Cancel student loan debt?

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There are wide categories of public service jobs in which the PSLF debt forgiveness program is largely seen as absolutely necessary for these careers to be viable.

For example, social workers are often not paid much and are required to have expensive Master's degrees as a prerequisite for the job. Many government jobs require post-secondary education and while they often have good non-salary benefits, the pay is often not comparable to private sector jobs of similar education requirement. It's hard to imagine anyone that isn't already wealthy being able to afford being a social worker if they did not have this 10 year loan forgiveness scheme.

I suppose we can scorn these people for willingly choosing a job that is notorious for being under-payed, but I imagine a desire to serve the community and vulnerable people plays a big role in the choice to enter these jobs.

So there is currently a system in place to reward underpaid work with tuition forgiveness after a certain amount of working time spent in that occupation, and your complaint is?.. It sounds like a good program to me. And maybe it should be expanded. But again you compare salaries where as government work is only competitive with benefits taken into account. Glad we can acknowledge that but let's not minimize it.

We should be happy that we take into account that certain necessary jobs require schooling that doesn't necessarily translate to higher earnings. That should be rewarded, and you seem to imply it is. These degrees will still hold value even after the required years are put in to reach loan forgiveness. And I don't feel it is scorning to point out that these fringe conditions seem to be already addressed, where as the demand for loan cancellation seems to be in totality, not focused to need.

It should be we help the people most in need, not just help the most people. This does not seem like a situation where we have to make the choice of all or none, so lets choose some and be happy funds went where most agree it helps society.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by rdwight

So there is currently a system in place to reward underpaid work with tuition forgiveness after a certain amount of working time spent in that occupation, and your complaint is?.. It sounds like a good program to me. And maybe it should be expanded. But again you compare salaries where as government work is only competitive with benefits taken into account. Glad we can acknowledge that but let's not minimize it.

We should be happy that we take into account that certain necessary jobs require schooling that doesn't necessarily translate to higher earnings. That should be rewarded, and you seem to imply it is. These degrees will still hold value even after the required years are put in to reach loan forgiveness. And I don't feel it is scorning to point out that these fringe conditions seem to be already addressed, where as the demand for loan cancellation seems to be in totality, not focused to need.

It should be we help the people most in need, not just help the most people. This does not seem like a situation where we have to make the choice of all or none, so lets choose some and be happy funds went where most agree it helps society.

I have no complaint with the PSLF, other than it is often poorly administered and people are capriciously denied when they qualify.

My point is that there are certainly jobs that require training and education, especially in public service, that don't offer salaries that can ever really justify the tuition costs. The reasoning of the PSLF is that the skilled work that these people provide can't solely be measured by their salaries, and that the government should take a part in ensuring that people can get the education necessary to fill these rolls.

An educated workforce is good for the country generally, not just for those who might pull a higher salary. That's not to say that all educations and fields are equal, but there's probably more to consider beyond the ability of people to repay their loans in a timely manner. It's a social benefit to have a highly skilled workforce and the government should take action to ensure education costs don't prevent otherwise capable people from realizing their abilities.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Are you saying we shouldn't loan students money?

No.

I'm saying we should question the premise on which these loans are being made.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by theprestige

No.

I'm saying we should question the premise on which these loans are being made.

Great. Now what the hell are you saying?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Great. Now what the hell are you saying?

"We should question the premise on which these loans are being made."

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"We should question the premise on which these loans are being made."

Yeah, that clears it up.

Circular pablum.

[JoeMorgue]

Again I'd argue there is very little grey area between:

- General knowledge which has been as free and Democratic as something can possibly be short of forming a Borg Collective since the internet has become a thing.

- A specific skill that society needs people to perform.

The first one shouldn't be subsidized because it shouldn't cost anything. It's not society's job to pay for you to sit in a big lecture hall while a professor just reads off to you the same thing you could watch a free lecture online about.

The second should be subsidized but the society has the right, indeed the duty, to be the one that decides what skills get spent money on. Basically if it's on someone else's dime, they get to say what you study.

Here seriously what they should do.

