• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Tuition Forgiveness

Good point. Lowering the cost requirement does not have to mean lowering the merit requirement. No reason we can’t get people to their highest level of aptitude and passion and then reap the benefits as a society of another productive member.
 
Tobacco Road said:
Good point. Lowering the cost requirement does not have to mean lowering the merit requirement. No reason we can’t get people to their highest level of aptitude and passion and then reap the benefits as a society of another productive member.
Click to expand...

As someone who has dabbled in being an educator at 4 “public” universities over the last 20 years (TA at two, quasi-prof at two) there are plenty of students that are there just because they aren’t ready to grow up. So, as progressive as I am, I think tying college tuition remission to performance is a pretty good idea.
 
Making college education free for everyone would just carry over the problems of public school K-12 to K-16 and keep raising the floor for employers to try to differentiate. Instead of needing a college degree to work a job that should just need a high school diploma, candidates will need a masters degree to cut that meat. College professors would become the new disgruntled high school teachers. Floating people farther along in a broken system does nothing to solve anything but double down on the same problems. You didn't learn anything useful in your first 13 years of public education, so let's try 4 more.
 
What the hell are you talking about? I learned a tremendous amount of “useful” stuff through high school and college.
 
he's suggesting that hiring managers will need a bottom floor of qualification to differentiate candidates. if everyone is a bachelor holder it's basically a useless measure of qualification, so they'll start throwing those at the bottom of the list, like people with HS diplomas now.

it's not that there aren't quality candidates in that pool, just that simple time/energy of hiring will create new standards when considering candidates
 
That’s already happened and I was intending that comment towards the part of his post that said public education didn’t teach anything “useful”.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Given some of 2&2's arguments, I think it is entirely possible he didn't learn anything K-12.
As has been pointed out, attaching a high financial cost to college for students then just results in maintaining your family wealth as a primary filter on employment opportunity. I'm not sure why the bootstraps crowd doesn't want to design the system to use merit as the filter.

eta: of course I know why the bootstraps conservatives want family wealth to be a determining factor on who gets to go to college.
 
Remind me again why having less information ever helps a person make better decisions.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

But then a generation of blue collar sons that previously would have gone directly into the workforce instead enrolled in mostly government subsidized colleges to avoid being drafted into a bullshit unjust war on Vietnam, so the government had to stop subsidizing those colleges to ensure that only sons from white collar families with real professional potential could use college as an excuse to avoid military service.
 
 
LOL at "Maga Again." Someone posted the name for those the other day, like "ATM Machine."

Republicans are making the calculation that people in their base will just take the loan forgiveness and still vote and publicly be against it like they do with SNAP, free lunch, abortion, social security, etc.

Judging from social media, I don't think they understand how cruel they are going all in on the idea that someone who likely has or will pay double what they owed is a deadbeat.
 
PhDeac said:
LOL at "Maga Again." Someone posted the name for those the other day, like "ATM Machine."

Republicans are making the calculation that people in their base will just take the loan forgiveness and still vote and publicly be against it like they do with SNAP, free lunch, abortion, social security, etc.

Judging from social media, I don't think they understand how cruel they are going all in on the idea that someone who likely has or will pay double what they owed is a deadbeat.
Click to expand...

They are not paying double what they owe, they are paying what they owe. If you borrow $20k at 5% interest you don't owe $20k, you owe $20k plus 5% interest. If that turns into $40k because of the time it took you to pay it back, then you owe $40k, not $20k. This is not a hard concept. Anyone who doesn't understand that or is somehow surprised by it is likely a deadbeat, was probably too stupid to go to college in the first place, and per Louie on the Hartman thread has reached the point of being publicly mocked as an idiot.
 
Ph's line of inquiry that holds that interest is some sort of mysterious phantasm is a weird tack
 
2&2/ITC's claim that interest is some immovable object rather than a fee that a lender can choose to waive is a weird tack.

Either way, the argument against the plan is that borrowers are somehow stealing from taxpayers. That's obviously not the case when people are paying back double or triple what they owe.
 
PhDeac said:
2&2/ITC's claim that interest is some immovable object rather than a fee that a lender can choose to waive is a weird tack.

Either way, the argument against the plan is that borrowers are somehow stealing from taxpayers. That's obviously not the case when people are paying back double or triple what they owe.
Click to expand...

no one claimed that but OK.
 
PhDeac said:
2&2/ITC's claim that interest is some immovable object rather than a fee that a lender can choose to waive is a weird tack.

Either way, the argument against the plan is that borrowers are somehow stealing from taxpayers. That's obviously not the case when people are paying back double or triple what they owe borrowed.
Click to expand...

I think the difference here is between what they borrowed and what they owe. You're saying that they are paying back 2 times what they borrowed and ITC etc. are right that the owe 2 times what they borrowed. But that is the problem with these loans and the way they are structured and sold to 18 year olds. 5% interest sounds not too bad, but it is hard to recognize that in 20 years you'll still be paying $500 a month on a $50000 loan you took out at the age of 18.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
no one claimed that but OK.
Click to expand...

You must not have an internet. I’ll let you borrow mine sometime.


birdman said:
I think the difference here is between what they borrowed and what they owe. You're saying that they are paying back 2 times what they borrowed and ITC etc. are right that the owe 2 times what they borrowed. But that is the problem with these loans and the way they are structured and sold to 18 year olds. 5% interest sounds not too bad, but it is hard to recognize that in 20 years you'll still be paying $500 a month on a $50000 loan you took out at the age of 18.
Click to expand...

Right. “But that’s the way it is” is a bad argument against “that’s not how it should be.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top