Slashdot Mirror


Writer: "Why I Defaulted On My Student Loans"

schwit1 writes: There are some valid points raised in Lee Siegel's 1,100 word rant against college loans (if not so much against college education). There are also some bad ones. But two things are clear: the words "personal" and/or "responsibility" were used precisely zero times. Siegel, who described himself as "the author of five books who is writing a memoir about money," is hardly a glowing advertisement for the return on nearly a decade in university just to achieve a Master of Philosophy degree.

Siegel says, "As difficult as it has been, I’ve never looked back. The millions of young people today, who collectively owe over $1 trillion in loans, may want to consider my example. It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college. ... The rapacity of American colleges and universities is turning social mobility, the keystone of American freedom, into a commodified farce. If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, 'Enough,' then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."

1,032 comments

  1. Social mobility was killed, but not this way by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are plenty of groups that had vested interest in killing socio-economic mobility, but colleges weren't really one of them. While the colleges and universities in our country have plenty of faults to them, it is not their fault if students decide to major in philosophy and leave without good job prospects. What did this guy expect to find for employment?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to question anyone who gets a BA in Philosophy and can't find a job thinks that getting a PhD or Masters will some how improve their odds of getting a job. So while I might be in favor forgiving loans on Bachelor's degrees, I don't agree that loans for post-grad should be forgiven or allowed to be defaulted. You're a kid when you enter college, but an adult when you enter grad school and should accept that responsibility.

    2. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While the colleges and universities in our country have plenty of faults to them, it is not their fault if students decide to major in philosophy and leave without good job prospects. What did this guy expect to find for employment?

      Actually, as the experts in education, the people offering a product that they claim is supposed to be so good for your career prospects, I think it somewhat is their fault if they didn't educate students about the decision they were making an encourage them to make better ones.

      You are right, this isn't the cause of the problems with socio-economic mobility but, as the job market has seriously changed, and the real needs we, as a society, have for universities has change, the schools have failed to really change, and expectations about the schools and what they do hasn't changed as it should have, and, it is partially their fault.

      Fact is, when my parents were in school, ANY degree was good enough. You really could go get a philosophy degree because the jobs were mostly mid level office jobs and didn't require skill so much as the ability to read and learn a bit....perfect for people who had learned how to learn and could all read. Didn't matter what they studied then.

      Now, well, that philosophy degree qualifies you to teach philosophy and fuck all else. The value of the products they offer varies greatly, and they still pretend a philosophy degree even matters. Frankly, I don't see why they should even offer philosophy beyond an associates; its just not worth it to the point it counts as a scam really.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by knightghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself. 1) Get a useful degree, 2) Go to a state school, 3) Quit the narcissist entitlement mentality.

      Education has the best ROI, but like any investment you still have to watch how and what you invest in.

    4. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      then we should limit major choices, not bury young people in debt, unable to contribute to the economy (buy a house, car, etc.: manufacturing, construction, etc.) and instead it all goes into some bank ceo's pocket. how does that help anyone, besides ones plutocrat class sucking up so much and more and more each day. that doesn't trickle down morons, it just stays in a bank, while a middle class flush with cash spends most of it, actually generating jobs and a healthy economy

      i don't really understand people who view life choices as a one sided thing. the range of choices available to you also reflect your society's values

      some of you idiots will say if a guy only had a choice between walking off a cliff and walking into a furnace he should be blamed for wrongly choosing to commit suicide, poor characters, etc. what choices a person has before them is a reflection of the values of a society. and obviously, our society sucks, and is getting worse. cue the morons who bark "american exceptionalism" without fucking noticing that on all of the measures of what they consider american excpetional about, the usa is actually falling behind and slipping further

      for example, you have greater social mobility as a poor immigrant in a nordic countries, than you do in the usa. you know, those countries with evil socialist universal healthcare and free/ low cost higher education

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But ...

      How do you fund your liberal college degrees such as "Woman's Studies" and "Ethnic whatever" if you don't have college loans to hype to those who want to get a dead end degree? And the Business degree types telling people to get STEM degrees because there is a shortage of qualified candidates, only to only hire H1B immigrants because ... well they are cheaper than American STEM degree holders.

      College and big business is such a lie these days that your best bet is to go out, make your way in the world, and get educated outside the mainstream model. But then again, that might constitute a threat to the establishment and get you on some sort of government watch list, having the NSA and FBI watching your every move.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I don't think it makes sense for holding universities accountable for the major that people choose. All you need to hear is "You can't major in that" and people will lose their shit and it makes the 6 O'clock news.

      What you CAN hold them accountable for is the outrageous cost increases that far exceed inflation and infrastructure growth.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry but all of the administration staff in ALL colleges are grossly overpaid.

      Also the sports coaches are disgustingly overpaid.

      Fix those two problems and then come back with your "college cares about the students argument"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the Business degree types telling people to get STEM degrees because there is a shortage of qualified candidates, only to only hire H1B immigrants because ... well they are cheaper than American STEM degree holders.

      Imagine what sort of liability those business degree types would collect if they admitted publicly that they were deliberately breaking US federal law for years in order to hire H1Bs (you can only legally justify H1Bs on the basis that there's no qualified US residents for the position).

      It'd be like tobacco company executives admitting that cigarette smoking is harmful for your health during the 70s and 80s.

    9. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      I have to question anyone who gets a BA in Philosophy and can't find a job thinks that getting a PhD or Masters will some how improve their odds of getting a job.

      A professor of Philosophy?

    10. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money? THat is not what it is for! If so, art history would never have been an option for a major to begin with. It is to get an education. ANd that should be available to everyone for as cheaply as possible. If you get a major that is "useless", it shouldn't doom you to a fate of crushing debt for the next thirty years. Crappy job, maybe. But getting a high-paying gig is NOT why you go to school and learn philosophy.

      Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...

    11. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Raannndy · · Score: 1

      ** Obvious exceptions: Wealthy actors, musicians, etc....

      Our society doesn't value artistic expression as much as it does technological prowess, and that's really sad. At the end of the day, for all the toys we have, so many are just sad all the time. There is beauty in the liberal arts and it's a shame we don't invest more money into that field.

      With that said, I totally agree that going to college just for good ole' fucks sake probably isn't the best financial decision. It's what I did, and if I hadn't pulled my head out of my ass and got an engineering degree I don't even want to think about how I would have repaid my student debt.

    12. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by brausch · · Score: 1

      ...

      Fact is, when my parents were in school, ANY degree was good enough. You really could go get a philosophy degree because the jobs were mostly mid level office jobs and didn't require skill so much as the ability to read and learn a bit....perfect for people who had learned how to learn and could all read. Didn't matter what they studied then.

      Now, well, that philosophy degree qualifies you to teach philosophy and fuck all else. The value of the products they offer varies greatly, and they still pretend a philosophy degree even matters. Frankly, I don't see why they should even offer philosophy beyond an associates; its just not worth it to the point it counts as a scam really.

      The author says that rather than do that (get an ordinary job), he intentionally chose the (lack of) career path that he's on.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    13. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all well and good. But, while you're getting an education, you need to learn the facts of life. Facts dictate that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an art education is probably not going to pay off in the short or the long term. If you can't understand that, then you cannot claim to be educated at all.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lets make sure US gets no more philosophers. We do not need them here. ... Dude, we need all types of people to make our society work. The fact that they have little job prospects just shows that our society puts too little value on some essential areas of a developed civilization. Free education would fix that problem. Just my 2 cents.

    15. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The govenment needs to stop allowing people to take loans out in majors that historically do not lead to good paying jobs. Studying philosophy or Fine Arts leads to exactly zero jobs. The jobs that do exist are usually given to Ivy League Grads at low pay. As a middle school teacher for nearly 12 years(left tech full time after 9/11 meltdown and the insulting hourly contract offers that followed) Most children are not college material. They would be better off trainig into needed vocational and mid level service positions. The lack of personalized guidance is a big issue. A big issue is lack of work ethic. Too many times parents push back that teachers give too much work and kids need to be kids and play video games all day. No work ethic, no sucess at any job. We need to stop giving loans to b- and c students and think they are going to be able to hangle high level college work when they struggle handing in hw on time.

    16. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Also the sports coaches are digustingly overpaid.

      How do you get around the fact that there are a small number of top coaches and a large number of places that want to hire them? Athletics departments are income generators for a lot of schools and a high profile coach can have a huge impact.

    17. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.

    18. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheCarp · · Score: 0

      In the end people have to choose for themselves and I do agree they should be able to choose what they want however, it is still up to the school to decide which programs it wants to offer, and how it markets them, and how it advises students.

      Its like MLM marketing. Nobody is going to get rich being somebody else's sales associate in a trapazoid scheme. Yes, the individual investors are making bad financial choices and ultimately, its because of their choice to chase down a dead end false dream that leads them to financial ruin.

      The MLM marketers selling it as a real viable way to make a living that will get you rich are still scum bags AND, I do think Universities, and really anyone with any decency, should hold themselves to a higher standard on the advice they give others, even when trying to make a buck off them.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    19. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The easiest majors leads to the least job prospects. There are 25 applicants for every social studies teaching job in NYC school but 0.5 applicants for every science teaching job in NYC. List of majors that should be removed from federal loan programs, philosophy, history of any kind, art/dance/drama unless show a strong aptitude, sociology, . Can we add to this list.

    20. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting.. and yet the people who "invested" their money in this kid didn't insist on his getting a degree that would guarantee their ROI, now did they? They took a gamble, much like how you take a gamble when you go into a multi-year degree program just what will or won't win the economic lottery in the future.

      Of course it's easy enough to sit on the sidelines and say Engineering! or something similar, except that's still not a guarantee and it ignores the person's individual proclivities. Not everyone is capable of or interested in being an engineer. Also why would you want all that additional competition, it'll just lower that industry's wages.

    21. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by harperska · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The hundreds of thousands of dollars are a part of the problem. There is no reason a bachelors degree should cost that much regardless of the institution you go to, and regardless of whether it is in computer science or art history. The loans themselves aren't the problem, aside from enabling the actual problem - that tuition costs are being allowed to grow without bounds. There is no reason a bachelors degree that costs as much as a house should be simply waved off as "a fact of life".

    22. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Daemonik · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thank you for your well thought out and rational post. Now hurry along, you've got to make it to your MRA meeting on time or you'll miss the next episode of Coast to Coast. Tonight they're revealing the lizard people who are trying to take away sovereign citizen's gun rights!

    23. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that's exactly what GP said... I say this mostly because you can get a useful degree *and* learn something interesting at the same time if you do it right: Major in a profitable field, and minor in something that ignites your passions. It's more than possible to do *both*... it also allows you to pursue the minor as a hobby or side-gig until you either retire or you find something that pays you for doing it.

      Philosophy, ${buzzword}-Studies, History, Archaeology, whatever... those are great subjects to *minor* in. Unless you have a fantastic gift that allows you to pursue such fields in academia for the rest of your life, or you can get published in them otherwise, they're worthless towards getting the loans paid off. You remember, that mountain of debt you bought into when you accepted those student loans?

      And yes, unless you're sufficiently wealthy, you're still going to have to look out for your own future and use your education as an investment first and foremost. Life isn't fair, deal with it.

      Any other route and, well, get used to being poor and in debt while you try and pursue some sort of living off of that Philo or Art History major.

      Nobody owes you a living - this is just as much a truth for EE and Chem grads as it is for Feminist Studies grads.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    24. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You guys do realize there is a compromise, right?

      Cap interest at inflation for Direct loans. And perhaps two years of free tuition (based on average in-state tuition rate at public colleges; 2.0 GPA or higher).

      I'd also would want to look into not providing federal funding to schools which have over X% of tuition money spent on "administrative" purposes.

      As for the author, I do question why he got a bank loan rather than a federal loan.

      I know I shouldn't laugh, but he went to a private college. Of course that's going to be expensive.

      In cases such as his, I think it would be better if we had an option to pay Y% of our taxable income for student loans over a 30 year period. That way, low income, no issue!

      He says, "where I once had a nice stable job selling shoes after dropping out of the state college because I thought I deserved better". That's not part of a hypothetical, he did go to state college and drop out, right?

      The part where he says, "The accrued interest, combined with the collection agenciesâ(TM) opulent fees, is now several times the principal." makes me wonder if he got a poisonous loan... one with high interest.

    25. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      A professor of Philosophy?

      I'm willing to wager that there is only one tenure-track job out there for every five Philosophy PhD holders, and the odds are even slimmer at a university that pays enough to get some sort of ROI off of that degree.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    26. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      >"What did this guy expect to find for employment?"

      Government employment competitions - at least in Canada - place a large emphasis on formal education. Having a degree in something - anything - will give you an advantage over someone applying for the same job without the formal education - even if they trump you in experience.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    27. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by khallow · · Score: 1

      There is beauty in the liberal arts and it's a shame we don't invest more money into that field.

      There's a good reason. For the most part, art would be crap not an investment.

      For example, what is the greatest work of art ever? I would assert that it is Wikipedia. Not because it is particularly beautiful or masterful, but because it touches the lives of so many people every day, its tremendous interactivity, and because it is so very easy to learn something new, even if you just intended to look at this one little article.

      So how much did it cost to make the greatest work of art ever? 42 million USD in the 2012-2013 operating budget - all of it spent to support the basic infrastructure, not the creation of new art.

      Meanwhile, the US governments spend a bit over three times this amount via the National Endowment for the Arts with completely forgettable art as the consequence.

      Plenty of money is being throw around. It's just not going to result in great art. The limitation here isn't money, but rather the paltry imagination of the people with the purse strings.

    28. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Sarius64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Start a gladiatorial school for American football and stop labeling colleges as institutions of higher learning when all they are is sport sponsors.

    29. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you CAN hold them accountable for is the outrageous cost increases that far exceed inflation and infrastructure growth.

      You can, but consider that Uncle Sugar is literally throwing money at them in the form of free loans and grants... can you blame them for taking full advantage of that? I mean, people bitch at defense contractors and healthcare companies for doing it, but raise nary a peep at collegiate boards who have been doing the same damned thing all these years.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    30. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      By having half the courses offered in those areas required for the STEM students as gen-ed stuff.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    31. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did find employment.
      He is a successful writer and could have easily paid his debts but chose not to.
      His article is BS from top to bottom.

      Also, it appears that his hagiographic Wiki article was written by his grandma.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      Here's something else he wrote.Guess his socio-econmic bracket.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    32. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by digsbo · · Score: 2

      Why is a university the only way to learn about art history or philosophy? Go to the library. Take a night class. Enrichment doesn't require 4 years in an accredited institution. You're creating a false dichotomy. I've been studying music (performance and theory) with a private teacher for 7 years. I don't have a degree, but I have about the equivalent of a degree in music. I'm not looking to USE that for a job, so a lack of accreditation is fine. I also paid a fraction what I would have for a music degree, and got a self-paced, customized curriculum.

    33. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this point in time, it is becoming more and more possible to get the equivalent of a university degree without going through the university system, and this is a great thing. I agree with you about the idea of "getting an education" vs. getting vocational training.

      I have a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science which enabled me to have a nice career and was definitely worthwhile financially, but I also recognize the incredible value of a general liberal arts education in terms actually knowing something useful, but which doesn't directly translate into a marketable skill. Some of my most valuable classes weren't related to my major.

      The United States in particular is suffering greatly from an electorate that is woefully ignorant of the history of the Republic, and that of Western Civilization and the philosophical and scientific developments of the last two millennia (and more). This is complete omitting another problem which is the increasing political bias of universities and what they teach, but you're right about one thing. My computer science degree wasn't an "education" by itself, only part of one. However, given that university education costs have risen more rapidly in recent years than anything else in our economic oeuvre, including healthcare, shows that something is really wrong with the system, and some serious checks and balances are needed, specifically in terms of real competition.

      That said, at the end of the day, I would never consider that a history degree or a philosophy degree or an English degree would leave you in a position to be able to easily get a decent job, compared to STEM- and business-related degrees, and no one can ignore those economic realities.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    34. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Our society doesn't value artistic expression as much as it does technological prowess, and that's really sad.

      Most of Hollywood and it's zillion-dollar industry says otherwise. So does the recording industry.

      (Hey, I didn't say it was *good* artistic expression, but it is artistic expression nonetheless.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    35. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Colleges are part of narrative.
      "If you get a college degree then you will be successful." Is played over and over.
      While your success is more based on basic economics, Supply and Demand.
      STEM Graduates right now are actually the few group making a good middle wage living. Why? Their is enough Demand for such work and the supply is limited so not everyone can have their own STEM Graduate. So the salary is reflective of that. back in the early 2000's When the tech bubble popped, the demand for tech workers drops (As the Y2k patches were done, and they got their fancy new websites, and they have New PC's and server, all running nice and smooth), combined with rules that open the border for Foreign IT workers, so the supply went up and the demand went down and a lot of people lost their job. Now as time went on the Demand and supply is more or less in balance now, so it is back to middle class living.
      Other students may or may not be studying something that reflects the overall market's needs or there are just so many of them that the hirers can have their pick.
      The issue is too many people now have college degrees today. So jobs that normally shouldn't require one, now does. Just because the pool of people is there.

      Now my solution to the problem would be the following.
      Enhanced vocational training: Colleges are not and shouldn't be job focused. That is what vocational training is for. This should be expanded to help meet the demand of the current set of high demand jobs. If you are happy to be a programmer, you don't need a computer science degree, and the computer science degree shouldn't focus so much to teach students how to program in today's popular language.

      Harder college: Colleges have lowered the bar, so they will get students out. Because they know they need the paper saying they graduated to make a career out of themselves. A lot of students who work hard can get a degree... However that doesn't mean they have learned anything from it. Having a College degree should should have more meaning. To do this we need a higher drop out rate, but having the Enhanced vocational training, to catch the students.

      Encourage companies to come up with clear career paths: This is one of the big problems today. In order to advance in a career we need to jump from job to job, getting a better title and pay each time. Companies if they want to keep employees need a clear, followable and recordable career path. Back in the old days there was a clear path from working in the Mail Room to CEO. Today we have automation system that fill a lot of spots in working up. Who needs a mail room when everything is emailed? Much of the Data Entry positions are not needed due to system integration, and all digital communication. The math to calculate and do analysis are done by computers too. So there are Gaps in the workforce meaning there is a steeper learning curve for advancement. Companies need to realize this and adjust their policies to encourage advancement inside the company.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    36. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um not the loans are EXACTLY the problem. Tution grows without bounds because everybody smart enough to graduate from college does recognize it has great value, both in the direct economics of employable and the more intelligible things like connections with other people you make and knowledge and thinking skills that really will enable you to make better more informed decisions in the future.

      A college education IS VALUABLE, exactly how valuable is difficult to quantify. So now you make large sums of unsecured monies available to young people many of whom have never seen or worked with an account balance that large before and surprise surprise they are willing to spend it. They don't have an appreciate for how much work it might be to pay that back. What they do see is that Crazy Go Nuts University has a new fancy new recreation facility and bigger dorm rooms than Podunk College. Its difficult to compare the actual education quality but dorm and recreation facilities are things you can see. Podunk has no choice if they want to continue to attract students they have to build these things.

      In order to build that stuff they raise tuition, which they can because people are paying with loans anyway and everyone qualifies!

      If it was not for government secured loans college cost expansion would probably mostly track with inflation. After all with the exception of some leading edge research schools, almost all the cost would be salary if you take away the billion dollar construction projects.

      Price insensitivity is the reason costs have gone up, if you can't afford CGNU's 40K tuition you might very well choose Podunk's $12K tuition and lack of fancy building and giant rooms if the alternative is no college for you. If we just got rid of Sally Mea and college loans need to be secured with some kind of collateral or simply small enough lender were willing to fork over on credit history alone, the problem would solve it self.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed.

      But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.

      I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.

    38. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jclarker6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah actually you will find athletics coaches are the highest paid state employee in most states http://thefieldsofgreen.com/20...

    39. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supply and demand? How DARE that factor into this? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Rationality has no place in feeling bad about the childrens...

    40. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the public university side, at least, a lot of those cost increases are due to the states pulling back on support for supposedly "public" institutions. I read this weekend that the average is down to 15% support of the state colleges on average by the respective states. It was a lot more only a generation or two ago.

    41. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by rpervinking · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A degree in art history doesn't cost a great deal unless you choose to go to a college that decides to charge you a lot of money. You are free to choose a cheaper school, or one that offers you a scholarship. If that still isn't cheap enough, you are free to choose a different school, or a different major, or to follow a different career path.

      A friend of mine ended up going to a 3rd-rank, state-supported college because it was cheap. After graduating with top honors, he got a scholarship to Cal Tech and earned a doctorate in computational chemistry, completely free of debt. He now manages a group of scientists at a national lab. Picking the college based on affordability didn't ruin his life.

    42. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.

      Getting an art history degree does not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Certain art history degrees do, but that doesn't mean society should pay for any expensive educational endeavor a 20 year old wants to try. Education is an investment, even if your only planned returns are self improvement. And if that is the case, it should be treated as more of a vacation which you should make sure you can afford before you venture off.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    43. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need to learn the facts of life

      That's why they're majoring in Philosophy!!! :-)

    44. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 0

      I honestly don't mean to create that dichotomy, and I applaud you on your efforts. In fact, I wish more people did things the way you are.

      I just don't feel that a university education, for anything, should cost upwards of $100k for a PUBLIC school.

      The author made some poor decisions, and went to a private school to boot. I have less sympathy for him than others, but I generally don't fault young people (who are prone to make mistakes) for going out and trying to get an education.

    45. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money?

      It isn't ONLY useful for making money, but money is what you use to pay back your loans, so "making money" is ONE of the things your degree should be useful for, if you are going into debt to get it. Borrowing money to get a degree is philosophy is dumb.

      I majored in engineering, at an in-state public university. I worked on weekends, and during the summer. The day I graduated, this was my total debt: $0.

    46. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part, very qualified grad students will often go to school for free, or even get a stipend for attending.

      Not all, but some.

    47. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree with everything you said.

    48. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can buy a small Chevy or Nissan or Hyndai and drive to work. Or I can buy a Tesla or Rolls Royce. Shouldn't the government pay for my Rolls Royce, because I use it to drive to work at McDonald's? After all, the loan for my car is crippling, and I don't want to pay it.

    49. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Cap interest at inflation

      And what bank is going to step in and service such a loan? Inflation + 0.1% might be lucrative, but inflation + 0% means a lot of work for no pay to any of the staff involved.

    50. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A) Degrees costing hundreds of thousands of dollars is insane, they shouldn't cost anything like that much.

      B) Society needs variety. If everyone just did the best paying degrees there wouldn't be anyone left doing niche stuff. Not just supplying us with art and books/TV shows about art etc, but even less well paid but still important engineering and science jobs. In fact if you are looking to get rich then doing an advanced science degree and going into research probably isn't a good idea, but that's also how we get new materials and medicines etc.

      More over, getting an education shows that you can study and work to a high standard. Maybe you go into a different field for work, but the fact that you have a degree at a minimum brings some diversity to your field and proves you can learn and improve on your own.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      It doesn't. In state tuition at most public universities are around $10k. So for a four year degree that is $40k. I paid more than that for my car. Financial aid is widely available, so many people pay even less.

      You can pay $100k for an art history degree, but you certainly don't need to.

    52. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ckatko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a thought. Major in a career that pays itself back. And then when you have a REAL job, and your bills are paid, take part-time classes in anything you damn well please that "educates you" for as long as you like. You seem to think that education is something that happens in your teens and early 20's, and ends when you graduate college.

      Alternatively, if you don't mind having a low wage your entire career being in something as over-populated under-demanded as Art History:

      If you went to a state school to begin with (the state pays typically HALF); and your parents weren't jackasses and actually contribute the expected funds (see Expected Family Contribution), you should be able to work part-time (or not at all) and have ZERO student loans at the end.

      The only people taking out loans should be people with super promising careers (Doctors, Lawyers, child prodigies going to super schools), and people whose parents are cheap bastards who don't mind getting a tax break for their children and not using that money to pay for their children's college.

    53. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Wain13001 · · Score: 2

      That's because the US public only understands value as something that can be monetized, which is why there is so little support for art in this country...the lack of support results in a lack of education and personal development in art...which results in art related fields being stigmatized...yet people who live at the top of the monetized art forms are worshipped as Gods societally (Hollywood actors, directors, RIAA Musicians, etc...).

      So what happens is we proclaim this handful of highly successful musicians and actors as the greatest thing in public society, laud them all over television and radio, then we tell anyone who actually goes to school to attempt to be in the field of those same worshipped people that they have wasted their money, deserve their $100,000 college debt, and can go fuck themselves off to McDonalds for a job...and don't you DARE try to raise the minimum wage...your problems are your fault, stupid fucking kids.

    54. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Frankly I believe that sports should be removed from all state sponsored schools.

      Too much money, and time, and emphasis goes into building a bigger stadium or hiring the next over priced coach. If they want to teach sports at the school that is fine, but no selling of tickets and no television coverage. Also any paraphernalia that shows the schools logo on it should have all of the proceeds go to academics.

      I mean for crying out loud the football coach at my my local school is the highest paid public employee in the state. I am sorry that is flipping ridiculous.

    55. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cap interest at inflation for Direct loans. And perhaps two years of free tuition (based on average in-state tuition rate at public colleges; 2.0 GPA or higher).

      Direct loans, as in the federal student loans.

    56. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by thedonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, given that university education costs have risen more rapidly in recent years than anything else in our economic oeuvre, including healthcare, shows that something is really wrong with the system, and some serious checks and balances are needed, specifically in terms of real competition.

      The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.

      As an analog, consider the housing market: The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it, and what someone is willing to pay for it is a factor of their assumption about its future value and their ability to fund the purchase with money they don't already have.

      I graduated college with no student loan debt; however, I sure would like forgiveness on my house that is worth 10% less than I paid for it. Do I deserve it? No. I chose to put on the rose colored, things will always be worth more in the future glasses.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    57. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You shouldn't buy anything if you don't have a good idea how you are going to pay for it. If you can afford to buy an education just for the benefit of having one then fine.. more power to you! For most of us that is too much money to spend unless it is an investment towards a future career that can pay for it. That is why a university degree is for career building and not for personal development.

      Maybe if people actually looked at the cost of their degree and made responsible economic decisions about how far they are willing to go into debt and what they can expect to make afterwards the demand for non-career building degrees would fall. Maybe then the price would fall until a person could afford to get it just because they are inerested.

      "Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history..."

      No. I think in todays internet enabled age anybody can make themselves an expert in anything if they are willing to do the work. If you want to know about art history... go find out about it! I don't think you are entitled to having someone prepare and teach a series of classes for you just because you want it!

    58. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself. 1) Get a useful degree, 2) Go to a state school, 3) Quit the narcissist entitlement mentality.

      Education has the best ROI, but like any investment you still have to watch how and what you invest in.

      There's a rather significant factor you're omitting here though.

      When I invest in mutual funds, stocks, or bonds for my traditional "investments", it is a rather emotionless transaction that is truly only tied to the performance I would expect to receive in return. In other words, I'm only doing it for the money, plain and simple.

      However, when investing in yourself and your career (one does not endure four years of training for a mere "job"), the other emotional factors come into play, such as work-life balance (e.g. the medical profession), job satisfaction (are you doing what you ultimately want to do in life), and overall happiness (if you love your job, it never seems like work).

      Point here is simple. If you offered me six figures to shovel shit out of a cart for 8 hours a day and guaranteed me that job for the next 20 years to ensure it's a career that leads to retirement, chances are I'm still going to be fucking miserable in life. Sure I may have money, but is it ultimately worth it? If you want to be a Philosophy major to achieve happiness in life, then go be one. It might simply be wise to understand what kind of income one would expect and balance that against the training that may be necessary to achieve that happiness. The disgusting part about today's college environment is it's quickly becoming insanely expensive to achieve a degree even in underwater basket weaving.

      We invest in traditional investments to make money. We invest in ourselves for a hell of a lot more than that. And if you're not, you'll understand soon enough why it's important to factor it in.

    59. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      What you CAN hold them accountable for is the outrageous cost increases that far exceed inflation and infrastructure growth.

      At most state schools, the per student spending on undergraduate instruction has increased at very close to, or below, the rate of inflation over the past 10-20 years. This is really very impressive, considering the massive increase in enrollment over that time.

      Meanwhile, the student cost to attend those schools has increased at 2-3x the rate of inflation. The difference is due to states, across the board, failing to increase education spending to meet the expansion and, in many cases, actually reducing education spending. Education is no longer considered a public benefit, and taxpayers refuse to pay for some other kid's schooling.

    60. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I might allow military history. The military academies can only handle a limited number of people, and other colleges should fill the gap.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    61. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Where are the parents?

    62. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The truth is the whole machine of "give everyone the individual ability to get a degree" is a hand-out to businesses by way of reliably creating huge oversupply of in-demand skilled laborers. This raises unemployment and suppresses salaries, versus a laissez-faire method in which the government supplies no support for universal college education.

      The laissez-faire method is most painful to businesses, who are more capable of adapting: they would train and incrementally shift work onto entrants, because the wars of sniping professionals from each other cause $250k salaries for banal laborers who could be hired for $40k and trained for $20k per annum while lifting time-wasting grunt work off $80k per annum senior skilled laborers. This contrasts sharply with the individual responsibility method, in which students must attempt market speculation without coordination: giving universal access to college creates the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which it is always advantageous for any individual to pursue an education, and to pursue an education in the most in-demand career, thus creating the harmful oversupply in the market but allowing the individual to avoid exclusion from that market--the best result in the worst outcome.

      This laissez-faire approach with college is a carefully-constructed feedback loop in a capitalist system. It is similar to my Citizen's Dividend plan, which makes it profitable to supply homes and food to the poor, thus ensuring that a business entity which refuses to do so on simple principle will only forfeit the profit opportunity to some other business entity which gets a priapic hard-on for the billions of dollars of profits per year they can beat out of the broke and unemployed. A complete laissez-faire approach to welfare--supplying no services at all--fails; a tax system to construct such a capitalist feedback loop works extremely well, but needs rules to prevent abuse (no dividends to immigrants, foreign resident citizens, or children), and thus needs retention of the current system in legacy (i.e. food stamps and EBT for families with children, housing vouchers for naturalized immigrants).

      I always look at the pain inflicted by each system, the responses to that pain, and the capability to abuse and manipulate the system. I prefer constructed laissez-faire systems in which we place policy to create automatic pain when society tries to abuse and manipulate the system--as I said above, without universal access to college, businesses would suffer greatly if they did not supply for the development of the workforce, and would profit greatly by supplying such development, and so can do nothing but serve the needs of society. I have no care to stand over anyone with the whip in hand.

    63. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any type of "education" program. Know the subject and you can teach it or be taught to teach it as a minor.

    64. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like its really a gamble, like they really stand to lose some money, but what you dont understand is that companies that lend tuition money are not gambling in the sense that you and I would gamble. They are gambling more on the scale of a casino: they are doing this over thousands of people and the odds are stacked in their favor to such an extent that they would have to be willfully stupid to fail to make money.

    65. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ahodgson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no gamble, student loans are guaranteed by the government. That's why everyone can get them, and that's why the cost of education has exploded.

    66. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'd go as far to say, of you have to pay for a phd, the school assumes your output as a student isn't going to be worth having you around, and you will be a burden.

      Many schools have money for promising phd students, because they benefit from reputation of good students, and in more STEM type things, actual research done.

      Granted, I only know a few people that got phd's over the last decade, but the ones that went to good schools all were paid 20-40k/year to go. They had to teach a couple classes for the money too

      Also, in response to some comments I read above. A phd is not about getting an education, it is about creating knowledge.

      A master's is about mastery, but phd is about extending the thinking in a field (IMO).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    67. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      If we just got rid of Sally Mea and college loans need to be secured with some kind of collateral or simply small enough lender were willing to fork over on credit history alone, the problem would solve it self.

      Sure that sounds good, but doing that would keep even more lower income people away from college. They don't have collateral or a credit history and their parents don't have those things either.

    68. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Tuition may only be $10K/year, but how much are you living expenses as a student? You're likely in shared accommodation and eating cheap food, but can you do it for under $5K/year? That adds another $20K. Still not $100K, but edging in that direction.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    69. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Universities have gladly contributed to the concept that everybody needs a college education to work. Sorry, I'm going to agree with Mike Rowe on this one: you don't need a degree to keep track of my schedule or answer my phone calls for me. In fact, I'd guess that anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all office type of jobs don't require a degree for competency either.

    70. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only correct, but I myself can't personally fathom how anybody comes out of school with a pile of debt. I spent about 7 years in college (three of those years were wasted on classes that I took for not knowing what I wanted to do, so it isn't as if I'm perfect) and I didn't borrow a cent. My bachelors is in IT management, and I got my degree by first going to community college (dirt cheap) and then doing online classes at the cheapest state university to finish the bachelors.

      I'm presently making more money than everybody I know who went to the supposed best university in this state (ASU) and who also did get a lot of student debt, where I have zero. In fact after the grants I received I actually managed to come out of college with surplus cash.

    71. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts of life hmm where is that in the catalog? Whats the class number?

    72. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      So only kids with trust funds can study philosophy or art and get to be a museum curator or somesuch?

    73. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where are the parents?

      ...working their tails off, are stretched to the limit, are missing a spouse, or are otherwise unable to provide their little snowflakes a free ride at college (especially given the insane tuition costs at most schools nowadays).

      I'm the oldest of eight kids... my parents paying for college was a non-starter, and yet 6 of us are college graduates (the other two decided on a different route, but one became a housewife while the other dropped out to eventually be a horse farmer... does rather well for himself).

      On my part, I did a combination of the GI Bill, self-study (that is, CLEPing like crazy) while in uniform, and otherwise working as I went to school. I busted my ass and did without a lot of neat stuff (e.g. nearly all of my clothes and small appliance shopping happened at garage sales), but I graduated free of any college loan debt as a result. My siblings either took a similar route, or paid as they went at local community colleges (or in one case, Nursing School - she has a BSN now and commands a pretty healthy salary).

      So yeah - parents? Dunno about yours, but not everyone's parents (assuming there are two parents - not always the case) have fat, growing college savings funds and a fat bank account. Maybe it's just that my generation (I was born at the tail end of the Baby Boom, my youngest sibling was born in the mid 1980s) was expected to have enough drive and skill to get that done on our own once we were old enough to vote.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    74. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Sorry mate,

      I am out of Mod points. +1

      BTW, I had a Humanities degree before an BSIS degree. The BSIS got me in the door, the Humanities built my career.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    75. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Higher education is already available for free: at your public library or online through enterprises like the Khan Academy.

      Higher education that includes people to explain things to you, assess your level of comprehension, and provide a publicly-respected rating.....that costs money. These people don't want to work for free. Why in the world shouldn't the student be paying them?

      I don't want my tax money spent on your self-actualization that you could already get for free anyway.

    76. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      $30K a year is a $15 dollar an hour job.

      Get one.

      Get a better one, work less hours.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    77. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am embarrassed to say that I have a cousin going through this. Last I heard, he should have his bachelors in philosophy by now. He plans to get his PHD because he doesn't have to repay the loans as long as he is in school. Personal Responsibility does not play any role in his decision.

    78. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fine, I'll say it. Cut the DoD budget to pay for it.

      Look at the rates here: http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-fees-sector-state-time

      Assuming something like 20 million college students, and assuming that's 4 years, then we can say 10 million at any time would qualify. Although, I'd restrict it to citizens only.

      10 million times perhaps $5k/year would be $50 billion. I figure that's cheap enough. However, I'd go even further and put income restricts so only lower income individuals would qualify. (Under 250% of the poverty level.) And only those who maintain a 2.0 GPA.

    79. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      If you get a major that is "useless", it shouldn't doom you to a fate of crushing debt for the next thirty years.

      It doesn't. Taking out large loans to get that useless degree does.

      Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...

      I have a large collection of art books, have spent many hours pouring over others in libraries and visited a number of museums. No need for college to learn about art history. Only initiative.

    80. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      So only kids with trust funds can study philosophy or art and get to be a museum curator or somesuch?

      Nope, I said no such thing. What I said was that you should consider that the market for "museum curator"s is incredibly tight at best, so you'd better know the risks before you take on a mountain of debt in an attempt to be one.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    81. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      You can say what it "should" or "ought to" cost all day long, but good luck finding some place to give you that degree at ten cents a credit hour. Reality check: The fine artsy types expect to be paid a lot more than their practical value..

    82. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with.

      I agree. That's why I pointed out that you can certainly minor in something that isn't marketable.

      There's a big diff between getting a well-rounded education, and trying to convert a degree in basketweaving into something sufficiently profitable to pay off the debts.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    83. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by number6x · · Score: 2

      I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying and it may just be a typo on your part, but I'm sure what a 'liberal' college is.

      I've never heard of that before. It may be that you mean a 'liberal arts' college. The word 'liberal' in liberal arts has a meaning like in the sentence 'Spread the mayonnaise liberally over the the bread when making a sandwich.' It has nothing to do with the 'liberal' and 'conservative' terms you often hear misused on talk radio and in politics.

      The point of a liberal arts college is to teach students in any major a wide range of subjects. Subjects used to be called 'arts', even subjects like math, science and engineering are considered different arts. In this way an english major would have to take so much math, chemistry, geology, philosophy, history, economics and other subjects not directly related their own major in order to graduate. The point is to turn out well educated individuals who have a wide range of learned knowledge covering a lot of ground, like the mayo spread liberally on the sandwich bread.

      When I got a BS in physics at a liberal arts university, it meant that besides science and math, I also had to take english classes, history classes, an art class (I chose great books), a finance class, an economics class and multiple scientific classes that were not physics. I was supposed to leave the university knowing more than just equations. I found that it was also a welcome break to have at least one non-technical class each semester.

      It may be that people majoring in subjects like philosophy and art history are not being required to take a truly liberal education at these schools and are being allowed to skip calculus, finance, economics and other subjects that should be required of any liberal arts degree.That would not qualify as being a wide ranging (liberal) education and would, to my point of view at least, require the university to stop proclaiming itself a liberal arts school.

      Of course none of this means very much in this particular case, as the author failed to graduate. It may be that they were required to take some of the more useful courses and never completed them. The article is very short on facts.

      One solution the author didn't consider was moving to Alaska before starting college. Alaska taxes oil profits and gives residents tuition credit. It may be too socialist for many Americans to choose a solution like that, but it would have made this one person's life much better and have gotten them out of their particular debt issues.

    84. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Says the people from middle class families who have parents who are willing or able to contribute to their expected funds.

      If you're poor you basically get fuck all if you're not on top of scholarships and even then anyone who tells you to get a scholarship clearly has never had to go through the same process. I can't pay for college and I couldn't five years ago when I managed to pay for an entire year through scholarships/grants/loans. It's too expensive and you can't just work your way through it. And all I wanted is a CS degree.

      When my single parent moved out of state I lost my residency status leaving me with nothing, the Fed Loan department said I couldn't even be considered an independent despite that I had zero financial assistance from anyone to live. For five fucking years. This year is the first year I can actually get money enough to help pay for college. But I guess none of that crap matters because the cost is too damn high and I'm too smart to put myself in huge amounts of debt to read books I can get off of Amazon for $30. But I guess it's worth it if someone won't even look at my application because I don't have a piece of paper.

      Sure, I'm bitter. I'm bitter because the system was stacked against my favor from the beginning. And anyone that's riding on their nice comfy parental coattails tells me that I just need to work harder can shove it because work hard is all I've done and all it's gotten me is a $10 an hour job full time job. I doubt anyone who grew up with enough food to eat could possibly understand the difficulties that people in poverty face.

    85. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2

      Who says you need to get the education in 4 years? Community colleges allow you to take as many or as few classes a semester as you can afford. If the knowledge is the goal, then what does it matter if it takes you 3 or 4 years to earn an associates. Especially since the cost/credit is MUCH lower than at a 4 yr college, even a state school.

      My sister and I were able to get associates degrees without having to take out a penny in loans by living with our parents, attending community colleges, and working just shy of full time at crappy jobs for barely more than minimum wage (she in a bookstore stocking shelves, and me at a grocery store doing the same). MA has a program where you can transfer from many Community Colleges to UMass with guaranteed acceptance if your GPA is over 3.0 and with partial tuition remission if your GPA is over 3.5. I've been told that many other states offer similar programs.

      Not everyone can afford to invest in as much education as they would like, just like I cannot afford to invest as much in the stock market as I would like beyond my 401K. Education is an investment, and if more people looked at it that way, then less of them would be drowning under debt that they cannot comfortably pay back. There are real problems driving up the price of education that should be addressed, particularly at state schools, in order to make them a better investment. However, that doesn't change the fundamental calculus that a HS graduate should do before deciding on how much education they would like to purchase, and from which institution.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    86. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Bengie · · Score: 2

      I got my degree by first going to community college (dirt cheap) and then doing online classes at the cheapest state university to finish the bachelors.

      For the good Universities around here, few credits transfer from Community Colleges to the University system. Few classes are online, especially high end classes, since most classes involve large amounts of team effort, class room discussions, or hands on work. The capstone project has always been a multi-person team effort where 60% of your grade came from your team mates.

      There is a reason they have a 100% job placement post-graduation.

    87. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      Its probably closer to one tenure-track job out there for every hundred PhD holders, Philosophy or otherwise.

    88. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      Did you not learn of supply and demand? There is a huge supply of money (loans) to be spent so universities are asking for more money.

    89. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... you can only legally justify H1Bs on the basis that there's no qualified US residents for the position ...

      Do Southern California Edison and Disney know this? Because they had their US employees *train* their H1B replacements...

      Unless, of course, "no qualified US residents" also includes "no low(er)-salary US residents".

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    90. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Time is money. Unless you are saying someone should be able to spend 10+ years on underwater basket weaving for free. I would like to play games all day to, but I know time is not free and someone has to pay for it.

      Of course an Art degree does not mean what they learned is entirely useless, but what is the break even point for time spent learning something not directly marketable and value added to society as a whole? A masters in Philosophy sounds like a complete waste of tax payer money, but I could appreciate the argument for a BS in American history adding value because of a more educated populace for better voters.

      At this point, if these basic things are still considered good for society, then make them part of high school. Why not just extend high school 4 more years until 22? It's a slippery slope.

    91. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Whose income would you count? The parents or the student? What if the parents could afford tuition, but refuse to? Should the child be further punished for having parents that don't care about him/her?

    92. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Um... no.

      I'm not asking where are the parents in paying the bill. I'm asking where is their guidance? When a fresh out of high-school kid goes and gets him/herself into 100s of thousands of debt for a degree that is pretty obviously not in demand I have to wonder.. where the hell are their parents and why aren't they kicking their kids in the ass?!?!

      Actually.. the parents probably have to co-sign for those loans. You can argue that the students are too inexperienced to know better. I don't know why.. I sure knew enough basic arithmetic at far younger than that to realize it was a bad idea. But... how about a little tough love from the adults?

    93. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      ". It is to get an education. And that should be available to everyone for as cheaply as possible."
      Sure but this bozo did not try to get it as cheaply as possible. He first went to an expensive private university. The cheap way is go to a community college to do you required courses and then a state college.
      Even if you think this guy was owed the money to get a degree in Philosophy he is not owed getting it at an expensive private school. What is better is you failed to read all of his rant. His other part of his rant is that he "would have had to take a job he didn't want" to pay his debt!
      Wow. So get a degree in Philosophy and did not go into teaching but decided you wanted to be a writer. You can not make enough money being a writer so that is society's fault and they should foot the bill?
      Sorry but I do not think that I should have to pay for this guy not having the life he wants.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    94. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Direct Loans means the government is the one extending the credit, but they don't service their own loans, generally. And if there's nothing in it for the banks, no bank is going to actually do so.

    95. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by msauve · · Score: 1

      "should be available to everyone for as cheaply as possible."

      They don't have libraries in your town?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    96. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state

      Tuition in-state is $12k a year at University of California (which is roughly $5000 in 1980 dollars, when adjusted for inflation).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    97. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      You don't really need either of those things. Everyone seems to forget about community colleges.

      I worked out an agreement with my parents where we split the cost of tuition 3 ways (parents are divorced) and I attended a community college (I also picked up the cost of books, my computer, parking, etc.). I had to work about 35hr/wk at a grocery store for less than $8/hr, while sharing a room with my 10 year old brother to do it, but it is doable. Spread it out over 4 years instead of the 2 I took, and it gets even easier.

      Many states have programs to ease the transition into the state-run 4-year colleges (GPA based acceptance guarantees, and tuition breaks) to turn that associates into a BS or BA in only 2 years. Hell, I met my BS credit requirement at the end of my 3rd semester at UMass and could have graduated then if I'd chosen to. I did end up taking out loans, but there are ways I could have worked that out without Sallie Mae if I'd had to.

      If you are interested in more advanced degrees it always helps if you pick one with a lot of industry support. Managed to get an MS and PhD without taking out ANY loans because my department paid graduate students a stipend in exchange for our labor as research assistants (for less than the currently pushed $15/hr we are all supposed to pay fast food workers for some reason).

      At the end of the day I managed 4 degrees (spread over 12 years) and only took out loans for 4 semesters. My younger sister did something similar (although her profession lacks industry $, so she had to bust her has as a teaching assistant and win a few Grants to avoid taking out loans). You just need to be smart about how you spend the education dollars you do have.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    98. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fine.. then we should just close all university courses, except of course, for MBAs. Then we'll get the maximum ROI for our money and everyone will be perfectly happy.

      Or maybe, as the OP said, money isn't the end-all of human existence.

    99. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Now that, I can agree with, perfectly. :)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    100. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      I agree that this guy is a crappy messenger, and not exactly a poster-child for student debt reform. But it doesn't invalidate the point.

    101. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well. Maybe I don't know enough. Still, my stance stays the same. Cap it at inflation.

    102. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, ya know, wanting to live there usually also plays a role when choosing a house. Unless of course it's just an investment, nothing that you really care about.

      I somehow don't think that's what education should strive for. Should our schools, especially high level schools like colleges and universities, try to crank out as many STEM and BA majors as they possibly can because that's where the money is at. Then you'll have the same crappy development we already have with the lower level school system, a reduction to the bare minimum because today everyone just HAS to have a high school degree. Hell, everyone just HAVING TO HAVE a college diploma is already the reality. Only then you'll have people who think that they have to have the "right" college degree. Whether STEM or BA is anything they could even remotely be interested in or not. Or have the mental capacity for, for that matter.

      And you can bet your ass that soon enough "no student left behind" or similar labeled bullshit will surface where we have to lower the bar again and again until even the last idiot can pass his STEM and BA bachelor degree, pretty much devaluing it as much as the high school diploma already has been devalued. Because, frankly, people who I don't trust to calculate a bar tab successfully get to pass high school these days. Yay for teaching to the test and giving schools an incentive to pass even the biggest dud just to make the numbers look good!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    103. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you see, that requires someone to actually be smart and work for it.

      That's just so un-American these days.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    104. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money? THat is not what it is for!

      Tell that to my parents, and millions like them, who drummed it into my head that I would be digging ditches if I didn't go to university. This had been repeated to every generation since WWII. So excuse all of us for believing it.

      They didn't tell me about laborer's unions and what licensed heavy equipment operators get, you know, the people who really dig ditches.

      Which I would have enjoyed. Who the hell wants to be stuck inside all day?

      Doing manual work was seriously looked down upon. But the plumber in our neighborhood had a huge boat with *two* inboard engines in it and a nice house.

      And you can't outsource plumbing.

      --
      BMO

    105. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Well, without at least a master's (realistically a PhD considering the competition), you aren't qualified for the one and only actual job in the field - Professor of Philosophy.

    106. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by robkeeney · · Score: 1

      So you think someone else should pay for your art history or philosophy degree? I suppose you think someone else should pay for your movie tickets and netflix subscription too?

    107. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I really have to say this? I guess so.

      If someone has independent status, the prospective student.
      If someone has dependent status, yes, of course the parents.

      Parents don't want to pay? Well, tough for the "child". The individual can just wait until they are old enough to have independent status.

    108. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Cap it at inflation.

      Loans are accounting based services. Nobody is going to do it for free or even slightly more than free.
      One of us didn't go to college.

    109. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by DroolTwist · · Score: 1

      Good lord. Tuition costs have really increased since my college days in the early '90s. I remember paying ~$900 semester at NMSU for 9-18 hours when going for my bachelors in chemistry. And I did my first two years at a branch community college at ~$30 credit hour for 9-18 credits. Even now I'm having a hard time imagining paying 10k/year for college. Just wow. I did have scholarships and worked two jobs @ 50 hrs a week to pay my way and came out with no loan debt at all (regular job at a gym and work-study at the school). I really feel bad for kids now that want an education and don't have scholarships and/or grants.

      A guy I worked with temporarily at my last job actually left his position and had taken a job doing IT support for the U.S. military in Iraq/Afghanistan. The position was going to be for 13 months, so he would make, I think, $110,000 for the year and if he was there over 12 months I think it was tax-free. He was doing this to pay off ~$80,000 in student loan debt. His viewpoint was that if he was killed over there it didn't matter since most of his mediocre paycheck went to loans anyway and he had to struggle day in and day out just to get by. I never heard from him again, but hopefully he made it back in one piece.

    110. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no reason a bachelors degree should cost that much regardless of the institution you go to"

      So what do you propose? Paying the professors less? Providing less services as the schools? Paying the administrators less? Or making "society" pick up the "extra" piece of the tab for the cost of degrees?

      What SHOULD be done, is a thorough review of exactly what schools are spending their money on and whether those things are of the value they appear to be. Should a tenured professor of art history make the same as a associate professor of engineering? Should they be different? Should the administrators at public schools make sky-high wages (which they probably do)? And should my tuition be higher if the school has better (and more expensive) facilities than the one down the street?

      What probably will be done though is none of that. Instead, the government can take more money out of the pockets of people who got an education that is providing a high return and use it to pay the high tuition of students today. And the money that is being "wasted" or used for non-high value operations at schools can continue to be spent in those ways. In a way though, that is better than finding ways to make the students borrow that money and have crippling debt. But on the other hand, it allows the cost of an education to remain higher than it probably should be. But why do something that would be difficult and harm the political supporters at those schools when you have a simple solution of just grabbing the money from people that can't do anything about it?

    111. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well said - both you (thedonger) and ConceptJunkie.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    112. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      WHere I live, in-state tuition is officially $6,664 for a resident. But then on the university's page, it also adds in 8700 for room/board, 1072 for books, and essentially 3800 for 'miscellaneous', because you might just occasionally want to go to a movie or drive a car. Granted, those are 'luxuries'. Still, the university recommends you have $20k/year. Which is $80k for a four year degree. Not $100k, but it is pushing towards it in a 'cheap' state. If you happen to have parents that will let you live at home and are nearby the school, you can do it for a lot cheaper. But not all people have that luxury. http://admissions.unm.edu/cost...

      So tuition is not the whole story. Show me a UC website that says you realistically need less than $50k to go to school there....

    113. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      > you can only legally justify H1Bs on the basis that there's no qualified US residents for the position

      That statement is a reasonable description of one requirement for a work visa in Canada.

      In the US, it's not part of the H1B process:
      http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    114. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Well, it can easily be done for under $30k, but if you need to take out student loans the wise approach would be to major in something that will help you pay them back.

      Student loans are like taking out a mortgage on your future. You don't want to start off upside-down with said mortgage.

    115. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      I sure would like forgiveness on my house that is worth 10% less than I paid for it. Do I deserve it? No.

      Why not? Those who drove up the price of housing with unsustainable loans got bailed out.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    116. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congratulations, I guess, but the so-called 'student loan bubble' or even this article isn't really about you.

      See, what you went and did was BUY some QUALIFICATIONS relating directly to a MARKETABLE SKILL SET.

      Getting a $80k degree from a private college for something like philosophy, elementary ed, english lit, or even 'psychology' (which requires a masters or doctorate to make any $) is basically choosing to put a financial noose around your neck.

      The days of 'XYZ Bachelors degree' = 'automatic middle class income' are gone.

      This is because for about 2 generations now the assumption was you either got dirty for a living or went to college and got a white collar job. If you could string 2 sentences together and do long division your parents told you that you JUST HAD TO go to college whether or not you really knew why. It was just what you did.

      Now, everyone has done it, 75%+ of the degrees are worthless, cost of higher ed has far outpaced inflation, the government gave away 'free money' to get it, and now countless 20 somethings are basically screwed and no-one knows how to swing a hammer or use a tape measure.

      Whoops.

      When the last plumber dies, we're in deep shit.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    117. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the wealthy should be able to spend 4+ years staring at paintings without working. Someone has to pay for it.

    118. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I did go to college. Yes, it's obvious that it costs money. But I didn't say anything about the costs.

      As I said, what students would borrow is what they'd repay. I didn't say it wouldn't cost the government any money. Of course it's going to cost them money. Especially for students who have their loans canceled, forgiven, or even defaulted on.

      My intent is very simple: What students borrow is what they would repay, adjusted for inflation.

      The government would pay any administrative costs and whatnot to ensure that it happens that way. Yes, taxpayer funded. Same goes for my idea of two-years free tuition.

    119. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well said - like healthcare, when government subsidizes it then demand grows, when demand grows so does the cost. It's not rocket science, but like most things there are alternative ways you can do things less expensively. I'm not suggesting certains things not be subsidized, but although the consequences might be unintended, they certainly shouldn't be unexpected.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    120. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Doing manual work was seriously looked down upon. But the plumber in our neighborhood had a huge boat with *two* inboard engines in it and a nice house.

      And you can't outsource plumbing.

      --
      BMO

      And it's not that much different from IT. Either way, you're dealing with other people's shit.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    121. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      A) Degrees costing hundreds of thousands of dollars is insane, they shouldn't cost anything like that much.

      Shouldn't? Then why aren't people flooding in to offer degrees costing 10% less or 50% less? To answer my own question, probably because it's hard to break into the education business and because people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      My feeling is college degrees are overpriced. It's weird though. We just sent one kid to college and it's surprising how much list price can differ from actual. Many students attend Harvard for $0, others for $65,000/year. My intuition is costs are escalating because of the easy loans TFA talks about. I think many people look at loans as free money and don't connect the loan with the commitment to earn a salary to pay the loan back. If more people thought of a college education as a purchase, I think there would be far fewer people willing to sign up for crushing debt to get degrees which don't lead to large salaries.

    122. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Why is a university the only way to learn about art history or philosophy? Go to the library. Take a night class. Enrichment doesn't require 4 years in an accredited institution.

      It's much better to go to an accredited institution. Unless you're exceptionally talented you cannot learn advanced philosophy from night classes or self-study, just as it is extremely hard to learn advanced math from night classes and self-study. You cannot learn everything "on the fly" from Wikipedia or skimming through popular science books.

    123. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by plopez · · Score: 1

      I posted this before. Students loans allow colleges, and banks, to become inefficient.

      http://www.blacklistednews.com...

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    124. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      because you might just occasionally want to go to a movie or drive a car. Granted, those are 'luxuries'.

      Yes, those are luxuries. You put 'luxuries' in quotes to indicate that you don't think they are, which explains perfectly well why you suck at money management.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    125. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for something like art history, why do you need a degree in it to learn it? There's very little discussion/variance that goes with it. It seems the definition of a textbook regurgitation degree. What benefit does the university offer that just buying the textbook on it's own doesn't accomplish?

    126. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am suggesting that getting an art history degree should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I do not fault anyone for trying to get an education.

      This comment just leaves me stunned on so many levels.
      1. It's like suggesting that a Ferrari should never cost over $300k. Buy the Honda Civic and stop trying to live in a class to which you don't belong!!
      2. Given the state of information today, it would be cheaper and better to read and travel cheaply to go *see* the fucking art, rather than paying anyone $100k+ to tell you about it
      3. Welcome to capitalism. Clearly there is demand for an art history degree that costs $100k+, or there would be no supply. (see #1)
      4. You're not entitled to anything in this world. (see #1)

    127. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself. 1) Get a useful degree, 2) Go to a state school, 3) Quit the narcissist entitlement mentality.

      Education has the best ROI, but like any investment you still have to watch how and what you invest in.

      You missed the zeroth step:

      0. Look at a list of salaries for graduates in each degree field.

      Often this step doesn't occur to students until too late in their careers to be useful. It is a real shame that guidance counselors and some parents are not more proactive with that point. Not everyone needs a lot of money to be happy, but everyone needs "enough" money. It's important for people to pick a career that will give them that level of cash.

      Personally, I think that colleges downplay this point out of self-interest to make sure that all of their degree programs are attended.

    128. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sabbede · · Score: 1
      You're overlooking the supply/demand aspects of it.

      Student loans subsidize demand and interfere with the market's pricing mechanisms. Worse, they encourage demand to grow far faster than supply. So just like with healthcare, repeated attempts to make access more affordable have driven up demand against a relatively immobile supply curve. Since this can only have the effect of raising prices, more "affordability" steps are taken, leaving us with a lovely positive feedback loop.

    129. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Getting a degree in Art History is mostly a hobby for almost all that get one.

      If you have just a BA in Art History, it's fairly unlikely that you will ever end up working at a job that requires an Art History degree specifically -- although, given the uselessness of a High School Diploma due to low standards, you may end up working at a near minimum wage job that requires, or at least prefers, a 2 or 4 year degree in something.

      In almost all cases, the person would have been better served by getting a degree in something more marketable. It's actually cruel to lure students into wasting precious time that could have been spent better preparing for their future security by offering them a "free" eduction. It's, of course, even crueler to offer them student loans so while wasting their time on education with low ROI, they are also digging themselves into debt that will be very difficult to pay off due to a poor choice of field of study.

      Sure, a rich trust fund baby can afford to pursue hobbies and pay for whatever education they wish to learn about those hobbies because they don't really need to work or can be pretty sure they will be set up in the family business. The rest of us can't.

