      Example:

      You then continued by linking all white conservatives to the Republican party. Also an ignorant statement.

      No, it's not ignorant. It hooked your dumb ass in, which is exactly what it was meant to do. But for some reason, you thought it was a political comment.

      And now is where I laugh at you. HAHA!

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  2. It's cheap compared to India... by jkrise · · Score: 3, Informative

    In India, student loans are 12% compound interest; while the borrowing rate in good banks is as high as 7.5% compunded quarterly.Money makes the world go round...

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:It's cheap compared to India... by metlin · · Score: 3, Informative

      But in India, education is also highly subsidized and in a lot of universities, the fee structure is merit-based (i.e. your ranking in your entrance examinations determine which stratum you fall under).

    2. Re:It's cheap compared to India... by anagama · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can make good on the loan by paying it off with the proceeds from another loan. In the housing world, anyone who doesn't refinance when interest rates fall sufficiently below the rate being paid on the original loan is absolutely batshit insane. It's standard advice to get a lower rate. Why can't student loans go through the same process? And why would that be unfair? The original lender gets their money back. The new lender gets a rate it is happy with offering? Where are the cheaters or losers?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:It's cheap compared to India... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your inflation in the long run (10+ years) is 8%. I think the US is 3%.

  3. Experience from academia by IgD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I worked at a mid size private university in the midwest and tuition rates were astronomical ($30k for undergrad). I think the loans are one thing but tuition rates are a larger issue. I wondered how they stayed in business especially these days.

    1. Re:Experience from academia by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I think the loans are one thing but tuition rates are a larger issue. "

      tuition prices are so high because kids keep getting approved for loans. I imagine schools might someday see the same thing the housing market has recently if the prices keep going up faster than inflation. Can't sustain that forever.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    2. Re:Experience from academia by anagama · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sane, sustainable societies treat education as an end in itself

      All your highfalutin ideas about education being the point of education is just fine as long as you don't have to worry that much about shelter and food. At the rate tuition is increasing though, a higher education will become the sole domain of the wealthy which means that countries with a system like that in Australia (mentioned above) are going to kick our plumbing asses one of these days.

      In a sane sustainable society, education is seen to be valuable in and of itself, but is also affordable so that many minds can benefit (and return the benefit back to society). Such a society is structured so that graduates can eat, live, and be productive members. An insane, unsustainable society fails to value education and in so doing, saddles anyone who attempts it with crushing debt load.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Experience from academia by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      tuition prices are so high because kids keep getting approved for loans.

      No, they're high because so many kids are trying to get into schools. Supply and demand.

      Student loans are enabling/helping it, but it isn't the root cause.

    4. Re:Experience from academia by Firehed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean, how many societies have plumbers as heroes?

      Well, we (America) did - at least during the 2008 election.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    5. Re:Experience from academia by anagama · · Score: 2, Informative

      I presumed it was 30k/year. 4*30=120>56

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:Experience from academia by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is most certainly a root-cause. You're confusing desire with economic demand. The demand can only be realized because of the abundance of student loans. Decrease the availability of student loans and the demand that the be realized by the schools will go down, even while the desire for students to attend may stay the same.

      Demand is only a useful term in that it is a desire for a product that can actually be acted upon.

    7. Re:Experience from academia by GodBlessTexas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I sit on an advisory board at the local community college, and as such I get the chance to rub elbows with others in academia, including faculty and administration at prestigious schools in the Ivy League. It's interesting that when you talk to these people, they make no bones about justifying why they charge so much for an education. As someone from Brown put it bluntly, "If we didn't charge so much, people would not think it was worth anything." Some might argue that the easy access of federal funds has done a lot to exacerbate the problem of rising tuition costs. Just as government contractors and consultants view federal government funds as a never-ending supply of money, colleges view it in a very similar way.

      --
      Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
    8. Re:Experience from academia by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Universities moreover are excellent at price discrimination: charging you exactly as much as you're willing to pay, and maximizing their profit. Most students will even fill out forms to help the university price-discriminate against them better. It's called "financial aid". And yes, if there is more money available to the typical student for attending college, the typical college is able to charge more, plain and simple.

      I lucked out with a big fat faculty-dependent tuition concession and graduated with zero debt, and a thousand dollars' advance from a programming job in California.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    9. Re:Experience from academia by dpille · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they're high because it's a service where productivity can't increase very much. We pay a higher and higher comparative amount for education because you still need a scholar standing at the front of the room, and lab space on a per-student basis and the like. Other prices moderate (by comparison) in the economy because you can capture productivity gains. On the manufacturing end, labor costs, raw material costs, input costs go down as we become more efficient. But you can't make a college professor teach 3% more students next year as well as before, which would be necessary to match the overall economy's productivity gain and keep prices from comparatively inflating. More to the point, supply and demand wouldn't really seem to be relevant to pricing when so much of the system is public university and community college. If your state's making money at its institutions, please have them contact mine so we can resolve our huge current deficit.

    10. Re:Experience from academia by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No again, they are high because the universities keep spending (on research programs, out of control construction projects, etc) more than they bring in, and they are bringing in (though endowment investment losses, decreasing alumni gifts, and less government support) less these days to boot. Almost all universites are non-profit, so "supply and demand" is irrelevant.

      For example, Harvard has forecast over a $100M shortfall this year, and it has the largest endowment, one of the highest alumni donation rates, and,of course, one of the highest tuitions. They are not just raising tuition because "the students will pay", they are raising it because their costs are going up way too fast (which in the end is the thing that needs to be controlled to fix this problem...)

    11. Re:Experience from academia by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This hilarious thing about the point you make is that when your financial ability to pay is determined, they factor in how much your parents make, even if they cannot afford to help you pay for school. I had this problem and they determined that I made too much to get grants even though my parents could only do so much to help me.

    12. Re:Experience from academia by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention that the Australian system also pays students fortnightly payments if they're in a position to not be able to afford shelter and food while studying. Note that there is no long term obligation attached to that money (you don't have to pay it back).

    13. Re:Experience from academia by dfenstrate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they're high because it's a service where productivity can't increase very much.

      Rubbish. Folks like you cry we need to spend more money on education, so we give state universities more money, and they blow it on administrators or programs that are ancillary to actually putting useful knowledge into someone's head.

      Your argument is only an argument for tuition prices tracking with inflation- but they've been rising at double the inflation rate.

      If your state's making money at its institutions, please have them contact mine so we can resolve our huge current deficit.

      It's not a matter of profit, it's a matter of finding new and creative ways to blow taxpayer and tuition money on expenses arguably, vaguely related to education.

      State universities don't spend money efficiently because they don't have to. There are too many idealists out there who think that pouring money into the universities guarantees getting better results out. This isn't the case.

      State Universities are run by mortal men and women, who make the same mistakes and misteps as the rest of us. The letters after their names simply indicate the possession of specialized knowledge, which is entirely unrelated to the efficient operation of a university.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    14. Re:Experience from academia by eison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the idea behind this argument is that inflation is measured against goods which can keep their costs down through productivity improvements, while college is not such a good, so it should see prices rise faster than inflation. I'm not sure I buy the argument, but it is indeed an argument that tuition prices should rise higher than the inflation rate.

      We currently have good evidence that the inflation rate doesn't apply broadly to all types of goods - houses and cars are keeping it down while milk and bread are definitely going up more than the official inflation rate. No clue if college is more or less like milk and eggs, though, but it's pretty clear that you can't simply argue that everything should go up by the same inflation rate.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    15. Re:Experience from academia by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, that's what happened. A guy asked a question at a debate, and Obama's team instantly attacked him, and which point the Republicans showed up.

      Which is a bit different from the way everyone else remembers it, where he asked a question, Obama tried roughly to answer it despite him clearly disbelieving it, and that was all.

      ...until the Republicans made a national hero of the guy, inviting him to speak at all their events, without actually bothering to do any research whatsoever.(1) At which point the media decided to look at the question he'd asked and found it total nonsense based on misconceptions about how taxes work, and out-and-out falsehoods on top of that.

      Frankly, I don't mind asking politicians questions that are hypotheticals, even posed as if you're the guy in the hypothetical...but I do mind when the media doesn't do its job and explain why the question everyone's talking about is based on incorrect premises, and here's how taxes actually work for small businesses, and if Joe's hypothetical was true here is how his taxes would change, etc.

      This would require some sort of actually functioning media in this country, so that's probably too much to hope for, though.

      1) Is it just me, or have the Republicans gotten really bad at researching their own people recently? Forget Joe the plumber, Palin's kid was pregnant and they didn't manage to figure that out in advance either.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  4. Typo in summary: detectability vs deductibility by bipbop · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you mean "deductibility", not "detectability", though I'll admit to not reading very closely.

