Student Loan Interest Rankles College Grads 1259
theodp writes "Like many recent college grads, Steven Lee finds himself unemployed in one of the roughest job markets in decades and saddled with a big pile of debt — he owes about $84,000 in student loans for undergrad and grad school. But what's really got Lee angry are the high interest rates on his government-backed student loans. 'The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%? The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?' Not only that, federal student loans are the only loans in the nation that are largely non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, have no statutes of limitations, and can't be refinanced after consolidation, so Lee can forget about pulling a move out of the GM playbook. And unlike mortgages on million-dollar vacation homes, student loans have very limited tax deductability. A spokeswoman for the Department of Education blamed Congress for the rates which she conceded 'may seem high today,' but suggested that students are a credit-unworthy lot who should thank their lucky stars that rates aren't 12% or higher. Makes one long for the good-old-days of 3% student loans, doesn't it?"
All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Direct loans were cheap, and the consolidation brought them down to ~5% afair. I know the new loans are not as cheap, but thats because some idiot decided having non-direct loans and promising a profit to everyone who serviced them. Doh!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure where the mentions loans were from, but my loans have all been cheap too. My lowest interest rate was 4.5% and the highest was around 6%.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the UK our student loans are linked to inflation. My current APR is -0.40 :)
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hypothetical question. Would it be possible to "repay" a student loan by taking money from credit card cash advances, paying off the student loan, then defaulting on the credit card and filing bankruptcy? Or perhaps during the housing bubble someone could have done the same with a home equity loan? I'm just curious what the legal implications would be here.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[ Disclaimer: I work for a non-profit company in the Student Loan business who has been around for 25+ years ]
The reason loans rates were low had nothing to do with DIRECT loans. The FFEL (ie; non-DIRECT) program has exactly the same rates, and existed long before DIRECT was even a thought. These rates are determined by Congress, and are a supposedly based on the governments cost of getting loans from the private sector (T-Bills, etc...) DIRECT loans was an attempt to remove private enterprise from the s
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Informative)
In Australia, an average degree costs about $20K to $30K (depending on arts vs science/law/engineering/etc) and there's no interest on the government loan. It is, however, indexed to inflation.
If you go overseas, you don't have to keep paying it until you return to Australia, and it is terminated upon death. That maximum rate it is taken from you pay at is 7% and that only starts when you hit about $30K to $40K per year.
This only applies to degrees taken at public universities, but most of the universities in Australia are public (certainly all the best ones are).
So to hear about this system America uses is quite disturbing. The university attendance rate over there must be exceptionally low?
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems to be an argument to reduce university tuition costs, not reduce interest rates.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you been to a US college recently? The one near me is still on a building spree that it has been on at least since I started there, eight years ago (I graduated and found a job in town). They have spent AT LEAST a half a billion dollars since I started paying attention, with the largest chunk being the first 100 million dollar expansion of the stadium to build box seats for rich donors. All this for a school with 30,000 students.
Also, you don't think the housing boom was caused by freely available cheap credit? Hell, while I was still in school, I was able to get a mortgage while I didn't even have a job! The mortgage payment was cheaper than rent!
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)
The university attendance rate in the U.S. is way, way too high, and will get even worse if interest rates on student loans are lowered further below the free market rate.
Yes but think of how good the youth unemployment figures look with so many young people studying!
yep, but it's not politically correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Every degree is valuable, you know? Every student must get a degree! (probably because we already watered down the high school diploma by insisting that every student must get one, no matter if they can't effectively understand math usage or the meaning of something they read)
Imagine the outrage if it were suggested that physics, engineering, and math were more worthy than black studies, women's studies, and LGBT studies. We're going to Hell in a very nicely woven handbasket.
Perhaps the worst thing is that this perpetuates the idea that college education is generally worthless. When people see college graduates failing in the job market, they often conclude that education is not worth any effort. The correct conclusion is of course that your field of study matters, but that doesn't generally sink in.
outrage noted :-) (Score:5, Informative)
That just got modded "flamebait" by somebody who clearly resents being reminded that some degrees (his own most likely) have nearly zero economic value.
It's an annoying way to stifle debate, but at least I find it amusing. :-/
Re:outrage noted :-) (Score:4, Interesting)
Physics and maths are just theory, they have no economic value at face value and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moronic anti-intellectual who has no idea what either of those is or does. Also, someone who doesn't understand the meaning of economic value.
Hah! I guess you were going for giggles with that one. An abstract theory per se has little economic value, but the application of physical theory (which is all but inevitable) can create wealth. Since the development of theory is expected to be followed by practical uses, economists do assign value to such theory (as usual, they have difficulty estimating the value, except in hindsight). However, your statement made me recall an old saying which I heard as a freshman about 35 years ago:
"A physicist is a theoretician of engineering. An engineer is a practitioner of physics. Mathematics is their common language."
Re:outrage noted :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to someone who majored in medical physics and works at GE.
Tell that to the guys who work down the hall from me who design high performance motors for hybrid and electric vehicles.
Tell that to the mathematician doing model parameter estimation in our software.
You already told *me* - the software guy who uses math on nearly a daily basis.
Tell the business folks who employ these people.
BTW, I believe everyone mentioned here makes 6 figures. So no, there must not be economic value in math and physics.
Maybe you're one of those wall street guys that put the economy in the toilet because they all used the same flawed mathematical model for planning purposes - because they don't have too many math folks, because they have no economic value. Or the MBAs who say people in the US will just outsource and "manage" everything, because none of those things like engineering, design, manufacturing, distribution, etc... are "economically valuable".
Re:outrage noted :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you need to consider a time scale. One could have made that same remark re practicalities 100 years ago. But when I look back at the math that was done 100 years ago, I find very little of it unused. Physics is similar. Quantum theory was basically useless when it was developed...until now. Evolution was useless, now we use it to predict the course of flu epidemics.
Science and math form a web, and it is impossible to predict just how those future practicalities correspond to any one particular theory. It isn't even clear how one does that with current practical devices, they rely on so much that went on before in very complicated relationships.