      Perhaps we should also offer government subsidized loans or fully subsidized educaiton for four year courses of study in "Monster Truck Racing" or "Skydiving For Fun and Excitement" also?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    130. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This x100.

      I've noticed that the vast majority of people complaining about people complaining about the high costs of university went to school either for FREE (without even a scholarship, there were just free colleges back then) or at almost 1/20th of today's education costs. I myself went to college 4 years before one of my friends, but my tuition was 1/8th of his, and now he's strapped into that trap of having to skip eating every other day just to keep up with student loan payments.

      It's amazing how the older generations can completely forget about how much entitlement and privilege they lived under and mostly squandered, and is now completely unavailable to the younger generations. Thanks a lot for that.

    131. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming banks get all of the interest (say the 6.8% for Direct loans), then this is very simple. The government would subsidize it down to inflation. By government, yes, of course I mean taxpayers.

      My stance still stands. I hope this is good enough.

    132. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think that the educators should do it for free? Your saying that the degree should be cheaper, but think of the institution. How will educators get paid, how will the institutions grow, etc..etc.... Education is just like anything else, it costs money. If you borrow money, pay it back. if you don't want to borrow, pay as you go. Its pretty simple.

    133. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I think you have it flipped around. There is a huge supply of money, yes, but it is there to subsidize demand. That means more and more demand for a limited supply of slots at universities. If demand grows faster than supply, prices rise.

    134. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I don't want my tax money spent on your self-actualization that you could already get for free anyway.

      Hi, Education is not only self-actualization and job training, it's also about making responsible citizens. I'm personally happy to live in a country that tries to educate everyone through public taxes. It's not perfect but I have the feeling that it helps reaching an harmonious peaceful society.

    135. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More mal-investment schemes. Dah comrade. You and your centrally planned state knows all.

    136. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by digsbo · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't mean to create that dichotomy

      Fair enough - and you definitely didn't create that dichotomy (I shouldn't have said that), but the prevailing view, as I see it, is that education is seen as a thing segregated to professional educators in a classroom situation, and that universities or technical for-profit schools have status as recognized educational authorities, and to some extent your post feeds that view.

      Lots of expensive for-profit technical schools and 4-year universities take money from students and offer little in return. Even an art history degree, if it isn't rigorous, has little intrinsic value.

      I think part of the issue is the specific mindset that locks people in to giving money to colleges DESPITE the ridiculous costs. Next, asking better questions about why it's so expensive is a good place to start: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

    137. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      I have to question anyone who gets a BA in Philosophy and can't find a job thinks that getting a PhD or Masters will some how improve their odds of getting a job. So while I might be in favor forgiving loans on Bachelor's degrees, I don't agree that loans for post-grad should be forgiven or allowed to be defaulted. You're a kid when you enter college, but an adult when you enter grad school and should accept that responsibility.

      Well, there are some degrees - Philosophy, among them - that are only useful in a university setting, so yes, it may increase chances. However, one still has to consider the likelihood of entering that field - what the demand/supply is like.

      Other fields - Attorney, Medical - require it to go further in the field, but they're few and far between.

      Unfortunately, from 2000 onward there were many that went from a BA to a Master to a Phd because of the job market, but that didn't really help their employability. Ultimately, each year of school equates to 1 year of experience (per H.R. department standards) so if you skip the B.A. and are able to get employed, then after 4 years you're essentially H.R equivalent to someone that spent those same 4 years getting their B.A; add 2 years for a Masters, and 3-5 years for a Phd.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    138. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A. First, your out of bounds.. no degree's costs hundreds of thousands. Sure, a PHD will set you back in the 100K range, but not 300K.
      A.1 Why shouldn't they cost more? Getting the educators that can teach those classes will cost a salary. those with a PHD cost more than those with a masters.
      B. You are exactly right, they should be all over the place. But, there are consequences of choices. if you get a BA in Art, and can not find a job. Perhaps don't go get a masters. Make sure it is a viable career path. If your picking a saturated field, do not put yourself in debt.

      Its just like a car. Sure, a used car will get me around the corner. But if it breaks down, I don't go buying a brand-new BMW when I'm broke and don't have a job that can afford it.

    139. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by digsbo · · Score: 1

      And your comment should not have been modded flamebait!

    140. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem. I have zero debt and do quite well for myself. I could survive for a long time without changing a thing if I suddenly lost my job. I tend to think I'm fairly decent at it. I have been very poor in the past, though, and I have a semblance of empathy for people that are struggling. It is not nearly as easy as everyone makes it sound to pull yourself up.

      Even removing these "luxuries", you still have to pay for room and board. That is not a luxury and costs more than the school itself. BOoks and room and board alone brings the four year cost to around $65k. That's if you live like a monk in your dorm room and eat exclusively cafeteria food. Realistically, we are talking $70-80k over 4 years.

    141. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't see why they should even offer philosophy beyond an associates; its just not worth it to the point it counts as a scam really.

      Obviously, because qualified philosophy teachers are much cheaper than qualified engineering teachers, but the tuition is the same so the college earns more on philosophy degrees.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    142. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone just did the best paying degrees there wouldn't be anyone left doing niche stuff.

      If everyone did the best-paying degrees, they wouldn't be the best-paying degrees any more. That's how markets work.

    143. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 2

      No. I think education is a public good. Netflix is not. It really isn't that hard.

    144. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      It may be that people majoring in subjects like philosophy and art history are not being required to take a truly liberal education at these schools and are being allowed to skip calculus, finance, economics and other subjects that should be required of any liberal arts degree.That would not qualify as being a wide ranging (liberal) education and would, to my point of view at least, require the university to stop proclaiming itself a liberal arts school.

      Typically, the non-STEM students are allowed to take "lower" matches - like Business Math, Math 101 - that provide cursory overview of the subject; and STEM students are often opted out of several areas (usually foreign languages) to keep them in the 4 year graduation time frame.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    145. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's if you live like a monk in your dorm room and eat exclusively cafeteria food

      Yeah, once again, you are talking as though you don't know what it is to be poor. Cafeteria food is expensive.....cook for yourself and you'll save money.

      Realistically, we are talking $70-80k over 4 years.

      If someone spends money the way you do, then yeah, that's accurate.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    146. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Nobody owes you a living

      Why the fuck not? I mean, I have a job, and skills, etc. But I certainly think that anyone who wants to work should be able to get some job... even if the government is just paying them to dig ditches. It's cruel to tell people they have to have money to live inside and eat food and not give them some way to earn said money.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    147. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      The cafeteria food is included in the "room and board" It's the "board" part. It's actually fairly cheap. $8700 for a place to stay and a guarantee you won't starve for a year.

    148. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Tuition may only be $10K/year, but how much are you living expenses as a student.

      Solutions:
      1. Get a job.
      2. Live in your mom's basement, and go to a community college for the first 2 years.
      3. Delay college until you can afford it.
      4. Spread college out over 5 or 6 years, instead of trying to do it in 4.

    149. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If you get a major that is "useless", it shouldn't doom you to a fate of crushing debt for the next thirty years. Crappy job, maybe. But getting a high-paying gig is NOT why you go to school and learn philosophy.

      Because there's limited amounts of money available for self-gratification via learning/education. Spending $80k/year on a philosophy degree when your parents are lower middle class or upper lower class via loans and such might be 'fulfilling' at the moment, but it's only a little more fulfilling than buying a sports car and racing it spending the same $80k/year. Hell, after racing for that long you're about as likely to be able to spin it into a well-paying career.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    150. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no, kids don't have credit history when they go to college. That is the reason these programs were created in the first place. These institutions making these guaranteed loans however are making boat loads of money which results in higher payments once college is over with. When I went to college my parents took some loans and I took the majority. I ended up with a degree that pays well enough that I paid off my loans as well as the ones my parents took on. This is not an option for the majority of people in the U.S. today though.

      Additionally my loans were both federally and state subsidized so my interest rate ended up below 3% which is pretty good on a loan that amounts to about 50K when all is said and done. Of course going to my same school now would cost about 80K. Couple that with depressed wages and a kid today isn't likely to claw his/her way out of debt nearly as quickly and easily as I did.

      The solution is not clear as a lot of this was caused by this idea that its okay for high schools to fail, people will make up for their crappy education in college which means you have to have a college degree today to do jobs that in the past only required a high school degree. How many executive assistants out there don't have a bachelors? How many office managers require a college degree today? Virtually all jobs which make any real amount of money will require it regardless of whether or not it is actually needed to do the job because they see it as an important indicator of someone's reliability or work ethic.

      I had a conversation recently about the state of my friends and how I am the only one in the whole group actually using my degree. Everyone else is doing event planning with a bachelors in Marine Biology, running a medical office with an art degree, doing QA with an art degree, or some other random mash-up.

    151. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What year? Cause that matters a hell of a lot.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    152. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The student can't get the $15/hour job, or even a minimum wage job in places where it's lower than $15/hour, because he doesn't have a degree.

      You don't need a degree, just a brain. My 15 year old daughter makes $20/hour writing fake Amazon reviews on Fiver. If you can write well, create a webpage, or write a program, you can make more than $15/hour. If you are not smart enough to do that, you probably shouldn't be going to college.

    153. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No this hurts student debt reform. He is so off the beam that he would almost seem like a right wing plant! He reinforces every liberal stereotype on the planet!

      If you do point out this guy is nothing but a deadbeat with sense of entitlement then you hurt all those that have real issues with student loan debt!.
      This guy needs to be shot out of a cannon.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    154. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by number6x · · Score: 1

      Thanks. FYI, I had a 2 semester foreign language requirement with my stem degree.

    155. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      I have always maintained that there is a difference between "training" and "education". I had a little of both in my college career, earning a BS in physics with minors in Spanish, math, and chemistry, then an MBA. Most of what I consider to be my "education" has come from studying from the classics on my own. Paying for "training" with debt only makes sense if you are preparing for a career that pays well. "Education" is best done on your own. Unless you have a trust fund.

    156. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fancy buildings and high paid coaches and text books written by the class professors and professors making 120k a year to teach a couple classes and do research or write books the rest of the time are all not required to get a solid college education.

    157. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by gohmifune · · Score: 1

      Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself.

      This is not always true. I graduated with a BS in CS from a decent state school, went for Database Administration. Education was thorough, covered basically everything technical for Database, Information Security, literally assembling a computer, project management, and basic programming. Graduated during a bad period for employment and have never been able to land a database job. I live in a fairly large city and barriers to gainful employment exist and are numerous.

    158. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are free to choose a cheaper school, or one that offers you a scholarship.

      I don't think anyone is arguing against that point. The question here is: Why are you free to choose a school you clearly can't afford using a loan you clearly will have no ability to repay?

      I read the entire summary and I don't see the words "predatory lending" anywhere.

    159. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by edawstwin · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If the government guaranteed all mortgages, house prices would skyrocket, too. College would be much cheaper if we ended the guarantee on student loans. Banks would then likely A) Test you to make sure you are likely to graduate college (much like a credit/employment check), and B) Make sure that you get a degree in a field that will likely pay enough for you to be able to repay the loan (much like asking for collateral).

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    160. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the art history professors should work for substantially less? That the classes should be taught in substantially cheaper (both to build and to maintain) classrooms? That heating, air conditioning, electricity, and possibly running water should be cut from those classrooms? That art history students not have access to other campus classes or facilities or resources?

      Because if you aren't, then what you're suggesting is that students in other majors should pay extra to subsidize the art history students and others whose major isn't worth the cost of a university education.

      On a fundamental level, I agree that higher education shouldn't cost so much, but you'll have to speak to the government about that. By pushing every single person toward getting a college degree and providing them what is essentially a blank check to make it happen, we've massively spiked the demand side of the equation. What happens when demand goes through the roof and supply is left hopelessly far behind? What's worse, normally the market for education could correct by pricing some people out of it, but in order to further the goal, the government has provided a means by which anyone can get virtually any level of funding for any sort of educational goal (whether or not it has any chance of ever paying for itself in the lifetime of the student). Thus, an art history major can get loans exceeding that of most home mortgages with no income and little income potential.

      Want to fix the costs behind higher education? Pull all government subsidies for students and redirect that money to colleges and universities with a history of successfully educating students (e.g. job placement percentages, 5/10/20-year outcomes for alumni, etc). Further, erase the legal absurdity making student loans the hardest of all loans to kill. That's the other half of the problem. Finally (and this is the hard part for most people), accept that quite a number of low-income students will find some or all higher education out of their reach. This can be partially offset by directing some of the aforementioned subsidies toward apprenticeship based learning (e.g. pairing young adults up with electricians, plumbers, etc).

      And what does that do? It spikes the supply side of the education/training equation. Suddenly there's more supply and it's cheaper to do it than it would be with no forces acting within the market. That brings down the prices while incentivizing higher performance for the institutions (who have zero incentive now beyond whatever sense of benevolence exists at each college or university among the staff). It doesn't bring down prices to the point where everyone can do anything they want, but that's a fantasy anyway (as some are starting to grasp). Sure, you can push everything through higher education and they can do whatever type of studies they want, but many if not most will end up in crushing debt for decades unless they've chosen something with extremely high earning potential. And if (as you state) the purpose of higher learning is not simply to make more money, then we're doing it wrong.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    161. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no gamble, student loans are guaranteed by the government.

      There is no gamble for the lender. For the borrower, they are the worst kind of gamble because they are the loan type that is the hardest possible to discharge in bankruptcy.

    162. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Nobody owes you a living

      Why the fuck not?

      Because the world is a harsh place, that's why.

      I mean, I have a job, and skills, etc.

      ...and I can easily wager that you didn't just waltz into your employer's HR department and demand a job, did you?

      But I certainly think that anyone who wants to work should be able to get some job... even if the government is just paying them to dig ditches. It's cruel to tell people they have to have money to live inside and eat food and not give them some way to earn said money.

      A basic guaranteed income (which is little more than a new variation of panem et circensus ) is at best a luxury that can only be provided by a prosperous society.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    163. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      You mean the government? The government did the bailouts after the government drove up the price of housing by pushing for unsustainable loans. It's been HUD's policy since the early 90's that every man, woman, and child should own their own home and it's a fantasy turned nightmare. It began slowly under Clinton wherein the undermining of mortgage underwriting standards began, then rapidly picked up pace under Bush when a solution to the problem was found (getting the bad loans off the books and into the hands of VCs).

      The original problem was created by the Federal government's absurd idea that everyone should own their own home (impossible, ridiculous to even consider otherwise). When the market found a way to solve that problem (as it invariably will), we were off to the races in prices as demand went through the roof and supply was left hopelessly far behind. When the whole thing crashed, the government bailed everybody out who mattered.

      Why doesn't he deserve a bailout? Because at some point we should stop perpetuating the ridiculous policies that got us into this mess.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    164. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I'm mainly referring to publicly funded schools. I agree that Harvard can charge whatever they want.

    165. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's actually fairly cheap. $8700 for a place to stay and a guarantee you won't starve for a year.

      Berkeley is expensive, but not even in Berkeley is that 'cheap.' Remember that it's eight months, not a full year (and if you need someone to guarantee that you won't starve, you have personal responsibility issues).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    166. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      Your public library is taxpayer-funded. Your statement is incoherent.

    167. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ohearn · · Score: 1

      A lot of people actually use a philosophy degree as a pre-law degree and then go on to law school. For everyone else the options are teach, go into ministry, or learn to ask "Would you like fries with that?".

    168. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. A biggest part of the cost of tuition increasing as it has is because the government has distorted the market with student loans, particularly since it seems defaulting on them is being more-or-less ignored. As is the case with health care/health insurance, and many other industries, some (or all) of the biggest problems the government is trying to fix are the result of government intervention in the first place.

      Yeah, I'd like my mortgage forgiven as well.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    169. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I graduated college with no student loan debt; however, I sure would like forgiveness on my house that is worth 10% less than I paid for it. Do I deserve it? No. I chose to put on the rose colored, things will always be worth more in the future glasses.

      Does it matter whether you deserve forgiveness, in some abstract sense of "deserve"? Not to the rest of us, no. What matters to us - assuming we're thinking rationally, of course - is how you getting forgiveness affects us. That is why banks got a bailout, and why consumers should get one, too. There's no point in investing if there's no consumer demand, and there's no consumer demand if they're busy paying back their debts.

      So, simply have the government buy out all debt (eminem domain) and annul it, either immediately or, say, 10% per month. That will cause a massive injection of money to the very roots of economy, and should kickstart it. The cost is a pulse in inflation as money starts circulating, but it should even out soon.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    170. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ClayDowling · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is stopping you from signing up for a trade program at a community college and getting a decent job so you can later study for the thing you want? There are always jobs open for machinists and welders, the money is good and the work is interesting.

      Or have you considered military service or national service programs like Americorps?

      All of those things will partially or fully pay for your school.

    171. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > The author says that rather than do that (get an ordinary job), he intentionally chose the (lack of) career path that he's on.

      That was the part where I really found I couldn't relate at all. Especially the part when he describes writing, as opposed to gainful employment, as his value to society....maybe if society agreed, he would be able to pay his loan back?

      I feel like I just watched this guy walk up to the roulette table, be told that anything but red or black is a stupid long shot, then argue when he loses his whole stack in one go because he put it all on double 0. By all means, toss a chip on there, but don't delude yourself into thinking it was a good bet compared to the guy who is already slowly losing his shirt with the safe bets....at least he gets to sit at the table for a while and get some drinks.

      I mean I can relate in that....theres lots of things I would rather be doing than working on someone else's projects and systems. I have lots of interests and hobbies, many of which i have worked on with far more energy and passion than my day job (and many with less). I don't see what is so wrong with that, who ever said you can't work AND be a writer? What kind of idiot goes hod wild for a long shot and then cries when it doesn't pan out?

      Its like, I know several actors, even a stand-up comic or two. You know what they all have in common? Day jobs.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    172. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I really disagree - we very highly value artistic expression; the problem is that all else aside, if you asked people what they wanted to be, far too many would say they wanted to be an artist of some sort (writer, actor, musician, photographer, "model"), but far too few of them actually have the talent to succeed in that field. So we've actually had a couple of generations of "follow your dreams" that have led to a lot of disappointment for a lot of untalented people.

      As for the amateurs (myself included), they should feel free to artistically express themselves anyway they want - but they shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    173. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I never heard from him again, but hopefully he made it back in one piece.

      Odds are that he did; IT contractors don't really get killed over there, and most aren't even in the AOR. Hell, I was military IT and I didn't venture off base.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    174. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I have to (mostly) agree with you; I think a lot of people appreciate art a lot more than the GP are giving us credit for, but when the government funds something like the NEA, they're encouraging anybody who wants to make a living, no matter how talentless, to try to grab a piece of that government funding. It happens at local levels, too, where cities use tax money to fund local artists - all well intentioned, but if the local artists couldn't succeed without government funding, there's probably a good reason.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    175. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does higher education make responsible citizens? Or does it make people who accrue enormous debt on an education with little practical value, and then get mad and stop paying when they can't find a cushy job (like, you know, the guy this article is about)?

    176. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      No one said that only the wealthy should learn about art history. Only that only the wealthy should MAJOR in it, never mind get a PhD in it.

    177. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      First of all, let's be honest: Servicing a loan is extremely cheap. A competent loan officer and underwriter can close tens of loans per day, which is less than an hour per loan, on average. The rest is automated, until the loan is paid, and then there's 5 minutes of paperwork. The first interest payment will more than cover those costs.

      Second, inflation is a damned good ROI. It's averaged at about 3.2% for the past 100 years, which is above what any guaranteed investment pays. It's higher than mortgage rates. Of course, those are front-loaded with origination fees, but clearly the cost of servicing it is worthwhile, otherwise banks would not offer them, and there would be no secondary market.

    178. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt there are that many people getting philosophy degrees for this to have become the huge socioeconomic problem it's become. There are scores of graduates in all sorts of practical and common fields that are having trouble finding work, and not because they're untalented or don't know how to interview. The whole "philosophy major" argument is a strawman.

    179. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Because a C.S. degree is going to land a you job that is not already taken by someone with an H1B Visa....

    180. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So yeah - parents? Dunno about yours, but not everyone's parents (assuming there are two parents - not always the case) have fat, growing college savings funds and a fat bank account. Maybe it's just that my generation (I was born at the tail end of the Baby Boom, my youngest sibling was born in the mid 1980s) was expected to have enough drive and skill to get that done on our own once we were old enough to vote.

      That why taxes on the rich and businesses were high. It helped pay for things like college and made it affordable. Bu then Ronald Reagan came along and told us the government is stealing our money and giving it to poor people. Even worse, they sold so many people on the idea that they were upper-class and that they should vote to lower taxes on millionaires because they might be a millionaire one day.

      So after giving tons of tax cute to the "job creators," all we have are crappy jobs with crappy benefits and those good jobs out there are being pressured by H-1b and offshoring. Well, you get what you pay for. We could go back to high taxes, but people are too fearful. Go Bernie Sanders!

    181. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. However:

      The public library does not include a dorm room, meals, teachers to explain things to you when you can't figure them out from reading the book, testing for your mastery of the material, and a certification that you passed the test.

      The public library just provides you with the knowledge. I am happy to spend my tax dollars on that. Everything else I mentioned above should be paid for by the student, including interest on loans.

    182. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You do know that only matching inflation means not earning a dime, right? The "return" is only numbers. The value of the repaid dollars is exactly the same as the original loan amount, even if there are more dollars. I find it unlikely that you're going to see a mortgage apr that earns the bank less than inflation. They would be losing money.

    183. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been.

      Right... all those law and medical degrees just exist to expand human knowledge.

    184. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > ** Obvious exceptions: Wealthy actors, musicians, etc....

      However the fact we have to call them exceptions means something....the average isn't them. When someone says "actor" we should not think "Arnold" we should think "Oh you want seperate checks?" because thats who actors are. Hell I know a whole bunch of actors, they all make more at their day jobs.

      > Our society doesn't value artistic expression as much as it does technological prowess, and that's really sad

      I don't think this is true, in fact, i think its meaningless.

      Do you value gold or water more? If gold, then tell me how you would live without water, if water, then tell me why you will not trade me equal weight in gold for water? These things each have value, and a number can be put on that value for trade purposes, but, their true values are not so easily compared.

      People are willing to take out loans and forsake study of subjects which could more readily garauntee their income and yet, still get loans and support....I would say in some ways, we overvalue art. Especially in a day and age where more people than ever can not only produce their own but easily share it. Long gone are the days when the average artist was a student who spent his days copying the work of a master to be sold as his "prints".

      I think its more correct to say that with the increase in liesure time and education, the barrier to entry to art has come down so far, that the monetary value of it is largely gone and only available in seriously life supporting ammounts to a very few....as it always was, its just more visible now with more people able to try to be "professionals".

      I do think there is value to learning art, even if not much value in supporting more professional artists, I see nothing wrong with what used to be profession being more hobby. I don't see so much how society needs more professional artists, even if it could benefit from more people being artists, in fact, in some ways, I think the two are at odds with eachother, and it is far better as a wide spread hobby than a concentrated profession.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    185. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      just as it is extremely hard to learn advanced math from night classes and self-study.

      I don't know if you count calculus as 'advanced math', but I've found kahn academy and similar much more useful than class time. And you end up doing a lot of self-study anyways.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    186. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      ANd that should be available to everyone for as cheaply as possible.

      Things can be pretty cheap (for you) when you are forcing other people to pay for them.

      If you want the full college experience of dorms, and cafeterias, and state of the art gyms, and new textbooks, and classes in buildings with gothic architecture, that is going to cost somebody a lot of money, whether it's your parents, or the tax payers, or you, or your bank (if you refuse to pay back your loan).

      What I would add is that... If you don't want to get an education that is part of a larger economic plan to increase your ability to be productive in a way that is in high demand by society, then you should be willing to accept the financial consequences of this decision.

      It's nice that you want to better yourself, but it is unreasonably selfish to better yourself at the cost of society, without giving anything back.

    187. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're lucky. I graduated 2012. I worked 35 hours a week every week for all four years. I still graduated with 50k of debt.

    188. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There are companies that will sell you a degree from any university you like for a couple hundred dollars.

      If you want an education, you can read all the same books that would have been assigned to you, had you gone to university.

      You don't need to go to a university and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn about art history. If you just want the education for yourself, then you don't need an official degree.

    189. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, for my CS degree. I met them in an honors-level course studying Ancient Greek. By the end of the course, we were translating passages from the Bible (which was the goal). By doing this, I was able to see with my own eyes just how ambiguous, slanted, and (in some very doctrinally-significant passages) flat-out wrong the English translations of the Bible are.

      Seeing the lies with my own eyes helped me to free myself from the hold that the crazy fundamentalist church in which I was raised had on me.

      So, I got huge personal benefit from the requirement. Studying Hindi might have been more in-line with my degree, though....

    190. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that the S and the M in STEM, are both liberal arts subjects.

    191. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the government would have to guarantee a college education."

      Statements like this are ignorant, people who assume they have the right to have whatever they want and not have to pay for it are the biggest problem this country has.

      1. If you choose to borrow a given amount of money, with a given set of terms to repay that money, and you sign the contract, then YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for repaying it.

      2. If you choose to spend that borrowed money to get a Degree is something that will not assist you to start a career with enough compensation to repay your contract. It does not relive YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to repay it.

      3. If you choose to make poor decisions it does not make it the government’s responsibility to bail you out.

      WE ARE GUARANTEED CHOICE AND THE FREEDOM TO MAKE BAD CHOICES.

      No we should not be guaranteed a college education, there are far too many children graduating high school with zero ambition to work, study or do more than expect things to be given to them.

      If you want to fix things we need to make several changes.

      1. Eliminate - hand out programs for everyone expect the disabled. "Does not include morbidly obese"
      2. Put a minimum performance to continue education for all grades 9th to 12th. If a student’s GPA drops below a B Do not let them enroll and attend next year. Make them get a job.
      3. Instate a "Work for Food" program vs. Welfare & food stamps. - Show up pickup garbage on the highway, clean gutters, paint park benches etc. Receive 1 day worth of food rations for 2 people. Maybe make exceptions for single mothers raising more than 1 child by herself.
      4. Eliminate the dependent tax deduction at 2 per couple, and reduce it by the same for each additional child. Exceptions for children conceived against the mothers will.

      If you want something out of life, get up and work for it, do not expect someone else to do it for you.

    192. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't reflect the reality that keeping up with inflation -- especially with no work -- is valuable. If it was not, then CDs and other guaranteed but low-return investments would not exist!

    193. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I think this topic is going to be the issue of my next letter to my representatives. They may not listen to me much, but I know it gets their attention. I recommend that more people write them, because they DO pay attention to what their constituents are telling them.

      Don't know about SCE, but I know Disney was 250 workers. Personally, I'd just cut the H1B visas by 250 positions in response to Disney's move, and about 500 for SCE.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    194. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Things like "the world is a harsh place" or "life is inherently unfair" are most often said by the very people who actively work at making the world a harsh place.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    195. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      One solution the author didn't consider was moving to Alaska before starting college. Alaska taxes oil profits and gives residents tuition credit. It may be too socialist for many Americans to choose a solution like that, but it would have made this one person's life much better and have gotten them out of their particular debt issues.

      Timeline. He started school before the Trans-Alaskan pipeline opened, so it wasn't an option back then. Today, since oil prices crashed the University's lost 40% of it's funding(I'm a college student in Alaska right now), so that's not going to be pretty for the next few years.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    196. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Living is something you would be doing (and need to pay for) regardless. Lot's of people still live with their parents when they go to school. Part of how European countries can afford to provide free/cheap university educations, is because it is not the life experience that it is in the US. In Europe university is like high school but harder.

    197. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by grantspassalan · · Score: 1

      It used to be that employers would have apprenticeship programs, to which young people could apply and get trained for the kind of job that would benefit the employer and the employee. Nowadays, multibillion dollar companies expect the employees to pay for their own training. Since that job training is expensive they have managed to roll off that expense onto the public through government guaranteed loans and public education.

      Public education should lay the groundwork such as the 3Rs, history and other general education subjects, not job training for the future employees of multibillion-dollar corporations. They should be required to pay that as a normal business expense. University level education should be divorced entirely from the ability of people to obtain a job in the business/industrial world. If someone wants to get a degree in a liberal arts subject, they should pay for that themselves. The taxpayer should not be on the hook for that sort of thing.

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
    198. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this parroted quite a bit. This was true of higher education in History, but since it catered to higher society overwhelmingly until the 20th century, having it "help make money" is a moot point. If we're talking about 20th century though, bear in mind that any degree would help land a job in an office in those days, and they were much more affordable. Employers once bore the responsibility of training grads, though now they want everyone primed from the assembly line. In 1960 getting an English degree for the fuck of it and worrying about a job later made perfect sense. This is the advice parents used to give us since it's what the boomers did, but this proved inadequate.

      We have an entire generation from recession period to about 2012 that waltzed in to University with the intention of learning for the sake of learning and finding out the hard way that this isn't viable anymore.

    199. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by digsbo · · Score: 1

      You cannot learn everything "on the fly" from Wikipedia or skimming through popular science books.

      Which is why I specifically suggested private lessons and referenced my 7 years of study, or night classes, in addition to self-directed study.

    200. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by judoguy · · Score: 1

      You're a kid when you enter college, but an adult when you enter grad school and should accept that responsibility.

      No, if someone is legally considered an adult, has the right to vote etc., he's an adult. An adult makes decisions and is responsible for those decisions.

      If we want to say 18 isn't an adult, fine. No drinking, voting or ability to sign a contract. Only children want both ways.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    201. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Higher education doesn't have to be about making money, but government and taxpayers paying for higher education ought to be. If you want to blow your rich daddy's money on a medieval basketweaving degree, that's fine. But the point of government-funded education ought to be to increase the tax base with higher-paying jobs, to pay back the money spent on the education. Why should you be entitled to a non-productive fluff degree at my tax expense?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    202. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I live in a prosperous society, even after the great recession.

      I didn't waltz in and demand a job. I worked hard. I'm not saying everyone deserves a ton of stuff. I'm saying that everyone deserves to not die on the street from starvation because of lack of money.

      Because the world is a harsh place, that's why.

      The world is what we make it, within some limitations on our power. It's a lot harsher than it has to be.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    203. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money? THat is not what it is for!

      And yet it has been proven over and over again that pretty much any degree pays for itself in terms of future job earnings, even art history. If you come out of school with the ability to problem solve, write well, speak well, and can learn new things quickly, you can find a job.

      That is why many grown up countries recognize that college should be free. It greatly benefits the tax payers to have an educated populace: the return from a lifetime of higher earning tax dollars alone is worth it. Then there are tons of less tangible things, like attracting businesses that require educated workers, etc..

    204. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is all fair if you intend to pay for it yourself - getting a loan you never intend to repay to go to college to do something society at large does not find useful enough to pay you well for is idiotic at best, immoral at worst.

    205. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I do understand, which is kind of why I don't think it's fair to not make damn sure that you know ahead of time just what the ROI for this college degree you're going to be taking loans to get actually is--and also, you do know that you can often get those books free? Or get away with not buying them at all? (No, seriously, I had one class where the sole reason we allegedly had a textbook is because the prof just picked a random sample textbook from the stack to get the school to STFU, and a lot of others where the textbook was a safety net for those who missed lectures and couldn't get high-quality notes.)

      What a lot of us are saying is that you shouldn't be sold a load of bullshit about there being lots of high-paying jobs for art history degrees, and should be warned that the career options suck so don't dream of high-paying prestigious jobs being awaiting you when you finish being an undergrad.

      I'm perfectly fine with leaving those to the rich kids and the people who love their field enough to actually be perfectly fine with putting in a stint working full-time jobs whose salary may work out as less than $10 per hour to get their foot in the door. (And yes, you can find salaried jobs that work out to be paying below minimum wage. Some pay commission, some seem to just figure that if you're good enough at math to realize this, you're too smart for them.)

    206. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a general rule, Colleges are the greediest, most rapacious and destructive institutions that blight our lives. In typically "progressive" fashion, they really do think they are helping and caring even as they pick your pockets, steal your liberties and fill your head with mush.

       

    207. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing manual work was seriously looked down upon. But the plumber in our neighborhood had a huge boat with *two* inboard engines in it and a nice house.

      And you can't outsource plumbing.

      --
      BMO

      And it's not that much different from IT. Either way, you're dealing with other people's shit.

      Except at least with plumbing you hopefully knew that you'd be doing that from the start.

    208. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ClayDowling · · Score: 1

      Learning about art history is great. It's absolutely worth dedicating four years, or even a lifetime, to learning about art. At the same time, it's a really good idea to learn how to feed yourself and pay off the debts that you're accumulating to study art. I learned a couple of trades while I was studying physics. I've spent the last 20 years of my life working in one or the other of those trades. The physics degree was incredibly valuable to me personally. Learning to program a computer on my own time has been useful to me financially. Learning to paint houses kept me in food until I could find work programming. It also led me to other fun activities such as tile setting and laying pavers.

      Setting tile might not be very erudite, but it is both financially and personally rewarding. It's also putting that study of art history to practical use, because mosaics are cool, and you don't get to build mosaics unless you're a pretty accomplished tile setter.

    209. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Picking the college based on affordability didn't ruin his life.

      That is something that needs to be taught/drilled into high school students heads: what you get from college is 90% personal effort and 10% school prestige for most people.

      Get straight A's at any state/local school, and it will open doors to more prestiges universities later.

    210. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      Whose income would you count? The parents or the student? What if the parents could afford tuition, but refuse to? Should the child be further punished for having parents that don't care about him/her?

      So.... "the parents are now responsible for their ADULT children's bad decision making."? That doesn't sound like a bad precedent at all...

    211. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Getting an education is available to everyone for free. Just go to a library and read those things we call "books".

    212. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed. But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with. I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.

      And why isn't it free anymore?

    213. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by clong83 · · Score: 1

      I agree that after taking out the loans, he should have done everything he could to get rid of them. He didn't. He was "above" taking a job, even for just a few years, to help him get rid of the loans. He also attended a private school, which was a bad decision if he couldn't afford it, both then and now. (Note: Some high-dollar private schools, like Harvard and Vanderbilt, will not allow you to take on debt. If you can't pay the tuition, they call it even as long as you keep your grades up and work in the cafeteria or something). He also doesn't say when he defaulted, which is really important since you can't get rid of student debt through bankruptcy anymore. Advising millenials to default is sentencing them to an entire lifetime of bad credit, not just 7 years of rebuilding. So yeah, I think he's an idiot, and he's doing more harm than good.

      But he does have one thing in common with a lot of people getting themselves into trouble today: He was 17 when he first took out the money, and he was doing something that likely every adult had told him for his whole life: Go to college! Go to college! It's a good investment!

      Flashforward to today, and kids still hear that. Is going to a $50k/year private school to study latin a good investment in your future? No, probably not. But the counterargument I hold is true: That it is a good investment for the public to enable that student to study Latin by creating a public university that is affordable. But nowadays, public universities are getting so expensive that even that is not a very good investment outside of STEM degrees because you will need to immediately start making payments of $1500/month.

      I still find it hard to blame the students when they make decisions at 17 or 18 based on what the adults around them are telling them (go to college! Get any degree!). And judging by this thread, a lot of people are clueless as to the true costs of modern college. My financial advisor told me that at current rate of tuition inflation, I will need to have 150k saved to pay for for my child to go to college. At a public, in-state university. I have started saving early, and I can probably afford it, but most can't. And I find that reprehensible, considering it is supposed to be a public university.

    214. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money?

      Because that is what life IS. We can chat all day about the value of philosophy, but as my former college roommate philosophy major found, at the end of the day, life is about fighting to survive. And the job prospects of philosophy majors is basically... teach philosophy in college. There's not much other than that.

    215. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      then we should limit major choices, not bury young people in debt, unable to contribute to the economy (buy a house, car, etc.: manufacturing, construction, etc.) and instead it all goes into some bank ceo's pocket. how does that help anyone, besides ones plutocrat class sucking up so much and more and more each day. that doesn't trickle down morons, it just stays in a bank, while a middle class flush with cash spends most of it, actually generating jobs and a healthy economy

      i don't really understand people who view life choices as a one sided thing. the range of choices available to you also reflect your society's values

      some of you idiots will say if a guy only had a choice between walking off a cliff and walking into a furnace he should be blamed for wrongly choosing to commit suicide, poor characters, etc. what choices a person has before them is a reflection of the values of a society. and obviously, our society sucks, and is getting worse. cue the morons who bark "american exceptionalism" without fucking noticing that on all of the measures of what they consider american excpetional about, the usa is actually falling behind and slipping further

      for example, you have greater social mobility as a poor immigrant in a nordic countries, than you do in the usa. you know, those countries with evil socialist universal healthcare and free/ low cost higher education

      Because those Bently, Caddies, Bimmers, Mercs, Cessnas, GulfStreams, and the like are all simply conjured from thin air and given to those people who reach the 1% club as tokens of of their success. Yeeeep. No trickling there. None at all.

    216. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't buy anything if you don't have a good idea how you are going to pay for it.

      Of course, this completely ignores the question of whether access to education should only be allowed to those that can afford it. Do you really think that is a good idea? Really? In the (not too distant) past, education of the next generation was viewed as a public good. Since they will one day be making decisions on everyone's behalf, it is in everybody's interest that they be well-informed. This is particularly important for a functioning democracy. The last thing we should want is an electorate which is ignorant and easily manipulable. That is also an important part of the equation when considering "responsible economic decisions". And, no, having access to the internet doesn't completely make up for universities and other institutions of higher education. While your cute little cliche is spot on when buying things with a credit card, it falls rather flat when it comes to educating the next generation. What you have apparently failed to consider is that while it is true that there are costs to educating the next generation, there are also very real costs associated with not educating them. I've already mentioned the hazards of having an ignorant, easily manipulable electorate. There are other drawbacks as well. Something to think about.

    217. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because public schools have been dumbed down to the point where a box of rocks could graduate with a 3.5 GPA. Combine that with all the SAT prep courses that will literally give you all the answers, and employers can glean almost no information about prospective employees.

      So a 4-year degree has become the new baseline test for being at least reasonably intelligent and competent.

    218. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jazkat · · Score: 0

      That said, at the end of the day, I would never consider that a history degree or a philosophy degree or an English degree would leave you in a position to be able to easily get a decent job, compared to STEM- and business-related degrees, and no one can ignore those economic realities.

      I agree, but only if those degrees are earned in a vacuum. If you get a liberal arts degree without having knowledge or experience in another area, you're going to have a bad time. If you get a liberal arts degree and minor in CS, or if you get a liberal arts degree and have experience, you may do better than someone who just went through a CS program. I know a lot of people who have Philosophy or Literature degrees who have done very well for themselves. For me, I was already in the industry when I went to school... so a Philosophy degree it was!

      If you show me two people who are equal, except one only has a major in CS and the other has a major in liberal arts and a minor in CS, I will probably hire the liberal arts major, every time.

    219. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Still make excuses...
      No really this guy is almost 60 years old. There is nothing in this article that is in anyway positive or shows that there is a problem.
      He is a well paid deadbeat that is trying to justify what he did and actually hurting any chance of reform.
      The only answer to him is this.
      He is a crummy deadbeat that feels the world owes him. He should be ignored and let's talk about the really great teacher that is struggling under a student debt load.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    220. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      There's no gamble, student loans are guaranteed by the government. That's why everyone can get them, and that's why the cost of education has exploded.

      Another way of looking at the problem: education doesn't work well as a product of capitalism. The US attempted to educate more people by assisting students with the cost, since subsidizing the cost of a product in the market fits our ideological tendencies about free markets and competition. Instead, if we had recognized that an educated society is invaluable, and we had taken a lesson from other modern countries and made college free, we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where tuition costs are skyrocketing.

    221. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Only those who don't need to work for a living think that higher education isn't related to making money. It must be nice to have that large trust fund, but the rest of us have to earn a living and pay our own bills.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    222. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      For the good Universities around here, few credits transfer from Community Colleges to the University system.

      Don't know where you live, but every one of my community college credits transferred to the state university I transferred to. I used the tuition cap (credits after 18/semester were free) to my advantage and wound up with three years of state school for the price of two in community college.

      Of course, the state school wanted their money, so I had to take a year's worth of electives -- simple stuff to fill time. I still came out with no debt.

      Few classes are online,

      More and more are going online every day. Remote learning is the hot new thing in education.

      There is a reason they have a 100% job placement post-graduation.

      The only colleges I know that brag about their job placement for graduates are ones like ITT Tech and the other diploma mills.

    223. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Ding! I got zero financial aid because I worked and paid my way through school, but FAFSA only cares about what your parents make if you're under 25.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    224. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Frankly, I don't see why they should even offer philosophy beyond an associates; its just not worth it to the point it counts as a scam really.

      Well, my PhD , like you know every PhD ever delivered is a Doctorate in Philosophy. While my chosen field is Data Science, and I know next to nothing about Philosophy, they still offer degrees beyond the Associates level for a reason.

    225. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      That's more or less the system in the UK. You get a loan that charges interest at the rate of inflation, plus some government funding if you qualify (lower income people only). The loans are guaranteed by the government and the interest and repayments are collected at the same time as taxes and assessed based on income (so you don't start paying them back until you're earning above a certain rate). The loans are issued by a not-for-profit company, effectively by the government though separate for accounting purposes. The government bets that having more people with degrees will increase tax revenues in the future. There is a fairly good market for rate-of-inflation investments (i.e. the other side of the loans), if they come with very low risk. Generally, if you have lots of money you want to have a reasonable chunk of it in something safe and have a smaller part in high-risk, high-return investments. Government-backed loans make a solid part of such a portfolio.

      Tuition fees are also capped by the government (currently at £9K/year, which is a bit excessive. When I was a student the cap was £3K, which was a lot more reasonable. Unfortunately, the last government cut government funding at the same time that they put up the maximum requirement, effectively forcing most universities to raise their fees to £9K to keep the same per-student income. The Scottish and Welsh governments both pay the fees, so they really only apply to English students, which also causes a bit of friction).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    226. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I didn't waltz in and demand a job. I worked hard.

      And you worked hard at it because...

      Here's the trick - it's one thing to idealize what you think society should be. It's quite another to know what it really is like out there. I think that kids fresh out of high school should know up-front what the reality is, so they don't get whacked with reality later on... and reality is, the world is a harsh place.

      It's a pity that the Philosophy and ${buzzword}-Studies professors all-too-often neglect to tell their students this, and indeed, sometimes actively go out of their way to bolster class sizes by spinning unreal aspirations in the far-too-impressionable minds sitting before them.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    227. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Trite but inherently untrue.

      Crocodiles will eat swimmers - this is also a fact.

      Pointing that fact out does not mean that I encourage or actively work to insure crocs eat even more of them. In fact, not saying so to ignorant and/or naive swimmers would actually be doing them a disservice.

      Same when you go to counsel a kid who is about to go into college... or do you propose that we just feed them platitudes and unrealistic expectations? After all, those two (and more) are part of what got many of them into this debt-load mess in the first place.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    228. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well, my PhD , like you know every PhD ever delivered is a Doctorate in Philosophy. While my chosen field is Data Science, and I know next to nothing about Philosophy, they still offer degrees beyond the Associates level for a reason.

      Do you even have a point? As you state, your field is not philosophy, you did not study philosophy, your degree is not a philosophy degree.....the word philosophy is in the title. Perhaps you would like to become a catholic priest too and then point our how you are a father who has never concieved?

      On second thought.....are you SURE you are not a philosopher?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    229. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then we should limit major choices

      Like whether to use the shift key?

    230. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who has studied history for my entire life, to the point where I was thinking about a post-grad degree in it, I can tell you that advanced study of history is not something you can do well on your own. To really study history, as opposed to regurgitating what someone else has told you already, you need to be able to have studied the language, customs, and other social aspects of the time and place you are studying. Frequently, that means that you read different languages, and many times you read one or more dead languages.

      Aside from having to learn those skills, there is some science that goes into unearthing artifacts, dating them, and even understanding what they do. You frequently have experts in metallurgy or ceramics or other trades who can help you make identifications and give some insight into the dynamics of what you are studying.

      There is a lot of analysis work of existing material in History, but you'll always be looking for new Primary sources, which can frequently change your views of documents that you thought were authoritative (Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, etc.). You'll also be scanning things like aerial photography and even satellite images for evidence of sites that are invisible looking at them from the ground. You'll be checking ice cores for evidence of volcanic eruptions, and then looking for evidence in literature to see if the instance was recorded and how it affected humanity. You'll look at mitochondrial DNA to trace migration patterns by looking at the matriarchal line.

      Don't get me wrong, there's very little money in History as a subject. You need grants to support your research, you'll very infrequently make any money from it. The problem is, you still need advanced skills to do the job. Graduate and post-graduate skills. It's not a self-study course unless you're content to win trivia contests, as opposed to making discoveries.

    231. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      If your household income is lower than $80k (IIRC), tuition is waived. Live at home and go to a local school rather than going to UC Berkeley when you're from San Diego, and you can have minimal living expenses (unless your parents charge you rent).

      I'm by no means claiming things are easy, or would be utopic, but if someone were to focus on how to go to school on a budget, then doing so is certainly achievable. You can absolutely argue that someone who has the academic potential to attend a top tier school but cannot do so due to financial reasons is a tragedy (and I would agree), but as someone else noted, life isn't always fair.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    232. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, one ROI of Higher Education in USA is near to zero. Better move to Europe where you can get the education cheaply, if not free and then live like the middle class life or better. There are hardly any people with Higher Education that live at the poverty line in Europe.

    233. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A biggest part of the cost of tuition increasing as it has is because the government has distorted the market with student loans

      That, and an ongoing propaganda push from just about all sectors of society, that suggests you'll be perpetually quarantined in the lowest rungs of the social order if you don't have a college degree. Propaganda works, especially on 18-year-olds.

    234. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I sympathize with your plight. The "I have rich parents, but they disowned me, so now I can't afford education" situation really does suck, and there appears to be no desire by anyone to fix it. I assume this is to prevent people who don't need aid from structuring their lives to get it anyway, but that's cold comfort to someone in your situation.

      Have you considered trying somewhere like Western Governor's University? It's not a diploma mill, and if you can self educate on top of what you're learning, you can seriously cut your costs down by accelerating your program.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    235. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      +1 vocab. you had me at hagiography.

    236. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sjames · · Score: 1

      That doesn't explain why the interest rates charged are significantly higher than what one could normally expect if they have a co-signor with a AAAA credit rating.

    237. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by DigitalPagan · · Score: 1

      Anyone can try to be a museum curator. They just aren't allowed to push the burden of risk off onto the taxpayers. Is it fair that Richy Rich gets to choose his degree care-free and Joe Six-pack has to tread the water carefully? No, but its not fair to make me responsible for Joe Six-pack's decisions either. Especially if Joe wants to take a moonshot at being a museum curator. We have the freedom to take that chance. We aren't free from the responsibility or consequences.

    238. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by sjames · · Score: 1

      You just told someone that was complaining about collegiate boards sponging off of the public that they can't blame the collegiate boards since nobody complains about them. In a comment on a story that blames (in part) collegiate boards for gouging. There seems to be a logic problem here!

    239. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is higher education only useful for helping you making money?

      Taking out a loan to pay for something that won't return at least enough value to cover the interest is a stupid idea.

      Majoring in art history is fine if you can afford it out of pocket. Taking out a loan to major in art history is the kind of stupidity highschool was supposed to teach you not to do.

      Remember, loans cost more in the long run that paying out of pocket does. If your degree isn't worth paying out of pocket it isn't worth a loan, and if you can't afford it out of pocket you will only be able to afford the loan if the degree makes you more valuable by enough to cover the loan and the inetrest.

    240. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Its probably closer to one tenure-track job out there for every hundred PhD holders, Philosophy or otherwise.

      That makes me wonder - how many philosophy PHDs can sit on the head of one tenure?

    241. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Bengie · · Score: 1

      More and more are going online every day. Remote learning is the hot new thing in education.

      80% of what you learn in college is via interaction. During freshman orientation, they make it clear that their primary role as an educator is not to teach knowledge. The key to good answers are good questions, teaching you how to ask good questions is their goal. How many online classes teach you how to ask good questions? Very little time was actually spent as lectures.

    242. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by trippin_efnet · · Score: 2

      I understand the urge to say that more people should go into blue collar jobs and not college, but the fact of the matter is: there is a shortage of blue collar jobs as well. Plumbers, construction workers, electricians, etc... have a hard time finding jobs as well as college educated people looking for white collar jobs.
      If most of the people who have college degrees had skipped college, we would be in the same situation we are now but with a bunch of uneducated unemployed people.
      Personally, I'd rather have an educated populace struggling to find jobs rather than an uneducated one.

    243. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I so don't follow you. I would hate to dig ditches for a living. I said "anyone who wants a job should be able to dig ditches if they have no other opportunities." It's a shitty job at subsistence levels. It doesn't rob any motivation to plan for the future. Most people would insist that forcing makework on people to avoid starving is cruel in itself.

      You haven't told me what you think we should do with people who cannot get a job. Let them starve? Shoot them, because they're going to riot til they get fed soon anyway?

      Seriously, what are you trying to say?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    244. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So she is a liar who is also breaking the law by not going by Amazon's TOS..
      Nice..
      Put her on the corner turning tricks when she is a few years older. It's where she belongs I guess....
      Because apparently for you being 'smart' means breaking the law and also doing something that is morally reprehensible as long as it makes $$.
      Fuck you

    245. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because public schools have been dumbed down...So a 4-year degree has become the new baseline test for being at least reasonably intelligent and competent.

      How is paying inflated tuition rates for a watered down degree a sign of "reasonable intelligence and competence"?

    246. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...your best bet is to go out, make your way in the world, and get educated outside the mainstream model. But then again, that might constitute a threat to the establishment and get you on some sort of government watch list, having the NSA and FBI watching your every move.

      I agree with your initial conclusion. However, when it comes to "making your own way", it is the IRS and the local authorities (city/state) that are likely to cause you unnecessary trouble. Unless you are committing capital crimes in your pursuit of happiness, the NSA and FBI won't bother you. They'll just continue tracking your every move.

    247. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      80% of what you learn in college is via interaction.

      "Remote learning" does not mean "no interaction".

      The key to good answers are good questions, teaching you how to ask good questions is their goal. How many online classes teach you how to ask good questions?

      "Their" is a very broad term that applies to a very large number of people. In many cases, "their" goal is to teach you the material that you need as a basis for more advanced classes.

      I'd say the teaching of how to ask good questions depends on the instructor and not the medium you access him through, so the percentages will be similar.

    248. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Digging ditches pays quite will. We have a lot of buried infrastructure, and experienced backhoe operators who won't damage to services in close proximity make halfway decent coin

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    249. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      All the STEM graduates in the world aren't worth shit if there is no art, fiction, and music to inspire them, history for them to draw on, or philosophy to drive them to contemplate things in new ways.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    250. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize the bank bailout was fully repaid by the banks with a nice profit for the government? How would that bailout work for student loan borrowers? When will they repay the government with a nice profit?

    251. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) It's not propaganda if it's true and, largely, it is true.
      2) Why did the college degree become the new HS diploma? I'll assume you're up for the challenge and leave it as an exercise for you...

    252. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Writing fake reviews is not breaking the law. Neither is not following a TOS.

    253. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a simple solution that will sort the problem out quickly but you won't like it: end all government grants and loans. The unis will get religion right quick.

    254. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by harperska · · Score: 1

      A generation ago, it was not unheard of for a student from a middle class family to be able to graduate from a relatively prestigious private liberal arts college with zero debt. And professors who made a livable wage back then certainly aren't one-percenters now, so the difference in tuition can't possibly be because the professors themselves are costing the institution more. Something else changed between then and now, and it needs to change back.

    255. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Okay, but my point was about using a shovel, and the context clearly implies it's about makework. If the phrase "for people who cannot get work" showing up in every post wasn't a clue.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    256. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What state? I'm not aware of any state where you lose resident status because your parent moves after you've already started or even graduated high school.

    257. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      I'll second the great value of community colleges. My local C.C. charges $45/unit which is a great bargain. The C.C. also has a guaranteed transfer acceptance to the 4 year university if one chooses certain degrees, takes the prerequisite courses and maintains a 3.0 to 3.2 GPA.

      I went the C.C. route and transferred to a state university. It was the best "bang for the buck" one could imagine (I graduated in E.E.) I just retired and my peak salary was about $130K.

      My son will go the same way. Who the hell needs to spend $30K/year to take general education during the first 2 years? It's just plain stupid to waste that much money on common courses. The Community Colleges also have smaller class sizes and better interaction between the teacher/student.

      Last, as others have mentioned, get a degree that will allow one to earn a living. Not a liberal arts piece of crap (unless one wants to teach school or flip burgers or work for the government).

    258. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Not true in California. Just take college level general education then transfer. The U.C. system has a guaranteed acceptance program for some disciplines (engineering) if a 3.0 to 3.2 GPA is maintained and prerequisite courses are taken.

      Single digit course numbers are typically transferable. Two digit course numbers are "remedial courses" and are not.

    259. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by khallow · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the US is still competing with people who work for a fraction of the price. My opinion would be that sane people would up their game rather than complain that Reagan didn't fix the underlying problem.

    260. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you are actually that stupid

      you believe a handful of ultrarich buying some toys is anything more than a tiny drop compared to an ocean of the spending power of a healthy middle class?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    261. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself. 1) Get a useful degree, 2) Go to a state school, 3) Quit the narcissist entitlement mentality.

      Education has the best ROI, but like any investment you still have to watch how and what you invest in.

      And which degree is that?

      I went for an MBA because it seemed to be quite generalist and I see it frequently in job postings. I went to a state college (still a good one). You know what, I still cant find that "good job." I teach computer applications at a middle school and it is the highest paying job I have ever had.

      There is no clear path. When you place blame on someone for choosing, what you feel was, the wrong path, you need to understand that for most people there are no roadsigns (or a lot of misleading ones).

    262. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      $30K a year is a $15 dollar an hour job.

      If I had a $15/hour job why would I be in University? I have an MBA, I can't find a $15/ hour job. If could I would be doing that job.

    263. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying the administrators less. Cutting the cost of books to something reasonable. The books are easily 2 or 3 times as expensive as they should be in some subjects. Thinking about the costs of campus projects and how important they are.

      One of the local colleges is making students pay $100 a quarter for an optional building that won't be finished for years.

    264. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you went to a state school to begin with (the state pays typically HALF); and your parents weren't jackasses and actually contribute the expected funds (see Expected Family Contribution), you should be able to work part-time (or not at all) and have ZERO student loans at the end.

      Being a "jackass" has nothing to do with it, the money simply isn't there. Try applying for an independent status as a student when your EFC states your parents should be able to afford, but they cannot. Come back and describe your experiences. Once done, tell us how somebody can graduate from a public state university with little to ZERO student loans under such circumstances.

      Long way of saying - excuse me, but you have no fucking idea what you are talking about here. Try living as a poor student with no funding from your parents for awhile. Start counting every single dollar you spend over a semester and then come back and talk to us. Love and support is what parents should provide students - and money if its available. I considerate myself fortunate I got one of the two, some people have neither.

    265. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      and taxpayers refuse to pay for some other kid's schooling.

      In addition to all the other things they're being expected to pay for. Taxation is a larger topic than just "what shall we spend on education?" And "education" has expanded into other things, like free breakfast and lunch programs, free iPads, etc. At higher education facilities, it often expands to "cultural centers" (so that students don' t have to join the great melting pot), or "success centers" that provide remedial education that the students didn't get in high school but were accepted into college anyway.

      When property taxes expand to the point that it threatens the homes of taxpayers, the taxpayers often react by passing tax limits.

      Education is no longer considered a public benefit,

      Education is considered to be just one public benefit which has to be funded by a limited pot of money along with all the others.

    266. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      On my part, I did a combination of the GI Bill, self-study (that is, CLEPing like crazy) while in uniform,

      Thats fine if you can; but the readiness report, done in 2009 (the situation is worse now) showed that over 75% of age eligible young adults are not eligible for service http://cdn.missionreadiness.or...

      The report makes it clear that this is not due to any single factor, the reality is that the service is extremely selective. I was not able to serve (got booted during a secondary exam after I showed up in basic). Of my two daughters only one was able to serve (the second made it thorough her ROTC exams but got booted in the final medical exam before becoming eligible for a commission). The reality is that the path you took is closed to most people.

      No, to answer the obvious, weight was not a problem in any of the cases I mention.

    267. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      I'm an IT consultant (AKA Computer Guy) with quite a few "trade" companies as my customers. Auto repair shops, body shops, plumbers, electricians, painters, plumbers, roofers etc. In my area (Marin County CA) they are all hurting for qualified workers. Jobs here for taking for anyone who knows their trade. They will have to commute an hour to work if they want semi-affordable housing, but the jobs are available.

    268. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      At this point in time, it is becoming more and more possible to get the equivalent of a university degree without going through the university system, and this is a great thing. I agree with you about the idea of "getting an education" vs. getting vocational training.

      Yeah, but it doesn't help. The paper matters. When I had 10+ years in IT, I moved across the country, and when applying for new jobs, I wasn't so precious that I needed to have something that was a step up from what I did before. So I applies for an entry-level "help desk" position in a call center to take calls from people having trouble navigating a bank web site. The requirement was "CS degree and 5 years experience". Since it never hurts to try, I applied when I had no CS degree (I have a degree in psychology, minor in CS). They must have had no qualified applicants apply, because I got a call from HR explaining that my application can't be forwarded to the hiring manager because my degree wasn't in CS, and that they would consider "equivalent experience" and asked if my experience (10+ years) was equivalent to CS+5 years. I said "no" and hung up. Any corporation that insane about process and such wouldn't be a good place to work, plus, by the time they called me, I had some prospects that I'd rather focus on.

