Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Renegade

Student Debt Relief

Recommended Posts

Once free education goes into effect, student debt relief becomes a one-time government expense.  And those relieved of student debt would then be free to buy more goods and services, boosting the economy.  All this would tie in with other progressive arrangements like reduced military spending and highly progressive taxation.

 

My main interest is on tax-funded schooling at every grade level.  And although student debt-relief will not result in a better educated population, I feel it is the proper thing to do;  Not only morally, but to help validate the idea that education should be free.

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

These are the people who will benefit the most from Bernie's total debt forgiveness:

- Average debt for medical school graduates: $196,520 (nerdwallet)

- Average debt for dental school graduates: $285,184

- Average debt for pharmacy school graduates: $166,528  

- Most MBAs borrow over $100k (Bloomberg)

 

Taken together, these highly paid professionals amount to a national asset.  Again;  relieving them of student debt frees them buy more goods and services, stimulating the supply side.  And this is also true for the majority of those forgiven their student debt, who find it much more burdensome. 

 

It can be thought of like Andrew Yang's freedom dividend.  Yang proposes a Basic Universal Income of $1000.00 a month for every citizen over 18.  Why doesn't he make it progressive and award more with descending income?  Because " Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy". 

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

 

Making student loan forgiveness progressive by remunerating lower-income individuals for more of their debt, would be expensive.  Proof would have to be supplied, verified, scrutinized and evaluated.  All the paperwork and employees to handle it could easily cost even more than student debt relief for all.  For a one-time program, it wouldn't be worth it.

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

 If it's such a good idea to eliminate student debt, why would we not eliminate mortgage debt?  Every single justification that has been put forward for eliminating student debt applies just as well to mortgage debt.  No one should be penalized for putting a roof over their head.  Think how much it would stimulate the economy.  Think how many jobs would be created.  No one should be "sentenced to a lifetime of debt for doing the right thing".

 

Unlike home ownership, being a student requires constant initiative and effort.  For many, it's a labor of love, but many other struggle.  There is a fundamental difference between choosing an adequate home as opposed to an extravagant one, and choosing a major in college.  Buying a million dollar home when a two hundred thousand dollar home would have been sufficient is completely different than stopping at undergraduate work or going on for a higher degree.

 

Deciding what kind of home, its location and cost, is, by its nature, far more discretionary than personal choices in education.  And while shelter is a necessity, education should be honored.  Student debt forgiveness honors it.

 

Choosing to live in a home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

4 hours ago, bludog said:

Once free education goes into effect, student debt relief becomes a one-time government expense.

 

True.

 

4 hours ago, bludog said:

And those relieved of student debt would then be free to buy more goods and services, boosting the economy.

 

Also true.   However, you could provide a better boost the economy (and fairly) by dropping $100 bills out of an helicopter over disadvantaged neighborhoods (not the places where doctors and lawyers live).  

 

4 hours ago, bludog said:

My main interest is on tax-funded schooling at every grade level.

 

+1.  It's good not to lose sight that we agree on that.

 

4 hours ago, bludog said:

I feel it is the proper thing to do;  Not only morally, but to help validate the idea that education should be free.

 

That's an awful expensive way to validate an idea.  And it does nothing to make education free for those who actually worked for it.

 

I guess I've got heartburn with any policy that retroactively changes the rules of the game.  Apparently, that feeling is unique to me.  That's why I come here....to learn.  Here's another example where that feeling came up:  There was an effort in Congress a few years ago to remove inflation indexing from military pensions.  They were going to make it something like inflation - x% instead of equal to inflation.  They were going to change the rules for people who gave their whole working life to the nation with an acknowledged contract.  They were going to change the rules *after* it's too late for people to make other choices.  In my (apparently unique) book, that's criminal.