    1. Re:Typo in summary: detectability vs deductibility by MistrBlank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Last time I checked, student loan interest is deductible... I don't know what more of a handout this guy needs.

      YOU SIGNED THE PAPERWORK, YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO A CHEAPER SCHOOL.

    2. Re:Typo in summary: detectability vs deductibility by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Up to $2500. Whoop-de-fuckin-do.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  5. Hmm.. must be some difference by cjfs · · Score: 5, Informative

    The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%?

    Because if you default on the mortgage, they can take your house. Education repossession technology is still in beta. Even when it works it and rarely returns anything of value.

    1. Re:Hmm.. must be some difference by Compholio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%?

      Because if you default on the mortgage, they can take your house. Education repossession technology is still in beta. Even when it works it and rarely returns anything of value.

      Yes, because clearly paying taxes isn't a return on the government's investment.

    2. Re:Hmm.. must be some difference by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Informative

      And when you default on the student loans your wages and other income gets garnished. That renders your point moot.

    3. Re:Hmm.. must be some difference by bkpark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when you default on the student loans your wages and other income gets garnished. That renders your point moot.

      Provided that you have an income. If someone is defaulting on hist student loan (and given the generous forbearance and other options before the dishonorable default), what makes you think he actually still has his job?

      If someone has a mortgage, then unless he's done something illegal he does have a house that can be repossessed—it may be worth less than the mortgage, but it's still something, unlike with education.

    4. Re:Hmm.. must be some difference by droopycom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think he meant you pay taxes once you get a job... But obviously if you are defaulting on a student loan, you are probably not paying much taxes either...

    5. Re:Hmm.. must be some difference by eh2o · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they shouldn't give loans for people to get worthless degrees...

  6. Student Loan Forgiveness Plan by binaryspiral · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pay your loan for 10 years... and the government will excuse the rest.

    Some restrictions apply...

    http://www.nextstudent.com/articles/student-loans-forgiven.asp

    1. Re:Student Loan Forgiveness Plan by drizek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My Universities Law School will forgive your law school loans(probably end up around 6 figures) if you work for 4 years in various public service law jobs.

    2. Re:Student Loan Forgiveness Plan by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also go to work for the Federal government. They have loan forgiveness programs. How do I know? I am one.

      You are one what? You are a federal government? Or you are a loan forgiveness program?

  7. Tough Shit. by Nikkos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You saw the rates when you signed the papers. Not anyone's fault but yours. And no, I didn't want a bailout for GM or the banks either.

    1. Re:Tough Shit. by Schlacht · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if some shit hits you like a divorce, a company going under you committed years of effort to, and other 'snake-eyes' throws of the dice since you finished school, then what? And then 'null' level of flexibility is offered as short-term support, no adjustment other than upward of said interest rates due to missed payments .. then what. Lost wife, house, etc ... what is left? Not much ...

      Life can be "tough-shit" for some, very accurate post. But, no, a bailout is not the answer ... some bullshit bankrupt maneuver is also deconstructive to the system. The future of education in America will continue to degrade in this process though. Some people will work hard their whole life, also while going to school, never draw a day of unemployment, and hope that things fall into place. For many it will, but for some it won't. When it does not fall into place quite like they hoped, hearing the wise words of some cockhoster like you saying, "Tough Shit" does not do much for anyone. Thanks for trying though.

      --
      rm -rf ms/*
    2. Re:Tough Shit. by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but did they understand what the papers they signed meant, before they took the accounting classes?

      Students are a gullible group.. if the banks convince them they need an 8% student loan, because for some reason they "are a poor credit risk", then the students who don't have the education yet are likely to sign, not even realizing there may be a possibility of finding another deal (or maybe there's not another option).

      The claim students are a poor credit risk is one of the strangest... with a debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, has no statute of limitations, has a government guarantee behind it, including an ability to garnish wages, and these people taking out student loans are generally young people....

      It seems like student loan debt is less of a credit risk than most other types of even secured debt.

      I declare that: "students are a credit-unworthy lot who should thank their lucky stars that rates aren't 12% or higher."

      Is basically nonsense.

      It makes no more sense than saying "30 year olds are an uncreditworthy lot."

      It's credit history that relates to creditworthiness, not being a student or not.

    3. Re:Tough Shit. by booyabazooka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are the doctors and lawyers the ones who can't repay their student loans?

    4. Re:Tough Shit. by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:Tough Shit. by name*censored* · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean shit, except of the very latest tech(which they don't teach in schools anyways) most things you can just buy a good book on... ok, buy the cheaper one published in India ;)

      Perhaps universities are being phased out as the gatekeepers of knowledge; however, that doesn't mean that they're no longer useful.

      1. Firstly, universities serve as a respected reference - someone "self-taught" has already ruled themselves out of a massive segment of the market (I don't have figures, but I'd estimate at least 2/3). Many companies have no time, bureaucratic policies or plain old lack-of-knowledge on the part of interviewers which disallows any on-the-spot interview tests that lets the applicant show what they know (remember - anyone can claim to be self-taught and waste interview time when they're not qualified, it's easier from the company's POV to just disregard the lot of them). A university degree easily allows an applicant to (theoretically) show that they're suitably qualified to do the job.
      2. Secondly, a university degree guarantees that the person knows all the knowledge they should know - someone self-taught may be smart and eager, but that doesn't guarantee that they know everything they need to know. Without someone qualified to tell them what's required, they only have books to go on (which may miss relevant parts, overstress irrelevances, be incorrectly targeted or simply out-of-date).
      3. Thirdly, a university degree is an opportunity for social networking that simply isn't available to the self-taught - you can't deny that (now more than ever) the hardest part is getting your foot in the door.
      4. Fourthly, a university has equipment which is not necessarily available to the average person. Some industries like IT are lucky, because all they need in 95% of cases is a $300 desktop and an internet connection - but most, if not all other industries need expensive equipment beyond the reach of the average Joe.
      5. Finally, a university degree teaches you to "jump through hoops". Although the corporate hoops are very different to the hoops of academia, the principle is the same. Self-taught people rarely ever learn such hoop-jumping - why bother compiling proper bibliographies when you know your work is your own (and no-one else is there to check it anyway)? Why bother learning the latest industry mantras when your current method produces good results?
      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    6. Re:Tough Shit. by wizardforce · · Score: 2

      Maybe so but don't you think that it is worth looking into ways to improve the system we have now?

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. Re:Tough Shit. by definate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, what did he study, and how well did he do at it?

      I've just graduated with a lot of people, everyone I know who did a valuable subject (Something in commerce, Engineering, IT, or similar) has obtained a job straight out of Uni, even in this economy. Sure it was maybe a little more competitive, but if you've got a solid degree, and aren't beneath working in lower positions, or for less money, there's always work.

      Though most of my friends have done well, and some have done awesomely (Damn Petroleum Engineers!).

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Tough Shit. by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can always walk away and not want the loan. Universities do not posess some secret knowledge, it's all in the books and if you can read you can learn. Smart employers will ignore your lack of degree if instead you present a lot of experience.

      That's not the case if you want to be a professional engineer (a requirement in most places to be the engineer that signs off and takes liability for a project). Note the first requirement:

      http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/

      Step 1: Graduation - The first step is graduating from an ABET-accredited engineering program at a college or university.

      Sure, you can learn all this on your own, and to be a good engineer, you indeed have to keep learning on your own. But you NEED that piece of paper if you want to be anything more than an engineer technician.

      And what if you want to be a lawyer? There are only 4 states that allow you to sit the Bar exam without a law degree, but that's only if you work under a judge for an extended period of time.

      While I would agree with you and go so far as to say that all learning must be done by the individual, there are indeed situations (and benefits) where you have to have that piece of paper from a school that says they've vetted you for a minimum amount of knowledge.

      Maybe "smart" employers will ignore your knowledge without a degree, but they'll also pay you less. Someone doing the same job and with equivalent skills, who also has a degree, will almost always make more. The trick for them was to make sure they'll make enough more so that they can pay off the loans and still be ahead.

      However, most employers aren't smart, they're safe. And hiring the graduate is the safe thing to do.

    9. Re:Tough Shit. by StrategicIrony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You sound like an idealogue. The rightest of rightiests (aside from the libertarians) were all for the TARP funds with Bush/Cheney was handing them out.

      There is a concept of sacrificing a few to save the sinking ship. The problem was already there and "bailing out" and most smart people understood that the "bailout" action prevented the Titanic.

      In context, on September 18, 2008, the federal government froze credit markets in light of a $10 trillion run on banks during a 2 hour period.

