NationStates

Among the many major issues facing the United States is the country's student debt crisis. Over the past 40 years, college tuition costs and related fees have skyrocketed several fold, far beyond a rate that simple inflation can explain. In order to afford higher education, many students turn to student loans to help pay for college. Many of these interest-baring loans come from the federal government, and are supposed to be paid back over the coarse of 10 years after graduation, in addition to the interest. The average American college student accumulates $34,000+ in debt for just a basic bachelor's degree, with many getting into even heavier debt.

With student debt payments usually being $300.00+ a month, many former students struggle to make ends meet. Between inflation, rising housing prices, a fickle job market, and often meager starting wages, student debt is often a major burden for college graduates as they struggle to get their lives started. The COVID-19 pandemic greatly exacerbated the situation with the massive inflation and a considerably weaker, less stable economy.

While there is no denial that America has a student debt crisis, there is a lot of debate over how it should be solved. Recently, President Biden attempted to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for most students who are in debt to the federal government. However, a ruling by a federal judge in Texas struck down the student loan forgiveness plan. An appeal by the Biden administration is possible, but unlikely to succeed as the 5th circuit is dominated by conservative judges.

With outright debt forgiveness now likely off the table, other proposed solutions include making all federal student loans zero interest. While this would certainly mean a slight reduction of monthly student loan payments, it likely won't be enough to help new graduates in a meaningful way. Another proposed solution is to double the length the time in which the loans have to be paid off, essentially cutting monthly payments in half.

And of course, there are a few who believe that nothing should be done about the crisis... for whatever reason. Personally, I support limited student loan forgiveness for all low to middle income recipients, in addition to making all federal student loans zero interest and requiring universities to lower their costs.

What are your thoughts?

Free post-secondary education.

Eahland wrote:Free post-secondary education.

That's certainly a nice idea. Pretty reasonable, too. Elementary school is free. Middle school is free. High school is free. Why can't public colleges also be free? Why must the knowledge and skills necessary for a good life be hidden behind a paywall?

We should vet where the tuition money is really going after it is paid to colleges/universities and crack down on whether these schools are in effect a rip off or overpromising people in being an expensive ticket into the middle or upper income classes if they graduate.

Some licensed professions like Doctor/Lawyer/Accountant are doing just fine. But other degrees that teach a lot of Liberal ideology, I'm not so sure on as far as if it is practical and hence, deserves continued funding.

Saiwania wrote:We should vet where the tuition money is really going after it is paid to colleges/universities and crack down on whether these schools are in effect a rip off or overpromising people in being an expensive ticket into the middle or upper income classes if they graduate.

Some licensed professions like Doctor/Lawyer/Accountant are doing just fine. But other degrees that teach a lot of Liberal ideology, I'm not so sure on as far as if it is practical and hence, deserves continued funding.

There are massive problems in medical education in this country that desperately need to be fixed. You don't know about these problems, because you have never bothered to become informed about a topic before offering your opinion on it.

This is also the reason why the rest of your post is wrong.

Some state post-secondary institutions are indeed affordable to residents. And there are grant programs and scholarship programs. As a society, the US states committed to providing education through secondary institutions. And that's because they also required it. So society also foots the bill. But post-secondary education is a completely different story. I don't have much sympathy for folks who refused to live within their means and then want push those costs off on society. But this is the same mentality that got bailed out of irresponsible home buying, and private business problems, so this is consistent.

Fractalnavel wrote:Some state post-secondary institutions are indeed affordable to residents. And there are grant programs and scholarship programs. As a society, the US states committed to providing education through secondary institutions. And that's because they also required it. So society also foots the bill. But post-secondary education is a completely different story. I don't have much sympathy for folks who refused to live within their means and then want push those costs off on society. But this is the same mentality that got bailed out of irresponsible home buying, and private business problems, so this is consistent.

"refused to live within their means."