 

I feel the same way about this college debt proposal.  People lived their whole lives with one set of rules.   They made decisions on what to major in, where to go to school (or if they could afford to go to school) based on a set of rules.  Some people made good decisions, some made bad ones.  Now, this proposal will completely turn that on it's head.  Those who made good decisions, worked their ass off, and graduated debt free were really stupid.  They should have took it easy and borrowed every penny available.  Those who made bad decisions and racked up 6-figure debt studying worthless degrees were really smart.  It was all monopoly money.  A lifetime of effort...wasted.

 

Changing the rules for everyone from this point on is fine.  Trying to change the rules for what happened 10 years ago is wrong.

 

Also, I clearly showed how this policy is regressive.  For some reason I don't comprehend, that's not important.

 

5 hours ago, bludog said:

relieving them of student debt frees them buy more goods and services, stimulating the supply side.

 

Actually, it's the demand side, not the supply side.  And, it's inflationary on an unprecedented scale.  The proposal doesn't create $1.6 trillion in new goods and services available for purchase.  It only creates more demand.  Instantly.  I have no idea how that would all shake out, but I'm pretty sure it would be disruptive, to say the least.

 

5 hours ago, bludog said:

t can be thought of like Andrew Yang's freedom dividend.  Yang proposes a Basic Universal Income of $1000.00 a month for every citizen over 18.  Why doesn't he make it progressive and award more with descending income?

 

I like Yang's plan.  It's fair to everyone.  It doesn't only reward college-educated people.  His plan doesn't spit in the face of low-earning, hard-working Americans.   If he gets the nomination, he'll do better than some of the other candidates at winning back blue-collar voters.   Bernie's debt forgiveness plan is only going to piss them off.

 

6 hours ago, bludog said:

Making student loan forgiveness progressive by remunerating lower-income individuals for more of their debt, would be expensive.

 

I don't think you have a good feel for how much money $1.6 trillion is.  The total salary and benefits of all government workers in all agencies and departments is only around $200 billion (Washington Post).  So, you could completely duplicate the manpower of the whole federal government and still only add about 12% to the cost of this plan.   

 

The federal government spends only about $50 billion on highways.   All 126 federal welfare programs only cost about $670 billion total (Washington Post).   Can you honestly say that forgiving college debt will be more beneficial?

 

4 hours ago, bludog said:

Unlike home ownership, being a student requires constant initiative and effort.

 

I'm guessing you don't own a home.  I just spent 4 hours of "initiative and effort" replacing worn out carpet.  Owning a home absolutely requires constant effort (and expense).  On the other hand, a degree pays you back.  The whole point of going to college is an investment in your future.  Did you make a wise investment?  If you did, paying back the loan shouldn't be an issue.  If you made a wise investment, you won't need to ask the guy who picks up your garbage to pay off your loan with his taxes.

 

6 hours ago, bludog said:

There is a fundamental difference between choosing an adequate home as opposed to an extravagant one, and choosing a major in college.  Buying a million dollar home when a two hundred thousand dollar home would have been sufficient is completely different than stopping at undergraduate work or going on for a higher degree.

 

Deciding what kind of home, its location and cost, is, by its nature, far more discretionary than personal choices in education.  And while shelter is a necessity, education should be honored.  Student debt forgiveness honors it.

 

It's only a difference of scale.  One might choose community college over Princeton based on cost, just as one might choose a $200k home over a $1M home.  Princeton costs at least five times as much as community college.  Some of those in debt went to Princeton when community college would have been perfectly sufficient.

 

How is a home "far more discretionary"?  A home isn't discretionary...it's a necessity.  A college education is completely discretionary.  You can live a fine life without one.  