Re:yep, but it's not politically correct (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:yep, but it's not politically correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Academia rightfully doesn't give a sh** about weather it's preparing you to shuffle work around or not. That's not it's goal, and I don't think it should be. It's goal is for you to learn things, and perhaps eventually further the field for the few that choose to continue. Learning for learning's sake is their goal and an admirable one.
I hate to break it to you, but I don't give a damn about the goal of learning. I am in college entirely for the hope of a better career. I wouldn't even consider college more than a formality. Knowledge is only valuable when it is useful. If you are a doctor you likely will not benefit any from studying Greek artwork career-wise. If you enjoy it then studying for the purpose of enjoying it might be worth it to you, but it likely won't be of any real use to spend the time and money studying it for no real reason.
Learning, like many things in life, requires the investment of time and money, both of which are finite resources with alternative options for use, therefore learning "for learning's sake" is not always a wise choice. Sometimes it is best to be rationally ignorant if your time and money would better be spent elsewhere.
I find it problematic that academia is much more concerned with idealistic views of learning and jumping through their hoops than with the pragmatic goal of preparing their customers for a career.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
I take it that you didn't notice you were living in a democracy. Degrees like history or philosophy that have no direct application to employment (although the skills developed in doing such a degree have a general application) are exactly the sort of degrees that engender an informed and capable citizenry capable of properly holding its representatives to account. A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.
It has long been a dream of fascists to eliminate such forms of education for precisely that reason.
And before anyone starts, you should already have noticed that the same phenomenon occurs with science degrees. Some of those who think science degrees are great as long as science graduates are making useful widgets tend to get very agitated when science graduates start using their education to hold policy makers to account (climate change is an obvious example, as is teaching evolution in schools).
Beware those who say that all education must be "useful". They often have a hidden agenda.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Degrees like history or philosophy that have no direct application to employment (although the skills developed in doing such a degree have a general application) are exactly the sort of degrees that engender an informed and capable citizenry capable of properly holding its representatives to account. A citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history is more easily duped.
The problem isn't history/philosophy/sociology majors themselves. Quite a number of them do good, valuable things for the country and their fellow people (especially if their academic and intellectual experience is tempered with some real-world experience). The problem is the number of people who don't go to school for those things, but who go because "everyone needs to go to college" and they choose a major like that because they need to choose something. Coorectly or not, they pick something that sounds easy just so they can have a degree--and everyone knows that "you need to go to college to have a good job".
Part of the problem is that we're encouraging people to go to college when they aren't going to use it or even care about it. We've elevated the office job and made skilled trades a thing of contempt. The guy who sits in a cubicle churning out TPS reports a five-year-old could write is automatically elevated over a master CNC machinist and programmer simply because he has a degree and works in an office. There ought to be no shame in taking up a trade like machining or welding; a good machinist, for example, is as valuable to a company as any engineer.
Now don't get me wrong--it's always great for people to go and learn more. It's always a good thing to have a better-educated populace. But I think the current pushes of "everyone must go to college" and "you need a degree to get a decent job" force too many people to go befre they can afford it, and therefore take on piles of debt for something they don't need. Ideally, it would be far better to wait until they could afford it.
To put it another way, going tens of thousands into debt just to get a generic degree is stupid.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the number of people who don't go to school for those things, but who go because "everyone needs to go to college" and they choose a major like that because they need to choose something. ....
The guy who sits in a cubicle churning out TPS reports a five-year-old could write is automatically elevated over a master CNC machinist and programmer simply because he has a degree and works in an office. There ought to be no shame in taking up a trade like machining or welding; a good machinist, for example, is as valuable to a company as any engineer.
As someone who lives in a Uni town, worked in a machine shop, got some college, and now sits in a cubical (well.. I do not to turn out TPS reports.. thank the FSM); I wholey endorse the parent and agree with what the comment said.
I see tons of people that think college is just a 4-year extension of High School, and the degradation of the K-12 US schooling system (or it seems like it's dumber then when I was in it), means that often HS grads are in fact not qualified for basic jobs.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Interesting)
Having met a large number of history and philosophy majors, I can tell you that they are no more politically and/or civically informed or capable than the average engineering or physics major.
It is not the field of study that counts for "an informed citizenry." The seeds for "informed and capable" are sown well before high school. The prejudice against arts & humanities majors isn't because those fields are less important, but because those fields have made more allowances for jackasses who don't belong in college, and permit the graduation of citizens who are not informed or capable and will never be, thanks to the indoctrination in the culture of "know-nothing" by their parents and early teachers.
Also, please refrain from implying that us lowly widget-makers are somehow beneath the likes of Al Gore. By claiming science lobbyists as more important than actual researchers, you demean the work of thousands upon thousands of scientists actually producing the technology required to combat climate change.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't Lennon, it was McCarthy.
default rates by degree (Score:4, Informative)
According to http://www.springerlink.com/content/u380751518251x56/ [springerlink.com]
"Majoring in a scientific or technological discipline, earning good grades, persisting to degree completion, getting and staying married, and not having dependent children are all actions that substantially increase the likelihood of repayment and lower the likelihood of default."
You have to pay to get the full publication I guess, but that first part says what should be obvious: people with nerd degrees don't default.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most ignorant post of the day award goes to you, Profane MuthaFucka (The name says it all, right?). How do you propose that College employees (Professors, Adjuncts, Non-teaching Staff, Maintanence, etc) get paid if education was free. I'm sure it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy to keep minorities out of college, right? Has nothing to do with economics, nahh that'd be nuts.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
He does bring up an interesting point though, admittedly in a stupid and ignorant way.
Why isn't education free? It's sure as hell free right up to a high school diploma, so why not free after that?? Government subsidizes some enormously unimportant and stupid shit and don't even get me started on the bail outs. Too late...
I'm sure his post can be seen as ignorant but it DOES create a question in many people's minds why Wall Street, the supposed bastion of white elitism, get's a bailout while the rest of America does not? I have yet to see any benefit from it. Other than the few in the service industries receiving large ridiculous payments for lavish "gloating" parties.
So why don't we just clawback 90% of their pay, it's not like that would not leave them with multiple times the average American salary, and use that to forgive all student loans?
Where is the *real* bailout for the American people?
I understand capitalism and the supposed free market (fuck-it, it DOES NOT EXIST) but why does it have to be labeled as socialism and pinko-communism to have the idea that education should be one of the few things that is supported solely by the government? Why does free education always have to be instantly equated to unpaid teachers and staff?
We are going to turn into a 3rd world country without education reform in our lifetimes. Part of that reform must be a federal education budget, that cannot be withheld from the states under any circumstances, and appropriately funded college educations. I am also definitely for removing high school and changing it to a trade school/college prep 5 year time period. Trade school does not have to a bad thing either. How about seriously training some of our young people for once? Paying local businesses, which can include IT firms, to take on young apprentices and actually give 5 years of subsidized real world experience. Operating tech/trade labs where young people can get hands on training in contemporary technology used in the field? Maybe instead of having a high school diploma we could just have certifications instead. Meaningful Certifications too, not worthless MCSE's. That's not a troll either, all of the MCSE's I have met have been near worthless and the ones that are not will candidly tell you how much they needed to learn outside of the certification to survive and get their jobs done.
I am sure that a lot of people could tear this post to shreds, but you know what? Education is not working right now and the only thing we seem to be able to do is to churn out young people by the thousands that have no real skills and start out saddled with debt at unreasonable rates that cannot be erased.
P.S - I would gladly pay a 5% tax rate on all good, services, and income if I KNEW it went straight into the education system in a way that it could not be diverted to anything else like SS has been in the past. At some point I might be retired and will have to rely on all those stupid young people for 20-40 years not to fuck things up too much till I die. The last thing I want to be is 75 in a grocery store being told by a 19 year old that they can't give me change because the machine is, "like all broke or something", while the cash tray is open and all they have to do is reach in and grab it. Oh wait... that was last week. Of course there are the good days too. When another young person get's handed a 100 dollar bill to pay for something and I get handed back 160 dollars as change. Of course I sweetly pointed out that she should check her math again and she blushed and said thank you. I wish I was kidding about those two incidents. Sadly I am not.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
Higher education isn't free for several reasons.
First, kids don't value free stuff, but they'll take it anyway. University is already "13th grade" to many people, and by telling kids that they can shirk responsibility and stay in high school as long as they want without paying for it is just crazy. Who wouldn't want to live the college life as long as possible? It's certainly a lot less stressful than "the real world." The only thing saving college from the unmitigated mediocrity of high school is the fact that they know they'll eventually pay for this lifestyle (or their parents are on their case because *they're* already paying for it.)
Second, it isn't required for survival. Many people get along just fine without college degrees, and indeed, don't need them in their day to day lives.
Third, it increases the number of people staying because of the Mom and Dad factor. I'm of the opinion that even the upper grades of *high school* are a waste on a significant number of people, because they simply don't care and are only there because they "have to be." Yes, they could theoretically drop out at 16, but Mom and Dad won't hear of it because they're convinced that little Johnny is throwing away his opportunity to become President one day. The fact that Johnny harbors an *active disdain* for the idea of school and learning in general doesn't ever seem to sink in.
The fact that people pay for University and take on a certain amount of risk means that people have to *think about it* before going or sending their kids. Do they really want to do it? Are they willing to put in the work necessary? How long are they willing to pay for it? Maybe in other countries the culture is different, but I fear in America, the disdain for learning that I observed during my time, and continue to observe in kids today, guarantees that government funding of higher education will be nothing more than another money sink with no tangible benefit. Scholarships, grants, and tuition assistance exist for a reason. Let them pick the people who are qualified for the privilege.
Re:All mine were cheap! (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting point and I agree that your concerns are valid. However, what about the idea of figuring out which kids are qualified for higher learning early on? That you don't have the right to receive a higher education, only the right to the opportunity to prove you are worthy of it?
I would argue that a lot of your concerns could be mitigated quite well by starting a "sorting" process in 7th, 8th, or 9th grade. Give every child a free and basic, but well rounded education throughout elementary school right up to around 14-16 years old.
In Johnny's case I don't think it as much an active disdain for learning as it is a deep frustration with how it is being done and whether or not it will ever apply to him. He might be bored, disinterested, and probably just does not give a fuck about most of what they are trying to jam into his skull in high school. He is probably overwhelmed, or just fixated on jamming something else into Suzy.
So why not revisit the idea of trade schools? Johnny might really like the idea "pimpin' other people's cars". Johnny might be really interested in how to build houses with cool new technology. Why not teach him hands on how to create a pre-fab house? Install wiring, plumbing, solar panels, and actually CREATE something. Instead of learning a bunch of "useless" uninteresting crap and taking multiple choice tests Johnny might find an exciting sense of accomplishment in working his peers and adults to create something that actually has an immediate and practical real world use. One in which he is immediately acknowledged to have some value, and perhaps... even paid a small amount. More importantly Johnny is not treated like he is worthless and stupid. He chose to enter the adult world with contemporary skills he can apply now. His choice.
For those children that truly have a passion for learning, research, and science we can put them into programs designed to prepare them directly for a College/University environment. These children would understand the only way they get to make it to a College or University is by merit. They would need to demonstrate that they WANT it. For those that choose the hard path, understanding the rewards it contains, they would be allowed to study with teachers that are actually well paid. Better equipment, smaller classes, more attention to the students individual pace and requirements. Those that can prove they can absorb the knowledge and apply it get to advance and ultimately be tested. Those that pass are entitled to choose the particulars of their higher education.
Other countries have similar attitudes and ideas about education and the U.S is probably lucky to still be in the top 20 for education. Perhaps we should take some lessons from these countries, or at least recognize that what we have right now does not work.