"The US Government predicts we will need 20,000 more Roadkill Scrappers, 10,000 more Tap Dance Shoe Repairers, and 5,000 Trapeze Artists within the next ten years. Ergo we will subsidize 20,000 people to go to Roadkill Scrapper school, 10,000 to to go to Tap Dance Shoe Repair University, and 5,000 to the Trapeze Artist Bootcamp."

Giving 35,000 people student loans and hoping enough of them pick "Roadkill Scrapper," "Tap Dance Shoe Repair," and "Trapeze Artist" as their major is a recipe for throwing resources down the drain.

[dudalb]

Maybe Students Loans should be tied in with some kind of public service? Earn your loan?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Maybe Students Loans should be tied in with some kind of public service? Earn your loan?

SHhhhhhh! Don't like SuburbanTurkey hear you say that you support Indentured Servitude like that!

The government functions as our own private concierge service. To suggest anything else is fascism.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Maybe Students Loans should be tied in with some kind of public service? Earn your loan?

Why not go like germany and have a year or two of universal public service?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

SHhhhhhh! Don't like SuburbanTurkey hear you say that you support Indentured Servitude like that!

The government functions as our own private concierge service. To suggest anything else is fascism.

You got me, there's no difference between working a career in public service and getting your loans forgiven and having to report to workhouses to pick up trash on the freeway like someone who got a DUI.

Such strawmanning is beneath you.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again I'd argue there is very little grey area between:

- General knowledge which has been as free and Democratic as something can possibly be short of forming a Borg Collective since the internet has become a thing.

- A specific skill that society needs people to perform.

The first one shouldn't be subsidized because it shouldn't cost anything. It's not society's job to pay for you to sit in a big lecture hall while a professor just reads off to you the same thing you could watch a free lecture online about.

The second should be subsidized but the society has the right, indeed the duty, to be the one that decides what skills get spent money on. Basically if it's on someone else's dime, they get to say what you study.

Here seriously what they should do.

"The US Government predicts we will need 20,000 more Roadkill Scrappers, 10,000 more Tap Dance Shoe Repairers, and 5,000 Trapeze Artists within the next ten years. Ergo we will subsidize 20,000 people to go to Roadkill Scrapper school, 10,000 to to go to Tap Dance Shoe Repair University, and 5,000 to the Trapeze Artist Bootcamp."

Giving 35,000 people student loans and hoping enough of them pick "Roadkill Scrapper," "Tap Dance Shoe Repair," and "Trapeze Artist" as their major is a recipe for throwing resources down the drain.

There you go. Seems pretty straightforward.

Well, I know the devil is in the details and there really are a lot of decisions to be made on exactly the best way to educate trapeze artists, but in principle, that's really it.

I took a pretty good course on Icelandic Sagas last year. It didn't cost me a dime, but I had the option of paying 45.00 for a verified certificate. I don't see any reason we ought to be subsidizing a 19 year old to go someplace and listen to the teachers talk in person, instead of by watching the videos that I watched.

Now, if we decided that we really needed someone to be very good at understanding Icelandic Sagas, then we should pay a few people to go somewhere and teach, and pay the cost of someone going to learn, and make sure they take the tests and don't cheat, and....you get the idea. Make sure that they become true authorities in Icelandic Sagas, as opposed to me who just thought the stories were neat. We can pay for a real education for those few people.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

You got me, there's no difference between working a career in public service and getting your loans forgiven and having to report to workhouses to pick up trash on the freeway like someone who got a DUI.

Such strawmanning is beneath you.

Sod off. You're the one who screamed "Indentured Servitude" at the base, vague concept of giving something back.

It's not a strawman to repeat your exact argument back at you verbatim.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Sod off. You're the one who screamed "Indentured Servitude" at the base, vague concept of giving something back.

It's not a strawman to repeat your exact argument back at you verbatim.

If you try hard enough I trust you can puzzle out the difference between conditioning forgiveness on actually using your education to benefit the public with that skilled labor vs requiring poor people who had the temerity to pursue higher education to report for 500 hours of license plate stamping.