      Had they not done that, by 4pm, the US Dollar would have been worth less than the paper it is printed on and we would probably be trading Euros and gold coins right now, while burning those dollars for fuel to heat our dark, frozen houses.

      But, context not appearing to be your strong point, I defer.

    10. Re:Tough Shit. by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.

      IF.

      My view is that the system is broken precisely because it lends money to people who should not be borrowers due to their inexperience, and yes, character flaws.

  8. That's a rip off by solid_liq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My Direct Loans are still around 3%. I wonder why he's paying 8.5%.

  9. this article is distorted by societyofrobots · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unlike most other loans, student loans can get you a large tax deduction come April.

    1. Re:this article is distorted by anagama · · Score: 3, Informative

      No they don't. The max is $2500, and the deduction is income limited, i.e., over a certain threshold it is reduced with rising income until it hits zero.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  10. Barking up the wronf tree. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%? The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?' Not only that, federal student loans are the only loans in the nation that are largely non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, have no statutes of limitations, and can't be refinanced after consolidation, so Lee can forget about pulling a move out of the GM playbook. And unlike mortgages on million-dollar vacation homes, student loans have very limited tax detectability.

    Mortgages and car loans are secured loans, where the property or car that is bought with them is pledged as collateral. This makes a big difference for the interest rates. Student loans just ain't so.

    Anyway, I've heard complaints like this about student loan rates before, and I've always had the same basic response: you're barking up the wrong tree. You don't really want lower interest rates on student loans; you want the government to spend more on making higher education affordable for those who qualify for it. There's a bunch of countries out there where if you get admitted into a university, the government picks up the tuition bill, period. Those countries ain't richer than the USA.

    1. Re:Barking up the wronf tree. by countvlad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't really want lower interest rates on student loans; you want the government to spend more on making higher education affordable for those who qualify for it.

      Who decides those qualifications? How will they be fair? Consider the FAFSA loans, which dangerously assumes your parents will pick up at least some of the tab of your education. But if your parents are well off and (*gasp*) tell you "son, you have to do this the hard way like we did" then you're up shit creek. I'm all for improving access to education for those who *deserve* it, but thinking everyone should go to college is as stupid as GWB's "No Child Left Behind" crap. Giving a generation of kids free money for college is just going to create a generation of baristas and wait{ers|resses} with communication degrees who are too busy daydreaming about their carefree glory days of the easy life in college to get your order correct.

      My opinion: Improve access to science and engineering first and let the market handle the rest. Rich or poor, white or black, if you're smart and have the determination required to become a science or engineering student you shouldn't be concerned about how you're going to pay for it. Abort/drop out/fail and you're on the hook for the loan: discourage freeloaders. Scientists and engineers are the job creators: if it weren't for them we'd still be a agrarian society (or worse). So long as you give access to these loans based on ability, you'll probably never saturate or dilute the market with these skills or degrees, plus you'll still have ditch diggers and janitors.

      The real problem now isn't access to or cost of higher education, it's that a bachelors degree has become the new high school diploma. This is not because we're any smarter now than we were 40 years ago, it's because everyone with a child thinks their child should go to college regardless of what their child wants and/or is capable of. Instead, a vast majority of college students are graduating with majors in communication, psychology, anthropology, etc, all of which I assume had some value 40 years ago but are now little more than very expensive consolation prizes. Even from relatively prestigious schools these degrees rarely mean little more than "I am able to google and write an essay on ______ the night before said essay is due". All we've done is cheapen what once were respectable degrees and careers, while raising a generation of people who feel entitled to success because it was given to them at such a young age. How sad is that?

      Divert more kids to trade schools and community colleges. Free up Universities and private colleges for graduate programs and those dedicated and smart enough to get through community college. Don't give me that bullshit about the "college experience": the purpose of college is education, and the purpose of education is to learn; not to party, play online poker, or be promiscuous. Make science and engineering degrees available (but not free) for anyone willing and able to pursue it and you'll see the American economy take off like it did after WW2.

      Finally, there's a lot more to life than school and work. Show some respect for the people who find happiness close to home or in the "simple" things in life. Don't presume that just because you've traveled all over Europe or have some initials after your name you have the right to tell someone else how to live or how to be happy: what made this country great is the freedom we have as individuals to choose our own destiny and make our own way. The more we treat people as individuals and not members of various social classes the better off our civilization will be.

  11. As a college student by gbarules2999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fuck off, Department of Education spokesperson (and the quoted Republican party stance in the story too). I saved up three years of minimum wage for my college fund and I didn't do it just to hear how I'm an ungrateful child when I ask why I'm forced to pay a ridiculous amount of extra money on top of what is turning into an endeavor that is beyond the concept of "costly." Give me a break. Even with that hard work through high school I'm still forced into penny pinching.

    1. Re:As a college student by gbarules2999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Though to be honest I'm ranting more about tuition here than loans. My loans are actually pretty damn low; like in the 2-3% range. The ones outside of the feds go into 8%.

    2. Re:As a college student by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post brings up the thing that really bothers me about the 'healthcare is a right' and 'education is a right' crowds.

      I am all in favor of helping out people who don't have healthcare, but in order for those people to have healthcare, someone else is going to get screwed. It isn't like this stuff comes from the Universal Rights God, it is from the noodly appendage of someone else's wallet that the benefit must come. Calling it a 'right' kind of hides that fact.

      And I am happy to pay for it. I'm happy to help someone out whenever I can. But geez, if you worked hard through high school, isn't the knowledge you gained from that hard work enough? I mean, you're going to college, you are working hard, and YOU are going to be the primary beneficiary of all your hard work. Do you really want to force someone else to pay for it? If you don't think it's truly worth it, don't do it. If you don't want to penny pinch, then don't; go do something where you don't have to. If it is too costly, then it's probably not worth it. Go do something else.

      But if it is worth it, then you're clearly getting your money's worth. Good job, keep it up.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:As a college student by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I am happy to pay for it. I'm happy to help someone out whenever I can. But geez, if you worked hard through high school, isn't the knowledge you gained from that hard work enough? I mean, you're going to college, you are working hard, and YOU are going to be the primary beneficiary of all your hard work. Do you really want to force someone else to pay for it? If you don't think it's truly worth it, don't do it. If you don't want to penny pinch, then don't; go do something where you don't have to. If it is too costly, then it's probably not worth it. Go do something else.

      Spoken like someone who cant think beyond their own pocket.

      Because proper education systems increase your wealth as well, the same as proper health systems benefit your health as well. Let me ask you this, would you rather have a nation full of highly educated white collar workers or a nation full of barely educated blue collar slobs barely able to swing a hammer?

      Well the white collar workers of course, you cannot compete with the third world on manufacturing whilst maintaining a first world economy. Now if education is difficult to afford then you will end up with a large section of your workforce earning low wages, low wages means that their contributions to tax will also be low as well as the amount of money they have to spend or invest. This means that YOU as the middle class will contribute MORE in tax to maintain the same quality of life or YOU will have to accept a LESS fortunate lifestyle.

      If you have more highly educated workers you can attract and create high tech industries which pay higher wages and thus contribute more in tax. This means the as a net result of more people paying more tax YOU pay less tax over all. YOU also benefit from OTHERS spending more disposable income or INVESTING that income which in turn creates more wealth and REDUCES the tax burden on INDIVIDUALS.

      I suggest you look at HECS, a scheme created by the Australian Federal Government which covers the cost of tertiary education for Australians. This is in turn paid back as it is factored into the amount of tax a receiver of HECS pays (I.E. you pay only for the HECS that you have used) at the end of each financial year. In effect the government extends a near zero interest loan with a flexible amortisation schedule, so the tax taken from mr to pay HECS gets returned in full later in life via a reduction in taxes and economic benefits. It's almost like, well like an investment and an investment that has been working for Australia for the last 20 years.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:As a college student by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who cant think beyond their own pocket.

      Spoken like someone who doesn't give a shit about other peoples' pockets.

      Because proper education systems increase your wealth as well, the same as proper health systems benefit your health as well. Let me ask you this, would you rather have a nation full of highly educated white collar workers or a nation full of barely educated blue collar slobs barely able to swing a hammer?

      Would you rather have a nation of workers or of parasites?

      Well the white collar workers of course, you cannot compete with the third world on manufacturing whilst maintaining a first world economy. Now if education is difficult to afford then you will end up with a large section of your workforce earning low wages, low wages means that their contributions to tax will also be low as well as the amount of money they have to spend or invest. This means that YOU as the middle class will contribute MORE in tax to maintain the same quality of life or YOU will have to accept a LESS fortunate lifestyle.