It's cheap compared to India... (Score:4, Informative)
In India, student loans are 12% compound interest; while the borrowing rate in good banks is as high as 7.5% compunded quarterly.Money makes the world go round...
Re:It's cheap compared to India... (Score:4, Informative)
But in India, education is also highly subsidized and in a lot of universities, the fee structure is merit-based (i.e. your ranking in your entrance examinations determine which stratum you fall under).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your inflation in the long run (10+ years) is 8%. I think the US is 3%.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Experience from academia (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked at a mid size private university in the midwest and tuition rates were astronomical ($30k for undergrad). I think the loans are one thing but tuition rates are a larger issue. I wondered how they stayed in business especially these days.
Re:Experience from academia (Score:5, Insightful)
tuition prices are so high because kids keep getting approved for loans. I imagine schools might someday see the same thing the housing market has recently if the prices keep going up faster than inflation [miamiherald.com]. Can't sustain that forever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
tuition prices are so high because kids keep getting approved for loans.
No, they're high because so many kids are trying to get into schools. Supply and demand.
Student loans are enabling/helping it, but it isn't the root cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is most certainly a root-cause. You're confusing desire with economic demand. The demand can only be realized because of the abundance of student loans. Decrease the availability of student loans and the demand that the be realized by the schools will go down, even while the desire for students to attend may stay the same.
Demand is only a useful term in that it is a desire for a product that can actually be acted upon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Universities moreover are excellent at price discrimination: charging you exactly as much as you're willing to pay, and maximizing their profit. Most students will even fill out forms to help the university price-discriminate against them better. It's called "financial aid". And yes, if there is more money available to the typical student for attending college, the typical college is able to charge more, plain and simple.
I lucked out with a big fat faculty-dependent tuition concession and graduated with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This hilarious thing about the point you make is that when your financial ability to pay is determined, they factor in how much your parents make, even if they cannot afford to help you pay for school. I had this problem and they determined that I made too much to get grants even though my parents could only do so much to help me.
Re:Experience from academia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Experience from academia (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they're high because it's a service where productivity can't increase very much.
Rubbish. Folks like you cry we need to spend more money on education, so we give state universities more money, and they blow it on administrators or programs that are ancillary to actually putting useful knowledge into someone's head.
Your argument is only an argument for tuition prices tracking with inflation- but they've been rising at double the inflation rate.
If your state's making money at its institutions, please have them contact mine so we can resolve our huge current deficit.
It's not a matter of profit, it's a matter of finding new and creative ways to blow taxpayer and tuition money on expenses arguably, vaguely related to education.
State universities don't spend money efficiently because they don't have to. There are too many idealists out there who think that pouring money into the universities guarantees getting better results out. This isn't the case.
State Universities are run by mortal men and women, who make the same mistakes and misteps as the rest of us. The letters after their names simply indicate the possession of specialized knowledge, which is entirely unrelated to the efficient operation of a university.
Re:Experience from academia (Score:4, Insightful)
No again, they are high because the universities keep spending (on research programs, out of control construction projects, etc) more than they bring in, and they are bringing in (though endowment investment losses, decreasing alumni gifts, and less government support) less these days to boot. Almost all universites are non-profit, so "supply and demand" is irrelevant.
For example, Harvard has forecast over a $100M shortfall this year, and it has the largest endowment, one of the highest alumni donation rates, and,of course, one of the highest tuitions. They are not just raising tuition because "the students will pay", they are raising it because their costs are going up way too fast (which in the end is the thing that needs to be controlled to fix this problem...)
Re:Experience from academia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All your highfalutin ideas about education being the point of education is just fine as long as you don't have to worry that much about shelter and food. At the rate tuition is increasing though, a higher education will become the sole domain of the wealthy which means that countries with a system like that in Australia (mentioned above) are going to kick our plumbing asses one of these days.
In a sane sustainable society, education is seen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, how many societies have plumbers as heroes?
Well, we (America) did - at least during the 2008 election.
Skilled trades are not morons (Score:5, Informative)
There's a vast difference between the skilled tradesman and what you call morons. Give me a licensed master plumber, master electrician, mechanical contractor, etc and I'll show you someone that truly understands their field and has years of experience under their belt. Sure the variety of assistants range in ability like any job, but to label the actual skilled person as a moron shows you don't understand the field. That'd be like comparing someone who flips burgers to a skilled chef. Also the skilled trades are very strongly union in every major city, unions being one of the strongest backers of the Democrats.
As for continuing education much of the green movement is powered by installation of ultra high efficiency equipments. Pull up a wiring schematic for a 96% boiler and the various pumps and zone valves - it's anything but moronic work.
So what's up with the trades bashing? Watch a few episodes of Dirty Jobs and you'll see some examples of problem solving at the finest.
Re:Skilled trades are not morons (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm very thankful to see this reply to the earlier post bashing plumbers, electricians, etc. I'm a math professor, so I certainly value education, but I know that there are plenty of "morons" that end up with college degrees just because their parents were rich enough to foot the bill.
There are skill sets and learned knowledge that don't come from college yet are still immensely valuable to society. If my house is flooding from a busted pipe, I don't want an engineering professor trying to fix it, I want a plumber! And, I sure as hell don't want an electrical engineering professor wiring my house... I want a licensed electrician.
Now, here's my opinion on paying for a university education: never take on a ridiculous debt burden to go to school unless your career options will allow you to quickly pay it off. Just got accepted to Harvard Law School, congrats, of course it's worth getting $300,000 worth of debt. But most people can get a good education at a public university while paying in-state tuition rates. I plan on sending my kids to an in-state public school. (Unless they get some amazing scholarships or I win the lottery.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Typo in summary: detectability vs deductibility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Typo in summary: detectability vs deductibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I checked, student loan interest is deductible... I don't know what more of a handout this guy needs.
YOU SIGNED THE PAPERWORK, YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO A CHEAPER SCHOOL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm.. must be some difference (Score:5, Informative)
The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%?