Requiring someone who had to borrow money to attend nursing school to pick up trash on the freeway has little to do with public service and a lot to do with debasing the filthy poors, and you know it.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

You got me, there's no difference between working a career in public service and getting your loans forgiven and having to report to workhouses to pick up trash on the freeway like someone who got a DUI.

Such strawmanning is beneath you.

And what is wrong with some honest work to repay your Loan?
Or is honest labor beneath you?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And what is wrong with some honest work to repay your Loan?
Or is honest labor beneath you?

Looking forward to getting all these Medicare moochers along the freeway to show some gratitude to their generous country. We can chain them together so they don't get lost.

Surely you don't think "honest work" should only be the privilege of students? Don't deprive others of this wonderful opportunity to be grateful.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm not really talking about people that attend expensive private colleges. I'm talking about those community college students. Even that is a chunk of change. I'm also not convinced State schools do all that good a job in admissions.

Community colleges should be more accessible. They were less than $100 per credit hour deeds ago when I pulled in a few courses that I needed and they can be a great resource for a community. If you find that yours are not, then that is more of a local issue.

State schools have traditionally been awful about admissions. I think they are getting better. Our state legislature has required our premiere schools to accept the tops students from whatever high school they attended in our state. It started as the top 10%, but I think it is down to the top 7% or so for the more selective schools. It isn't perfect, but it is an open door, an opportunity that previously did not exist.

And we have lots of state schools that are less selective but still very good.

The problem is saddling kids who don't get into state schools with massive amounts of debt because they made the poor decision to try to better themselves at an expensive sub-par private school. Everyone involved in that transaction, but the kid, knows it will end in tears and sorrow.

[dudalb]

[quote=SuburbanTurkey;13299186]If you try hard enough I trust you can puzzle out the difference between conditioning forgiveness on actually using your education to benefit the public with that skilled labor vs requiring poor people who had the temerity to pursue higher education to report for 500 hours of license plate stamping.

Requiring someone who had to borrow money to attend nursing school to pick up trash on the freeway has little to do with public service and a lot to do with debasing the filthy poors, and you know it.[/QUOTE}

Problem with your philosophy is you don accept a basic Truth:
TANSTAAFL..There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Somebody has to pay for it.

[SuburbanTurkey]

[quote=dudalb;13299196]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

If you try hard enough I trust you can puzzle out the difference between conditioning forgiveness on actually using your education to benefit the public with that skilled labor vs requiring poor people who had the temerity to pursue higher education to report for 500 hours of license plate stamping.

Requiring someone who had to borrow money to attend nursing school to pick up trash on the freeway has little to do with public service and a lot to do with debasing the filthy poors, and you know it.[/QUOTE}

Problem with your philosophy is you don accept a basic Truth:
TANSTAAFL..There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Somebody has to pay for it.

Free lunch is about opportunity costs. This is covered in Econ 101, but you might have to borrow some money to pay for it.

Funnily enough, having college educated people doing pointless manual labor to show "gratitude" is probably a great example of opportunity cost.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What about inexpensive private schools, states have cut their support from their universities so much that many of those schools get as much in federal grants as states spend on their university system. And of course few of those state schools set up the schedules to be very accessible to students who are working full time.

It seems to me that the loans should be capped at the cost of attendance of the closest state school. This helps to keep the private school affordable, since the kids can only get so much federally subsidized money.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

It seems to me that the loans should be capped at the cost of attendance of the closest state school. This helps to keep the private school affordable, since the kids can only get so much federally subsidized money.

Even then, more conditions ought to be placed on these loans on where they can be spent.

There were plenty of diploma mills that weren't outrageously expensive. Probably less than a big state school. Of course, the diploma they offered was worthless, so every dollar they received was a waste.

If we're going to continue with a loan scheme rather than just funding these state schools directly, we probably have to abandon the idea that 18 year old incoming freshman are the best arbiters of a good value. They don't know and really aren't in a position to know. The people with the most data on what is a good "investment" are the lenders and the schools. Put the due diligence requirements on them to ensure loan money isn't being frittered away on non-useful education.

Government loans should come with strict standards for what kind of schools and programs it can be used for. Private schools that can offer a good value can still receive this money, but the overpriced diploma mills would likely shrivel up and die once the government piggy bank is out of reach.

