President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Moliere]

I think a better solution is to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, so the lenders have to actually underwrite loans and have some skin in the game. Instead of banning students from certain loans, put some impetus on the lenders to weigh and evaluate. I'm ok if a private lender says "Sorry, we won't lend you $65,000 for a year of liberal arts at Whittier college. But we will lend you $8,000 for a year of liberal arts at Chico State."

I think this is the right answer. I saw this as a parent of kids who are pursuing business and liberal arts degrees. My kids had some skin in the game and they made good choices in the cost of their education.

I do think a classical education is very important. A business degree should require English and Philosophy classes at least at the 100 or 200 level. Some of the best accountants I've hired had either a liberal arts bachelors or had hobbies in the liberal arts. In fact, maybe my best hire had a bachelors in guitar performance and a masters in accounting. It's amazing to me how difficult it is to get someone to think critically who hasn't studied complex literature or art or humanities.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think a better solution is to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, so the lenders have to actually underwrite loans and have some skin in the game. Instead of banning students from certain loans, put some impetus on the lenders to weigh and evaluate. I'm ok if a private lender says "Sorry, we won't lend you $65,000 for a year of liberal arts at Whittier college. But we will lend you $8,000 for a year of liberal arts at Chico State."

Hell yes. Even better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I can get on board with that. This move by admin is an ideological one tho.

Frank, this response makes zero sense. This would result in exactly the same outcome as what the Department of Education is proposing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think DH is right. Let the market determine what loans/degrees are worth. I don’t like the government making that decision. Kinda surprised some on here are more for government regulating it instead of market forces.

The government not giving away money when they shouldn't is not "government regulating it". Come on.

If the government is giving out loans, the government should due a little due diligence on the lending process. But if you are truly advocating that they stop giving out these loans altogether, then I agree with you.

[frank ryan]

Frank, this response makes zero sense. This would result in exactly the same outcome as what the Department of Education is proposing.

Jeff, these plans were part of the project 2025 agenda. They are deciding attacking majors that are female dominated. Master's level clinicians are very much in demand and can do quite well financially.

That doesn't align with what DH suggested.

The dept of has already engaged in other idealogical moves as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jeff, these plans were part of the project 2025 agenda. They are deciding attacking majors that are female dominated. Master's level clinicians are very much in demand and can do quite well financially.

That doesn't align with what DH suggested.

The dept of has already engaged in other idealogical moves as well.

This sounds like TDS paranoia.

Here is the actual press release:

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-...rning-outcomes

As the federal student loan portfolio approaches $1.7 trillion and more students are left financially worse off than if they had never attended college, now is the time for a hard reset in higher education. The Act presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rein in unsustainable student loan borrowing, better align postsecondary education with workforce needs, and bring uniform accountability across the higher education system.

Under the proposed rule, if the typical graduate of an undergraduate program does not earn as much as a high school graduate, the program will no longer be eligible for federal student loans. Graduate programs must similarly lead to earnings above those of an average bachelor’s degree holder. Programs that routinely fail to provide students with a reliable return on investment would lose access to federal student loans, and in certain cases, Pell Grants.

Again, if someone want to pursue a degree that has no financial return, good for you. Go for it! But don't expect US taxpayers to fund it.

The bar here is really low: "does not earn as much as a high school graduate". I think the easy access to federal student loans has proliferated a lot of useless majors that likely wouldn't survive without that support.

[The_Tick]

These aren't unneeded or poverty jobs. This is idealogical. I suspect they will try to shift the work towards pastoral counseling

I didn't imply that, nor would I. Those jobs are absolutely needed. The pay for those jobs though do put someone in a bind that takes out 150k in student loans to get those degrees. Now...if you end up working in a PSLF style job, not a problem. But PSLF keeps getting trimmed.

I was just sharing some factors that I considered when making my choices.

[The_Tick]

This sounds like TDS paranoia.

Here is the actual press release:

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-...rning-outcomes



Again, if someone want to pursue a degree that has no financial return, good for you. Go for it! But don't expect US taxpayers to fund it.

The bar here is really low: "does not earn as much as a high school graduate". I think the easy access to federal student loans has proliferated a lot of useless majors that likely wouldn't survive without that support.

This is the root of a lot of the Student Loan problem.

Increase amount student can borrow -> Colleges raise tuition to just past what students can borrow. So...government increases what can be borrowed, and then we are in a wash/rinse/repeat cycle.

It is the same thing we are seeing with increased minimum wage in California and Seattle. Pay is too low, increase pay. Pay increases, prices of everything increases. Now we are back to "minimum pay is too low". And it starts all over.

There is no magic bullet to fixing any of these issues. But no matter how it is addressed, each side is going to see it as a weaponization of something.

[frank ryan]

This sounds like TDS paranoia.

Here is the actual press release:

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-...rning-outcomes



Again, if someone want to pursue a degree that has no financial return, good for you. Go for it! But don't expect US taxpayers to fund it.

The bar here is really low: "does not earn as much as a high school graduate". I think the easy access to federal student loans has proliferated a lot of useless majors that likely wouldn't survive without that support.

Let's not pull out the TDS thing.

They are not funding jobs that pay well above a high school diploma. My point about ideology being at play isn't images or paranoia. I resent that.

We should not trust this admin to be normal or healthy

[frank ryan]

I didn't imply that, nor would I. Those jobs are absolutely needed. The pay for those jobs though do put someone in a bind that takes out 150k in student loans to get those degrees. Now...if you end up working in a PSLF style job, not a problem. But PSLF keeps getting trimmed.