      The question here is why is education difficult to afford? I think it's because government has been throwing money at education in the form of subsidized loans and overly generous financial aid. If education were free, there'd be two possible outcomes, either everyone would consume as much education as they could, driving costs up even further, or someone would have to regulate consumption. Either outcome is avoided by the third choice, making people pay for their education.

      If you have more highly educated workers you can attract and create high tech industries which pay higher wages and thus contribute more in tax. This means the as a net result of more people paying more tax YOU pay less tax over all. YOU also benefit from OTHERS spending more disposable income or INVESTING that income which in turn creates more wealth and REDUCES the tax burden on INDIVIDUALS.

      Except that the tax burden and future obligations aren't going down. Education won't fix what's wrong with the US because it's not the cause of the problem, and because the "investment" is consumed by those that had no part in it.

    5. Re:As a college student by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Spoken like someone who doesn't give a shit about other peoples' pockets.

      Ahh but you forget, with a socialised system the same amount comes out of my pocket. So I'm prepared to do what I ask of others. I will also reap the benefits as will everyone else.

      Would you rather have a nation of workers or of parasites?

      Highly educated workers. I dont know how you consider highly educated people to be parasites, maybe it has to do with anti-intellectual extremism?

      A workforce that has the majority of its workers in unskilled labour cannot maintain a first world standard of living. Education is a necessity.

      At this point I will point out that you dont understand how the Australian system works, its not free, its a zero interest loan. Everything that is borrowed is paid back and the entire nation feels the economic benefits of a higher average wage. In tax terms, the money taken out for HECS is returned later in a greater amount (PSST, this is called an investment), what would you have the government do with my money instead? Perhaps another futile war or tax cuts which only serve to increase the hidden tax, inflation.

      The question here is why is education difficult to afford?

      In the US or in Australia. Education is not difficult to afford over here thanks to HECS. So tell me why is education so hard to afford in the US, perhaps you're doing it wrong.

      Making people pay for their own education up front or via predatory loans will only serve to limit the type and number of people who can be educated. Thus a large number of highly capable people will be forced into lower paying jobs in order to provide for themselves (yes a must) because they cannot afford to reach their full potential.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:As a college student by chrb · · Score: 2

      Because proper education systems increase your wealth as well, the same as proper health systems benefit your health as well. Let me ask you this, would you rather have a nation full of highly educated white collar workers or a nation full of barely educated blue collar slobs barely able to swing a hammer?

      Would you rather have a nation of workers or of parasites?

      I think you just made the OP's point. "Highly educated white collar workers" are less likely to be claiming social security benefits. "Barely educated blue collar slobs" are more likely to claim benefits. Given that you live in a country where the rules are created through ordinary people voting, and the fact that the majority of people will want a social security net including free education, you won't be able to eliminate the social security system without abandoning democracy.

      Universal free education is widely recognised as being ultimately beneficial for a nation, that's why all developed countries provide, in fact insist, that children attend schools. If it is so obvious to everyone that free education for children benefits society, then why should educating a young adult be a different situation?

    7. Re:As a college student by mjwx · · Score: 2

      I'm comforted that you are prepared to sacrifice the rest of us with you. But it still remains that you are only contributing a little to this scheme.

      I contribute the same as everyone else. In the context of HECS that amount is the amount of HECS I used, the only difference is that I pay this off over several years after I start earning over a certain amount. I dont see how this is an issue, it's highly beneficial to the economy thus my pocket, I just dont see results for 5 or 10 years (like many investments).

      I know what you mean, but in my view, highly educated people are just as susceptible to anti-intellectual extremism as anyone else, for example

      I disagree, most intelligent people will question what they are doing, taking a reasoned and pragmatic view. This is not to say that some will not end up as extremists but the chances are far lower.

      multi-culturalism, post-modernism,

      WTF?

      The melting pot of culture is an extremist philosophy?

      As for PC, you have a point as this can be taken too far but is not done by the intellectuals, it's done by quasi and false intellectuals like politicians and preachers (I.E. "think of the children type" people).

      The rest of your post is fairly reasonable. Some points I dont agree with but you're free to hold those value's and beliefs. In conclusion I'd like to say that the US could benefit from a HECS like scheme which covers tuition to US students (as in born there or at the very least grew up there) with zero interest loans. There is an immediate cost but every cent that is taken in that cost is paid back in full, it just takes a few years. With the Australian HECS scheme there is an administrative fee which must be paid back to cover costs, this is normally around A$1000-1800.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  12. Grad student with huge loans by edwebdev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm in a situation similar to the person featured in the article - interest accrues on my student loans at a rate of several thousand dollars per year, even WHILE I'M IN GRAD SCHOOL and have no reasonable means to pay down the principal. My tuition, even at a public undergraduate institution, was $30k + per year. I personally know many, many other grad students in my position. It's outrageous that the people the government and banks should be supporting - those who spend nearly a decade earning an advanced education - are being fleeced left and right.

    1. Re:Grad student with huge loans by rnaiguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? Grad school's been a pretty good deal for me as far as loans go. I just called up my lenders, and got all my student loans deferred (with no interest) until i complete my PhD. And considering that I get paid to do grad school, I plan to pay off those loans as soon as I graduate. I think the answer is to stop whining, save money, and if you couldn't afford the school in the first place, perhaps choose a cheaper option?

    2. Re:Grad student with huge loans by edwebdev · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you must have loans that are somehow different from mine. While I don't have to make payments on most of my loans while I'm in grad school, the interest continues to accrue. I would also like to propose a distinction between "whining" and anecdotally highlighting a situation that is both unfair to individuals who decide to pursue an advanced education and harmful to the intellectual and scientific health of the country.

  13. credit-unworthy or just greedy? by Libertarian001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If students are a "credit-unworthy lot" then limit the amounts they can borrow or make it a fixed amount that they must repay. Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. This holds true for all borrowers.

    1. Re:credit-unworthy or just greedy? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, on the one hand, it makes sense: loaning money to someone unlikely to pay it back is a risky investment, and risky investments demand higher returns. If presented with a risky investment or a risk-free investment, both offering the same return, you'd never make a risky investment.

      On the other hand, you're taking the very people who are least likely to be able to pay their loans off, and you're making it even harder. That makes no sense. It's just another example of it being more expensive to be poor.

    2. Re:credit-unworthy or just greedy? by Shea,+Tim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not how it works. "Credit unworthy" people (who are not necessarily unworthy, but risky) are assumed to have an inherent risk in lending to them at all. This is regardless of rate. So if you have people who have a high risk of default regardless of the rate of the loan, then you have to charge a higher rate of interest in order to possibly earn some money.

      Now if you have a pool of these risky loans out, the idea is to set the rate high enough that the lender still earns money even after the expected defaults, all the while not making the loan too burdensome that they increase the default rate and start losing money.

      Do you really think that lenders haven't thought long and hard about this? If just charging higher rates caused more defaults and thus caused the lenders to lose money, they would never increase the rate. The lenders have done the math on how much they can lend out and at what rates for them to make money. It's up to the individual taking out the loan to decide whether they can shoulder that burden or not.

    3. Re:credit-unworthy or just greedy? by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy

      Not every one of them will default. Some of them will pay back the loan at the higher rate which compensates the lenders for the other defaults and the overall higher risk (and students are generally a higher risk). If the interest rates were limited, by law for example, then there would simply be NO student loans to anybody because no private lender will take a risk that doesn't pencil out (i.e. results in negative average returns). Would you rather that there be some student loans, albeit at higher rates, or none at all?

  14. High risk for lenders = high interest rates by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's plain and simple. The reason interest rates on a certain category of loans is high is because the borrowers in that category present a high risk of default to the lenders. This means that as more and more college grads struggle to land jobs, more and more of them will default on their loans, and interest rates on the whole will rise for everybody as lenders compensate for the increased risk.

    1. Re:High risk for lenders = high interest rates by KC1P · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK I see why that makes sense from the lender's point of view (they're just trying to balance things) but it's absolutely insane from the borrower's point of view. The high interest rates are what are paid by the people who DIDN'T default. They punish the wrong people -- the actual expense of the moochers is borne by the people who turned out not to be moochers after all.

  15. not the real problem by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem isn't finding a new fangled way for college student to be able to pay the enormous costs of college, it is to find ways to educate them more cheaply tha nwe do now. Online learning, competition, utilisation of open source textbooks... Be creative.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  16. Restating the problem by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is one of treating education as a business like any other. The country obtains a benefit from having an educated citizenry, and allowing education of this type to be treated as just another profit-center is at best short-sighted, at worst actively hostile to the country's best interests. From this basic problem, everything else flows.

    I'm from the UK, and just recently I've been reflecting on the things that I took for granted in the UK that are pay-for over here in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love living here, I've just married an USAsian who's simply wonderful, but there are things I miss...

