Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 53 of 53

Thread: Student Loans: Trump wants colleges to have skin in student loan debt game

  1. #51
    Educator Good4Nothin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,137

    Re: Student Loans: Trump wants colleges to have skin in student loan debt game

    Quote Originally Posted by jnug View Post
    I don't think it went unnoticed at all. I just think we kept trying market solutions that were not based on research. They were just market solutions that suggested a lower cost option to a degree as a means to address these issues. However they were in the main market solutions in their purest sense, meaning they were chasing a buck and simply figured they could "market" their market solutions successfully.
    What market solutions are you talking about? The taxpayers provided the loans, students paid the colleges, students could not default on the loans. The colleges won, the taxpayers and students lost.

    That was, and is, the problem. What market solutions were tried? What solutions did Obama ever suggest?

    And if you are thinking college should have been made free for everyone -- that would have been even worse. The taxpayers would pay even more so everyone could go to the lousy college of their choice and get a worthless degree. In that scenario only the taxpayers lose, but they lose big.

  2. #52
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,328

    Re: Student Loans: Trump wants colleges to have skin in student loan debt game

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    That doesn't do anything for the trades kids, though. Community College has a lot of vocational stuff, too.
    Possibly so, ultimately we need to completely change our entire philosophy on how we teach children and the system itself. We are stuck in this ridiculous cycle thinking that simply throwing money at the problem will fix it when it should be obvious that it doesn't.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    31,806

    Re: Student Loans: Trump wants colleges to have skin in student loan debt game

    Sorry G4N, I wasn't around for the week, but wanted to reply to your thoughtful post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
    There are ways to decipher causality. That's what researchers spend their lives trying to do. The general public doesn't realize how complicated it can be, so they can be fooled.
    I don't want to go too deeply down a statistical rabbit hole, but I'm willing to see the supporting evidence.

    Being raised in a family with successful parents can give several kinds of advantages. Only one of which is the ability to pay for college. For example, there could be inherited abilities and traits that make you more likely to succeed. And your parents might teach you to be responsible, and set a good example.
    I'm in reasonable agreement here, but I'm not ready to give-up the tie that education generally increases one's earning power.

    The student loan scammers just took one variable -- the college degree -- and convinced people that is the key to success. If the college degree is the only important factor, then it's worth going into debt. Except it obviously is not the only important factor. And a college degree will not make you successful if it's in art history (my first degree).
    I couldn't agree more. Higher education is a product one is purchasing, and one needs to determine whether a given product is suitable for their specific end purpose.

    I came from an economically modest environment, and we and most of the neighborhood were European immigrant stock. With only rare exception, the crowd I grew-up with never had the luxury of higher education strictly for education's sake; higher education was seen as an economic decision based upon its economic pay-off.

    Consequently, those of us that went on to universities studied engineering, accountancy, law, nursing, finance, or medicine; the things that made money. No one I knew took psych, art, history, literature, etc. Though I knew a number of guys did the economics and poli-sci thing to prep for law school, but law was always the end goal.

    Some people believe in education for its own sake. You take courses in the arts and humanities, literature and history, etc. You become a better, wiser, person. That was sort of how I approached my undergraduate degree. I had no practical ideas about how to survive. I didn't realize I could have found all that information I learned in my classes at the public library, for free. (And now days you can find it online).
    Well I'm torn on your paragraph here, because I very much believe in the intrinsic value of a good liberal undergrad education and in being an educated person.

    A good undergrad program at a good school forces and directs one to get the full breadth and depth of a liberal education, even when one doesn't know exactly what specific topics & items are - or are not - important in civilization's immense body of knowledge. Plus you also get the resources of the instructor & department, as well as networking opportunities, clubs, and associations.

    But an education of this type needs to be approached in context. Firstly it needs to be a good school & program, and secondly it needs to fit the context of one's personal needs in life. If you're not a trust fund baby or inheriting a thriving business, you need to follow it with a professional degree in order to make a living. Either that, or pick a more practical undergrad degree that will make you some money.

    But quite honestly, I think the ideal educational path, if one has the time and finances, is a solid broad & deep liberal undergrad from a good undergrad program, followed by a a professional money-making grad degree from the best program you can get into. That combination can be a very effective life tool.

    College has become a scam, unless you learn practical skills. In which case it's more like a trade school or professional school.
    I still think good liberal undergrad programs from good schools are worth the effort, but if you need to eventually work for a living, you gotta' follow them with a money-making professional degree. The problem I see with a liberal undergrad, or most any degree for that matter, is there's far too many mediocre and poor schools. It's a joke to see some of the B.S. institutions calling themselves, "university". I do very much see those degrees as rip-offs, or at the least very low value.

    Now as an example of a good undergrad liberal education, I use the University of Chicago's undergrad core curriculum as my gold standard. It's been relaxed in the last decade or so from the original Hutchinson plan, but it's still very good and one can still follow the Hutchinson plan or use the Great Books option if they chose. I swear I've never met anyone that did a U of C undergrad, that wasn't amazingly well educated in both breadth and depth!
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •