Student Loan Debt Forgiveness

[ImLawBoy]

I suspect a lot of people don't know that Rutgers is a state school. Is it the only flagship state school that doesn't have the state name in its name?

Purdue isn't the "flagship" school of Indiana (that would be Indiana University), but it's a large state school that a lot of people don't realize is a state school.

I don't agree with this. As someone who grew up in Indiana and graduated from Indiana University twice (BS and MD), I would say without a doubt that most people in Indiana and surrounding states are well aware that Purdue is a state school, and it is definitely a flagship state university for those interested in the fields of engineering, veterinary medicine or agriculture. In contrast, Indiana University is known for its strong programs in business, music, education and biological/physical sciences. For those looking for a school in Indiana, both are equally well regarded, with the ultimate decision made based on your desired field of study. They each have strong programs that are largely unavailable at the other.

I may be wrong on the "flagship" part of it, depending on your definition of "flagship". Some apparently see it as the most recognizable state university in the state (and it's hard to deny the university that actually has the name of the state in it when it's otherwise generally on par with a school that doesn't have the name recognition), but another acceptable definition is the main campus of a statewide system. Both IU and Purdue qualify on that count, as they have smaller satellite campuses outside of Bloomington and West Lafayette, respectively.

As for whether it's well known that Purdue is a state university, I'm going to die on that hill. Sure, people from Indiana are aware of this (just like people from New Jersey are aware of Rutgers's status), but trust me - a lot of people from outside the state (even in neighboring states!) assume it's private. Heck, even a lot of people in the Big Ten think that Northwestern and Purdue are the two private schools of the Big Ten.

And that's not at all a dig on Purdue or its academics. Purdue is one of the best engineering schools in the country, period.

[GreenGoo]

I'm also hesitant to play the kids are too naive card. It seems convenient to trust them make decisions that are politically expedient (voting/abortion/driving), but not have to be responsible for their actions. If they are so incapable of decision making, should we change the justice system to treat them as adults when they are 25? That seems like it would be pretty unpopular.

And lower the drinking age. That would probably be very popular.

[GreenGoo]

I think you underestimate the effects of parents, counselors, teachers, and society in general on a kid.

The trades aren't suffering low populations because people are fully informed about their options and making knowledgeable decisions at 17.

Social pressure is definitely a thing. Society does not view someone who delves in sewage all day the same way it views an accountant, even if sewage guy makes more money.

This is just one of a myriad pressures pushing towards getting a degree. Insane costs and decades worth of debt is a pressure in the other direction. If kids don't even fully understand this, it's barely a counter argument at all, and certainly not enough to hold back the pressures to get a degree. For the average kid I mean.

Obviously simple math is going to be enough for some people. Just not many.

[Kurth]

I suspect a lot of people don't know that Rutgers is a state school. Is it the only flagship state school that doesn't have the state name in its name?

Purdue isn't the "flagship" school of Indiana (that would be Indiana University), but it's a large state school that a lot of people don't realize is a state school.

I obviously know Purdue, but I did not know that it’s a state school (and this lack of knowledge does not fill me with pride!).

I knew about Purdue, but only because it was the other engineering school my son was seriously considering. Then he visited and learned all about the weather in that part of Indiana (not to mention he had to take planes, trains and automobiles to get from Portland to Purdue), and he opted for Cal Poly, a quick direct flight from PDX and a five minute drive to the beach.

I've never heard of NJIT, but I do know Montclair and agree that it has a very good reputation. But again, I didn't know it was a state school. I guess I'm realizing that there are probably a lot of state schools that people don't know are state schools.

Thinking back on the Rutgers example, that's even more surprising that I didn't know Rutgers was a state school given that we used to play rugby against them.

[Smoove_B]

Thinking back on the Rutgers example, that's even more surprising that I didn't know Rutgers was a state school given that we used to play rugby against them.

And yet you were still empowered to borrow thousands of dollars of loans without any difficultly? The things we'll let ignorant teenagers do.

[Kurth]

Blackhawk, I understand where you're coming from, but I simply don't agree . . . I'm also hesitant to play the kids are too naive card. It seems convenient to trust them make decisions that are politically expedient (voting/abortion/driving), but not have to be responsible for their actions. If they are so incapable of decision making, should we change the justice system to treat them as adults when they are 25? That seems like it would be pretty unpopular.