 

Student debt forgiveness doesn't honor "education".  It honors fiscal irresponsibility, both on the part of the indebted students and that of the politicians who would implement it.  If you want to honor education, pay teachers more.  Send more people to school.  Don't give handouts to high-paid people who can't manage money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cecelia said:

Anecdote Time:

A couple of years ago I had an ABSOLUTELY brilliant student.  Straight A's, valedictorian.  She could've easily had her choice of schools.  The problem was, she couldn't afford it.  Even with scholarships that she qualified for, she couldn't afford to go to an ivy league college, even though she would've easily been accepted at any of them.  Who knows what she could've done with an Ivy League education?  She'd have had far more opportunities than she does today.  Now, she's deep in debt and struggling significantly.  But hey, we can't pay off her debt!  Wouldn't be 'fair'!  What about fair to her?  What about fair to the thousands of other students JUST like her, drowning in debt just so they could get their education?  But no!  We can't do that!  Some people might claw their way out of poverty, and we just can't let them do that!  Better to let them stay down there with the rest of society.  Keep the hierarchy the way it is.  Much better than only the rich can afford to go to college.

 

I think I'm sympathetic to this, but I'm not sure I completely understand.  Did she go into debt to get an education?   If she's brilliant and she got an education, why can't she pay back her debt?   

 

I don't want to keep anyone down.   I don't want anyone to have college debt.  I am for publicly funded education at the highest level.  So, let's fix it for the next generation.  As much as we might want to, there's no way to go back and fix the past.  Debt isn't the only measure (or even a good one) of how much people struggled to get an education. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rrober49 said:

co worker waited 5 year to be out of the home  applied for a government grant till he got one went on to get his dream job debt free

 

Normally I'd say that's a very smart man.  But, if this debt forgiveness thing goes through, it'll turn out he wasn't smart at all.   The "gotta have it now, don't care what it costs" crowd will get big checks and your co-worker will help pay for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 1:06 PM, bludog said:

This is only one side of the story and sounds like it might be grist for family counseling.

 

I think I was a little harsh in my description of my son-in-law.  He's a very good man and I'm proud to have him as the father of my grandchildren.  He just can't make good financial decisions.  That's only a small part of who he his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Renegade said:

I think I was a little harsh in my description of my son-in-law.  He's a very good man and I'm proud to have him as the father of my grandchildren.  He just can't make good financial decisions.  That's only a small part of who he his.

 

This addition to the narrative puts a new light on it, for me.  I'm glad to read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

Normally I'd say that's a very smart man.  But, if this debt forgiveness thing goes through, it'll turn out he wasn't smart at all.   The "gotta have it now, don't care what it costs" crowd will get big checks and your co-worker will help pay for it.  

 

Take off points for anecdotal content:

 

Years ago, in order to be hired as a technician by the Phone Company, I had to pass a battery of stringent tests.  Later, Affirmative Action came along and people who would have previously been totally unqualified were hired in large numbers.  The battery of tests which were formerly given over an 8 hour day, was made ridiculously less difficult and reduced to a duration of half an hour.   In addition, I had to help train new Affirmative Action hires capable of learning the job;  And more than a few, who couldn't.  Sometimes it was frustrating..

 

But I felt no resentment.  In fact, I perceived Affirmative Action to be justice done.  I became a union steward and helped represent many of those same people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

I'm guessing you don't own a home.

 

Warning:  More anecdotal content:

 

I not only own a home, but have put in many improvements.  Often with my own labor.  Only some expenses were for repairs.  (We have homeowner's insurance for that, but the deductibles are outrageously high, IMO).  Most changes made, were discretionary.  They were enhancements for decoration or to replace still serviceable fixtures with more highly functional ones.  At any rate, most of the additions and improvements we made, were for our own convenience or satisfaction.  But the house would have been adequate to live in without them.

 

4 hours ago, Renegade said:

On the other hand, a degree pays you back.

 

A degree not only pays back the graduate.  It is beneficial for the entire nation.  Potentially enhancing one's own future with education, makes for a more buoyant ship of state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

A degree not only pays back the graduate.  It is beneficial for the entire nation.  Potentially enhancing one's own future with education, makes for a more buoyant ship of state.

