But there are students with loans who went to vocational or trade school, right...?

The conversation here seems to just assume we're talking about 4-year degree people.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

I see this comment a fair amount.... I don't know what I think about it, but it certainly seems there's a not inconsequential number of people who feel that way.

... and they will tell their Congress-critter how unfair any blanket debt wipeout is for the young whippersnappers when THEY had to earn their way out of debt.

Political calculus is a problem -- people feeling "unfairly treated", justified or not, can indeed wreck the best of plans.

Personally, though, I think the folks who feel it "unfair" that the younger/newer generation gets a better deal with regards to education funding should just get over it. We don't stop freeing all slaves just because some former slaves worked their arses off to "earn their freedom." Either making more post-secondary education "free" is a good idea or it is not. To heck with intergenerational fairness. If you kids did not get to enjoy "free college," your grandkids will. You may not get a "refund" for putting your kids through college with your own dime, but your kids won't have to put your grandkids through college with his own dime. So just get over it.

As for whether making post-secondary education "free" is a good idea or not, I'm happy to read statistics and analyses and whatnot, but so far may sense of it is that post-secondary education is more widely needed now than before, for the simple reason that society and technology have advanced over time. There was a time when elementary education was "sufficient" for most people, until it is no longer. There was a time when high school education was "sufficient" for most people, I think that time has passed.

No need to limit ourselves to "four year college" when thinking about "post secondary" education, it can be vocational training and apprenticeships too. But most people need to go beyond mere "high school education" these days not only to further themselves but also to further their families and communities.

If we want to go by some sort of monetary "return on investment" criteria to decide what types of education to fund or not to fund (or what types of education's student loan debt to forgive or not to forgive), I am OK with excluding the less economically productive fields of studies. You want to concentrate public resources on STEM and vocational training but exclude various social studies and liberal arts, I'm OK with that. Maybe then only "the rich" can afford to study the arts in colleges, but I am OK with that too.

There are so many good policy ideas floating around out there to improve access to higher education and help promote success once enrolled. Debt elimination isn't even formally before Congress in any form yet. It's not "this idea or nothing."

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
There are so many good policy ideas floating around out there to improve access to higher education and help promote success once enrolled. Debt elimination isn't even formally before Congress in any form yet. It's not "this idea or nothing."

Mr. Sanders on line 2. He’d like a word.

quote:

Mr. Sanders on line 2. He’d like a word.

quote:

If we want to go by some sort of monetary "return on investment" criteria to decide what types of education to fund or not to fund (or what types of education's student loan debt to forgive or not to forgive), I am OK with excluding the less economically productive fields of studies. You want to concentrate public resources on STEM and vocational training but exclude various social studies and liberal arts, I'm OK with that. Maybe then only "the rich" can afford to study the arts in colleges, but I am OK with that too. Smiler

I am definitely not okay with that. Fvck STEM.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:
Or parents who made huge sacrifices to pay their kid's way so they wouldn't start out in life in debt, possibly compromising their ability to retire?

Not sure there is any way to make this "fair."

I was gonna say... on a personal level, Kathyk and I worked hard, saved and saved, skipped travel vacations, all so three kids could graduate without loans. I also did not retire until 69. I don’t feel warm and fuzzy about others who borrowed instead of saved getting a pass.

Jf

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:

Mr. Sanders on line 2. He’d like a word.

I'm sure he would.

Here is (are) his word(s).

"College for All"

The first iteration of this bill got exactly zero Senate co-sponsors. It was DOA at the relevant committee. I suspect this version will be as well.

Then there are more serious proposals, like this Federal/State partnership idea from retired Senator Tom Harkin that also foundered in a divided Senate.

Harkin's Bill

The relevant portion is "section 499" on page 542. It envisions a Federal/State partnership to induce low-spending states to raise their own higher education appropriations using block grants that increase (to a point) as states raise spending per student.

I got Harkin's team to include part (d), AUTHORITY TO COMPROMISE on p. 552, which would allow states a "safe harbor" to temporarily cut spending during a recession without losing Federal support. Without that, the "partnership" would automatically destabilize state budgets since they would lose federal revenues supporting their universities in any recession that forced the state to cut its own budget.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Frost:

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:
Or parents who made huge sacrifices to pay their kid's way so they wouldn't start out in life in debt, possibly compromising their ability to retire?

Not sure there is any way to make this "fair."

I was gonna say... on a personal level, Kathyk and I worked hard, saved and saved, skipped travel vacations, all so three kids could graduate without loans. I also did not retire until 69. I don’t feel warm and fuzzy about others who borrowed instead of saved getting a pass.

Jf

Indeed. We did the same, although with one daughter it was admittedly easier. In almost all cases I see the average student loan as little more than an inconvenience. I think the average these days is around $20K, the price of a cheap car. I cannot shake the feeling that those who went in much deeper are liable to do the same thing with credit cards and mortgages as well. At least in most cases they got a degree that cannot be repossessed.