So...college only for the rich. Cool. Gotta keep dem' poors in their place.

Eahland wrote:Free post-secondary education.

Yes, here in Canada too. It seems most European countries already do it, or at least have it set at a low cost. It would mean higher taxes, but I'd absolutely be fine with that if it meant anyone could get educated without worrying about crippling debt. Unfortunately raising taxes is a hard sell in places like the US and Canada, though.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Fractalnavel wrote:Some state post-secondary institutions are indeed affordable to residents. And there are grant programs and scholarship programs. As a society, the US states committed to providing education through secondary institutions. And that's because they also required it. So society also foots the bill. But post-secondary education is a completely different story. I don't have much sympathy for folks who refused to live within their means and then want push those costs off on society. But this is the same mentality that got bailed out of irresponsible home buying, and private business problems, so this is consistent.

"refused to live within their means."

So...college only for the rich. Cool. Gotta keep dem' poors in their place.

Not at all. Actually, horrifying. But post-secondary is/was (should be? different discussion) more of a meritocracy. And to support that there are grant programs based on financial need. That's how I got through it, among other things. Premier private schools? Always the realm of the wealthy. There are plenty of very good schools in the state systems.

The social contract can be changed. At that point 'forgiving' reasonable debt could be on the table. But only to the extent it would be equivalent to the state offerings. No one owes anyone private school tuition.

Should the social contract be changed? Pros & cons there.

What crisis? People willingly went into debt (sometimes funding useless degrees). It is not the taxpayers duty to bail them out.

Big Jim P wrote:What crisis? People willingly went into debt (sometimes funding useless degrees). It is not the taxpayers duty to bail them out.

Define "useless degree".

Laasmistan wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:What crisis? People willingly went into debt (sometimes funding useless degrees). It is not the taxpayers duty to bail them out.

Define "useless degree".

Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it. Advanced education is not a trade school. But so many people treat it that way. Other than a few professions, that wasn't the case - sometime back in the mid-20th century. Now? So it's more of an expectations thing, on all sides, being out of sync with various realities.

If someone wants to do ivy league and study philosophy, that's great. Not a taxpayer responsibility though. I don't think taxpayers should necessarily be funding trade schools either, however they are defined, but I realize that's a minority position.

A lot of the problem is potential employers inflating requirements. What we end up with is just what we see now, and the whole system has been devalued. And yes, the university system is part of the problem. Not all, but many.

Maybe now college is just extended high school, and should be handled similarly. But community colleges have been a thing for that already. No one wants those - they want the 'name' institutions, and then complain that they aren't getting a return on their investment.

It's understandable that this gets framed the way it does. Maybe jump ahead a generation or two, and visualize how this works out...

-----

ETA: On the topic of fraudulent schools: yes, that has become a problem. Needs a different response. As for debt forgiveness based on financial need and a base level cost, that is similar to what I described above, moving towards acknowledging post-secondary as part of the the expected school program. Extended now to 16 years. It needs to be understood, though, that this is not equivalent to the prior systems.

Fractalnavel wrote:

Laasmistan wrote:
Define "useless degree".

Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it. Advanced education is not a trade school. But so many people treat it that way. Other than a few professions, that wasn't the case - sometime back in the mid-20th century. Now? So it's more of an expectations thing, on all sides, being out of sync with various realities.

If someone wants to do ivy league and study philosophy, that's great. Not a taxpayer responsibility though. I don't think taxpayers should necessarily be funding trade schools either, however they are defined, but I realize that's a minority position.

A lot of the problem is potential employers inflating requirements. What we end up with is just what we see now, and the whole system has been devalued. And yes, the university system is part of the problem. Not all, but many.

Maybe now college is just extended high school, and should be handled similarly. But community colleges have been a thing for that already. No one wants those - they want the 'name' institutions, and then complain that they aren't getting a return on their investment.

It's understandable that this gets framed the way it does. Maybe jump ahead a generation or two, and visualize how this works out...