While I do support finding a fair and equitable way to help out people suffering under crushing student loan debt, I'm closer to noxiousdog's camp on the issue of personal responsibility. I do not believe it's too much to expect graduating high school seniors to consider and comprehend the student loan debt they're taking on and have a plan or roadmap - even a tentative one - for how they'll eventually get out from under that debt.

A 17 or 18 year old is not a child, and to argue that they are somehow incapable of making a decision about taking on loans for college sells them short.

Again, that's not to say they won't make bad decisions or that life won't throw a monkey wrench in their plans. That's why I'm in favor of finding a way to help. Ideally, someone shouldn't spend the rest of their life paying for a bad decision they made when they were 17. But that's not the same thing as saying they bear no responsibility for that decision or that they couldn't possibly be trusted to make that decision as a threshold matter.

[Isgrimnur]

Cal Poly, a quick direct flight from PDX and a five minute drive to the beach.

PISMO Beach, sir!

[GreenGoo]

A 17 or 18 year old is not a child, and to argue that they are somehow incapable of making a decision about taking on loans for college sells them short.

How much credit has the average 17 year old had at this point in their life? Should the first time they borrow money be in the 10's of thousands? If so, why? Could they borrow anywhere near this amount if they were gainfully employed at 17, instead of being out of the workforce for another 4 years?

I like personal responsibility too, but this is a trap for inexperienced young adults that likely lasts for decades.

Being unable to save money and paying interest for the early years of your work career is absolutely crippling in terms of saving for anything. House? Retirement? Instead of having decades of compound interest with which to build a life, they get the opposite. And poor retirement savings is a burden on society as a whole, not just for that person. And many politicians in your country want to remove even the tiny safety net provided.

So even if it's a good investment and it does pay off, they are starting their careers hamstrung, and building wealth will be nearly impossible until they get out from under that burden.

But 17 year olds definitely see the far reaching implications of crippling debt, so it's on them for not understanding how to calculate whether a degree is worth the expense.

It's simple math

[gilraen]

A 17 or 18 year old is not a child

Considering a 17-year-old isn't actually allowed to enter into a legal contract unless emancipated...yeah, a 17-year-old is a child as far as the law is concerned.

And an 18-year-old can be a math prodigy and be able to calculate every interest payment on a loan for decades to come. Are they also supposed to be a fortune-teller? They are supposed to be able to predict the exact salary they'll be able to make, what their take-home pay will be after other deductions (taxes, insurance, etc.), and what the rent and cost of living will be after they graduate college? And the state of the economy, so they know how long it would take them to find a job? So, you know, they could tell for sure the amount of money they can afford to set aside to pay college loans. I dare you to be able to make that calculation yourself as a grown-up - not with your current salary but what you think you would be making in ~4 years in a brand-new career field.

Or maybe we should decide that we don't need teachers, social workers, and all those other professions that look so noble on paper but don't pay shit (and yet require advanced degrees). With this logic, only rich kids should be going into those professions (ha!) since no one else would be able to afford those loan payments on a social worker's salary.

[Kurth]

A 17 or 18 year old is not a child, and to argue that they are somehow incapable of making a decision about taking on loans for college sells them short.

How much credit has the average 17 year old had at this point in their life? Should the first time they borrow money be in the 10's of thousands? If so, why? Could they borrow anywhere near this amount if they were gainfully employed at 17, instead of being out of the workforce for another 4 years?

I like personal responsibility too, but this is a trap for inexperienced young adults that likely lasts for decades.

Being unable to save money and paying interest for the early years of your work career is absolutely crippling in terms of saving for anything. House? Retirement? Instead of having decades of compound interest with which to build a life, they get the opposite. And poor retirement savings is a burden on society as a whole, not just for that person. And many politicians in your country want to remove even the tiny safety net provided.

So even if it's a good investment and it does pay off, they are starting their careers hamstrung, and building wealth will be nearly impossible until they get out from under that burden.

But 17 year olds definitely see the far reaching implications of crippling debt, so it's on them for not understanding how to calculate whether a degree is worth the expense.

It's simple math

Hold up. First, I never said it's just "on them" for taking out student loan debt they can't afford to pay back. It's a systemic and societal failure that they are placed in a position where that is possibly the best of available bad options when they're looking to finance exorbitantly priced higher education. But people often have to pick the best option from a bad menu of choices. That's life. It doesn't mean they're not still responsible for the decision they make or that they shouldn't own the choice. It just means, at least to me, that we, as a society, should be more sympathetic to a bad outcome and do what we can to help them out.