 

clearly

 

  “Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t,” he said. “As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.” 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Take off points for anecdotal content:

 

Years ago, in order to be hired as a technician by the Phone Company, I had to pass a battery of stringent tests.  Later, Affirmative Action came along and people who would have previously been totally unqualified were hired in large numbers.  The battery of tests which were formerly given over an 8 hour day, was made ridiculously less difficult and reduced to a duration of half an hour.   In addition, I had to help train new Affirmative Action hires capable of learning the job;  And more than a few, who couldn't.  Sometimes it was frustrating..

 

But I felt no resentment.  In fact, I perceived Affirmative Action to be justice done.  I became a union steward and helped represent many of those same people.

 

Good anecdote and applicable to the discussion.  However, it's different on a key point.  The people who were helped by AA weren't people who had made bad decisions.  They were people who had been discriminated against based on their race.   The people who will get free money under Bernie's debt relief plan were not discriminated against (not as a group).  They're people who chose to borrow a lot of money and don't want to pay it back.  I don't think it's accurate or appropriate to equate victims of racism to people who make bad money decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

Good anecdote and applicable to the discussion.  However, it's different on a key point.  The people who were helped by AA weren't people who had made bad decisions.  They were people who had been discriminated against based on their race.   The people who will get free money under Bernie's debt relief plan were not discriminated against (not as a group).  They're people who chose to borrow a lot of money and don't want to pay it back.  I don't think it's accurate or appropriate to equate victims of racism to people who make bad money decisions.

 

The assumption that people who take out student loans "make bad money decisions" is only sometimes true.  Students are forced to gamble that the value of the schooling will exceed that of the loan.   Very often, borrowing money is seen as the only way to pay for higher education.   Sometimes that happens too slowly or not at all and the debtor finds him/herself in poverty, trying to pay off the loan.  The student loan industry tries to make loans look very attractive.  However, defaults on student loans are steadily rising.  Student loan could be the next bubble to burst.

 

The student loan industry is a corrupt racket.  The laws governing it would fit right in to Charles Dickens' England.

 

Since the bank based loan program started in 1965, commercial banks like Sallie Mae and Neinet have received guaranteed federal subsidies to lend money to students and the government assuming nearly all risk.  In 1978, some doctors and lawyers discharged their student loans by declaring bankruptcy.  Since then student loans have been absolved from practicing ordinary loan protections.

 

Protections Removed:

-  Discharge of the debt via bankruptcy

-  Statute of limitations on collection

-  Truth in lending act

-  Fair debt collection practices act

-  The right to refinance

-  Adherence to state usury laws

 

If a student debtor misses a payment, the case is handed over to GRC, owned by Fannie Mae.  GRC is the nation's biggest debt collection agency.  After 270 days, the loan is in default.  GRC adds a 25% collection fee and a 28% commission on the loan, both of which the student has to pay for.  GRC takes money from the student's paycheck and tax refund until the debt is paid back.

 

Bottom line is, Sallie Mae made over $400-million in ten years.  The federal government eventually gets its money back with interest;  so has no incentive to moderate soaring tuition costs.

 

Borrowers who default on their loans:

-  Become ineligible for additional federal aid.

-  May have their wages and tax refunds seized by the government.

-  Pay higher interest rates on any additional loans.

-  Their negative credit makes it harder to  get  -  car loans, mortgages, credit cards, apartment, jobs

 

There is a rising plague of student loan defaults.  Two out of every five loans made to students who attended two year, for profit colleges are in defualt.  And one in every five loans that entered repayment in 1995 have gone into default.

 

http://www.healthcareadministration.com/college/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rrober49 said:

clearly

 

  “Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t,” he said. “As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.”

 

Who is "he" and where was this quoted from?  How do a majority who didn't attend college and make less, subsidize a minority who did and make more?   How does this work?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a huge cost to taxpayers to pay for free college, but as has been stated costs for college have indeed skyrocketed. 

I think doing something to reduce the cost of loans makes sense too. I also think that free university, skilled trade education makes sense in certain areas. 