      For many places, the paper matters more than the knowledge. It may not be right. But it's reality.

    269. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by trippin_efnet · · Score: 0

      And I know lots of unemployed skilled laborers... Anecdotes don't change anything.

      A lot of workers -- both white collar and blue collar -- in the US are struggling to find employment.

      This whole idea of not going to college because it doesn't guarantee a job thing is ridiculous. You aren't guaranteed a job without a degree either. At least with a degree you have a chance at upward mobility. And an educated society is certainly better than an uneducated society. As a society, we're far better off with an educated population than we are with an uneducated population.

      Now, if we want to discuss expectations from a degree, that is a different story, but I was mainly referring to this delusion that, as a society, we're losing skilled laborers, thats just nonsense. There are plenty of uneducated people in the US, and they also go through the same issues of not being able to find a job.

      You brought up having to commute a long distance to get to work, for the low pay of a laborer, relocating and commuting are often just not really options.

    270. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you really saying that govt money is what makes health care costs go up? Some stupid laws were put in place in the us (no bargaining for rxs for Medicare) but I'd look up inelastic demand and think a minute.

    271. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should edu loans be any different? Full stop. I don't think we should have systems that enable indentured servitude in perpetuity

    272. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guide my kids all the time and the college advice I've given them is the kind you don't like- you get that degree regardless of the cost. Otherwise, you'll be workin at mickey d's your whole life. Prove me wrong. The tough love IS the fact you'll be paying that loan off forever and yet it's still totally worth it. So you sacrifice it early in life to sit on your ass in mid-life. If you want any inkling of something paying more than 10 bucks an hour, they you simply MUST have a degree. The few of you who will give me anecdotes about all the great luck you've had never being in college are simply outliers. It doesn't represent the population as a whole.

    273. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      I attended UC Irvine in the early 1970's. Tuition was $618/year. Inflation adjust about 9:1, and tuition was about $5600/yr in 2015 money.
      My son graduated from Cal Poly SLO last year. Tuition was about $8500/yr. So his schooling was definitely more expensive than mine, but not absurdly so.

    274. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      greed

    275. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by qe2e! · · Score: 1

      The year I quit college and never looked back was when I asked my math professor to derive the quadratic equation from the "completing the squares" method. He said no. I'm a failure, so far, but I devote my free time to studying philosophy... so it figures. =)

    276. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education is not for employment: if I had zero chances of getting a job, I'd still want to get education.

      My father once was told that even if he succeeded, he'd be an old man when he graduated. He thought: "Well, I'll be an old man, that I can't avoid. But I can avoid being old and dumb". He graduated at 40, we lived a nice life because of that and all his kids graduated -- surely motivated by his example. He's now 80+.

      If there are public roads for everyone, why not open avenues of thought? Must everyone pay for her/his own road?

    277. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree that history, philosophy, English Literature, Art and all that are important - but the purpose of a UNIVERSITY-level education is to make you a productive member of society. Everything else should contribute to that goal. Anybody can read books; libraries are free, and has thousands of them. Many museums are free, especially while you're in college. Programs like Khan Academy and its many imitators can provide distance learning for virtually any topic on the internet, for the cost of your internet connection.

      Most people who ended up with Philosophy of Art History degrees and $250K in debt spent their nights drinking and partying rather than actually STUDYING the philosophy of the history of artists. They took brain-dead simple courses that they could sleep through, because SOMEBODY told them that a degree was a ticket to the corporate high life - and it wasn't true.

      I agree with the Instapundit Glenn Reynolds that college loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy - but that the degree-granting institution should be on the hook for 50% of the loan amounts. That would give them some incentive to cut their OWN costs, and to properly determine if a student would have any chance of paying back a proposed loan. As it is, the Federal government is a giant loan shark, granting easy credit to people who never had a prayer of earning enough to pay it back.

    278. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the internet, educating yourself is very cheap. You can learn as much art history as you want in your free time.

      When getting a degree, and spending money, you should look for the best ROI.

      Pay attention to the difference between "education" and "degree".

    279. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible. Everybody knows the government can never do anything as well as, or better than, the private sector. That includes lending!

    280. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by knightghost · · Score: 1

      You won't find a good job. You'll have to get in somewhere and work your way to a good job. Don't "put your time in", but work hard and work smart. Keep learning, keep taking on new responsibilities, stay sharp and dependable. We get "promoted" to what we've already taken on and are doing, not something that someone up above thinks we have potential to do.

    281. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by kenh · · Score: 1

      There are entire colleges and universities that are entirely online, what are you talking about?

      Try looking at Thomas Edison State College in NJ - they, along with many other schools 'assemble' Bachelor and Master degrees from various sources, including professional training, life experience and ANY accredited school (community college, state school, private universities, etc.)...

      --
      Ken
    282. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by kenh · · Score: 1

      Do those unemployed trades people also have hundreds of thousands in student debt that can't be erased by bankruptcy?

      --
      Ken
    283. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've graduated with a BS in SE and Masters in CS with a loan total of around 70K after 9 years of on-again off-again schooling and jobs. I graduated with almost 3 years of related experience. My starting salary is 80K. I'll have my loans paid off in two years. Worth it? You can only decided that with time. But I wasn't stressed out every day at college and had the time to learn a lot of side skills and hobbies.

    284. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Right, because all those disney programmers that just had to train their indian replacements to get their severance studied the right thing?

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    285. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If college degree in philosophy is so worthless, then government should stop issuing student loans to the students majoring in that subject.

    286. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      The capstone project has always been a multi-person team effort where 60% of your grade came from your team mates.

      Not only did I do this online, but I was elected project manager for 4 out of the 7 projects in that class because I quickly became notorious for positioning the teams to not only get the projects done weeks ahead of the deadline, but over 90% on them as well.

      My preferred mode of operation quickly became that anybody who joined the team had to agree to have the first meeting the day after the team finished being formed (other people waited til the week before.) First meeting was to have everybody agree on delegation for their research portion and/or work portion (i.e. editing.) Second meeting was to tie to together in a powerpoint, video, audio clip, or whatever (the assignment had variations in its requirements.) We did this in real time by sitting in Google Hangouts on webcams and all had the same document open in Google Sheets, Google Presentation, or whatever. After that the editors, narrators, etc, did their thing, then third meeting was to make final adjustments and get group consensus of "is this what we want to turn in?" followed by turn-in. 3 week assignments took about a week to complete, and nobody indicated that they felt rushed.

      So yeah, good managerial experience in an online course. Plenty of interaction too.

    287. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's really saying blue collar. What he's saying is learn a well defined skill that has great growth prospects. My skill is building enterprise grade networks (associates) and managing teams of those who do (bachelors.)

    288. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      And I know lots of unemployed skilled laborers... Anecdotes don't change anything.

      Actually most of the jobs he mentions pay about $20 an hour if you aren't an idiot.

      A few key questions though: What's their skill in? And are they actually good at it?

      For example, MASSIVE difference between a good mechanic and a shitty one. Somebody who is ASE Master Technician certified will probably make $35 an hour, and most mechanics get paid a flat per-job rate that is determined industry wide (i.e. changing four tires on a 2003 Honda Civic is .5 hours worth of work, Changing the A/C on a 2005 Toyota Camry is 5 hours, etc.) They get paid that industry standard hourly estimation whether they do it in 3 hours or 6 hours. Naturally, the mechanic who does the AC job in 3 will likely get more work assigned, and will thus earn more in a typical day.

      When my dad was at the height of his career as a mechanic for Toyota (about 2005,) he made about $110,000 a year in Arizona. Not joking.

      And he went to guess where to learn to be a mechanic? Community college, in 1976.

    289. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Students are supposed to pay back their loans. Sure, some of them will default, but the assumption is that most of those loans will be paid back.

      Defense contractors and healthcare companies usually keep their money.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    290. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In practice, there's greater social mobility in India, with a formal caste system (though on the decline), than in the USA.

    291. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by trippin_efnet · · Score: 1

      If we insist on going anecdotal: off the top of my head I know 2 plumbers, 1 is a master plumber, the other is a journeyman; 2 electricians, 1 master, 1 journeyman; and a certified mechanic. All are unemployed, drug-free, no criminal record, impeccable work ethics, and struggling to find work.

      I'm not saying everyone should go to college and no one should learn a skill, quite the opposite. There are certainly people who should not go to college, some people just don't have the desire, the drive, or sometimes the ability. Many of my cousins and uncles are tradesmen of various flavors and they're very happy. I know quite well that people can earn an ok living doing blue collar/trade work.

      My point is, skipping college and jumping straight into the workforce does not guarantee you a job either. People struggle for jobs at every education level. Drop-outs, G.E.D, High School, Tradesmen, Associates, Bachelors, Masters, etc... there are folks who can't find jobs, whether its unfortunate locations, bad timing, over saturated markets, weather related, laziness, or just plain unlucky.

      We should encourage people to go in any one of those directions, including college.

      We also need to make it clear that none of those directions guarantees the standard of living that you may expect. There are many factors that play into whether or not your expectations are met.

      One thing is certainly clear, people seem reluctant or scared to jump across their caste like barriers. College educated are scared to become tradesmen and tradesmen are scared to go to college. Back to anecdotes, but, a friend of mine from high school started out as a certified mechanic, worked for a few years, went to the university, a bachelors degree later he runs a really successful chain of repair shops. Conversely, a college friend of mine graduated with an accounting degree, hated accounting, went back to her passion of woodworking, worked building cabinets for a few years and started her own custom cabinet company, mansions from around the country now have her cabinets installed.

      One thing is undeniably clear though, your options with a college degree are far greater than without. No one can reasonably deny that. It doesn't mean that you'll be a millionaire, but your horizontal and vertical mobility opens up tremendously.

      Just to hammer this point home:
      I think we need to manage expectations of what our education paths will and will not offer us. They will not guarantee us a job. They will not guarantee us the creepy suburban life, gas guzzling SUV, the Stepford wife, and preppy soccer kids. They will not guarantee us a job which trivially requires an uncomfortable suit. However they will offer us different options, and depending on which route or routes we take, we may have more options available to us if we're willing to work for them.

    292. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tlambert · · Score: 1

      At this point in time, it is becoming more and more possible to get the equivalent of a university degree without going through the university system, and this is a great thing.

      Unless it's accredited, it's not the equivalent. Getting a bunch of certs? Thanks; I'll pass on hiring you, unless you have 20 years experience in the field without the degree. Most companies will pass on hiring you at that point, since then it's clear you are not a "digital native" (code for "we age discriminate, but see, it's legally defensible!").

      Technically, you could *always* get the equivalent of a university degree by being an autodidact, unless it was something that required a lot of expensive empirical work, or access to controlled materials (i.e. try becoming an organic chemist that way). But you are out of your mind, if you think anyone is going to treat that work, equivalent though it may be, as an equivalent in a hiring process. A university vouching for you is a hell of a bit different than you vouching for you; if they lie, they lose big financially; if you lie, only your employer loses big financially.

      So no: you may want it to be possible, but it's definitely *NOT* possible.

    293. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tlambert · · Score: 1

      The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.

      The price of a college education is either (A) studying hard and foregoing a lot of jacking around in high school, or (B) or being a great athlete.

      Only people who can not get scholarships get student loans.

    294. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by trippin_efnet · · Score: 1

      The average college graduate has around $30,000 of debt, hardly hundreds of thousands.

      The average trade school graduate has $10,000 of debt.

      Given that college grads have significantly higher salaries, and significantly more horizontal and vertical movement potential, I'd hardly say that a college degree is not worth it.

      Now, I would like to point out that we need to manage our expectations of lifestyle from a college degree. As I've said in other posts, a college degree does not guarantee the creepy suburban life, the mcmansion, the gas guzzling SUV, the stepford wife, and the soccer kids.

      We need to lower our expectations of what middle class is. The US is no longer living in the illusion bubble of the 90s and 00s. Maybe we need to realize that college has never ever guaranteed a lifestyle of 3 cars, a garage for every car, a cell-phone for our 8 year old, and whatever stupid clothing accessory is $1000 that season.

      If we can come to the realization that since most college graduates are not part of the .01%, we still have to *gasp* toil away and work hard to earn someone else money, then maybe people will stop bitching and moaning about how their philosophy degree got them a job in a coffee shop.

    295. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      A university vouching for you is a hell of a bit different than you vouching for you; if they lie, they lose big financially; if you lie, only your employer loses big financially.

      The solution to this is to have universities certifying your autodidactism. Allow autodidacts to come and take tests, charging reasonably for them. If they pass all the tests, they proved they know what's required from full time students to know, and get the equivalent degree.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    296. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      In civilized countries, education due to having huge positive externalities, is government subsidized. Spending a billion dollars to subsidize education gets a trillion dollar returns - but 20,000 dollars spent to subsidize every single student doesn't necessarily make him earn 20 million.

      Government is the one entity that can and should take the burden of all financial expenditures of this nature. But that is too "communist" for Americans so they enjoy the loans.

      Government, if anything, guarantee the loans. In other words, only the losses are socialized, profits are all privatized into universities and banks.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    297. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      right wing plant

      I don't understand the American view about left and right, so, my honest question for you is - do you call him a right winger ? He doesn't seem like that to me, or as general definition of "right".

      Toward the end of the rant, he even mentions that probably government getting into the business of educating (at least guaranteeing it) might be a good thing. The idea he expresses against guaranteeing loans by governments is also not much of a right wing attitude - since guaranteeing loans is socializing the loss and privatizing the profit. Right wing nuts typically love such loan guarantees.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    298. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opinion would be that sane people would up their game rather than complain that Reagan didn't fix the underlying problem.

      Nah, sane people don't rule out complaining as an option.

      Sane people complain instead of upping their game all the time too. The whole H1B thing is an example of the sane (and successful) people at tech companies complaining for government help instead of upping their game and work with what they already have.

    299. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Thanks. FYI, I had a 2 semester foreign language requirement with my stem degree.

      I did too - which I completed with 4 semesters of Ancient Greek for a minor (nearly a second major, 1 class short) that I enjoyed more than I did my CS major, in part because it was harder, even though I didn't do as well grade-wise.

      Some of the schools I looked at considered the Computer Languages sufficient to satisfy the foreign language requirement for their CS students.

      The drop of foreign language is especially pronounced in Engineering programs. But it all depends on the school and how much they're trying to cram in in the 4 year degree.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    300. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Me too, for my CS degree. I met them in an honors-level course studying Ancient Greek. By the end of the course, we were translating passages from the Bible (which was the goal). By doing this, I was able to see with my own eyes just how ambiguous, slanted, and (in some very doctrinally-significant passages) flat-out wrong the English translations of the Bible are.

      I have done the same; however, in translation of New Testament (since you really need Hebrew for the Old Testament) the only complaint I have is when translators push some doctrine into the translation, as is often the case when see the word "predestined". However, even then it's few and far between that that is done.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    301. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of need-based scholarships available for those who can't afford college, and more would be available if government-backed college loans ceased to be a thing.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    302. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      so why do we have to deal with so many conservative morons bloviating on the ways america is so great when it simply isn't? they believe in lies that underly an ideology which keeps us dumb and poor. we CAN have it better in this country. it begins by adopting socialist systems like universal healthcare and supplemented higher education that fucking works, and it's cheaper, and it's fair. but by simply saying that word, socialism, which is not communism. but i have now turned off every american moron, kneejerk prejudice intact, who imagine gulags in their stupidity about that that means, instead of tiny hospital bills, what it really means

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    303. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      There is nothing wrong with majoring in philosophy as a bachelor's degree. University is not supposed to be a job training exercise.

      Or do you also think that no one should do a bachelor's degree in a science, on the basis that they could do business studies and earn more working in a fucking bank?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    304. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good. But, while you're getting an education, you need to learn the facts of life. Facts dictate that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an art education is probably not going to pay off in the short or the long term. If you can't understand that, then you cannot claim to be educated at all.

      Just because you do a degree in art history doesn't mean that you are then limited to jobs directly or even indirectly related to art history.

      You are making a fundamental error and showing total ignorance of how the real world operates.

      A lot of kids with rich parents do degrees in subjects like art history (because they enjoy them) and then get jobs in their daddies' firms. What I object to is that kids with poor parents aren't going to be given the same choice, especially with people like you mocking educational subjects they know nothing about.

      I do agree that you shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a degree in art history, but only because you shouldn't have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on any degree.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    305. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I would never consider that a history degree or a philosophy degree or an English degree would leave you in a position to be able to easily get a decent job, compared to STEM- and business-related degrees, and no one can ignore those economic realities.

      Anyone who can get a reasonable history degree or philosophy degree or English degree can eaisly train up to be an accountant, computer programmer, banker, analyst or lawyer.

      Granted, they probably won't be able to make a move easily to doing a PhD in theoretical particle physics, but then again nor could most people who did degrees in business studies, biology or network engineering.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    306. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Cap interest at inflation

      And what bank is going to step in and service such a loan? Inflation + 0.1% might be lucrative, but inflation + 0% means a lot of work for no pay to any of the staff involved.

      The banks can do it as a public service, and if they won't then nationalise the fuckers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    307. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as greedy people keep voting for Congress to give more money to the Education Industrial Complex, the Education Industrial Complex will keep taking those tax dollars. The way to reduce college costs is to take the government money out and make them compete for real money.

      And yes, degrees in art are for the leisure classes, because you sure as fuck aren't going to improve your hireability as a car mechanic with it. Grow up.

    308. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to question anyone who gets a BA in Philosophy and can't find a job thinks that getting a PhD or Masters will some how improve their odds of getting a job. So while I might be in favor forgiving loans on Bachelor's degrees, I don't agree that loans for post-grad should be forgiven or allowed to be defaulted. You're a kid when you enter college, but an adult when you enter grad school and should accept that responsibility.

      Your living in the For Profit University Era. You are living in the wrong country if what you want to accumulate is student debt. And most of all, you deserve it if you are willing to pay for it.
      Time to wake up. The rest of the world has low low cost to attend university. Where I live, its about $200 to $300 per course semester, which amounts to about $3k per calendar year (5 courses x 3 years). The first year of university is done in what we call CGEPs, where the student discovers if he wants a trade profession, or a bachelor degree. The student gets to sample both sides, according to the student's choice. Tuition here is around $1500/yr for 2 years. At that time he can enter university for the second through fourth years and get a bSc in Science, arts, etc. If his marks are high enough, he can continue to an MBA. or a Masters degree.

      Is $10k-12k debt a big amount to finance, if you or your family can't do it for you? And you may be entitled to medicare while here.

      Go to some countries, learn a new language, and pay zero for university, pay only for housing and food and discretionary expenses. You are not a landed immigrant or a resident, so you may not be allowed to work, but your debt may amount to around $20k.

      Your state governments don't believe in quality free education, or do they?

      Leslie from Montreal Canada

    309. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

      Your analog about the housing market is interesting. You probably had to pay and inflated price because the banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions were shoving dodgy and sometimes illegal loans off on people who could not afford a house, but with the loans which were probably ARMs, they bought them anyway. This caused a big increase in housing prices and when all these folks went belly-up, the market collapsed. You probably were probably caught in this mess and now have a house that's underwater. Unfortunately, even though many of these loans would be considered crimes, no one goes to jail with this justice department. They have a revolving door with the banks so its not in the best interest for the prosecutors to go after these folks. They go after the smaller less wealthy people and whistle blowers who they can wear down financially.

    310. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      There is beauty in the liberal arts and it's a shame we don't invest more money into that field.

      There's a good reason. For the most part, art would be crap not an investment.

      Most tech is crap too. What's your point?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    311. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by skeptical_monster · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of groups that had vested interest in killing socio-economic mobility, but colleges weren't really one of them. While the colleges and universities in our country have plenty of faults to them, it is not their fault if students decide to major in philosophy and leave without good job prospects. What did this guy expect to find for employment?

      Balderdash.

      First, universities exist to further our knowledge in esoteric fields regardless of their utility. If we need anything more, it is high level study in philosophy. Just because you can't immediately get a lucrative job in it, shouldn't keep our best and brightest from studying it and furthering our understanding of it. J. Mortimier Adler was sounding this message out in the 1950's when he started selling the Great Books of the Western World. We need far more non-utilitarian study. By your account, we should never do any pure science - and we are headed there.
      Second, universities do a CRAP job of vocational training. It is not worth the incredible load of debt for the sake of a job. I have had much better success hiring 17 year olds who have spent their whole childhood programming with Google than anyone I've ever tried to work with who has a computer science degree. Interest + freely available knowledge trumps college every time.
      It has become the default expectation that every. single. kid. out of high school should go to college, the debt load they will incur be damned. There are upper limits to that notion and we are reaching them. The internet is going to destroy the university system as we know it anyway - things like Khan Academy and the huge array of other self-teaching tools that are constantly springing up will have the power to make us vocational experts for nothing more than the cost of a tablet and an internet connection. The extremely high cost of college, combined with its vocational uselessness, combined with the proliferation of quality free teaching and knowledge online, are converging together to spell the doom of the American university. You can squawk all you want about the unreliability of wikipedia vs. a university class in something, but free plus good-enough vs. crazy-expensive is going to reward the former. It is inevitable.

    312. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Sport sponsors who do not have to pay their athletes, nor even provide compensatory insurance in case they are permanently injured while training for or playing those sports.

    313. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ProgrammerInMA · · Score: 1

      specifically in terms of real competition.

      There is plenty of competition. If you're hung up on wanting to tell people you went to such and such school, then suck it up and pay the tab.

    314. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by siliconsmiley · · Score: 1

      But going to college for 10 years only to learn how to rant on the Internet is not.

    315. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      True, but you can't drive demand by increasing supply. The best you can hope for is that the supply becomes much cheaper. All those poor dopes wandering around with Women's Studies degrees, Art History degrees, etc., aren't going to be any happier if there are more of them to compete over for the jobs that don't exist.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    316. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Do 4 year degrees in history require making discoveries? I think we're talking about very different parts of the population of history students. I responded directly to the statement "Unless of course, you think that only the wealthy should be able to learn anything about art history...", which is a long, long way from saying there are plenty of less costly ways to learn about art history. It's the "anything" that's key there. "Anything" is a world away from "original research".

    317. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by number6x · · Score: 1

      The subsidies existed before the pipeline. I went to school in the 80's and am a contemporary of the author. I was in New Mexico, but the Alaskan windfall profits tax was in place and was paying tuition for some of the petroleum engineers studying along side me. If a comparable degree was not offered in Alaska, Alaskan residents would still get support for going to school out of state back then.

      After the 1980's, oil prices fell in the 90's as well ($25 -$35 per barrel), and the money was tight. Oil was pretty much below $35 per barrel until 2004.

      $75 to $100 per barrel is the exception, not the rule.

    318. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Really, it boils down to student loans surviving through bankruptcy. That's the only problem because it completely voids all risk of student loans for the lenders. I understand their intentions when it was enacted, but its simply not working the way that they likely hoped it would, unintended consequence being a loan bubble/tuition hyper-inflation.

      If you want to fix that law without completely abolishing it, the best way would be to cap the bankruptcy-immune debt. Tie the immune debt to say 60% of non-private university tuition. This means students can't bankruptcy-void reasonable obligations while forcing 'prestiguous' universities to eat huge losses if their graduates don't find reasonable levels of success after graduation.

    319. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Maybe because you want a $150 dollar an hour equivalent salary?

      If you can't find a $15 a hour job as an "MBA" I don't know what to say... maybe you should move? maybe should have gone to a trade school?

      Even my dropout, severely depressed and on antidepressants, fucked-my-life-good 40 something year old sister in law can get a job that pays more than $15.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    320. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Some one needs to study philosophy or our civilisation will literally lose its mind. OK, most of us go through our days taking granted the values we hold and little understanding of the ideas (and their origin) that govern our world. Most of us are on ideological and philosophical autopilot. Or civilisation would be much better off if we charged $25,000 a year to watch TV and university study was free.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    321. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Please read what I was responding too.

      10 million times perhaps $5k/year would be $50 billion. I figure that's cheap enough. However, I'd go even further and put income restricts so only lower income individuals would qualify. (Under 250% of the poverty level.) And only those who maintain a 2.0 GPA.

      My question was whose income should be counted? The childs (which is likely near 0 even for children of billionaires) or the parents? And if it should be the parents, what about parents that refuse to finance their child's education? Should the child be punished by being denied aid for having parents that are both rich and uncaring?

    322. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Everyone has their own reality. Every study I've seen on it show that when facts and beliefs collide, beliefs win.

      Perhaps you should stop assuming a rationality.

    323. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      But the problem is the actual reality, the strength of our economy, suffers because of what these morons believe.

      I don't want to convince them of anything in some rational discussion, I know that's impossible. But, for the sake of my own economic health, at least, I want to figure out a way to get enough of them to either shut the fuck up or realize how fucking stupid they are, just enough so we can get a sound non-corrupt non-plutocracy in this country.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    324. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by khallow · · Score: 1

      Most tech is crap too.

      At least we can figure out how to invest in tech. If it's not making a profit or similar return on investment, it's not a good investment. Art has no means of determining merit or whether one approach is better than another. Money got spent and you get funny colored umbrellas or whatever. If it's your place and you happen to like funny colored umbrellas, then we're good. If you're purchasing art as a proxy for someone else, then that quickly becomes an abusable position.

      I think that has led to the current sad state of art where expensive art has an unusual lack of noteworthiness to it.

    325. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Most tech is crap too.

      At least we can figure out how to invest in tech. If it's not making a profit or similar return on investment, it's not a good investment. Art has no means of determining merit or whether one approach is better than another. Money got spent and you get funny colored umbrellas or whatever. If it's your place and you happen to like funny colored umbrellas, then we're good. If you're purchasing art as a proxy for someone else, then that quickly becomes an abusable position.

      I think that has led to the current sad state of art where expensive art has an unusual lack of noteworthiness to it.

      I can't afford expensive art, but I can afford some of the art I like. I buy that. I don't expect it to make money. I expect it to look good.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    326. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      My 15 year old daughter makes $20/hour writing fake Amazon reviews on Fiver

      I... I don't even know what to say to this.

    327. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Where the hell are their parents and why aren't they kicking their kids in the ass?!?!

      Actually.. the parents probably have to co-sign for those loans

      I think you might have indirectly answered your own question. There's a combination of two things. First, the parents don't want to have to be the ones to kill their child's dream. Second, wishful thinking that it will all "work out." They might think that their talented youngster will get scholarships or grants to help pay (though hundreds of thousands of dollars?)

    328. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That's because a CD does something useful for the bank -- it's not just cash sitting in a money vault. It's money usable by the bank until the CD maturity date. Money given to the student is not earning the bank anything during that time. It's just gone.

    329. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't fathom how people come I'll tell you why. This is a history lesson. Because Until the end of the 70s, the state federal government paid 80%. When I graduated in 1979, 84 year degree with books cost me $2000. Extrapolate that to about $8000 in today's money.

      The reason that started happening was when Reagan and Bush got in to office, they knew the college students weren't going to vote for them, so they started working on dismantling educable subsidies. And instead they gave tax breaks to the ultra wealthy.

      And now the reason they didn't one is smarter populace, and the post boomer generation was much more educated than the millennial's, one only has to look at the 1960s and 70s. An intelligent population of students that were capable of finding good Jobs compared to today's jobs brought about demands for equality. Civil rights for blacks, civil rights for gays the feminist movement and so on. That threatens the status quo. So if you place financial hardships on a population, graduates are too busy worrying about food shelter and getting by versus standing up to the establishment. And that's why student debt is at 1 trillion dollars. In the 1970s, student loans were unheard of.

      That's the part they didn't teach you in IT class.

    330. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Well done?

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    331. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art History and Philosophy are hobby degrees and should not be eligible for student loans. It is obvious they will never ever be able to pay them back. So If you take out a student loan with no intention or ability to pay it back you are stealing money. I attended university for 17 years and took out several student loans and never found the debt particularly crushing as long as I was employed.

      There is an entire series of degrees that should be consider hobby degrees and only offered to part time students. Something for you to do in the evenings after you finish your workday. Ones that you pay for yourself without any subsistence. I got my first Masters degree by going to Night school and no loan was needed.

      And when you consider that 40% of people with degrees are in jobs that do not require a degree, there are too many people getting useless degrees that they can't afford. It is no different from buying a house that is too expensive. You may want it but in the end it will come back and bite you. By defaulting on a loan you will limit your possibilities in the future.

    332. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by NewYork · · Score: 1
    333. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any degree worth getting can easily repay itself. 1) Get a useful degree, 2) Go to a state school, 3) Quit the narcissist entitlement mentality.

      Education has the best ROI, but like any investment you still have to watch how and what you invest in.

      What about science degrees? There are a lot of useful degrees, worth getting, but the jobs available at the end of one's education are only enough to pay back the loans easily within 15 or 30 years. That's a long time to be making debt payments. You could invest those funds in a retirement account and do well, but instead you're stuck paying interest over a long course of time.

      The real criticism against massive tuition and loan debt is that you have people wasting their money paying back interest on loans instead of investing them in their retirement accounts and this is the case currently for students in research sciences, the arts, law, medicine, etc.

      Even the successful students have their success stunted by having larger, rather than smaller, loan interest payments.

    334. Re: Social mobility was killed, but not this way by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      The average college graduate has around $30,000 of debt, hardly hundreds of thousands. The average trade school graduate has $10,000 of debt. Given that college grads have significantly higher salaries, and significantly more horizontal and vertical movement potential, I'd hardly say that a college degree is not worth it. ...

      You must be talking about the US. In Europe I'd be surprised if the average university debt is even 1/4th of that. The last time I checked Oxford medical school had almost exactly the same tuition as MBTI (before their financial scandals saw daylight.) Asian, South American and African Universities cost even less and techies (unlike some tradesmen) are competing in this global market. Yes, your college degree is worth something but first consider that in India there are tens of millions of middle-class people with PhDs in whatever you think you're an expert at. In Spain, Brazil, China there are hundreds of millions of highly-educated and unemployed university graduates.

      If I were a chancellor or comptroller of a state or alumni-subsidized university I'd be worried that people will find out that many US universities don't even give a fiscal ROI, much less a societal one. They are morphing into either trade schools or glorified country clubs.

      Those with money focus on the fraternity aspect, rub elbows with wealth and push themselves into a cushy job with friends. They can major in some of the useless esoteric degrees (believe me, philosophy and psychology are quite practical compared to some college curriculum.) The others are channeled down the "trade- school" quick fiscal ROI path. They get a degree in Management Information Systems, Accounting, MBA or Computer Science and hope what they learned is relevant for at least as long as it takes to payoff their student loan.

      Yes your college degree is worth something, so is a house, so are dot com stocks, beanie babies and tulips. But it isn't worth as much as most people believe it's worth.

    335. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not particularly. It's a fucking horrible way to teach your kids.

      Is honestly supposed to be considered an outdated virtue in this age? Do we worship the anything for a buck attitude? That it's just fine to swindle people and screw them if it means you get ahead? What about living the way you'd wish others would live?

      Absolutely disgusting. People like that ruin everything.

    336. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      You have your rose colored glasses on if you think reviews and the like were more honest in the past.

      You are just getting lied to in more forms than in the past.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    337. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      No, I don't dislike that device. I just think it's incomplete. It matters what you get the degree in. Some things just don't make any sense to go into debt for because they don't translate into marketable labor. The example given was philosophy. Why would I or anyone else hire someone with a degree in philosophy? They might be good for deep conversations but how does it translate into money?

      Unless they take it to a PHD level so they can become professors training the next batch of non-marketable graduates. But.. don't even rely on that. There aren't that many philosophy professor positions available. You have to get the PHD, outshine a ton of other applicants, have connections AND still be really lucky to get that job. Otherwise you are STILL flipping burgers AND paying off a student loan.

      That was just an example of course. I'm sure there are plenty of degrees like that. Then there are teaching degrees like 'History' for example. Every school needs a history teacher. So.. with the degree you can at least do that. But.. There is still a lot of competition. You will be an occasional substitute teacher for years before you get a full-time position. And you might (or might not) make ok money once you do but you will definitely not get rich. So.. if it's your passion it might make sense. But.. don't go to the biggest named, most expensive school you can find. You will NEVER pay off that debt. just go to a reasonably average state university.

    338. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by mattventura · · Score: 1

      As for the author, I do question why he got a bank loan rather than a federal loan.

      Because you can actually default on a bank loan. You can't default on a federal student loan. Well, you technically can, but it does nothing. They're allowed to garnish wages and other nasty stuff, so there's basically no getting away from it, barring extreme circumstances or leaving the country. The difference between federal student loans and a mafia loan shark is that one of them is legal.

    339. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by khallow · · Score: 1

      I can't afford expensive art, but I can afford some of the art I like. I buy that. I don't expect it to make money. I expect it to look good.

      I think there's a reasonable expectation that expensive art should be a lot better at the things you use art for than cheap art.

    340. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I can't afford expensive art, but I can afford some of the art I like. I buy that. I don't expect it to make money. I expect it to look good.

      I think there's a reasonable expectation that expensive art should be a lot better at the things you use art for than cheap art.

      Expectation and reality don't seem to line up a whole lot in my experience.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    341. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "Other people are doing it" is a terrible life lesson to teach the kids too. My whole point here is.. whatever happened to wanting to be a good person? Is backstabbing, lying, etc all just fine if you can gain some advantage from it?

    342. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think there's a reasonable expectation that expensive art should be a lot better at the things you use art for than cheap art.

      Expectation and reality don't seem to line up a whole lot in my experience.

      So again, why should we invest in the field of art? Because we don't get enough lectures of why expectation != reality?

    343. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the poster of http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7520893&cid=49867949

      It would go by independent/dependent status when filling out the FAFSA. Simple as that. Nothing really changes there.

      I think it's like age 24 or so when one becomes independent for the FAFSA.

      If rich parents don't want to finance their child's education, tough luck for the child. The child is out of luck until turning 24. But as I said, if someone is under 250% of the poverty level, they'd qualify. The only issue is if it's by the individual or factoring in parents and their dependents. That would be determined based on independent/dependent status.

    344. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "They will have to commute an hour to work if they want semi-affordable housing"

      And they can probably find an equally-well paid job closer to home, so why should they bother?

      If outfits can't find staff then the solution is to pay more, not moan about it.

    345. Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money certainly isn't the be-all end-all of human existence, but it is a fact of life.

      If you're going to not work for almost 10 years and you're going to be using personnel and facilities to learn over those 10 years then it's a simple fact of life that someone who worked over those 10 years, or someone who took a shorter degree, is going to have spent less money than someone who did that and is going to have made a lot more money.

      Money being a fact of life, if you don't work for 10 years and pay a bunch of money out over that 10 years, then you're probably going to be deeply in debt, and the person who decided to work and not pay to go to school, or the person who decided to work for some of it and go for a shorter or less expensive program, is going to be in less debt.

      That being the case, it's extremely reasonable to say "If I'm going to forego gainful employment for 10 years, and if I'm going to be spending money that whole 10 years to learn something, then I'd better come out of it with something that financially justifies the cataclysmic effect that is going to have on my personal financial situation"

      Unless you're independently wealthy already and can afford to spend your leisure time learning philosophy rather than working.

  2. But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's what the news media said, who won't even cover the fact that he's running for President. If you want to fix this shit, VOTE SANDERS, its as simple as that.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, I like Sanders ideologically... but to be fair, I remember people saying the EXACT SAME THING about Obama when he ran for President the first time, and we all know how poorly he kept his campaign promises.

      You would think we Americans would, at some point, learn our lesson and stop buying into stump speeches.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to fix this shit, VOTE SANDERS, its as simple as that.

      The politics of Envy, ooooh ooooh
      The politics of Oooo, Soak The Rich
      The politics of class war, uh huh...

    3. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. 1. Stop forcing people to take courses that they don't want.

      2. Stop subsidizing degrees that won't get you anywhere. A Women's Studies degree will not get you a job. Why should anyone subsidize another for taking those courses? If you're curious about a subject then take it on your own dime. (I have a MA in history - not very useful in the job market.)

      Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for courses for your enlightenment. You want to spend time learn in depth about the rise of the concept of individual sovereignty; or the development of the market economy in the post-antebellum south - go ahead (but with your own money).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 1

      That's right. Sanders is Ron Paul all over again . . . except where he isn't! Brilliant Slashdot logic!

    5. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bernie Sanders has a voting record going back decades. There's no need to rely on stump speeches.

    6. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama isn't a socialist or even much of a progressive; from what I recall, he's somewhere between Eisenhower & Nixon on most issues.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sanders is irrelevant, unless you believe government is the solution to every socio-economic problem it has ever created. Nothing like voting for more of the same expecting different results.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama did keep his promise to pass ACA. A lot of pundits say that was a mistake, that he moved too fast instead of trying to build consensus.

      Between ACA, the rebuilding of the economy (which was all Bush), the Iraq War Obama inherited from Bush, the war against Muslim terrorists (which I'm not blaming Bush for, although Bush didn't help), and the Tea Party (which formed largely as a recoil from working class white Americans to the spectre of the first African American President), Obama had very little room to maneuver. The GOP took control of the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2014.

    9. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanders is also literally Hitler in every way except most of them.

    10. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He's within 10 points of Hillary in Wisconsin.

    11. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      1) Forcing people to take courses they don't want is to get you a "well rounded education" (ostensibly). The problem is (IMHO), that it is so one sided (Arts, Humanities, Social) that we have a huge group of people talking "Liberal Arts" style majors who don't have to take but the basics in Math and Science, and no business, that you end up with a whole bunch of people who are not well rounded. I know plenty of people who are Liberal Arts that cannot do basic math, let alone have any knowledge of science. It is the overemphasis away from STEM in college that has harmed college graduates.

      2) Things that are easy (college degrees) are never valuable. It is the difficulty that makes something valuable. Something that no woman's study major would ever understand.

      Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for courses for your enlightenment.

      I would be open to have a much higher standard of STEM requirements for the "soft sciences" like Liberal Studies requirements within STEM Studies. Problem is, there wouldn't be any Liberal studies if they had tougher STEM requirements because those that take Liberal Studies can't get a STEM degree, or even Business.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I think it's a great disservice to higher education to define it solely within the context of getting a job. Most people's jobs aren't closely tied to their degree anyway, and jobs are usually a means to an end.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    13. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Let me ponder that a moment. For the past century, we've basically flipped a coin, and the coin flip decides between runny shit, and lumpy shit. The runny shit party runs things until we get sick of it, and replace it with lumpy shit. When everyone gets fed up with lumpy shit, they go back to the runny shit.

      What's wrong with Ron Paul? A different flavor of shit just might be what this country needs. Einstein said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results, right?

      So, the country is fucked, and you're dismissive of trying something different?

      Yeah - insanity.

      Many years ago, I read that the masses couldn't handle the meat and vegetables of politics, so they are fed pablum. Nowadays, pablum would be a tremendous improvement over the steady diet of shit. You should give it a try.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for courses for your enlightenment. You want to spend time learn in depth about the rise of the concept of individual sovereignty; or the development of the market economy in the post-antebellum south - go ahead (but with your own money).

      Taxpayers should not have to pay for roads to national parks that are there just for recreational purposes! But seriously, there is some little truth in the article "we were told we had to go to college to succeed" That's problem #1. Problem #2 is that state colleges seem to have to admit anyone. Private colleges seem to admit only the students that they want. Why should my taxpayers dollars be going to pay for remedial classes for subject the students were too lazy to deal with in high school? As a business major at a public university, I actually took an elective on the economic history of the U.S. (including the post-antebellum south), so I actually gained some understanding of the economic plutocracy we live in.

    15. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Stump speeches appeal to stumpy brains? I swear most voter's have a stump at the top of their spinal cords, where there is supposed to be a brain.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Forcing people to take courses they don't want is to get you a "well rounded education" (ostensibly). The problem is (IMHO), that it is so one sided (Arts, Humanities, Social) that we have a huge group of people talking "Liberal Arts" style majors who don't have to take but the basics in Math and Science, and no business, that you end up with a whole bunch of people who are not well rounded. I know plenty of people who are Liberal Arts that cannot do basic math, let alone have any knowledge of science. It is the overemphasis away from STEM in college that has harmed college graduates.

      2) Things that are easy (college degrees) are never valuable. It is the difficulty that makes something valuable. Something that no woman's study major would ever understand.

      Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for courses for your enlightenment.

      I would be open to have a much higher standard of STEM requirements for the "soft sciences" like Liberal Studies requirements within STEM Studies. Problem is, there wouldn't be any Liberal studies if they had tougher STEM requirements because those that take Liberal Studies can't get a STEM degree, or even Business.

      Education should be fully taxpayer-funded because when people graduate presumably they will pay taxes when employed. The trouble with college and unversity education today is the job market - employers want applicants to have an undergraduate degree at a minimum while offering slightly above minimum wage even after a decade of experience. You loud-mouths screaming "You can earn 100K+ out of college" forget most people do not want to live in California and suckle at the teat of "The Google" and its notoriously dysfunctional hiring process.

    17. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I began looking into the quote to find out what Einstein actually said only to find that, in all likelihood, he never actually said or wrote the witticism about insanity.

      http://www.news.hypercrit.net/...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      You have a point, but this needs to be understood by those people who are undertaking a student loan, and the people who are loaning the money, not to mention the universities whose costs are rising faster than inflation and even faster than the cost of medical care. Despite its obvious value, a liberal arts education must be treated economically as a luxury. It's not likely to pay for itself in tangible ways, so the people who want it need to understand what they are doing. They can't expect to be rewarded with a good job, or any job at all, just because they got the sheepskin.

      There is an obvious way to help remedy this idea. Take a look at the admission test for Harvard from the late 19th century that has been making the rounds for the last few years. I doubt there a a majority of Harvard _graduates_ who could pass this admission test, I know I couldn't since I don't know Greek or Latin (for starters), although I wish I did. It is not unreasonable to compare a high school graduate from a century ago to someone with an undergraduate degree today. The modern undergraduate will certainly have more specialized knowledge, but will otherwise pale in comparison. Our education system was designed a century ago to churn our factory workers, and hasn't improved significantly since. My wife works in the public education system and I am amazed and appalled at how single-mindedly the schools are rushing to adopt and teach technology, and how thoroughly they fail to understand it, and how it should be used, and most importantly why.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    19. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The politics of being an apologist for corrupt corporations, ooooh ooooh
      The politics of being forced on your belly and rammed in the rear by the rich, and screaming, "More! More!", ooooh
      The politics of fellating the upper class, loving every minute of it, and wondering why those damn lib'ruls don't, uh huh

    20. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      OK, so its better to what, elect Marco Rubio or some shitheel like that? I mean you got a choice amongst the people that ARE running, or Mickey Mouse if you so please.

      I speak from experience when I say that Sanders is a different sort of guy than these assholes. I've met the guy. I spent 30 years living in Vermont, I was there when he first got elected to public office, and I've seen what he's like. Honestly I don't think he's some sort of panacea, and maybe he can't do crap either, but he WILL try. He's a very serious person who doesn't spout shit he doesn't believe in and won't try to follow through on. Why do you think he's being crapped on by the media so much? The establishment is SCARED SHITLESS of this guy, because he isn't a pussy and he won't be bought. He may WELL fail, but idiots like Rand Paul sure as hell aren't going to succeed, Sanders at least isn't a lunatic.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    21. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that the labor market for uneducated people has gone away and will never come back, and there was never a labor market for "educated" people who take liberal arts because they can't manage calculus.

    22. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I never understood the whole expectation that there would be any sort of 'change' with Obama. He made a few mumbles that sounded like he might think about this or that reform, and that was about it. ACA was the size of it, and the Republicans are slowly strangling the life out of that.

      What is needed is exactly what Sanders offers a REAL EXPRESSION of true Liberal philosophy and intent instead of bullshit handwaving. I don't know if he's enough of a real leader to pull it off, we really need MORE than what Sanders offers, but he's got the basic piece that things cannot be done without. Frankly I think he's more likely to be the precursor to a true leader from the left, someone with both the credibility, the politics, AND the ability to really light people on fire (which Sanders frankly is not so good at).

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    23. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Not the point - the point is, Obama made a lot of promises during his campaign that weren't kept. Just like almost every single other person we've elected in my lifetime. Therefore, a reasonably logical person can conclude that campaign promises have about as much real value as shrinkwrap - something to be discarded immediately.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      WTF is 'offtopic' about Bernie Sanders here, he's the guy that is promising 0 tuitions across the board, that's a major plank in his platform. Are the mods here complete morons or what?

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    25. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What is needed is exactly what Sanders offers a REAL EXPRESSION of true Liberal philosophy and intent instead of bullshit handwaving.

      Again, I will point out that a lot of Obama's supporters said the exact same thing about him during his first campaign.

      Remember, per Obama's campaign speeches, we were supposed to have universal, single-payer healthcare, no more summary executions by drone, no more NSA surveillance machine, etc, etc.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    26. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      OK, so its better to what, elect Marco Rubio or some shitheel like that? I mean you got a choice amongst the people that ARE running, or Mickey Mouse if you so please.

      IF Sanders is the ideologue you believe him to be, then he has about as much chance at getting elected as Ron Paul.

      Remember, during the last election primary, Ron Paul was in 3rd place with the voters. He scared the establishment so badly, when announcing the placement of candidates on television I distinctly remember hearing them talk about the "First, second, and FOURTH place" Republican candidates, specifically so they wouldn't have to mention Ron Paul's name. You can say what you want about the man himself, but the media's obviously intentional campaign to hide him from the public is undeniable.

      Same thing's gonna happen to Bernie if he's even half the man he seems to be. His only chance to be elected will be as a third party, and we all know how the ignorant masses feel about third party candidates.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Then go look at Sander's record. He's been at this for almost 40 years now. You don't have to listen to any promises.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    28. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

      But the outer space crap that Rand Paul suggests is completely out to lunch. The entire Libertarian agenda of magically returning the government to what it was in 1800 or something and that will just cause rainbows to come out of everyone's asses and make the world into a paradise is so utterly lunatic as to be unworthy of even 5 minutes of reflection. You might as well put the government in the hands of Scientology and let them have a bunch of Operating Thetans run it. I mean its childishly simplistic and divorced from reality.

      People can poop on Sanders all they want, but every liberal democracy in Western Europe is proof that moderate liberal socialism WORKS. It is a perfectly reasonable and practical political philosophy that gets shit done and produces results. All the FUD to the contrary is just that, elitist FUD from a bunch of crapshits that are scared they might only be single-digit billionaires instead of triple-digit billionaires. Fuck them.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    29. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Why should my taxpayers dollars be going to pay for remedial classes for subject the students were too lazy to deal with in high school?

      This isn't the real problem... meaning "lazy students". In fact, the remedial classes are more likely because either the high schools did not teach the subjects adequately, or the students are simply unable to do the work. "Lazy students" shouldn't be able to be accepted into a university in the first place, or more importantly, shouldn't be able to pull off the kinds of grades in high school that can get them accepted in the first place. Grade inflation is pervasive, and the current strategy of "teaching to the test" so that the highest priority is having students pass the standard of learning tests (which is what they are called here in the Commonwealth of Virginia) doesn't mean we are turning out students who are suited, or even capable, of moving on to college.

      The idea that everyone must, or even should, go to college is wrong-headed. There are a lot of people who are simply not able to work at that level. Furthermore, there are a number of other perfectly fine ways to be educated that can result in successful people with marketable skills other than universities. In fact, for a lot of fields, a university education is quite orthogonal. While a lot can be gained from a general university education, pushing someone who is not capable of this level of work, but who could succeed and prosper in a skilled trade, into trying to get a degree might be a disservice.

      The biggest problem here is that a high-school diploma means far less than it did in past generations, and that's where we are really failing. The need for education is always increasing, but the education system itself is not improving to match the need.

      Welders, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, machinists, etc.... these are people who can command good salaries, find lots of work and be very productive and successful people, but whose education and training don't necessary fall into what a university can provide. Furthermore, a lot of service type jobs honestly don't require a university education, and while such an education would certainly provide value to a person's life, undertaking the incredible expense and risk of trying to obtain a degree is often not going to be worth it, at least at the costs as they are today for a traditional four-year university degree.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    30. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Mmmm-hmmmm. Funny - I never heard of a Rand Paul speech referring to rainbows coming out of asses. Maybe you're not listening to the man at all?

      Scientology, huh? Well - WTF not have a few scientologists in government? Do you REALLY think they can fuck things up worse than the runny shit and the lumpy shit candidates I've already referenced?

      Western European proof that moderate liberal socialism works? I've not seen that, TBH. What I see happening in Europe, is a steady stream of invaders from totalitarian and theistic countries, slowly displacing Europeans and their silly liberal socialistic ways.

      But, you keep telling yourself that your form of socialism and liberalism works. Everyone needs to believe in something. Whatever gets you through the night . . .

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    31. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Stop forcing people to take courses that they don't want.

      You mean general education classes? You're in university to get a rounded education, not just focus on the one thing that interests you. Tough shit.

      2. Stop subsidizing degrees that won't get you anywhere. A Women's Studies degree will not get you a job.

      Sure it will. Why do you think it wouldn't?

    32. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      the rebuilding of the economy (which was all Bush)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      It was actually more during Clinton's time, but it was really congress.

      the Iraq War Obama inherited from Bush, the war against Muslim terrorists (which I'm not blaming Bush for, although Bush didn't help)

      The war that many Democrats were calling for and demanding? Kinda funny how that works.
      http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

      and the Tea Party (which formed largely as a recoil from working class white Americans to the spectre of the first African American President)

      Noooo, the TEA Party has nothing to do with Obama, it is a reaction to the constant growth of the US government, rather than cutting back programs. Taxed Enough Already is their motto, the taxes should go down, not keep going up forever while everyone can see the money is being wasted.

      Obama had very little room to maneuver. The GOP took control of the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2014.

      Sooo, the answer for needing to compromise in a little while is to slam through a piece of shit now? Obama is a terrible politician, you can see it clearly if you watch all the issues he has with the GOP. The whole budget issues that happened occurred simply because of Obama saying repeatedly "I will not negotiate with the Republicans". The job of a politician is to negotiate, if there is no negotiating, there is no consensuses, therefore no movement. Blaming the GOP because of a refusal to even speak with them is exactly what a politician doesn't do. The same thing happened with the ACA, refuse to negotiate until the last minute, then slam the law through, rather than negotiate a better compromise. Of course the GOP won't work with Obama, every chance he gets he refuses to work with them and calls them stubborn.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    33. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      As much as I am not politically aligned with Sanders, the difference between him and Obama is that Obama was chosen and groomed as President. Sanders on the other hand is not being groomed by the media and the democrats. And I have to admit that Sanders, again, unlike Obama, is very straightforward and honest with what he wants to achieve. I may disagree with Sanders, but I still trust him when he makes a promise.

    34. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      You are correct, however, unlike Obama, Sanders has been in politics for decades, and has a track record you can go back and look at. When Obama started campaigning for president, he had a whopping 2 years on record.

    35. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by haruchai · · Score: 1

      WRT to single-payer, Obama's support has somewhat hesitant.

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      In other statements, Obama has spoken favorably of single-payer in concept, but always adding qualifiers.

      In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."
      In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.
      In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."
      At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    36. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      Bernie is promising "free" education. Anyone who seriously believes anything is "free" is an economic illiterate. This includes all self-proclaimed socialists.

    37. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      If you want information for the love of information you needn't go to college for that. Nor should taxpayers subsidize your partying and making friends.

      I have a degree in Art and a MA in history and I'm a programmer so I understand what you're saying.

      Nonetheless college is for getting a J.O.B. Else just go to a bar and hang out there for 4 years.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    38. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Historically, a university education was about becoming a scholar. The vocational role is rather new, and vocational schools are likely better suited for vocational training.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    39. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      So, your answer is "nyanyanya no it doesn't", eh? I find it humorous that you claim all the nations of Western Europe, who are beating the crap out of the US in every measure there is of quality of life, and manage to be perfectly secure while spending drastically less than the US, are somehow 'being conquered'. This is asinine to say the least.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    40. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I'd have to go back and check what he ACTUALLY promised vs what we THINK he promised but I do admit to being somewhat disappointed.
      But despite what rightwing media says, he's not an Emperor and change is difficult or impossible if Congress isn't on board.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    41. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The electorate is not only deeply stupid, this has been enhanced successfully by using and artificially enhancing countless fears. For example, the "war on drugs" has been running about a century now, with zero positive results, but massively negative ones. Still, people keep voting for those that vow to continue it. The "war on terror" is about as effective (not at all) and has even more negative consequences, including a real risk of sliding into totalitarianism. Yet people believe that terrorism somehow threatens them and vote for those that promise "protection" (which they have zero interest in providing, they benefit just to much from this irrationality). And so on.

      Democracy only works if enough people understand what is actually going on. The US has not qualified as a working democracy for a very, very long time. Do not expect people to vote for anybody that actually respects them and their problems and would do something about the real problems.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The US electorate has the choice between extreme conservative and extremer conservative. The system is completely messed up.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    43. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That 1st line should have read " wrt single payer, Obama's support has always been somewhat conditional"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    44. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't think people in this country are any more ignorant than they have ever been, and history is rife with hucksters and rascals. So, are you advocating a return to absolutist rule? I think Churchill had it quite right when he said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

      So, that leaves making it work. Frankly, since participation is rather low, it may not be as hard as one thinks. If you can get a modicum of actual intelligent people to engage the system, particularly at the local level, they can make wholesale changes even if they're 5%. For instance the City Council elections in my town of 125,000 people had 485 votes cast, and there must be AT LEAST 30,000 registered voters. Almost anyone that can whip up a couple 100 people can literally run the City Council, and while city government is pretty low level they get to do a lot of rather surprisingly important stuff.

      There's lots of ways to make things work. It just takes creativity.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    45. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
      So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby... That's the Democrats.
        And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers and civil war re-enactors who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.

      Bill Maher, New Rules "White Men Can't Harrumph", Jun 2009

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    46. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And it must be done, otherwise extremists will supply those votes and take over.

      I was merely pointing out that depending on the votes of a larger part of the population is not a valid way to try to fix this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    47. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Very true. Of course, the situation is so bad that this is not even a tiny bit funny anymore.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    48. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "perfectly secure"?

      You're being INVADED, just as the US is being INVADED. By 2150, Europe is going to be Muslim, and living under Sharia Law. And by the same time, the US will be a Latino nation, and possibly a Catholic nation.

      You're the one saying "nyanyanya" while holding your fingers in your ears.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    49. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      What, are you some kind of race warrior idiot? People are just people, who gives a fuck? The US will be stronger for having greater diversity and so will Europe. Every other place will get its turn too, if they ever manage to stop being crapholes. Its a whole new world out there buddy, and its a LOT smaller than the old one.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    50. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Boronx · · Score: 1

      By that logic, any human action is irrelevant since every socio economic problem was created by human action.

    51. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Obama made nice squishy noises, but he never laid out many ideas that were that far to the left. Anyhow, you can always check the donors. If Sanders gets one tenth the money from Godlman Sachs that Obama got, I'll eat my hat.

    52. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Whatever you say. If you don't give a fuck - then no one will. Diversity is code word for "we hate white people", and "we hate men", and "we hate the people who have worked hard to get where they are", and a lot of other things.

      Welcome to your Brave New World - I have an idea that you deserve it.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    53. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      ROFLMAO! OK, I feel sorry that you are trapped in such a small mind. Maybe someday you will learn just how much you're missing out on.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    54. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      When you have demonstrated and proven that mythical post-prosperity world I've heard so much about - then we'll talk.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    55. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by anyGould · · Score: 1

      1) Forcing people to take courses they don't want is to get you a "well rounded education" (ostensibly). The problem is (IMHO), that it is so one sided (Arts, Humanities, Social) that we have a huge group of people talking "Liberal Arts" style majors who don't have to take but the basics in Math and Science, and no business, that you end up with a whole bunch of people who are not well rounded. I know plenty of people who are Liberal Arts that cannot do basic math, let alone have any knowledge of science. It is the overemphasis away from STEM in college that has harmed college graduates.

      2) Things that are easy (college degrees) are never valuable. It is the difficulty that makes something valuable. Something that no woman's study major would ever understand.

      Bull - I took a Bachelors in Computing Science and Psychology. Why did I have to take six credits of Physics, which they happily admit is just rehashing Grade 12 again? Plus my "choice" of either Air for Airheads or Rocks for Jocks? I was happy to take my mandatory English (although I wish, again, that it had been something beyond "redo Grade 12 Shakespeare again"). There were piles of science *and* arts options I wanted to take but couldn't because I either had "too many" of one type or had to take mandatory stuff I didn't give a crap about, but it helped fill seats for the school. (When I show up for a required course and it's 450 people in a lecture hall being taught by a TA, there's some money getting funnelled somewhere and it's not to my education).

    56. Re:But Bernie Sanders is 'IRRELEVANT' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just look at what a success Greece is. Or measure the suicide rate of the Scandinavian countries. Britain has been so successful that Scotland is seriously considering leaving the Union. The success stories are riveting.

  3. Typical U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Need money for education, need money for health, need money to not starve to death. Look at civilized countries, they better serve their population and they have less debt as a country too. Stop your silly wars on drugs and oil protection. You have enough money but you are wasting it on stupid things. No war on drugs means prices will just drop and criminals will have less money and less power. No oil means you will switch to cleaner sources of energy that you can do on your own land, keeping even more money inside your own country.

    1. Re:Typical U.S.A. by halivar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Need money for education, need money for health, need money to not starve to death.

      Well, I thought I lived in the US, but I must be mistaken, because all the homeless people in my city have free food, free healthcare, free education, and, if they want them, free homes. Which is clearly not the US, because Slashdot keeps telling me it's supposed to be a third-world shit-hole.