Second point: It feels to me like much of this discussion is taking off from the premise that student loan debt is always a terrible thing that will forever set people on a path of financial ruin. I don't have the data to support or refute that, but that's not my understanding.

Taking on more debt rather than less is never great, but reasonable loans taken out by students with a career plan for repaying them isn't always a bad decision. You are painting a nightmare scenario above about not being able to save for a house or retirement, where "building wealth will be nearly impossible," but that's far from a certainty. I know many people - me included - who could never have afforded the college or law school I attended without financing that education with student loans. And while I hated having to pay them off, I took full advantage of repayment deferments and refinancing options to minimize the burden along the way. I wouldn't be where I am now without the ability to take out those loans.

That's all anecdotal, of course, but my point is that I don't think student loans are always the terrible thing they're made out to be. Sometimes, they are - as you seem to concede - a good investment. Especially when the amount of debt being taken on is commensurate with the predicted value of the degree being sought.

[Kurth]

A 17 or 18 year old is not a child

Considering a 17-year-old isn't actually allowed to enter into a legal contract unless emancipated...yeah, a 17-year-old is a child as far as the law is concerned.

And an 18-year-old can be a math prodigy and be able to calculate every interest payment on a loan for decades to come. Are they also supposed to be a fortune-teller? They are supposed to be able to predict the exact salary they'll be able to make, what their take-home pay will be after other deductions (taxes, insurance, etc.), and what the rent and cost of living will be after they graduate college? And the state of the economy, so they know how long it would take them to find a job? So, you know, they could tell for sure the amount of money they can afford to set aside to pay college loans. I dare you to be able to make that calculation yourself as a grown-up - not with your current salary but what you think you would be making in ~4 years in a brand-new career field.

Or maybe we should decide that we don't need teachers, social workers, and all those other professions that look so noble on paper but don't pay shit (and yet require advanced degrees). With this logic, only rich kids should be going into those professions (ha!) since no one else would be able to afford those loan payments on a social worker's salary.

You're knocking down a straw man.

[GreenGoo]

Hold up. First, I never said it's just "on them" for taking out student loan debt they can't afford to pay back. It's a systemic and societal failure that they are placed in a position where that is possibly the best of available bad options when they're looking to finance exorbitantly priced higher education. But people often have to pick the best option from a bad menu of choices. That's life. It doesn't mean they're not still responsible for the decision they make or that they shouldn't own the choice. It just means, at least to me, that we, as a society, should be more sympathetic to a bad outcome and do what we can to help them out.

Second point: It feels to me like much of this discussion is taking off from the premise that student loan debt is always a terrible thing that will forever set people on a path of financial ruin. I don't have the data to support or refute that, but that's not my understanding.

Taking on more debt rather than less is never great, but reasonable loans taken out by students with a career plan for repaying them isn't always a bad decision. You are painting a nightmare scenario above about not being able to save for a house or retirement, where "building wealth will be nearly impossible," but that's far from a certainty. I know many people - me included - who could never have afforded the college or law school I attended without financing that education with student loans. And while I hated having to pay them off, I took full advantage of repayment deferments and refinancing options to minimize the burden along the way. I wouldn't be where I am now without the ability to take out those loans.

That's all anecdotal, of course, but my point is that I don't think student loans are always the terrible thing they're made out to be. Sometimes, they are - as you seem to concede - a good investment. Especially when the amount of debt being taken on is commensurate with the predicted value of the degree being sought.

People are currently on the hook for their bad decisions, so your position is already status quo.

Life is full of bad options. But we have laws that prevent people (even adults ) from taking extremely bad options no matter their poor judgment, such as consumer laws, and even contracts can be tossed in the garbage if a court decides it's clearly unfair to one party from the start.

Life is full of bad options. We can do things to mitigate those options. And we do, in other areas of life. Maybe this should be one of them. It seems like we mostly line up on this.

I don't think anyone is arguing that all debt is bad, although I've been pointing out that some countries remove all debt from their citizen students, so there is evidence at the other end of the spectrum. Just so we don't lose sight that other options exist that don't involve any tuition debt whatsoever. I think this is important, especially for Americans, who often see charging for things for profit as the natural order of things.

I think it's clear that the context of this discussion is exorbitant debt. How much is too much? I think that's part of the question being discussed, even if it hasn't gotten much direct attention so far.

I'm certainly not opposed to personal responsibility, good math skills, and investing in one's future. I think that's a given for most people. Crippling life long debt is the problem, and to solve it there are many paths, from both sides of the equation.