I managed to arrange for my two sons to graduate with only trivial debt, through massive maneuvering with both schools' financial aid departments. (One I had been in touch with since that son was only ten years old, for pertinent reasons.)

There are a categories of disadvantaged students who are scarcely ever able to get sufficient aid through the present gospel of FAFSA. My sons are in one.

Namely two parent families, one or more of whose parents flat-out refuse to contribute penny one to their children's college education.

Harvard was extraordinarily flexible/generous to write off that son's missing contribution (another two sources too, but the big one was not penalizing the son for the stingy dad) .

Even that wealthy school, can't afford to ignore the missing contribution of an unwilling parent but they did exceptionally.

(They asked me not to spread the word, but I have decided that considering how much has changed since those days (laws governing how applicants can or can't have their awards arranged with any flexibility. One change is COVID)'s immense impact on schools' budgets. )

Without flexibility, neither son would have been able to attend ANY school. (Well, perhaps a community college - which his incompetent adviser recommended ) Our situation colors my own preferences as other parents have expressed because their own experiences.

As Pique highlighted, non-STEM majors are also disadvantaged.

I favor advantages such as help with student loans being variable according to individual need. For example, when considering a $15 minimal wage (and I do NOT have any idea why this hasn't been under discussion) the amount should be adjusted by zip code or other way of contextualizing the worker''s COL. Without such modifications, I can see why RW social planners accuse liberals of believing in "pie in the sky".

IMO individualizing benefits like loan adjustments should be figured according the relative advantage/need of the student/their family. Likewise, the context of the beneficiary of whatever advantage is proposed should be considered rather than given across the board. .

Likewise, when looking overall at proposed socio-economic changes, advantages to the whole society should be factored in. A more moderate approach to spending programs, would acknowledge the finiteness of resources! An approach Biden ran on as a moderate.

What about expanding programs like ROTC, AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps? Even medical programs (for doctors, PAs and nursing degrees) can be paid for by a few years of post-graduate work in underserved areas. Everything doesn't have to be a hand-out.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:
Fvck STEM.

Why?

I'm not buying the whole "I had to scrimp, save and suffer and so should everyone else..." as a good reason not to consider loan forgiveness.

The bottom line for any of these programs: we incentivize what we want to see increase. Forgiving student loan encourages students to remain in school, restart school and actually finish, etc. Further, it helps those with huge student debt to actually become consumers, home owners, etc., which is all good for the economy. Carrying around a bunch of people with decades of loans to pay off seems like poor public policy to me.

I get that it isn't fair, but there are a lot of things we are dealing with that aren't fair.

I'm also coming from the perspective that we overvalue private school higher education. If you want to really get people fired up, talk about how their expensive private school education has zero to negative ROI compared to a similar education from a public school. Oh, but the connections! the experience! the quality of education! I've never agreed with that. I am a public school product, my kids went to public schools. Mr. Nina is 100% private, so it's not like I don't see the other side of the coin. I just don't agree that a private school (and its associated cost) is worth the money, if you have to go into significant debt to go there. Maybe a medicare model would work--public education is free and/or highly subsidized, or student debt from public schools is forgiven or reduced. If you want to go to a private, that's your choice but if you can't afford the tuition or get financial aid to let you afford to go there, the public shouldn't be on the hook to finance your choice when there are other options available.

Of course, I also agree with SK, education should be free.

quote:

Forgiving student loan encourages students to remain in school, restart school and actually finish, etc.

Why? It's a one-time thing. How will this encourage more access to higher education?

Do we want marginal students who would not have chosen to go heavily in debt today to borrow heavily in the future, believing that some future government will forgive their debts too?

Loan debt actually encourages students to stay in school and earn higher grades, i.e. modest loan amounts are a nudge to good behavior.

Student Loan Nudges

It's easy to tell JF and Pique to get over it, but millions of Americans will be everything from unsettled to royally pissed off to see such a large transfer of wealth go mostly to those who will easily wind up in the top third of the income distribution.

Transfer wealth to any group and you'll see that group better off, and they'll spend more with trickle down benefits to others. Note that I used that trickle down term. If you really want to make the disadvantaged better off and you're willing to give away 1.5 trillion dollars, I can think of, oh, about 95 different ways to to a better job of it than giving the bulk of that 1.5 trillion to America's future rich.

Our youngest and his girlfriend are among the many with college diplomas only able to find entry-level, near minimum wage jobs. So many were sold the story (lie in the current economy) that going into debt (due to much higher costs than past years) would position them better for future earnings.

I'll read op-eds about this generation hurting the economy because they aren't being 'good' consumers and working towards homeownership. Such a joke when just making the loan payments drains away any room for consumer spending, not to mention about future financial planning. It is a time-bomb planted on much of a generation.