If we take the approach that climate change is a huge threat to the world we live in, perhaps it would be worthwhile to fund people who qualify, in certain educational areas so that we understand the payoff towards society by footing the bill. 

I get the approach of giving free college to all - it's how they do SS, that's how they got buy in. But I just don't think kids from rich families should get the same benefits as those from poor or lower class families. 

 

And like was said earlier - why has the cost skyrocketed, what can be done about that as well?

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bludog said:

The assumption that people who take out student loans "make bad money decisions" is only sometimes true.  Students are forced to gamble that the value of the schooling will exceed that of the loan.

 

They are not forced and it's not a gamble.  Anyone can look up average starting salaries (salary.com, monster.com) and do the math.   It's no harder than deciding whether or not you can afford the payments on that SUV.

 

True, there are other reasons a person could have difficulty paying their loans back (health comes to mind).  But, I'd wager that most of the problem is indeed "bad money decisions".

 

8 hours ago, bludog said:

Very often, borrowing money is seen as the only way to pay for higher education.

 

It's sad that anyone would believe borrowing money is the only way.   Most good-sized employers offer tuition assistance programs.  Here are a few examples.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Renegade said:

They are not forced and it's not a gamble.  Anyone can look up average starting salaries (salary.com, monster.com) and do the math.   It's no harder than deciding whether or not you can afford the payments on that SUV.

 

On an individual level, it a gamble.  Starting salaries in a given field often change drastically in the time it take to get a degree.

 

34 minutes ago, Renegade said:

It's sad that anyone would believe borrowing money is the only way. 

 

I agree.  But Fannie Mae and it's competitive namesake Sallie Mae and others market it aggressively.  And as you previously observed, many highly intelligent future professionals finance their educations with large student loans.

https://www.salliemae.com/

 

34 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Most good-sized employers offer tuition assistance programs.  Here are a few examples

 

This must be a relatively new development because, when I went back to college while working for Verizon, there was no such program.  And I researched it thoroughly, at the time.  By the way, I never applied for a loan or went into debt.  But in this matter, I try not to impose my own values on others, having never walked in their shoes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Renegade said:

 

They are not forced and it's not a gamble.  Anyone can look up average starting salaries (salary.com, monster.com) and do the math.   It's no harder than deciding whether or not you can afford the payments on that SUV.

 

True, there are other reasons a person could have difficulty paying their loans back (health comes to mind).  But, I'd wager that most of the problem is indeed "bad money decisions".

 

 

It's sad that anyone would believe borrowing money is the only way.   Most good-sized employers offer tuition assistance programs.  Here are a few examples.  

many times there are private off shoots, that promise jobs, and this gets a lot of kids who didn't feel they qualified for a true university education, even though the price is high.

A lot of them drop out and are left with big debt. Yes, that does suck! It derides their entire self worth and could even derail their whole idea of personal achievement one day. 

I have heard about junior college being for free - but it still, at least in my opinion needs to be first class education. Make it free, free at last, but also make it educational to the max.

If you go to a junior college and get good grades, that means you are either qualified for a tech job, or highly qualified to go onto a higher institution of learning. 

And if you try and fail the first time, guess what, you can try again, until you succeed.

And when you succeed in any endeavor, you'll know it.

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bludog said:

Who is "he" and where was this quoted from?  How do a majority who didn't attend college and make less, subsidize a minority who did and make more?   How does this work?  

 

 

Pete  Buttigieg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about trading some of those mathematical genius's who work on wall street and all the doe they rake in while contributing absolutely no worth to society - 

towards the education of our youth who quite likely would if given half a chance?

 

Are you telling me you can't teach kids, with all the money you waste, or is that all a hill filled with beans, the billionaires, the 1% in God We Trust.

 

We bank all the wall street money on Amazon and Facebook, and Google, with all their adds. Whose adds, what adds, who sells adds?

How about giving our youth a solid education and a meaningful minimum wage.