[Kurth]

Hold up. First, I never said it's just "on them" for taking out student loan debt they can't afford to pay back. It's a systemic and societal failure that they are placed in a position where that is possibly the best of available bad options when they're looking to finance exorbitantly priced higher education. But people often have to pick the best option from a bad menu of choices. That's life. It doesn't mean they're not still responsible for the decision they make or that they shouldn't own the choice. It just means, at least to me, that we, as a society, should be more sympathetic to a bad outcome and do what we can to help them out.

Second point: It feels to me like much of this discussion is taking off from the premise that student loan debt is always a terrible thing that will forever set people on a path of financial ruin. I don't have the data to support or refute that, but that's not my understanding.

Taking on more debt rather than less is never great, but reasonable loans taken out by students with a career plan for repaying them isn't always a bad decision. You are painting a nightmare scenario above about not being able to save for a house or retirement, where "building wealth will be nearly impossible," but that's far from a certainty. I know many people - me included - who could never have afforded the college or law school I attended without financing that education with student loans. And while I hated having to pay them off, I took full advantage of repayment deferments and refinancing options to minimize the burden along the way. I wouldn't be where I am now without the ability to take out those loans.

That's all anecdotal, of course, but my point is that I don't think student loans are always the terrible thing they're made out to be. Sometimes, they are - as you seem to concede - a good investment. Especially when the amount of debt being taken on is commensurate with the predicted value of the degree being sought.

People are currently on the hook for their bad decisions, so your position is already status quo.

Life is full of bad options. But we have laws that prevent people (even adults ) from taking extremely bad options no matter their poor judgment, such as consumer laws, and even contracts can be tossed in the garbage if a court decides it's clearly unfair to one party from the start.

Life is full of bad options. We can do things to mitigate those options. And we do, in other areas of life. Maybe this should be one of them. It seems like we mostly line up on this.

I don't think anyone is arguing that all debt is bad, although I've been pointing out that some countries remove all debt from their citizen students, so there is evidence at the other end of the spectrum. Just so we don't lose sight that other options exist that don't involve any tuition debt whatsoever. I think this is important, especially for Americans, who often see charging for things for profit as the natural order of things.

I think it's clear that the context of this discussion is exorbitant debt. How much is too much? I think that's part of the question being discussed, even if it hasn't gotten much direct attention so far.

I'm certainly not opposed to personal responsibility, good math skills, and investing in one's future. I think that's a given for most people. Crippling life long debt is the problem, and to solve it there are many paths, from both sides of the equation.

I agree with pretty much all of that. Well said.

[Octavious]

I'll also mention that a lot of the schools don't teach finance at all in HS. Which I personally think they should, but then who would the banks rip off?

[GreenGoo]

Yes, I think it's criminal that basic household finance is not a mandatory credit.

[Kurth]

Yes, I think it's criminal that basic household finance is not a mandatory credit.

Yep. My son and daughter just graduated high school this year and last year, and neither one received any education (from the school) about basic finance and economics. Nothing about savings/checking accounts. Nothing about interest rates and loans and the cost of borrowing money. Should be a mandatory class.

[Unagi]

Yes, I think it's criminal that basic household finance is not a mandatory credit.

Yep. My son and daughter just graduated high school this year and last year, and neither one received any education (from the school) about basic finance and economics. Nothing about savings/checking accounts. Nothing about interest rates and loans and the cost of borrowing money. Should be a mandatory class.

(This was 30+ years ago)
I think it was Junior or Senior year, we had a 'Home Economics' class where we learned some of those basics. As well as some Illinois laws around consumers... Like "Implied Warranty"... If you buy a purse on sale, and it says "No Returns/All Sales Are Final"... That's bullshit in Illinois... if let's say, the strap of the purse is broken - you can return it under Illinois' "Implied Warranty" - because you bought a purse and it must be able to be used as a purse. Period. Sales/Signs/Disclaimers be damned - it's the final word. (they would need to sell it as damaged)

Still - not any of that class's education would have addressed the REAL situation here:

"Your family cannot afford it, you have no scholarships... Should you or should you not "bet on yourself"? Others like you have taken out a loan for college and it was a smart choice. Should you or should you not "bet on yourself"? Think you got what it takes? Should you or should you not "bet on yourself".

Honestly, I think the industry has been revealed as predatory loans really.

[Kraken]

Yes, I think it's criminal that basic household finance is not a mandatory credit.