Because if you default on the mortgage, they can take your house. Education repossession technology is still in beta. Even when it works it and rarely returns anything of value.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because clearly paying taxes isn't a return on the government's investment.
Re:Hmm.. must be some difference (Score:4, Interesting)
I think he meant you pay taxes once you get a job... But obviously if you are defaulting on a student loan, you are probably not paying much taxes either...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm.. must be some difference (Score:4, Insightful)
And when you default on the student loans your wages and other income gets garnished. That renders your point moot.
Provided that you have an income. If someone is defaulting on hist student loan (and given the generous forbearance and other options before the dishonorable default), what makes you think he actually still has his job?
If someone has a mortgage, then unless he's done something illegal he does have a house that can be repossessed—it may be worth less than the mortgage, but it's still something, unlike with education.
Student Loan Forgiveness Plan (Score:5, Informative)
Pay your loan for 10 years... and the government will excuse the rest.
Some restrictions apply...
http://www.nextstudent.com/articles/student-loans-forgiven.asp [nextstudent.com]
Re:Student Loan Forgiveness Plan (Score:5, Funny)
You are one what? You are a federal government? Or you are a loan forgiveness program?
Tough Shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but did they understand what the papers they signed meant, before they took the accounting classes?
Students are a gullible group.. if the banks convince them they need an 8% student loan, because for some reason they "are a poor credit risk", then the students who don't have the education yet are likely to sign, not even realizing there may be a possibility of finding another deal (or maybe there's not another option).
The claim students are a poor credit risk is one of the strangest... with a debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, has no statute of limitations, has a government guarantee behind it, including an ability to garnish wages, and these people taking out student loans are generally young people....
It seems like student loan debt is less of a credit risk than most other types of even secured debt.
I declare that: "students are a credit-unworthy lot who should thank their lucky stars that rates aren't 12% or higher."
Is basically nonsense.
It makes no more sense than saying "30 year olds are an uncreditworthy lot."
It's credit history that relates to creditworthiness, not being a student or not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are the doctors and lawyers the ones who can't repay their student loans?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can always walk away and not want the loan. Universities do not posess some secret knowledge, it's all in the books and if you can read you can learn. Smart employers will ignore your lack of degree if instead you present a lot of experience.
That's not the case if you want to be a professional engineer (a requirement in most places to be the engineer that signs off and takes liability for a project). Note the first requirement:
http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensure_for_engineers/ [ncees.org]
Step 1: Graduation -
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.
Re:Tough Shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the system is broken (which it is) then you can't just sweep the problem under the rug just by declaring it the result of a character flaw and refuse to address the system its self.
IF.
My view is that the system is broken precisely because it lends money to people who should not be borrowers due to their inexperience, and yes, character flaws.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe so but don't you think that it is worth looking into ways to improve the system we have now?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps universities are being phased out as the gatekeepers of knowledge; however, that doesn't mean that they're no longer useful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, what did he study, and how well did he do at it?
I've just graduated with a lot of people, everyone I know who did a valuable subject (Something in commerce, Engineering, IT, or similar) has obtained a job straight out of Uni, even in this economy. Sure it was maybe a little more competitive, but if you've got a solid degree, and aren't beneath working in lower positions, or for less money, there's always work.
Though most of my friends have done well, and some have done awesomely (Damn Petroleum Engine
That's a rip off (Score:4, Interesting)
Real world loans are going to really freak you out (Score:5, Informative)
There are two general type of student loans: direct and non-direct with a dirt cheap and a cheap interest rate. 8.5% is cheap for an UNSECURED loan that doesn't START accumulating interest until AFTER you graduate (actually Govt pays interest till you graduate).
Dude- you got $85K with ZERO collateral. The rate is NOT unreasonable. It is the best investment you can make for your future.
You can always become a teacher in the inner city or work 2 years for Peace Corps or any of the other methods the government has setup for most or all of your loan to be FORGIVEN.
Stop complaining about getting cheap money with no collateral and no limitation, except that you go to school.
Barking up the wronf tree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mortgages and car loans are secured loans, where the property or car that is bought with them is pledged as collateral. This makes a big difference for the interest rates. Student loans just ain't so.
Anyway, I've heard complaints like this about student loan rates before, and I've always had the same basic response: you're barking up the wrong tree. You don't really want lower interest rates on student loans; you want the government to spend more on making higher education affordable for those who qualify for it. There's a bunch of countries out there where if you get admitted into a university, the government picks up the tuition bill, period. Those countries ain't richer than the USA.
Grad student with huge loans (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Grad student with huge loans (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Grad student with huge loans (Score:5, Informative)
credit-unworthy or just greedy? (Score:5, Insightful)
If students are a "credit-unworthy lot" then limit the amounts they can borrow or make it a fixed amount that they must repay. Charging a higher interest rate for "credit-unworthy" people makes it more likely that they'll default, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. This holds true for all borrowers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, on the one hand, it makes sense: loaning money to someone unlikely to pay it back is a risky investment, and risky investments demand higher returns. If presented with a risky investment or a risk-free investment, both offering the same return, you'd never make a risky investment.
On the other hand, you're taking the very people who are least likely to be able to pay their loans off, and you're making it even harder. That makes no sense. It's just another example of it being more expensive to be po [washingtonpost.com]
High risk for lenders = high interest rates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK I see why that makes sense from the lender's point of view (they're just trying to balance things) but it's absolutely insane from the borrower's point of view. The high interest rates are what are paid by the people who DIDN'T default. They punish the wrong people -- the actual expense of the moochers is borne by the people who turned out not to be moochers after all.
not the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't finding a new fangled way for college student to be able to pay the enormous costs of college, it is to find ways to educate them more cheaply tha nwe do now. Online learning, competition, utilisation of open source textbooks... Be creative.
Restating the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm from the UK, and just recently I've been reflecting on the things that I took for granted in the UK that are pay-for over here in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I love living here, I've just married an USAsian who's simply wonderful, but there are things I miss...