One criteria that could be used would be how many students from that school/program default. That would put pressure on schools to not overspend on non-essential things or overadmit to programs that can't realistically lead to real careers. Right now the schools really have no skin in the game. They get paid today and they don't really care if the students default, so it's a arms race to attract the most students and tuition.

This would likely have many deleterious side effects and general funding of these institutions seems preferable compared to relying so heavily on tuition fees.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

The problem is saddling kids who don't get into state schools with massive amounts of debt because they made the poor decision to try to better themselves at an expensive sub-par private school. Everyone involved in that transaction, but the kid, knows it will end in tears and sorrow.

I don't really disagree with a lot of your thoughts but this idea that 17/18 year old "kids" are incapable of thinking these ideas through are infantilizing them. They are fully capable of understanding debt, cost of paying back and that there are cheaper alternatives. That they choose the wrong one is not some societal breakdown. You bring up community colleges which are a great acceptable. If you are not getting some level of academic scholarship to help alleviate the costs, there is no reason not to start your college education at a community college.

This whole idea of the 'experience' of college being more valuable than the education is the problem. And students coming out of high school are aware of it. They just want to indulge in it too. A BA from Rutgers is indistinguishable whether you took initial courses at the community college before transferring over after your associates degree to finish there. In my experience, you will actually encounter teachers that also teach classes at the those same schools, so really, you are just missing out on the experience. And all that cost that goes with it.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by rdwight

I don't really disagree with a lot of your thoughts but this idea that 17/18 year old "kids" are incapable of thinking these ideas through are infantilizing them. They are fully capable of understanding debt, cost of paying back and that there are cheaper alternatives. That they choose the wrong one is not some societal breakdown. You bring up community colleges which are a great acceptable. If you are not getting some level of academic scholarship to help alleviate the costs, there is no reason not to start your college education at a community college.

This whole idea of the 'experience' of college being more valuable than the education is the problem. And students coming out of high school are aware of it. They just want to indulge in it too. A BA from Rutgers is indistinguishable whether you took initial courses at the community college before transferring over after your associates degree to finish there. In my experience, you will actually encounter teachers that also teach classes at the those same schools, so really, you are just missing out on the experience. And all that cost that goes with it.

Outside every military base there small fortunes being made by car lots selling Dodge Chargers to new privates with 6 year, 23%APR loans. The financial illiteracy and poor judgement of young adults should not be underestimated.

Seems that the data is out already. If these students were savvy enough to avoid an obvious bad deal, why are so many in this situation now? Again, we're not talking about individuals making bad decisions, we're talking about broad swaths of the population in so much debt that it's impacting the broader economy.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Outside every military base there small fortunes being made by car lots selling Dodge Chargers to new privates with 6 year, 23%APR loans. The financial illiteracy and poor judgement of young adults should not be underestimated.

Seems that the data is out already. If these students were savvy enough to avoid an obvious bad deal, why are so many in this situation now? Again, we're not talking about individuals making bad decisions, we're talking about broad swaths of the population in so much debt that it's impacting the broader economy.

It is not underestimated. It is encouraged and now apparently rewarded? This is fundamentally problematic. Bad decisions aren't some innate feature of being young, since a majority will repay their loans in full regardless of any help.

There are less than 1.5 million borrowers utilizing the income-based repayment plans out of nearly 45 million borrowers. Forgetting the total amount owed, either close to 3% of loans meet the criteria for this or have those who are putting in the effort to alleviate their financial situation. Why is that?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Yeah, that clears it up. : rolleyes :: rolleyes :: rolleyes :

Circular pablum.

What is unclear to you? What about this seems circular to you?

We're loaning money to people who can't pay it back and can't even afford to get a bankruptcy ruling.

I think this raises questions about why we're loaning this money, and whether it's a good reason, and whether there might be better ways to go about doing whatever it is we're trying to do with these loans.

That's what I'm saying.

What about this is unclear to you?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What is unclear to you? What about this seems circular to you?

We're loaning money to people who can't pay it back and can't even afford to get a bankruptcy ruling.

