The Student Loan debacle. Obviouisly Trump and DeVos's fault

[Scout26]

Since the Fed.Gov took over the student loan program as part of Obamacare (and then outsourced collection) we've heard nothing but the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those who stupidly went in way over their heads in obtaining student loans, pretty much expecting to never have to pay it back.  Remember how we were told how mean, cruel, and callous the banks were.  Well, they didn't hold a candle to the feds.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/08/debt-student-loan-forgiveness-betsy-devos-education-department-fedloan/

[makattak]

In defense of the morons, they're morons.

Additionally, they've been pushed since before they were born that the only hope of a good life is to go to college. No sacrifice is too much to GO TO COLLEGE. If you don't GO TO COLLEGE you will be suffering for your entire life and you will be a miserable failure.

Most people will listen to every message in their life telling them the same thing, even if it's wrong. At least now some people are starting to say... "Uh... cost versus benefit?"

If we can get the corporate world to stop requiring college degrees for things that clearly don't require them, we may finally get some sanity in this area.

[230RN]

Yeah, the Denver bus company (RTD) required a copy of one's college diploma to become a driver.  No kiddin'.

They wouldn't take mine because it was in Latin.  No kiddin'.

Pretentious little school.  No kiddin'.

The bus company finally accepted it.

But they required a college degree in the first place.  No kiddin.'

To drive a bus.  Seriously.

[lee n. field]

"Education" isn't really getting us what it's supposedly for.   The "education-industrial complex" just sucks up all available money. 

[makattak]

"Education" isn't really getting us what it's supposedly for.   The "education-industrial complex" just sucks up all available money.  

It's a vicious cycle: There's a massive pool of individuals programmed to think college is the only answer for them.

And they are given LOTS of "free" money. Very few colleges exist that their imprimatur on your diploma will get you a better job.*

So most colleges compete on "experience" and "amenities". And those experiences and amenities cost a lot of money. And the only response to other colleges offering more or better experiences is to make yours even better (and more costly.)

As a result, colleges are far more than what they were just 30 years ago. Massive stadiums/sports complexes/significant staffing increases (because they aren't adding much more instruction, just more "experiences") and colleges are MUCH more expensive just to pay for what exists.

If the "free money" weren't there, we'd see a lot more competition on cost. Effectively the only schools competing on cost are the "Junior Colleges".



*Even the Ivy Leagues don't seem to have much in the way of effect on future earnings. Those who are accepted to the Ivy Leagues but go somewhere else tend to do just as well as those who do go to the Ivy Leagues. Maybe the results are different for those not accepted on merit (legacies, for example), but I haven't seen a study on that.

[DittoHead]

Just looking at the statistics it's very easy to see why 'go to college' was the boilerplate, easy advice to give out. If you can finish college then chances are good you'll be better off - that was certainly the case 20 years ago and to my knowledge it's still true. The times have changed, more people fail to finish and the debt is harder to get out of but the 'standard advice' is still catching up.

And as long as employers can require a degree and still get a good number of applicants, why wouldn't they? It proves that you can stick with something for 4 years if nothing else. It also means you can probably put up with stupid bullsh** from your superiors for years on end, follow some basic directions, and manage your time. That's exactly what many employers want from employees. I get that a job's duties might not be related to a degree but it's a really easy shortcut if you just need to narrow down your applicant pool.

[Pb]

The best thing the feds could do is eliminate involvement in school loans. Period.  Tuition would fall like a rock, and there would be fewer idiots in college.

[Boomhauer]

Many of these idiots are the same ones who would sign up for classes and drop out when the surplus financial aid checks were disbursed then repeat as often as they could. *expletive deleted*ck em

[makattak]

Just looking at the statistics it's very easy to see why 'go to college' was the boilerplate, easy advice to give out. If you can finish college then chances are good you'll be better off - that was certainly the case 20 years ago and to my knowledge it's still true. The times have changed, more people fail to finish and the debt is harder to get out of but the 'standard advice' is still catching up.

And as long as employers can require a degree and still get a good number of applicants, why wouldn't they? It proves that you can stick with something for 4 years if nothing else. It also means you can probably put up with stupid bullsh** from your superiors for years on end, follow some basic directions, and manage your time. That's exactly what many employers want from employees. I get that a job's duties might not be related to a degree but it's a really easy shortcut if you just need to narrow down your applicant pool.

It may be "very easy" but it's an extremely costly signal.

There are other signals that could be used, but for government interference. The SAT/ACT is a very good predictor of how well you will do in college.

As such, it would likely be a very good predictor for businesses as well. It is also several orders of magnitude cheaper than a college education, which can allow the business to offer lower starting wages to weed out those who won't be able to handle working there.

But businesses are VERY wary of using anything that might get them extra scrutiny by the Federal Government because of "disparate impact." So, they use the extremely costly signal of a college education.

[MillCreek]

And as long as employers can require a degree and still get a good number of applicants, why wouldn't they? It proves that you can stick with something for 4 years if nothing else. It also means you can probably put up with stupid bullsh** from your superiors for years on end, follow some basic directions, and manage your time. That's exactly what many employers want from employees. I get that a job's duties might not be related to a degree but it's a really easy shortcut if you just need to narrow down your applicant pool.

As a corporate healthcare hiring manager, I approve of this post. When I post a position, I may get dozens of resumes, but by using the right filter criteria in the applicant tracking system on education, I can winnow down the numbers to a manageable level.  For virtually all of my healthcare management jobs, I would not have gotten them if I did not have a MBA or MHA.

[MechAg94]

I heard a police officer say his department requires a college degree.  They didn't care what it was in.  They just used it as an indicator that you had started something and finished it.  

That probably used to be measured by high school before they started pushing students along regardless of whether they learned anything.  

Some of it is partly cultural.  People without college degrees are treated like Flyover Country by the elite types.  They give them little respect until something breaks and they need it fixed. 

[charby]

Why do I see this turning into a giant class action lawsuit and lot of loans are forgiven?