Primarily of course, is universal healthcare. The NHS is so far and away better than the situation we have here in the US that it's just not funny. Leaving that argument aside, the other major thing is education. My new wife and I were thinking about where any future offspring might be educated...
If the USA stays the same course as it's currently on, I think my children (as UK citizens by birthright) may be going to the UK for their education. It's a lot cheaper, it'll broaden their minds by travelling, and the quality is generally very high.
Oh how things have changed. I no longer think of the USA as being the gold-standard of higher education. Now I think of it as being just a way of transferring money from rich people to educated people.
As it happens, my wife paid off her student loans (for a JD/MBA) this evening (well, they'll settle on Tuesday). For the cost she just paid, we could buy a small house in the UK. The only debt higher is our mortgage, and living in a nice house in a nice part of the Bay area, that's expected.
I didn't pay for my education (although these days if you don't go to Scotland you pay something in the UK - it's a *lot* less than over here in the US though). I gave the UK about 10 years of higher taxes as a result - probably less than they were expecting - but moved to the USA for the nicer weather
Simon.
I hate to break this to you (Score:5, Interesting)
If I didn't care about the state of play in the USA, I'd just up and leave, taking my family and my considerable yearly tax burden with me. I choose to stay and try to influence people as I can...
FWIW, my uncle was recently diagnosed with a heart problem back in the UK, he was in hospital the same day, operated on within 2 days and back home 2 days later. The only real down-side was that he couldn't attend the wedding because of the US insurance costs.
And two weeks before the wedding, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. She opted to put off the operation-date offered (1 week after diagnosis) and wait until after the wedding. Since then she's been back and had her operation.
My family is not rich. My father worked on the docks, my mother had a variety of part-time jobs through her life. Excellent, timely medical care is something she (and I, until I moved to the USA) take for granted, without any "recission", or "previously established medical condition" nonsense. If you're sick, see a doctor. Get better with as much or as little help as necessary. No co-payments. No payments (at the point of treatment) at all, and if you need heart surgery or extensive (5 years chemotherapy is being talked about for my mother) treatment, there's no questions asked...
There's no way my family could have afforded the medical insurance that would be equivalent to the care that my mother and uncle have just received. They of course don't consider this to be anything special, it's only when you don't have something any more, that you miss it. Similarly, I don't think americans miss it because frankly they've never experienced it. They just keep on telling themselves they have "the best healthcare system in the world", which (IMHO) is only true for the minority of rich americans that don't really need the insurance companies anyway...
Simon
Agreed (Score:3, Informative)
I'll be graduating next summer with a Masters in IT Management. (Undergrad in Simulation Design Engineering)
75k or so in loans, and the year I went to college they jacked up the interest rate to 6.8%.
And to everyone saying its unsecured debt needs to actually look into their facts. Student Loans can not be bankrupt on, if I don't pay, the gubmint will dock my pay. Which actually is a better deal that paying the loans, the max they can dock is 15% per check, and my loans will be way more than that to actually pay.
The loans are government backed, they should be no interest.
Nothing like starting life $100K in the hole (Score:4, Interesting)
The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'
To me this is a tragedy. Young people starting off almost $100K in the hole. I had student loans, so did my wife. Together they didn't add up to $40K and she went to grad school.
On a higher level this kills entrepreneurial opportunities at the time in life you have the most desire, creativity and energy to launch a new business. Many of you are stuck in low-paying, dead end jobs because of student loans...one of the reasons some companies like to hire right out of college. Student loans and health insurance. Wouldn't it be better to turn all that creativity loose developing new businesses and jobs? But how can you saddled with all that debt and no health care coverage?
We have to do something, not just for people in college now but those recently graduating into 9.5% unemployment. Whatever that is, it has to include cost controls on education. The cost of education is running way ahead of inflation and textbook companies are worse than the mafia (at least the mob runs prostitutes). This is crazy.
But what to do about it? If the government tried some kind of forgiveness program, Republicans would scream about budget deficits. Student loans are also a giant bank pork program and you can see what kind clout they have in Washington. So, it's got to be paid for somehow, deficit neutral, combined with cost controls on education and everyone on both sides of the political pork barrel have to STFU long enough to get it done.
College student; Please help. Won't work for food (Score:3, Informative)
'The rate for a 30-year mortgage is around 5%,' Lee said. 'Why should anyone have to pay 8.5%? The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'
Angry? You just got a "free" education, dummy. Sure, you have to pay the money back, but you didn't have to work and go to school intermittently for 10+ years hoping that you can finish your first degree before your credits are too old to apply. Your 401k/403b/457b/whatever will also have a 5-6 year head start, which will be amazing. College students from every previous generation have had a reputation for being poor. The subject of this post is a joke from a while back. Same as "Can you spare a dime? Working my way through med school."
I wonder why you're not considered credit-worthy? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's because you're borrowing over 80,000 dollars for a college education.
5 minutes with a spreadsheet would tell you how much and for how long you have just screwed yourself, and by borrowing that kind of money you prove that you can't or won't spend even that much effort to think before borrowing.
I think part of the problem is cultural: I was broke back when I went to college, and I needed loans; but I also knew that you should never borrow anywhere near enough to pay your whole tuition bill. That's far too much money to borrow even if you aren't dead broke. Poverty forces you into indebtedness, but it also makes you paranoid about accumulated debt, and you understand that something that costs tens of thousands of dollars will require you to eat Ramen, work multiple jobs, and make affordable choices even if someone will extend you credit.
But now I hear horror stories about students who borrow enough money to buy a house in much of the USA, and use that to pay for an entire four-year degree plus graduate school. It's like the kids don't understand that they're poor; they get a credit line and stop acting like people who have to work for a living.
We've taught them well haven't we? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?"
Why not, indeed?
Besides the fact that we have no money left, didn't before we started, and have been borrowing all of this, why not help the students?