I think this raises questions about why we're loaning this money, and whether it's a good reason, and whether there might be better ways to go about doing whatever it is we're trying to do with these loans.

That's what I'm saying.

What about this is unclear to you?

This was more clear. A little, but still incomplete.

We require an educated workforce now more than ever. People need to be educated to get ahead. Their education must be paid for somehow. Many do not have the credit or resources to pay for that education. Who pays and how?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by rdwight

I don't really disagree with a lot of your thoughts but this idea that 17/18 year old "kids" are incapable of thinking these ideas through are infantilizing them. They are fully capable of understanding debt, cost of paying back and that there are cheaper alternatives. That they choose the wrong one is not some societal breakdown.

That they are under enormous societal pressure to go to college and are making this decision with limited information and a well designed sales team from the colleges and universities sort of puts them at a severe disadvantage.

For the most part we are talking about young adults who couldn't buy a $20k Civic at the local Honda dealership and yet we are encouraging them to sign up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in education debt that is much harder to get out from under and what they get may be less useful for any job they may be looking for.

We are setting them up for failure in the guise of "helping" them. Well meaning though it may be, the debt burden can crush any future they may have.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Even then, more conditions ought to be placed on these loans on where they can be spent.

Accreditation is not an easy nut to crack, but I agree that loans for unaccredited institutions should not be made.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I get it. Art is too subjective for me to have a good answer for that.

Keep in mind that Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive. I find Pollock's work absurd. Most of my life I didn't appreciate art at all. As I have gotten older, my perspective has changed in so many ways. I use to think art was an absurd field of study and a waste of time and money. But I now see the benefits of art education. We need creative people as opposed to someone like me without a creative bone in my body.

There are web sites to design, business logos to be made, photographs and movies to be made, etc, etc.

How do you know if someone is no good at art if you don't actually give them the chance to study it?

We have to know based on their art projects in high school whether they will be great artists or not?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Maybe Students Loans should be tied in with some kind of public service? Earn your loan?

Being an educated, and therefore a more productive and profitable contributor to society - is the public service.

But this raises questions about whether student loans actually make the borrower educated, and whether being educated actually makes the borrower more productive and profitable, and whether these loans really get the intended return on investment.

The country is full of small businesses, but we don't hear very much about the intolerable burden of small business loans. I think this is mainly because successful business owners don't complain about being profitable and paying off their business loans. And also because we properly recognize such borrowing as a voluntary risk. If the business fails, that's on the borrower, not on society to bail them out (beyond bankruptcy protection).

The problem with student loans is that on the one hand, they're presented as an economic benefit to society, but on the other hand, getting a college degree isn't really a business endeavor, and in fact many such students come out the other side of this process as an economic drain on society.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This was more clear. A little, but still incomplete.

We require an educated workforce now more than ever. People need to be educated to get ahead. Their education must be paid for somehow. Many do not have the credit or resources to pay for that education. Who pays and how?

I'm saying, before who and how, we should ask why.

Do we need an educated workforce? Or do we need a skilled workforce?

If we need an educated workforce, is all education equal? Are there specific industries where we have a shortage of skilled workers?

If we're loaning money, on what basis? How much education, at what quality, are we actually buying? Is it even the education needed to meet our workforce requirements?

QUESTION THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THESE LOANS.

Why should they be loans? Why not scholarships? Why not scholarships specifically for students who make a commitment to enter the workforce in one of the key industries? Why not scholarships for students who show an aptitude and a desire to enter a key industry?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How do you know if someone is no good at art if you don't actually give them the chance to study it?

We have to know based on their art projects in high school whether they will be great artists or not?

I don't know. Which is my point. I'm not an art critic. I just know what I like and what I don't. But I'd never suggest I should be the arbiter to say what is good and what isn't. I also question having someone in an Ivory tower making that kind of decision either. That said, I wouldn't question my high school art teacher's assessment of my art as they really were bad.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

That they are under enormous societal pressure to go to college and are making this decision with limited information and a well designed sales team from the colleges and universities sort of puts them at a severe disadvantage.