    Primarily of course, is universal healthcare. The NHS is so far and away better than the situation we have here in the US that it's just not funny. Leaving that argument aside, the other major thing is education. My new wife and I were thinking about where any future offspring might be educated...

    If the USA stays the same course as it's currently on, I think my children (as UK citizens by birthright) may be going to the UK for their education. It's a lot cheaper, it'll broaden their minds by travelling, and the quality is generally very high.

    Oh how things have changed. I no longer think of the USA as being the gold-standard of higher education. Now I think of it as being just a way of transferring money from rich people to educated people.

    As it happens, my wife paid off her student loans (for a JD/MBA) this evening (well, they'll settle on Tuesday). For the cost she just paid, we could buy a small house in the UK. The only debt higher is our mortgage, and living in a nice house in a nice part of the Bay area, that's expected.

    I didn't pay for my education (although these days if you don't go to Scotland you pay something in the UK - it's a *lot* less than over here in the US though). I gave the UK about 10 years of higher taxes as a result - probably less than they were expecting - but moved to the USA for the nicer weather :)

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  17. Re:tuition is insane. by mdarksbane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Grow up, go to state college, get a job.

    The government subsidy on college loans is being able to get a loan in the first place. How else can you get a loan for $30-60k (or more) as an 18 year old with no credit history, no job, and no skills! You're an idiot to place yourself in that much debt with a very clear understanding of the terms and a strong plan on how exactly you're going to pay them off. The job market is weak right now, but companies are still hiring - go train yourself up and find one.

    If you can live cheap you should be able to pay off state college as you go. If you do Co-ops or internships all the way through you can pay a quarter work a quarter and graduate with no debt and a better chance of getting a full time job when you get out.

    Someone (god only knows why) decided that simply because you wanted to go to college you were worth tens of thousands of dollars at honestly a really low interest rate, compared to if you wanted that money to do anything else (go try to get a signature loan for ten grand from a bank and see what interest they give you, if they don't laugh in your face).

    You got yourself in debt and you alone. If you decided to spend that money you acquired on something that isn't going to allow you to pay it back, it's nobody's fault but your own.

    Nearly 50% of all fortune 100 CEO's graduated from a state university. There's no reason to think you need any better if you can't afford it.

  18. Real world loans are going to really freak you out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are two general type of student loans: direct and non-direct with a dirt cheap and a cheap interest rate. 8.5% is cheap for an UNSECURED loan that doesn't START accumulating interest until AFTER you graduate (actually Govt pays interest till you graduate).

    Dude- you got $85K with ZERO collateral. The rate is NOT unreasonable. It is the best investment you can make for your future.

    You can always become a teacher in the inner city or work 2 years for Peace Corps or any of the other methods the government has setup for most or all of your loan to be FORGIVEN.

    Stop complaining about getting cheap money with no collateral and no limitation, except that you go to school.

  19. Agreed by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'll be graduating next summer with a Masters in IT Management. (Undergrad in Simulation Design Engineering)
    75k or so in loans, and the year I went to college they jacked up the interest rate to 6.8%.

    And to everyone saying its unsecured debt needs to actually look into their facts. Student Loans can not be bankrupt on, if I don't pay, the gubmint will dock my pay. Which actually is a better deal that paying the loans, the max they can dock is 15% per check, and my loans will be way more than that to actually pay.

    The loans are government backed, they should be no interest.

    1. Re:Agreed by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 2

      Ok, caught me. But its not normal "unsecured" debt, like I said if they aren't payed you cannot bankrupt out of them.

  20. Education should be a national right and pride by Morgaine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Makes one long for the good-old-days of 3% student loans, doesn't it?"

    No it doesn't.

    A civilized nation should provide free education to the highest level each person wishes to attain, because that's part of believing that the nation's most most important resource is its people.

    But when a government just wants dumb consumers, then it's a very different matter.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Education should be a national right and pride by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A civilized nation should provide free education to the highest level each person wishes to attain, because that's part of believing that the nation's most most important resource is its people.

      Paying for that "free" education is a key part of the educational experience. Besides as PPH and mysidia pointed out, having to pay for your education helps make the education worth something. It's not you, but earlier tonight a slashdotter was whining at me about his interpretation of the world as people creating climate change just so they could live in "convenience and comfort". I suppose the idea is that it is despicable for someone to not wish to sacrifice. I must admit I'm starting to see their point of vieww now that I am reading throughout this story about people who think that it's a good idea, for some reason, to dole out free education to people who haven't done anything to earn it.

      My view is simple. An education can be pretty valuable. It'll make the student a bit of money in the future. How much benefit depends on the choices made. By making the college student pay for their education, they as the saying goes are "putting skin in the game". Namely, they now have a personal interest in getting a good education which to be blunt they would not otherwise have.

      I see no reason to change this because, among other things, I think there is no right to go to college for free and pick up a degree, that there are already too many college graduates with weak educations, that the college degree is not that valuable in itself, and that a colossal and growing amount of waste goes on in the college environment which would only be aggravated by free education.

    2. Re:Education should be a national right and pride by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A civilized nation should provide free education to the highest level each person wishes to attain, because that's part of believing that the nation's most most important resource is its people.

      Your conclusion fails to follow from your premise. Paying for someone's degree in Advanced Featherbedding just because they want on does little for the nation but produce yet another idiot with a meaningless degree and a sense of entitlement.
       
       

      But when a government just wants dumb consumers, then it's a very different matter.

      A nice soundbite, but nothing else.
       
      Personally, I think a system that makes people work to pay for their education works just fine. It sorts out the those with the skills and dedication to obtain an advanced education from those without - the same skills and dedication they will hopefully employ in whatever career that education prepares them for.

    3. Re:Education should be a national right and pride by xtracto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Free education? Excellent!

      I'm off to earn fifteen PhDs, now.

      What, actually get a job? No way, you're paying for my room and board. Forever.

      That's already solved. In Mexico public Universities are completely free (well, only about 50 US Dollars every 6 months). Now, how do you get your food and roof while you study is your own problem.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  21. Australia has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Australia, if you're a citizen or permanent resident, the government will subsidise a large portion of your undergraduate tuition fee. The remainder is paid by the student, but the student can pay for the remaining amount with a government loan (a HELP fee).

    Interest is not charged on the loan, and you essentially have an indefinite repayment schedule. You begin paying 6% of your salary towards that debt once it passes some threshold ($37,000 AU if I recall correctly). The only thing they do is apply indexation each year so that inflation doesn't devalue repayments.

    Post-graduate students are required to pay their tuition up front each semester in full, though again, if you're a citizen or a permanent resident, you get a big subsidy in cost.

    I can't understand why the US government would saddle undergraduates with that much debt before they've even had a chance to start making a living. If there's one thing a large chunk of government money SHOULD be spent subsidising, it's education.

    I'm sorry, but you guys are really screwed up in some ways.

    1. Re:Australia has it right by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HECS isn't a scholarship because it is not based on ability, and because it has to be paid back.

      America screwed up yet another simple thing, because idiots who don't understand the first thing about economics decided to let the "free market" work things out.

      And places like the Communist States of Australia ended up with a "freer market" than the US in education.

      In the US the government set up student loans by setting a bunch of rules that makes them good bets for banks. Of course that means students can borrow large amounts of money. Colleges will then of course raise their prices to get that money and keep raising them until students can no longer get those loans. At which point the government says "oh noes look how expensive education is, this isn't fair on poor people" so they give the students more money so the colleges can raise prices further.

      Whereas Australia said to colleges, we will pay you $X per semester for a full time science students, and $Y per semester for a full time law student, and so on. And the government then collects it back from the students via a levy on top of their taxes once they hit an income threshold until it is paid back. The universities offer a fixed number of HECS places (which I'm sure it where the negotiations between government and the university lobbyists come in - setting the number of places and the X, Y, and Z numbers). Universities offer additional places at whatever price they like for students who don't qualify for HECS (foreign students for example) or who didn't make the cutoff for the HECS places (not getting high enough scores in high school, for example - but way below anything at scholarship level).

      The US system results in ever increasing prices so rational people who won't saddle themselves with that much debt early in life can't afford to go to college. The Australian system avoids that at the cost of there being a risk the government sets the HECS payments to the universities too low in which case we have essentially price controls and the supply will dry up - but that hasn't happened yet.

  22. Reform is needed. by Criton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The rules on college loans does need reform and the interest rates should be reduced. Plus the cost of higher education needs to be reigned in to levels that are affordable to the middle class.

  23. Nothing like starting life $100K in the hole by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'

    To me this is a tragedy. Young people starting off almost $100K in the hole. I had student loans, so did my wife. Together they didn't add up to $40K and she went to grad school.