Well, will someone else please tell them? I'm tired of it. Thanks.
ps - My wife and I paid off her student loans. She had a higher interest rate.
pps - No one is bailing me out of my mortgage on my home which is worth about half what I paid for it in 2005. I owe about %60,000 more than it is worth right now. My property taxes have not gone down a penny, cause everyone else around here is in the same boat. I can't afford to go back to college right now... Loans or not.
ppps - We are not doing a great job of bailing out big business. I work for one, and took a 15% pay cut in April. And I'm thankful to have my job still. Graduates should be thankful if they get a job at all before 2011.
We're teaching them well. Just the wrong lessons.
Loans are an option not a requirement. (Score:3, Insightful)
I worked my way through college.
It sucked. I didn't get to go ivy league (not a big problem since only a 1270 sat, 3.2gpa, and activities were computer club and D&D club).
Mainly, I didn't get to take a 4 to 5 year vacation. I studied 20 hours on top of 12 hours of classes on top of 40 to 55 hours a week of work.
But I graduated with no debt. It was my choice.
Students have the choice of going to public schools, or cheaper schools over seas, or on-line schools.
One of the reasons colleges have gotten so expensive is that children are willing to take on $200,000 debt to get a degree.
Look- if the professors were not making mid 100k incomes (yea, I know adjunct professors are poorly paid), if the universities were not funding research on the student's backs, if the university presidents were not making $350k!!! and if the universities JUST TAUGHT THE MATERIAL like they used to back in the 50's, then school wouldn't be so expensive.
Health care is super expensive for the same reason. People have shown that they *will* pay anything for it, so the providers have jacked up the bill.
You can get a good solid degree from a public university and graduate with little or no debt.
You can't get an idiot degree of course.
Given the work climate (that any INDIAN or CHINESE national can get a similar quality degree and take your job for $16,000 to $25,000 working in their companies for our corporations), you are an idiot to get a degree for something with that kind of exposure. At least get something that requires you be physically present, or that has national security implications.
What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was the oldest child of a middle class family of 3. I applied to 2 public and 3 private universities and was accepted to all of them, but with minimal financial aid. I chose to attend a nearby public university that offered a quality education that cost approximately $10,000/year in the late 90's.
Why did I make this choice?
- I could afford to finance about 75% of tuition via savings that my parents had set aside for me.
- I worked various jobs while in school, eventually hitting $15-17/hr, which more than covered the remaining tuition & expenses.
- I didn't want to screw my siblings out of an education or force my parents into debt. In the end, I was able to leave about $4,000 of my parent's savings for my brother or sister.
I have friends who are teachers who decided that they needed to attend small, private New England colleges with tuition and expenses over 350% more than my education. One of those friends and his wife makes $120k combined teaching, but after years of deferments owes over $300,000 a decade after graduation (not including graduate work form a private school which would have been FREE had they gone to the state university) -- my friend and his wife can barely afford rent, and will likely become homeowners when they inherit a house when one of their parents pass.
People don't need bailouts, they need to live within their means and not assume that they are entitled to a specific lifestyle or type of job due to the circumstances of their birth. If you can't afford four years of college, borrow money to go to trade school and work as a plumber, HVAC, electrician, etc. If you really want to go to college, you'll be able to earn the money to do so.
Thing I Notice About Most Recent Graduates (Score:4, Funny)
Why are mortgages 5% and education loans 8.5%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can't foreclose on someone's education. Next question.
Waaa, Waaa, frikin' WAAAAA! (Score:5, Interesting)
A college education was never meant to be a guarantee of future financial stability, especially in the short term. We need to get away from this pervasive mentality of "Things didn't go exactly according to the PLAN. The Government needs to save me!!!! WAAAAAAAA".
Of course it sucks trying to find a job in the current market, and I sympathise as I'm currently looking for my next job as I'm going to graduate soon. However, that doesn't mean that the federal government, who already bent over backward in order to help me get the loans I needed in order to persue my education, should be expected to further subsidize me into my 30's. Grow a friggin' pair, and if necessary get a job working at McD's and rent the shittiest appartment you can find to make ends meet. This sense of entitlement to an easy life, simpy because you are college educated is assinine and juvenile. The education is supposed to give you more skills, based on the idea that more skills make you more valuable. However, if you pursue a degree in which those skills are next to useless (I'm looking at you art history majors), or one in which the market is oversatturated, well then you were an idiot and deserve to suffer a little for your stupidity. That doesn't mean that you should be able to get your education for free, just because it took you a little while to find a job.
We need to stop supporting those that have made stupid decisions or else they'll never learn that there are consequences for their actions. I learned that in middle school, my older brother took until after high school, and apparently some have failed to learn the lesson despite being 22 (Bachelors), 24-28 (Graduate Degree), or even older 50-60 (Corporate CEO's that ran their companies into the ground). Maybe I'm just an insensitive clod, but not everyone can be happy all of the time. A little hardship can build character, just as our grandparents.
There are nowhere near as many people suffering as there were in the great depression, all the "Worst recession since the depression" hyperbole aside. If the current hardships mean that it takes you an extra 10 years to buy a house, or that you have to settle for something less than a McMansion I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it. I will probably lose more than a little over my own financial problems, but they are MY PROBLEMS and not the governments. A little more personal accountability on behalf of most Americans would go a long way to improving our collective condition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As a college student (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who cant think beyond their own pocket.
Because proper education systems increase your wealth as well, the same as proper health systems benefit your health as well. Let me ask you this, would you rather have a nation full of highly educated white collar workers or a nation full of barely educated blue collar slobs barely able to swing a hammer?
Well the white collar workers of course, you cannot compete with the third world on manufacturing whilst maintaining a first world economy. Now if education is difficult to afford then you will end up with a large section of your workforce earning low wages, low wages means that their contributions to tax will also be low as well as the amount of money they have to spend or invest. This means that YOU as the middle class will contribute MORE in tax to maintain the same quality of life or YOU will have to accept a LESS fortunate lifestyle.