For the most part we are talking about young adults who couldn't buy a $20k Civic at the local Honda dealership and yet we are encouraging them to sign up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in education debt that is much harder to get out from under and what they get may be less useful for any job they may be looking for.

We are setting them up for failure in the guise of "helping" them. Well meaning though it may be, the debt burden can crush any future they may have.

Again, what makes you believe them incapable of finding this information out? How many hours are spent preparing for PSAT/SAT, community service to pad their applications, filling out applications, writing essays, visiting schools.. And during this whole process, you mean to tell me they are too ignorant or incapable of figuring out the cost?

This also conflates going to college, which I have yet to see anyone here refute as not actually worthwhile to do for the vast majority except those that don't graduate, with going with the most expensive route. Or in a way they wouldn't feasibly be able to afford. Do you or your family decide on which college to go to without considering the cost at all? If not, why? If you did, what makes you think the vast majority don't as well?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If the notion of COLLEGE IS FOR EVERYONE cannot be overcome, then how about a hybrid approach? Encourage everyone to go through two years of learning a trade first, then move on to college if they want to? That way a) some people would decide to skip college and just start working and b) even the people who do go to college have something to fall back on if their history degree proves not to sufficient to keep them employed. There are simply too many people in college who shouldn't really be there, and too many people emerging from college with no tangible benefits. Teach them something that they can use to feed themselves with first, then do the extras if and when it's feasible for them.

I like this idea. I'd really like to see more focus on skilled trades overall. They pay well, and they're in fields that really don't go under.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Can we cancel mortgage debt, too? It sure would help a lot of people.



Anyway, the whole scheme is a mess. Who decided that it was a good idea to let 18 year olds pile up as much debt as they wanted? That seems like a recipe for disaster, and it turns out to be right.

Instead of just forgiving the debt, how about letting it be voidable by bankruptcy? That alone would get rid of a lot of the abuse of the program.

I dunno. I mean, sure, that's an option. I struggle a bit with the whole cancelling student loan thing, in part because it's pretty easy to get a forbearance or to change your payment structure. Heck, there are even several ways to get large portions of your debt cancelled altogether.

Things like being employed by a government agency or a non-profit entity.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm saying, before who and how, we should ask why.

Do we need an educated workforce? Or do we need a skilled workforce?

False dichotomy. What's wrong with having a workforce that is educated and skilled?

Originally Posted by theprestige

If we need an educated workforce, is all education equal?

They clearly are not.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Are there specific industries where we have a shortage of skilled workers?

yes

Originally Posted by theprestige

If we're loaning money, on what basis? How much education, at what quality, are we actually buying? Is it even the education needed to meet our workforce requirements?

Up until now the market has decided.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why should they be loans? Why not scholarships? Why not scholarships specifically for students who make a commitment to enter the workforce in one of the key industries? Why not scholarships for students who show an aptitude and a desire to enter a key industry?

These are all good questions. But at some point, one must act. Loans are the present solution. If you think we should stop making college loans, it is incumbent on you to say what we should do instead.

[dirtywick]

There’s plenty of education involved in the skilled trades. Work hours is also a huge part of it, but skilled trades workers would absolutely benefit from education benefits.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why should they be loans? Why not scholarships? Why not scholarships specifically for students who make a commitment to enter the workforce in one of the key industries? Why not scholarships for students who show an aptitude and a desire to enter a key industry?

Because scholarships just mean the educational institution doesn't charge the student: nobody else is going to make a profit off of it. That's why loans: somebody wants profit. Capitalism fetishized: we're Ferengi'ing ourselves to the point where nothing is worth doing unless somebody's getting money out of it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Free lunch is about opportunity costs. This is covered in Econ 101, but you might have to borrow some money to pay for it.

Funnily enough, having college educated people doing pointless manual labor to show "gratitude" is probably a great example of opportunity cost.

If college educated people are reduced to performing unskilled manual labor to pay back their education loans, then why in the ever-loving **** are we loaning them money for education in the first place?

[dirtywick]

Would be a good question for a bank, had they not insulated themselves from any responsibility on whether or not the investment is likely to bear a return on investment.