    On a higher level this kills entrepreneurial opportunities at the time in life you have the most desire, creativity and energy to launch a new business. Many of you are stuck in low-paying, dead end jobs because of student loans...one of the reasons some companies like to hire right out of college. Student loans and health insurance. Wouldn't it be better to turn all that creativity loose developing new businesses and jobs? But how can you saddled with all that debt and no health care coverage?

    We have to do something, not just for people in college now but those recently graduating into 9.5% unemployment. Whatever that is, it has to include cost controls on education. The cost of education is running way ahead of inflation and textbook companies are worse than the mafia (at least the mob runs prostitutes). This is crazy.

    But what to do about it? If the government tried some kind of forgiveness program, Republicans would scream about budget deficits. Student loans are also a giant bank pork program and you can see what kind clout they have in Washington. So, it's got to be paid for somehow, deficit neutral, combined with cost controls on education and everyone on both sides of the political pork barrel have to STFU long enough to get it done.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Nothing like starting life $100K in the hole by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right, so we should sacrifice the quality of our education for a cheaper one by going to Buttfuck State. Gotcha.

  24. College student; Please help. Won't work for food by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Informative

    'The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%? The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'

    Angry? You just got a "free" education, dummy. Sure, you have to pay the money back, but you didn't have to work and go to school intermittently for 10+ years hoping that you can finish your first degree before your credits are too old to apply. Your 401k/403b/457b/whatever will also have a 5-6 year head start, which will be amazing. College students from every previous generation have had a reputation for being poor. The subject of this post is a joke from a while back. Same as "Can you spare a dime? Working my way through med school."

  25. I wonder why you're not considered credit-worthy? by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe it's because you're borrowing over 80,000 dollars for a college education.

    5 minutes with a spreadsheet would tell you how much and for how long you have just screwed yourself, and by borrowing that kind of money you prove that you can't or won't spend even that much effort to think before borrowing.

    I think part of the problem is cultural: I was broke back when I went to college, and I needed loans; but I also knew that you should never borrow anywhere near enough to pay your whole tuition bill. That's far too much money to borrow even if you aren't dead broke. Poverty forces you into indebtedness, but it also makes you paranoid about accumulated debt, and you understand that something that costs tens of thousands of dollars will require you to eat Ramen, work multiple jobs, and make affordable choices even if someone will extend you credit.

    But now I hear horror stories about students who borrow enough money to buy a house in much of the USA, and use that to pay for an entire four-year degree plus graduate school. It's like the kids don't understand that they're poor; they get a credit line and stop acting like people who have to work for a living.

  26. We've taught them well haven't we? by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?"

    Why not, indeed?

    Besides the fact that we have no money left, didn't before we started, and have been borrowing all of this, why not help the students?

    Well, will someone else please tell them? I'm tired of it. Thanks.

    ps - My wife and I paid off her student loans. She had a higher interest rate.

    pps - No one is bailing me out of my mortgage on my home which is worth about half what I paid for it in 2005. I owe about %60,000 more than it is worth right now. My property taxes have not gone down a penny, cause everyone else around here is in the same boat. I can't afford to go back to college right now... Loans or not.

    ppps - We are not doing a great job of bailing out big business. I work for one, and took a 15% pay cut in April. And I'm thankful to have my job still. Graduates should be thankful if they get a job at all before 2011.

    We're teaching them well. Just the wrong lessons.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  27. Loans are an option not a requirement. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I worked my way through college.

    It sucked. I didn't get to go ivy league (not a big problem since only a 1270 sat, 3.2gpa, and activities were computer club and D&D club).

    Mainly, I didn't get to take a 4 to 5 year vacation. I studied 20 hours on top of 12 hours of classes on top of 40 to 55 hours a week of work.

    But I graduated with no debt. It was my choice.

    Students have the choice of going to public schools, or cheaper schools over seas, or on-line schools.

    One of the reasons colleges have gotten so expensive is that children are willing to take on $200,000 debt to get a degree.

    Look- if the professors were not making mid 100k incomes (yea, I know adjunct professors are poorly paid), if the universities were not funding research on the student's backs, if the university presidents were not making $350k!!! and if the universities JUST TAUGHT THE MATERIAL like they used to back in the 50's, then school wouldn't be so expensive.

    Health care is super expensive for the same reason. People have shown that they *will* pay anything for it, so the providers have jacked up the bill.

    You can get a good solid degree from a public university and graduate with little or no debt.

    You can't get an idiot degree of course.

    Given the work climate (that any INDIAN or CHINESE national can get a similar quality degree and take your job for $16,000 to $25,000 working in their companies for our corporations), you are an idiot to get a degree for something with that kind of exposure. At least get something that requires you be physically present, or that has national security implications.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  28. Re:Real world loans are going to really freak you by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yup, plus he could have always chosen not get a loan or not borrow as much. The latter could be done with support from family or a job beforehand to build up buffer cache. A loan is a responsibility and a bit of an education in itself: be aware of what you're getting yourself into and accept the consequences. Life is hard and if you're not born into money, you have to take the long road to obtaining it : P. Sry.

  29. What do you expect? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was the oldest child of a middle class family of 3. I applied to 2 public and 3 private universities and was accepted to all of them, but with minimal financial aid. I chose to attend a nearby public university that offered a quality education that cost approximately $10,000/year in the late 90's.

    Why did I make this choice?

    - I could afford to finance about 75% of tuition via savings that my parents had set aside for me.
    - I worked various jobs while in school, eventually hitting $15-17/hr, which more than covered the remaining tuition & expenses.
    - I didn't want to screw my siblings out of an education or force my parents into debt. In the end, I was able to leave about $4,000 of my parent's savings for my brother or sister.

    I have friends who are teachers who decided that they needed to attend small, private New England colleges with tuition and expenses over 350% more than my education. One of those friends and his wife makes $120k combined teaching, but after years of deferments owes over $300,000 a decade after graduation (not including graduate work form a private school which would have been FREE had they gone to the state university) -- my friend and his wife can barely afford rent, and will likely become homeowners when they inherit a house when one of their parents pass.

    People don't need bailouts, they need to live within their means and not assume that they are entitled to a specific lifestyle or type of job due to the circumstances of their birth. If you can't afford four years of college, borrow money to go to trade school and work as a plumber, HVAC, electrician, etc. If you really want to go to college, you'll be able to earn the money to do so.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  30. I hate to break this to you by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but there are many many different places in the world, some of which are outside the USA. Most of these places have different laws, customs, and living standards. The UK is not Czechoslovakia...

    If I didn't care about the state of play in the USA, I'd just up and leave, taking my family and my considerable yearly tax burden with me. I choose to stay and try to influence people as I can...

    FWIW, my uncle was recently diagnosed with a heart problem back in the UK, he was in hospital the same day, operated on within 2 days and back home 2 days later. The only real down-side was that he couldn't attend the wedding because of the US insurance costs.

    And two weeks before the wedding, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. She opted to put off the operation-date offered (1 week after diagnosis) and wait until after the wedding. Since then she's been back and had her operation.

    My family is not rich. My father worked on the docks, my mother had a variety of part-time jobs through her life. Excellent, timely medical care is something she (and I, until I moved to the USA) take for granted, without any "recission", or "previously established medical condition" nonsense. If you're sick, see a doctor. Get better with as much or as little help as necessary. No co-payments. No payments (at the point of treatment) at all, and if you need heart surgery or extensive (5 years chemotherapy is being talked about for my mother) treatment, there's no questions asked...

    There's no way my family could have afforded the medical insurance that would be equivalent to the care that my mother and uncle have just received. They of course don't consider this to be anything special, it's only when you don't have something any more, that you miss it. Similarly, I don't think americans miss it because frankly they've never experienced it. They just keep on telling themselves they have "the best healthcare system in the world", which (IMHO) is only true for the minority of rich americans that don't really need the insurance companies anyway...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:I hate to break this to you by mjwx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your POV on the subject vastly exaggerates the problems in the US, and completely ignores the numerous problem with the NIH in the UK.

      Not really on both accounts.

      There are relatively few problems with the NIH in the UK, especially compared to the US and most of them have been blown out of proportion for the purposes of political jockeying (you didn't think the US had a monopoly on political wankery). If that is not good enough for you I suggest you stop using the NIH as a poster child for universal health care and look at Australia, Canada, Sweden, Malta and Ireland. Australia and Canada have flawless medical systems.

      There are many issues with the employer provides scenario which just dont exist with the UK, Australian or Canadian systems. The first is that there is no means of ensuring a minimum standard of health care as they will differ from employer to employer. The second is that costs will be high, because the government can set the minimum price and standard of care private insurers must keep lower prices in order to remain competitive and provide a higher standard of service to justify the higher prices.