I was just sharing some factors that I considered when making my choices.

I apologize, I think I read you wrong on that

I took out more than I should've but 150 would do crazy.

When I was looking around it made so much more sense to look at a solid top 25 stage school program than reach for the Ivy Leagues or USC.

I also realize that in my fields where you went to school isn't the best indicator and how you will perform and get good clinical results.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let's not pull out the TDS thing.

They are not funding jobs that pay well above a high school diploma. My point about ideology being at play isn't images or paranoia. I resent that.

We should not trust this admin to be normal or healthy

"They are not funding jobs that pay well above a high school diploma."

This is literally the opposite of what they are saying.

[LVAllen]

I don't think that's the assumption at all. Go ahead and get a non-paying degree, as long as you don't expect the federal government to pay for it. The purpose of a university isn't to get whatever education you want at whatever price. Banks lend money based on the ability of the borrower to pay it back. Why should it be different for student loans that the bank knows are unlikely to be paid back according to the schedule? A bank wouldn't lend on a home if the borrower's income cannot support the payments.

Also, I think the law school loans comment is a bit of a red herring here. You, as well as I, know that there are plenty of student loan forgiveness programs for lawyers that go into public interest law or similar careers. I have plenty of prosecutor friends that have taken advantage of that. It's ok for the government to provide an incentive to lure more people to go into underserved or public-service careers.

"Every child must be encouraged to get as much education as he has the ability to take. We want this not only for his sake - but for the Nation's sake. Nothing matters more to the future of our country: not our military preparedness, for armed might is worthless if we lack the brainpower to build a world of peace; not our productive economy, for we cannot sustain growth without trained manpower; not our democratic system of government, for freedom is fragile if citizens are ignorant." - LBJ.

In a world that is increasingly subject to hostile nations using every technology at their disposal to sway minds, and control the narrative, it is vital that people be exposed to critical thinking, to ideas and concepts that are foreign to them, to the arts, to history, and to people. This is a matter of national security. It is ridiculously shortsighted to assume that interest is the only benefit the US gets.

According to the Congressional record at the time, the entire purpose behind the Higher Education Act of 1965 (establishing the student financial aid program, including grants, loans, and work study, without respect for degree program) was "to encourage the needy student. In keeping with this, loans are made, without requiring a co-signer or collateral, to entering freshmen whose future academic success and income cannot be forecast." Freshmen (who had the highest dropout rate, regardless of school or degree) were a bad risk, and they had difficulty getting loans at all.

Meanwhile, every Bachelors program shows positive return when compared to high school, including the ones they are claiming they don't want to fund. So, to the extent they are claiming that they are just trying to ensure students aren't worse off, that's horseshit.

[All-American]

This sounds like TDS paranoia.

Here is the actual press release:

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-...rning-outcomes



Again, if someone want to pursue a degree that has no financial return, good for you. Go for it! But don't expect US taxpayers to fund it.

The bar here is really low: "does not earn as much as a high school graduate". I think the easy access to federal student loans has proliferated a lot of useless majors that likely wouldn't survive without that support.

One other point of note, going along with yours-- and focusing on the next sentence after the one you are looking at:

Under the proposed rule, if the typical graduate of an undergraduate program does not earn as much as a high school graduate, the program will no longer be eligible for federal student loans. Graduate programs must similarly lead to earnings above those of an average bachelor’s degree holder.

We really don't have a problem with undergraduate student loans; we have a problem with graduate student loans. Nearly half of student debt is from graduate school, even though there are roughly five times as many undergraduate students. Undergrads have an average of less than $30,000 of federal loans; Graduate students average over $100,000 in federal debt.

The second part is where most of the work needs to be done to make meaningful improvement. And the threshold is similar: if the numbers show that graduates of the program are worse off than people who never entered the program in the first place, access to loans will be cut off. We can't stop people from making bad decisions, but we don't have to actively facilitate financial self-destruction.

[falafel]

"Every child must be encouraged to get as much education as he has the ability to take. We want this not only for his sake - but for the Nation's sake. Nothing matters more to the future of our country: not our military preparedness, for armed might is worthless if we lack the brainpower to build a world of peace; not our productive economy, for we cannot sustain growth without trained manpower; not our democratic system of government, for freedom is fragile if citizens are ignorant." - LBJ.

In a world that is increasingly subject to hostile nations using every technology at their disposal to sway minds, and control the narrative, it is vital that people be exposed to critical thinking, to ideas and concepts that are foreign to them, to the arts, to history, and to people. This is a matter of national security. It is ridiculously shortsighted to assume that interest is the only benefit the US gets.

According to the Congressional record at the time, the entire purpose behind the Higher Education Act of 1965 (establishing the student financial aid program, including grants, loans, and work study, without respect for degree program) was "to encourage the needy student. In keeping with this, loans are made, without requiring a co-signer or collateral, to entering freshmen whose future academic success and income cannot be forecast." Freshmen (who had the highest dropout rate, regardless of school or degree) were a bad risk, and they had difficulty getting loans at all.

Meanwhile, every Bachelors program shows positive return when compared to high school, including the ones they are claiming they don't want to fund. So, to the extent they are claiming that they are just trying to ensure students aren't worse off, that's horseshit.

LBJ? The guy that called a tailor in Dallas and asked for extra room in the crotch for his "bunghole"? You might want to update your references. You are 65+ years stale.

[frank ryan]

LBJ? The guy that called a tailor in Dallas and asked for extra room in the crotch for his "bunghole"? You might want to update your references. You are 65+ years stale.

I'll take stale over what we have at the present.