    2. Re:Typical U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on. The USA ranks very low or bottom amongst developed nations for health, education, child poverty, and homelessness. The figures speak for themselves. But don't let the facts get in the way of your blind patriotism.

    3. Re:Typical U.S.A. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Where do you live that gives free healthcare and housing to homeless people? Around these parts we do what most American cities do - shuffle them further and further away from the services they need access to, because the people who live in the area and aren't homeless don't want to be able to see them suffer.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Typical U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe every major city that requires everyone have access to an ER? and now all the (not so) Afforadble Caring Act, which gives massive subsidies to those who don't deserve it (Free checks and healthcare for popping out a kid every few years by a different man each time? Count me in!)?

    5. Re:Typical U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're talking about the city of Up Your Own Ass, in the state of Nowhere? Got it.

      EMTALA is a federal law which access to the ER, but despite the insistence of Republicans everywhere, it isn't healthcare. The ER will stop your bleeding and patch you up, but once you're not immediately dying, if you can't pay for a room, you're back on the street.

      I know it just boils your balls that a Democrat was in charge at the time, but Clinton (who was twice the man and three times as fiscally conservative than Bush the lesser ever was) signed the bill that killed welfare. It's dead, get the fuck over it already.

      If you weren't a flaming retarded troll, you could have at least cited Utah for their Housing First program that essentially eliminated chronic homelessness (They know who the 178 homeless people that are left, and are working on getting them to recognize that they need help)

      They are the only state in the nation with such a program.

    6. Re:Typical U.S.A. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps these people resent having a system that results in more homeless that they have to pay for. Perhaps they don't appreciate a system that fosters dependency rather than fostering independence. Perhaps they resent the safety net, not because it is a safety net, nor because some people need it, but because it is so poorly and inefficiently run, so easy to game, and set up to be self-sustaining by making sure there is an ever increasing number of people that require its services.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Typical U.S.A. by halivar · · Score: 1

      I know it just boils your balls that a Democrat was in charge at the time, but Clinton (who was twice the man and three times as fiscally conservative than Bush the lesser ever was) signed the bill that killed welfare. It's dead, get the fuck over it already.

      You mean the Republican-crafted law (PRWORA) that required welfare recipients to at least try to get work, and was a cornerstone of the much-reviled "Contract With America"? I remember that. Bill, at least, knew when to cross the aisle, after twice vetoing the legislation and deciding that vetoing it a third time was too politically risky. But yeah, manly, that.

      But dead? No. In 2012 The Obama administration gutted the work requirement of the law, its most successful aspect.

    8. Re:Typical U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you live that gives free healthcare and housing to homeless people? Around these parts we do what most American cities do - shuffle them further and further away from the services they need access to, because the people who live in the area and aren't homeless don't want to be able to see them suffer.

      Probably GP is just rattling your chain. Either that, or he/she lives elsewhere, perhaps in Canada or Europe.

      Incidentally, did you know that it's possible for Americans to study in Germany, and for free (apart from transport to/from Europe). Technical subjects tend to be taught in English, and German is not such a bother to learn, for social purposes.

    9. Re:Typical U.S.A. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Housing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
      Healthcare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      The people you see on the streets are the ones who have refused all assistance offered to them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re:Typical U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely it's a logical impossibility to give free housing to homeless people, because once you give it they aren't homeless anymore?

    11. Re:Typical U.S.A. by halivar · · Score: 1

      Many homeless people in the US have severe psychological illnesses; when we emptied out our asylums in the late 70's, almost all of those people went onto the streets, and they stayed there.

  4. One word summary. by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Gimme"

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gimme"

      Yeah.

      I hope this destroys his credit rating permanently.

    2. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Title Mint ...

      Is that the hillbilly pronunciation? :)

    3. Re:One word summary. by clong83 · · Score: 1

      So is a Master of Philosophy now only available to the wealthy? SO what if people go to school and study art history or whatever 'useless' degree they want? Is education so frowned upon that it is considered a waste of time unless you are already wealthy and have nothing better to do than study art?

      We really need to reset our public priorities in regards to education. I don't have a problem with the fact that you might have to work at Starbucks after getting an art history degree. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with having an educated populace, even amongst the working class. Would it be so bad to be able to have that person handing you your coffee to actually be well-educated? Or would that threaten your worldview that they are greedy and useless?

    4. Re:One word summary. by msauve · · Score: 1

      Using the same logic, the world would be a wonderful place if everyone were wealthy. Why don't we just have the government give everyone $1,000,000 per year?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:One word summary. by clong83 · · Score: 1

      I am not a socialist, or even very liberal, and I don't really follow how education equates to general wealth. I said that education should be available to all, not that everyone should be wealthy. Everyone should not and will not be wealthy. If you major in art history, be prepared to work at Starbucks. But there is absolutely no reason that someone should be shut out from learning about it because of money.

      ALmost the only thing I do think the government ought to help enable is for anyone to get educated in whatever field they desire. It can only help lead to a educated populace which is more capable of critical thought.

    6. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to go to college to study art history. People study "art history" not because they are interested in the subject, but because it is easy and it sounds fun.

      Most art history majors have never stepped foot inside an art gallery.

    7. Re: One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education isn't zero-sum. You don't have to take knowledge away from anybody to give it to someone else.

    8. Re:One word summary. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      I don't have a problem with the fact that you might have to work at Starbucks after getting an art history degree.

      The real issue is that people decided that working at Starbucks before getting that art history degree was too much to ask. The government began to encourage student loans greatly increasing the supply of money looking for universities, and for those that took economics instead of art history the outcome of that sort of market distortion is quite predictable. We are talking about the basic fundamentals of economics here that nobody can argue against: supply, demand, and competition.

      The student debt problem didnt sneak up on us. People were saying right from the start that prices would rise if you increase the supply of money looking to buy a degree as well as the supply of people looking to get degrees, but they were dismissed as being conservative, or racist, or (gasp) republican.

      Take away the government distortion and Johnny Sketch wouldnt be able to borrow $100,000 to get his master art degree because nobody would be stupid enough to lend Johnny so much money at such a high risk. Johnny would be able to get a student loan, but not for something do risky. But the government is involved, so there was very little risk, and recently we made the risk even less by not even allowing Johnny Sketch to renege on his student debt via bankruptcy.

      Yet again the government came in to solve a problem and created a much bigger one.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it reminded me of a Slashdot pirate's rant, that same tone, relentless rationalization and selection of facts that suited the writer's purpose.

    10. Re: One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, the teachers do need to be fed

    11. Re:One word summary. by msauve · · Score: 1

      Uh, education is available to all. It's called public school in the US. It gets you enough (if you trying in even a minimal way) to get by in life - math to balance a checkbook, the ability to read the mail you received.

      You seem to be claiming that higher, specialized education should be a free for all. That's significantly different. Should government pay for law/medical school? As many degrees as I might wish to achieve? Can one be a permanent, lifelong student in your world?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educated lazy people are a drain on society so no it is not all right.

    13. Re:One word summary. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You would have a valid point if it weren't for all the for profit "continuing education" mills that charge exorbitant tuition while promising jobs. That is were the bulk of the loan defaults are being generated.

      Your supply and demand model doesn't account for cost. Public colleges are still more affordable than the private institutions (accredited non-profit ones) and return the most value for tuition spent. They still need to raise tuition to offset operational expenses which include labor and capital investments like facilities and equipment.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    14. Re: One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can eat the lowest performing student as a lesson to the rest.

    15. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the same logic, the world would be a wonderful place if everyone were wealthy. Why don't we just have the government give everyone $1,000,000 per year?

      That's not even remotely the same logic. I'm not sure you understand what that phrase means.

    16. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it's a good idea to give out college level educations.

      Like, getting a BA in Philosophy might not be a great way to have a career, but it is worth it to round out one's education.

      The idea that the firs twelve years of someone's education should have a free tier but any education after that comes out of our own pockets is laughable.

      That's not to say that there's not a place for private institutions that charge tuition, but with the way things are going, we're going to have to prop up public universities and colleges anyway, so why not just make it free and stop squeezing students?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    17. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone can self-educate for free using a public library, or online resources like Khan Academy. Getting a degree is a different story, and I see no reason why that should be free. Getting a degree in a field that doesn't have a lot of job prospects absolutely should not be free, and it should not be covered by student loans. If people want to self-actualize with a degree that affords great personal benefit, but not much else, they can do so on their own dime.

      Being smart doesn't entitle anyone to money.

    18. Re:One word summary. by clong83 · · Score: 1

      Public universities can still easily cost over $100k after 4 years. I am saying that we do a very poor job of subsidizing undergraduate education costs. And although graduate school costs are also quite high, I am really only talking about undergraduate costs. It should be as low-cost as possible. University of California was, in fact, free for in-state students for a long time.

      Even if free, you still won't have any of your own money to spend and start a life. I doubt many people would choose a lifestyle of collecting 10 different undergraduate degrees as a career. Even so, I'd be fine with reducing or eliminating subsidies to students who already had a degree, if that makes you feel better. My point is that a basic undergraduate education should be available, and you don't need ten undergraduate degrees before you can claim you are finally "educated".

    19. Re:One word summary. by msauve · · Score: 1

      Please document the statistics on the number of people with Ph.Bs who would not be self supporting without one.

      "why not just make it free and stop squeezing students?"

      TANSTAAFL. Why start squeezing the taxpayers?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    20. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But there is absolutely no reason that someone should be shut out from learning about it because of money.

      Here's a clue: Not having 50k$ isn't what's stopping you from learning art history. You can do that on your own at the library, through community, through internet resources, or through books.

      What you don't get that sheepskin with your name on it.

    21. Re: One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is what books at your local Library are for. However if you want guided education and verification that students are actually absorbing that education you need course materials, dedicated buildings, associated maintenance & personnel. All of which require significant amounts of time, money & resources.

    22. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you need a university degree to be an educated person?

    23. Re:One word summary. by thedonger · · Score: 1

      As myself and others have stated, the problem isn't that, for example, a Master of Philosophy degree is only for the wealthy. The problem is that the willingness and ability to get massive student loans allows schools to charge exorbitant fees.

      I'm on the fence as to whether or not the US government should subsidize some or all undergraduate education. My feeling is that our federal spending is so outrageously out of hand these days that first we need to get our fiscal house in order. I might be inclined to agree now to free associates degrees for all so that people can get a head start on college without having to also work full time.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    24. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      Because as a collective whole, tax payers can afford to pay for college for everyone. But as individuals, a lot of people are falling through the cracks because of socioeconomic imbalance. Even people who would've been well off a generation ago are struggling.

      Why bother doing anything on a collective group level if it means someone has to pay for anything to help anyone else? I mean, it's not my house on fire or me that's being mugged, what's in it for me? I drive, why bother paying for public transport infrastructure?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    25. Re:One word summary. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      so why not just make it free and stop squeezing students?

      So after high school. every kid gets a free ride for four years to party and "study" philosophy? How would that provide any benefit to society?

      Instead, how about offering some kind of tuition assistance in return for serving the country first; call it something like "the GI Bill"

    26. Re:One word summary. by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Because as a collective whole, tax payers can afford to pay for college for everyone."

      You say that as if it's true. It isn't. The federal government is already running a budget deficit without taking on any additional burdens. You have a strange definition of "afford."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    27. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the resources available today, (free online courses, public libraries and museums etc) I don't really see how you'd equate not going to school for a liberal arts degree to not having an education available. The reality is that there is more of an opportunity to educate yourself now than ever before in the history of humanity. Survival dictates however, that you MIGHT want to consider briefly, acquiring a skill that someone is willing to compensate you for. Taking out student loans to prepare me to write a crappy blog post about why I defaulted on my student loans is at best, a disingenuous use of hard earned money stolen from another. It's theft, from everyone who pays taxes, pure and simple. In the article, he mentions that his bank has gone out of business. I would ask if he feels at least partially responsible for that. Putting that balding 50 year old man on unemployment as well as all of the tellers and other people that worked at that bank. Why? because he felt entitled to be a writer and no one would pay him enough to cover both his current and previous combined living expenses for his work.

      If you want to discuss and address the real problem with our current education system, look at the federal money that goes into the system. This artificially increases both the demand and the money available to a constant supply, driving costs up. Once a new price point is established, as long as the money is there, the price will not decline.

    28. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should government/society pay for your art education, only to have you work at Starbucks? Is that a good investment on society's part? If you are interested in art history, there are plenty of less expensive community college or self-study routes one could take. What this author did was willingly accept money, then walk away, not because he fell on hard times, but simply because he didn't feel like paying them back. This is entitlement at its worst.
      CAPTCHA: merited

    29. Re:One word summary. by njnnja · · Score: 1

      So is a Master of Philosophy now only available to the wealthy?

      Historically that is exactly what a master's degree in philosophy was for - rich scions whose parents wanted to park them someplace for 5-10 years until they got out of their embarrassing late teens and early twenties and could take part in the family dynasty. The idea that the middle class should go to degree-granting institution is a very recent phenomenon.

      I have nothing against getting a good liberal arts education - but I think you should do it the way I do - for $15/month. If somebody wants an education it doesn't cost hardly anything. If you want a *diploma* it will cost you.

    30. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say "we, "you," "they," and "people" in your little diatribe, you are incorrect. You speak for no one but yourself.

    31. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      We're also fighting major wars overseas with historically low tax rates.

      If we set the top marginal tax rate to like 40% instead of 35, and closed corporate tax loopholes and taxed HFT at like a fraction of a penny per trade and stopped fighting expensive wars, we could easily afford to do a lot of things.

      The problem isn't the budget deficit itself, it's the amount we owe in interest and our obligations on our debt. If we can pay that off, then the deficit itself doesn't matter.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    32. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are missing the point that most of society is saying that all you are entitled to is a decent primary and secondary education. The rest is up to you. Sure government can help you with some loans, but does that mean there shouldn't be consequences for being reckless, like spending $100k+ on a degree that doesn't enhance your earning potential.

    33. Re:One word summary. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      No, the proper one-word summary would be "Greed".
      Universities are greedy because they'd shove as many poor souls as possible into a MA without caring whether there's too many of them, as long as they grab some cash from said poor souls (or the banks loaning them).
      Banks are greedy because they love handing out that cash and then shaking said poor souls off their earnings, pushing them into life-long poverty.

      You expect an 18 year old person to have the wisdom of a 40 year old. Breaking news: they don't. They should be explained why the choice they're about to make is risky, and what's expecting them if they move forward with it. I so far have heard of no bank or university doing such thing. It should be like this:

      Poor Bastard (PB): "I wanna major in Philosophy!"
      University (U): "Here's a study telling you that there's an overhead of people with MA in Philosophy - it's unlikely you'll ever be able to profess in that branch. Furthermore, we only have 15 seats available because we know more than that will land you in unemployment hell once you are done with us. Do you still want to do it?".
      Bank (B): "You will need to pay the University 50K a year tuition and that means you will have to take a big loan from us and likely pay us 2K a month for the next 15 years. Here's a study telling you that 70% of people who currently pay us the loan and have a Philosophy MA don't profess in that area, and 50% are living in poverty. Do you still want to do it?".
      If the PB ignores the U and the B and moves forward with it, then fine. It's an informed choice.
      With me being unfamiliar with how things are happening in the States, I gotta ask: Is this true? Are future university students making an informed choice?
      Here in my country, Universities offer a small number of subsidized seats (you're attending for free), based on your knowledge and high school scores. Say, Philosophy: 10 subsidized seats + 15 paid seats (because they estimate that's the amount of seats required to replace retiring Philosophy teachers). Tuitions are small enough to not overburden students. They're on average equivalent to 3 to 6 average monthly salaries per year, and you can split that tuition into 4 quarterly payouts. To give you an idea of how much that means, I can pay 2 average yearly tuitions for an IT university with one monthly IT salary right now.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    34. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Because having a bunch of janitors who are philosophy majors means that when it comes time to vote, we aren't going to elect a bunch of morons next go around because we have a generation of people who find it pleasurable and worth their while to be educated on the merits of education.

      Also it means that being a janitor isn't such a bad job when you don't have to worry about student loan payments eating into your income.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    35. Re:One word summary. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The world WOULD be a wonderful place if everyone were wealthy, or at least having nobody lacking in basic material needs. Economics is the means of addressing the problem of scarcity, but if there is no scarcity, there is no problem, and economics becomes redundant.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    36. Re:One word summary. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      So, instead of just taking money, they take money, and then take more money? How is this in any way advantageous once you stop deifying the military.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    37. Re:One word summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is a Master of Philosophy now only available to the wealthy? SO what if people go to school and study art history or whatever 'useless' degree they want? Is education so frowned upon that it is considered a waste of time unless you are already wealthy and have nothing better to do than study art?

      There are plenty of ways to get an education without getting a degree, just like how there are plenty of ways to get a degree without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. But if you choose to get your education through a degree program with a high cost, you need to either have the money before you start, have someone willing to pay the cost for you, or have a way to make back the cost afterward. The only reason to get the piece of paper is if it is a requirement for your next step. Otherwise, you are just spending a ton of money on something you don't need and has no tangible value. Even most rich people wouldn't do that.

      This is exactly the same as the home loan fiasco from a few years ago. People bought homes they couldn't afford with loans that looked reasonable at first but eventually became crippling. And then many of these people expected to be able to keep their homes despite having no way to pay for them because they never should have been able to get the loans in the first place. The only difference is that the home has value and can be taken away (though, in many cases, the "owners" or vandals reduced the value to about the same as a philosophy degree).

      This is entitlement mentality plain and simple. "I should be able to get anything I want whenever I want regardless of the costs or my finances." Plenty of Americans have been able to get degrees in all sorts of fields without digging themselves so deep in debt that they have no hope of ever getting out. And plenty of Americans have turned "useless" degrees or no degrees into successful careers. Somehow, this has made people think that any way of getting any degree will lead to success, which is absolutely not true.

      Would it be so bad to be able to have that person handing you your coffee to actually be well-educated?

      No, but I sure wouldn't trust someone who took out a massive loan to get a degree that landed them in a low-paying service job to make change. It shouldn't take 4+ years for you to figure out that those numbers don't add up.

    38. Re:One word summary. by MTEK · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with the fact that you might have to work at Starbucks after getting an art history degree.

      You seem well-intentioned, but I think if you were to tell that to the guy behind the counter, there's a chance he'd snap. No amount of latte art would make him feel better about his choices.

    39. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      Your supply and demand model doesn't account for cost.

      Um, cost is one of the major factors in the supply curve. Most rational businesses simply refuse to supply at a price below their fully-loaded cost plus profit margin, as we found out back in the '70's when Nixon and Carter imposed price controls. Anyone else remember queuing up to buy gasoline?

    40. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0
      According to the debt clock, the liability per taxpayer is already over $800K. In other words, this represents the net present value of all future taxes paid by the average taxpayer. Assuming 45 years of working, and a cost of capital at 6% (historically low), the average taxpayer would have to contribute around $52.7K in taxes per year.

      The median wage for people over 25 is a little over $32K. In other words, if Uncle Sam took the entire paycheck of the median worker, Dear Uncle would still be short around $20.5K per year per taxpayer. Our current financial trajectory will lead to economic collapse, and you think we have $ to give everyone a free college education? Maybe we should start with economics, and not that pablum from Keynes.

    41. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      errr. no?

      You're assuming that we completely pay off the debt. That's a really bad idea, because that's just getting our balance sheet to completely zero for no good reason other than the fact that zero is an arbitrary round number.

      Having debt and being able to create debt is a good thing, because it allows for money to flow in and out of the system. Having some debt on hand shows that we're serious about trading on our obligation and allows us to borrow when we need money. It also means that when we face inflationary periods we can put all of that extra money somewhere and plug the hole.

      Being able to meet our debt obligations and having a debt small enough where our obligations are not onerous on our budget is what's important. Not being free of it.

      Finance at the national level isn't anything close to what finance is like at the personal level. Even then, having some credit lines open and having some debt on the books is a good idea. Maybe not thousands and thousands of dollars worth, but most of us will own a home or have a credit card or two that's got some debt on it.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    42. Re:One word summary. by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      So is a Master of Philosophy now only available to the wealthy? SO what if people go to school and study art history or whatever 'useless' degree they want? Is education so frowned upon that it is considered a waste of time unless you are already wealthy and have nothing better to do than study art?

      Yes, I'll say it: if you are not wealthy and have to worry about making a living in this world, it is a waste of your time and money to study art as your profession.

      We really need to reset our public priorities in regards to education. I don't have a problem with the fact that you might have to work at Starbucks after getting an art history degree. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with having an educated populace, even amongst the working class. Would it be so bad to be able to have that person handing you your coffee to actually be well-educated? Or would that threaten your worldview that they are greedy and useless?

      I have no problem with people studying whatever they want, and society does benefit from having an educated populace. That's why we have K-12 programs in this country. But the idea that "a degree" is of such value to society that taxpayers should be on the hook to allow anyone to study anything they want, for as long as it takes, is where I have to disagree.

    43. Re:One word summary. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      It can only help lead to a educated populace which is more capable of critical thought.

      Maybe they don't want a populace capable of critical thought as the populace might question more about those in power. Or not be as gullible to media propaganda.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    44. Re:One word summary. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      The other factor being that public institutions are not participants in a educational "free market".

      They do not adjust their tuition to take advantage of supply. They increase the tuition to make up for the decline in state funding combined with faculty salary increases (seniority and COL raises).

      Unlike private institutions, whenever a state college increases the tuition there is usually pushback from politicians and the state residents. In my particular state they have to account for the resident grant program which gives each high school graduate a small amount of money to spend towards attending a in-state institution and the state educational investment fund where residents prepaid for a four-year education.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    45. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      Private institutions are no different. The demand for education is definitely elastic. When the price goes up, the quantity demanded goes down. So the private institution may not have people complaining, but they will have fewer applicants, which is actually a more eloquent response than public commentary.

    46. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0
      You deny all of human economic history when you posit that debt levels don't matter. They most definitely do. Pretty much every economic collapse in the history of mankind has been because governments abuse fiat currencies. Perhaps you are not aware of the history of the denarius, the monetary unit of ancient Rome. It started out as 100% silver. By the time of the collapse, it was down to 0.02%. Here is a good summary of the fates of fiat currencies when they are abused.

      http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat...

    47. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      This article discusses fiat currency but doesn't discuss Brazil's amazing success it had with the URV and now with the Real?

      Economics are an abstraction of the ability for an community to trade goods and services with other communities; whether it's backed by gold or fiat. Really, all economies are fiat since the amount of gold that equals a loaf of bread is entirely arbitrary.

      Existence of debt doesn't matter. Total debt matters. We might be on the wrong side of the ledger, but to think that we should get to zero and stay at zero is a disaster waiting to happen. To say that we can't do some social program because we've got debt also is a disaster waiting to happen. We can lower the debt and offer social services to the citizenry if we ... raise taxes and close tax loopholes.

      I know, shocking! Taking in money then spending that money for something else! It's amazing, there's another article on the frontpage about how Germany is just flat out doing as I suggested and paying for university and college. They're getting great returns for their investment.

      Yet, in America, we have people in positions of serious power who believe that Governments are about as capable as a 2 year old child and must be shrunk down small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    48. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0
      I agree with most of your points. But you continue to hand-wave away the largest debt in the history of mankind. If interest rates were to return to historical averages, we could see over half of government receipts going to service the debt.

      Until we start to live within our means and stop enslaving our children and grandchildren, I won't support *any* new spending programs. Even Keynes never countenanced debt to GDP levels of over 100% and no plan to stop the growth. When the inevitable collapse happens, I predict Keynes will not be seriously taught in schools for several generations and Hayek will be recognized for the genius he truly was.

    49. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      The only reason why this would happen isn't because of fiat currencies, it's because of poor Governance. It's not an inevitability that our financial system will collapse. Any system run by morons will collapse.

      The problem is, is that we do need to spend more on things like infrastructure, including schools. Including higher education. These things are falling apart and wise spending now can pay off huge in the future.

      We also need to raise taxes.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    50. Re:One word summary. by anyGould · · Score: 1

      So after high school. every kid gets a free ride for four years to party and "study" philosophy? How would that provide any benefit to society?

      Instead, how about offering some kind of tuition assistance in return for serving the country first; call it something like "the GI Bill"

      For one, because we don't live in Starship Troopers land? (Remember: Service guarantees citizenship, kids!)

      Second - because if you gave an engineering student four years of free tuition, he's still going to take engineering. The future pigfuckers, er, I mean politicians, will still study PolySci and Law. You're just making sure that (for instance) your Med students can actually take up family practices instead of going into plastic surgery because they need to repay their loans.

      The really sad thing is, the cost of educating your entire population can be covered simply by deciding to build a few less bombs or maybe not have a base in every country on the planet.

      All that said - the points about finding smaller and cheaper places is worth reinforcing. We all know that your high school "permanent record" is BS. Well, unless you're going to hobnob with the hoi palloi, where you got your degree doesn't count for crap either. Better to check and make sure they have a good program in what you're interested in.

    51. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0
      Our government *is* being run by morons. The masterminds think they know better than everyone else, or as they put it, "we are the ones we have been waiting for." In fact, the moment I heard this proclamation, I immediately thought of Hayek's book, "The Fatal Conceit." Anyway, Washington is completely incapable of reforming itself, and we the people need to stage an intervention via an Article 5 convention of the states.

      I totally agree that infrastructure is critical. Today it is being neglected in favor of social spending that fosters dependency and encourages bad decision making. To me it is buying votes from some citizens with the money provided by other citizens, which I find highly offensive, especially when the vote buyer in chief spends so much time trashing the productive. In terms of spending on higher education, I don't think it makes sense to provide this gratis. People trash public housing because they have no ownership. Look at how many students completely fail to take advantage of "free" K-12 education. "Free" college would be even worse if it were offered to everyone. Not everyone has the IQ to be successful in a competitive university setting. I do like the idea of merit-based scholarships.

    52. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Actually the idea that someone knows better than I do about how policy works is the basic idea behind representative Government.

      Also, Government dependency claims are complete bullshit.

      Very few of the people who are enough to qualify for SNAP or TANF or any other assistance sit there and go, "THIS IS GREAT! I don't have shit to do."

      Do you know who the actual productive people are in this country? People at the bottom end of the spectrum. American productivity at lower and middle class levels are at insanely all time highs.

      Also you're being extremely classist with your assertions about what it's like to be extremely poor. It's easy to take care of an apartment or a house when you've got money to burn on replacing the windows, fixing the walls and maintaining a domicile. It's much harder to do that when you've got no money and the Super doesn't give a shit.

      The reason why poor students fail to take advantage of primary education is that life when you're poor *sucks.* It makes it hard to concentrate when your parents are fighting about the rent and no one's home to help out.

      You don't fixing that problem by getting rid of the safety net. You fix that problem by making it less shitty to be poor. You're proposing we make it more shitty to be poor because fuck those poor people they're not thankful enough that we let them be poor.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    53. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I feel really sorry for you if you think that education is just someone sitting down and absorbing knowledge with out having someone there to answer questions and fill in the gaps that may be left for whatever reason.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    54. Re:One word summary. by njnnja · · Score: 1

      Knowledge isn't about making sure that you fill in the gaps. The most knowledgeable people I know have far more gaps left over from their education than do the least knowledgeable (who are quite certain that they know everything).

    55. Re:One word summary. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Depends on what your domain of knowledge is.

      If you want to get a good grip on something like say, sociology, learning with and from people who understand the finer nuances of the subject matter are important.

      Besides, it's not like being self-taught doesn't have it's own perils either.

      I'm not discounting self-education. If you can self educate? Great! But there's value in formal education, and while I'd hire a programmer who was self taught, I'm not hiring a self-taught lawyer.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    56. Re:One word summary. by njnnja · · Score: 1

      Ultimately all knowledge is self-taught, from a certain point of view.

      But if you want to seriously compare formal education versus self-education, you should start with some of the links from Scott Alexander's graduation speech

    57. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0
      Nonsense. I grew up lower middle class in Appalachia. Kids on my bus were third generation welfare. I spent six years working my way through college/graduate school with zero family support, living way below the poverty line. Poor people in many cases chose to be poor, and that is not a failure of society or themselves. Poverty is a choice, and people should be allowed to make their own choices.

      The amazing thing is that since LBJ we have spent over $22 trillion on transfer payments, and some people are incredulous that the poverty rate is unchanged. Anybody who ever passed a high school econ class can tell you that when something is subsidized you get more of it, and when you tax something you get less of it. Yet people believe that throwing money at poor people will result in fewer poor people. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

      Some people don't take advantage of free education because they know that welfare will take care of them. IMHO the state should not be involved in charity. That is for individuals and non-governmental entities like churches. Freely given charity is a positive experience for both the giver and the receiver. Bring a government gun to the party, and the givers are resentful, and the receivers have no gratitude and become dependent, and will always vote for the government that makes the most use of the gun.

    58. Re:One word summary. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0

      Actually the idea that someone knows better than I do about how policy works is the basic idea behind representative Government.

      You could not be more wrong about this. Government is your servant, not your master. All power is inherent in the people, not the government. Government officials think they know everything, but in reality they are among the most clueless people on the planet. Except for the military, there is nothing they do better than the private sector. After a politician is elected, his number one goal is to be re-elected. He will pander and lie to anyone to reach that goal. They are *not* looking out for you or the country. This is why *everyone* going to DC needs to be term limited, including supreme court justices.

  5. Spin much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I had to laugh when the "evidence" of not talking about personal responsibility is the absence of the words personal, and responsibility. That seems more than a little narrow definition of being responsible.

    1. Re:Spin much? by dark.nebulae · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why didn't this guy summarize using his real name, Bill O'Reilly.

      It's one thing to point at someone's rant about colleges which, of course, we all took apart since the dumbass majored in philosophy, but it's quite another to tag it with your own political leanings.

    2. Re:Spin much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok. So point to any level of 'personal responsibility' in that article that uses ANY other words...you can even use the small words like 'the', 'and' and 'a' to build up other words if you like...seriously the guy took out loans to a private school to become a writer, becomes a writer & then defaults on his loans....how is that 'responsible'? Meanwhile deadbeats like him cause the bank he borrowed from to go under so someone has to bail it out & it sure ain't him because he's a deadbeat.

  6. Be smart by acoustix · · Score: 5, Informative

    Get your general education classes done at a junior college. Much cheaper. Then transfer to a 4 year school if you're career path requires it. Note the emphasis on the word "requires". Don't go to college if your career doesn't need it. There's no point in graduating with what essentially is the size of a home mortgage. You're starting in the hole and you don't need to do that. The sooner that you can get into the workforce with a good paying job, the better off you will be. You can buy a car and home much earlier in life. You can also start saving for retirement earlier which makes a huge impact on when and how you can retire.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Be smart by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The article writer was pursuing a degree that leads to a 4+ year school. But it is a degree that is worth precisely nothing as there is no way to gain a job outside of academia in it.

      I am all for education funding reform and making it possible for everyone that is motivated and ready to do hard work to get an education, but this guy is the poster child for not reforming a thing.

      I worked my ass off, both in school and at my job, with a clear career goal. But only at a 2 year school that my field required at the time. The people I saw coasting through school and got the rubber-stamp degree all failed once they graduated. Whether they had mommy and daddy paying for it, or free government grant; those that worked hard are successful, those that put in no effort failed in life.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no point in graduating with what essentially is the size of a home mortgage.

      Keep in mind that people like the author are an exception, the average student loan debt is really around $25,000. That's an amount typical to the cost of a family sedan, not a home mortgage. The whiners with the 6-digit debts who can't find a job are not the norm.

    3. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, I think we need some sort of single-payer UHC and either a negative income tax or basic income. But I won't go into the details of that.

      Concerning higher education, I'd like to see the first two years of college tuition-free.

      I'd also like to see that in order for a college to receive federal funding, that they must abide by certain things.
      No more than X% be used for administrative purposes. Out of total tuition (tuition marked by out-of-state rates).

      I'd like to see Direct loans have an interest cap at inflation based on CPI. So what we borrow is what we pay back with inflation factored in. Also, no more unsubbed loans. Increase the subbed loans to cover everything. I'd also want a 2 year grace period after graduation before someone has to start making payments.

      Not necessarily my idea. But an option to opt into paying Y% of your taxable income over a 30 year period. But once someone opts in, they wouldn't be able to opt out to prevent gaming the system. The rate would be determined by how much money you borrow and perhaps by the average salary individuals with your major. With the rate being determined in such a way so the program breaks even.

    4. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, the 4 year degree you want requires that you go full time. Then skip the JC. In my case, sure, all the JC courses transferred. Which meant I should have been able to go half-time to get the major courses, which had to be taken in order. Except that for the degree I wanted, it was required to go full time. Period Full stop. I asked. They said if I wasn't going full time I wasn't 'serious'. I'd have had enough money if I'd just waited and gone to the 4 year program.

      I ended up dropping out because I ran out of many. Reaganomics did me no favors.

      My roommate, however, was able to go part time. How? Especially given the policy. Easy, he had the right job. He worked for the local power utility. Hos boss's boss went to the dean and said, "We give you guys 15 million a year and we want this guy to go part time."

    5. Re:Be smart by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      But - but - but - are you suggesting that a janitor doesn't NEED a college degree? How about grease monkey? Ditch digger? Surely you don't suggest that Little Tommy Lackwit be sent to work with a hammer and a framing square, but without a degree? That's just so UNFAIR!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a mistake to describe the value of a degree only in terms of the jobs it enables "...a degree that is worth precisely nothing as there is no way to gain a job...". While one approach to education is to achieve a certification in a marketable skill, whether it's becoming a plumber, an HVAC technician, a programmer, etc., a "liberal arts" degree represents -- or at least is *intended* to represent -- a different approach.

    7. Re:Be smart by amber_of_luxor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Don't go to college if your career doesn't need it.

      The first data-point that HR uses to screen applicants, is the presence/absence of a college degree. It doesn't matter if the position is for a night porter, or the company CFO.

      --
      Wind Beneath Thy Wings
    8. Re:Be smart by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Don't go to college if your career doesn't need it.

      Most people don't really know what they want to do at 18, and often change their minds after trying their first choice of career anyway.

      Everyone with the academic ability should have the opportunity to get a degree. Even if it turns out not to be directly relevant to their job, it gives them the skills needed to learn high level concepts and adapt themselves to different tasks and careers. Also, we could potentially miss out on people with great talents in certain areas if they are not allowed to try different things and find their niche at university.

      Getting a degree should be as much about society getting the maximum benefit from a person it has invested time and money in educating to school level and keeping healthy and productive. That's why it is free or heavily subsidised in most European countries.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was true 10 years ago. Now that 90% of applicants have college, it fails as a "moron" filter (not that it worked well to start with). Only a select few companies actually require college. A majority of companies now accept "x years college or y years equivalent experience". Except, of course, where college is actually necessitated by law.

    10. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange...I have no college degree, and come close to six figures, in a tech oriented field...

      I wonder how many other applicants are in the same boat...

    11. Re:Be smart by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Then it is an equal mistake to bitch about its cost and the need to repay it.

    12. Re:Be smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first data-point that HR uses to screen applicants, is the presence/absence of a college degree. It doesn't matter if the position is for a night porter, or the company CFO.

      Yep, every time I hire a plumber or mechanic, I look for a degree.

      I would say for programmers its about 50/50. Some companies really want that piece of paper and some really want experience.

    13. Re:Be smart by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The article writer was pursuing a degree that leads to a 4+ year school. But it is a degree that is worth precisely nothing as there is no way to gain a job outside of academia in it.

      If there's jobs for it, period, inside academia or not, then it's not worth 'precisely nothing'. But it isn't worth much if there's not enough jobs to support the graduates.

      Also, a degree in Philosophy is still worth it to the outside world in specific areas. Think tanks like having a few around, just for the training in logic.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Be smart by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Get your general education classes done at a junior college. Much cheaper. Then transfer to a 4 year school if you're career path requires it

      Do the general education classes include remedial English?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. pricing by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree the current way of funding uni in the U.S. is bad. However, if the government guarantees a uni attempt at a degree, how does the government put a price on it? Is Harvard comparable to Ohio State University? Does a uni degree attempt become another entitlement? Entitlements are already breaking the U.S. budget.

    Maybe the U.S. could fund degree attempts at state unis. The problem there is that states have been pulling money out of higher ed. then turning around and claiming their state schools are still state schools. The some of the increase in tuition at state schools is directly the result of the state legislatures pulling money out. The legislators then turn around and claim there is a crisis in higher education with ever higher costs for the average person.

    1. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The only entitlement breaking the US budget is the goddamn conservatives entitlement to go to war every 20 years.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/presidential-budget-2015/

    2. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Entitlements are already breaking the U.S. budget.

      lol

    3. Re:pricing by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Simple: Fund what the national average for a state university education would cost. Need more -- that's up to you via public student loans. Need less? Fine, you aren't given it. Education should be completed within the standard degree timeline +1-2 years for general hardships/scheduling difficulties (where the college has too many students and you couldn't schedule a class or whatever) as a buffer. Additional time would need to be reviewed and granted on a case-by-case basis. It's simple, clean, and would make college doable for many people without crippling debt.

    4. Re:pricing by xdor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      End government backed college loans: only cash. The college system is a big fat business. Subsidizing the college industry with government backed loans puts price pressure on the education commodity. Remove the subsidy and prices must fall for any college to have any students at all. Sure, not all college prices will come down -- but the baseline set by ability for everyone to borrow must drop.

    5. Re:pricing by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the U.S. could fund degree attempts at state unis. The problem there is that states have been pulling money out of higher ed. then turning around and claiming their state schools are still state schools. The some of the increase in tuition at state schools is directly the result of the state legislatures pulling money out. The legislators then turn around and claim there is a crisis in higher education with ever higher costs for the average person.

      Some statesdo. Georgia has the Hope Scholarship which pays tuition at state schools if students maintain a certain GPA.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You want to see some entitlements, look at the DoD budget. The F35 program alone is so far well over 1.5 Trillion for a plane that doesn't work.

    7. Re:pricing by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Well there's your problem!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:pricing by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Something is of value, only if it is difficult. If it becomes easy (like many college degrees), it isn't valuable almost by definition. YES getting an education is valuable, but you don't have to have a degree to be educated. In today's world, you can be an expert (literally) on your own in many areas, without ever touching a college campus.

      A college degree should get you in the first door, after that, it is up to you. A degree in Woman's Studies isn't going to get you into many doors, and that is a disservice to every school offering it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the government backs these loans, put conditions on what majors are eligible . Handing our free money that is going to lead you to loan debtt is not good government. If you have a b- average chances are you will not do well at a regorous university. No rigorourous universities lead to bad paying or no jobs. Yes this will close down half of the easy money makers for colleges but generations of students are in debt up to thier eyeballs while good paying tech jobs are outsourced, technician jobs are left unfilled and research labs look like they belong in another country. As a middle school teacher at a high performing uraban school with many first generation / immigrant students, many students have no idea about what carear path to follow. Each community seams to have thier niche . Flipino and Carribean students all go into nursing , Eastern European students go into medical fields and the remainder of the students have no goal!!!!!. No path, they just take up space in school, major in whatever and then graduate or not graduate with huge student loans. If you want to be a teacher do not go to private college, why? to make the same money as someone who went to Brooklyn College.

    10. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Federal Government needs to stay the hell out of college education.

      As a direct result of excluding student loans from bankruptcy discharge and then opening the debt floodgate by backing loans, the government increased the cost of an education by 1,000% over a decade.

      I graduated in 2000 after paying nearly all my own costs and tuition by working nights driving tow trucks. Fifteen years later my college has replaced every building on campus and literally paved the streets with marble. It's the same profs teaching the same classes, so they have to find some way to spend all that money.

      I feel so sorry for college kids today. You're fucked. I couldn't afford college today. Even more terrifying is that my kids will be college-age in 16 years. I'll be putting money away the whole time but it's not going to be enough.

    11. Re:pricing by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Entitlements are already breaking the U.S. budget.

      I suppose we could end some entitlements.
      Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion
      Foreign tax credit for Fossil fuels: $15.3 billion
      Credit for production of non-conventional fuels: $14.1 billion
      Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing: $7.1 billion
      Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax: $11.6 billion
      Corn-Based Ethanol: $5.0 billion

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    12. Re:pricing by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      First, why is it the purpose of higher education to get you a job?

      You, like a lot of other people in tech nerdy spaces are confusing higher education with vocational training.

      From your example, getting a degree in Women's Studies might not be great for finding a job alone, but if you're interested in understanding the context that women live in, then it's invaluable and you can't put a price on it.

      Second, even if it is free, getting a CS degree or a physics degree or an MD or any other degree that is difficult still requires you to actually show up and do the work. You're just now burdened only by doing the work and not figuring out how to pay for the privilege of working your brains out to get a mastery of that subject matter.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    13. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the U.S. could fund degree attempts at state unis.

      Also they should fund any American's education at any state university, the way they do in Europe and Australia. "Out-of-state tuition" is a wasteful barrier that hurts the brightest and the ones most passionate about a specific speciality the most, and is a second-world standard.

    14. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not far from the truth. The explosion in college prices is a direct result of easy government money artificially inflating prices as universities decide to hire countless middle managers who demand six digit salaries across the board. Take away the government money for colleges, and suddenly they'll have to tighten their belt.

      But the problem with this is that too many have bought and continue to buy into the system. As much as the author of this article might be arrogant, the discussion still needs to be had.

    15. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the few things that GA has done right. Its all paid for with lottery money too.

      I was surprised to find out that here in one of the fly over states that the only thing the state does to help college students is like a 3k grant. They pay for it with lottery money as well, but they are talking about cutting it to dump money into some program to help factory farms. Go figure.

    16. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about restrictions? No college would be able to receive federal funding, including federal loans, if their administrative costs exceeds a certain percentage.

      I'd also like to see some other things, such as capping Direct loans at inflation based on CPI. By Direct loans, I mean the loan called Direct by the federal government. I don't mean bank loans. I mean federal loans. What we borrow is what we repay, simple as that, adjusted for inflation of course.

      Remove federal loans and only the rich can afford it. Even if prices come down substantially, only people who can afford it will be able to go. Sure, save up working a minimum wage job (assuming you can find one), but that might not be as efficient as getting a degree, hopefully finding a job, and using a higher-paid income to pay it back.

    17. Re:pricing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In most countries the government offers a fixed amount for a degree level education. Universities are not allowed to charge more than a certain maximum, which can be the same as what he government offers or in some places like the UK the difference is made up with a government backed student loan.

      It's a good system because students are mostly admitted on merit alone, since they get the same amount no matter who they take.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, allow loans, but in the case of default, let the college and bank be on the hook for the first, oh 20-30%, before any guarantee. This would increase the motivation on the part of colleges and banks not to make bad loans.

    19. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even 25 years ago when I went to college I (and my parents) saw loans were a rat hole that would be impossible to get out of. I was looking at ~150k of debt if I had done it 'the university' way. Instead I did not live on campus. I had a job. I took as many grants as I could find. If I couldnt go out because I was broke, then I didnt go out. There were semesters I took less because I did not have the money. I graduated with about 4k of debt. Even that 4k I did not need. It was for a kick ass computer that is garbage now. The folly of youth.

      College has always been expensive. Especially if you live on campus. The rooms suck and the food even more. They then charge a premium for it.

      If you want people to not get loans they should have a basic understanding of what a loan repayment schedule is. As well as compound interest. We teach it as radioactive decay (instead of compound interest). It is one of the best tools on how much do you own and how much will it cost. I had this understanding before the cute girls showed up with slick presentations to sell loans. I also had a good understanding of salesmen because my dad is one. Loan officers are not there for your best interest. They are their to sell you something.

      We teach people 'oh just go to college you will get buckets of money'. But what if that doesnt happen? How are you going to make it happen? What are you going to do? How are you going to tweak your plan on the advice of others? Going into a field where there are maybe 500 jobs in the entire world and there are 500k applicants is probably not a good plan (no matter how good you are at it or how much you like it). Then even once you 'get out there' you will have have to put in your dues. You are not going to be making 6 figures the first year (unless you get incredibly lucky). You will be making the bottom end of the scale. You will be making near that for a number of years. Your worth will go up as you age. But only up to a point. Knowledge != experience, but it at least puts your foot in the door (but only sometimes).

    20. Re:pricing by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The some of the increase in tuition at state schools is directly the result of the state legislatures pulling money out. The legislators then turn around and claim there is a crisis in higher education with ever higher costs for the average person.

      So how much is enough? For example in Minnesota the State provides the University of Minnesota about $600,000,000 which across all of it's campuses looks to have about 62,000 students enrolled. This works out to almost $10,000/per year per student. This ignores out of state students, people who are just taking a class for shits and giggles, and international students who either don't get a subsidy or don't get the full benefit of it so the actual number is actually better for full-time instate students. So where is all of this money being pissed away?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    21. Re:pricing by halivar · · Score: 1

      The budget for entitlements each year contain enough money to fund the entirety of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan at once. DoD spending is a red herring. Our economy has often expanded in times of war, so that is not the problem in this instance.

    22. Re:pricing by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The purpose of "higher education" is two fold. It is to get you a prescribed training to get you a specific skill set to perform job duties as required. The second part, is to get you a piece of paper, proving you've completed said prescribed training.

      From your example, getting a degree in Women's Studies might not be great for finding a job alone, but if you're interested in understanding the context that women live in, then it's invaluable and you can't put a price on it.

      A person can do all such things without going to college. Education doesn't always require a degree from a 4 or 8 year college program. The two part answer I gave above is relevant here. A degree in Women's Studies simply means you've completed the prescribed course. It doesn't mean you understand women. I am not even sure that is possible (JK)

      You're just now burdened only by doing the work and not figuring out how to pay for the privilege of working your brains out to get a mastery of that subject matter.

      Why? Why should I pay for some idiot to get a degree in Woman's Studies? One that you have already admitted being economically worthless? Government paid education sounds great, until you factor in economic viability of those degrees. Government sucks at economics.

      Here is the test. If a person (or business) fails, that person pays for it. If Government fails, everyone pays more. There is no incentive to prevent government failures, just raise taxes (all taxes are regressive)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:pricing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      First, why is it the purpose of higher education to get you a job?

      Because not many 18 year olds can afford to spend $30k+ on education for 'intellectual fulfillment' if it doesn't come with increased earnings to pay for it.

      That being said, a 4 year degree is still often seen as more valuable than a 2 year degree that only concentrates on the core subjects and doesn't have the 'diversity' courses because diversity of experience is generally considered good.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    24. Re:pricing by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      The purpose of "higher education" is two fold. It is to get you a prescribed training to get you a specific skill set to perform job duties as required. The second part, is to get you a piece of paper, proving you've completed said prescribed training.

      No it's not. You're just stating it. Show me where "getting a job" is part of any college's charter that isn't a for profit school.

      Again, you're confusing education with training. It's not just training. It's about learning about the larger world around you. What you're looking for is vocational school, not college.

      A person can do all such things without going to college. Education doesn't always require a degree from a 4 or 8 year college program. The two part answer I gave above is relevant here. A degree in Women's Studies simply means you've completed the prescribed course. It doesn't mean you understand women. I am not even sure that is possible (JK)

      You need jesus. And a few classes in Women's Studies.

      Why? Why should I pay for some idiot to get a degree in Woman's Studies? One that you have already admitted being economically worthless? Government paid education sounds great, until you factor in economic viability of those degrees. Government sucks at economics.

      Why? Because that's what they want to study. There's more to life than money. We already do 12 years of Government paid education. Why is another 4 impossible?

      Government is *great* at economics, btw. I don't know where you're coming up with that. Actually Government is only as good at economics as the people who run it. But it's not this economically destructive force you paint it to be. Having the Federal and/or State/Municipal Government pay for education at institutions they're already supporting isn't a huge leap.

      Here is the test. If a person (or business) fails, that person pays for it. If Government fails, everyone pays more. There is no incentive to prevent government failures, just raise taxes (all taxes are regressive)

      That's a crappy test. If we have less people with quality college level educations and more people with crappy loan debt then that's the test.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    25. Re:pricing by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      if you want to know why Apple is beating the pants out of everyone else in the computing industry, it's because they give a shit about those touchy feelie humanities stuff.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    26. Re:pricing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Assuming each professor teaches 4-5 classes, each with 20-25 students, that's about $1M per teacher. I can understand a professor running about $250k between salary and benefits, so indeed, where is the rest of the money going?

      Note: I know that there are courses where they shove a couple hundred students into one class, but at the same time you'll also have degree specific courses that might have 12 people in it.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    27. Re:pricing by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Or, make all state universities and community colleges free and high quality (like many modern western nations already do). That will put pressure on the ivy league and other pricey schools to remain price competitive.

      Some things in life, especially the "must haves" (from strongly "must have" like life saving surgery, to basically "must have" to earn a living... a college education) don't respond well (or work at all with) to market forces.

    28. Re:pricing by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

      People should be allowed the chance of higher education...provided they are willing to pay for it. Government subsidization and intervention has directly caused the lack of supply for, and high costs of education. It has also indirectly caused a whole market of basically illegitimate schools (Univ. of Pheonix anyone?) to sprout up...because the Feds are pissing down money on all of them.

    29. Re:pricing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Many much smaller economies than the U.S. manage to offer free education and even a student stipend without breaking. Often they offer universal healthcare as well.

      It's sad and funny at the same time when the "richest country in the world" keeps pleading poverty.

    30. Re:pricing by nealric · · Score: 1

      Those provisions are not entitlements (the term "entitlement" refers to direct payments the government has bound itself to make, such as social security benefits), and some of them aren't really aren't even tax breaks. For example, Oil and Gas development expensing (known as IDC expensing) was created in part in reaction to the specific economics of drilling for oil. Arguably, it simply creates a more accurate reflection of income.

    31. Re:pricing by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately these aren't the questions that are asked by the media or investigated when these issues come up for debate in the legislature. Even the school I went to after leaving the University of Minnesota wasted copious amounts of money. The biggest one that I was aware of was the student computer lab where 1/3 of the machines were replaced every year. I understand that they wear out and need to be replaced but instead of going with an inexpensive configuration they basically bought high-end gaming machines. These machines weren't for use in the HPC, or GIS labs where the extra power would have been useful but instead used for students to check their e-mail, write papers, and browse the internet. Then add in all of the administrators who don't contribute to education, this seems to be exponentially proportional to the number of students, double the number of students and you need 8x the administration.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    32. Re:pricing by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Great, then if you want to be educated but not in anything useful, then pay your own damn bills. The moment you take a loan to get educated, it becomes about becoming employable, so that you can pay back your bills. The disconnect between who pays for something, and the benefit to those paying for it that you have is astonishing.

      If you have a degree in anything, and the only thing you are qualified to do, is flipping burgers (soon to be replaced by robots), then you have wasted your education. I hope having a useless* and meaningless** degree makes you feel important.

      *Useless as a life skill.
      ** Meaningless, well not quite "meaningless" to the person who got it, but meaningless to just about everyone else looking for skilled employees. All that "knowledge and education" is not useful (see first *)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    33. Re:pricing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The biggest one that I was aware of was the student computer lab where 1/3 of the machines were replaced every year. I understand that they wear out and need to be replaced but instead of going with an inexpensive configuration they basically bought high-end gaming machines.

      If they're buying high end 'gaming' machines, then they don't need to be replaced every 3 years. I'm at 5 years for my current system. Of course, my 'standard' is that I upgrade or add another HD when that gets full*, CPU upgrade if a replacement can be had with 50% better performance for not too much money, and double for my video card. Looking at replacing it now(it'd be about $300 to get a video card that has *double* the score on most benchmarks than my current one).

      *Currently running with 2 SSDs and 2 HDs. OS and applications on one SSD, games I'm playing now on another, videos and old games and such on the HDs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    34. Re:pricing by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      They weren't being replaced because of obsolescence but because of the abuse from the general student body. The standard tragedy of the commons and no one really gave a shit.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    35. Re:pricing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sigh... Standard business machines would do better in that case. Just spend the extra $10 or so per machine to get them in a better case than normal.

      Any further measures I'd need to see how they're being abused. As for 3 year replacement - that was a standard corporate replacement timeline, so I'm not sure they were being abused that badly.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  8. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I guarantee a college education to anyone with my hard-earned tax dollars? There might be net benefit to society, but I'd be doubtful with most degrees and with most students based on my own experiences. The 'government' doesn't guarantee anything. I do, and as a voter you have to convince me to spend my money on you with TCO analysis and data, not an appeal to authority or emotion.

    Now, private colleges that are tax-exempt, staffed with bloated bureaucracies, with huge endowments, and with costs escalating much faster than inflation, and hiring cheap adjunct professors who focus mostly on government-funded research... well, there's a lot the government can do about that if it chooses...

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to do away with student loans entirely. All college should be paid for up front from private/personal sources. This would make the ripoff that most colleges are these days much more evident to everyone. Just like all taxes should not be automatically deducted but rather paid for with check or cash. People might realize exactly how much money is actually being stolen by the government if done that way.

    2. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You realize that no one gets to choose what "their tax dollars" are spent on, right? Otherwise I wouldn't spend a dime on things like drones and NSA data centers.

      Given the option, I'd rather pay for a million people to go to college than a single Predator drone.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should I guarantee a college education to anyone with my hard-earned tax dollars?

      Now take out that "college" part and wonder why you're allowing public schools at all.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do get to choose by attempting to sway your state and federal representatives. When something isn't law and is under consideration, you have the ability to help guide whether that will be made law. I personally don't want to be paying more taxes than I am now to add college tuition to the list of ridiculous entitlements that we have.

    5. Re:Why? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I would be happy to guarantee a college education to anyone willing to work hard for it. The community college here gives huge discounts to people with a job that are paying for school themselves, and extra bonuses to people that manage to juggle work, kids and school. These discounts only apply to people that are actually making the grade. They also don't give out largely useless degrees like "master of philosophy."

      But at big universities fraternities, sports, meaningless degrees, and people simply uninterested in earning or giving an education... no wonder it seems like we need to burn the entire system down and figure out something new.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:Why? by __aaklbk2114 · · Score: 0

      Given the option, I'd rather pay for a million people to go to college than a single Predator drone.

      Yeah, but the point of those million people going to college is to learn how to do things like make the Predator drone.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because everything you have or have ever had in your life was built on the backs of previous tax payers. There isn't a single person in this country who doesn't owe everything to someone else who lived before them.

      Why? Because America is supposed to mean that you don't go it alone.

      Why? Because it's just the right thing to do.

    8. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      Given the option, I'd rather pay for a million people to go to college than a single Predator drone.

      So would I. Problem is that it costs more for a million college tuitions/fees than it does for a single Predator drone.

      I expect that it costs more for a million college tuition/fees than it does for ALL the Predator drones we've ever bought....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the option, I'd rather pay for a million people to go to college than a single Predator drone.

      Yeah, but the point of those million people going to college is to learn how to do things like make the Predator drone.

      How about having them build a world where we don't need Predator drones?

    10. Re:Why? by laughingskeptic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Until 1987 or so, the cost of college in Texas was extremely low. I was very frugal and my entire expenditures for tuition, room and board from Sept 1981 to Sept 1982 was $2500. At the time minimum wage was $3.35. A person could work a part time job (15 hours a week) and pay for this. I'll bet that most of the tuition collected by the University of Texas at the time was directly from the students or the student's parents with grants and scholarships coming next and student loans running a distant fourth. As the government made student loans more available in order to make college more available the government accomplished the opposite of the desired effect because the government ignored basic economics. Making more money available affects spending at the universities which affects costs. Universities are money spending machines. The University of Texas now has more than double improved square footage that it had in 1981. The buildings are nicer too. But the size of the student body has not increased proportionately. The university simply spends more on building and maintenance. Far more than it spends actually delivering an education. Under the current system your hard earned tax dollars are going to build monuments rather being effectively used to educate. We had a system that did the opposite quite effectively and we could have that again. Instead of being cheap with your tax dollars you should be angry with how they are being spent now.

    11. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, this sounds like a brilliant plan. In the U.S., you're lucky if major social issues are resolved within a single generation of evolved thinking. Let's go ahead and shut out the vast majority of people seeking higher education, so you can watch your ignorant social experiment play out. Yes, let's rely on the vague hope that public policy will eventually correct the opportunity gap--no, canyon--that will emerge between the well-to-do who can drop tens of thousands of dollars at the snap of a finger, and those who can't.

    12. Re:Why? by pipingguy · · Score: 0

      Didn't do too well in math?

    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is what he meant. No predator drones and all of that money going to college tuition / fees. I agree even that probably wouldn't cover tuition and fees for a million students, but it sure would make a nice dent.

    14. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Well theoretically, if people weren't paying for college out of their own pockets, costs would likely go down due to government regulation (since the government is the only body that can force institutions to accept a certain price-point), which would increase the number of people that could attend for the price of a single Predator drone...

      But that's not really my point - point being, if our government didn't spend untold billions on things like Predator drones and unconstitutional surveillance datacenters, we could probably afford to send every college-age American to school with little to no out-of-pocket expense. and would likely have money left over.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re: Why? by amber_of_luxor · · Score: 1

      >Let's go ahead and shut out the vast majority of people seeking higher education,

      By eliminating government funding of education, you eliminate the scam-schools, of which there have been thousands, that have sucked money out of people seeking a higher education, and didn't realize before they were scammed, that government approval of the school has nothing to do with the quality of service provided.

      Or, if you insist of government funding, then the only schools that are allowed to receive funding, are those which can demonstrate that within 90 days of graduation, 50% of the graduates have a paying job in the field in which their degree is relevant, and within 180 days, 90% of the graduates have a paying job in the field in which their degree is relevant, and within 360 days, 100% of the graduates have a paying job in the field that their degree is in, that they would not have had, had they not had the degree.

      --
      Wind Beneath Thy Wings
    16. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Obviously better than you did in Reading Comprehension.

