http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2...laves.html
Quote:It has become a highly efficient racket.
Let's say that you want to provide a substandard product to people who cannot afford it.
Using the power of the media you convince them that they must have this product. Most especially, you convince them that they must provide this product for their children, lest they be considered bad parents.
Since they cannot afford to buy the product, you offer to lend them the money. They need not worry about paying the money back because the product they are buying will bring them so many monetary advantages that it will pay for itself.
When the time comes to pay back the loan they discover that the product is substandard and largely overvalued. It has roughly the same intrinsic value as a tulip bulb had in Holland in the seventeenth century.
At that time otherwise sober Dutchmen mortgaged their homes and their futures in order to buy single tulip bulbs.
When purchasers of the substandard product discover that they cannot use it to pay back their loans, the politicians get more involved.
Desirous of buying the votes of the purchasers they offer to reduce the interest rates on the loans, or else, to socialize the losses. That means that they want to have taxpayers pick up the cost.
and
Quote:Right now, student loans are sold on the basis that “college” promotes higher earnings. But “college” isn’t an undifferentiated product. Some degrees — say in Electrical Engineering — increase earnings dramatically. Others — in, say, gender studies — not so much. A rational lender would be much more willing to finance the former than the latter.
Clearly, the hucksters who are selling the value of “college” have been treating it as an “undifferentiated product.” In a real market, Reynolds suggests, lenders would be able to differentiate between the potential value of different degrees.
Frank Bruni echoes the point:
I’d go even further than he does and call for government and university incentives to steer students into the fields of studies that will serve them and society best. We use taxes to influence behavior. Why not student aid?
Everyone knows that if lending institutions were allowed to differentiate they would cease funding Humanities majors, and, most especially gender studies and other politically correct majors.
Teachers of the Humanities bear the greatest responsibility for this debacle.
Alot more that's worth reading.
Student loans accrue interest daily, meaning if you wait until the day before it is due to submit your payment almost your entire payment goes to the interset rather than the principle, so in essence, you never pay it off if you always wait until right before it is due. The whole system is a fraud.
These days the kids take out college loans with the choice of studying anything they want and when no one is interested in someone with a degree in the ancient Egyption woman's movement the blame the peeps who gave them the loan. Like Obama, nothing is their fault.
(05-02-2012 04:44 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2...laves.html
Quote:It has become a highly efficient racket.
Let's say that you want to provide a substandard product to people who cannot afford it.
Using the power of the media you convince them that they must have this product. Most especially, you convince them that they must provide this product for their children, lest they be considered bad parents.
Since they cannot afford to buy the product, you offer to lend them the money. They need not worry about paying the money back because the product they are buying will bring them so many monetary advantages that it will pay for itself.
When the time comes to pay back the loan they discover that the product is substandard and largely overvalued. It has roughly the same intrinsic value as a tulip bulb had in Holland in the seventeenth century.
At that time otherwise sober Dutchmen mortgaged their homes and their futures in order to buy single tulip bulbs.
When purchasers of the substandard product discover that they cannot use it to pay back their loans, the politicians get more involved.
Desirous of buying the votes of the purchasers they offer to reduce the interest rates on the loans, or else, to socialize the losses. That means that they want to have taxpayers pick up the cost.
and
Quote:Right now, student loans are sold on the basis that “college” promotes higher earnings. But “college” isn’t an undifferentiated product. Some degrees — say in Electrical Engineering — increase earnings dramatically. Others — in, say, gender studies — not so much. A rational lender would be much more willing to finance the former than the latter.
Clearly, the hucksters who are selling the value of “college” have been treating it as an “undifferentiated product.” In a real market, Reynolds suggests, lenders would be able to differentiate between the potential value of different degrees.
Frank Bruni echoes the point:
I’d go even further than he does and call for government and university incentives to steer students into the fields of studies that will serve them and society best. We use taxes to influence behavior. Why not student aid?
Everyone knows that if lending institutions were allowed to differentiate they would cease funding Humanities majors, and, most especially gender studies and other politically correct majors.
Teachers of the Humanities bear the greatest responsibility for this debacle.
Alot more that's worth reading.
Good stuff.
The relationship between sky-high tuition, the student loans racket, the societal mantra of 'needing' to attend college, and the selection of degrees with little chance of producing an income to cover those loans in a reasonable time is well worth discussing. And the more light that is shed on it, the better.
Blame this crap on all the Mountain State Universities and Troy Universities. They line up people who would never get a degree from a real university and charge a fortune in exhange for an easy easy degree. These are the schools with tons of specialist who line there "students" up with federal loans...these students then live off the loans...until the loan comes due...
(05-03-2012 07:26 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2012 04:44 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2...laves.html
Quote:It has become a highly efficient racket.
Let's say that you want to provide a substandard product to people who cannot afford it.
Using the power of the media you convince them that they must have this product. Most especially, you convince them that they must provide this product for their children, lest they be considered bad parents.
Since they cannot afford to buy the product, you offer to lend them the money. They need not worry about paying the money back because the product they are buying will bring them so many monetary advantages that it will pay for itself.