 

I'm thinking people think that is too much to ask. They have this extravagant idea of money and how it works.

And they are too afraid to stand up and look closely at the reality of markets, really.

 

 

Just take a look at all the stuff. I know I started off this riff trying to sound like Bernie Sanders, and then I started to think, hey now, hey now.

 

There is just a lot of merchandise existing all around.

 

A whole lot of stuff, a whole lot of wasted merchandise to be resold, to be taken off to a magical place, that old vacuum cleaner, and the guy who came into your

home to sell you something that would clean your carpets better than anything you ever dreamed or ever anticipated

 

You never did, anticipate taking a loan, for a vacuum, but he made it seem like such a good deal.

 

Pete Buttigieg, where were you then...

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bludog said:

On an individual level, it a gamble.  Starting salaries in a given field often change drastically in the time it take to get a degree.

 

Can you give me an example?  Is that an anecdote, or is there some data to look at?

 

10 hours ago, bludog said:

By the way, I never applied for a loan or went into debt.  But in this matter, I try not to impose my own values on others, having never walked in their shoes. 

 

Good man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 11:39 PM, rrober49 said:

 

clearly

 

  “Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t,” he said. “As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.”

 

This was part of a speech Buttigieg recently gave at Northeastern University in Boston.  Buttigieg is against tax funded college.  He assumes that people who "earn less", pay most of the taxes which would support free college.

 

But Mayor Pete is wrong:

 
 
Quote

 

economics

Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Tax in 2016

Updated on
  • Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more income tax than bottom 70Mln
  • Individual income tax to bring in about $1.7 trillion in FY18

<snip>

 

 

In fact, poor people tend to pay less in federal income tax and the poorest 45% pay no federal income tax at all.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16

 

This anti free education stance lowers my estimation of Buttigieg considerably.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bludog said:

Starting salaries in a given field often change drastically in the time it take to get a degree.

 

I was curious, so I decided to see what I could find.  According to the BLS (link), the top paying occupations requiring a college degree in 1998 were:  

1) Physician

2) Dentist

3) Lawyer

4) Marketing/Advertising/PR

5) Pharmacist

6) Electrical/Electronic Engineer

7) Mechanical Engineer

8 Computer Science

9) Financial Manager

10) Civil Engineer 

 

Do you think the pay has changed much over the last 20 years for these majors?  

 

On the other hand, here's a list of what people are actually getting degrees in (link)

 

32 Most Common Bachelor’s Degrees in the U.S. 2017

Field of Study Number of Degrees Percent of Degrees
Business 363,799 19.2%
Health professions and related programs 216,228 11.4%
Social sciences and history 166,944 8.8%
Psychology 117,557 6.2%
Biological and biomedical sciences 109,896 5.8%
Engineering 97,858 5.2%
Visual and performing arts 95,832 5.1%
Education 91,623 4.8%
Communication, journalism, and related programs 90,650 4.8%
Homeland security, law enforcement, and firefighting 62,723 3.3%
Computer and information sciences 59,581 3.1%
Parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies 49,006 2.6%
Multi/interdisciplinary studies 47,556 2.5%
English language and literature/letters 45,847 2.4%
Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities 43,647 2.3%
Agriculture and natural resources 36,277 1.9%
Public administration and social services 34,363 1.8%
Physical sciences and science technologies 30,038 1.6%
Family and consumer sciences/human sciences 24,584 1.3%
Mathematics and statistics 21,853 1.2%
Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics 19,493 1.0%
Engineering technologies 17,238 0.9%
Philosophy and religious studies 11,072 0.6%
Theology and religious vocations 9,708 0.5%
Architecture and related services 9,090 0.5%
Area, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies 7,782 0.4%
Communications technologies 5,135 0.3%
Transportation and materials moving 4,711 0.2%
Legal professions and studies 4,420 0.2%
Military technologies and applied sciences 276 0.0%
Library science 99 0.0%
Precision production 48 0.0%
Not classified by field of study 0 0.0%

 

 

I see a disconnect.