      You didn't really think I meant that as a literal comparison, did you?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You realize that the US is the world's largest arms dealer, right? So even if we didn't buy any of those fancy toys for ourselves, it doesn't mean that we suddenly stop selling them to governments and warlords the world over.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:Why? by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a bigger issue at stake here. There are lots of things in this society that get paid for without public support [mostly though back room deals]. Mostly corporate subsidies and tax breaks. Even things like economic and military support for Isreal.
      I think these students think that they can play the same game as the elite.
      So, if Donald Trump, the Hunts brothers, American oil investors in Mexican pipelines (1990's) or major banks make bad investments [by changing regulations governing commercial investments bailouts and "antiquated" regulations enacted after the 1930's ], they get time and allowances to reorganized. But don't think that you can play that game too.
      Even shit like imminent domain allows the transfer of wealth from those who don't have it to those who do [and have the political clout to keep this going on].

    19. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It would take more social unity than most Americans can muster to level that playing field.

      Hence the reason it's been sitting at such a sharp angle for so long.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One Predator drone costs between $5 million and $14 million, depending on the model. College tuition at a good state school for four years, let's say that runs $100k.

      So you can send between 50 and 140 students through four years of school for the cost of one Predator. I'm guessing the government buys hundreds of predators every year, and that's one of the cheaper weapons they buy.

      Costs should be brought down and subsidies up. If the education of our next generations is not a matter of national security, I don't know what is.

    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exhibit A: Predator Drone Cost
      Exhibit B: Average College Tuition

      40,000,000 / 31,231 = 1280.8 people could go to a private college for a year (not semester) on the cost of a single Predator drone.
      1,000,000 / 1280.8 = 780.8 Predator drones would be equivalent to the cost of tuition for a million people for one year.
      780.8 * 4 = 3123.2 -> 3124 (rounded up) Predator drones could send a million people to a full 4 years of college.

      Exhibit C: How Many Predator Drones Does The US Have?

      The US had (as of August 2012) 678 drones of all makes and models. Even if they were all Predator drones, that would not be enough (cost-wise) to send a million people to college for even a single year, much less a 4-year full ride. But it's certainly enough to send a million people to a fiery doom, I would imagine. I don't really hear anyone asking for that, though.

    22. Re:Why? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "You realize that no one gets to choose what "their tax dollars" are spent on, right? "
      No one does but the electorate does. Vote people.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the government would have to guarantee a college education."

      Statements like this are ignorant, people who assume they have the right to have whatever they want and not have to pay for it are the biggest problem this country has.

      1. If you choose to borrow a given amount of money, with a given set of terms to repay that money, and you sign the contract, then YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for repaying it.

      2. If you choose to spend that borrowed money to get a Degree is something that will not assist you to start a career with enough compensation to repay your contract. It does not relive YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to repay it.

      3. If you choose to make poor decisions it does not make it the government’s responsibility to bail you out.

      WE ARE GUARANTEED CHOICE AND THE FREEDOM TO MAKE BAD CHOICES.

      No we should not be guaranteed a college education, there are far too many children graduating high school with zero ambition to work, study or do more than expect things to be given to them.

      If you want to fix things we need to make several changes.

      1. Eliminate - hand out programs for everyone expect the disabled. "Does not include morbidly obese"
      2. Put a minimum performance to continue education for all grades 9th to 12th. If a student’s GPA drops below a B Do not let them enroll and attend next year. Make them get a job.
      3. Instate a "Work for Food" program vs. Welfare & food stamps. - Show up pickup garbage on the highway, clean gutters, paint park benches etc. Receive 1 day worth of food rations for 2 people. Maybe make exceptions for single mothers raising more than 1 child by herself.
      4. Eliminate the dependent tax deduction at 2 per couple, and reduce it by the same for each additional child. Exceptions for children conceived against the mothers will.

      If you want something out of life, get up and work for it, do not expect someone else to do it for you ....

    24. Re:Why? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      since the government is the only body that can force institutions to accept a certain price-point

      I disagree. Remove the ease of obtaining loans in excessive amounts(however you define excessive), and the colleges would tighten their belts to offer degrees within the new reachable amounts, much like how as loan amounts increase, so don't college costs. They charge what the market will bear.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correct
      I'd rather not pay for poor people, not pay for wars, and drop violent criminals into volcanoes

  9. In the more civilized parts of the world... by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education.

    that is what we do. Works fine, here in Europe.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:In the more civilized parts of the world... by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education.

      that is what we do. Works fine, here in Europe.

      In fact a number of Americans are now coming to Europe to study for free

    2. Re:In the more civilized parts of the world... by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      Interesting. That had to happen, somehow. Good for the few Americans who dare to make the jump, good for the various European countries hosting them.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:In the more civilized parts of the world... by keko · · Score: 1

      Same here in Argentina. Best college is public, state-subsidized, and often referred as "one the best in Latin America". That includes engineering schools.

      Most private schools (except a couple exceptions) are considered "for the lazy, and probably not very smart". Regular job postings usually state that candidates from public schools will be considered first.

      Caveat #1: Mostly *everyone* attending to public schools works a day shift. Public schools know that, and you're be able to complete the entire career attending only at night, if necessary. That's when the bulk of classes take place.

      Caveat #2: Still nearly impossible to find a decent job with a philosophy degree :/

    4. Re:In the more civilized parts of the world... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      And Europeans can take advantage of exchange programs too.
      My sister spent a year studying at Boston College in 2001 and only had to pay the tuition for her French university : it was less than 500$/year at that time.

    5. Re:In the more civilized parts of the world... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The USians generally don't want to be taxed like Europeans are either. I originated there, I paid about 55% in income taxes, social securities and health care insurances, after which rent became barely affordable. The reason Europe has such great transit systems is because entry level employees cannot afford owning a car.

      If you are able to work here in the US, even at Wal-Mart, you're way better off than anywhere else in the world. Same goes for education, if you keep track of your expenses/loans and manage your schooling well in the US, you're way better off than being a European kid at a "free" University. However, if you go major in philosophy together with another 1000 people at the same school, where the hell do you think you're going to get? Same applies to European Universities, their philosophy students won't go anywhere fast either.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  10. "Get as many credit cards as you can..." by itwasgreektome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Proof this guy is a financial idiot, "You might want to follow these steps: Get as many credit cards as you can before your credit is ruined." Yeah- get as many credit cards as you can, because you're so awesome at paying back things you owe. Although I might agree with the sentiment behind the article- schooling can be cost prohibitive, and rich people can make tons of money off people just trying to better themselves, I totally disagree with the author's reasoning, logic, and their lack of responsibility.

    1. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by random+coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually if he's transferring his student loan debt to the credit cards the advice is brilliant.

    2. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually if he's transferring his student loan debt to the credit cards the advice is brilliant.

      Indeed - you can wipe out credit card debt by declaring bankruptcy. Not possible with government loans.

      So, really, "brilliant" only if your plan is to be unable to get any sort of credit for the next 7-10 years.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed considering "defaulting" is the goal here.

    4. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by itwasgreektome · · Score: 1

      When is someone going to invent the "sarcastic" font? Sometimes, I still can't tell if people are being serious.

    5. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      How so? I don't have any student loan debt (my employer paid about 25% of my way, I paid the rest) but SO's student loan interest is in the low single-digits. What kind of credit card, especially one that an unemployable liberal arts putz can get, is going to be that low?

    6. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK this would be phenomenally terrible advice as SLC government loans track interest rates (Sub 1% now) and are surely cheaper than any personal credit card rate (15-20% apr typical).

    7. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliantly fraudulent. It is illegal to take credit when you intend not to pay it back.

      That being said, most credit card companies seem to not care one way or the other, so while you're being an even more terrible member of society, you'll be ignored with the rest of them.

    8. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by random+coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its a better plan than defaulting on the student loans which will balloon their amounts as default fees are added.

      I will say two things:
      1. I do not think "Reckless Borrowing" means what he thinks it means.
      2. Banks and businesses have no qualms about shafting their creditors, why should ordinary people? (ex. see MF Global, etc.)

    9. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by random+coward · · Score: 1

      He's taking the Jon Corzine way out. You can't discharge student loans with bankruptcy and they can and will garnish your wages. Credit cards don't have either of these remedies.

    10. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Because you can walk from your credit card debt but not your student debt?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that brilliant? Its advocating theft, which the rest of the (honest) credit card users have to pay for? The guy is a fucking thief.....

    12. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I graduated in December of 2008 [1], the absolute shittiest time to even think of getting out of school since 1929. I am still wrestling with student loan stuff now (since it took a while to get a job), but during the time that I was running around to find work, I kept working with the creditors, and none of them ever threatened lawsuits, judgments, or whatnot. However, I have three choices... pay the shit off, live under a bridge, or suck a 12 gauge. That is just how life is in the US, and I deal with it. Reality is reality.

      No way in Hell I would do what this guy did, even though I don't like running the treadmill, just as everyone else:

      1: Lets be real here. Your FICO score is -the- factor of success or failure. In World of Warcraft, you get into raids or laughed out of groups because of your ilvl. In the real world, it is the same thing, but with credit scores. Your credit score drops below 600, you get treated like shit, with banks saying, "well, with your credit, we can offer you..." BS. You won't find work because a credit check is part of every job that is something other than "do you want fries with it?" Even in government work, they look at your credit because someone who is having shit with finances might accept a bribe or two.

      2: Buying a house (or even renting an apartment) is a nice thing: I'm sure there are people who enjoy the van life in a 1970s-1980s Econoline, but I prefer to actually have a home in an area where if kids encounter strays, they are puppies, not bullets. I also like having a car that is reasonably usable. Having the student loan companies shit on your credit report isn't going to help here.

      3: I like putting away something for retirement. I really don't want to live like a mendicant all my life, and "living in the gray" gets old after a while.

      4: I like having tax returns go to me, instead of disappearing into the void.

      Of course, this guy is a liar on some aspects. Default on student loans, there is something called wage garnishment (which really hurts employability), and there is the fact that one cannot get a driver's license renewed, passport renewed, professional license created, or buy/sell real estate. I'm sure some people don't mind this, as they will always live with their parents in their basement... but if one wants to actually do something other than just be a mendicant squatter, it is something to deal with.

      Finally, there is the simple thing of contracts. Nobody held a gun to this guy's head and forced him to sign up with Sallie Mae or other people. He watched the video as well as everyone else.

      [1]: CS is what you make of it. Even with the bellyaching about H-1Bs and offshoring, there are always niches that can make money. At the time I graduated, only the Army recruiter was at the job fair, the only party wanting CS grads, and he was only wanting people that would sign for MOS 11X, promising a promo to E-2 once out of Basic.

    13. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that's Comic Sans.

    14. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Minwee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is that brilliant? Its advocating theft, which the rest of the (honest) credit card users have to pay for? The guy is a fucking thief.....

      That's an astute analysis. Now, apply the same logic to the people he borrowed the money from in the first place, who specialize in making sub-prime loans to borrowers who will likely never be able to repay them, and then selling the loans off in exchange for a briefcase full of cash before flying to the Dominican Republic.

      And then you can ask yourself who took the money that he borrowed, and what happened to it then.

      How many thieves can you count in this story?

    15. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Defaulting on student loans == shitty credit for life.

      Defaulting on credit cards, or even getting foreclosed on == ~4 years of bad credit.

      I'd probably say that in the economy, it might even be better to get a home eq loan, pay the student loans off, even if it means foreclosure.

      The ironic thing is that one can beat someone to a pulp, get sued for their medical bills, not pay the judgement, and in a few years, it drops off to the statute of limitations, while a student loan is there for life.

      Oh well. That's America for you. No wonder why almost all Americans envy Europeans.

    16. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      I would argue it's not theft, and that the credit card company should have done its due diligence before lending money to him. It's not his fault that they made a bad investment in his loan.

    17. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      Brilliantly fraudulent. It is illegal to take credit when you intend not to pay it back.

      Under what law?

    18. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      You won't find work because a credit check is part of every job that is something other than "do you want fries with it?

      I turned down a job at Paypal because they wanted to do a credit check, it weirded me out. So I went to work for Amazon instead.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    19. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Gotcha. So it's "brilliant" as long as he keeps on the deadbeat path. Makes sense now.

    20. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      There are no "default fees" on government student loans.

      If you go into default and the loans are sold to a collection company, that company likely will charge collection fees.

      But that's a different animal, and one you would deal with on any defaulted loan.

      Bankruptcy is a terrible way out, because declaring it means you can't get a loan for SQUAT for at least 7 years. No housing, no cars, no education, nada.

      Seek alternatives if possible.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't brilliant and he is hardly the first person to think of this. The fact is, it is considered constructive fraud to convert non-dischargeable debt to unsecured debt. A bankruptcy court will not accept that- the portion of the debt on the credit card that is for the student loans is still non-dischargeable in bankruptcy court. The debt itself is legally considered non-dischargeable regardless of what form it is converted to. Not only will you likely be charged with constructive fraud, you will still have the debt, albeit on even worse terms.

    22. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you cannot walk away from student loan debt on a credit card. The debt itself is non-dischargeable regardless of what form it is in. This was tried decades ago and there is already reams of bankruptcy caselaw on it. Worst case scenario is that you'll be charged with constructive fraud for converting the debt.

    23. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short version:

      http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i052.htm?PageSpeed=noscript

      'The specific intent to deceive or cheat, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to one's self. It is not necessary, however, to prove that the United States or anyone else was in fact defrauded so long as it is established that the person acted "with intent to defraud." '

      Long version:

      http://www.jstor.org/stable/787049?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

      In my country it carries a maximum 5 year federal jail sentence. I would suggest anyone considering doing this consult a lawyer first.

    24. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, really, "brilliant" only if your plan is to be unable to get any sort of credit for the next 7-10 years.

      Actually, it is pretty common to be able to get a new credit card before your bankruptcy is even discharged, while it's still being processed. Yes, I am speaking from experience...

    25. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bankruptcy is a terrible way out, because declaring it means you can't get a loan for SQUAT for at least 7 years. No housing, no cars, no education, nada.

      Not true. You can sure as shit get a car loan. In fact, if you file bankruptcy, you will find yourself getting multiple pre-approved car loan offers every week. And you'll even get a couple of decentish credit card offers.

    26. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So, really, "brilliant" only if your plan is to be unable to get any sort of credit for the next 7-10 years.

      You're saying it like it's a bad thing.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    27. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine someone struggling out of college filing for bankruptcy. Now imagine that same person getting a high-paying job in 5 to 10 years down the road. I think that's one of the reasons why.

    28. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that taking a loan without the intention of paying it off is criminal fraud- true that it is rarely used in the case of credit cards but it is still a crime.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    29. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by bbasgen · · Score: 1

      This illustrates the moral depravity of the author's viewpoint entirely.

      We aren't fighting the system if we say "The bankers steal from us, so let's steal as they do." On the contrary, it is a clarion call to become evil like them. It is an injustice and tragedy that those who that participated in the financial crisis have not been held to account, but the tragedy becomes catastrophe if we follow in their footsteps.

    30. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Can't get credit? Surely you jest. The author addressed that in his article. Anybody can get credit. You just might not like the interest rate.

    31. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won't find work because a credit check is part of every job that is something other than "do you want fries with it?

      I turned down a job at Paypal because they wanted to do a credit check, it weirded me out. So I went to work for Amazon instead.

      That's because you are working in the financial industry at paypal. Aside from entry level jobs at banks, any position at a financial institution is going to require that. They don't want you to have access to financial data if you aren't a responsible person.

    32. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add: packaged the loans into CDOs, then repackaged those until they got A or higher rating, then betting against it all, then getting bailed out by the public after the banksters fucked up the world economy. The only thing they need to teach at university is how to build and operate guillotines and shave off the top .1%.

    33. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder how easy it would be to prove intent to defraud, short of someone who is financially fucked just buying a bunch of stuff right before bankruptcy.

      It seems like if you strung along nominal payments for a while, and really truly were financially fucked, you could show intent to make repayment and that it just overwhelmed you.

    34. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I presume you've never filed bankruptcy.

      FYI, payday loans and pawn tickets are not technically credit, in the sense that they don't go on your credit report.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    35. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you can actually pull it off, it may be better overall to rip the band-aid off as it were. No credit for 10 years and then it's over vs. an unpayable debt for life.

    36. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by nealric · · Score: 1

      Look up the term "fraudulent transfer" as relates to the bankruptcy laws.

    37. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If you can actually pull it off, it may be better overall to rip the band-aid off as it were. No credit for 10 years and then it's over vs. an unpayable debt for life.

      My brother did exactly that with credit card debt when he was 18-20, which is why he's almost 35 and just now able to apply for his first home loan.

      If the government would be more reasonable about the repayment terms, I'd be OK with owing it for life.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    38. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that someone else is a fraudulent thief does not change the fact that the author is also a thief. He advocates fraudulently acquiring loans, accumulating debt you never intend to repay, all to get something that cannot be taken from you. Then when the people that you promised to repay come looking to get who you promised, he says you should just go: "Screw you, suckers! I've got mine, so F- you!" and declare bankruptcy.

      He is a fraud, a liar, and a thief. Regardless of anyone else's action.

    39. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by guruevi · · Score: 1

      No you can't. It's not that easy to declare bankruptcy. You'll be forced to consolidate loans and go through debt management classes for the next decade before you get to have a bankruptcy court declare your behind bankrupt. You would have to be millions in debt (no sane bank would allow you to get that far) with no way of repayment in your lifetime. Even with bankruptcy, anything you ever touch will have a lien on it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    40. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a proprietary trader in the Netherlands. They didn't do a credit check, because it is not allowed.

      They did however did a criminal check, since it is required by law (otherwise a company is not allowed or able to do a criminal check). The criminal check is also limited to very specific crimes that have to do with finance.

      The check is done through the employee, so an employer is unable to do the check themselves. They prepare a form with which crimes to check for, I actually made them change the form because they did overly broad checks. Then I sign and deliver the form in person with ID to the justice department, who gives me a print out on pretty paper showing which crimes I've been conflicted off. I get to see this print out. I then give the print out to the employer.

    41. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by random+coward · · Score: 1

      Okay I did;
      "A fraudulent conveyance, or fraudulent transfer, is an attempt to avoid debt by transferring money to another person or company."
      However he's not transferring his assets nor his debt to someone else. He still has the debt, its just to a different creditor. Or is it a fraudulent transfer to take a personal loan to pay off a secured loan? If so then the law is an ass.

    42. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by nealric · · Score: 1

      A transfer to another type of debt for the sole purpose of declaring bankrupcty would likely count. You might be OK if you made every effort to pay before defaulting.

    43. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by random+coward · · Score: 1

      I think you may be referring to a fraudulent loan; taking the loan out with no intention of ever paying it back. The reality is that with student loans going into the low hundreds of thousands no one will get enough credit card limit to pay them down. If the amount is low enough to put on a credit card, its likely low enough to pay down quickly.

      burying a serious and good idea here now; there is something deeply troubling about students having huge loan debt that cannot be discharged from going to a university that has hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in endowment and with a university president pulling down multi-million dollar a year sallary and a mansion to live in rent free. I suggest we tax university endowments of over $200million to pay off student loans.

    44. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by nealric · · Score: 1

      In this case, the concepts would likely overlap.

      Taxing large endowments would cause wealthy universities to slash financial aid and charge more tuition. Harvard doesn't even charge tuition if your family is middle class (less than ~$125 income) or lower because it has a huge endowment and can afford those kind of things. For profits have no endowment and charge almost everyone full freight. Hardly the desired result. Most of the really bad universities out there (the ones that don't get graduates jobs) don't have huge endowments.

    45. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Bankruptcy is a terrible way out, because declaring it means you can't get a loan for SQUAT for at least 7 years. No housing, no cars, no education, nada.

      Alternate thought: you have your education in hand, so you don't need another loan for that. If you were repaying the loan you wouldn't be able to afford the house anyway, so delaying that for seven years isn't a burden. And he's writing, which is a telecommuting gig, so as long as he's somewhere with public transport he doesn't need the car either.

      So, he's making the same choices the rich and corporations do every day - is it better for *my* bottom line to declare bankruptcy or to pay the debt?

    46. Re:"Get as many credit cards as you can..." by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      His education is as useless as a Women's Studies degree.

      Obviously writing doesn't pay him much, or he wouldn't be advocating bankruptcy as a debt solution.

      If you can afford rent, you can afford a mortgage. Hell, mortgages can be cheaper - it would cost over 200\mo more to rent my house than it costs to buy it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. By noted sockpuppeteer Lee Siegel by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Famous for sockpuppeting his own online threads.

    Scott Greenfield adds some valuable additional commentary. The horror! He had to drop out of a "small private liberal arts college" and suffer the indignity of attending a public university. And this in an era when tuition was vastly lower than it is now.

    I have a fair amount of sympathy for modern college students and graduates who are subsidizing a bonanza of administrators with no attendant benefit to themselves. But for Siegel to set himself up as one with such people is deeply deceitful. He wears his deadbeat status as a badge of honor.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:By noted sockpuppeteer Lee Siegel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy was born in 1957.

    2. Re:By noted sockpuppeteer Lee Siegel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You expect us to believe a smear job on a Wikipedia page?

      Why is Siegel even notable to be on the deletionist overrun "encyclopedia"? Why is that event notable? Odds are because someone at Wikipedia has a grudge or agenda in play. Either way, anyone who swallows a smear job on Wikipedia is educating themselves to be a fool.

  12. 8% by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    It wouldn't be such a problem if the interest rate wasn't 8%. That's a rate for an unsecured loan, not a government backed loan.
    We moved a family members student loan onto a HELOC at 3%. Now she can make progress paying it off.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:8% by codealot · · Score: 2

      That's the problem. Interest rates on student loans are usury. Higher than most mortgages and auto loans.

      And, for many people this may be the first significant debt they take on, long before they have experience with earning a paycheck and budgeting for debt repayment, or any kind of financial sensibility.

      A lot has already been written about personal responsibility, but the thing is, when you are trapped in debt with the prospects of living an austere life of working hard to service interest payments, there are no easy options.

      Perhaps the parents should shoulder some blame, but it doesn't seem fair to pass the burden on to the next generation, and yet that is in fact what happens in many instances. Children go without because their parents are mired in debt.

    2. Re:8% by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      The rates used to be like 2%, but that was back int like the 60s and 70s when we actually thought having an educated populace was a good idea.
      I find it extremely irritating, that Navient, which used to be Sallie Mae, is a company, not a government entity, but it somehow enjoys protection from its customers declaring bankruptcy.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:8% by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      "That's the problem. Interest rates on student loans are usury. Higher than most mortgages and auto loans"

      Of course they're higher! Student loans are:

      (a) unsecured (you can foreclose on a house or repossess a car, you can't take back a diploma and resell it)
      (b) not based on creditworthiness/ability to pay (it's not like the Feds say "we'll lend to people getting CompSci degrees at Stanford, but not to people getting French literature degrees at second-tier state schools")

    4. Re:8% by sycodon · · Score: 1

      This is a problem that plagues all debt for the most part. If you run into trouble, instead of working with you, the debt holder hammers you, putting you even further into debt. Make a payment a day late? Blam! $30 fee and your rate and payment amount jumps.

      It reminds me of the Slave Owners beating the slaves even harder when they are exhausted.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:8% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corresponding Romanian saying translates to something like this: "The country wants you dumb/stupid"

    6. Re:8% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a problem that plagues all debt for the most part. If you run into trouble, instead of working with you, the debt holder hammers you, putting you even further into debt.

      The problem with all debtors like you is that you are all thieves and never planned to pay the debt back. Do you see the problem with making general statements like you did?

      While there are some predatory lenders out there, without banks to lend it would be impossible to buy a house or even purchase a new car. The reality is that most borrowers intend to pay back their debt and most good lenders will work with their borrowers when they get into trouble. If a creditor won't work with a borrower, our country has very consumer friendly bankruptcy laws that will allow you to wipe out most debt every 7 years.

      It reminds me of the Slave Owners beating the slaves even harder when they are exhausted.

      I assume you don't beat your slaves when they are exhausted?

      Why would you even bring slavery into the conversation? Being in debt can't be related to slavery, but you seem to want us to equate being a creditor with slave ownership.

    7. Re:8% by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      (c) backed by the federal government, which trumps (a) and (b). The interest rates should be lower.

    8. Re:8% by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Except that:
      (a) the Federal Gov't is the one issuing the loans in the vast majority of the cases
      (b) the default rates are 10-15% (compares to 3-4% rate for auto loans, where, again, you can repo the car)

    9. Re:8% by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      He douche bag, the government guarantees the student loan, and the government goes after the the person until the loan is paid back. There is no reason for high interest.

    10. Re:8% by nealric · · Score: 1

      Navient is just a servicer now. It's now mostly the government that enjoys these protections. The Student loan business has essentially become a government monopoly. At least on paper, the government actually makes money off student loans.

    11. Re:8% by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      The gov't guarantees the loan? You mean the loan the gov't issues? Kind of hard to guarantee a loan that you yourself issue.

      As to the "going after the person," you can't get blood from a stone. Default rates for federal student loans are high, and a lot of those $ never get paid back. Further, "going after" someone costs money, plus you've got the time value of money factor.

  13. We made a deal! I got what I want.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We made a deal! I got what I want. Now leave me alone.

    Excuse me, I have to go watch Crossroads again.

    I agree that the cost of education has gotten too high, but making a deal to get it and then reneging on it is just bad character and blaming others for your own decisions.

  14. Re:Tech news? by itwasgreektome · · Score: 1

    I think many people who read Slashdot likely went to college, so I would still say relevant.

  15. It is Absurd... by jittles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college>

    It strikes me as absurd that people are finishing their secondary education without understanding the fact that such school loans would be crippling. We must really be doing our high school children a disservice if they have such a poor understanding of economics and mathematics./P.

    1. Re:It is Absurd... by codealot · · Score: 1

      This person earned their degree decades ago. We were relatively naive back then. Then came the S&L crisis, the dot-com bubble (and burst), housing bubble, and the GFC.

      It's easy to be an idealist entering school. Earn your degree, get a job, work your way up, earn a six-figure income within 10 years of graduation. With those expectations, it's easy to see how a $50-$75k loan will be repaid. Until the economy tanks, or you can't a job, or you are chronically underemployed perhaps because you don't find a job within your field.

      Having lived through the good times and the hard times, I have a lot of perspective on the economy that I wouldn't expect from any 18 year old.

    2. Re:It is Absurd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that if one "amasses crippling debt" one is by definition doing "reckless borrowing and spending" regardless of what you spend it on.

    3. Re:It is Absurd... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Well, I see the disservice being placing education in a free market rather than considering part of the commons of a society.

      Teachers generally are doing a good job promoting curiosity, following your dreams, etc.. Ideally, that is the type of student we want to produce: motivated, happy, pursuing what they love, doing well because of it, etc.. Pretty much every celebrity, motivational speaker, tech guru, etc.. spouts this 'follow your interests' mantra with every breath... .

      That would work out perfectly fine if college was free like it is in most modern countries.

      You are correct in that, if we want to continue to have an education be a product of a free market/capitalism, we need to start guiding students down vocational / internship paths or include the ROI of a degree in the products description (degree) so that the consumer can make a better educated choice. And that would then open up colleges to false advertising lawsuits, which depending on your viewpoint would either be a good force for price control or a bad one.

    4. Re:It is Absurd... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for everyone, but when I was 18 I had 100% certainty that I would graduate, get into a good-paying job, and the debt would be easy-peasy. This certainty came from a mix of parents/relatives/teachers saying "Definitely go to college, you can do great things" and the university I selected having a heavily-integrated intern program and "facts" like 98% placement. So I went to this private, out-of-state, very expensive university, took out loans to cover not only tuition (I got very little in scholarships) but food, room, books, gas money, etc. I knew it was a lot of money, but it seemed like a temporary thing.

      I was extremely stupid doing so, of course; I was blinded by the idea that getting a degree from this university somehow guaranteed me a nice job. Along the way, not a single person spoke up to say "Hey, making taking out $20-$30K in loans every year is a really bad idea." My parents even co-signed some of my early loans. And then I graduated into the 2008 recession.

      Now, seven years later, I still owe $110,000. Minimum payment is $900 monthly, about 1/3 of my take-home pay.

  16. Unfortunate indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too bad his degree in philosophy didn't (appear to) allow him time for a class in basic economics.
    It's even more unfortunate that his philosophy of being a bad borrower wasn't learned until now, so that he could be denied the loans.

    His idea about loans will be about as successful as the farmer who eats his seed corn. It works once.

  17. Rulemakers changing the rules by areusche · · Score: 1

    He thinks he's clever by not paying. As it currently stands the federal government can garnish 15% of his social security, federal tax returns, and other sources of income to pay for his government backed student loans. Don't be surprised if the boomers vote in politicians who change that 15% to 100% in the not so distant future when all of those pension promises go up in smoke.

    1. Re:Rulemakers changing the rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea that would pretty much solve the "expensive college" crisis (there's no need nor excuse for it, especially for undergraduate degrees---colleges should be able to offer those for *less* than the cost of high school). Defaults on loans are against money offered to the university/college by the government (ie: You default, the college gets less money), and, if that becomes unworkable (no more government money available) the college's assets are repo'd to make up for the payments.

      All of a sudden colleges would assess the potential candidates honest ability to pay, would not accept high debt loads for students that are taking courses which are almost certain not to lead to employment, and would work hard to keep their costs low (so they can lower their debt exposure).

      I mean, to a certain degree, this happens elsewhere in the world. New car dealerships can't sell cars to the broke because the bank won't give them a loan. "Bad Credit" used car dealerships repo the car and work their business around the fact that's what is required to keep customers there. Colleges need to be made to do the same thing. Too many of them are building very expensive expansions that are fancy for the sake of spending the student's (and the government's) money. Have you ever seen a public school do that (I hope not...)?

    2. Re:Rulemakers changing the rules by random+coward · · Score: 1

      Where's the room for graft in that? No room for graft and it will never happen.
      You talk as if the whole college student loan thing were about educating people. Its actually about getting money to politically connected and "right thinking" individuals. Why else are there more administrators than faculty at universities now?

    3. Re:Rulemakers changing the rules by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      These aren't government backed student loans, from the article:
       

      My mother, who co-signed some of the loans, is dead. The banks that made them have all gone under.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  18. Talk about blaming society for personal problems by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Informative

    Guy goes to one of the most expensive schools in the country, in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Gets an advanced degree before starting to earn a living. He doesn't have a full time job till he is 31, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... He also manages to get fired from the New Republic for doing things they wouldn't even do http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09....

    But somehow Society is to blame for HIS bad decisions.

  19. tl;dr version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a financially irresponsible douchebag. Be like me, but try to glom on to someone who has their head on right about these things so you can piggyback on their "foolishness" of following the system.

    If you take out a loan, you pay it back. That's how it goes. That's what you do when you finance a car. That's what you do when you mortgage a house. You don't get to throw your hands up and walk away just because they can't "take back" your education. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

  20. College is a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You chose to go to college. AFAIK colleges do not go to great strides to hide the cost of going to college. When I last looked, they not only advertised the base cost of the education, but likely local costs for housing, likely costs for food (including, as an option, a meal plan), and the average cost of textbooks for students (more specific information on that is available once you select what you'd like to study).

    I did not go because the cost was excessive. 18 years later, I still do not regret my decision. I could return if I wished, now, but I realized the only interest I had in going to college back then was because it would get me a good job quicker (supposedly) so there's no value in it. At this point now, I have done the math, and while I spent ~7 years earning pay that would make the average college student consider leaving their country (yeah, below minimum wage on average, there are ways to make that happen), I didn't graduate college with financially fatal non-defaultable debt. Overall, once I worked my way into the jobs that college students were getting as a first job, I was better off, and only 2 or 3 years behind them. At this point in my life, university would have been a wash. I'm satisfied with what I'm doing and, frankly, I'm not interested in more (though I could do so if I wished, one other person at this workplace that didn't go to college has senior status and is working towards management). College students and myself are basically at even odds now, though I have much more retirement savings than they do.

    If you're old enough to select a college, you're old enough to understand money. If not, your parents failed you. Unfortunately, it's now your job to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if your parents were a dismal failure at the job (of course, you can at least find support groups). Lest we find in favour of throwing large amounts of money at every single thing that parents failed their children on.

    1. Re:College is a choice by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I would prefer it if the vast majority of people in our society were college educated. If that means we have to change the current system so we can get people in and not extract payments out of them for a decade, then so be it.

      College really should be the default choice for the millions of 18 year olds who aren't sure what they should do next. Even picking up an associates degree can help open up options for most people, because sadly not everyone is ready for a job fresh out of high school. And yes, I realize you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

      (I didn't finish college, but I got lucky and have a good job)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  21. Getting a PhD in Philosophy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If he wants to rant against anything it should be the fact that they accept 100-10,000 Philosophy majors for every "Tenure-Track" teaching position available. I think he should shut the fuck and go teach community college students on the public dime.

    If he was unemployed with a M.S. in Electrical Engineering due to an H1B visa taking his job I would be more sympathetic. Abusing his philosophy education to justify in his own mind defaulting on debt? No wonder nobody wants to hire him! He spent 10 years studying philosophy and that is his magnum opus? "I was able shirk employment for 10 years thanks to tax dollars, and now that it's time to pay the piper: I want everyone to unite in solidarity so I can put off paying back those loans perpetually/relieve the pain of default"?

    Cry me a fucking river. Least sympathetic advocate for a legitimate cause EVER.

    Color me "shocked" his latest scheme to avoid employment is writing books and "blogging"(not a business plan moron)...

    1. Re:Getting a PhD in Philosophy? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      He's 58 years old, if he had an MS in EE he would have made enough money to pay off his student loans 30 years ago. He's a societal leech who denigrates people who sell shoes to make a living or have to work hard every day to put a meal on the table.

  22. Corporate responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia's list of companies that filed for bankruptcy includes such all-American businesses as Abercrombie and Fitch, Chrysler, Delta Airlines, Macy's, the Pittsburgh Penguins, and Samsonite. There should be no shame whatsoever if an individual chooses to go into default on student loans, or walk away from a mortgage. The company will not worry about their "corporate responsibility" to you when deciding to file; you should not worry about yours to them.

    1. Re:Corporate responsibility by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The terms of the loan spell out the consequences for defaulting. You will have to give back the house and depending on what state you live in you can either then wash your hands of the remaining amount owed or will owe the difference between what the lender can sell the house for and what you owed. With a student loan the lender can't repossess your education so student loan contracts specify that you can't abrogate the debt. If you don't like the terms, don't borrow the money.

    2. Re:Corporate responsibility by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      With a student loan the lender can't repossess your education so student loan contracts specify that you can't abrogate the debt.

      That's actually federal law, and it used to be that a bankruptcy court could discharge them, and they would, occasionally. Though it generally took a crash in the job market for your chosen career field, permanent disability that meant you had to start over education wise, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  23. Also missing from the article by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also missing from the article but something potentially change your interpretation of it:

    1. It's there implicitly but it's worth to make explicit: "when I was 17, I went with my mother to the local bank" means that this delightful anedote happened in 1974, a long time ago both in years and in differences in tuition prices and legislation around student loans.

    2. There will be a lot of talk about federally guaranteed students loans but his loans where unsubsidized private loans with a private bank.

    The whole article is flamebait because it piggybacks in the current perception that the student loan system in the U.S. is flawed but offers an anecdote from a very different time and background than ours.

  24. Government Loans are the Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Easy government credit is what makes college so expensive. Colleges know that students can get the money, so there is no downward pressure on tuition and fees.

    1. Re:Government Loans are the Problem by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Yeah Harvard had a real problem charging higher tuition back in the '60s....

  25. or just go to Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more americans are turning to Europe and its generally free education system.

    http://www.marketplace.org/topics/education/learning-curve/american-students-head-germany-free-college

    In some european countries (Italy for instance) education is actually a constitutional right.

    1. Re:or just go to Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a lot of Americans. Plus German and Nordic schools are pretty tough.

  26. Field of study by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    I question the choice of field of study. A Master of Philosophy isn't suited for much other than a part time teaching job. These days a PhD is important in a liberal arts field. I looked into the fields that were most likely to keep jobs in America. not replace people with robots, and make sure I'd enjoy it. It is unwise to chose a field solely on enjoyment. Employment needs to be considered if one is to make their way in the world. I went into the coatings industry and worked up the ladder. My advice is to choose wisely what you plan to do for the rest of your life. .

    1. Re:Field of study by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      In the 90's you couldn't even get a student loan for any degree level in Philosophy. Why? The only jobs are for those with a PHD teaching Philosophy at the University level. I learned this when I went back for a business degree. Yet in the idiotic push for the ridiculous "well rounded" education, students are forced to take useless classes like this. Subsidizing classes with no real value in the job market.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:Field of study by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      One would think that a guy with a Master's in Philosophy would know pud-whack ideology as it came out of his own mouth.

      Maybe he should sue his professors for doing a piss-poor job of teaching him, then use that money to pay back his loans.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Field of study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet in the idiotic push for the ridiculous "well rounded" education, students are forced to take useless classes like this. Subsidizing classes with no real value in the job market.

      I disagree there is no real value in the classes. If taught well (I admit that's a big if) a philosophy course could cause a student to really think differently, approach problems from different angles etc. Now that skill can be learned in many classes from many subjects but it is an important skill nonetheless.

      If you approach the well rounded portion of your education right there are invaluable lessons that can be learned. You'll be a good programmer that will be able to communicate with your boss and your clients. If you are approach it as a set of check boxes to get your degree, than it is probably ridiculous for you to take the classes.

      There is a real struggle in society right now, half of the people say college should be to get a degree and get a job, the other half state it should be to learn regardless of your career path. I think it should be both with an emphasis on making money at the end.

    4. Re:Field of study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a vocational training program, go to a vocational school, not a university.

  27. The loans are not the only university scandal by paradigmsareconstruc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many people are not aware, but it's been known for a number of years amongst physics education researchers how to actually measure the change in conceptual comprehension (actual assimilation of new concepts into the part of the mind that does real-world problem-solving) that results from a semester-long class. Force concept inventories (FCI's) can be administered both before and after a class, and these tests have already been given to tens of thousands of students. These tests have revealed very serious problems with public comprehension of science that starts on day 1 of the first mechanics physics course, suggesting that it is the lecture and problem set approach which is causing the problem. Eric Mazur has made a name for himself by discovering this problem at Harvard. What he found, by studying his own students, is that the plug-and-chuggers can ace their rote memorization exams, and yet still completely fail conceptual questions in the same exact domain/topic.

    See Confessions of a Converted Lecturer, or the first two devastating paragraphs of the abstract here.

    The college loans are not the only scandal happening at the universities. We should also be seeking to make sure that our straight-A students actually understand the materials they are memorizing, by instituting the FCI's. This would also help parents to determine the effectiveness of the various programs, and programs would once again compete on instruction.

    1. Re:The loans are not the only university scandal by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      This has been an issue for thousands of years, even remarked on back in ancient Chinese, Greek and Roman times (hell, even Babylonian I believe).

      Everyone's brains are tuned in different ways. Some people's brains are tuned to memorize and regurgitate, whereas others are more geared to problem solving but terrible at memorizing. The former seem to do great in most schools because the average educational testing process relies more on memorization, while the later often do very poorly in school but have plenty of imagination or drive to build careers.

      While these are two over-generalized extremes, there are a multitude of elements inside each person's brain, personality, etc., that affects not only their ability to learn but what concepts they can learn. Education (and indeed career paths) should be geared towards these elements, otherwise a particular type gets too much attention and entire society loses out on an important resource not being supported properly.

    2. Re:The loans are not the only university scandal by firewrought · · Score: 1

      What he found, by studying his own students, is that the plug-and-chuggers can ace their rote memorization exams, and yet still completely fail conceptual questions in the same exact domain/topic.

      Many people cram their way thru intro-level courses, if not whole degrees. It's very undesirable, but it's not a "scandal" per se. It's simply an ongoing reality that educators, such as the ones you reference, struggle and experiment with.

      A much bigger problem, IMO, is the bureaucratization of education. In higher-ed, you've seen it in the form of increasing administration-to-faculty ratios ("chief diversity officer", anyone?). In lower-ed, you see the obsession with trying to formalize, test, measure, and customize every aspect of a student's experience, at the expense of actual, you know, teaching. Perverse economic incentives then tempt teachers to forge scores and and teach-to-test, thus encouraging rote memorization and avoiding deep conceptual development. Sure, your suggested battery of tests may sound like a fine idea in isolation, but when you pile it on top of everyone else's fine ideas and impose it from afar, you end up distorting and smothering the education process.

      Unfortunately, that lower-ed scientific management philosophy is creeping into higher-ed, and it'll be a major part of what kills off quality, affordable education in America.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    3. Re:The loans are not the only university scandal by ccnelson · · Score: 1

      My daughter is already seeing this in high school. She told me the other day that with the current unit of her Principles of Engineering course, she was pretty sure she had an 'A', but didn't understand any of it. It's a real problem.

    4. Re:The loans are not the only university scandal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who just finished Univ. Physics 1 and 2 that was taught from Dr. Mazur's textbook... while he's clever and identified this problem, he introduced another one by writing such a poor textbook. But that may be more of a Pearson thing.

  28. stop giving loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government shouldn't provide students any loans at all. If that stopped college would become very cheap very fast and might actually become affordable. Once they see enrollment drop to nothing because no one can pay cash and no bank will give a load with such as high risk they will have to drop the price. Let them cut the football team and the fancy million dollar buildings and the admin staff making 200K. But as long as the government if giving out free money the colleges will take it and then ask for me next year.

    1. Re:stop giving loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, that's reverse Keynesianism and while you can argue that Keynesian stimulus isn't good in the long run it seems readily apparent that unwinding it is difficult. Such a move would have all kind of knock-in effects, especially in smaller towns dominated by college life. In other words, it'd trigger a recession.

  29. I paid mine by jjn1056 · · Score: 1

    It did take 16 years though, and I did make some significant life choices based on that. LOL, now I have a mortgage, I think the last time I was totally free from debt was like 1992. It probably could be seen as a social control tool, but on the other hand my ability to buy things on credit against future earnings has helped me more than hindered. Although 10 years ago when I was paying the loan and living in a crappy tiny apartment I might have felt otherwise. Its one of those things that more life experience has given me an expanded perspective on.

    If you default on these loans, I think you should make a philosophical choice to never try to benefit from credit in the future.

    --
    Peace, or Not?
    1. Re:I paid mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, those people major in philosophy, of course they are fully capable of making a philosophical choice!

  30. You know what you're getting into by buk110 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you go to school for Philosophy don't be shocked when you find out the Philosophy factory isn't hiring.

    1. Re:You know what you're getting into by halivar · · Score: 1

      But it's easy work if you can get it: the Nihilism Factory, for instance, produces nothing.

    2. Re:You know what you're getting into by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the liberal arts college is a philosophy factory.
      And for them, business is booming.

    3. Re:You know what you're getting into by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      r/Philosophy is a shitstain on the internet. They are always hiring, but from what I can tell, the pay is 0, which actually makes a lot of sense.

  31. Reminds me of a relative by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

    Masters degree in Medieval History, bitches endlessly about the student debt she has piled up and is currently enjoying herself on a trip to Europe. It's just a shame that people have to choose between paying their bills and enjoying a few weeks in Italy.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a relative by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      On the flip side I offer one of my wife's cousins and his experience. He got an art degree from a private, and apparently very good from what I understand, art college. He has managed to make a reasonable career our of being a painter. Then again he already had been recognized before he graduated high school, and had gotten commissions to do work while he was still in school. Add in that he actually does treat it as a job and will typically put in anywhere between 60 and 80 hours a week at it and it becomes clear why he has succeeded unlike so many others. He just recently bought one of the galleries in the town he lives in so that should help him become more successful in the long run as it gives him another revenue stream as well as lowers his cost. Then again he isn't a whiny bitch and also understands that to make it as an artist you do have to produce what people want and not just what you want.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  32. Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the loan by talexb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was very fortunate -- I went to university in Canada, where university tuition is lower. The tuition for my last semester (four months, Winter '82) broke $1,000 for the first time. My parents had also taken out a Registered Education Savings Plan for me, which kicked in, I think, $800 for the last three years of my four year degree. And I had my Co-op work terms. With all that, I still needed a loan (it was around $2,500) to get me through the last year (OK, some of that may have paid for the month's vacation I took after finishing school).

    I paid $500 of the loan off in my first six months after school, then a few months after that, received a notice that they'd start charging interest if the loan wasn't paid off in full by the first anniversary. I was earning $22,000 annually, but my expenses were low, so I managed to make four monthly payments of $550 per month to get it all paid off.

    It didn't occur to my to skip out on the loan, although it was a relatively small amount. The only other loan I'd taken out was for a motorcycle -- four $400 payments -- and dodging those payments didn't occur to me either. I'd borrowed money, I had to pay it back.

    I think the writer of TFA is in denial. They need to mend fences and start paying off the loan. You borrowed some money and promised to pay it back. Yes, it's inconvenient, but it's the responsible thing to do. Grow up.

  33. Just come out and say it by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

    This summary comes close to saying, but chickens out, that we should raise taxes to pay for college for all citizens. That makes sense to me because it's what we already do with school for younger people.

    Until then, don't go to college if you don't intend to pay for it. It is irresponsible, dishonourable, and illegal to consume a commercial service and then refuse to pay.

    Come on, OP. Just say it. Raise taxes for the betterment of society. Formally change taxation. Don't just incite theft. How is that going to help people invest in their futures?

    1. Re:Just come out and say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why raise taxes when you could slash military spending and pay (or at least heavily subsidize) college, feed the homeless, and provide free medical insurance to everybody?

    2. Re:Just come out and say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that would be communism.

  34. Four word subtitle by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because I'm a victim

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Four word subtitle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's five words, math education failed you

    2. Re:Four word subtitle by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think he said he was a victim -- quite the opposite. He said "now I have used the system to my advantage". He got an education, and avoided paying for it.

      And he has. If he was richer, of course, people would say "you're just criticising because you are jealous". But because he only gained enough to allow him to spend time as a writer, he will be portrayed as a scrounger.

  35. No thanks to you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And this is part of the reason the prices keep going up. You defaulted so now we'll just pass the what you didn't pay on to others by raising the cost next year.

    1. Re:No thanks to you. by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

      Loan defaults have nothing to do with the cost of college. It is almost the opposite, it is the availability of the loans in the first place that have raised the cost of a college education. The government has effectively made all of this money available without putting constraints on credit-hour costs or how the universities actually spend the money. Universities are money spending machines, you give them money and they will spend it. Using loans in an attempt to make college more democratically available completely backfired. This was a foreseeable economic disaster.

  36. Liberal Arts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What I really hate about the media, they never talk about the horrible job market for nurses, electrical engineers and pretty much all new grads. This gives a false impression that the only folks who have to worry are the ones who are "unmarketable" degree programs.

    We have structural unemployment in this country. Contrary to the pundits who insist that it's "government polices" (whatever those may be), there are the trends of off-shoring, the Third world catching up with us, automation, and an aging population that are all working together to lower our standards of living. The easy days are over.

    Unfortunately, the rich and super rich aren't doing enough to invest in our economy. The only billionaire I can think of doing old school investment is Musk the rest stick money into a hedge fund (zero sum game), buy a sports team from another billionaires, and do reality TV shows - their qualifications for being a business genius being that they won the dot-com lottery 15 years ago.

    Then I see the CEOs who offshore jobs, get their $10million bonus - even if they fuck up the economy - and I'm supposed to buy into the fact that we live in a meritocracy and all of my problems are all my fault?

    I'd also like to add that the job market is totally screwed up. Being unemployed means you're damaged goods - it doesn't matter that your whole department was offshored, it's all your fault because of "personal responsibility" or some such bullshit that the elite has told us to convince us that all of our problems are our fault. Yeah, it's my fault that there are third world people willing to work for less than half of what I was making. It's my fault the businesses do not hire unemployed people (go ahead, put an end date on your current job on your LinkedIN profile watch all the recruitment emails stop coming.).

    Things are much more screwed up than some liberal arts major "loser" who can't get a decent paying job.

    Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream is spot on - and it was written 10 years ago when things were better.

    You may riding high now, but one day, you will be called into a meeting one morning and your entire department will be canned and the jobs sent overseas. You will unemployed and good luck getting another job - especially if you're over 40. If you think you got the "skills" that makes you immune, well keep telling yourself that. This profession has gone to shit. We are all disposable and unless you have some really elite skills, you're headed for the waste heap too.

    Rant over. I'm outta here.

    1. Re:Liberal Arts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...go ahead, put an end date on your current job on your LinkedIN profile watch all the recruitment emails stop coming...

      Or, if you're over a certain age, put the year you graduated (from MIT fer chrissakes!) next to your degree, and get ZERO responses to any job ad you respond to.

  37. Usefulness to society? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Years later, I found myself confronted with a choice that too many people have had to and will have to face. I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school. Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.

    Lee: if you went to college and graduate school to learn to be a writer, and you're a writer, then you owe your career in large part in whoever loaned you the money. Pay back the money.

    If you went to college thinking you'd emerge with a six-figure income as a writer, then you screwed up royally, but you still owe the money. Pay back the money.

    If you went to college majoring in something practical, but decided that being a writer would be more fun, then, I've got news from you: 99% of us would rather be doing something other than what we're paid for. You still owe the money. Pay back the money.

    If you can't afford to pay it back on their schedule, work with a debt-management agency to pay what you can afford. $50 a month. Anything. But this "I'm going to take the diploma and run" business is nothing more than selfishness and irresponsibility. You're no better than a deadbeat dad.

    1. Re:Usefulness to society? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You can pay society back for your education by being a productive and useful member of society. We don't really need the money back. Society doesn't get the money anyways, it tends to go to the banks and university operators. (even if it's a government loan, they don't handle the money)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Usefulness to society? by doccus · · Score: 1

      ...(even if it's a government loan, they don't handle the money)

      Well, yes.. in the event of a default the *government* (that's the taxpayer) shoulders the debt. You don't REALLY think the banks would let something like that go, do you?

  38. I hate people like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't post using the words I really want to say but this article pisses me off. I guess I was stupid for going to a state college we could mostly afford, getting a decent job after college, and paying off my loans early. This infuriates me the same as the people that bought more house than they could afford and then expected the government and banks to write down their loans.

    It sickens me that being irresponsible doesn't have enough consequences. We really have a screwed up system.

  39. poor logic, for a philosophy graduate by fche · · Score: 1

    "one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of [...] reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college"

    That is a false dichotomy. For some examples of "going to college", it is exactly reckless borrowing and spending.

    1. Re:poor logic, for a philosophy graduate by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

      I wish I could mod you up.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  40. Rapacity?? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Doesn't that imply universities are greedily trying to suck everything they can from students? That's a bit unfair, considering the problem likely has more to do with how we drive up demand for educational resources without increasing supply. The more we subsidize the demand, the more expensive it becomes to satisfy since supply isn't growing at the same rate.

  41. Poor baby.... by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Years later, I found myself confronted with a choice that too many people have had to and will have to face. I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school."
    You want to be a writer but you can not pay off the debt you created getting a doctorate?
    Really? You want into to debt getting a Phd in Philosophy?
    Sorry but a lot of people have to take jobs they do not want to pay of debt or even to feed a family. You decided to spend a lot of borrowed money getting a degree and a Phd in a subject that does not pay well at all.
    "Maybe the problem was that I had reached beyond my lower-middle-class origins and taken out loans to attend a small private college to begin with. "
    Well yes it is. State schools are a lot cheaper and community colleges even cheaper. Get your required course out of the way on the cheap and then move on to University.

    " I thought I deserved better, and naïvely tried to turn myself into a professional reader and writer on my own, without a college degree."
    Talk about a sense of entitlement. You did not try to turn yourself into a anything on your own. You tried to use other people's money to live a fantasy. Who needs to pay a "professional reader". Wow. I just do not know what to say except pay up dead beat.

    Wow this does so much harm to the idea of student loan reform that it almost seems like a right wing plant.

     

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  42. Debt Solution: Get "In Demand" Schooling ! by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

    Whether it is Texas A&M, MIT, CalTech or smaller schools like Oregon Inst. of Technology, get a degree where their graduates have high rates of employment within 6 months of graduation.

    OIT claims to have 90+ % of graduates with full time jobs within 6 months of graduation. Lots of their graduates have job offers before they leave school.

    If a student wants to "dabble" in the soft sciences, like History and Sociology and Psychology, do it at night school after you have a job!

  43. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

    It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.

  44. Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any difference between him and those that he is decrying?

  45. This is one of those moments ... by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... where I thank god that I live in Germany. An abundance of colleges to choose from, all for free (except some trivial Semester fee that's well below 200 Euros that gets you rebated admittance to public events, a free public transport ticket and some other niceys along with it).

    Fucking dig this: You actually *save* money if you are a student over here - even as a part-time student!! I'd pay less healthcare as a freelancer with cheap student rates (look up "healthcare" on wikipedia if you're from the US. ... SCNR) and my PT ticket is cheaper!

    This is also one of the reasons I'm gonna get off my lazy ass and start a college CS track this year - it would be an insane freakin' waste not to. Just finished mit GED A-Levels with prime scores btw. for exactly that reason.

    Tip from across the pond: You guys should help Lessig get through with his Superpac initiative and then redo some core parameters of your system - it's broken at to many places.

    My 2 eurocents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:This is one of those moments ... by will_die · · Score: 2

      Even if not a German citizen you can make use of this, there is around a 400 euro fee for school and transportation costs, depends on school.
      Now for the reality of it, from what people who have gone to USA schools and German schools they compare the German ones to community colleges in the USA.
      So look at your local community college and find out how much that actually costs, some states are free for a few years or will give grants to almost any one going to a community college.

    2. Re:This is one of those moments ... by erapert · · Score: 1

      An abundance of colleges to choose from, all for free...

      So you don't understand the concept of taxes? How do you say "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL) in German?

    3. Re:This is one of those moments ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is you will be paying for your free education for your entire life. Germany 's taxes are higher because of it. And I understand some areas have opted out of it because of the unnecessary expense.

      Part of the problem is that Americans believe you get what you pay for. A free education at university level will be of less worth because it isn't a scarce commodity. A university degree currently has the same value as a High school degree did in 1940 for most jobs.

  46. personal responsibility by jfruh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny how when a corporation defaults on its debt and files for bankruptcy so that it can break union contracts and pay workers less, it's seen as a sharp business move, a recognition that their expenditures have come to surpass their income in a structural and unsustainable way. But when an individual decides the same, perhaps after coming to the conclusion that an investment in a home or university education wasn't as lucrative as it seemed it would be at the time, people start thundering about the moral necessity of paying back loans.

    1. Re:personal responsibility by leonbev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, perhaps the trick to paying off student loans in the 21st century is:

      Create a sham startup business
      Get yourself have a million in seed money from a VC that isn't too bright (This might be the tough part)
      Pay yourself a big salary with that seed money (Because, hey, you're the CEO right?)
      Use that salary to pay off your student loans
      Declare bankruptcy once the seed money runs out.
      Put "CEO of shamstartup.com!" on your resume, and use it to get a management job somewhere that doesn't do thorough background checks.

    2. Re:personal responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two wrongs do not make a right. It is shitty for either group to default.

    3. Re:personal responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You. Sound. POOR.

  47. What's Your Next Trick? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's your next trick, pawning a bunch of your stuff (since no one will ever give you another credit-based loan again), never paying the interest, then bitching online about how the people at the pawn shop are thieves because they sold "your" stuff?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:What's Your Next Trick? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      no one will ever give you another credit-based loan again

      This was the first thing I thought of. Ok. You graduated college and gave the loan companies a big ol' middle finger. Good for you. You even got a job with that degree of yours. Now you just need to get to it so you buy a car.... Oh, wait. They won't give you a car loan because your credit stinks. No problem, you'll take the bus, but you do need to buy some clothes. You'll just put the money on your credit card... Oh, wait. They won't give you a credit card (or will only give you one with a through-the-roof interest rate) because your credit stinks. Fine, so you pay with cash. Somehow, you wind up doing somewhat well and decide to settle down with a special someone in a nice house.... Oops. Sorry. No home loan for you.

      Paying off your loans leads to good credit which leads to more credit opportunities. Defaulting on your credit leads to less credit opportunities in the future.

      If paying student loans seems like a pain because "I could use that money for tons of other cool stuff instead", then I've got news for you (where "you" = the student-loan-defaulting author): Life is a series of "I would love to do X but need to spend money on Y instead." Very few of us wind up with enough money to do everything we've ever wanted. Most of us find joy in the things we can afford, pay off the things we need to pay off, and indulge in the occasional dream about what we would do if money were no object.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  48. few poeple start college indending to default by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Paying back is something far in the future of teenagers mind. Maybe you dont get the job you planned or find a finishing is not for you. There are probably a million people or more in the sme boat ast this author and they have to rationalize their life's choices.

    1. Re:few poeple start college indending to default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This argument might have been relevant IF the original didn't state he went to the bank with a parent. (who, presumably, knew about paying back loaned money...or maybe that parent was as nutty as the son.)

  49. The author went to college in the 80's by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of what has happened to social mobility in the last 30 years, it hasn't affected the author of this article because he is 57 years old. He went to college in the 80's when college was not nearly as expensive. I went to college at the turn of the century and even then it was cheap enough you could pay over half of your college expenses by working part time at minimum wage.

    This guy is simply a sociopathic asshole who is just being provocative to get page views. He stopped paying his bills because he is an entitled prick, not because of the federal loan apparatus he is complaining about in the article. I have real sympathy for the problems younger millenials are having because of the rising price of college, and it is shameful for this author to exploit them like this.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "This guy is simply a sociopathic asshole who is just being provocative to get page views."