      Those who only work part-time, are self employed,

      That's a lot of people, often not the richest of people either. The part timers and self employed would have been the hardest hit in the recent economic apocalypse.

      It's only those who are in-between who have problems...

      Our systems are designed so that there are no people "in-between".

      Right now travel insurance is most expensive for me, as an Australia to travel to the United States all due to the health insurance costs, travelling to Asia is relatively cheap compared to this, Europe is less then this due to several reciprocal health agreements. The current US system is archaic and broken for a first world nation.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:I hate to break this to you by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm aware of that - and I was split on which way to post it, in fact. The post I was replying to was talking about soviet-style healthcare though, and I thought it was more appropriate to use the old designation, since he was talking about that era. *shrug* it was a toss-up....

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
  31. Skilled trades are not morons by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a vast difference between the skilled tradesman and what you call morons. Give me a licensed master plumber, master electrician, mechanical contractor, etc and I'll show you someone that truly understands their field and has years of experience under their belt. Sure the variety of assistants range in ability like any job, but to label the actual skilled person as a moron shows you don't understand the field. That'd be like comparing someone who flips burgers to a skilled chef. Also the skilled trades are very strongly union in every major city, unions being one of the strongest backers of the Democrats.

    As for continuing education much of the green movement is powered by installation of ultra high efficiency equipments. Pull up a wiring schematic for a 96% boiler and the various pumps and zone valves - it's anything but moronic work.

    So what's up with the trades bashing? Watch a few episodes of Dirty Jobs and you'll see some examples of problem solving at the finest.

    1. Re:Skilled trades are not morons by onionman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm very thankful to see this reply to the earlier post bashing plumbers, electricians, etc. I'm a math professor, so I certainly value education, but I know that there are plenty of "morons" that end up with college degrees just because their parents were rich enough to foot the bill.

      There are skill sets and learned knowledge that don't come from college yet are still immensely valuable to society. If my house is flooding from a busted pipe, I don't want an engineering professor trying to fix it, I want a plumber! And, I sure as hell don't want an electrical engineering professor wiring my house... I want a licensed electrician.

      Now, here's my opinion on paying for a university education: never take on a ridiculous debt burden to go to school unless your career options will allow you to quickly pay it off. Just got accepted to Harvard Law School, congrats, of course it's worth getting $300,000 worth of debt. But most people can get a good education at a public university while paying in-state tuition rates. I plan on sending my kids to an in-state public school. (Unless they get some amazing scholarships or I win the lottery.)

  32. Re:Stop Going to College by incognito84 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah. People with poor parents don't deserve good educations.

    ...and the next thing you know these uppity women folk'll be-a' wantin' ta vote.

  33. Re:Pissed at the bail-outs by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Hey, I have a better idea. Let's take just 1% of that trillion dollars per year, and use it to feed EVERY SINGLE !@## STARVING KID THE WORLD OVER. Yes, that's all it would take. A Billion dollars per year could by a handful of rice, corn, or wheat to put into the hands of every single starving kid in the world. Can you imagine just how much goodwill this would cause?"

    Ouch. While I'm enormously sympathetic and entirely on the same side of the political fence as you, your numbers here are tremendously screwed up. Pretty embarrassing, actually.

    (a) 1% of a trillion dollars is not "a billion" -- it's 10 billion. (b) U.S. already donates over $22 billion per year in foreign aid *. (c) Highly skeptical that another billion (or 10) could feed all starving children -- citation needed. (d) Many locations are documented as not allowing US/UN personnel in, and/or have confiscated food donations in the past from the poor to the army, etc. -- would you be willing to force that with military action?

    Get your facts straight and it will strengthen our campaign for social justice in the world.

    * Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Foreign_aid

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  34. Re:Pissed at the bail-outs by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey, I have a better idea. Let's take just 1% of that trillion dollars per year, and use it to feed EVERY SINGLE !@## STARVING KID THE WORLD OVER. Yes, that's all it would take. A Billion dollars per year could by a handful of rice, corn, or wheat to put into the hands of every single starving kid in the world.

    Ever think about what effect free food has on the target country's local agriculture economy? I'll give you a hint: Local farmers have to start competing with free. The answer isn't dumping free food onto people--it's investing in infrastructure so that functional and stable markets can develop.

  35. Re:The worthlessness of "education" by shermo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Knowledge is needed at most jobs, education in all honesty is not. I think its time for society to realize this.

    I think you have that the wrong way 'round. Knowledge isn't needed - like you said, it's available at the click of a 'google search'. Education is what you need to be able to do something useful with the knowledge you've just found.

    I can't remember the characteristic funtion of the normal distribution, but I can look it up on wikipedia and use the education I have to do something useful with it.

    But maybe we're just expressing the same thought with different words.

    --
    Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  36. yep, but it's not politically correct by r00t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every degree is valuable, you know? Every student must get a degree! (probably because we already watered down the high school diploma by insisting that every student must get one, no matter if they can't effectively understand math usage or the meaning of something they read)

    Imagine the outrage if it were suggested that physics, engineering, and math were more worthy than black studies, women's studies, and LGBT studies. We're going to Hell in a very nicely woven handbasket.

    Perhaps the worst thing is that this perpetuates the idea that college education is generally worthless. When people see college graduates failing in the job market, they often conclude that education is not worth any effort. The correct conclusion is of course that your field of study matters, but that doesn't generally sink in.

    1. Re:yep, but it's not politically correct by jthayden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You start from the false premise the education is meant to prepare you for a job. It's not. Academia rightfully doesn't give a sh** about weather it's preparing you to shuffle work around or not. That's not it's goal, and I don't think it should be. It's goal is for you to learn things, and perhaps eventually further the field for the few that choose to continue. Learning for learning's sake is their goal and an admirable one.

    2. Re:yep, but it's not politically correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But why should the government pay for someone to sit on their a** all day and think abstract thoughts about women's studies? Especially when you have a bazillion people taking that because they can't handle the engineering, computer science, etc.? The only way the government's discounted loans make sense is when they help produce intelligent people who contribute back to society by e.g. building a bridge, starting a business, or inventing the internet.

    3. Re:yep, but it's not politically correct by Monsuco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Academia rightfully doesn't give a sh** about weather it's preparing you to shuffle work around or not. That's not it's goal, and I don't think it should be. It's goal is for you to learn things, and perhaps eventually further the field for the few that choose to continue. Learning for learning's sake is their goal and an admirable one.

      I hate to break it to you, but I don't give a damn about the goal of learning. I am in college entirely for the hope of a better career. I wouldn't even consider college more than a formality. Knowledge is only valuable when it is useful. If you are a doctor you likely will not benefit any from studying Greek artwork career-wise. If you enjoy it then studying for the purpose of enjoying it might be worth it to you, but it likely won't be of any real use to spend the time and money studying it for no real reason.

      Learning, like many things in life, requires the investment of time and money, both of which are finite resources with alternative options for use, therefore learning "for learning's sake" is not always a wise choice. Sometimes it is best to be rationally ignorant if your time and money would better be spent elsewhere.

      I find it problematic that academia is much more concerned with idealistic views of learning and jumping through their hoops than with the pragmatic goal of preparing their customers for a career.

  37. Thing I Notice About Most Recent Graduates by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is their earning potential at the moment is not so much, but they're chock full of organs! And they're hardly even using a lot of them! Perhaps they could turn this organ surplus to their advantage somehow...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  38. Re:Real world loans are going to really freak you by Weffs11 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not all direct loans have subsidized interest. Most of my loans are of the unsubsidized type, and while not due while in school, accrued interest from the date of issue. Some of my loan money is subsidized, and is not accruing interest while in deferment.

    The first chunk of my loans, issued pre-Fall 2006, are at ~1.8% and is a variable rate. My loans issued Fall 2006 and onwards are at 6 and change. My only complaint is that they refuse to let me pay back the higher interest loan first, telling me that federal law prohibits it.
    Loans for graduate school are higher, my wife has graduate PLUS loans at the 8.5%.

    2 years in the Peace Corps will not forgive any of your loans, it will just get you a two year deferment. Those PLUS loans of the OP are going to sit and accrue interest at 8.5% for two years. The $6,000 "resettlement" cash PC gives you when you return won't cover the interest on his loans. Not withstanding any other benefits (increased employability, personal growth, ect), the PC is a poor economic decision for recent graduates with unsubsidized loans.

  39. Re:Pissed at the bail-outs by dcollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I entirely agree with you on all of those items (A, B, C, and D). But you hurt our cause by looking sloppy and dumb and lacking communication skills.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  40. outrage noted :-) by r00t · · Score: 4, Informative

    That just got modded "flamebait" by somebody who clearly resents being reminded that some degrees (his own most likely) have nearly zero economic value.