Yep. My son and daughter just graduated high school this year and last year, and neither one received any education (from the school) about basic finance and economics. Nothing about savings/checking accounts. Nothing about interest rates and loans and the cost of borrowing money. Should be a mandatory class.

(This was 30+ years ago)
I think it was Junior or Senior year, we had a 'Home Economics' class where we learned some of those basics.

Ditto, except it was 50 years ago. Home Ec was a class for girls to learn cooking and cleaning; boys had Shop instead. Not having been a girl at the time, IDK if finances was part of their Home Ec curriculum.

[Blackhawk]

A 17 or 18 year old is not a child, and to argue that they are somehow incapable of making a decision about taking on loans for college sells them short.

I did not say that they were incapable of making a decision. That would be absurd. I stated that they lacked the perspective, experience, and cognitive development (and frequently, education) to make the decisions in the manner that some people here seemed to be holding them to. There was a lot of "It's all the kids' fault for getting themselves into these situations. They should have made better decisions." coming from people here, and that's what I called bullshit on.

They're not free of responsibility, but they're being thrown into the deep end with no swimming lessons, then blamed when they sink.

[Blackhawk]

FWIW, I absolutely learned about finances at some point during my high school career. It was rushed through, it was taught in the usual 'power learning for the test' manner that tends to result in zero long-term retention, it was never mentioned again, and when I graduated, I (and likely most of my classmates) retained those skills the same way we retained all of the dates from our Junior world history class (which is to say, not at all.)

[Kraken]

the same way we retained all of the dates from our Junior world history class (which is to say, not at all.)

The only one I remember is "In 14 hundred and 93, Columbus sailed the deep blue sea."

[YellowKing]

Around here we have something called "consumer math" that teaches this stuff, but there's a stigma attached to it that it's math for the "dumb kids." It's the math class you take because you can't cut it in geometry or trigonometry.

So we mandate kids take classes that only a very tiny fraction of them will ever use, and we completely ignore the math that almost 100% of them are guaranteed to use for the rest of their life.

I think there's a good reason for that, and it's that people with good financial skills are really bad for businesses. The system is completely set up to fail these kids from day one, which is why I hate the idea of victim blaming them.

[RunningMn9]

I’m pretty sure that both of my kids had to take a financial literacy class in high school but I don’t remember the details outside of they had to do projects that including determining average salaries for professions and budgeting based on that sort of thing.

I’ve been reading along with the discussions about entrusting teenagers and families with these kinds of decisions and I think I’m kind of in agreement with both sides. I get that not all teenagers and families have the financial foresight to understand the impact of the decision to incur debt for a 17-yr old.

My beef has always been that the decision to incur this debt is rarely centered on the notion of acquiring a college education. The decision is centered on having the college experience.

I can understand the value in helping to deal with the cost of acquiring a college education. I have no interest at all in subsidizing someone’s college experience. And a tremendous amount of this student debt is the result of the college experience and not the learnin’.

That’s what I was getting at with the comments to Octavious above. When my son was deciding what to do while in high school, we sat down and talked about his goals. He wanted to get a BS in Computer Science and was thinking about going to Rutgers.

Ok, the goal is to get a BS in Comp Sci from Rutgers. One path is to go to Rutgers and live on campus for 4 years. Using the current numbers, you’d be looking at about $65K just in tuition and fees. Add on another $56K in room and board. So $121K gets you a BS in Computer Science from Rutgers.

At the time he was a Junior so still had a shot at the NJ Stars program. The deal there is that you spend the first two years at community college doing your broad requirements, and that’s free. That’s $60K saved right there, with no debt. You keep your grades up and you qualify to continue into the NJ Stars II program, which gets you another $5k towards the 4 -yr state school. And let’s say you commute those last two years? That saves another $28K.

So we’ve reduced the $121K down to $28K for the exact same piece of paper.

Now, he didn’t qualify for the NJ Stars program, but he spent the first two years at a very good community college in our area, and that was affordable enough that I just paid for it (so no debt for the first two years). At that point he transferred to Montclair State to finish up and he just graduated, with minimal student loans.

My point is just that if he cared about the “experience” and we took path A, incurring $121K in costs, I cannot fathom how we/he shouldn’t be held responsible for that even if it was a stupid decision.

[LordMortis]

The decision is centered on having the college experience.

I have no interest at all in subsidizing someone’s college experience. And a tremendous amount of this student debt is the result of the college experience and not the learnin’.