      That's about all the jobs that are left, after outsourcing/offshoring, automation, various financial implosions, jobless "recoveries", etc.

    2. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was my reaction also. Siegel writes like a sheltered Millennial who has not yet experienced the need to make his own way in the world. We're sympathetic because we know how screwed today's young people are by those astronomical tuitions everywhere they go. But wait - he is actually a 57-year-old Boomer, nearing the end of his career. He was educated in a time when a student had to seriously intend to overpay for college.

      So he has had a middlebrow, forgettable career being, according to his bio:

      "...a New York writer and cultural critic who has written for Harper's, The Nation, The New Republic, The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Slate..."

      and has decided, doubtless given the cultural tenor of these publications, to stick it to the plebeians from his New York Elysium orbiting retreat. The prosecution rests.

    3. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, what are the consequences of not paying?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can't win the lottery, can't close escrow, there's some others but those are the ones that people tend to remember.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Digital+Mage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....to add to this, the guy is making money AS A WRITER!!!!! He has published 5 books and has written for other top publications and has a family living in New Jersey. Who knows how much he makes as a writer but he should be trying to pay forth something to his loans in good faith as opposed to just saying screw it. Sociopathic asshole is exactly right.

    6. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Wage garnishment, IRS refund garnishment, indefinite threat of lawsuit for federally held loans too.

    7. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So it sounds kinda pointless then, because all he did was make things worse for himself. I'm really struggling to see what his goal is here.

      People who really want to ditch their student loan around here just leave the country.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by bledri · · Score: 2

      Can't win the lottery, can't close escrow, there's some others but those are the ones that people tend to remember.

      (Statistically speaking,) I can't win the lottery either. It sucks.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    9. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regardless of what has happened to social mobility in the last 30 years, it hasn't affected the author of this article because he is 57 years old. He went to college in the 80's when college was not nearly as expensive. ...

      This guy is simply a sociopathic asshole who is just being provocative to get page views. He stopped paying his bills because he is an entitled prick, not because of the federal loan apparatus he is complaining about in the article. ...

      *Exactly* I'm 52 and graduated in 1987 with a BSCS from a state school. I worked at school for financial aid, got and paid off my student loans. This guy is a whiny slacker who can't admit he's made poor life choices and thinks society owes him something. He wants to be a writer? Fine - work for it. I have a friend who's a writer and has another "real" job to help her pay the bills. He says in TFA:

      Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.

      And what *is* his "particular usefulness to society"? I am at a loss here.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      And what *is* his "particular usefulness to society"? I am at a loss here.

      He seems to be very useful as an example of what NOT to do.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Bad credit. You'd need to pay cash for a car or pay outrageous interest rates; same thing for buying a house. Although they're not supposed to, some employers will also check out the credit rating of potential employees, but I don't believe that's actually legal.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      If you're a freelancer or don't have a regular employer sending you paychecks, you don't have wages that can be garnished. If you calculate your tax withholding or estimated taxes right, you don't give the government an interest free loan and you won't have a return that will be garnished. If you have little assets, suing you probably will cost them more than they could recover.

      Life would probably become more difficult than someone with good credit, but probably not impossible. You aren't going to qualify for car loans or mortgage, but renting isn't impossible with bad or no credit as long as you aren't real picky and can make a few month's down payment.

    13. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more expensive when you follow up your BA with a pair of MAs and a PhD... all done in NYC at Columbia.

      He's an entitled sociopath, and I would welcome the government collecting it's debts in whatever stringent ways we reserve for people who I personally despise.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As long as he's 'barely making it' he's 'judgement proof', and by the sounds of it has most of 'his' resources in his wife's name.

      The judge has to let him keep things like his house, a car to get to work, money for groceries and such. By his own admission he went for work that was 'fulfilling' emotionally, but not fiscally.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is simply a sociopathic asshole who is just being provocative to get page views.

      So he's got the personality of a Fortune-500 CEO or an A-list celebrity?

    16. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by sjames · · Score: 1

      You know it was a lot cheaper in the '80s, right?

    17. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what has happened to social mobility in the last 30 years, it hasn't affected the author of this article because he is 57 years old. He went to college in the 80's when college was not nearly as expensive. I went to college at the turn of the century and even then it was cheap enough you could pay over half of your college expenses by working part time at minimum wage.

      This guy is simply a sociopathic asshole who is just being provocative to get page views. He stopped paying his bills because he is an entitled prick, not because of the federal loan apparatus he is complaining about in the article. I have real sympathy for the problems younger millenials are having because of the rising price of college, and it is shameful for this author to exploit them like this.

      Right dooshes like him are a contributing factor to the debt that's hurting my generation as they defaulted on their nearly 0 interest government loans so no my government loans were 6% to 8% APR which was lower than market in 2004 but was not in 2009 when my grace period for making payments ended.

    18. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You know it was a lot cheaper in the '80s, right?

      Salaries were lower too. If he had gotten a more lucrative degree or went to a less expensive school, and/or (I imagine) had a job while going to school, he'd probably be fine, or at least better off, too.

      I'm roughly the same age as Lee and went to school at roughly the same time. I had 2 Pell grants, 2 student loans, 2 at-school jobs (1 in the CS dept office and 1 as a research assistant doing LISP/Prolog programming) and a summer job at Pizza Hut. I managed work my way through school, get a job and pay off my debts. What's his problem?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    19. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      You know it was a lot cheaper in the '80s, right?

      Salaries were lower too. If he had gotten a more lucrative degree or went to a less expensive school, and/or (I imagine) had a job while going to school, he'd probably be fine, or at least better off, too.

      I'm roughly the same age as Lee and went to school at roughly the same time. I had 2 Pell grants, 2 student loans, 2 at-school jobs (1 in the CS dept office and 1 as a research assistant doing LISP/Prolog programming) and a summer job at Pizza Hut. I managed work my way through school, get a job and pay off my debts. What's his problem?

      Well, see, there's your problem: you wasted your life working in Pizza Hut instead of spending your summers pondering the greatness that someday you would bestow on humanity through your writing.

    20. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by sjames · · Score: 1

      What's his problem?

      Near as I can tell, his problem is that at age 17 he followed sime very bad advice from his parents, admissions people, and his guidance councilor. Now nearing 60, he's still paying for that.

    21. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      And what *is* his "particular usefulness to society"? I am at a loss here.

      Being able to write click bait articles that will catch people's eyes on the internet for advertiser's money?

    22. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Well, see, there's your problem: you wasted your life working in Pizza Hut instead of spending your summers pondering the greatness that someday you would bestow on humanity through your writing.

      I did bestow some good pizza on humanity in my day, though...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    23. Re:The author went to college in the 80's by anyGould · · Score: 1

      ....to add to this, the guy is making money AS A WRITER!!!!! He has published 5 books and has written for other top publications and has a family living in New Jersey. Who knows how much he makes as a writer but he should be trying to pay forth something to his loans in good faith as opposed to just saying screw it. Sociopathic asshole is exactly right.

      No worse than the rich who make sure that if the business goes under, all *their* money is safely stashed away. Or corporations (for instance, Target is currently stiffing a lot of Canadian suppliers because Target Canada closed down - so all the profits went back to the mothership, while the losses are left behind to rot in bankruptcy.

      I suspect that may be part of the point of the article - why is it that a billionaire can walk away from their debts, but a college student can't? Why shouldn't he be allowed to play by the same rules? (And apparently he can and did - assuming he doesn't just call their bluff and see if they even have the paperwork anymore.)

  50. usefulness to society by brausch · · Score: 1

    From the article: "to do with my particular usefulness to society"

    It appears to me that you have none.

    --
    "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    1. Re:usefulness to society by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Dunno... assuming he's healthy there are 2 kidneys, 2 lungs, a liver that can be used for 2 or 3 partial transplants, the heart, eyes, etc....

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  51. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I went to university in Canada, where university tuition is lower.

    Actually, you can go to a local state college in the US for (typically) less than the cost of university in Canada (at least when I looked). When I was shopping (~1997) US state colleges were about $4000 per year, and university in Ontario was about $6000 per year (For non-Canadians, note that in Ontario universities are functionally equivalent to US colleges). The fool that wrote this article went to a VERY expensive private university. I also had that choice, RCC in Ontario was happy to take me to cleaners for far more than $10,000 a year.

    >You borrowed some money and promised to pay it back. Yes, it's inconvenient, but it's the responsible thing to do. Grow up.

    You're completely right, however, at this point the author has trashed his credit so much (by choice) that he would be financially better off defaulting on all default-able debt and focusing solely on student loans. Since he's a scumbag, I would actually recommend that as the best and quickest path to redemption for him, as his sociopathic nature will mean he won't feel bad about it it and at least he can become a useful member of society quicker instead of a waste of skin.

  52. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naw. Just "Grow up" and take responsibility for your debts. It's time to put on the Big Boy pants and start paying your bills.

  53. BS article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost totally lacking in facts.

    Why does his article have almost no numbers in it?
    Why does he not tell us how much the state school's costs vs the private school's costs?
    How much of his loan costs were for tuition and books, and how much went to his choice of apartment?
    Did he buy a car and television with the loan money?
    I'm betting he was using student loans to live off of rather than to pay for his school expenses.

    He says the loans began 40 years ago with the last one being 30 years ago.
    How much were the loans for and how much did he pay each month/year?
    I'm betting he blew off paying anything on his loans and that's why they've ballooned.

    It sounds just like countless other stories of people with enormous credit card debt.

    His story is the story of a typical deadbeat.

  54. Someone doesn't know who Dave Ramsey is. by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    His course should be mandatory to graduate high school.

  55. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't afford something, don't buy it. There's plenty of cheap ways to get a diploma, but this guy went to two pricey schools instead of a community college. It's his fault. Grow up.

  56. self-entitled twit, 1,100 words of drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have done some damned planning about how much he'd likely earn vs how much his loans would be on that silly vanity degree that he wanted (not needed) so badly.

    And this is coming from someone who thinks that student loan repayment requirements should be weakened. But wow, is this dipshit ever the wrong spokesman for that cause.

    Our lovely conservatives have railed so much against deadbeats, that they've made student loans rather like taxes: can't discharge them in bankruptcy, can't get them forgiven for disability as long as you can bathe yourself, tie your shoes, take the bus to work, and flip burgers. I'm not kidding. If you're 6 months away from completing your Masters' in a challenging field so you can change careers, and you're sitting at a red light, and you get rear-ended, and you're left with problems with concentration, sensitivity to noise, and other assorted problems which mean you'll never be able to use that degree, well, tough shit peasant, give us the money back.

    I know people will say "sue the at-fault" driver. Well, what if that doesn't work for whatever reason? (In our case, an insurance company that was willing to put on a week-long circus of perjury... Appeals are pending... I will see the insurance company lawyer disbarred if it takes me the rest of my goddamned life... But meantime, wife cannot hold any job, and we're in no position to cough up $10,000/year for those loans, on top of the medical/rehab bills which the insurance scumbags have weaseled out of paying...)

  57. The old switcheroo! by geminidomino · · Score: 2

    I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school.

    Oh, gods, the horror! Taking a job you don't want so you can live? The poor, wretched victim!

    I thought this guy was yet another "B.A. in basket weaving" millenial from this whinging. Color me gobsmacked: he was born in the fucking 50s.

    1. Re:The old switcheroo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, gods, the horror! Taking a job you don't want so you can live? The poor, wretched victim!

      I'm trying to think in what twisted world you think this is right and OK.

      Hint: It is not "entitlement" to believe in a better world.

    2. Re:The old switcheroo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millenials did not invent the attitude. Refer to the roaring twenties, hippies, and the gen x counter culture.

    3. Re:The old switcheroo! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to think in what twisted world you think this is right and OK.

      The one where reality takes place. If it was something we wanted to spend our time doing, they wouldn't have to give us money in return.

  58. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by jittles · · Score: 1

    It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.

    The time to have grown up was the time PRIOR to making a poor financial decision and borrowing $100k on an education. Even in the poorest of states, a state run university will not run you that much money. If you can't afford to go the private school, then don't go! Problem solved.

  59. Pay the loan back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't RTFA because the summary says enough.

    Look, if you sign the papers to agree to pay the loan back, you should pay the loan back.

    If you don't intend to repay the loan, then don't take the money in the first place.

    I took a student loan and I repaid it. I took a loan on my car, and repaid it. I took a loan on my house and I repaid it. Etc.

    What makes student loans any different? Not one thing.

    Nothing in life is free, except perhaps the air you breath.

  60. Remove bankruptcy protection for lenders by butchersong · · Score: 2
    Young people and even people in general are deeply stupid when it comes to stuff like this. It is easy to just say "OK" and sign your name and start racking up debt even into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can do this when no sane person would ever loan the young person anything more than 10-20K unsecured because the lenders know they will never be able to avoid it via bankruptcy in the US. It is another government "guaranteed" loan similar to fannie mae freddie mac and I think we all remember how that turns out.

    Student loans need to be subject to bankruptcy just like any other loan and Gov loans need to be removed entirely and replaced with smaller amount grants. Grants as a compromise because progressives will never allow them to be simply be removed or reformed with reasonable controls and even if lowered it would only be a few years until the fed managed to make a mess of them again.

  61. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you insane? Why would a big-name author need to take responsibility when he doesn't need to? He has become one of those greedy jerks accountable to nobody that he is complaining about. He has it made, and will never have to account for what he has done.

  62. Not Listening to Mike Rowe by ClayDowling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking out huge loans that you don't have a way to repay, to get a degree that has no potential for income, show a serious lack of judgement. Military service will fund education, often while drawing full pay. A trade certification from a community college would lead to a stable income that could be used to fund an indulgence degree like Philosophy. It would also allow you to eat after getting the degree, which is the big problem.

    There are plenty of degree programs where the student loan problem is a real issue. Philosophy isn't one of those. If you don't have a trust fund or a rich spouse to support you, don't get it.

    1. Re:Not Listening to Mike Rowe by amber_of_luxor · · Score: 1

      >Taking out huge loans that you don't have a way to repay, to get a degree that has no potential for income, show a serious lack of judgement.

      Offering loans to people who have neither the means to repay them, nor the potential to repay them, shows an even greater lack of judgment. As such, the company offering the loan should learn from its mistake, by the person defaulting on the loan.

      --
      Wind Beneath Thy Wings
    2. Re:Not Listening to Mike Rowe by ClayDowling · · Score: 2

      It's always the other guy's fault?

    3. Re:Not Listening to Mike Rowe by Surreal_Streaker · · Score: 1

      >Taking out huge loans that you don't have a way to repay, to get a degree that has no potential for income, show a serious lack of judgement.

      Offering loans to people who have neither the means to repay them, nor the potential to repay them, shows an even greater lack of judgment. As such, the company offering the loan should learn from its mistake, by the person defaulting on the loan.

      The decoupling of consequences from decision making creates moral hazard - decision makers tend to optimize their decisions in their own best interests:
      -Banks lend to people unlikely to repay.
      -Academic institutions raise tuition to fund showpiece buildings, climbing walls, and gourmet dining halls that not a required component of a top education.

      While individuals should be held responsible for their poor decisions, there also needs be some accountability for the financial, government and academic institutions creating this systemic moral hazard.

      My personal preference is to retroactively make all student loans eligible for default which penalizes banks and the government for creating the moral hazard of undisciplined lending, and limits academic institutions' ability to continue to increase costs going forward.

    4. Re:Not Listening to Mike Rowe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this isn't a mistake, it's a calculated action aiming at taking everything a person can earn, and if they cannot, take it from the government instead. While I agree it is malevolent, it's like drug pushing. The only way not to get into it, is not to take it.

  63. Coward! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It took me 15 years but I paid off mine!

    What a crybaby loser you are. I hope they throw your ass in real prison for theft!

  64. problems really do exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the overly entitled attitude of the author, there are real problems with the structure of the student loan system in the US. Some of the major issues: bankruptcy does not apply to student loans, colleges have very little real pressure to keep costs down, students tend to pick colleges based on factors related to how much money the college spends (i.e. kick-ass dorms, high tech buildings...) instead of cost efficiency, costs in general are not clearly laid out to students during the application process, and students are not encouraged to be financially literate before making such large financial decisions. This last one is a big deal. Parents, high school teachers, family friends, anyone can sit down with an 18 year old who has never taken out a loan before and explain why this deserves a lot of thought, but that almost never happens. It's not reasonable to expect a kid to magically understand all about loans, but it is reasonable to expect the adults around them to help them figure it out.

  65. Don't try this at home by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    I had already read this yesterday before seeing it on /. and liked the opinion piece as it make some valid points. That was before knowing the author's lack of credibility. I would be very concerned with this strategy as the government is almost guaranteed to collect at some point. Things like having your wages garnished. Also not mentioned in this is that, if you do have federal student loans, payments are capped at like 10% of your income. You may never pay off the debt, but you would be considered current on the loan and credit worthy. Better to make the seven years of payments equal to 10% of your income and then file for bankrupts. I'm not a lawyer and I don't look like an actor so I can't play one on TV either. This is not legal advice. But if you have high student debt and low income, you should talk to a real lawyer. Many people miss out on the chance to discharge debt through bankruptcy for a number of reasons. "Personal responsibility" shouldn't be one of them. The rates on your loans are set under the premise that some people will be eligible to discharge in bankruptcy. You've already paid for the privilege so not using it is just a waste. It isn't a moral issue.

    1. Re:Don't try this at home by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The rates on your loans are set under the premise that some people will be eligible to discharge in bankruptcy. You've already paid for the privilege so not using it is just a waste. It isn't a moral issue.

      On the contrary, it is a moral issue. Quite apart from the basic personal morality of honoring one's word, those who default become part of the statistics used to set the interest rates, so they're still raising the rates for everyone else. Worse, since you can't sign away the ability to discharge the loan in bankruptcy, those who would not attempt to evade repayment of a loan they voluntarily agreed to are penalized along with the rest.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    2. Re:Don't try this at home by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Bankruptcy is not evasion. It's not like everybody in the world can go and file bankruptcy. But those who have crippling debts are afforded that protection. If you borrow from friends or family, I would argue for a moral obligation to repay. From a publicly traded bank? If you meet the legal definition of bankruptcy, by all means file. Failing to file for bankruptcy creates an economic distortion. If enough liberal arts majors with 200k student loans and 30k a year maximum earning potential start filing for bankruptcy, financial institutions will stop making these loans. The interest rates will start to vary based on your economic potential. It's arguably immoral to charge somebody a lifetime of debt for a humanities degree. But it happens because the federal government guarantees the loans and because not enough bankrupt people file. If those distortions went away, we'd be better off. But for that to happen we have to take a way the stigma of bankruptcy. (No I've never filed. I have been lucky to have good income out of school)

  66. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to get this in perspective, average US in-state public university tuition is $8646 a year. That's three times your entire loan, every year, just to get jobs with roughly double the starting salary, around $45k, for an entry-level grad in many industries. Interest starts shortly after graduation, and continues to compound the full life of the loan.

    That's not including any other fees, books, supplies, or room and board. $34584 for four years. That would take six years to pay off assuming 4% interest at your $550 a month (which is almost a full quarter of the graduate's take-home pay at the $45k salary level).

    The author of this article is a bag of crap, but that doesn't mean our college system isn't also a cesspool of graft and rampant financial fraud.

  67. It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't blame the universities for the mess the higher education system is in. They're just responding to market forces. Really, everybody is. It's just that the market has been circumvented by a well-meaning government.

    The problem is that unlimited money is flowing into the higher educational system and there is no negative feedback loop to limit it. It's just one big positive feedback loop driving up attendance and cost.

    1) Take as a given that "you have to go to college or else you'll have a shitty job." More on this later. The number of students going to college has been steadily increasing since forever. Part of this is because of the nature of our increasingly specialized and technical world, and partly due to social changes, like the progress made by women and minorities. I'm not in any way implying that's bad, I'm just saying there are more people going to school.

    2) The government first issued direct loans to poor students in 1958. This method upset congress, though, because from a budgetary standpoint it showed as a loss the year the loan was issued, even though it would be paid back later. Instead, from 1965-2010, the government guaranteed student loans made by private lenders. If the student defaulted, the government would make the lender whole. This makes the rule that student loan debt cannot be discharged by bankruptcy especially petty. The lenders were at no risk, anyway. From 1993 on the government also issued loans directly. Also, as time has gone on, loans have become increasingly easy to obtain. Originally only poor students who could show financial need qualified for government-backed loans, but those requirements were dropped in the 80s.

    3) Since there is no risk to the private lender, there is no incentive not to grant any loan request. As for government loans, there's no political will to deny students seeking money for education. So, there's no brake on the money flowing into the system. And the lenders aren't necessarily doing anything wrong here. There have been some scandals involving kickbacks to schools, but it's mostly unnecessary as people are lining up for these loans. Why would the lender say no? They'd just get called out for ruining some kid's dream of an education.

    4) If the lender had to take a risk, they would be careful about issuing loans. Today a D student seeking a degree that might land him a $30k/year job (if he's lucky) can get a loan for $40k. With risk involved, the lender would consult actuarial tables. What are the student's chances of completing the degree? What are his chances of getting a job? What's his expected income? What's the chance of default? No such brake exists. (Note, I'm not saying degrees not tied to a high-paying job are worthless. More on this later).

    5) Without the loan, the D student would go learn a trade, instead, or get a job that doesn't require a degree, like say work in a call center (yes, I'm aware of the current situation in which ads for low-level jobs like call center work have starting requiring degrees. It's part of the loop and I'll get to it later). A student seeking a degree that costs more than what's reasonable given their earning potential would also be turned away (this would be an incentive to keep tuition costs down. If liberal arts students can't get loans, your school doesn't get their money).

    6) Since the number of students and amount of money they can borrow is unbounded, there's no incentive to keep tuition costs down.

    7) How are students with options deciding what school to attend? We would hope they would decide based on the quality of the education, but that's difficult to measure objectively. Generally it just has to be "good." Also, many students don't know what they want to major in when they arrive, anyway, so it's difficult to make a decision based on the quality of a program. As long as they're reasonably confident in the quality of the education, they're making their decision based on amenities. How nice are the dorms? The recreational facilities? How pretty is the

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      This is as perfect a summary of the current studen loan problem as I've seen anywhere. It oughta be reposted.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it sucks because if you just want an education but don't care about the amenities, what can you do? You can't opt out. "No, I'm only paying the part of my tuition that goes for education, and I just won't use the rec center." If you want an education, you're stuck paying for the massive overhead of the resort and the administration.

      Really? My university in the UK had all the amenities you could want, but they were paid optional extras. All your tuition officially covered was attendance in lectures and exams. Want to stay in plush apartments? Sure, but be prepared to pay for it. People who wanted to save money often lived at home with their parents, or stayed in more reasonable accommodation.

      I'm not saying that there are no overheads that need to be covered, but a European-style 'a la carte' system of access to the facilities might help keep costs down.

    3. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

      This is really excellent. I think you've pretty much summarized this dreadful feedback loop in which we're finding ourselves. It's happening to state schools, and private alike (you may have mentioned that somewhere in there). I was so frustrated that Virginia Tech, a technical, public institution, kept investing so much money in fancy new "dorms" (or condos, like you said) and gyms and dining halls and then raising tuition and cutting scholarship financial aid, but not loans.

      I'm guessing that it's just another bubble, and there are two ways it could go:

      (1) it's going to burst at some point when high schoolers and parents start looking at price tags of college educations and say "nope, there's gotta be a better way." Whether there is or isn't a better way, eventually all but the rich will start getting priced out, as they are already from elite universities whether they realize it or not. If this happens and starts picking up steam as more and more kids stop going to college, I foresee some sort of collapse shown primarily through unemployment, corporations complaining about a "lack of skilled workers," etc. but really they've helped to create this by demanding that everyone have a college degree regardless of the position. This bubble bursting will almost certainly help make the wealthy/poor divide and social mobility much worse than it already is. I hate to imagine that, but it's gotta happen, right?

      Or, more ideally:
      (2) high schoolers get better advice and counseling on the reality of career options out there and the growth on the part of colleges slows (which I know they're all terrified of, but fuck them). In this case, the results are ultimately the same, just more gradual and giving everyone more of a chance to adapt. Problem is, economically we mandate that we always show growth (just like cancer...) and colleges are no different with their trustees and regents. Public schools are some of the worst. Until we can get over that idea, we're just gonna have to sit back, wait and get ready for the uncertain future of higher education which will undoubtedly affect the entire economy.

      Thanks for your post! Find someone to publish it for you!

    4. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by MNNorske · · Score: 1

      Well said! A bit of a long read, but you summarize the feedback loop scenario perfectly. When you look at what is actually needed to gain an education vs. what is currently built into colleges it's a glaring divide. Most of what you actually need for an education can be listed as: a teacher, books, a classroom, and a computer. None of which should add up to 40k/year.

    6. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's just not the way it works in the US. So yes, a "European style ala carte system" might be fine, but then you're talking about changing the system, and if you have the political will to change the system, you might as well change it much more than that.

      And it's not just about the type of facilities one could actually be charged for on a per-use basis, like rec facilities. What about the shiny new office for the Parking Administration? What about the expansions to the Office of Student Services? The classroom renovations? You can't charge on a per-use basis for these. It's all part of the general overhead.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that unlimited money is flowing into the higher educational system and there is no negative feedback loop to limit it. It's just one big positive feedback loop driving up attendance and cost.

      The above and subsequent points make this the best post here. Economic forces have been artificially altered -- look at the real problem. Go ahead and discuss the "where is the personal responsibility?" laments, but don't think for a second that is the real problem here.

      The high cost of education in the United States of America is a societal level problem and it started with "easy money" coming into the system. Qualify and manage educational loans the same as other personal loans and get the government out of the educational loan market. Stopping that has to be a first step.

    8. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Youve done d

    9. Re:It's nobody's fault and everybody's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR

      Regarding "I can't blame the universities..." though. You see, I do put a substantial portion of blame on the universities. I'm not convinced the OP is the right person with the right story to bring these issues forward.

      First of all, the universities hardly steer their applicants at all. You want a degree in fine arts? Sure, step right up! The universities do almost nothing to warn students that certain educational pathways are near certain to result in financial hardship, bitterness, and unfulfilled dreams.

      Second, the capital overhead of most universities is insane. They've built upon the "edifice" concept that glorifies the builder, who is invariably seen as a servant to education, noblesse, and the future. Yet this has created cost structures that are out of control.

      Third, universities really don't cater to their students. The undergrads get the worst treatment and are considered little more than cannon fodder. The whole culture of "weed them out" speaks volumes to the arrogance of the university system towards it's students. Teaching is equally given short-shrift, as though it's not a profession at all.

      Fourth, almost every university really wants more research and less teaching. Yet they are dishonest about this with their students and fail to inform them, or limit their mandates to research. I have no issue with a research-only university, so what's stopping the universities from changing their scope to fit their aspirations? Nothing is what is stopping them.

      Fifth, the tenure system. I've swung around to thinking that this is an archaic principle that holds the system back and increases costs. There's no other profession that has anything like tenure in it. What makes academia special on this score? I don't buy it anymore.

      Sixth, the various 'classes' of professors. Tenured, full, associate, whatever. This whole setup speaks to an insular culture that is inherently classist in nature. What makes the university system different than the Buddhist caste system? Oh right, the professorship system is based upon merit... except that once you become tenured, you no longer have to maintain your merit. Right? Right.

  68. This guy lives in Montclair, crazy expensive by alen · · Score: 2

    he writes for the NY Times, lives in the same town where Tony Soprano lived in a home most likely worth over $1 million, sends his kids to some of the best public schools in the USA and doesn't want to pay back the loans that paid for the education that got him here.

    i might have to restructure my loans with my wife and do the same thing and let you suckers pay them off

  69. Yes, this system needs to be detonated, but... by E.+Edward+Grey · · Score: 1

    Not based on this guy's advice.

    There are a lot of things worth discussing here: the poor quality of modern college educations, the rapacious greed that state college systems engage in so that they can offset the tax cuts their administrators are receiving, the total one-sidedness of the "responsibility" that we are expected to show toward loan guarantors. Who knows? Maybe we should all default on our student loans.

    But if you were to imagine this guy's core point was a legal argument, his case would be dismissed immediately due to a lack of standing. We don't dismiss evidence based on who it's coming from, but this is not evidence. It's opinion, and we absolutely should set the value of the opinion based on the experience of the opinionator.

    --

    ---don't make me break out my red pen.

    1. Re:Yes, this system needs to be detonated, but... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Maybe refuse student loans to all students going to Universities for the first two years. Community Colleges are fine for getting your required courses out of the way and a lot cheaper.
      That might help drive down the cost of those classes at the University level and save a lot of money on students that never get past the first two years.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  70. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.

    Reading numbers like that make me glad I was born in 'socialist' Europe. A two year CS masters degree cost me less than $10.000 in school related fees and I went to a privately operated school that is relatively expensive by our standards.

  71. Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by RalphSlate · · Score: 5, Informative

    The major problem with student loans is that there is no longer any escape from them. Bankruptcy does not discharge them. You're stuck with them for life.

    That is a major departure from traditional debt laws, and this is just wrong. People should be able to escape their mistakes after appropriate penalties.

    A student, 18 years in age, cannot comprehend the gravity of the loans they are taking out. The whole situation is rotten: you are told that you MUST get a college degree, otherwise you will be a lifelong failure. You are told that IF you get a college degree, your future WILL be rosy and bright. You are told that ONCE you get a college degree, you WILL get a good job and then paying the loan off will be no problem.

    That is the extent of your knowledge when you are 18. You have no idea how much your salary will be in four years, in fact, when you are 18, it is very likely you don't even know how much your parents make, or how much anyone makes beyond your knowledge of minimum wage. All you know is that you have to go to college and get that degree so you can get a good job. At least that is what my parents told me, and when I was in college, that is the same set of assumptions that everyone was operating under.

    And once you get that degree and you can't get a job in your chosen field of study, or maybe you don't even get that degree (because a lot of people don't make it through college - many college programs, particularly engineering, are actually DESIGNED to weed people out), then you are sitting there with a stack of loans and no way to reasonably pay them off.

    Prior to 2001, you could try to pay them for a while, but after finding that you were getting deeper and deeper in debt, you could take a deep breath, assess your situation, and then take your lumps in the form of bankruptcy - knowing that you would have a finite period of time in which you would be penalized by a bad credit rating. But at some point it would be over.

    In 2001, congress changed the law to eliminate the discharge of student loans from bankruptcy. Any other financial failure is redeemable, but a decision that you made when you are 18 years old, a failure that is not easily foreseeable (because people don't know their capacity, people don't know their future earning potential, people don't know what the job market is going to do), is not forgivable. Never, until the day you die, and even then, your estate will be on the hook for them.

    And the loan companies are given extraordinary power, backed by the government, to collect their debts. Hey, if someone owes me money, I can't attach someone's tax returns - but student loan companies can do this. It is also very hard for me to garnish someone's wages to collect a debt because there is always the threat that the person will file bankruptcy. The lack of that threat here gives student loans extraordinary power.

    That is the problem here, and it will take people like Lee Siegel, doing what he did, to bring this to the forefront of discussion. Certainly any abuse of the student loan process should be curbed, but an iron shackle on everyone is not the right response to any potential abuse.

    1. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2001, congress changed the law to eliminate the discharge of student loans from bankruptcy. Any other financial failure is redeemable, but a decision that you made when you are 18 years old, a failure that is not easily foreseeable (because people don't know their capacity, people don't know their future earning potential, people don't know what the job market is going to do), is not forgivable. Never, until the day you die, and even then, your estate will be on the hook for them.

      Money is fungible. Pay off your student loan with your credit cards (or a second mortgage, or whatever) and then declare bankruptcy. (Although getting sufficent credit to get those cards/mortgage with a ton of student loan debt may be problematic.)

    2. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, as I posted AC elsewhere: "If you're 6 months away from completing your Masters' in a challenging field so you can change careers, and you're sitting at a red light, and you get rear-ended, and you're left with problems with concentration, sensitivity to noise, and other assorted problems which mean you'll never be able to use that degree, well, tough shit peasant, give us the money back." (And then a long rant about how suing the at-fault driver doesn't necessarily work...)

    3. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some reasoning behind not allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. Unlike most loans which have assets (home, car, etc) that can be confiscated a student loan doesn't result in a physical resource but in knowledge held in the students mind which cannot be taken. Creating a system where students could go to college and could simply declare bankruptcy afterwards would be unsustainable, either no bank would give out student loans or the government would have to effectively pay for all college education. That said predatory loans should have limited liability (but not zero), banks giving out $100k loans for degrees with no job prospects are obviously up to something.

    4. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the problem here, and it will take people like Lee Siegel, doing what he did, to bring this to the forefront of discussion.

      A guy who got his degrees in the '80s (when tuition was far more reasonably priced) and had more than 25 years to pay off his debt but didn't because he refused to take a "pay the bills" job in favor of chasing a pipe dream isn't exactly the poster man-child for student loan reform. He convinced himself that he is a special little snowflake who deserves only everything he desires and blames the rest of the world for not playing along. So maybe he is the poster child for clueless millennials getting in over their head on loans they never should have gotten.

    5. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by sribe · · Score: 1

      Unlike most loans which have assets (home, car, etc) that can be confiscated a student loan doesn't result in a physical resource but in knowledge held in the students mind which cannot be taken.

      Bullshit. You keep posting this tired incorrect argument all over this thread. Most debt discharged in bankruptcy is unsecured. (In fact, if people didn't have unsecured debt, they wouldn't even qualify for bankruptcy.)

      How exactly do credit card companies confiscate "assets" from vacations taken and meals eaten out? How exactly do drs and hospitals confiscate medical care previously provided? (Which is one the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country.) Well of course they can't.

    6. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2001, congress changed the law...

      Ang on a second. The author of TFA claims he got into debt 40 years ago for the first loan, and 35 years ago for the last, so he went to school from 1975 to 1980.

      Anybody else seeing a problem here? Or maybe smelling a problem?

    7. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A student, 18 years in age, cannot comprehend the gravity of the loans they are taking out."

      Bull excrement.

      We allow 18-year-olds to vote and change the course of the nation. We send them off to war and entrust them with weapons that can wipe out entire populations. I've been on the deck of an aircraft carrier working with 18-year-olds where a simple mistake could kill somebody. There were 14-year-olds who fought in the revolutionary and civil wars, and some under-18 kids snuck into the military to fight in WWII. Yeah, I get it that we now infantilize 18-year-olds as a matter of policy (Obamacare makes you a dependent kid until age 26 for purposes of healthcare.... he did not want his 18 year old supporters to suffer any of the downsides until the end of his 8 years in office) but 18 is long past the time when humans have historically been required to be responsible. Even the IDEA of a "teenager" is a relatively recent one - society did not recognize the existence of such a person out of diapers but devoid of duties and responsibilities before about a century ago.

       

      The problem is NOT that you cannot escape student loans, but rather that we have made it so easy to escape all other loans. Please explain why, when somebody makes you a loan in good faith and with honest, agreed-to terms (loan-sharks and mobsters are a different issue) you should be able to get all the goodies (a car, a house, a college degree, etc) you should then be able to not re-pay the loan (thereby essentially stealing the cash). One reason you cannot default on a student loan is that the thing you buy with it (an education), unlike a house or a car, or other physical thing, connot be re-possessed and sold to somebody else to recover at least some of the loan value. Student loan forgiveness is a vile idea - it is endorsement of pure theft.

      If by age 18 you are so stupid that you think it wise to go a hundred of thousand in debt to get a degree that will not lead to a job, then you deserve the financial disaster you are creating.... or you are studying to be a politician who will spend millions getting elected to a job that pays 100K+ per year... but that's another problem and also evil.

    8. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      Unlike most loans which have assets (home, car, etc) that can be confiscated a student loan doesn't result in a physical resource but in knowledge held in the students mind which cannot be taken.

      Bullshit. You keep posting this tired incorrect argument all over this thread. Most debt discharged in bankruptcy is unsecured. (In fact, if people didn't have unsecured debt, they wouldn't even qualify for bankruptcy.)

      How exactly do credit card companies confiscate "assets" from vacations taken and meals eaten out? How exactly do drs and hospitals confiscate medical care previously provided? (Which is one the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country.) Well of course they can't.

      You're right about the credit cards, but the inability to discharge a federally-guaranteed student loan is a large part of why the loans are issued at 4-8% instead of the 17-30% that you see on credit cards.

    9. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, we don't let them decide whether they can have alcohol in their bodies. You know, because they may make a bad decision. Don't want anything to haunt them for life

    10. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by sribe · · Score: 1

      You're right about the credit cards, but the inability to discharge a federally-guaranteed student loan is a large part of why the loans are issued at 4-8% instead of the 17-30% that you see on credit cards.

      Then why were they issued at low rates for decades before they made non-dischargeable???

    11. Re:Bankrupty doesn't discharge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chapter 13 bankruptcy will reduce the amount of student loan you have to pay back.

  72. Reckless borrowing and spending by coldsalmon · · Score: 2

    "It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college."
    The implication is that going to college can never involve "reckless borrowing and spending," but it can. He went into debt from buying lots of books and paying lots of people to give him lessons about them -- and he never had a plan for paying the money back. This is not economically different from spending your money on other things that you find pleasurable, such as booze and fast cars. Going to college can be reckless borrowing and spending, if you are reckless in your choices.

    There is an argument for subsidizing higher education because it yields positive externalities, and that is his best argument. He makes it in a silly way, opposing choices between a high-paying job he didn't want, and a low-paying job he did want. He is basing his choices on his personal preferences, and again making himself seem reckless -- as if he had spent his time on booze and cars because that's what he "wanted." Instead, he could argue that his worth to society is not correlated with his income because he creates positive externalities, and therefore he should be subsidized. This is basically saying that our economic system is seriously broken in its incentives. This is a reasonable argument, but it requires a more nuanced analysis than saying "Everyone do what you like and to hell with everything!"

    His arguments could be used to justify reckless spending on anything. In order to justify subsidizing higher education in particular, he would need to make a more careful analysis of incentives and benefits. Such arguments have been made very successfully, but not by him.

    1. Re:Reckless borrowing and spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've made some other posts here on this subject, but I'll just focus on this issue. I'll be specific.

      An option for Direct student loans to pay X% of your taxable income.
      This figure would be based on how much you borrowed and possibly the average salary of the major obtained.
      The idea is for the program to break even.

      An actuary would be hired to determine what would be the appropriate rate. The average salaries of each major would be looked at, perhaps combined with how much borrowed. Perhaps those who borrow more have a higher incomes, or maybe not. Also, the type of major, such as art history, may have a lower income associated with it. Etc. Etc. The actuary would take all these and determine fair rates amongst the amount borrowed coupled with the major/degree.

      Picture a two dimensional spread sheet. You have majors on the x-axis, and amount borrowed on the y-axis. In each cell, you'd have the salaries. The rate is then determined to be fair and revenue neutral. No rate should be too high, but should appropriate for the risk of the individual in that major borrowing that amount.

      This would be an opt-in program perhaps in one's junior year, with no option to opt-out. Perhaps a 120 day grace period of being able to opt-out, once you opt-in of course. That way someone cannot game the system by opting out of it once you obtain a high-paying job.

      As I said, it would be on taxable income, meaning if you have $0 taxable income, no problem. Even after having taxable income, it would be simply a percentage on it. No graduated amount.

    2. Re:Reckless borrowing and spending by bbeagle · · Score: 0

      Many people, like you just don't get it. You're 18 - you're excited to be a computer programmer. You find a local college that charges $10,000 a year. Very cheap by today's standards. You apply for student loans, and they cover you for 4 years. That's $40,000. Seems reasonable. You'll get a $75,000 job out of college, you imagine, as that is the average salary, and you'll be able to pay that off in no time. That is usually what people think. But the reality is so far off than that. You finish college - you can't get a computer programming job immediately. You can't afford paying the $200 monthly payment - so you defer your loans, while you work at Walmart. A year later, your loans are now up to $45,000 with interest. You now get a first programming job, but it only pays $40,000. You find after moving out of your parent's house, and getting an apartment. The $250 monthly payment is a tight squeeze. So, you offer to pay $100 - they don't accept it. So, you defer your payments. You can't find a higher paying job in your area - you decide to go to graduate school for 2 years. You get $20,000 more loans. Your loan is now up to $65,000 and increasing every day with interest..... When you graduate from graduate school, after living with your parents for 2 years, not making much money (because you're in school), your loan is now up to $75,000 with a $350 monthly payment.... You still can't find a job for a few months, then get a $50,000 job. You pay the $350/month payment for a year, living on ramen noodles and squeezing pennies together, then your car breaks down, you can't afford to pay the $350... so you default and stop paying. 5 years later, your loan is now over $100,000 with interest. And the monthly payments are higher, all while you aren't getting paid much more. This is how it usually happens.

    3. Re:Reckless borrowing and spending by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      This is a good argument for giving bankruptcy relief for student loans. When we want people to make risky investments, we offer bankruptcy as a way out. The Economist periodically runs articles about how the bankruptcy system in the US is more debtor-friendly than in Europe, which leads to more risky entrepreneurial behavior. Encouraging people to take risks that lead to a social benefit is good, but we should not punish people too severely when such a high-risk bet backfires for them, because we have encouraged them in the first place.

      I suppose that another alternative would be to freeze or modify interest on student loans in the event of a default, or to offer limited bankruptcy protection.

  73. Re:Debt Solution: Get "In Demand" Schooling ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. I chose a school / program that has 100% in field job placement with 98% of those graduates having a job lined up before graduation. It's a smaller private school in the twin cities area. I got a MIS degree and had multiple job offers before graduation. I accepted one and started the week after commencement.

  74. You're welcome to study here by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    No need to incur crippling debt, just attend university in Montreal. We won't let you do it as cheap as somebody from Quebec, but you'll still pay a fraction as much as in the US. McGill is pretty reputable, although we've got less pretentious options too, like Concordia.

  75. Good on you, Slashdot readers! by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I already read this story and a bunch of comments on it, when it was shared on a friend's Facebook feed over the weekend. When I saw it here this morning, I have to admit I suspected a lot of people would try to make arguments supporting the guy's decision. (Lots of college age folks on here, after all, presumably suffering with high tuition and challenges finding good paying jobs, fresh out of school. Also a lot of liberal thinkers on here who I imagined would be all for free, govt. funded college educations.)

    But no ... I see overwhelming dissatisfaction with his article, which IMO is exactly how it should be!

    If nothing else, it strikes me that early on in his article, he encourages others to consider refusing to pay what they owe, just like he did. Yet he goes on to explain his circumstances, which are probably a lot different than many students are in right now. First off, he's talking about his dad going bankrupt after his mom co-signed for his loan. An awful lot of students I know received Federal loan assistance that didn't require a co-signer at all (and actually have pretty low interest rates compared to any other unsecured bank loans you'd take out). If you go in and sign for one of those, you have nobody to blame but yourself if it turns out it's difficult to pay off afterwards! You can't really argue that your parent(s) drug you into the bank and pretty much told you to "get one of these" without you having much of a clue, as they signed along side you on the paperwork.

    But second, yeah.... it's kind of tough to feel sympathy for this guy when he's complaining that paying down his loans was going to be so difficult a decision because it would require taking a job other than the one he preferred being in! Hello?! What about the college grads with PhDs in Physics who take a job at Burger King for a while, to pay the bills? You're going to discount their dedication to doing the right thing and paying what they agreed to pay in a written contract because YOU think it's better to ditch your personal responsibility if it means doing a job other than being a writer for a while? Guess what? If I was hiring for one of these career positions and had a candidate with a high level degree with work experience like that, I'd choose him/her over the candidate with nothing! It says things about the person's character and willing to follow through on what they commit to.

    1. Re:Good on you, Slashdot readers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thought is that if someone with a graduate degree in physics can't find a job in his area immediately upon graduation (or upon finishing post-grad work), there is something severely wrong, and he/she should change fields post-haste. His degree will be all but worthless after a short period of time, the field changes rapidly, his contacts/references will have forgotten about him, and there will a slew of fresher graduates entering the market.

    2. Re:Good on you, Slashdot readers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His "woe is me" story is sort of pathetic. He's not being burdened with crushing debt... he went to school 40 years ago, when even private university educations cost peanuts. He simply refuses to pay what he owes and is annoyed by the idea that he's still being pursued for being a deadbeat.

    3. Re:Good on you, Slashdot readers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also a lot of liberal thinkers on here who I imagined would be all for free, govt. funded college educations." One of the laws of the internet, I think, is that every single issue will attract people to come accuse a specific political party of universally committing a specific logical fallacy. AKA people are stupid, and when they make posts like yours they point it out to everyone.

  76. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

    I got my education paid for by joining the Air Force. My kids all went to community college first and paid their own way.

  77. Small wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why more and more US students are going to Germany or Luxembourg to study, the Universities are free and lots of them have courses in English.

  78. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars"

    Yes, but it can also be free or nearly free. Half the problem is that we tell students they should go to whatever school the want, and don't think about the price, ROI, or whether its a sound financial decision. I was accepted into a fairly elite out-of-state school in the field I wanted to pursue without scholarship support and opted for a state school in my home state because I could go for free. Rather than racking up > $100k in debt going to the elite school, I am completely debt free and gainfully employed. Would the elite school have opened up some more opportunity or access to better teachers? Maybe. But your education is what YOU put into it, and a state school will get you wherever you want to go if you work hard at it.

    This inability to take responsibility for financial decisions is ridiculous and a large part of the problem is that parents encourage their kids to take out these loans. If you can't afford school go get an AA first, work hard, and get some scholarship money. I have plenty of friends who did this and worked through college and got off debt free or nearly so. Stop whining about your own decisions and take responsibility for your actions.

  79. Don't borrow money if you can't pay it back by scourfish · · Score: 1

    I think it's important that people view college as less of a necessity, and more of a way to earn a degree to pursue a career. If the starting career salary, or salary increase long-term won't allow for a lifestyle that can pay back any money borrowed, then borrowing money to begin with is not the best idea. Some of my peers took gen-ed classes at a community college, to save on tuition. I really wish I was smart enough back then to do that, or that the college prep advisors in my high school had suggested such. I also believe that this author does have career opportunities that would allow him to pay back part of his financial obligations, and he chooses to be a deadbeat about it, and that he shouldn't have attended an expensive school.

  80. Serously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."

    Forgive me if I missed something as I didn't RTFA, but is this guy seriously suggesting college students should get a free ride? And on top of that its coming from the mouth of a "Master of Philosophy" student?! Sorry but without some form of personal peril colleges would become the next form of welfare with "students" mooching off of the system for as long as they possibly can. Sure government should try to make it more accessible but the direct costs should be borne by those who expect to profit from the effort/money expended to educate them.

  81. Degree Inflation by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

    When I graduated 14 years ago with a EE bachelors degree, that was considered all the academic base you needed to have a top career in designing cars, writing avionics software, becoming a senior level executive etc. If you wanted to become a technical specialist you might go back and do a master later in your career, but otherwise nobody cared.

    Now it seems every grad needs to have a masters degree from a select range of universities just to get a job making text boxes appear in a web browser. I just find this unbelievable. Having done plenty of development and having run a business myself none of that has ever required the intellectual effort it took to understand the complex exponential or maxwell's equations. In the end most software development is just not that hard and honestly, neither is most executive business stuff.

    I think we have just had a complete Bozo explosion in corporate management. It makes me sick of doing engineering really. It is like you are the guy trying to make a house while everyone around you is trying to steal the house so they can have 100 for themselves, or smash it to pieces. The pointless destruction of what they do is just mind numbing. In the end the best thing to do is just be a consultant so you can go around overcharging these idiots for stuff you learnt in first year.

    1. Re:Degree Inflation by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      "Now it seems every grad needs to have a masters degree from a select range of universities just to get a job making text boxes appear in a web browser"

      Where? Not a day goes by when I don't get a call, email or LinkedIn request from a recruiter. And I don't have a masters at all.

  82. Free college education == civilization by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I got free college education. It wasn't at a small local college - it was at Cambridge, one of the top ten universities in the world. The government also gave me a "living stipend", enough for room and board in college and a tiny bit extra. Free college education continues in Scotland today, but has been abolished in England and Wales.

    Government funding for education managed to keep prices low, maybe similar to how the NHS keeps healthcare costs lower than in the US. I never had to spend any money on money-mill textbooks because in most courses the lecturers provided us with notes, and where we needed books we just worked with them in the library.

    I'm deeply grateful for it all. It feels crippling for young folks today that don't have wealthy parents, to have to start out their lives burdened by crippling debt. What an awful psychological burden for the next 20-30 years of their lives. How awful that they get turned into cogs in a corporate wheel where they have to grind through functional jobs to pay back that debt. How divisive that the children of rich kids are spared this.

    I think it's a mark of civilization that we can educate our children and young adults, broaden their minds, give them a liberal arts background, let their creativity fly. So what if they learn poetry or philosophy or literature. So what if 90% of these educations we give them don't show a return-on-investment? I don't care. That's what society and civilization MEANS:

    “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematicks and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, musick, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelaine.” John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, May 12, 1780.

    (As for me? I'm now a software engineer. Through my professional work I've given back lots to society, making lots of developers more productive through my language design work. I gladly pay the top rate of taxes, and would gladly pay more. I asked the tax office how to donate higher levels of tax, and the person was very confused, went off for thirty minutes to get help from her supervisors, and ultimately told me it was impossible. Every election, I always vote for the parties that will benefit the people worse off than me, at my own detriment, because that's how I think civilized people should behave. I've not seen a charity that manages to control overall education costs, or provide universal benefit, as well as the UK government did through taxes.)

    1. Re:Free college education == civilization by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Maybe we just can't afford to do everything that would be nice to do? Health care costs continue to rise exponentially. All other government spending will continue to decrease as a result

    2. Re:Free college education == civilization by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could better afford those things if we weren't so beholden to the Military Industrial Complex and other such parasites.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Free college education == civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Through my professional work I've given back lots to society, making lots of developers more productive through my language design work.

      What you giveth, C++ and JavaScript taketh away.

    4. Re:Free college education == civilization by sribe · · Score: 1

      Maybe we just can't afford to do everything that would be nice to do? Health care costs continue to rise exponentially.

      ALL COSTS rise exponentially ;-)

      And, BTW, the growth of health care costs in the U.S. has actually leveled off a little in recent years. (I imply no claims here about the cause, nor whether this will continue.)

    5. Re:Free college education == civilization by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      As long as health care costs rise faster than GDP growth, they will continue to displace all other government spending. Demographics alone in most western countries guarantee this will continue to happen for the next couple of decades at least.

    6. Re:Free college education == civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money system doesn't care for civilization, or nature, or nurture.

    7. Re:Free college education == civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you see John Adams say he & his children & his children's children should have the 'right' to study these things while someone ELSE pays the bills.

      It's nice sounding rhetoric, and comes a time we all have replicators & nobody wants for anything than yeah 'children' can study whatever they damn well want without having to pay their own way.

      It is a 'mark of civilization' that we can educate our children to the level necessary so they can 'pay their own way'. And how is learning poetry, philosophy or literature incompatible with still PAYING YOUR OWN WAY? If you don't have leisure time to do both & have kids & a family & a big house & a car & the big screen TV (that is watched FAR too much) then maybe, just maybe some of this 'has to go' & if you're paying your own way you get to choose. If someone else is paying your way then they get to choose.

    8. Re:Free college education == civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your education wasn't free you just deferred the payments till later. Your 20% VAT and your tax rate and Counceil tax is what you are paying for your free education.

      "There is no such thing as a free lunch!"

  83. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Since the real inflation rate and prices are influenced by all the loans across the economy, then we should abolish bankruptcy entirely. Even for bankers themselves - no bailouts, no bail-ins, no limited liability - their kids go hungry too when they take out foolish loans. Otherwise we've got high interest rates and prices that are somewhat reasonable for motorcycles, but that same interest rate and pricing can ruin a person's life if the loan is for tuition.

    Right now you can shoot someone and society will forgive you sooner than they would for getting a Philosophy degree you don't need. I can understand it's not something we want to encourage, but the penalty for being irresponsible is completely disproportionate to the mistake.

  84. eating our young by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.

  85. The cost "equalities" of degrees by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    It's enormously unfair that colleges and universities charge the same amounts for different degrees. Nothing else in life is like that. Things that are in high demand have high prices - things that are in low demand are priced lower. Simple economics.

    Colleges have gotten away with charging the same for every course of study - that is absurd. A communications degree should not cost the same as pre-med or engineering.

    The way we fix this is to index loan amounts to starting salaries in the field of your degree. Lower starting salaries get lower loan amounts. This market feedback will either force people to study things that can generate income, or force colleges to lower tuitions for courses of study that have low market demand.

    Funding all courses of study equally is stupid policy.

  86. Self Entitled Asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wastes money on himself and then blames everyone else for it. It is interesting that that he supposedly studied philosophy, but he knows nothing of ethics and logic.

  87. What I'd like to see tomorrow as a headline by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "Police: Why we decided to prosecute this self-rationalizing asshole for theft and fraud."

    --
    -Styopa
  88. He's Not Jean Valjean by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    It's loans at 1970's college tuition rates. And the man made an agreement to pay them back. Even today there are affordable college options. He chose to take on debt. I've seen shrewd students get through their PhD's without a loan or family help. They weren't destitute, just disciplined. (I'm not remotely that disciplined, I had a good deal of fun with loaned money, and I'm fine with paying back my loans.)

    And even with all that said..
    I think the nation needs to provide 4 more years of free public education. An uneducated populace is not a good future for our economy.

  89. Reckless spending? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college"

    Oh, but therein is the point. For most people going to college _is_ reckless borrowing and spending.

    Sorry liberals, this is true.

    Says the guy who had a nice solid middle class life, family of five, whose only debt is a home mortgage, and an associates degree.

  90. Fraud is a felony kids by trybywrench · · Score: 2

    Just FYI, purposely transferring your debt to a credit card in order to discharge the debt in bankruptcy is fraud. Which is a criminal offense. I know it's asking a lot but think your cunning plan all the way through kids.

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
    1. Re:Fraud is a felony kids by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Fraud doesn't seem to slow down banks. Why should he let it slow him down?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Fraud is a felony kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, you should always pay your student loan debt from your salary. Living expenses (crippling rent, health care premiums, skyrocketing food costs) go on the cards!

    3. Re:Fraud is a felony kids by trybywrench · · Score: 1

      Because you will go to jail as an example to others. Fair or not that's-a-fact-jack. If you want to be a martyr to the cause more power to you but I'll just stick to paying back on my student loans ( ~20k to go )

      --
      I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  91. Legal but not moral? by wcrowe · · Score: 2

    The writer describes the student loan process as being "legal but not moral". Considering when he got his student loan, and how he got it, I don't understand his perception of the loan as being "not moral". I took out my first student loan about 40 years after he did, in 1984. That was a different time. College was not nearly as expensive, and paying back loans was not as difficult. All of my student loans together added up to about 40% of the annual income from my first job. These days, comparable loans would probably come to about 120% of the annual income of a first job. The first obligation is something that could be satisfied in a few years. The latter, modern obligation might well never be satisfied. One might argue that the modern system, with towering loans to complete useless degree programs is immoral, but that was not the situation 40 years ago, or even 30 years ago.

    What is immoral is not paying back what you borrowed. A couple of his suggestions for handling the situation are totally outrageous, most notably, that one should marry someone who has a good credit rating. Really? His life philosophy is to burden someone else with the consequences of his bad decisions?

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Legal but not moral? by ClayDowling · · Score: 1

      It sounds like instead of going to school to get his Ph.D. he went to school to get his Mrs. I feel sorry for the poor woman he burdened with his profligate ways.

    2. Re:Legal but not moral? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I hate responding to my own post, but I mis-wrote that I got my first student loan 40 years after he did. I meant to say that I got the loan 10 years after the author. I hope my post makes more sense now.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  92. Sorry, no. Actually, just plain "no" by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    "Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."

    Uh-huh. So, if he were going to college today, I should foot the bill so Mr. Siegel can get his masters in philosophy, become a "cultural critic" as he's described, and write articles demanding that I foot the bill so he can get his masters in philosophy, become a "cultural critic" as he's described, and write articles demanding that I foot the bill so he can...

    I sense a stack overflow coming on.

    No. Hell no. For the most part, degrees that don't pay for themselves are degrees in things that you don't need a degree to pursue. Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken, to name just a couple critics, had rather illustrious careers without any degrees. As for philosophy, anyone with the aptitude for it would do just as well reading books on philosophy and having discussions with similarly-inclined people.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    1. Re:Sorry, no. Actually, just plain "no" by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      You may want to go I find out how businesses you've have bailed out and continue to bail out before bitching about paying for college.

  93. Because he's a douchebag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all it is. It doesn't matter what kind of bullshit he tries to spin it with, he's a douchebag. He made a deal for a loan, got exactly what he agreed to, and refused to pay back his loan because he's a selfish, greedy douchebag.

  94. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by talexb · · Score: 1

    And now I have a mortgage that's having it's 25th anniversary, and is almost twice the size it was when I started. Why? Raising a family.

    I'm not bitter -- just continuing to pay it down. It might be paid off by the time I'm in my mid-70's, but the odds are I'll sell the house (a small bungalow in Toronto) before then. For now (touch wood) the real estate market is healthy, so right now I have some equity .. but not as much as you'd think after making payments for 25 years.

    The last time I was debt-free was Fall, 1990. That was a long time ago.

  95. A business decision by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The housing bubble that started in 2005 resulted in my purchasing a rental property precisely at the height of the market. I had to, it was part of a deal. So when the bubble burst, the market value went to about 40% of loan balance in 2008, and stayed there until 2012.

    I didn't 'walk away'. I endured countless calls from the lender's 'home retention team', or 'home affordability team', or whoever if they, THEY, processed my payment either on due date or mere hours later. They were deathly afraid I would do the rational thing and walk away.