When the time comes to pay back the loan they discover that the product is substandard and largely overvalued. It has roughly the same intrinsic value as a tulip bulb had in Holland in the seventeenth century.
At that time otherwise sober Dutchmen mortgaged their homes and their futures in order to buy single tulip bulbs.
When purchasers of the substandard product discover that they cannot use it to pay back their loans, the politicians get more involved.
Desirous of buying the votes of the purchasers they offer to reduce the interest rates on the loans, or else, to socialize the losses. That means that they want to have taxpayers pick up the cost.
and
Quote:Right now, student loans are sold on the basis that “college” promotes higher earnings. But “college” isn’t an undifferentiated product. Some degrees — say in Electrical Engineering — increase earnings dramatically. Others — in, say, gender studies — not so much. A rational lender would be much more willing to finance the former than the latter.
Clearly, the hucksters who are selling the value of “college” have been treating it as an “undifferentiated product.” In a real market, Reynolds suggests, lenders would be able to differentiate between the potential value of different degrees.
Frank Bruni echoes the point:
I’d go even further than he does and call for government and university incentives to steer students into the fields of studies that will serve them and society best. We use taxes to influence behavior. Why not student aid?
Everyone knows that if lending institutions were allowed to differentiate they would cease funding Humanities majors, and, most especially gender studies and other politically correct majors.
Teachers of the Humanities bear the greatest responsibility for this debacle.
Alot more that's worth reading.
Good stuff.
The relationship between sky-high tuition, the student loans racket, the societal mantra of 'needing' to attend college, and the selection of degrees with little chance of producing an income to cover those loans in a reasonable time is well worth discussing. And the more light that is shed on it, the better.
I've always said that *if* your going to use the govt to provide student loans it should only be for needed fields of study...
(05-03-2012 07:48 AM)No Bull Wrote: [ -> ]Blame this crap on all the Mountain State Universities and Troy Universities. They line up people who would never get a degree from a real university and charge a fortune in exhange for an easy easy degree. These are the schools with tons of specialist who line there "students" up with federal loans...these students then live off the loans...until the loan comes due...
Well I would not throw Tory, a public institution which is about 150 years old in there but you can look at "institutions" like Mountain State and UOP...
When I started working I decided to try UOP to fit my schedule. Did one semester and it was a joke, it was beyond a joke by sophomore year of HS was more academically challenging.
So after about ten years off I am looking at UM (Minnesota) despite the 'inconvenience' of having to go to a class.
But people want to throw the governments money around to "help people" even if only a fraction of these loans get paid back..
Show me one other loan type whos repayment flexes around your income, or that is discharged while in good standing after x number of years..
(05-03-2012 08:36 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2012 07:26 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2012 04:44 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2...laves.html
Quote:It has become a highly efficient racket.
Let's say that you want to provide a substandard product to people who cannot afford it.
Using the power of the media you convince them that they must have this product. Most especially, you convince them that they must provide this product for their children, lest they be considered bad parents.
Since they cannot afford to buy the product, you offer to lend them the money. They need not worry about paying the money back because the product they are buying will bring them so many monetary advantages that it will pay for itself.
When the time comes to pay back the loan they discover that the product is substandard and largely overvalued. It has roughly the same intrinsic value as a tulip bulb had in Holland in the seventeenth century.
At that time otherwise sober Dutchmen mortgaged their homes and their futures in order to buy single tulip bulbs.
When purchasers of the substandard product discover that they cannot use it to pay back their loans, the politicians get more involved.
Desirous of buying the votes of the purchasers they offer to reduce the interest rates on the loans, or else, to socialize the losses. That means that they want to have taxpayers pick up the cost.
and
Quote:Right now, student loans are sold on the basis that “college” promotes higher earnings. But “college” isn’t an undifferentiated product. Some degrees — say in Electrical Engineering — increase earnings dramatically. Others — in, say, gender studies — not so much. A rational lender would be much more willing to finance the former than the latter.
Clearly, the hucksters who are selling the value of “college” have been treating it as an “undifferentiated product.” In a real market, Reynolds suggests, lenders would be able to differentiate between the potential value of different degrees.
Frank Bruni echoes the point:
I’d go even further than he does and call for government and university incentives to steer students into the fields of studies that will serve them and society best. We use taxes to influence behavior. Why not student aid?
Everyone knows that if lending institutions were allowed to differentiate they would cease funding Humanities majors, and, most especially gender studies and other politically correct majors.
Teachers of the Humanities bear the greatest responsibility for this debacle.
Alot more that's worth reading.
Good stuff.
The relationship between sky-high tuition, the student loans racket, the societal mantra of 'needing' to attend college, and the selection of degrees with little chance of producing an income to cover those loans in a reasonable time is well worth discussing. And the more light that is shed on it, the better.
I've always said that *if* your going to use the govt to provide student loans it should only be for needed fields of study...
No. The world needs thousands of people with doctorates in eighteenth century literature and poly sci...as long as China has engineers why do we need them.?