This confirms my bias so it must be true. It will be hard to move me off this bias until I see community college cost skyrocket or transferring becoming a hindrance.

[Unagi]

Home Ec was a class for girls to learn cooking and cleaning; boys had Shop instead.

Now that you say that, I think that's what we had too (but it was in Junior High 7th/8th grade).

I think I was confused about the class name.
I think the class I was talking about was actually something like "Consumer Education" And it wasn't a 'math class'... it was mandatory for all Juniors or Seniors to take (can't recall which)

[Octavious]

I’m pretty sure that both of my kids had to take a financial literacy class in high school but I don’t remember the details outside of they had to do projects that including determining average salaries for professions and budgeting based on that sort of thing.

I’ve been reading along with the discussions about entrusting teenagers and families with these kinds of decisions and I think I’m kind of in agreement with both sides. I get that not all teenagers and families have the financial foresight to understand the impact of the decision to incur debt for a 17-yr old.

My beef has always been that the decision to incur this debt is rarely centered on the notion of acquiring a college education. The decision is centered on having the college experience.

I can understand the value in helping to deal with the cost of acquiring a college education. I have no interest at all in subsidizing someone’s college experience. And a tremendous amount of this student debt is the result of the college experience and not the learnin’.

That’s what I was getting at with the comments to Octavious above. When my son was deciding what to do while in high school, we sat down and talked about his goals. He wanted to get a BS in Computer Science and was thinking about going to Rutgers.

Ok, the goal is to get a BS in Comp Sci from Rutgers. One path is to go to Rutgers and live on campus for 4 years. Using the current numbers, you’d be looking at about $65K just in tuition and fees. Add on another $56K in room and board. So $121K gets you a BS in Computer Science from Rutgers.

At the time he was a Junior so still had a shot at the NJ Stars program. The deal there is that you spend the first two years at community college doing your broad requirements, and that’s free. That’s $60K saved right there, with no debt. You keep your grades up and you qualify to continue into the NJ Stars II program, which gets you another $5k towards the 4 -yr state school. And let’s say you commute those last two years? That saves another $28K.

So we’ve reduced the $121K down to $28K for the exact same piece of paper.

Now, he didn’t qualify for the NJ Stars program, but he spent the first two years at a very good community college in our area, and that was affordable enough that I just paid for it (so no debt for the first two years). At that point he transferred to Montclair State to finish up and he just graduated, with minimal student loans.

My point is just that if he cared about the “experience” and we took path A, incurring $121K in costs, I cannot fathom how we/he shouldn’t be held responsible for that even if it was a stupid decision.

She 100% qualifies for the Stars program so you do have a very solid point. There are specific reasons I wanted to get her into a 4 year right away, but we may have to rethink as there's no way I'm letting her take up 120+ in debt to do it. I really wish I had just up and moved to Virginia last year when the market was nuts, but I was having a hard time finding work that applies to me that isn't near DC. She's dead set on William and Mary (Which is public) and there's a bunch of good reasons for her to go there, but out of state is batshit insane. In state I think it would have been like 20K which for a "public ivy" would have been worth it. She can do two years free at county and transfer, but I really wanted to get her out of this area to see something new. She perpetually feels out of place and it's not healthy.

[GreenGoo]

Around here we have something called "consumer math" that teaches this stuff, but there's a stigma attached to it that it's math for the "dumb kids." It's the math class you take because you can't cut it in geometry or trigonometry.

True. This exists here as well. And yes, huge stigma.

[Octavious]

When I was in HS there was a huge stigma on trade schools and when you realize how much an HVAC tech or plumber makes... Now I have zero talent in anything that involves manual labor so it wasn't an option for me, but the everyone needs to go to college to make money is so dumb.

[GreenGoo]

My beef has always been that the decision to incur this debt is rarely centered on the notion of acquiring a college education. The decision is centered on having the college experience.

This aligns with my belief that you think education is about procuring facts, and in the past you've said those facts are about acquiring gainful employment.

That is certainly a part of it, and perhaps even the most important part of it.

But historically university has never been about job training.

You seem to think that college is about being the best cog you can be in the economic machine.

I think university about that plus being the best citizen/human being you can be.

I truly believe that MAGA is a direct result of a lack of understanding about what education can accomplish, which is so much more than coding well or managing businesses or any other marketable skill.

So yes, I believe college is an experience, and that's at least as valuable as the employability gained, if not moreso, for the well being of a country and society in general.