    But the property had positive cash from from day one. It made business sense for me to keep it. As of this year, it has equity value. Not much, but that's pretty good.

    As an aside, I could have bought the neighboring property for $50k in 2011, which at that time was really fair market value. Same layout, a mirror image, but it needed a new roof, major remodels inside, and had no tenants. It looked like 30% down (commercial loan for income property), $30k of work, about $45K cash to buy and rent out a $50k property. Not very attractive.

    But back to the story, I rented to one man who bought a home in early 2005, escaped most of the bubble here, but had a 3-year ARM that drove his payment from $1,500/mo to $3,800/mo. He walked way when it adjusted. No bank could fix this in 2008, for obvious reasons, and he also was working in commercial construction, which dried up. His income plummeted, and he eventually could not even pay rent.

    'Lots' of people I know walked way from mortgages that far exceeded property value. It was a business decision, prompted by both buying at inflated prices, the subsequent collapse of the market, many had ARMs that went sky-high, combined with post-2008 layoffs, credit card debt that forced them into bankruptcy, and in many cases their being given a loan for over-priced homes appraised by unscrupulous appraisers in collusion with mortgage bankers and realtors. Yes, Realtors.

    For a graduate who chose a major with no job prospects, and no ability to find alternative work that can pay the bills, default may make sense. If these defaults impact certain institutions more than others, perhaps we will see market pricing for either student loans or for programs. Let me explain:

    If defaults occur for certain institutions, a market pricing approach would raise interest rates for those schools that suffer more defaults. This is bound to impact enrollment for some of these.

    However, if defaults impact certain majors (philosophy and art being favorite examples), perhaps then lenders inquire about the student's course of study, and price it according to experience.

    There are several possible outcomes to these actions:

    - Some institutions may lower tuition. Unlikely at first, but if enrollment suffers because students can't finance their tuition, they may adjust.
    - Some majors may become so unpopular that tuition has to drop. Maybe.
    - Lenders may be asking more questions of students - job prospects, ability to pay, blah blah.
    - The government may, just may, get out of the business

    Consider this. In 2005, mortgage lenders started making loans that were literally indefensible. NINJA loans, Sallie May and Freddie Mac underwriting loans with dubious or nonexistent documentation, inflated values, collusion that is obvious in hindsight. Easy money that resulted in defaults when the real estate market corrected, and the economic downturn forced borrowers to make hard choices. Many 'walked way'. Now, five years later for the last of those, they find that they can in fact get a loan - the banks figured this out. Tighter requirements now for sure, but more like normal for the long-term market.

    Now we have the federal government underwriting student loans for tuition that is increasing much faster than the CPI, with less value than ever, and borrowers have limited prospects for repaying these loans. Schools claim they offer value, but even seemingly good bets like MBAs and engin

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:A business decision by alen · · Score: 1

      except that homes and cars are hard assets the banks can sell to mitigate the losses or rent out for income to lessen losses. student loans are not.

      if you let people discharge their loans then a lot of lenders won't loan out as much money and we go back to the old way where you have to work full time to pay for school. which is how a lot of people who went 30-40 years ago paid for it. working full time, ROTC or GI Bill/Army College Fund.

      i want to see some whiny millenials whine about having to join the army to pay for school

    2. Re:A business decision by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      - Lenders may be asking more questions of students - job prospects, ability to pay, blah blah.

      They already do.

    3. Re: A business decision by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Noting that the housing bubble circa 2005-2009 left many with those 'hard assets' so devalued that they did not cover the list balance, sometimes dramatically. In those cases, the lender takes a bath, just like a student lender essentially had no collateral at all.

      So the government underwrites loans without collateral. Nice deal for all the other players ...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  96. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses.

    Only if you're stupid, especially at that higher end. There are plenty of ways to leverage the system without taking out a fortune in loans, and if you're at all intelligent and hardworking there are plenty of scholarships to be had. Do AP classes in high school (essentially free, with a nominal exam fee). Start with an associate's degree at a community college (way less than college tuition). Go from there to a state college if you want a bachelor's degree. Employers only care which school (if indeed they do at all, most don't) you graduated from, not where you attended the first two or three years. Live with your parents and do online classes, that saves the living expenses. Get a damned part-time job while in college. Take a year off and work so you don't have to take out a loan.

    Folks in my extended family have done all of the above, none of us had or will have any student loans to pay off.

    For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple

    Exactly. So don't get yourself into that position in the first place. If you're in debt you're pretty much a slave to your creditors.

  97. The economic system isn't broken, it's RIGGED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The economic system isn't broken, it's RIGGED.

    Everybody, including all the fearless leaders of the economy you worship, have the bankruptcy out. Except naive 18-21 year old college marks, er students.

  98. Well he paid the loans back.... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    On my dime actually....

    Who pays when the banks get stuck with this bad debt? It's customers and share holders. Who are these people? Why it's you and me of course. Don't be fooled into thinking it's some big evil corporation that's getting fleeced, it's really you and I who he defaulted on. And that's a bad thing overall.

    Where this guy will pay for having NO CREDIT for the next 10 years at least.... I'm not so sure the time for the crime is long enough, but what are you doing to do? He DID pay back his loans, legally, though I'm pretty tired of bailing out the irresponsible because I happen to be responsible and pay my debts, I have to hand it to him, that was clever.

    But I rest assured that if this idea of his becomes common practice, it will quickly be brought to an end. Credit card companies will simply start looking at student loans as *bad* marks on your credit, and all of you who came out of college saddled with huge debt, will be paying. You will have lower credit ratings and pay higher rates. The amounts you can borrow will be less, and you will pay more. And it's dolts like this guy who will be to blame.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  99. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

    If you think there's not a social stigma in this country against community colleges, you really need to spend some time around people half your age.

  100. education is like fundamental research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An education for me is like fundamental research. You do not have to know in advance what you will be using it for. The fact that philosophy is difficult to get a decent job i, shouldn't withhold you in pursuing it. It might hold you back in gathering a huge debt, but one should still be able to study it. Your education shapes you, and does not have to be an applied job training per se. I do not use any mechanical engineering skills from my university in my work. I do use the abstract thinking and the analysis aspects that were honed during my education.

    I do not know about the student loan system in the USA (In the Netherlands the tuition is about 2000 Euro's per year on a technical university program of 5 years). I am glad to pay taxes so people can study what is best for them, even if it is a low-chance-for-a-good-job study.
    My personal loan rose up to 25000 Euro's, which is considered very high for this kind of education. With a payback time of 15 years, I started out paying about 200 Euro a month (which includes interest), which should not be a problem for anybody with a proper job. All salary raises and end-of-year bonuses, etc I use to speed up the payback. I do not know how high my debt should become before I would default, but I do know that I would have seen that coming and would have stopped loaning way before it would have become a problem. You can pursue you interests, while making proper money, without 'doing a job that makes you miserable'. That is just plain bullshit.

    The biggest mistake this guy made is letting his debts grow so large. He should have changed his coarse of life sooner (switch schools, etc), just about right after he noticed his parents burdened him with an impossible debt as a teenager.

  101. Having a price motivates completion by tepples · · Score: 1

    But there is absolutely no reason that someone should be shut out from learning about it because of money.

    The fact that college courses cost money makes people more motivated to complete the course. I've read that free MOOCs tend to have a higher dropout rate because the stakes are so much lower. So how much money should college cost, in order to be A. enough to motivate completion, B. enough to cover the cost of providing the course, yet C. not enough to shut out the working class?

  102. And why is university so expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why is university so expensive? Because it is a corrupt and backward system that the government mandates remain as it is.

    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_accreditation
    "In the United States, however, the quality assurance process is independent of government and performed by private membership associations."

    bwhahaha... so you basically have a union of universities deciding what universities can be accredited.

    Imagine if the incumbents in any particular industry where allowed to get together and decide laws barring others from entry!

    1. Re:And why is university so expensive by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the incumbents in any particular industry where allowed to get together and decide laws barring others from entry!

      So, imagine a modern industry?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  103. Nope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cost of 1 year of tuition/fees at in-state public university/college (college data via google search "how much tuition cost"): $10k
    Cost of 1 Predator drone (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=46, but discontinued): $40,000k

    Number of Predator drones to reach cost of college for 1 million students for 1 year: 250
    Number of Predator drones purchased by US Air Force (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/just-how-many-predator-drones-does-the-cia-have-ac9f5830196b): 268

    Total number of students attending college for one year that we could have paid for instead of Predator drones: 1,072,000
    Total number of 4-year degrees we could have paid for instead of Predator drones: 268,000

    1. Re:Nope... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Now try and figure up how many college degrees we lost when the government built those NSA datacenters.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  104. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But philosophically, what's the purpose of paying back what you owe? Oh, right, it's simply the right thing to do. If only this guy had gotten a DOCTORATE in philosophy, THEN he would have known paying back his loans was the right thing to do!

  105. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

    Not all people feel like joining the military. There's a multitude of reasons, but it doesn't mean that your method was the best way or, more precisely, that it should be the "sacrifice" made. A highly educated society benefits everyone, so there's something to be said about sharing the burdens.

  106. No it is not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intent to defraud. It will land you in jail.

    The financial industry has already seen every scheme you can cook up, and has already made them all illegal.

  107. minor leagues for football and baseball as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    minor leagues for football and baseball as well.

    Too many one and done / joke classes for student athletes only. Even for the ones that are cutout for college when the team needs 40-60 hours a week you don't have time for class.

  108. I wonder what Siegel thinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at the posts the consensus response seems to be:

    Siegel, you made poor decision and spent recklessly on expensive degrees of dubious value. You then proceeded to act unethically in your profession (anonymously attack people who disagree with you) and now you are being unethical in your debt obligations.

    Or, to summarize: "Fuck off, man."

    I wonder what he thinks of the general response.

  109. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder which system is going to endure: the one where you go from having your parents take care of you to the government taking care of you, or the one where you learn to take care of yourself... Think about what is going to happen when the inevitable collapse of your system occurs. A bunch of children trying to latch on when there isn't any milk is not going to be pretty.

  110. He is the reason why by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    student gets higher interest rates on loans and refused credit. It may sounds "brilliant" at first, but if everyone were doing the same, it wouldn't work. This guy should thanks all others who will end-up paying for him.

  111. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

    Well sure. Hindsight is always 20/20. Although one may consider those who choose expensive professions like teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc to have made a good decision up front. And I agree, private schools aren't always the way to go. However even state schools can charge up to $40K for an education. Consider the interest, interest capitalization, and the low entry wages of college grads these days, it's not too hard to understand why some are so discouraged that they just don't even make an effort. Is it right or noble? Probably not, but then the same could be said of charging someone an obscene amount of money to do what they're told is the best way to secure a future and then be told you're a deadbeat if you can afford your bill. This is by the same generation who was easily able to afford college working part time, with massively less strenuous educational requirements, in a world where a college degree meant MUCH better job prospects and wages than is seen today. The playing field, the players, and even the game has changed...but the refs still haven't caught on yet.

  112. "If I don't, then who should" by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    The question this person should have been asking himself all these years is "if I don't repay my loan that I took out, then who should?" The nice middle-aged banker who helped him get the loan in the 1970s? The bank where he took the loan and then went under? His parents who are now deceased? The tax payers, and by extension, this /. reader who has to pay for his own mortgage and kids college? The irony is the debt is 30 years old. If the author had worked a normal job, he could have repaid the loan and had a life of his own. Instead, he's still caught up in a prision of his own making. Life is sometimes fair. Responsibility is hard. Sorry bub.

  113. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

    If your mortgage is 2x the amount than what you started I'd question if it was all from raising a family. But then I've never subscribed to the belief that starting a family means you're somehow automatically contributing more to society. Put more bluntly, not everyone needs to start a family. Sometimes getting married and not having kids is a far better decision than continuing the overpopulation of this planet.

  114. STFU and go to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't like he isn't able to pay back his loans or isn't at least trying. He now easily has the means but simply refuses because he thinks he's "precious".

    I hope they go after him and garnish his income to recover every last penny owed with interest or better still just throw his ass in prison.

    And to even mention his mother now being dead like his family had a responsibility to pay for his ass is disgusting. This guy is a "precious" narcissistic asshole who deserves nothing.

  115. An Art History Degree costs 1.50 in late fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You don't get a degree in Art History. You go to the library.

    You go to college to become a master at something useful by learning from people who have already done things and by having access to expensive toys you couldn't afford on your own.

    If you just want knowledge, go to a library.

    1. Re:An Art History Degree costs 1.50 in late fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get knowledge at the library. That sounds like it came out of a time portal from the 80s.

  116. You pay no matter what by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

    Whether the government pays for it, or you do directly, it still comes out of your pocket. The cost of education will not drop by shifting payment to the government (if anything, costs might go up).

  117. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.

    Maybe grow up isn't the right answer, maybe it should have been don't be a freaking moron prior to going to school. It took me 7 years to graduate with a bachelors degree. Why? Because I couldn't afford it, so I worked full-time for a company that would reimburse me, took out a few loans, and went to school part time. It took me longer but I graduated with $3,000 in total debt (loans and credit cards). I got a decent bump in pay when I finished my degree and paid that off with my first 4 or 5 paychecks. I know only owe money on my house and 1 of my 2 cars which will be paid off in 6 months.

    No one has to go into massive debt to attend school there are many alternative methods. But if you do go into debt know what the crap you are getting yourself into. If you go $100,000 in debt make sure you are going to graduate with a career path that will help you quickly pay it off. I think it should be a goal of every graduate to pay off their loans within 5 years. If you can't do that choose a different school/major/career.

  118. You can't default in Canada..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The federal government will take all the payment's it owes you and apply them to your student loan, for example any income tax rebate you may be entitled too. The only thing they won't take ( AFAIK ) is the monthly Family Allowance, because its suppose to be spent on your kids.

  119. Back in my days it was hard to get into debt by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    Going to college in 1980s, doing some work here and there, borrowed $5K of student loans but after graduating I only had to pay off that 5K (it seemed like it took forever). I also remembered how difficult it was to get a credit card which was frustrating but looking back it prevented me from going crazy with spending.

    To get a credit card you need a credit history. Credit history is data on TRW showing your credit card history. How in the hell do you get that? I remember graduating but banks would not give me a credit card because I'm not on the TRW database. OK maybe some of you are laughing at me because I didn't know how to game the system but I knew many others in my situation. One friend said I should begin buying a mattress as they give credit to anyone. Then after two years pay it off and hope that payment history is in the TRW database (yes, very common then but they've become unknown history like Soviet Union).

    Eventually after two years after moving and transferring my bank account, they asked if I had a credit card which I said no because I'm not on TRW (and I never got around to buying a mattress). Lady said my employment history is good and if my application is denied then I should then see her and she will make sure it gets approved.

    Fast forward to 1990s and things sure changed a lot. Tons and tons of easy credit card applications flood mailbox. I had some debt as I had to borrow money to pay for a car I smashed into. I ask the bank guy, "why do they keep sending this stuff to me when I'm already in debt?" He ran some numbers and said I can easily borrow $80K on a simple signature loan (damn, with interest I will be an old man before I pay that off). And also fees for colleges skyrocketed especially for those with 4-year degrees wanting to attend classes to keep up with technology or simply needed new skills to get a new job (many lied on their applications to avoid paying huge fees).

    Continuing on with my gripe (spoiler: not much about student loans), also in 1990s it became much more easy to get mortgage loans. Before you had to have a good down payment and a sufficient salary as loan offices do calculations knowing you will need to spend significant amount on general expenses. I remember struggling to get a condo but sometimes meet people that were able to game the system and borrow a lot more than what they qualified for a house (i.e. they earn $2K a month and mortgage payments are $2.2K per month). Somehow they were able to move money around with various investments and eventually be able to pay off the house in 10 years. I see these kind of people really smart on how to do stuff like this. But later when banks made it easy for others to do this, that is when many got into trouble because they did not have the smarts to handle this type of financing. I certainly don't and I remember in late 1990s a friend said I should meet this mortgage broker that can do a really nice refinancing giving lots of extra money to buy a house. After he ran the numbers, I saw I only had about $150 take home per month that had to cover everything else besides the mortgage payment. Good thing I chickened out and not become one of the masses dumped on the streets after dot com bust.

    Oh, yes I did get a mattress when I got a credit card.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  120. I think there's plenty of room to debate by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    And that would be a good debate to have. I'm not sure honestly where I come down on what you're saying, but I get the feeling its a bad idea to put someone in charge of deciding which subjects are and are not 'worthy'. That will lead to a real swamp that nobody wants to go into. OTOH I understand where you're coming from, but then the question is aren't you putting too much value on money? I mean isn't that what it comes down to, you only want the govt to pay for the part of education that makes more money for business because its technical people that they really want. At least that's what they THINK they really want. Did you know that English Majors have a much better track record as business managers than MBAs? Yeah, the world is a funny place, we need to be pretty careful how we make these kinds of decisions.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:I think there's plenty of room to debate by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting question - but part of the problem is that universities expecting everyone to subsidize all their pet projects and programs. You can't learn everything in college. It's interesting that people who have contempt for a subject while in school (say art or history) can fall in love with it 20 years later. Furthermore there are plenty of places to learn just about any subject. You needn't learn in it a University and you certainly don't need to go into debt for it.

      Universities are no longer places where those will money get well-grounded in the humanities. It's a place where you learn skills to get you ahead in the world. Universities are getting less and less relevant and getting 250,000 dollars in debt to go to a top ranked school does not make any sense. Sociology course should be taught on line and cost minimal dollars for proctored exams.

      We shouldn't be promoting this option and we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing it.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:I think there's plenty of room to debate by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem here is that tech people simply hold all other fields in contempt except STEM. The idea that you can simply take such courses online or 'go study at the library' is ludicrous to me. In fact I'd say its much easier to study engineering or science that way than humanities. The whole POINT of humanities is to engage other people as human beings at a deep level.

      I mean I have a technical degree from a 4 year college, but to be quite frank the exact things I studied in my majors is largely irrelevant. I don't do anything in those exact fields now, nor would I know appreciably less about how the world worked had I not taken them since I'd already mastered those subjects at an early age to whatever degree I need in order to have a good sense of how the world works. No, it is the english, history, ethics, logic, and other such courses, the very ones being cast off as economically worthless, which have done the most for me in every respect.

      I cannot say if there are a whole bunch of people studying a subject that is worthless for them simply because it is easy. I can't say if ever sociology course is really worth it, but the one of the best engineers I know has an MS in Sociology, and HE doesn't think it was worthless! I just don't think its smart to put anyone in charge of making up a list of what will and will not be taught.

      I'd further observe that Germany has made ALL courses of study at all levels tuition-free, even for foreign students. If you can get admitted to a German university, you will pay nothing (at least in tuition, that may not represent a totally free ride). We might want to contemplate who's leading the world into the 21st Century as all the most brilliant students from around the world flee our shores, including almost 5,000 US citizens.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    3. Re:I think there's plenty of room to debate by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The key phrase there was: "If you can get admitted to a German university, you will pay nothing (at least in tuition, that may not represent a totally free ride)."

      Here anyone can go to college. Even those who can barely read, write, count (not talking about any so difficult as quadratic equations) and many have no desire to work or study hard.

      Every dollar and ounce of energy we spend with them we don't spend on those that have the aptitude and desire as per the German system.

      Not saying that we shouldn't give people second chances in life later on. We should. But to simply say "it's free" is not the solution.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:I think there's plenty of room to debate by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      I think its a better plan than "give out massive student loans for 40 years until the prices are so bloated and everyone is a debt slave, THEN terminate the loan program and watch the poor all be utterly fucked". I mean seriously, I don't understand how we're going to pull that off. The truth is that today you are UNEMPLOYABLE without a college degree. I mean you are so screwed it is not even funny. My wife (who has a Chinese BBA) went to work at the local grocery chain a few months ago. Those people are so screwed. They work their asses off and you can't even come close to living on the $8/hr they get (and of course each place puts you on a random schedule that maxes out at 30 hours, good luck getting 2 jobs). Its CHEAP to live here, and you are still screwed (one of the cheapest places in the US, you can rent a whole house for $500/month), but you can't live on $200/wk, its just not feasible. There's no public transit, etc. This is the reality for poor people and her friends tell her in downtown Boston, MA where cost of living is 3x more, the pay is exactly the same, $8/hr.

      The point is, either we educate our fekking workforce or we turn into Nigeria 2. Its the same choice we faced 200 yrs ago when the country created public schools to start with. Same exact considerations apply, and in the end the same exact solution will also apply. I mean you can send your kids to private school if you have money, and presumably you'll still be able to pay for college too if you WANT, but a usable secondary education makes sense. Frankly I think what Germany is doing makes even more sense, get all the best people by making the best quality education free.

      Beyond that you don't know how hard or easy it is to get into a German University. If there are nearly 5000 US students there now it has to be quite possible. Germany also sends pretty much everyone to some sort of trade school if they don't deem them to be worth sending to college. We don't even do that.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  121. He didn't get into Law School by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Degrees in fields like economics and philosophy are usually intended as a path to law school. It sounds like this guy is bitter because he didn't get in.

  122. Re:minor leagues for football and baseball as well by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Students shouldn't feel compelled to go to college to Play Sports. They should be gaining additional education say via Vocational Training.
    Or colleges should just suck in their pride and just make a Football or Baseball Major, much like Music or Arts major where a good portion of your study is practicing. If the student is so inclined to get a traditional education they can take a double major, or get a minor in a Topic.
     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  123. Pursuit of Happiness. by stoned_ritual · · Score: 1

    I'd rather live my life being happy, or pursuing that happiness, than live my life pursuing an education that I cannot afford, only to obtain a job that I loathe in order to pay off the debt. I think the model in place for education serves the banks and universities far more than it benefits students. Just as an example: I was hired to replace a college educated technician at my current job. I have no formal training or certification. I am really just smart because I was interested in computers as a child and learned by doing. I didn't have to dig a hole and fill it with borrowed money. I found my interest, and pursued it. Sure, I'm not some big shot making six figures. That's not what makes me happy. I don't need credit cards to pay for things I can't afford. That doesn't make me happy. People can be happy without conforming to this horrible model of "be miserable working off debts for your whole life, then you die" is really not appealing to the up and coming generation.

  124. A better question by wireloose · · Score: 1

    Why is it that 10 years of taxpayer-subsidized higher education resulted in such a thoughtless, irresponsible, and basically just shitty column?

  125. college costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone here ever do any calculations? Maybe it is a little more than inflation,
    but rather, disparate inflation in individual sectors...

    In 1973 ( age is showing ) the minimum wage was $1.85/hour, and tuition was about $240. Figure 200 hours for tuition and books.
    Plenty good enough to work 20-hour part time and pay as you go.

    What is it now?

  126. Who are you to decide by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    Which courses of study are worthy? You're going to decide that? No, no, some sort of 'board' or 'agency' is going to decide that. Do you see how bad an idea this is? How impossible for it to actually work? No, the only reasonable course of action is to make undergraduate tuition zero across the board. Maybe there can be other ways to say "OK, we can only afford to educate X number of people in subject Y" but trying to decree from on high that only certain subjects are 'worthy' is a poisonous idea, and one that will be regretted badly by all in short order.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Who are you to decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be easier and better to set students up to be informed consumers, and let those who are A-OK with the poor job/wage prospects in a field major in it with the understanding that they get to live with the consequences of their choices--the only valid complaint ought to be when deceptive practices are employed.

      That said, I'm perfectly fine with setting up loans which bring a nice reminder of reality to the student: predatory lending is complained about elsewhere, but really, it's more profitable in student loans than practically anywhere else. Why not insist that lenders not only be able to but must set the loan offers & terms in order to place them within what somebody with that degree can reasonably expect to pay off in a set period of time? (You might even get a lot more people willing to go with loan forgiveness for student loans that way, because then you can explain it as simply the bank took a bad gamble in its offer to to the students and they oughtn't be on the hook simply because the bank overestimated what they would be earning.)

  127. recklessness by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college.

    If you take out a loan to get a graduate degree in philosophy, you are engaging in "reckless borrowing and spending". A Ferrari would be a more worthwhile "investment" than that.

  128. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    State schools aren't cheap.
    Annual in-state tuition only for some well-regarded public schools:
    University of Washington: 12.4k
    University of California: 14k
    University of Michigan: 13.2k
    Also interesting that out-of-state tuition at these schools is just as high as at private schools, and all are increasing their percentage of out-of-staters. A very different education market than a few decades ago.

  129. I Owe For College...TWICE by SoVi3t · · Score: 1

    I went to college back in 2000, in Ontario, and applied for OSAP (student loan through the government). They assumed I was going in the second semester, so refused to release my money in the first semester. It took me until mid October to finally get my funding. The college refused to release my class list, until they had been paid. So when I finally got to attend class, I had naturally already failed. There went first attempt at college. But I was also on the hook for all the money lent to me, that went directly to the college. Loved that scam. Second time I went to school, my house burned down, so I was suddenly a little pre-occupied. Never paid for my last term, and the college was naturally cruel about it. I never paid that funding back. I probably still owe it to this day, I've been too busy struggling just to make ends meet, to bother looking at how in debt I even am :(

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
  130. You Defaulted Because You're a Chump by bistromath007 · · Score: 1
    I'm disabled. Going to college didn't fix that.

    I'm still paying my loans. I'm more than halfway there. I live on $750 a month. What the hell is your excuse, fuckstick?

    There are legitimate problems with the value of a college education, on both sides of the equation. If this is how you choose to deal with it, you're a deadbeat asshole.

    1. Re:You Defaulted Because You're a Chump by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I have $600/m in medical debt and that's with insurance that covered 90% of the costs, and with below average medical care costs compared to most of the USA. Throw in another $600/m for rent, another few hundred for food, I require a cellphone and internet access for work, 10% of income to 401k, $150/m for health insurance premium, another $100/m for car insurance.

      I don't understand how you live on $750/m and talk like it's easy street. I live in a town with $30k being the median household income. It can be done, I've done it, but I was poor enough that debt collectors effectively gave up on me and wouldn't take me to court because I was too poor to waste their time trying to garnish my wages.

      When I lived with my parents or a room mate, $750/m was like being a king.

    2. Re:You Defaulted Because You're a Chump by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      It's not easy street. My life is a mess. I'm still paying my loans off. How the hell did you get roped into paying $600 a month? Goddamn.

    3. Re:You Defaulted Because You're a Chump by Bengie · · Score: 1

      They want it paid off in 6 months. Technically it's not the hospital, it was a debt that went to collections and was paying $100 on it for a year, then the collections got taken over by some other d-bags and said they have a new minimum.

    4. Re:You Defaulted Because You're a Chump by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's even actually legal.

  131. We're all paying for that motherfucker. by jcr · · Score: 1

    When a deadbeat reneges on a student loan, it's not the lender that takes the loss, it's the taxpayers. Fuck that guy.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:We're all paying for that motherfucker. by plopez · · Score: 1

      The taxpayer should not take the hit, the bank should for making or buying shaky loans.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  132. Pretty much by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If you want to university back in the 80s and you STILL haven't repaid your loans, well you are the one who is failing. Not only was university cheaper, and loan terms better, then but you've had like THREE DECADES to pay it back. Student loans are a bitch, and take a long time to pay back for sure. However unless you really fucked up, you can manage it in 30 years.

  133. Typical NYC hipster type by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    It's not my fault, I'm not paying it, let someone else pay for it. Hey idiot...you and your parent(s) signed on the dotted line. You want to screw your credit history, financial life up? That's YOUR business, because you are IRRESPONSIBLE. You are one of these idiots that think you are OWED something. Hundreds of thousands of people, have gone to college without loans, but, thanks to "big college" you have to give your life over to the devil to pay for an education. How come we say screw big oil, big farm, big pharma, but we never have a conversation about "big college"? Some college presidents, sports coaches & professors are making 6 & 7 figure salaries, but that's ok? Some people are just not cut out for college in the first place. Take a 2 year trade school and you'll be better off. How many people coming out of a 4 year school with underwater basketweaving, ancient religion languages do we need in this world? I went to a 2 year electronics school, got an associates degree almost 40 years ago. Never once have I been unemployed in my chosen field. What will probably happen, and what government probably wants to happen is enough idiot irresponsible kids default on their loans the government will screw investors, bankers and pretty much everyone that has a bank account and just say oh well, so sorry, just suck on it!

  134. There will always be a surfeit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of scumbags who have no problem spending others' money to finance their lousy decision-making.
    Then, they blame the resulting problems on someone else. They're called liberals.

  135. Because he could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason is: Because he could.

    This jerk went to college back when college was cheap, then because he could.

    And thanks to people like him, defaulting because they could, the government made it impossible to default on them.

    So now that it's impossible to default on them, colleges have an easy time jacking up tuition rates to add more bling like bigger football stadiums. And by adding more bling bling, their college rankings go up and that let them charge even more for tuition. Unfortunately they get locked into it, because other similarly ranked colleges are adding bling as well and they need to keep their rankings to keep enrollment up.

    Then there are the for profit schools who are willing to loan hundreds of thousands of dollars to anybody, because they will eventually be paid back.

  136. Ban private schools instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know why I'm demanding public schools; because if you think education is bad now, you don't have a clue as to how bad it was before.

    Given my preference I would eliminate private and home schooling.

  137. Dave Ramsey's advice makes people sick by tepples · · Score: 1

    People without a degree tend to earn minimum wage, and people on minimum wage often can't afford rent, community college tuition, and nice food. Dave Ramsey acknowledges this and recommends a rice and beans diet for these people. But not everybody has the same luck with that sort of diet as Mr. Ramsey. Scientology tries the same diet on its Sea Org fleet, and it makes people sick.

  138. College is not a Gaurantee! by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

    From myself having attended a university and earned a degree less than 8 years ago, I would say about 2/30 people were serious about learning anything, or about 3-5 people per class. No one knew what they wanted to do and no one knew why they were at college. All they knew was the "pass to make my parents proud" mentality. Art, philosophy, etc, these are all the most fun classes and a lot of people tend to go that way because "art" is more and more defined as whatever monstrosity you can dream up, instead of how skilled you are at creating something. If anything is making colleges insanely expensive and at the same time useless, it is that teachers pass everyone, and when people fail, they start grading on a curve so they are guaranteed to only fail 2 or 3 people. As a student, I loved grading on a curve because it always meant my grade went up, except one or two teachers who would use an actual curve, meaning instead of saying, everyone gets 10 points more, they would try to make only 5 people get As which was pretty ridiculous. My point is colleges are now more just somewhere to get away from parental supervision and party and passing is more a formality than an accomplishment. Sure you CAN fail, but most teachers are trying to be the "cool teacher" who curves every test, gives extra credit when your behind, and ignores your absences from class.

  139. I don't get this by Bengie · · Score: 1
    You can't default on government backed student loans.

    The millions of young people today, who collectively owe over $1 trillion in loans

    50% of that $1 tril is owned by 10% of the students, and on average those students make less than a high school drop out. Sounds to me like for profit schools are preying on the stupid.

  140. Base the cost of degrees on the pay by gkearney · · Score: 1

    Here is an idea I'm sure college and universities will hate. Se the cost of the degree based on the pay of persons employed in that field. IN this system the cost of an engineering degree would be much higher than say the cost of a library science degree because the engineer is going to be payed a great deal more than the librarian. So the engineer will be much more likely to be in a position to pay off a large student loan.

  141. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, your entire loan was 1/10th of your yearly income, and then you say "grow up". I think every rational person would say to you "fuck you".

    If your debt was $40,000, maybe you could start speaking up about it. But not 1/10th of your yearly income - that is tantamount to rolling credit on your credit card!

    Anyway, as for TFA, there is no hope of getting a philosophy degree or even a physics degree these days. Universities should really stop accepting any other majors than engineering or medical students or MBAs. Everything else seems bullshit, including hard science degrees like physics or mathematics (try getting past HR even with publicly demonstrated experience in programming with a physics degree!)

    Universities are nothing more but certification factories. They cannot be viewed anymore as some form of "education". If people want side education, get a book from the university library! In a world swimming with degrees, the rest is bullshit.

    Yes, it's inconvenient, but it's the responsible thing to do. Grow up.

    You really should grow up and learn to research the topic at hand before you make these statements. In US, universities have jacked up prices because they can. Because students can get government guaranteed loans. This allows poor to get university education at whatever the rate universities care to jack their prices to.

    Students ARE THE VICTIMS of this government + university scam system. If loans were not government guaranteed, many students would only be able to get normal state college education. Lenders would start looking at job prospects of the borrowers.

    And please, don't point to this as way of "stupid people take out more loans for stuff they can't use". That's not the point. When the issue is systemic, when the system allows you to do something that is hurting a very large segment of the very population it aims to aid, then the system is broken and the people ARE THE VICTIMS of this broken system.

    Finally, inability to clear a loan with a bankruptcy is basically slavery. The basic premise of bankruptcy was to clear debt accumulated due to mistakes. Mistakes on both sides, the lender and the borrower. Without bankruptcy, there is absolutely no downside of lender borrowing money, especially in this low-rate environment.

  142. Understand the word "liberal" in liberal arts by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The liberal arts education dates back to 12 or 11th centuries. The liberal arts consisted of trivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). These were deemed to be the fields of learning suitable for the "liberated man", hence called liberal arts. These were meant for people who had independent wealth and did not have to earn anything from these pursuits. The liberal arts never were meant to provide means for earning a living from day one.

    Professional arts, which enabled you to earn a living through the learning were all done through apprenticeship programs, and the skills were passed down the family. Universities started teaching skills that will get you a job very late, in 18th century. Till then poor and middle class people learned some skill from father, grand parents, and uncles on the job. Rich people went to the university to learn something useless.

    Rich aristocrats people also entered the government and military service as "officers" while the working masses have to start out as lowly clerks, peons and enlisted men. Thus "liberal arts" education got associated with officers and the elites, and a higher starting point into the management cadres.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  143. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by halivar · · Score: 1

    I went to school in Georgia, so the state lottery paid for mine. When I took a second major and added and extra two years that Hope wouldn't pay for, the loans were a lot more manageable. There are a LOT of scholarships and grants available that make college almost free. People just don't take advantage of them.

  144. Self Indulgant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but the stark reality is that there are more people who want to be writers, than will be able to make money as writers. This also applies to anyone taking a major which is over-represented in education but under-represented in the job market. History majors, poly sci, literature, journalism - whatever.

    If you pick one of these fields, because you feel you must be true to yourself, then you better win that gamble. otherwise, you are going to be screwed. I'm not against someone trying for their dream. But it's a hard dream, and if you can't make it, you need a backup plan. I'd say the same thing to every kid who wants to be the next big professional sports player. Not everyone will make it. And if it's not you, well, then you will have to come to terms with it, and find something else.

    In the article, the writer claims he could have paid his student loans if he got a different job instead of being a writer. But he didn't want to. Instead of coming to terms with it, he is asking society to cover for him. And by the default process, we kinda did. But then he wants to write this big article justifying himself, so he can stop feeling guilty about it.

    Sorry, no. I realize there are going to be people who will never be able to pay off their loans. But imho, they should feel bad about it -- for their entire lives. It's not torture, but there should be a little remorse, a little guilt. That's all.

  145. The real education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only lesson is to never, ever take out a loan that is excluded from bankruptcy protection. As a former loan underwriter, the fear of bankruptcy is a major factor in loan qualification. By not having to factor in bankruptcy(plus the general ability to repay) and 100% buy back agreements(plus fat servicing contracts), lenders are the singular cause of inflated higher education fees.

    For student loans, every single underwriting guideline that defines a modern loan is thrown out of the window. What do we expect to happen?

  146. Banks have no disincentive by plopez · · Score: 1

    To make bad loans. The fact that you cannot declare bankruptcy on them means that there is no disincentive to make shaky loans. It skews the education market. This also allows schools to develop bloated bureaucracies , see:
      http://www.blacklistednews.com...

    When I finished up my MS there was really no one who knew what the graduate school did. Everything, except for filing the last bit of paper signed by my committee, was done via my department.

    Also, how did colleges and universities become holiday resorts? I look at the amenities offered at my local unis; gourmet meals, fitness centers, free wifi, two bedroom apartments, recreation directors etc.; and I am really annoyed. Dorms should be cramped, drafty, roommates should be, the food mediocre, etc. as an incentive for students to get their degree as fast as possible and move on. It should be like playing for the minor leagues, a stepping stone to better things.

    There is a lack of responsibility on the parts of banks and schools. They need to clean up their act. Allowing students to declare bankruptcy on student loans would be a good start.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Banks have no disincentive by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Let's see:
      Fitness center: Actually makes sense given that we've learned that physical fitness is tied to mental acuity. IE working out helps you learn and process information.
      Free wifi: At my university I use it to do my homework in the student center. It's also a relatively cheap service. A few thousand in APs, use already existing network lines, etc... Total cost is probably under $100k/year even for a huge university.
      Recreation directors tend to bring in 'students' from the community taking classes to improve themelves in various ways. Heck, as a teenager I took some cooking classes at the local university.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Banks have no disincentive by plopez · · Score: 1

      We had PE classes, the gym was our fitness center. A gym *and* fitness centers in the dorms, in some cases apartment like pools too small to actually do laps in? A waste as a gym and/or training pool for laps is more efficient.

      Our recreation directors were the dorm RAs (resident assistants) who got free rent out of it in exchange for 24 hour on call monitoring, calling the cops to break up loud parties, chaperoning the Freshmen, evacuating the dorm in case of a fire, directing students to tutors, safety [1[] etc. I am talking about full time professionals who do nothing but party planning.

      For cooking we did have a community kitchen down the hall with some basic cheap utensils.

      We had to pay extra if we wanted something other than university phone service. We had 2 students per dorm room with laundry service. Now they have apartments with weekly cleaning in some places.

      [1] Anecdote. Where I went to school it often gets very cold in the winter, sometimes -5 F plus wind. I went down to the lobby to go to the library one evening and I notice a horrible small. I look over to the couches to the only TV in the dorm[2] and I see a pair of shoeless feet sticking off the end of a couch. It was a homeless woman who had wandered in on a brutally cold night. The RAs did the decent thing and let her sleep there until they could call social services in the morning. They just kept an eye on her to make sure she wasn't dangerous to herself or others.

      [2] One per about 300 students, no cable.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:Banks have no disincentive by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      We had PE classes, the gym was our fitness center. A gym *and* fitness centers in the dorms, in some cases apartment like pools too small to actually do laps in? A waste as a gym and/or training pool for laps is more efficient.

      Strange, my university has a fitness center that IS basically the Gym. Well, it ends up being a number of facilities - running track, weight area, climbing wall, tennis courts, basketball courts, pool, etc...

      As for the 'extra' luxury, well, even the military is having to house it's junior enlisted in more luxurious quarters. They even get their own rooms today!

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Banks have no disincentive by plopez · · Score: 1

      "As for the 'extra' luxury, well, even the military is having to house it's junior enlisted in more luxurious quarters. They even get their own rooms today!"

      Since there is no longer a draft you just can't warehouse people anymore.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  147. Going to College is a business decision... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    as such, you need to consider carefully your course of study and the school you choose to attend. The fallacy in the article is that by going to college there is some implicit guarantee of a job at the end of it. There isn't.

    First, the course of study. If you choose to pursue a degree in Humanities that's great. But just know that in today's job climate you will have a tougher time finding a job than an Engineering graduate. It doesn't mean that your Humanities degree is worthless, just that there is less demand for those skills. Your career options are probably limited to teaching and writing and even then you will probably need an advanced degree.

    Next, the school you choose to attend. Tuition prices vary wildly from one school to the next. Attending an in state school can be much cheaper. Lots of scholarships are available.

    So, in the end, it comes down to you. Before you sign up for that History degree give it an honest assessment. Will I be able to get a job at the end of it? Can I handle the debt load? If the answer to either of those questions is No then you have to consider seriously whether or not it is a good idea.

  148. Meritocracy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we just got rid of Sally Mea and college loans need to be secured with some kind of collateral or simply small enough lender were willing to fork over on credit history alone, the problem would solve it self.

    The problem with this, and to some extent student loans in general, is that now you are selecting university students based on wealth and not merit. If you don't have enough collateral to secure the loan - or your parents are not willing to take the risk - then you do not get to go to university no matter how intelligent you are. Society then not only potentially loses out on the next Einstein but also it also becomes less fair leading to all sorts of problems with social unrest.

    There is also another issue which the UK is now facing having introduced massive tuition hikes and an increase in loans. Some essential jobs which require a university degree, like teaching, are suddenly experiencing a huge shortfall in new graduates. The reason is that a teachers salary takes decades to repay a large loan while someone going into finance can repay it in a matter of years.

    This is why university education should be funded by taxes and the funded positions awarded to the best and brightest. Those who earn more will pay more for their degree through taxes while those whose earn less will pay less. The alternative is that society will need to start paying e.g. teachers a whole lot more money in order to attract sufficient numbers and to do that it will have to raise taxes so ultimately everyone will be paying anyway but in the meantime the affected professions will be in severe trouble.

    1. Re:Meritocracy by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Take away the student loan subsidies & redirect that money to merit-based scholarships. If we stop papering over the real price a university charges with "anybody can qualify" student loans, the universities will be forced to compete on costs ultimately lowering prices and reducing the scholarship dollars needed.

    2. Re:Meritocracy by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      von Mises to Ayn Rand:

      "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you."

      that's right, plebes. Can't afford college? Then you obviously aren't good enough than the sons and daughters of the rich. Grovel, plebe, grovel.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:Meritocracy by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      In the states, we already have need-based scholarships and other grants. Hell, in many states, you can go to community college for zero tuition if you can't afford it.

      The problem in the states is that we give unlimited loans with zero lending criteria because the government guarantees the loans. Need $150,000 for your undergrad in Inuit Art History? Sure, no problem! If the government stopped guaranteeing the loans, some underwriter would say, "ummm, no. How about you go to state school and major in something real and minor in art history."

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    4. Re:Meritocracy by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Those who earn more will pay more for their degree through taxes while those whose earn less will pay less.

      I absolutely agree with you, but this smacks of progressive taxation and therefore socialism, and is therefore now unacceptable to a government concerned with reducing taxes for the rich by slashing public spending on ideological grounds, sorry "reducing the deficit".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this, and to some extent student loans in general, is that now you are selecting university students based on wealth and not merit. If you don't have enough collateral to secure the loan - or your parents are not willing to take the risk - then you do not get to go to university no matter how intelligent you are. Society then not only potentially loses out on the next Einstein but also it also becomes less fair leading to all sorts of problems with social unrest.

      The inability to discharge student debt in bankruptcy has resulted in an indentured class of students, and spiraling tuition increases as financial aid is almost a given. Once you start your educational journey you are committed to finishing regardless of the costs as you will still have that debt if you do not. There are workarounds for this that require schools to have skin in the financial game on a sliding scale of risk. The better the school's performance, the less the risk. Alas, it all really comes down to political corruption as the lenders of the world do not want the system to change.

    6. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what scholarships are for, not loans - if you are skilled enough to get into an Ivy League school, your tuition will be adjusted to make it affordable via need based aid, while the regional campuses and schools with bigger endowments than reputations will offer merit aid to raise their reputations.

    7. Re:Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing that should be done is to fund 4 years of university out of the tax payers pocket. 4 years of partying is not the responsibility of the nation to pay for. Maybe some degrees like medicine, teaching should be free but no way should all degrees be free. One you would remove the value of the degree, two it would be discriminatory against those with learning disabilities. If there was a shortage of people to fill rolls that required degrees that would be different but we actually have an excess of grads with degrees or at least meaningful degrees. Too many with art history who want to work in Galleries who work at McDonalds or the local grocery store instead. We have people with Ph.Ds driving taxi in New York, is that a job that they needed to study all those years for?

      There are many degrees that have absolutely no value in the modern world. I know I have one of them, Sociology. It was interesting to get and I finally choose it so I could graduate as soon as possible the first time. When I first went to Uni, it didn't matter what the degree was in, just that you had a degree. But times have changed. Bachelor degrees at a dime a dozen. And while a degree doesn't train you to do any job, it does provide you with some basic skills if you choose the right degree.

      The sliding scale that the UK uses to pay off student loans is a good example of the way student loans can be paid back. A grad repays based on the salary paid and it amounts to a couple of dinners out a month. Someone earning 21,000 a year only repays 66 a month. There is no reason someone who has taken a serious degree and gotten a job can not pay back that. And if you didn't take a serious degree then it was your choice. You should be chased for the full amount of the loan.

    8. Re:Meritocracy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      One you would remove the value of the degree,

      The value of a degree is in what it lets you do not in how much it costs to get it. The skills you acquire are valuable both to the individual and to society.

      two it would be discriminatory against those with learning disabilities.

      I utterly fail to understand this point. Your statement is as logical as arguing that governments should not fund vaccination programs because some people are allergic to vaccines and can't have them. The reason degrees should be free is the same reason why school education should be free: society as a whole benefits from having highly skilled people available for employment or even who can create new employment.

      There are many degrees that have absolutely no value in the modern world.

      I would not go that far but I would agree that there are some degrees which are more valuable than others. However this is the great thing about making degrees free: governments can choose how many slots to fund for each program based on the need. The university then selects the best students for those funded slots. Too many english graduates then fund fewer spaces. Not enough teachers then increase the funding for education degrees etc.

      This is far better than the current system where many students pick subjects for less sound reasons such as which subject they think is easiest.

      Someone earning 21,000 a year only repays 66 a month. There is no reason someone who has taken a serious degree and gotten a job can not pay back that.

      You are missing the point. Yes they can afford to pay the amount but the problem is that the loan comes with interest. Someone in a job like teaching gets a reasonable but certainly not high, salary. Given that the interest rates on the load is RPI+3%. On a 36kGBP loan that's just under 2k interest per year which is 166/month. So your person paying 66/month will never, ever pay off their loan. Essentially they will have a permanent extra 9% marginal tax rate throughout their life.

      Compare this to those entering a high paid job in finance. They will have a 9% marginal tax rate for a few years until their loan is paid off and then it's over. This means that the loan not only discourages graduates from taking lower paid jobs but the interest means it acts as a regressive tax where those earning less pay more.

      In the previous system we had higher rates of tax for high earners and this was used, in part, to fund the university system. Not only was this clearly fairer it did not dissuade people from important jobs with lower pay scales and it reduced the grumbling about tax of those earning a lot because they could see that they had benefited from taxes.

  149. You know by sjvn · · Score: 1

    This guy isn't talking about our current student loan mess. He's talking about 30+ years ago... and somehow he never got around to dealing, never mind paying, his student loans from the 80s!? What a jerk.

    Steven

  150. Every time this is brought up, the point is missed by mordred99 · · Score: 1

    Every time this is brought up, the point is missed. A few decades ago, people would go to college to be educated. You left with a broader understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now you are expected to graduate college, fully trained, to hit the ground running in your career. Colleges have had to follow suit so that industry would hire their graduates .. to make their numbers look good .. to market the university .. to get more students. So industry is shifting their responsibility of "training" new employees to universities.

    I have a buddy who graduated with a BA in Philosophy. He is a director of application development. Why is this? He is a smart dude, and his passion is coding. He learned about life in college, got a degree, and learned to code on the side. Some company trained him and he became good and went on to bigger and better things. This is what is missing. Companies are not taking fliers on people like this anymore. They won't look at someone unless they have XYZ degree from a top 10 school, with a 3.5 GPA, etc. They want their students to come out 100% trained, to hit the ground running.

    The other side is people are not willing to take a low level job to be trained. They come out of school, and expect to get this $80k a year doing their dream job, with no skills, just given to them. People have to work, pay their dues, and show they are a good employee before they can demand their dream jobs. Work in the mailroom, work in another department, etc. You graduated with an MIS degree, and cannot find a job because you have a 2.5 GPA, then work in accounting or marketing before you transfer to IT. Prove you can work a job before you expect one to be given to you.

  151. EXACTLY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    parent should be the highest moderated and most read in the list. I've been making this same point for years. College tuition is going up BECAUSE of the government backing.

  152. On Shopping Around by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.

    As an analog, consider the housing market: The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it, and what someone is willing to pay for it is a factor of their assumption about its future value and their ability to fund the purchase with money they don't already have.

    No, not all homes are equal, nor are school tuition rates. There are a relatively small number of multi-million dollar mansions, but apartments and inexpensive homes are plentiful.

    The article is more like someone complaining that a Ferrari is expensive and refusing to consider the thousands of other lower-cost options.

    Too many people look at costs of a single school. There are a huge number of schools, Wikipedia saying 4,726 in the US. The median cost of schooling across all schools is $5,832 per year, which is quite reasonable. Half of them cost $5,853 per yer or less. Yet the mean is $23,874 per year. Assuming you are comfortable with statistics, those two numbers mean the bulk of schools are inexpensive, and a small number of hugely expensive schools cause the average cost to skew quite high. As a parallel, it is like a middle-class neighborhood with a small number of billionaires who moved in; those few high-value individuals will dramatically shift the average wealth in a neighborhood to so the "average wealth" means everyone is a millionaire even though nearly everyone is middle class. The median cost of higher education is reasonable. Just be smart and pick a school you can afford.

    Locally, my kids can go to one of several good junior colleges nearby which all cost about $1500 per semester, then move on to one of the several state universities that cost around $3500-$4000 per semester. So about $25,000 total for the four years of education. I note that for my region at least, Wikipedia lists 11 inexpensive 2-year colleges and seven state universities, all within commuting distance. Or my kids can go to one of the local private for-profit schools the whole time. One popular private school charges just shy of $20,000 per semester. That is, one semester of the expensive (but heavily marketed and popular) for-profit private school is the same rate as a full four year degree elsewhere.

    I look at the author of the article, Lee Siegel, that Wikipedia says attended Columbia University. That school is a private ivy-league school currently and charges $51,008 per year. We could get two students all the way through their bachelors degrees with the funding for a single year at that school. And he went there for probably seven years. So he probably was committed to roughly $350,000 in costs when he could have chosen a similar education at one tenth the cost or less.

    So really, this is is not so much a complaint about the cost of schooling generally. He is complaining that everyone should have a Ferrari they cannot afford, even though for most people one tenth or less the cost, getting a Prius or Accord or Corolla is both affordable and adequate.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:On Shopping Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article also says this was 35 and 40 years ago. I don't find his advice particularly relevant to modern students/grads, he defaulted on smaller loans, and the stakes in the damage to his credit were arguably smaller at the time. Modern access to credit is one of the key differentiators between poverty and just being kinda poor.

    2. Re:On Shopping Around by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I look at the author of the article, Lee Siegel, that Wikipedia says attended Columbia University. That school is a private ivy-league school currently and charges $51,008 per year.

      No more needs be said, really. Lee needs to pay up.

      I too would have loved a pricey private school's name printed on my degree. My wallet said "no".

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:On Shopping Around by jwhitener · · Score: 2

      People shouldn't have to shop around. The tax dollars someone pays over the course of their lifetime with a college degree vs without, makes free tax payer provided higher education a no brainer. Like many other things (healthcare) the US seems to be stuck with a education system built on ideology rather than facts.

    4. Re:On Shopping Around by ClayDowling · · Score: 1

      I turned out to be pretty happy with the state school's name printed on my diploma. I received an excellent education at in state prices. When your senior lab class is "build an MRI machine" from two magnets, a wire loop and a pulse generator, you can assume that the program is rigorous.

    5. Re:On Shopping Around by steveg · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, and it makes his argument even more unsupportable. My experience was between 35 and 40 years ago.

      I did get scholarships -- a $1000 one-time scholarship and $1500 a year for 4 years. With that and working part time during the year and full time in the summers, I finished a bachelor in physics with no debt. I wasn't living high on the hog, but I wasn't slumming it either. This was at the University of Colorado, so I wasn't getting a bargain basement education, but I also wasn't being extravagant.

      I checked a few years ago, and there's no way I would have been able to do that with current prices. But 35 or 40 years ago? If he couldn't get a *good* education without going seriously into debt, he wasn't trying.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    6. Re:On Shopping Around by markhb · · Score: 1

      The most salient paragraph from the article pretty much echoes your point, and the author completely misses it...

      Maybe the problem was that I had reached beyond my lower-middle-class origins and taken out loans to attend a small private college to begin with. Maybe I should have stayed at a store called The Wild Pair, where I once had a nice stable job selling shoes after dropping out of the state college because I thought I deserved better, and naïvely tried to turn myself into a professional reader and writer on my own, without a college degree. I’d probably be district manager by now.

      Emphasis added. Leaving aside the shoe store strawman, the author hits the nail on the head. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go abandon my Chrysler 200 at the side of the road because I believe I deserve a Viper.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    7. Re:On Shopping Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you including books, food and housing? 'Student fees', 'Access fees', etc?
      Because tuition alone is not the only thing.

      I constantly need to remind people that in the 50's and 60's and into the 70's most state schools were free or nearly so for everyone tuition wise and there was help for books and loans for room and board. Inflation adjusted minimum wage was also more back then.
      You actually could work 10 hours a week during school and ~30 a week in the summer and actually pay your way through school no problem.

      40 hours a week 52 weeks a year at minimum wage is $13,900 take home pay per year currently.

      The total cost to go to the University of Wisconsin as an in-state student for instance is $19,890 a year. While UW is no 'cheap' school I doubt anyone would actually call it expensive. http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/wisconsin/university-of-wisconsin-madison/

      $9,273 tuition, $8,287 for room and board (during school) and other mics fees.
      Remember also that almost all states charge 2x as much or more to out of state students for tuition so you can't even really 'shop' schools if you are trying to save money. You pretty much are stuck 'in-state' if you want to save money.

      In case it has been a while since you went, $14k is less than $20k.. by $6k.
      So, even if you somehow managed to work 40! hours a week during school you would be running a deficit of $6k a year, 4 years (while working 40 a week?) is $24k debt.
      Make it more real and don't work full time during school and you are looking at more like $52,000+ in debt.
      Add in not having a mommy and daddy to live with while not in school in the summer and you are even more behind.

      State school and $52,000 in debt and the older generation that got to do it with no debt call the current people with degrees and stuck at starbucks and walmart lazy and stupid...
      No, their parents and grandparent stole their education and now blame the victims.

    8. Re:On Shopping Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the "signaling model of education" and you'll see why he's looking at it that way...

      (Amusingly, my captcha is "observe")

    9. Re:On Shopping Around by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I'm sure that Columbia, Harvard, MIT, etc would have been a highly desired name on your yet to be earned diploma.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    10. Re:On Shopping Around by ClayDowling · · Score: 1

      Not particularly. I chose my school specifically because it had an excellent program in the field I was studying. When you're getting a physics degree, it's rather hard to beat going to the school with the National Superconducting Super Collider. Even if you aren't going to graduate school, your professors are leading the field in research, and they're trying to product the kinds of students they would like to see in grad school.

    11. Re:On Shopping Around by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      This is an overly simplistic view which ignores economic realities and a dynamic analysis of the situation. Making all higher education free would result in a college being watered down even more than it is now, and would waste tremendous amounts of resources on people who are either not capable or unwilling to do the work.

      Don't believe me? Take a look at the Harvard Entrance Exam from the late 19th century that's been floating around for the past few years. What percentage of high school grads could pass this test today? What percentage of _Harvard_ grads could pass this today?

      We need to get _back_ to the point where a high school graduate can be counted upon to be literate, numerate and have a modicum of common sense and critical thinking skills. We don't need to turn college into yet another babysitting program to add on to the babysitting program of public schools.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    12. Re: On Shopping Around by LarryZamba · · Score: 1

      I graduated in 79 and across practically nothing from the UW. But One thing you don't know about that period is that your parents didn't steal your education. The answers right in front of your face and for all your education you don't see it. The politicians stole it. When you have an educated populace that's making money, they start demanding right. That's what was going on in the 60s and 70s. So how do you stop equal treatment for everybody? You saddle them with debt. That way the graduates and students are too busy struggling to get by so they don't upset the status quo. Reagan started and all the other politicians just kept this new system going.

    13. Re:On Shopping Around by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I took Latin and Greek in HS. It was the biggest waste of time in my life.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:On Shopping Around by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Making all higher education free would result in a college being watered down even more than it is now, and would waste tremendous amounts of resources on people who are either not capable or unwilling to do the work.

      So this is true of most of Europe, where college is free, even for foreigners in some places? Not.

      And if I were to implement it in reality, it would be a mix of private/public. All state schools would be free. Harvard and similar can (and should) remain private.

      Regardless, there is still testing involved in Europe to get into schools. If I recall correctly, Germany has different tiers of free college. If you don't score high enough to get into a University, you might score high enough to get into a free vocational college.

      So its not like any random person would be allowed to attend harvard...

  153. There's only one problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when did students become able to default on college loans?

    This isn't a thing other students can do anymore. College debt is a debt for life.

  154. Education is not an entitlement... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2

    If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, 'Enough,' then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."

    The USA provides education K-12, normally paid for by local taxes but increasingly being federally subsidized; but beyond that nothing is nor should be guaranteed.

    The real problem, in this respect, is employers requiring a college level or higher degree where one is not really necessary. Yes, it's useful to help weed-out candidates, but it may also cost some really good potential employees. If students refused to play the "degree game", then colleges/etc would be forced to lower tuitions, and businesses would be forced to consider more people without degrees, and more people would get put to work.

    Of course, you'd then also have a number of companies complaining that they can't get qualified workers so the H1-B visa program should be expanded...which is why this really all comes down to how do you properly help a free market regulate itself to encourage the employment qualifications that avoid all the above issues?

    Not an easy question to resolve. But guaranteeing a college education will not resolve it, only make it worse as a college level education will simply become the new High School Diploma.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  155. The missing subtitle by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    The missing subtitle is, "and why it doesn't matter." You can't just "default" on your student loans. They can't be discharged through bankruptcy and the money will be taken from income tax refunds and/or wage garnishment. Also, since your mother cosigned, you just fucked your mom. The author seems to have missed that minor point.