 

8.8% of all degrees were granted in "social sciences and history".  Yes, those people are going to have a hard time paying back their student loans.  The same with psychology (6.2%),  visual and performing arts (5.1%), and many others.   Do you really think these were high-paying majors a few years ago, but things "changed drastically" while they were in school?

 

Too many people follow their heart and learn about what's interesting to them, even when there's little to no economic benefit in doing so.  If it's on their own dime, more power to them.  But, if they want someone else to pay off their 'burdensome' debt, then I'm not happy about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good research.  It doesn't show yearly fluctuations in starting salaries.  Still, I have to concede that it's my guess also that the compensation in most of these professions probably doesn't change much.

 

However, it can happen.  My statement was, indeed anecdotal.  I used to help out an elderly man who was a retired Nuclear Engineer.  He used to love to tell his success story:   After discharge from the Navy, at the end of WWII, he went to college majoring in Engineering.  Friends discouraged him, pointing out that there was little demand for engineers and salaries were flat.  Buck ignored them, and as he progressed on to a PHD, he specialized in Nuclear Engineering.  Once he got his degree, a booming nuclear power industry  with very high starting pay had sprung up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a world view of secondary education 

 

lot to be said how people with free access to secondary educations use them and how many people actually access them 

 

Tertiary education is the educational level following the completion of a school providing a secondary education. The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as institutions that teach specific capacities of higher learning such as colleges, technical training institutes, community colleges, nursing schools, research laboratories, centers of excellence, and distance learning centers.[1]

 

 

this is a tool for us all to use and and draw different conclusions from

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment

 

prolly more use to blue,  but Switzerland leads in B.A's   and oddly we out rank Canada in B.A's

 

PS: but a citizen dept is still his dept ~ what we as citizens go into debt for is what we go into debt for. A better understanding of how we go into dept for is need here

I maintain letting the students now pay back the loan interest free as they can is better then paying it off at this point 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of folks who made a lot of money with only an undergraduate degree in business. I've also know a lot of folks who didn't even achieve that much who became highly successful regarding earned financial holdings.

I also have a daughter who is gifted, a prodigy. And being middle class, my wife and I took her around to all the schools, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell.

A different world therein, most of the kids you talk to there are top notch, and there are a bevy of big corporations close by trying to snatch them up. 

 

This one kid talked about life at Harvard. He was so self-assured already comfortable at public speaking at such a young age. And all the parents loved it immensely, they ate it up.

 

I didn't even know there were universities like that, so caring about an enriched education that entailed the sciences and art,  it made me wish I was young. 

But what have they done in the past, with the world as it sits now.

 

Grace settles with Cornell only because she wants to be an astrophysicist. But she's decided on Berkeley for undergraduate studies. Because it will save us a buck.

 

The point is that most kids don't even come close to having any idea. The point is also that most of the graduates from these first class institutions have not yet made any kind of important dent into the problems we all face, like climate change and healthcare for all. Not because they are not smart, and not because there have not been a lot of achievements in science.

 

And like I said, I know a lot of people who made a lot of money with little or no education - all anecdotal. 

I am worried, a bit by statistics, and about the measuring of intelligence. 

As well about the big cost, and the outcome.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

The point is also that most of the graduates from these first class institutions have not yet made any kind of important dent into the problems we all face, like climate change and healthcare for all. 

 

They haven't solved all our problems (that will never happen), but they have made life better.  For example, we have cleaner air now than in 1980.  (EPA)  We have amazing (and expensive) new medical treatments.  We have ever more efficient solar panels, batteries, wind generators, carbon capture, cleaner engines, and more.   We emit less greenhouse gas per person and per unit of GDP than we did in 1990 and more people have health insurance.

 

us-ghg-emissions-figure3-2016.png

 

 

 

image-1.png

 

No, the work isn't done.  There is much more for your daughter's generation to accomplish!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...