Acquiring facts can be done with the internet (or a book) and a syllabus. Maybe the US should create a free public post secondary system. You get a book and 20 bucks a month for internet access. Problem solved.

[Isgrimnur]

Learning how to adult and take care of your own shit is valuable. As is a complete failure to do so, as I can attest.

[GreenGoo]

Learning how to adult and take care of your own shit is valuable. As is a complete failure to do so, as I can attest.

That's part of it, obviously, but they don't teach that at Uni, you just have a comfortable and safer environment to learn it yourself, is how I see it.

I think expanded thinking, open mind, scientific method, critical thinking and guidance in all of the above is extremely helpful in being the best person you can be. Not to mention the sense of community beyond your own circle, and perhaps empathy as well. I'm sure there are a myriad of benefits from a college education that go beyond a good resume. Even the soft skills you learn from being part of a community of students has benefits for society in general.

We all agree that college benefits the individual for employability reasons. I'm saying it also helps be a better human being, which benefits the individual AND society/country in general.

There is some truth to the idea that college indoctrinates liberal thinking. I think this is because it's the best way forward for the human race as a whole.

I'm not saying the government should pay for everyone's 100,000+ education. I'm trying to bring other factors into the discussion beyond sitting in class absorbing data.

[RunningMn9]

She 100% qualifies for the Stars program so you do have a very solid point. There are specific reasons I wanted to get her into a 4 year right away, but we may have to rethink as there's no way I'm letting her take up 120+ in debt to do it. I really wish I had just up and moved to Virginia last year when the market was nuts, but I was having a hard time finding work that applies to me that isn't near DC. She's dead set on William and Mary (Which is public) and there's a bunch of good reasons for her to go there, but out of state is batshit insane. In state I think it would have been like 20K which for a "public ivy" would have been worth it. She can do two years free at county and transfer, but I really wanted to get her out of this area to see something new. She perpetually feels out of place and it's not healthy.

There is no one right answer, and I want to make sure that I wasn't implying there was. My daughter was a completely different problem. She wanted to go into a very different field, and there weren't good community college options for that. CCM is an excellent starting point for what my son wanted, but not as much for what she wanted. So she started applying to schools all over the place. My favorite response was from the University of Buffalo, which was pleased to let her know that she was admitted, if we could just send them a check for $60K for the first year, that would be great.

In the end, she elected to commute to Montclair, which was fairly reasonable. Although she is very involved in stuff there, and so to help with that she started living there this year (my wife basically works her job for the sole purpose of paying that room and board bill).

The entire college system in this county is insane. The costs are insane. I suspect the root of the problem is almost entirely due to access to easy to obtain student loans. I'm super into solving THAT problem. I'm super into helping those that are struggling to pay for their education. I'm just really annoyed at being asked to subsidize someone's binge drinking with their besties.

I would note that I think that two years at county and then transferring out of state is a much dicier proposition, so I would definitely keep that in mind. Within NJ, there are rules (and even then the 4 yr schools get crabby) about what has to transfer. Those rules don't apply to out of state schools.

[Kurth]

My beef has always been that the decision to incur this debt is rarely centered on the notion of acquiring a college education. The decision is centered on having the college experience.

This aligns with my belief that you think education is about procuring facts, and in the past you've said those facts are about acquiring gainful employment.

That is certainly a part of it, and perhaps even the most important part of it.

But historically university has never been about job training.

You seem to think that college is about being the best cog you can be in the economic machine.

I think university about that plus being the best citizen/human being you can be.

I truly believe that MAGA is a direct result of a lack of understanding about what education can accomplish, which is so much more than coding well or managing businesses or any other marketable skill.

So yes, I believe college is an experience, and that's at least as valuable as the employability gained, if not moreso, for the well being of a country and society in general.

Acquiring facts can be done with the internet (or a book) and a syllabus. Maybe the US should create a free public post secondary system. You get a book and 20 bucks a month for internet access. Problem solved.

I hear what RM9 is saying about subsidizing the “college experience,” but I’m 100% with GreenGoo on this one. For the money it costs, college should absolutely be spitting out good and useful (and financially compensated) cogs that will find a place in the economic machine. But that’s maybe 50% of what college is really about.