    It's an annoying way to stifle debate, but at least I find it amusing. :-/

    1. Re:outrage noted :-) by agnosticnixie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Physics and maths are just theory, they have no economic value at face value and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moronic anti-intellectual who has no idea what either of those is or does. Also, someone who doesn't understand the meaning of economic value.

    2. Re:outrage noted :-) by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Physics and maths are just theory, they have no economic value at face value and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moronic anti-intellectual who has no idea what either of those is or does. Also, someone who doesn't understand the meaning of economic value.

      Hah! I guess you were going for giggles with that one. An abstract theory per se has little economic value, but the application of physical theory (which is all but inevitable) can create wealth. Since the development of theory is expected to be followed by practical uses, economists do assign value to such theory (as usual, they have difficulty estimating the value, except in hindsight). However, your statement made me recall an old saying which I heard as a freshman about 35 years ago:
      "A physicist is a theoretician of engineering. An engineer is a practitioner of physics. Mathematics is their common language."

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    3. Re:outrage noted :-) by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you need to consider a time scale. One could have made that same remark re practicalities 100 years ago. But when I look back at the math that was done 100 years ago, I find very little of it unused. Physics is similar. Quantum theory was basically useless when it was developed...until now. Evolution was useless, now we use it to predict the course of flu epidemics.

      Science and math form a web, and it is impossible to predict just how those future practicalities correspond to any one particular theory. It isn't even clear how one does that with current practical devices, they rely on so much that went on before in very complicated relationships.

    4. Re:outrage noted :-) by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Physics and maths are just theory, they have no economic value at face value and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moronic anti-intellectual who has no idea what either of those is or does. Also, someone who doesn't understand the meaning of economic value.

      Tell that to someone who majored in medical physics and works at GE.
      Tell that to the guys who work down the hall from me who design high performance motors for hybrid and electric vehicles.
      Tell that to the mathematician doing model parameter estimation in our software.
      You already told *me* - the software guy who uses math on nearly a daily basis.
      Tell the business folks who employ these people.

      BTW, I believe everyone mentioned here makes 6 figures. So no, there must not be economic value in math and physics.

      Maybe you're one of those wall street guys that put the economy in the toilet because they all used the same flawed mathematical model for planning purposes - because they don't have too many math folks, because they have no economic value. Or the MBAs who say people in the US will just outsource and "manage" everything, because none of those things like engineering, design, manufacturing, distribution, etc... are "economically valuable".

    5. Re:outrage noted :-) by Cornflake917 · · Score: 2

      Chalk me up as a "moronic anti-intellectual" who "doesn't understand the meaning of economic value."

      Someone who has a good understanding of physics and math would be very valuable to software companies, especially game companies. As a developer myself, I would love to have the money to pay for a someone who has focused on physics and math in college. Representing continuous movements and geometry with a discrete computational model requires a very good understanding of calculus, linear algebra, and trigonometry. Most people do not have this understanding, so yes, physics and math have a significant economical value.

      Also, what the hell do you mean physics and math "are JUST theory"? Without theory, so much technology that we use today wouldn't even exist. Talk about "anti-intellectual"...sheesh.

  41. default rates by degree by r00t · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to http://www.springerlink.com/content/u380751518251x56/

    "Majoring in a scientific or technological discipline, earning good grades, persisting to degree completion, getting and staying married, and not having dependent children are all actions that substantially increase the likelihood of repayment and lower the likelihood of default."

    You have to pay to get the full publication I guess, but that first part says what should be obvious: people with nerd degrees don't default.

    1. Re:default rates by degree by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Majoring in a scientific or technological discipline ... getting and staying married

      I sense a contradiction here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:default rates by degree by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      Should be sterilized until repayment is complete? Hold on to children as collateral?

      Three more payments and this baby is mine!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  42. Re:Charging! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    THANK YOU, Sir!

    FINALLY there's some fresh proof that education is the world's biggest Dutch Tulip enterprise. Yes there's scholars at the front of the room, but did'ya know, he's teaching the same courses every year. So I agree the Labs have scary fees for equipment, but the lectures ... are just words! And with or without backing instruments, we all know how cheap WORDS are...

    Part of the Uni deal is holistic discipline, 'cause otherwise the kid might cram pretty hard for 6 months then fry out and quit his studies. But thank you for the proof I have searched for a long time now.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  43. please read my lips: ..... by tkjtkj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    5% vrs 8.5%?? why???

    its called: C O L L A T E R A L

    simple, really....

    At what rate do you even imagine having to pay
    for a home which is not held by the bank as collateral?

    30%?? 40????

    --
    "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
  44. Re:bad deal by DaHat · · Score: 2, Informative

    FYI: The 'forgiveness' only kicks in if you are working in certain 'public service' areas... an area I’d wager your average /.er does not... and again, only on federal loans (only ~2/5ths of my student loans are federal for example).

  45. Why are mortgages 5% and education loans 8.5%? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because you can't foreclose on someone's education. Next question.

  46. Waaa, Waaa, frikin' WAAAAA! by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a student with 10+ years of education, 3 years of actively accepting student loads (which have been accruing interest for the last 8 years), and a wife with 5+ years of loans already in repayment I feel justified in saying "BOO FRIKIN' HOOO"

    A college education was never meant to be a guarantee of future financial stability, especially in the short term. We need to get away from this pervasive mentality of "Things didn't go exactly according to the PLAN. The Government needs to save me!!!! WAAAAAAAA".

    Of course it sucks trying to find a job in the current market, and I sympathise as I'm currently looking for my next job as I'm going to graduate soon. However, that doesn't mean that the federal government, who already bent over backward in order to help me get the loans I needed in order to persue my education, should be expected to further subsidize me into my 30's. Grow a friggin' pair, and if necessary get a job working at McD's and rent the shittiest appartment you can find to make ends meet. This sense of entitlement to an easy life, simpy because you are college educated is assinine and juvenile. The education is supposed to give you more skills, based on the idea that more skills make you more valuable. However, if you pursue a degree in which those skills are next to useless (I'm looking at you art history majors), or one in which the market is oversatturated, well then you were an idiot and deserve to suffer a little for your stupidity. That doesn't mean that you should be able to get your education for free, just because it took you a little while to find a job.

    We need to stop supporting those that have made stupid decisions or else they'll never learn that there are consequences for their actions. I learned that in middle school, my older brother took until after high school, and apparently some have failed to learn the lesson despite being 22 (Bachelors), 24-28 (Graduate Degree), or even older 50-60 (Corporate CEO's that ran their companies into the ground). Maybe I'm just an insensitive clod, but not everyone can be happy all of the time. A little hardship can build character, just as our grandparents.

    There are nowhere near as many people suffering as there were in the great depression, all the "Worst recession since the depression" hyperbole aside. If the current hardships mean that it takes you an extra 10 years to buy a house, or that you have to settle for something less than a McMansion I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it. I will probably lose more than a little over my own financial problems, but they are MY PROBLEMS and not the governments. A little more personal accountability on behalf of most Americans would go a long way to improving our collective condition.

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  47. Re:Pissed at the bail-outs by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are just fucking stupid if you think they are spending a trillion dollars a year on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. How you got modded "Insightful" is beyond me because you dont' know what you are talking about. The total cost of the wars to date is less than 1 trillion in total.

    You can't be "the smart, hardworking, disappearing upper middle class" because smart people actually research there points BEFORE spouting off and proving that they are ignorant.

    But, you want to know what will cost a trillion dollars per year? The healthcare bills being put together in Congress.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  48. bah by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I think is criminal is how we can only deduct $2500 of our interest payments.

  49. Re:I wonder why you're not considered credit-worth by ZekoMal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Yes, joining the military pays more than minimum wage, but you have to be physically fit and willing to go overseas and get blown up. Most jobs that don't require a degree or prior experience but pay well either get you killed or require some form of special skill. Very few kids wake up and say "I want to be a plumber!" Nor are these jobs particularly easy to find nowadays, what with the massive unemployment of adults looking to make money.

    Your post points to the military a lot. The military is not for everyone. If every kid thought that joining the military was the best thing to do, we'd have more kids coming back in body bags. Would it be good for little Billy to learn discipline? Of course. Would little Billy die? Maybe. Would little Billy die for a cause he don't give a damn about? Probably. Would little Billy be safer simply taking out the damn loan? Definitely. It seems a bit extreme when possible death or physical injury is less of a hazard than having debt.

    Just like not every high school student is going to be the next Einstein, not every high school student is going to be a soldier. We're all good at certain things, and we really need to stop trying to make everybody okay at everything.