I don't believe any degree is truly useless, especially since many employers now require them even for entry level positions in their companies. I know some businesses actually like philosophy degrees specifically too because it demonstrates a candidate's ability to think outside the box.

Fractalnavel wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:"refused to live within their means."

So...college only for the rich. Cool. Gotta keep dem' poors in their place.

Not at all. Actually, horrifying. But post-secondary is/was (should be? different discussion) more of a meritocracy. And to support that there are grant programs based on financial need. That's how I got through it, among other things. Premier private schools? Always the realm of the wealthy. There are plenty of very good schools in the state systems.

The social contract can be changed. At that point 'forgiving' reasonable debt could be on the table. But only to the extent it would be equivalent to the state offerings. No one owes anyone private school tuition.

Should the social contract be changed? Pros & cons there.

Ah, so you think that it's just an issue of private colleges because you got through on grants so obviously it wasn't public schools.

Alright, everything's calibrated now.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Fractalnavel wrote:
Not at all. Actually, horrifying. But post-secondary is/was (should be? different discussion) more of a meritocracy. And to support that there are grant programs based on financial need. That's how I got through it, among other things. Premier private schools? Always the realm of the wealthy. There are plenty of very good schools in the state systems.

The social contract can be changed. At that point 'forgiving' reasonable debt could be on the table. But only to the extent it would be equivalent to the state offerings. No one owes anyone private school tuition.

Should the social contract be changed? Pros & cons there.

Ah, so you think that it's just an issue of private colleges because you got through on grants so obviously it wasn't public schools.

Alright, everything's calibrated now.

Also put into your calibration that it was 40 years ago. And yes, tuition has gone way up. The world has changed. But doesn't it always? And those grants: tiny. State school, resident tuition. Lived at home. Took a bus. Or a junker car. Or carpooled.

People are going into debt with state schools ('public' can mean the opposite in certain systems)? Have the financial aid systems and subsidies failed, then? Should we be delivering those after the fact?

People went to university because of the money they expected to make afterwards? Well... that does seem irresponsible. I almost didn't go at all. Education was its own reward, for all involved.

So now everyone expects to be able to given more schooling. That wasn't always the case. I do remember grade inflation issues even 30 years ago. Not only did people start to think they were entitled to more education, they also felt entitled to not only passing grades, but exemplary ones. All that did was erode the education.

All employers requiring college: big problem. Of course most jobs won't pay off, they never would. They just aren't that valuable and don't actually need a college degree, even severely devalued ones. Which leads to all the fraudulent programs.

On the other hand, if we want to go the guaranteed basic income route, have at it.

Educational inflation/credentialism, where more and more jobs require a degree, combined with people having to take out loans to get a degree, creates a perfect trap to keep people poor.

You either don't get a degree and spend your life working low paid jobs, or you get heavily into debt in order to have a chance of getting a better job. It's a trap, if only there was some meme to express that idea.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Fractalnavel wrote:Some state post-secondary institutions are indeed affordable to residents. And there are grant programs and scholarship programs. As a society, the US states committed to providing education through secondary institutions. And that's because they also required it. So society also foots the bill. But post-secondary education is a completely different story. I don't have much sympathy for folks who refused to live within their means and then want push those costs off on society. But this is the same mentality that got bailed out of irresponsible home buying, and private business problems, so this is consistent.

"refused to live within their means."

So...college only for the rich. Cool. Gotta keep dem' poors in their place.

It really is. That’s why it costs so much. There’s no reason why it’s so expensive otherwise, the price of similar services has dropped massively over the past few decades. It also explains the state of the admissions system.

And stop calling working class people “poors”. I know you think you are scoring a point over your peer group but it’s actually just insulting to people who grew up in poverty.

Where’s the “College should be made completely free” option on the poll?

