quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
A bit of a summary:

Your proposal is based on the premise that tuition is too expensive and thus loans are required to pay for a college education.

My post on page 1 below the one quoted above refutes that in the case of Florida and GAgator’s post on this page, page 4, above does the same for but for Georgia. It seems to be a state level problem.

It’s not just a cost discussion, but a government involvement issue.

In Florida, the legislature caps tuition. That may be an issue as well, as government control of prices may make tuition too cheap, increase demand, and require taxpayer bailouts in the future. It addresses the cost issue in the short term, but the taxpayer may ultimately be impacted.

Georgia is even worse; the state guarantees payment, but there is no requirement for the universities to control tuition (and they haven’t…). If lottery funds are insufficient, who do you think is ultimately going to cover the shortfall?

The solution is removing government intervention, and letting the universities and students come to a market setting rate.

By the way, my original proposal could be restated as 4-5 year loans, capped at 100% median starting salary for that major at that school.

quote:

The solution is removing government intervention, and letting the universities and students come to a market setting rate.

Your proposal is the opposite of this. It's impossible to implement without government involvement and subject to the same problems you mention in critiquing Georgia's system. Each state's public universities are run by: the state. You want the state universities to borrow money to pay their employees and the collateral for those loans is the promise that the funds from graduates will pay it back. Who is on the hook when that doesn't work out?

Voluntary compliance with your proposal will never happen at the university level. Chances are slim any state would ever adopt it. That leaves the feds who have zero control over what state run universities do except for the feds' ability to cut off the flow of money.

chellim1 is going to love this: the answer is no public universities. It's the only way to get government out of the college education business.

quote:

The problem seems to be that for a variety of reasons people are putting the taxpayers on the hook for government guaranteed loans they have no chance of paying off. The solution is get rid of government guaranteed loans. No need to make it more complicated than that.

Yes.

quote:

chellim1 is going to love this: the answer is no public universities. It's the only way to get government out of the college education business.

And yes.
BUT I know it's not going to happen. States have a long history of running universities (UVA was started by Thomas Jefferson), and it is Constitutional, at the State level.
At the federal level, it's not. So just get rid of the Department of Education and Pell grants and federal guaranteed student loans and any other form of federal funding or regulation.
Read the 10th amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

The solution is removing government intervention, and letting the universities and students come to a market setting rate.

Your proposal is the opposite of this. It's impossible to implement without government involvement and subject to the same problems you mention in critiquing Georgia's system. Each state's public universities are run by: the state. You want the state universities to borrow money to pay their employees and the collateral for those loans is the promise that the funds from graduates will pay it back. Who is on the hook when that doesn't work out?

Voluntary compliance with your proposal will never happen at the university level. Chances are slim any state would ever adopt it. That leaves the feds who have zero control over what state run universities do except for the feds' ability to cut off the flow of money.

chellim1 is going to love this: the answer is no public universities. It's the only way to get government out of the college education business.

My initial proposal was a thought starter, but ultimately the crux of the issue is government involvement.

Perhaps the market will end up with something similar to my proposal, probably not - but it’s better than the system that exists at the moment. Ultimately, once you remove government, real market solutions can occur.

reloader.

I bought a welding helmet from a kid who went through school, became a welder, got a good job.

Made it two weeks. Quit. Became and office worker "where there is air conditioning" is what he told me.

I can point to countless people who start one thing and then change gears. Teachers often only make it one year (some not even through student teaching). Some become nurses (not easy) only to make it a short while and change their minds. Same for all sorts of jobs. Heck, online exist because of these career switchers.

Imagine the headlines, UVA holds students hostage until they work off the degree they no longer want. I know a guy who has a degree in linguistics from Texas and to this day works in a bicycle shop. Just today I saw an add for an 'influencer' that helps people get started in Tech. He has a degree in Math and mocks that he could get 'no interviews accept teaching.' This is what happens when you tell people to "do what you love" which is bull. you like math, great get a degree in it. Accept, you must ask, what do you 'do' with a Math degree. And is this a good market to go into. Look at the fine arts, get a degree in performance, and you may be the best or in the top 5% but even then getting a steady paying gig playing clarinet is not an easy life.

Mike Rowe said it best, "find what needs doing, do it, and then you will always have work"

I believe anyone that wants to should be able to go to school, make the grades fine, you get to continue. But I dont think you will be able to make the universities 'indenture' them and that system hold up. It would only work if they pay up front.

The only college that I am aware of (there are two) that do not accept federal aid of any kind is Hillsdale College and the much newer University of the People.
University of the People is essentially free, but you pay a 'service' fee if you pass the class ($450 IIRC).

I show this to my students: Not to discourage them but to create a dialog, it is not just about 'hard work' it is a lot more complex than that. And technically, the Rock was not wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:.

I believe anyone that wants to should be able to go to school, make the grades fine, you get to continue. But I dont think you will be able to make the universities 'indenture' them and that system hold up. It would only work if they pay up front.

Interesting. The current system is likely far worse than what I proposed, in that it is non-dischargeable student loan debt that is provided by the government and therefore the amounts are much higher than they should be, as the cost pressure isn’t there on the university. Let me put it this way:

1. Current system: Non-dischargeable student loans, likely higher than market clearing rate, 10-15 year payoff.

2. Revised system: Non-dischargeable student loan, at market clearing rate as it is provided by school, 5 year cap and 100% of graduate median income from school cap.

3. Revised system alternate style: non-dischargeable wage garnishment, 20% of gross income for 5 years.

I’m not sure which one is more like indentured servitude, to be frank. In our current system, UVA DOES hold the student hostage until they pay back the degree…