If you have more highly educated workers you can attract and create high tech industries which pay higher wages and thus contribute more in tax. This means the as a net result of more people paying more tax YOU pay less tax over all. YOU also benefit from OTHERS spending more disposable income or INVESTING that income which in turn creates more wealth and REDUCES the tax burden on INDIVIDUALS.
I suggest you look at HECS [wikipedia.org], a scheme created by the Australian Federal Government which covers the cost of tertiary education for Australians. This is in turn paid back as it is factored into the amount of tax a receiver of HECS pays (I.E. you pay only for the HECS that you have used) at the end of each financial year. In effect the government extends a near zero interest loan with a flexible amortisation schedule, so the tax taken from mr to pay HECS gets returned in full later in life via a reduction in taxes and economic benefits. It's almost like, well like an investment and an investment that has been working for Australia for the last 20 years.
Re:As a college student (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who cant think beyond their own pocket.
Spoken like someone who doesn't give a shit about other peoples' pockets.
Because proper education systems increase your wealth as well, the same as proper health systems benefit your health as well. Let me ask you this, would you rather have a nation full of highly educated white collar workers or a nation full of barely educated blue collar slobs barely able to swing a hammer?
Would you rather have a nation of workers or of parasites?
Well the white collar workers of course, you cannot compete with the third world on manufacturing whilst maintaining a first world economy. Now if education is difficult to afford then you will end up with a large section of your workforce earning low wages, low wages means that their contributions to tax will also be low as well as the amount of money they have to spend or invest. This means that YOU as the middle class will contribute MORE in tax to maintain the same quality of life or YOU will have to accept a LESS fortunate lifestyle.
The question here is why is education difficult to afford? I think it's because government has been throwing money at education in the form of subsidized loans and overly generous financial aid. If education were free, there'd be two possible outcomes, either everyone would consume as much education as they could, driving costs up even further, or someone would have to regulate consumption. Either outcome is avoided by the third choice, making people pay for their education.
If you have more highly educated workers you can attract and create high tech industries which pay higher wages and thus contribute more in tax. This means the as a net result of more people paying more tax YOU pay less tax over all. YOU also benefit from OTHERS spending more disposable income or INVESTING that income which in turn creates more wealth and REDUCES the tax burden on INDIVIDUALS.
Except that the tax burden and future obligations aren't going down. Education won't fix what's wrong with the US because it's not the cause of the problem, and because the "investment" is consumed by those that had no part in it.
Re:tuition is insane. (Score:4, Insightful)
Grow up, go to state college, get a job.
The government subsidy on college loans is being able to get a loan in the first place. How else can you get a loan for $30-60k (or more) as an 18 year old with no credit history, no job, and no skills! You're an idiot to place yourself in that much debt with a very clear understanding of the terms and a strong plan on how exactly you're going to pay them off. The job market is weak right now, but companies are still hiring - go train yourself up and find one.
If you can live cheap you should be able to pay off state college as you go. If you do Co-ops or internships all the way through you can pay a quarter work a quarter and graduate with no debt and a better chance of getting a full time job when you get out.
Someone (god only knows why) decided that simply because you wanted to go to college you were worth tens of thousands of dollars at honestly a really low interest rate, compared to if you wanted that money to do anything else (go try to get a signature loan for ten grand from a bank and see what interest they give you, if they don't laugh in your face).
You got yourself in debt and you alone. If you decided to spend that money you acquired on something that isn't going to allow you to pay it back, it's nobody's fault but your own.
Nearly 50% of all fortune 100 CEO's graduated from a state university. There's no reason to think you need any better if you can't afford it.
Re:this article is distorted (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pissed at the bail-outs (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hey, I have a better idea. Let's take just 1% of that trillion dollars per year, and use it to feed EVERY SINGLE !@## STARVING KID THE WORLD OVER. Yes, that's all it would take. A Billion dollars per year could by a handful of rice, corn, or wheat to put into the hands of every single starving kid in the world. Can you imagine just how much goodwill this would cause?"
Ouch. While I'm enormously sympathetic and entirely on the same side of the political fence as you, your numbers here are tremendously screwed up. Pretty embarrassing, actually.
(a) 1% of a trillion dollars is not "a billion" -- it's 10 billion. (b) U.S. already donates over $22 billion per year in foreign aid *. (c) Highly skeptical that another billion (or 10) could feed all starving children -- citation needed. (d) Many locations are documented as not allowing US/UN personnel in, and/or have confiscated food donations in the past from the poor to the army, etc. -- would you be willing to force that with military action?
Get your facts straight and it will strengthen our campaign for social justice in the world.
* Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Foreign_aid [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I have a better idea. Let's take just 1% of that trillion dollars per year, and use it to feed EVERY SINGLE !@## STARVING KID THE WORLD OVER. Yes, that's all it would take. A Billion dollars per year could by a handful of rice, corn, or wheat to put into the hands of every single starving kid in the world.
Ever think about what effect free food has on the target country's local agriculture economy? I'll give you a hint: Local farmers have to start competing with free. The answer isn't dumping free foo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowledge is needed at most jobs, education in all honesty is not. I think its time for society to realize this.
I think you have that the wrong way 'round. Knowledge isn't needed - like you said, it's available at the click of a 'google search'. Education is what you need to be able to do something useful with the knowledge you've just found.
I can't remember the characteristic funtion of the normal distribution, but I can look it up on wikipedia and use the education I have to do something useful with it.
But maybe we're just expressing the same thought with different words.
Re:Education should be a national right and pride (Score:5, Insightful)
Your conclusion fails to follow from your premise. Paying for someone's degree in Advanced Featherbedding just because they want on does little for the nation but produce yet another idiot with a meaningless degree and a sense of entitlement.
A nice soundbite, but nothing else.
Personally, I think a system that makes people work to pay for their education works just fine. It sorts out the those with the skills and dedication to obtain an advanced education from those without - the same skills and dedication they will hopefully employ in whatever career that education prepares them for.