Entirely independently of whether or not people 'deserve' debt relief (which is a meaningless argument), the existence of that debt burden, like medical debt, is an enormous threat to the economy writ large. Large chunks of people's income and productivity go towards servicing the debt instead of being saved or invested or spent as part of normal consumption. It's a structural problem that needs solving, simple as that.

Fractalnavel wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Ah, so you think that it's just an issue of private colleges because you got through on grants so obviously it wasn't public schools.

Alright, everything's calibrated now.

Also put into your calibration that it was 40 years ago. And yes, tuition has gone way up. The world has changed. But doesn't it always? And those grants: tiny. State school, resident tuition. Lived at home. Took a bus. Or a junker car. Or carpooled.

People are going into debt with state schools ('public' can mean the opposite in certain systems)? Have the financial aid systems and subsidies failed, then? Should we be delivering those after the fact?

People went to university because of the money they expected to make afterwards? Well... that does seem irresponsible. I almost didn't go at all. Education was its own reward, for all involved.

So now everyone expects to be able to given more schooling. That wasn't always the case. I do remember grade inflation issues even 30 years ago. Not only did people start to think they were entitled to more education, they also felt entitled to not only passing grades, but exemplary ones. All that did was erode the education.

All employers requiring college: big problem. Of course most jobs won't pay off, they never would. They just aren't that valuable and don't actually need a college degree, even severely devalued ones. Which leads to all the fraudulent programs.

On the other hand, if we want to go the guaranteed basic income route, have at it.

Jesus, that was all over the place. It's like a shotgun blast of half formed ideas. I don't suppose you'd like to pick one and work it through?

Kerwa wrote:
And stop calling working class people “poors”. I know you think you are scoring a point over your peer group but it’s actually just insulting to people who grew up in poverty.

You're gonna wanna crawl down from that there cross my friend. No one was calling working class 'the poors'. You have to work yourself into quite the fucking pretzel to get there. I was calling poor people poor. That's why I used the word "poor". If I meant the working class I would have used 'working class'. If for some reason you see the word 'poor' and think "working class" that's really a you problem, not a me problem. I don't know what peer group you think it is I'm scoring points for but maybe you wanna take that chip off your shoulder and read things a little more directly.

Laasmistan wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:What crisis? People willingly went into debt (sometimes funding useless degrees). It is not the taxpayers duty to bail them out.

Define "useless degree".

One that doesn't make you enough money to pay off the loans.

Big Jim P wrote:What crisis? People willingly went into debt (sometimes funding useless degrees). It is not the taxpayers duty to bail them out.

Interesting to see a libertarian want very badly for the government to get money that could be going into the actual economy.

Big Jim P wrote:

Laasmistan wrote:
Define "useless degree".

One that doesn't make you enough money to pay off the loans.

Aaahh yes, because the ever-natural free market is great at properly rewarding the important professions for the development of humanity, and will absolutely be fair and just about the wages they pay to their graduated workers. Aye, good dream. Try going into a developing country, see how well a researcher gets paid nowadays, and how much they suffer trying to advance technological development and scientific endeavour in their country. In many places, an "useless degree", according to this definition, are the ones achieve by microbiologists, or anthropologists, or sociologists. If you want a specific example, look up Brazil and how fucked scientific initiative funding is.

Point is, if you let the market choose what should be important, you'll get an alienated population of skilled workers that don't think nor produce any sort of critical thinking. Perhaps you don't recognise that, but researchers of the human sciences, such as philosophers and sociologists, are important to the development of human thought. Engineers, medical doctors, and lawyers aren't the only "useful" professions out there, but they are, often, the most valued ones, simply because they have more economically rewarding applications when it comes to the private sector. A company cannot find a sociologist useful, and therefore, they have less work opportunities, but this simply does not mean they're "useless".

Big Jim P wrote:

Laasmistan wrote:
Define "useless degree".

One that doesn't make you enough money to pay off the loans.

cough cough
arts, humanities