The “college experience” that RM9 is talking about is a shit ton more than frat parties and college sports. So much learning at college takes place outside the classroom. My son at Cal Poly is finishing up his freshman year right now, and I can already see how much he’s experienced and learned about living on his own, independence and personal accountability. Living in a dorm with other freshman with different ideas and different personalities and different backgrounds has had such an impact. Hell, just sharing a dorm room with three other random guys from different parts of the country has been eye opening for him. Unfortunately, we live in a pretty homogenous place outside of Portland. Not much diversity from a racial or socioeconomic perspective. And now he’s surrounded by other students from radically different backgrounds and with radically different ideas.

That is flat out invaluable.

I had an even more stark collision with different ideas and perspectives when I went to college. I came from a rural PA town where 50% of my friends weren’t headed to college after high school. To say that my background was provincial would be an understatement, and I came to college with a whole host of ideas in my head that ranged from half-baked to full on backwards. But the school I went to was a small liberal arts college in Philly, and it would be impossible to oversell the liberal part of that. I spent much of my freshman year being exposed to — and arguing against — a whole host of liberal positions that seemed entirely alien to me. And it’s not that I ended up agreeing with all of the new ideas I was exposed to, but I was forced to confront the fact that I knew a fraction of what I thought I knew about the world and that a lot of what I had previously taken for granted needed to be reexamined and challenged. While many of the courses I took in college were important to that process, the importance of what I learned in the classroom was almost insignificant when compared to the learning and growth that took place outside the classroom, living with and alongside students of diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.

[RunningMn9]

This aligns with my belief that you think education is about procuring facts, and in the past you've said those facts are about acquiring gainful employment.

I think education is about education. I don't think that education is about frat parties. I think that frat parties are fun. I just don't think that it's my responsibility to subsidize making it easier for someone to go to them because they learn social skills there.

But practically speaking, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is no value to an individual to obtain the "college experience". I'm just saying that if that is what you are after, you should be the one to pay for it - not me.

My son wasn't really interested in that, so he has almost no debt. My daughter is really interested in that, and so her journey will be about four times as expensive, and she will have a lot more debt. That's on her/me, not the US taxpayer.

[Octavious]

Yup makes perfect sense to me. It's just frustrating to see her get pretty much perfect grades since the 4th grade and tell her we can't afford to send her to a 4 year school, while other asshats lie about their income and are given a free ride. Wah wah wah... The good news is that my wife and I are total slackers who didn't do 4 years of college. I went to a computer school and her brilliant parents pulled her out of FREE college in Germany to move her to this god forsaken country. Got so discouraged that she never finished here. So she gets to apply as 1st gen and she will get something somewhere... Will she want to go there is a different story.

[GreenGoo]

This aligns with my belief that you think education is about procuring facts, and in the past you've said those facts are about acquiring gainful employment.

I think education is about education. I don't think that education is about frat parties. I think that frat parties are fun. I just don't think that it's my responsibility to subsidize making it easier for someone to go to them because they learn social skills there.

There are no frats allowed on Canadian campuses. Maybe try that.

Maybe investigate why the "college experience" is so expensive. There are more answers than simply giving the money to colleges.

[Octavious]

This aligns with my belief that you think education is about procuring facts, and in the past you've said those facts are about acquiring gainful employment.

I think education is about education. I don't think that education is about frat parties. I think that frat parties are fun. I just don't think that it's my responsibility to subsidize making it easier for someone to go to them because they learn social skills there.

There are no frats allowed on Canadian campuses. Maybe try that.

Maybe investigate why the "college experience" is so expensive. There are more answers than simply giving the money to colleges.

There a bunch of US colleges that don't allow it either. Mostly usually because something horrible happened.

[Kurth]

This aligns with my belief that you think education is about procuring facts, and in the past you've said those facts are about acquiring gainful employment.

I think education is about education. I don't think that education is about frat parties. I think that frat parties are fun. I just don't think that it's my responsibility to subsidize making it easier for someone to go to them because they learn social skills there.

But practically speaking, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is no value to an individual to obtain the "college experience". I'm just saying that if that is what you are after, you should be the one to pay for it - not me.

My son wasn't really interested in that, so he has almost no debt. My daughter is really interested in that, and so her journey will be about four times as expensive, and she will have a lot more debt. That's on her/me, not the US taxpayer.

I think you posted this at about the same time I posted above. The "college experience" we're talking about isn't frat parties.

[Isgrimnur]

The current argument isn't about a blank check, it's about $10k. Which was like 1/3 of my undergrad costs in-state for Texas.

[Octavious]

That's what cracks me up. We're perfectly fine cutting huge breaks for rich people, but hand out 10K and the world explodes. That doesn't even cover room and board for one year at most schools.