    But then, he seems to have missed the point of student loans as well, which is not to have a good time pursuing a liberal arts degree, but an investment. Like any investment, one must consider if the returns are worthwhile. That's not to say that liberal art degrees are worthless, but they're not a good return on investment. The author knowingly made a poor life choice and then thumbed his nose at the consequences. He seems to believe that he deserved to go to an expensive private school because... they exist? It's not really clear.

    The insane part is that he doesn't even realize his entitled attitude. Instead of taking responsibility for his choices, and the consequences to himself and his mother, he blames everyone else. I grant that, in a capitalistic society, people want to get other people's money. That's life. But, aside from the government, nobody forces you to give it to them. But he didn't learn that lesson. He wants to walk away from his debt with the same carefree attitude that he seems to have had when he took it on. In his mind, he is a victim. Life happened to him, not the other way around.

    Now, all of that said, I believe that higher education should be provided without cost wherever someone gets accepted. I would love to see that chance. Our society would benefit from more educated people without debt. But that's not the current situation. The author would have a lot more credibility if, instead of willingly accepting a student loan (and getting his mother involved to boot), he had said "I couldn't afford to go to school, and it's bullshit." Of course, he did afford to go to school, apparently, since he ended up at a public school that he *could* afford, so even that argument doesn't hold much water.

    The moral of this story is: Nobody can protect you from yourself.

  156. Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are unemployable, are you truly educated? Why are we continuing to accredit universities who have a liberal education that is so bad that their graduates are effectively unemployable? Why do universities matriculate art students who are so poorly educated that they have no idea about the economics of the art world? Why do we have philosophy graduates who's philosophy is "I should have a job because I have a degree"? Why do we have English grads who are so poor at communicating that they can't communicate what value they'll bring to an employer or customer?

  157. What a Communist... by dowens81625 · · Score: 1

    "the government would have to guarantee a college education."

    Statements like this are ignorant, people who assume they have the right to have whatever they want and not have to pay for it are the biggest problem this country has.

    1. If you choose to borrow a given amount of money, with a given set of terms to repay that money, and you sign the contract, then YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for repaying it.

    2. If you choose to spend that borrowed money to get a Degree is something that will not assist you to start a career with enough compensation to repay your contract. It does not relive YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to repay it.

    3. If you choose to make poor decisions it does not make it the governments responsibility to bail you out.

    WE ARE GUARANTEED CHOICE AND THE FREEDOM TO MAKE BAD CHOICES.

    No we should not be guaranteed a college education, There is far too many children graduating high school with zero ambition to work, study or do more than expect things to be given to them.

    If you want to fix things we need to make several changes.

    1. Eliminate - hand out programs for everyone expect the disabled. "Does not include morbidly obese"
    2. Put a minimum performance to continue education for all grades 9th to 12th. If a students GPA drops below a B Do not let them enroll and attend next year. Make them get a job.
    3. Instate a "Work for Food" program vs. Welfare & food stamps. - Show up pickup garbage on the highway, clean gutters, paint park benches etc. Receive 1 day worth of food rations for 2 people. Maybe make exceptions for single mothers raising more than 1 child by herself.
    4. Eliminate the dependent tax deduction at 2 per couple, and reduce it by the same for each additional child. Exceptions for children conceived against the mothers will.

    If you want something out of life, get up and work for it, do not expect someone else to do it for you.

    1. Re:What a Communist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ambition is a cardiovascular toxin. Every medical professional knows this. However, to speak out about this is guaranteed destruction of his/her career.

      You are the epitome of the FYIGM Randroid.

  158. Lets be a little more honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the impression that "college" means "trade school" for a large fraction of the population in Germany.

  159. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by clonehappy · · Score: 1

    Dorothy, Toto's on the phone, and he wants to know how to get back to Kansas. It ain't Canada in 1982 anymore, friend.

  160. Reality hits the fan.. by xtronics · · Score: 1

    Of course that is stealing. You also got scammed but two wrongs don't make it right.

    Here is the rub - back in the '70s they started the 'open admissions' bit - anyone could get in if the government was helping fund the school. Drop-out rates were very high - but the schools REALLY like all the money coming in - the solution - lower the standards. The race to the bottom continues. The result - most degrees are worthless. (yes - new MDs scare the hell out of me)

    Some examples - I just finished helping a new Mechanical Engineer fix a machine - I asked if the heater was proportional control or duty-cycle - he was actually a bright kid - just went through engineering school without learning even the basics of control loops(KU).

    I told this story to a second student that is finishing up his Chemical Engineering degree - he also had no idea of even the basics of control loops (and yes real CE is all about control loops). He said he knows he is getting ripped off - non of his teachers have worked in industry - they have no idea of anything outside of academic parrot and preach. He met students from Brazil and was amazed - they were quite competent - had learned all sorts of stuff about chemical processing that he had missed out on. So now he is pissed - he realizes his degree isn't worth much - he will have to work as an intern and hopefully learn enough to keep a job. Yet, he has a massive debt.

    The point is that going to school today gives one a sense of entitlement, a huge debt, and no portable skills. There is this idea of return on investment - learning to weld might be a better idea.

  161. No personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school. Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society.

    I chose life. That is to say, I defaulted on my student loans.

    Sounds he like was responsible to the only person he wanted to be responsible to.

  162. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

    I was in a very similar position. Went to school at the University of Waterloo 1981-87 (took one year off in the middle), co-op engineering. My parents helped pay until I started work terms, then I paid my own way. I even ended up with money in the bank when I graduated. Tuition was, I think, about $800/semester or $2,300 in 2015 dollars, about 1/3 of what it is now.

    Of course, my lifestyle fitted my income. I was below the poverty line (I earned about $9,000/year, I think, and that covered living and education expenses). No car, very little partying, fast food about once a week, ate at home the rest of the time. No girlfriend, either. Partly because I was a shy nerd in engineering, and partly because I couldn't afford to do a lot of social things to meet girls.

    I got into the habit of comparing the money I had to the things I wanted, and being brutally careful about living beyond my means. That continues to this day. The only loan I've ever taken was the mortgage on my house.

  163. Good grief by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Especially with something like Philosophy, you must be exposed to the information. Even though you can find Plato's Republic in the Library who introduces the person to the topic? Who do they ask for help when they don't understand something? These are not simple thoughts, and not something black or white.

    Take your own question and ask it broadly. Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?

    Take your ego away for a moment and consider what you have been paying to learn privately with no degree. How much of that learning has been progressive, and how well would you do if you didn't touch the subject for a few years and then went back? Further, if you go to work in that field and you have no degree how many inroads do you have?

    The majority of education is about progression. You can't learn calculus based physics without calculus, but if you spend a few years away from calculus how well can you do in that physics class?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Good grief by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Most liberal arts studies are not progressive once you've completed Composition 1 & 2. At that point there is very little that is not based primarily on study of a specific area (i.e. Existential Philosophers, Renaissance Art, Modern American Literature) that typically doesn't have more than two semesters of study at the undergrad level (i.e. there is really no such thing as a English Lit 4, it is just a matter of adding fungible study areas).

      Applied fields like medicine, science, engineering, accounting, and the fine and performing arts are very different, and tend to be more progressive. But I thought it was somewhat clear that we are talking about the "enrichment" areas of study in this thread.

    2. Re:Good grief by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Most liberal arts studies are not progressive once you've completed Composition 1 & 2.

      Are you blinded by your ego, or just ignorant about Liberal Arts? Liberal Arts goes well beyond English Lit/Comp, just like Math goes well beyond Trig and Calculus. I had more PHY classes in College than I did Math, and I graduated with a degree in Math. That does not count 2 years of English, 1 year of History, and a semester of actual Art (oil painting techniques). Go figure...

      No!. "We" are not talking about "enrichment" areas of study. You are attempting to belittle a whole series of education. I turned your question around and where are your answers? Why can't a person learn Differential Equations in the public library? The answer to that question is the same answer to your statement about learning Liberal Arts in the public library. Some people could, but that number is so small it's not measurable. Most people require peers and mentors for education.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Good grief by digsbo · · Score: 1

      As it turns out, I was a lit major. I know of this subject first hand.

    4. Re:Good grief by s.petry · · Score: 1

      So you can't answer the question and are simply wrong.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Good grief by digsbo · · Score: 1

      No you continue to create a false dichotomy that "4 year uni is the only way" when there are other options for peer/mentor study. Just because 4 year uni is crowding the market due to guaranteed loans doesn't mean other options don't work.

    6. Re:Good grief by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I love when people pretend to be intelligent, it's so easy to spot and demonstrate.

      Me: Why can't your question work with Calculus?
      You: I was a Lit major!
      Me: You can't answer the question and are wrong.
      You: Blah false dichotomy blah and Loans.

      In no case have you even attempted to answer the question I presented 3 posts ago. In fact you have gone out of your way to avoid the question and divert the topic in an attempt to look intelligent. This post went a laughable distance.. "guaranteed loans"... almost hilarious, but way too pathetic to laugh at!

      You are biased well beyond idiocy and pretty far into irrational delusion. Don't attempt to amaze me with your next lack of intellect, I can guess what it looks like.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:Good grief by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Ok, despite you just insulting me, I'm going to try to seriously answer.

      First, I was under the impression we were talking mainly about liberal arts. Not fine arts, not math/physics/science/accounting for the most part. In the cases of lit, philosophy, history, unless you're really going to generate new academic content, it's not progressive. That said, I'll freely admit you have a point regarding advanced math and science.

      Second, guaranteed loans. Uh, these are guaranteed for the schools. Not the students. In other words, they (schools) get paid whether the person who takes them out to pay for the degree finds the degree economically benefical or not. If it's not clear what the problem with that system is, it's that it encourages universities to charge a lot for financial black-hole degrees.

      Now, regarding another of your questions, specifically "Why can't a person learn about programming, advanced mathematics, advanced physics, etc... at the library or taking a night class?", I think I can reasonably respond that LOTS of people have had success learning programming on the job, or with curated enrichment at the direction of a manager, mentor, etc., as I've done for others and have had done for me. Maybe that could also work for math and science - I can't say for sure because I don't know, but in at least one of those cases, I have solid proof that people can excel without being in the 4-year system.

  164. Re:Talk about blaming society for personal problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Total man-child, as are a lot of "writers." Being beyond full of yourself is like a disease.

  165. please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comment made by the person who wrote this is obviously on the side of the banks... Hence the whole... "no mention of personal responsibility" comment... Well... all passive aggressive pompousness aside, lets consider something. When most of us made the responsible decision to go to school and take on the debt that would have purchased us a house, we were left with the impression that we would enter in to a job market hungry for our advanced skills. What we run into is a market saturated with corporations that have lobbyists which want to do everything they can to keep minimum wage to the lowest number possible, eradicate overtime, and also farming out jobs to H1B visa candidates while firing the already experienced worker and also extorting that worker to train his or her replacement. So... you can be smug all you like while you salivate staring at your 401K or IRA which is heavily funded by financial markets but the reality is most of us were raised to believe that our investment was a sound one. No one told us that we would be lucky to command a 50K a year salary after having spent 200K on a 4 year education. No one told us that we would have been better off just learning a trade and starting to work straight out of school and investing the same amount of money that we put towards school in to a low risk IRA because it would overall yield more profit than even the best estimates would predict for you if you did get a lucrative job right out of college.

    In closing... get over yourself... You are completely disconnected and quite possibly have no idea what it is like to have no savings at all and be hit with a 200K debt straight out of college. You can't buy a house because no one will give you a loan and you can hardly save for a down payment because you must pay 1K a month minimum on your student loans while trying to support yourself with all the daily normal expenses. The only hope you have to live a semi decent lifestyle is to get married and split your expenses. This is a sad state of affairs and for you to imply that this plight is an artifact of being irresponsible is completely outrageous.

  166. I have no pity by alphad0g · · Score: 1

    So the author should buy a car and default and then buy a house and default. He has no one to blame but himself, and we don't even know if he has a degree, they could take away - which they should do. But there is no guarantee that debt = degree. You pay for each class as you take it. In the end, he got what he paid for - the classes - one credit at a time.

    There never was a guarantee of a degree or a job. Just another dead beat writer in my opinion.

    I have no sympathy for the others that get degrees with limited shelf life. the person that wants to be a museum curator or archeologist - both great professions, but there are only so many jobs in the field. You can't blame the education system if you get a degree and have zero prospects for employment. You are paying for classes, not a job.

  167. You'd think with those credentials by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    You'd think with those credentials that he could recognize the logical fallacies in his own essay.

    If everyone decided to default on their student loans, we sure as hell would stop giving out loans. But we wouldn't close all the colleges. So in that sense I think he made the right move, if this is a form of protest. (I don't buy the equivocation that defaulting is stealing)

    I managed to work and pay for school, and I was nearly complete before I left to start my career. My parents gave me very little money, as they did not have much to spare, and I did not have much money saved up. Those treasure bonds I got for every birthday got me through about half a semester. I did not take out any loans, I took less classes and worked longer hours. Night classes at junior college were a very good deal for me, even though I had to be at work by 7:30am to light up the factory.

    What worked for me doesn't necessarily work for everyone else, and the way I did it was rather difficult. But I was able to enter my career debt free, even though I went through the worst possible situation of not even completing school. If I took a loan and didn't complete school, I would still owe the money, it doesn't ever go away.

    ps - I did end up having to pay a student loan off, my girlfriend's. The loan was a real pain in the ass.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  168. Right winger that agrees with author. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to agree with the author despite being in general on the right side of social issues. My view in this case comes from position that high tuition college creates unfair start for people. Those, who won genetic lottery and are born into rich family are getting another unfair advantage over the poor. They already have advantages of attending better high schools, having more access to education technology early and in general better home life. Don't sell me the propaganda that you don't need college degree to be successful and all that BS about Bill Gates dropping from college. This is propaganda for idiots, who know nothing about statistics. High education is statistically the best indicator of future life success. Society would benefit the most if we could educate the best minds instead of the children of the most rich. Therefore we should demand low cost tuition or even state funded colleges (as long as state treats people equal without "diversity" discrimination). Germany just made all their colleges "free" - state funded 100%.

  169. hey guys... by u19925 · · Score: 1

    I am interesting student loan interest rate for everyone. I am wasting taxpayers money in a very pre-planned manner despite the fact that it is possible for me live decently within my means. And guess what, I am not ashamed at all. In fact, I am telling everyone who is shy of doing it to go and do it. Ain't I great? Thanks for reading this.

  170. No excuse... I paid my college loans off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't easy for me but I did it. Stop paying for your cell phone.. end the service. That will free up close to $50.00. Live within your means. I knocked up my girlfriend 7 months after graduating college and 4 months into my first real job. we got married. Had our first son even before I finished my first year at my job.. our priorities always were our son. I never bought a new car.. I didn't care. Our son and building a life together was a priority. Part of the life is making sure our credit grows. I paid my student loan.... no matter how much it hurt. Eventually we bought our first house and within 4 years the equity clibed enough to tap our equity to pay off the student loans. Now we have three grown sons and we are still together.. plus the student loans are paid off. I do think we need to rethink education. College tuition is expensive. Maybe we should have public college for those of us who can't afford college ? The tax should not be levied against homeowners in this case it should be levied against business and based on the worth of the business. This way we can employ American Citizens and not some foreigner here on a H1B Visa.

  171. Re:Debt Solution: Get "In Demand" Schooling ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having trouble getting a full-time job? No worries, we'll set you up with a job in the IT department for a few months, just to give you some experience (and keep our high job placement rate)! We care!

  172. student loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am really tired of all this bull about defaulting on student loans. When one signs the promissory notes, that automatically makes it your obligation to pay back. I went to a state school starting in 2006 I looked at all the loans options and what them meant, subsidized unsubsidized perkins and what not. I will say my uncle helped with my first semester as long as I held a's b's and c's, so I had some help with around 1000 dollars of my education. The rest was pell grants TAP, and loans in the amount of around 18000 dollars.
    I had the opportunity to go to a private college that would have been awesome but in the end the 20000 dollar financial aid package just didn't cut it when the tuition was 29000 dollars. I couldn't afford it so I went to a state university of new York, that was within my means and received a excellent education in Wildlife Management.
    Graduating in 2010 wasn't the best because of the economy but I got by, I worked at McDonalds while applying for jobs, none of which wanted me because they wanted 2 years of experience on top of the bachelors degree. Did I give up... No I did not. I went and did 4 internships over 4 years through Student Conservation Program. The first 2 years as an environmental educator intern with the NYSDEC, which was in conjunction with AmeriCorps and was able to get money towards my student loans, which helped because those internships were at 4 dollars an hour and free housing. Was it hard? hell yes it was I didn't have any saving and was living hand to mouth but I got the experience I needed to find the job I am currently at which, while temporary is lucrative enough to pay the rest of my student loans at the end of the job.
    Moral of the story is yes paying the loans are hard. No you aren't going to be able to travel Europe or go on expensive vacations or buy the expensive electronics. But these loans are your responsibility and if you weren't smart enough to read the fine print and understand what you were getting into then that is your fault and unfortunately doesn't absolve you from your debt.

  173. Words not anywhere in this rant... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    "personal" and "responsibility"

    1. Re:Words not anywhere in this rant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those words belong in a state of nature which currently exists only in some parts of southwest Asia ans most of Africa.

  174. Good old days for students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the author of this article ... went to college in the 80's when college was not nearly as expensive.

    Exactly! I'm even older - undergrad in the '60s, got a job (STEM) for a couple of years then (motivated mostly by a lack of social life) went back to grad school school on just my savings, never borrowed a dime. Tuition at my top-tier state school was about $400 a semester; my apartment was $135 a month, furnished and bills paid. Had a blast. Chased co-eds for a couple of years (until one caught me.) Only then buckled down and got my PhD. No, we didn't have it tough in the old days; it's the kids today who walk 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways, going to school.

    - an old fart who knows those really were the good-old-days.

  175. So much for personal responsibility by BobSutan · · Score: 1

    "It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college."

    Apparently it never struck him that borrowing for a college degree with a shitty ROI _is_ reckless borrowing. This is the real problem, people going to college and getting degrees they know full well have no feasible way of paying off said debt, or don't know because they were too careless and/or stupid to look up what that career will actually pay.

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  176. Starving college student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in the process of helping my third child apply for admission to university. My first two children are currently university students. With a combined four years of education, my children currently have $0 in college loans. I expect that in about four years, they will have at least 12 years of college education between them with $0 in college loans. How much help are they getting from mom and dad? A couple hundred dollars a piece in luggage. Plus registration and insurance on the car they take turns with. No gas money.

    How do they manage the $20K-40K per year to go to college?
    1. Scholarships. A half-tuition scholarship is a lot of money. If you buckle down and get As in school, you should manage some decent funding. If you aren't getting As, why not? A $20,000 scholarship deserves 20 hours a week in effort outside the classroom.
    2. Employment. They start with jobs like cleaning toilets from 4:00am - 7:00 Mon-Fri and 4:00am - 9:00am on Saturday. Or waiting tables 7pm - 11pm Tue-Sat. They work 20 hours a week during the school year, then 40+ during the summer.
    3. Live cheap. They live in very cheap apartments with 5 roommates. They make their own meals as cheaply as possible. They live like starving college students. A crazy fun night to blow off steam has to cost less than $10. A date has to be under $25.

    It isn't fun. It's college. It's hard work. Kinda like real life, only cheaper. Their classmates drive new Audis, own XBoxes and iPhones, party every night, sleep through morning classes, and drop out of college after two years with $100K in "student debt." That isn't student debt. That's party teenager debt.

    The key to making it through college without enormous debt is to live like a starving college student. You know, like the old days when mom and dad did the same thing.

  177. 2cents worht by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of this is on point.You borrow the money,sign the loan you owe it.

  178. Utter Lack of Forethought and Responsibilty by onkelonkel · · Score: 2

    When buddy chose to sign up for the student loans, he obviously didn't spend 1 second thinking about how he was going to pay them back. His strategy was to study whatever made him happy, borrow as much money as that required, and hope that when he graduated he would land a high paying job in his chosen field. I see no sign that he ever asked himself what the starting salary in that field was, how long it would take to get to his high paying job, and based on those facts determine how long he would take to pay his loans. Now he wants to walk away from his bad decision, (which he could likely have figured out was a bad decision before he took on a penny of debt), he wants you and me to pay for it instead, and he wants to justify it to himself so that he doesn't have to feel guilty. He gets zero sympathy from me.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  179. It's not the tuition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will venture a guess that the vast majority of people in over their heads in student loans racked up the debt on things other than tuition.

    I.E. my current tuition is 3K per semester, but I can borrow 15K, with no credit and regardless of my major or my grades. If anyone, college student or not, lived for 6+ years with little to no income and borrowed to pay all of their living expenses, they would have a painful debt at the end of that run, degree or not.

    The current system makes it pretty easy to be a "professional student" and stay in school for up to 10 years living off of someone else.Then, instead of "taking a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school", you can let the rest of us repay the huge debt YOU accumulated in college and grad school.

  180. It is called being "judgement proof". by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

    You cannot accumulate assets under you name, because assets can be seized, which means you are destined to die poor once you are retired, unless you have family who will take care of you (or are competent/trusthworthy enough to hold your investments in their name).

    You can hold a bank account, but you must keep the balance down where it the dollar figure is less than the hassle of the debt collector to file the paperwork to seize your account. So either you must be very exacting in your bank bookkeeping (it is easy to screw this up), or you give up on credit cards and checks entirely, and stick with cash.

    Some of these things you can work around by having helpful unofficial arrangements with a roommate or spouse (e.g. how to get the phone or ISP bill paid).

    It is an interesting question on how you are going to get paid, because wages can be garnished. But if you do nothing but contract work or irregularly earn commissions, it becomes very difficult for the debt collector to track down your sources of funds. "Hey, that contract is over. I do not know when I am going to get paid again."

    1. Re:It is called being "judgement proof". by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It is an interesting question on how you are going to get paid, because wages can be garnished.

      In practice, this happens at the drop of a hat for taxes, but virtually never happens for student loans. What usually happens to student loans is that they are sold to some fly-by-night assholes who will break every law in the book trying to collect the debt from you, except anything that would actually cost them money. So mostly it's a lot of illegal telemarketing. I know people with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who have never had wages garnished, even when they worked in the same place for years on end. On the other hand, when the State of CA Franchise Tax Board owed me money but claimed I owed them, it only took them a few months to find me and garnish my wages. Naturally, when I got all the paperwork sorted out, it was revealed that they owed me over a hundred bucks, which naturally I will never get, nor will I ever get back the several hundred they took from me through garnishment. Fucking government thieves. If you work for the CA FTB, or by extension the CA gov't at all, you're a thief, and I hope you get what you deserve and not just my money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  181. Well I do hope.... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    ...he's ashamed of himself, but he doesn't sound like he is unfortunately. He sounds instead like he's mad he didn't get his education for free (or at least at the "right price") and now he doesn't want to pay the bill.

    I do sympathize, I really do...my parents didn't make much so I worked and scraped my way through college. Yes I did take out a couple of (small) student loans--and worked every weekend at McDonald's to supplement. Did I like it? Nope. Did I do it so I wouldn't end up with "crippling debt" (he didn't say how much he owed)? Yep.

    Believe me, the day I mailed that last check was one of the best days of my life prior to meeting my lovely wyfe.

    Very often, signing for a student loan is one of the first adult decisions a person makes. He reneged on his promise and all of us paid a little bit for it. That's wrong. I hope the Department of Education catches up with him eventually and starts garnishing his paycheck until the books are balanced.

    Should college education be free? No--that's not how we do things here. Should we changes the system so it is? I don't think so myself; better that more people take other routes for higher education (trades, etc.). That's a reasonable debate to have as a society. There's no question that we could give everybody a free college education here in America; we're the most fantastically wealthy society ever to exist. But should we? I think not but am willing to have the conversation.

    But whatever happens, deadbeats like the author should be pursued until they've repaid every penny of what they borrowed.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  182. Learning stles are not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a holder of a fine Liberal Arts degree (BA in International Relations, w00t!) which I earned by taking classes over a 14 year period I am here to tell you that you are a FOOL if you take student loans for a course of study that HAS NO TANGIBLE JOB SKILLS. I knew when I changed my major to Lib Arts that I would need a job doing something else, so I then chose to get the rest of my classes from state and local college(s) at decreased prices ... because I got this degree for two reasons: (1) the degree checkbox, and (2) because I liked the classes. After the first year d@mn near every course WAS a stand-alone and had nothing whatsoever to do with any other.
    Perhaps YOU fail to realize an education can be gained outside of a classroom. I can see you are ignoring the chance to learn anything about worldviews here ...

  183. It's the lies we teach by briester · · Score: 1

    OK everyone who (correctly) says that you need to consider the ROI on a degree before investing in it: be aware that in high school kids are taught DIRECTLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY that an art degree is a good and effective thing that WILL get them a job. Be aware that it is only AFTER attaining that degree, and the debt that comes with it, that they try and fail to enter the job market. Foreknowledge WOULD improve or children's lives, you're right! Too bad it runs against causality. No, they DID do their due diligence. They were simply lied to.

    Bottom line: most people with art degrees spent their entire education up to college being told that they MUST attend college, but that any degree at all would be equally useful, by teachers and family and our culture in a generalized 'assumed knowledge' sort of way. They think they know exactly what they're doing.

  184. Hypocritomopopis by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    So it is okay for him to default on paying his debtors after the fact while other people like myself paid our way through college by working our asses off both academically and for long hours. This jerk is why things cost more than they should. The rest of us have to pay for his defaulting on his debt. I hope the IRS at least charges him the taxes, interest and fines on the debt he defaulted on which counts as income.

  185. Fees increase with subidies by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Chart the cost of colleges against subsidy increases in the US. Just as with the housing bubble, you'll find that increases in subsidies increases the cost of college almost immediately.

    The reality is that college or a house or healthcare or a lot of things costs what people will pay for it.

    This is a basic economic concept that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Supply and demand.

    When you give students a big bag of money that they can only spend on college the money isn't theirs. They have no incentive to economize with it or pay what something is worth. So they just take that big bag of money and hand it to the university without thinking about it. There's no point doing anything else from their perspective. It isn't their money.

    Home sellers, universities, and the healthcare industry responds to this situation by increasing their prices to whatever that big bag of money is plus whatever amount of money they think you have in your pockets. So if you showed up with 10,000 in your savings... or that is what they think... and the big pile of money is 50 grand just as an example... they're going to ask for 60,000.

    We've seen a lot of different things increase their costs suddenly and at a much faster rate than inflation or reductions in supply. Housing is probably the clearest example of that. Yes, space is limited but the costs of housing basically jumped up to whatever home buyers COULD sell the home for. Of course. you're going to want to sell your home for as much money as you possibly can. But that means that every time the banks or the federal government just start giving people money for home loans... nearly all that money just goes to the profits of existing home owners. And it makes it much harder for people that didn't need to the loans before to afford homes because now everything is way too expensive to buy at that rate. Which pushes people that wouldn't have needed help into the same government programs.

    It is a vicious feed back loop.

    Here are a few ideas.

    1. With college especially, consider an investment model as an alternative. Liberal arts majors will hate this but it will deal with the feed back loop. The idea here is that rather than loaning people money, you instead INVEST in that person. You say, "in return for 10 percent of your income for 10 years, I will pay for your education." And the investment model would work like any investment. Your grades and career choice, and educational path, etc would all be factors in whether anyone actually wanted to invest in you are not. For STEM fields especially this would be very helpful and companies could even do it as a way to encourage people to get educations in things the company found useful. That 10 percent of your income could be the money they pay you to work for them. Thus it would mean a 10 percent reduction in what they have to pay you when you ultimately start working for them.

    Some stem jobs pay around 80-130 grand. So 10 percent for ten years works out to 80 to 130 grand for them.... minus whatever the education cost... minus the opportunity cost... minus the interest. Whether it made sense in any given situation would be a matter of spread sheets. But what is nice is that it links what an education is paid for to something "Real".

    And linking prices to anything REAL is a great way to control unrealistic feed back loops.

    2. In regards to housing, the only thing you can do is have the home buyer pay a large portion of the total cost of the house upfront. Typically no less than 30 percent. That is THEIR money. Not debt money. That 30 percent figure will stop a lot of people from buying a house but it will also make them not walk away from a mortgage and it will make them not buy a house that costs too much. If a house costs a billion dollars and I have to put up none of that money upfront... then I can own a billion dollar house for at least a month. And if the interest rates are really low then who ever needs to pay it back... right? The big mistake with the fiancial cris

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Fees increase with subidies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chart the cost of colleges against subsidy increases in the US. Just as with the housing bubble, you'll find that increases in subsidies increases the cost of college almost immediately.

      Except that it goes the other way around. College costs increase due to the cost of running a university, and then the subsidies eventually rise as well. You seem to have your cause and effect backwards. Also important is that the subsidies almost never increase at the same rate as the cost of going to or running said college; usually the subsidies are at least 10-30% less than the cost increase of the college.
       
       

      The reality is that college or a house or healthcare or a lot of things costs what people will pay for it.

      No, simply no. A house, yes. The other two, no. There are far more factors involved in running a college or a health practice that influence the costs - in particular many of which the college or health practice has no control over.
       
       

      When you give students a big bag of money that they can only spend on college the money isn't theirs.

      You are confusing student loans with student grants. A student grant can only go to education. A student loan is money that can be spent on anything as long as the person who it is loaned to is a student. Student loan money can be spent on anything the student wants to buy, though the size and duration of the loan is based on assumptions of the institution they are enrolled at.
       
       

      It is a vicious feed back loop.

      If it worked the way you describe, that would be a feed forward loop, not a feed back loop. Try logic 101 some time.

       
       

      Anyway, just giving people money to buy things

      Again, student loans are not free money. Student grants are free money, but they pay directly to the institution and not to the student. Have you ever attended an institution of higher education? Your lack of familiarity with how they are funded suggests no.

    2. Re:Fees increase with subidies by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Wrong. it isn't the other way around.

      The rise in costs would be attributable to cost of living, inflation, professor salaries, etc.

      There is no correlation between tuition and those variables.

      what you're probably getting tripped up by is that the government subsidy never quite seems to cover 100 percent of what the university charges.

      You missed what I said. They don't charge you what the subsidy is... they charge you the subsidy PLUS what they think you can pay on top of it.

      So if the government offers X and X used to be what the tutition was... they'll ask for whatever they think you have in your pocket PLUS X.

      Increase X and they'll just keep charging you X + what is in your pocket.

      Increasing X will never have you with no out of pocket expenses. Make X one million dollars... they're still going to make you pay for shit out of pocket because the want the money in your pocket as well.

      Another thing you could do to control costs is instead of give people money that can ONLY go to the college, instead give them money that they can spend on ANYTHING.

      Does that mean that irresponsible people will spent the money on hookers and booze? Yes. But you can structure it so that it is harder for them to do that.

      The idea though would be to encourage the student to NOT spend more money than they needed to spend. So maybe look at what the colleges and universities cost and then using that to judge which one you want to go to.

      Going to a cheaper school for undergraduate work for example is a good idea. Ivy League undergraduate courses are over rated.

      If kids KEPT money they saved by going to cheaper schools they would put cost pressure on the schools to keep costs down to attract students.

      This is a basic concept in economics. No one really has any excuse for not understanding it past high school.

      You can do the same thing with medical insurance as well.

      Some medical insurance policies have fixed payouts when you are hurt. They don't pay the doctors or the hospitals but they pay YOU. So if I get 10 grand for having this confirmed problem... any money I save by keeping the costs of treatment down is money that goes into my pocket.

      Again, yes... fraud is possible here but there are ways to make that less of an issue.

      And I should point out that the alternative has the fraud happening at the universities and hospitals instead. All things being equal, I'd rather have the patients ripping the system off than the institutions.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Fees increase with subidies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. it isn't the other way around.

      No, it is. And your lack of understanding of the costs of running an institution of higher learning was made readily apparent when you went on to say:

      The rise in costs would be attributable to cost of living, inflation, professor salaries, etc.

      Because those are some of the least costly of the costs of running a college or university.

      Colleges and universities have other costs that are much more substantial, including

      • Electricity
      • Building maintenance

      • Security
      • Groundskeeping
      • Water and heat
      • Telecommunications costs

      And all of those have seen increases in costs beyond inflation in the past decade or more. Some how those costs need to be covered or the school will go broke.
       
       

      Another thing you could do to control costs is instead of give people money that can ONLY go to the college, instead give them money that they can spend on ANYTHING.

      You don't know how student loans work, do you? A student loan - as mentioned in the previous ac comment - is money paid to the student that the student CAN spend on whatever they want. The amount of the loan is based on the cost at the college or university where they are enrolled but they are not obligated to hand the money over to said school. Only grants pay directly to the institution.
       
       

      If kids KEPT money they saved by going to cheaper schools they would put cost pressure on the schools to keep costs down to attract students.

      Only in an imaginary world where the only costs to the school are the ones you described. In the real world a school cannot keep their tuition down by mere force of will.

      Seriously, have you done anything with your life since dropping out of high school? You could build a much better argument if you were aware of the facts behind the situation here, kid. Right now you just look like a jealous kid whose friends went to college and couldn't accept why he couldn't go himself. If there are other less expensive options that are just as good, then go pursue one and improve yourself. Hell you even have a typo in your subject line.

  186. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by n7ytd · · Score: 1

    It's easy to say "grow up" when the biggest loan you had to take out was for a motorcycle. An education in the US can cost 10s-100s of thousands of dollars not including living expenses. Couple this with low earnings coming out of college and interest rates that capitalize (interest is added to principle) which occurs during forbearance, deferment, or even while you're still in school. For the vast majority of people, repayment is not so simple when the average wage for a US employee is $45,327 as of 2012 according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. This doesn't take into account the costs of living, healthcare, health insurance, transportation, or god-forbid entertainment.

    Yes, tuition in the U.S. can cost 100s of thousands of dollars, but it need not.
    If you're borrowing "100s of thousands of dollars" to earn a degree to qualify you for a job earning $45,327, you're doing it wrong.

    There are two things people keep teaching their children about college (by their words or actions) that are flat-out wrong:
        1. Always go to whichever college you want, no matter the cost. Any degree is guaranteed to be worth any price paid.
        2. In college, always pursue your dreams. It doesn't matter what you can get paid for it, because then you'll be a well-rounded individual and society will value you.

    We are seriously short-changing our children by not teaching basic financial skills like loan repayment, ROI, and critical thinking about this while they are in high school. Signing up an 18 year old for $100k worth of student loans without requiring some sort of competency exam seems borderline criminal, to me.

  187. Silly me. by edibobb · · Score: 1

    I think if you borrow money, you should pay it back.

    1. Re:Silly me. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      I think if you lend money, you should *have* money and not invent it out of thin air. Silly me.

      Working to obtain wealth is noble. But it's a lop-sided equation. The banks do zero work (other than creatively lying) to obtain their money, but the people are expected to do *real* work to pay it back.

      Until we understand this fact of life, we will forever think of brave and insightful people who resist their slave owners as criminals when the actual truth is the complete reverse.

  188. Now, if this is a REAL Republic, we'll have Rand Paul vs Bernie Sanders. Let the issues be clearly debated and sorted out for the next 40 years. hehe.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  189. Return on loan... by azulcactus · · Score: 1

    This guy is off-base:

    "By the end of my sophomore year at a small private liberal arts college..."

    Private colleges are about 2.5 more costly than public (assuming in-state tuition):
    http://www.usnews.com/educatio...

    What makes this author and others like him think he is entitled to a private college education in a low-paying career? Let's face it, liberal arts degree in writing is not going to bring home the bucks. His family started out with a loan, then more, then bankruptcy. Is it any surprise there was a default? The bank should have stopped after the first one and informed he should transfer to a lower cost school before giving more money. Those who have repaid their student loans are now financing this author and others like him. It's not free, we all pay.

    Perhaps degrees should have something like is on appliances for energy ratings, an average time to repay.

    "This degree and this institution will take on average 20 years to repay"

    Loan processors can use that to assess whether to grant the loan.

  190. This guy is full of **it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can confidently say this guy is a nehilistic, pampered baby who thinks that life should have GIVEN him the 'best education money can buy'. He complains about 'crushing debt' while having taken out loans to go to a PRIVATE school! I now live in the US but received my education in Canada. I had to take out loans to go to the local university while living with my parents. Local University in Canada would be like a 'State' or 'Community College' in the US (at least from what I gather). And of course my parents had to co-sign my loans. It could be argued tha the full costs of my tuition was not covered by the loans (e.g. 'government subsidies direct to Univiersities kept tuition lower than it should have been) BUT I never once thought of defaulting on my loans it would have been incredibly reprehensible to me to do so.

    If I'd not gotten a job I liked or ultimately a vocation I loved (physics & math degrees but working in computers which was my first love) then so fucking be it. Where the fuck does it say you deserve both an education AND a job you can love. You take the jobs that pay your bills, work hard & if you're so inclined have a family & put them through higher education at a 'better school' than you had. My dad was a welder (mom was stay at home), he busted his ass so I (and my 4 brothers by the way) could have a better life long past when he should have had to worry about paying for my sorry 'young adult ass' had I just 'gone in to a trade'. I didn't owe it to 'society' I owed it to my parents to take the opportunity they gave me & somehow do better than they did (whatever you define as 'better') though at a minimum be able to pay all my bills myself.

    I don't know if my dad loved his job, he certainly was very good at it, but he lost an arm (his 'good arm'...right arm) when he was a very young man & would come home from work with 'welding flashes' (a condition of shooting pain in your eyes). While he 'complained of pain' he never once complained that 'life wasn't fair', that he shouldn't have to do the job he was doing, that he should just be able to 'do what he loves' & have someone else pay his bills.

    I also conciously made the choice NOT to have kids because they are expensive & no wife/relationship with any woman not prepared to 'pay her own way'. So I don't have the 2.5 kids, no wife (currently) though I have a home I own & take care of others (extended familY) when I choose to while not being a burden on society. People who think they 'deserve it all', the nice wife, family, house in the 'burbs' the beautiful car, big screen TV, etc. 'immediately' are selfish pricks who don't have fuckin' clue what it took for our parents & their parents to build up a society where 'freedom of choice' actually fucking means something.

    So this guy can sit on his ass, write his books, not pay his bills & complain that "society just ain't fair"...yeah that's what the previous generations busted their ass for, that's why so many men faught & died in wars to preserve our way of life. Fuck that, go get a real job asshole & pay your fuckin' bills like the rest of us.

  191. He chose. by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    "I chose life. That is to say, I defaulted on my student loans." says Siegel.

    Wrong. He chose Theft.

    1. Re:He chose. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Who is he stealing from, exactly?

      The mistake you're making is thinking that somebody else worked to accumulate real money to lend out. That's not what happened. The banks invented that money out of thin air, -without working for it-, (working to obtain wealth is important to you, right?) and laugh as the little monkeys jump around trying to pay it back in a fixed shell game.

      Maybe you're just angry because you lacked the insight to see that you were being screwed and didn't get up the courage required to resist the slave master bullies.

      How many years of your life have you wasted doing what you were told when really it was all a con-job? Maybe you're angry because his bravery and insight makes you have to look at the fact that you've been made into a chump.

    2. Re:He chose. by mbeckman · · Score: 1

      I paid my student loans. I suspect you didn't, which explains your sophomoric attempt to justify a clear and simple crime.

  192. Bull pussy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of that is just a bunch of BS. You KNOW that you won't get a decent job without a degree. YOU KNOW IT. And yet here you and all your conservative fuck-you-I-got-mine brethren trying to completely destroy the system we have so that the young folks wont be able to stand alongside you in your ivory tower. I'm tired of you assholes. Once you boomers die the fuck off, maybe, just maybe, things will turn around.

    1. Re:Bull pussy! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you replied to the correct post? I'm not a conservative, I'm not a boomer, I think the situation is terrible, and I'm just telling you how it got to be what it is.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  193. Wow by kenh · · Score: 1

    It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college

    Really? It is absurd that students that barely graduated high school can amass a quarter-million dollars in guaranteed student loans while studying anything they want with no limitations?

    What boggles my mind is that the federal government puts no limits on what people study on OPM (Other People's Money).

    Why aren't student loans given out based on merit, rather than ability to fill out a federal student loan application?

    --
    Ken
  194. Re:We made a deal! I got what I want.... by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Declaring bankruptcy is a time honored American tradition, and a good one.

  195. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by swillden · · Score: 1

    Well sure. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    The terms on those loans aren't kept secret from the students signing up for them. There's no need to rely on hindsight, just a little basic mathematics. As another poster mentioned above, the median cost of a US university education is just under ~$5800 per year. If you're racking up $40K, $50K, $100K or more of debt it's because you're making expensive choices. Go to an inexpensive school, work a part-time job during school, full-time during summers, and live cheaply, and you can graduate with minimal debt -- and learn some valuable lessons about life and responsibility while you're at it.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  196. Bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society."

    Given the crappy advice Siegel offers in his rant, he could contribute more to society as a barista or retail clerk.

  197. There's always sugar daddy [dot] com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/

    You can find a rich old white guy to pay off your loan in exchange for a few "favors" Then again, the reason he's rich is probably because he invests his money in student loan securities. The non-discharge clause makes them a better investment than mortgage-backed securities.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/06/19/wall-street-sees-big-money-in-student-loan-defaults/
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323293704578334542910674174
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-04/the-student-debt-collection-mess

  198. Self entitled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didnâ(TM)t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school. Or I could take what I had been led to believe was both the morally and legally reprehensible step of defaulting on my student loans, which was the only way I could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society."

    Ahh, the self-entitled philosopher.

    Well, screw you a-hole.

    You know what, I've always wanted to pursue a graduate degree.

    (a) Using your recipe, I should take a bunch of loans which I never intend to repay in order to live my dreams. Because, you know, I deserve it. I have a pile of participation awards to prove it!

    (b) Or, I could graduate with a bachelors degree and work some crappy jobs over the course of twenty years to pay off my debts and establish myself. When my salary and debt ratio is manageable, I'll go back to school and pay cash.

    Well, I choose (b). It took the entire twenty years but I don't smell and feel like a scamster. During that time, I built, funded, and ran my own business. I got married, bought a house, and contributed to charity with plenty of Ramen noodle days interspersed. And, now I'm a graduate student. 100% self funded, little debt, and no defaults.

    As a result, I know exactly what the value of a dollar is and can smell scamsters such as the author a mile away.

    I had to work jobs I did NOT enjoy. It was a job. I got paid for those jobs.

    Get out, get dirty, prove yourself, win and loose, work hard, follow your nose. Pursuing your dreams takes years not days.

    No one will "give" it to you so that you can pursue "life". Unless, of course, you dream consists of receiving more participation awards...

  199. Re:Call me old-fashioned .. but you took out the l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $1000 in 1982 is high as fuck. I paid that in the early 1990s.

    Kudos though on you getting to pay 1/10th or less what people pay now for a comparable amount of time in college. You must feel mighty high on that horse you're sitting on.

  200. A plaintiff can be found by tepples · · Score: 1

    If this were taken to court, they'd work around lack of standing by finding an appropriate plaintiff. That's what they already do in class action cases.

  201. poverty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the end, your essay is about the intractable nature of poverty. you are your fathers son through and through. what's worse, your son will be like you. and on and on and on.

  202. Section 8 waiting lsits by tepples · · Score: 1

    Housing: Section 8

    From the linked article: "In many localities, the PHA waiting lists for Section 8 vouchers may be thousands of families long, waits of three to six years to access vouchers is common, and many lists are closed to new applicants." So the people you see on the streets are the ones who have been waiting for a slot to open up for possibly several years.

  203. Who supported this man for ten years? by flacco · · Score: 1

    A lot of people went to work day in and day out at jobs they disliked or even despised, and set aside some of their meager wages in savings accounts or retirement accounts, so this asshole could live for free for ten years pursuing vanity degrees in areas of study that equipped him to do little more than better rationalize his shitty choices, and to lie to himself and others more skillfully about the meaning of that choice.

    Fuck you Lee Siegel. It's one thing to fuck over the people who loaned you money; it's another to reframe your shitty actions to make you the victim, or even the hero.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:Who supported this man for ten years? by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Nobody loaned him the money. Get that straight.

      That money was pulled out of thin air via fiat currency slight of hand, same as all currency in existence, and the compound interest makes it mathematically impossible to repay those loans without a whole bunch of people defaulting.

      Are those people bad because they happened to not dance quite fast enough in the musical chairs game which is our economy?

      That's what happens with a system that instantly creates more debt than there is available money to pay back those 'loans'.

      That's how it works. By design.

      Personal responsibility is important, sure, but its lack cannot be rationally argued with such a broad brush as being the primary cause, (or even a distant secondary cause), as so many are wont to do.

      I don't care how much pressure to be a good citizen is applied; when there's less cash in circulation than there is debt, (by many orders of magnitude), blaming the debtors is short sighted to say the least.

  204. It's all the Government's fault by pebear · · Score: 1

    The Government has all this student aid and the Government loans. All schools make sure they maximize the amount of monies they grab from the Government. There seems to be no oversight on the schools spending habits. The schools are increasingly building building but more than just functional and grean buildings they are building them with marble and granite. No oversight on their spending on salaries. The schools spend money like drunken sailors. When I went to school the cost was like 800 dollars a year for tuition and fees. The government paid all of that and gave me 1500 dollars a semester just for showing up. Yes I was a vet and my home state of CT pays for tuition for all vets who served in a war zone to state schools. The school I went to costs now like 10K a year for tuition and fees. In 25 years it's gone up that much? Has inflation been that out of control? This is all not to mention boarding costs and food charges. (Which I did not incur) So the way I see things if the Government is subsidizing the schools they need to take a closer look at how the money is being used. One more pet peeve here. My daughter is starting college up in the fall. The federal student loan program limits the amount that kids can put in for. The limit is 5500 dollars at around 1 or 2 percent money. But the government takes 500 of that money and charges it to the kids as a fee so actually they are only getting 5000 a year from the feds and getting charged 500 right off the top as administrative fees(taxes?)

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  205. Yes and no.. by doccus · · Score: 1

    I agree it should be free. I don't agree you should steal it, though. Pay what you commited to, and use your degree to make sure nobody else has to bear crippling debt in future. He was perfectlly capable of following those simple rules if he authored 5 successful books.

  206. Weasel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a fucking self-entitled weasel who not only ripped off the taxpayers, but also made money peddling his narcissism.

    OK, now that I have that off my chest, let's invoke Kant's principle of "universalisability." If everyone defaulted, there would soon be no more student loan program because it would be unsustainable. Just like if everyone lied whenever it suited them, no one would believe anyone anymore.

  207. Start simple: Apprenticeship, certification, etc. by rhyous · · Score: 1

    I followed the idea of get a skill, start working, and learn on the side. I recommend it to everyone.

    I started with a $4K to get my MSCE in 1999. I took 10 weeks of classes, got my MCSE exams done in three months (I was a bit of a computer guy already who'd been hacking around a PC since my Adam in 1984 when I was 7). I got a $30K a year job before I even finished my exams. The job came with tuition reimbursement. I got an English Degree with that Tuition Reimbursement. I'd have done Computer Science, but the colleges where I lived didn't have night classes for it. So I also liked creative writing (just as fun as creative coding to me). 6 years of night classes and I had my BA of Creative Writing degree, paid for by tuition reimbursement and, oh by the way, I years of experience as a Network Engineer.

    Instead of a college grad with no experience, I was a college grad with 6 years experience.

    I quickly got another job, that also paid tuition reimbursement. I took a few CS courses, not a full degree, just enough to qualify to get a masters of CS. Now, I have taken all the course work for a Masters of CS and just have my thesis left. I owe exact $0 in student loans.

    This path is open to everyone. You don't have to do "Computers." It could be a nursing certificate. An apprenticeship for an Electrical company, and you get a degree and become a general contractor. FYI, it is best to do large companies because they are more likely to have tuition reimbursement. But even if they don't, who cares if you make enough money to afford it.

    I firmly believe that 4 years of college with no work is not very beneficial for young kids when compared to working and getting your degree on the side. Sure the social life is a bit harder and there is less of it, but there I had enough of it.

    Would you rather after 4 years leave college a degree and 0 years experience and 100k to 200k in debt. Or would you rather work and go to college at night for 6 years, and you leave college with a degree, 6 years experience, and $0 of debt?

    My rule of thumb is never owe more than one semester of college or $3500 (whichever is less) at a time.

    DO NOT GO INTO LARGE DEBT FOR EDUCATION!!!!

  208. Re:Start simple: Apprenticeship, certification, et by rhyous · · Score: 1

    FYI, I didn't proofread my post. I know, I know, I have an English degree. That doesn't help me avoid typos if I don't proofread. :-)

  209. Problem with college is lack of value... not loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with college is the very solution this person suggests. More access.

    I certainly believe that if a person wants to go to college at least one avenue should be open to them.
    But these days it's not ONE avenue.... its a dearth of super highways, interstates, back roads and dirt roads!

    It's easy to go to college and one could also argue... easy to graduate.

    Because the process is no longer discerning, we have lost all value in the college experience as a "test" and now made it a "given".

    Anyone can go. Anyone can graduate. There is no value in something that lacks competitiveness. Other than the shear benefit of knowledge gained. (Which has a real benefit, for sure.) But this benefit of a smarter society as a whole doesn't help you find a job. It actually makes it harder. You no longer stand out from your peers with a college degree. Because all your peers have one!

  210. A News Site? by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    This is News? People defaulting on student loans. I think you're preaching to the choir bud. It's not fucking news get it the fuck off slashdot and if there's anyone not smart enough to figure this out reading this site, please jam sewing pins in your eyeballs right now.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  211. Re:Start simple: Apprenticeship, certification, et by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    I went this route after taking 1 year of loans. It took 10 years of defaulting and seized tax refunds to pay it off. Getting paid to study beats being a starving student and paying to study any day, any subject. Get cert, use it as a safety net, do anything you want: business ventures, self-employed projects, more school.... anything you want. Run out of money? Back to work with your cert or trade qualification. Simple. Easy. Why don't they teach this concept in school? Because then colleges and universities would go bankrupt.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  212. "reckless borrowing and spending" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "reckless borrowing and spending" is exactly what using student loans to get a masters degree in philosophy was for him. D'oh!

  213. He drank the kool-aid by p0larity · · Score: 1

    He clearly thought that going to college and getting a degree WAS a display of personal responsibility.

    Rightly so. It's sold as such.

    I've been slowly paying off my student loan over several years and I still can't bring myself to blame people who want out from under the debt.

    It can feel quite stifling and it effectively limits what you can do with your new-found knowledge for a while. I know the idea is to do what I did, go to college for CS or something lucrative and use that privileged knowledge to make a decent wage to pay back that support.

    Thing is, higher learning and especially University which is what I went for WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A JOB MACHINE.

    Higher learning is meant to sharpen your mind and allow you to explore a subject in depth. It teaches you how to learn and how to do research. Most of the practical knowledge you learn in a higher learning situation may be obsolete by the time you graduate anyway.

    College courses for practical diplomas should be subsidized. Then again I live in Canada and I'm perfectly happy paying more taxes so everyone I care about can have freely available healthcare and other socially supported systems.

    We're, sloooooowly dragging ourselves into the modern era kicking and screaming all the damn way but we'll get there. Maybe some day the US & Canada will support REAL liberty, where everyone has the same opportunities because they are supported in their endeavours. The kind of liberty neocons want is the kind that makes everyone else suffer to make them comfortable. Selfish liberty. The freedom to be a selfish ass.

  214. excused for psychiatric reasons by decibel.places · · Score: 1

    10 years after graduation, having paid my loan payments dutifully, I became so sick with Bipolar depression I could not work. My psychiatrist signed forms excusing me from future payments, stating that it was unlikely that I would ever be able to work again. Fortunately he was wrong, my symptoms improved after a few years. I feel no guilt, it was accurate at the time, and I have repaid society in other ways since then.

  215. I feel the interest rate is the bigger issue by Bigfatdummy · · Score: 1

    I have more of an issue with the interest rate for student loans. We should see 1-2% interest rates on student loans. You can't discharge the debt with bankruptcy. Its absolutely crazy to see 7% (I know it varies) interest rates on these loans.

  216. No One Is Commenting On the Real Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As who has been chased internationally and hunted down for a debt I didn't know about and was completely fabricated, I have to believe this guy "defaulted" in a prior era. Student loans are no longer 'defaultable.' They are owed like alimony, or taxes, with the government able to block passports and take money from your job. Before some prior date, they could be defaulted but those days are over. Say goodbye to your credit rating. You are toast. No passport, no credit, immediate notification of the authorities with any new corporate job. Guy's an idiot really.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-shouldnt-default-on-your-loans-2015-6#ixzz3cb4WGXlx

    By contrast, if you default on your student loans the government can garnish 15% of your discretionary income. "The borrower can also incur a 16%-25% default collection fee on the total current amount due," Josuweit said. And not only are your wages at risk for garnishment from the federal government, but your social security payments and tax refunds can also be withheld due to student loan default. Even your spouse's tax refund can we withheld due to your default if you file jointly. And there is no expiration date on how long your defaulted student loans will follow you around. Unlike consumer debt, it is extremely unlikely to have student loan debt charged, even in cases of bankruptcy.

  217. Why not? by leabre · · Score: 1

    I'm personally in favor of allowing tuition debt to be forgiven if needed. We allow it for mortgages, cars, and boats. Allow it for tuition but also revoke the degree that was achieved by the loans in default. People should not continue to benefit from the education certificate if they defaulted on the loans that enabled it.

  218. loan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you a business man or woman? Do you need funds to start up your own business? Do you need loan to settle your debt or pay off your bills or start a nice business? Do you need funds to finance your project? We Offers guaranteed loan services of any amount and to any part of the world for (Individuals, Companies, Realtor and Corporate Bodies) at our superb interest rate of 3%. For application and more information send replies to the following E-mail address: barrymoreloans12@hotmail.com

    Thanks,
    Mr. Barry More.

  219. Send this guy to debtor's prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to bring back debtor's prison.

  220. Student loans do not go away after bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the man is benefiting from is the old rulea. However, ever since the financial crisis, new lawa were passed that mean sudent loan debt is no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy in the U.S. I.e. if you declare bankruptcy and all your debts are forgive, student loan debt IS NOT.

    And of course, that means they can garnish your wages, even your Social Security check. And if you don't work, they will wait until you do and your wages will be garnished then. Obviously, by then the balance will have increased through accrual of interest.

    Under the guise of responsible lending and responsible borrowing, they managed to fuck over the ordinary person again.

  221. Maybe you should have studied something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nearly a decade in university just to achieve a Master of Philosophy degree.

    When I got out the service I wanted to go to collage and study philosophy. He said well that's a good thing to understand the mind and the universe then my Granddad ask me to look the the news paper and tell me how many jobs I saw for philosophy.

    I thought about it and changed my mind and majored in engineering and minored in philosophy. I never hurt for work as an engineer and have made good money. In forty years I still have not seen an ad for philosophy work.

    Thank you Grandpa.

    Kinda bad to get those loans and study something that has no market value. Seems to me he didn't think the whole thing through.

  222. There used to be plenty of places by dbIII · · Score: 1

    What did this guy expect to find for employment?

    Earlier generations with that qualification found roles in government and large businesses. Now an MBA is a more fashionable way to get to "officer level" but is it really any more suitable as a starting point? It's certainly far less involved yet more likely to create overconfidence that the education is enough to be effective in a role in an organization that is never quite going to be exactly as the textbooks say.
    So philosophy may be a poor choice for training, but this isn't training, it's education - the sort of thing the guys who work out the standard operating procedures do as distinct from the ones that follow the procedures. It's a starting point not a list of things on a clipboard. Unlike engineering (my starting point) it's probably not bad for managing problems (eg. running a room full of telephone switchboard operators) as distinct from solving the problem (spending decades to eventually develop automatic switchboards). We need some people to handle either approach instead of purely technical folk, whether we like it or not.

  223. Degrees donâ(TM)t matter anymore, skills do by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Degrees donâ(TM)t matter anymore, skills do
    http://qz.com/340304/degrees-d...

  224. Nothing is free. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Somebody is paying for that debt. If it isn't that guy, then you can bet the rest of us are footing the bill for his freeloading.

    Take some responsibility for your life. Too many people out there seem to think they are entitled to things just because they exist. So you made some bad life choices. Make some better ones, do something about it.

  225. "Reckless borrowing and spending" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is using borrowed money to pay for a (more or less) useless degree not "reckless borrowing and spending"?

  226. Tuition to high and gets wasted by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Tuition is too high and most of the money goes to administration, landscaping, posh buildings, or money pits like college athletics (only very very few programs make money for the university). Split off college athletics, cut down admin staff, and invest tuition mainly into academia to get not only much better education, but also cheaper education. Still, students need to take care that they stay or get employable. Not sure if a Masters in Philosophy or Psychology or Art History really opens that wide field of job opportunities. Sure, many subjects are fun to learn, but do they help you earn a living?

  227. apply for financial aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, i am Mrs Precious Ovia, a private loan lender who gives life time opportunity loans. Do you need an urgent loan to clear your debts or you need a capital loan to improve your business? have you been rejected by banks and other financial agencies? Do you need a consolidation loan or a mortgage? search no more as we are here to make all your financial problems a thing of the past. We loan funds out to individuals in need of financial assistance, that have a bad credit or in need of money to pay bills,to invest on business at a rate of 2%. I want to use this medium to inform you that we render reliable and beneficiary assistance and will be willing to offer you a loan. So contact us today via email at: (preciousovia39@gmail.com)

  228. There are enough programs to avoid default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your income falls below a certain level you can make payments of $0.00 for 10 years and be done with it.