My point is, blaming the government for creating policies that let people go to college is stupid. At the end of the day it's irrational exuberance that inflates bubbles. Not some federal fiat.
My point is, blaming the government for creating policies that let people go to college is stupid. At the end of the day it's irrational exuberance that inflates bubbles. Not some federal fiat.
dumb wrote:
the market would not bear much in the way of student loans at all because they are large, unsecured loans to young people with no income or credit history. Without government interference in the student loan "market" college education would simply revert to what it used to be, a self perpetuating privilege of rich people.
Or, higher education prices would be more reasonable and people would work their way through college...you know...like they did for many decades.
Surprise! wrote:Or, higher education prices would be more reasonable and people would work their way through college...you know...like they did for many decades.
Working your way though is fine when you can make enough money (without a college degree) to pay for your education. But, when those opportunities dry up, you're more or less stuck borrowing from your future.
You have to remember that education used to be cheaper, and people made more without a college degree.
malmo wrote:
How did you find time to play the geetar?
I took two music theory courses along the way at Tech. The guitar picking actually helped!
Mr.Price wrote:
Surprise! wrote:Or, higher education prices would be more reasonable and people would work their way through college...you know...like they did for many decades.You have to remember that education used to be cheaper, and people made more without a college degree.
Uh, yeah I was commenting that without the gov. giving nearly unlimited money to anyone with a pulse, cost would have to revert back to prior levels when it wasn't as expensive.
the real problem is the government has no business being involved in either loaning money for student loans or housing. If a loan is a good investment a private bank will gladly take it up if not they will reject it. Loaning money for a $150,000 house to a single parent unemployed mom who is a bad idea, just like loaning money to a college student pursuing an art history degree at a school where tuition is $35,000 a year is a bad idea, but both things I have seen the government provide loans for, it is truly asinine then when these moron kids get upset when they cant get a job with their worthless degrees and then bitch about not being able to pay their loans back.
Life requires (or used to require) thought and planning, something like art history majors, to name a few, getting loans for $35k/year would never happen without the government, but when the government steps in and loans this money it allows people to make incredibly poor decisions. This is a theme reflected across society, that is the government intervening when they should not to allow people to make poor decisions, to the point of encouraging these poor decisions. Ultimately it leads to a bloating of the government, more parasites living off the government and the rapid decline of our country.
I used to think this was sometihng that can be turned around, judging by the response of many students and younger people to the idea of government "having" to drop interest rates on student loans and the need for government to supply this loans, not to mention the morons that think it is their right to get these loans, this country is lost. There is no turning back, America has failed and will now decline, whats more is that those in government know it and continue to proceed down this path because they get rich and power, the ignorant masses which they employee in this are so blinded they will continue to give more and more to this government until they have nothing except what is provided them by the government, this is how it ends.
i acknowledge there are plenty of grammatical errors and spelling errors above but time is money. the ideas still stand.
[quote]Mr. Reality wrote:
By the way, it's spelled 'eerie' you freakin' Neanderthal.
[quote]
Wow, way to bring species into it.
Says who? Yes, a college education is expensive but there are state-policy reasons behind it. You can educate yourself through self-study and MIT-online videos - very inexpensive, ignorance = 0. Unfortunately, this is not as valued in the market place (at this time).
human being wrote:
Education is extremely expensive. Is ignorance the alternative?
This poster has summed things up nicely but I'm not giving up on the USA. I think we have too many structural advantages to say that "America has failed and will now decline." The tragedy is that we could be here: [3.5% growth, higher per-capita income, longer lives] but because of policy-imposed drags on the economy, we be here: [2.0% growth, stagnant wages, higher than "normal" unemployment, more stress, shorter lives].
TheEducated wrote:
the real problem is the government has no business being involved in either loaning money for student loans or housing. If a loan is a good investment a private bank will gladly take it up if not they will reject it. Loaning money for a $150,000 house to a single parent unemployed mom who is a bad idea, just like loaning money to a college student pursuing an art history degree at a school where tuition is $35,000 a year is a bad idea, but both things I have seen the government provide loans for, it is truly asinine then when these moron kids get upset when they cant get a job with their worthless degrees and then bitch about not being able to pay their loans back.
Life requires (or used to require) thought and planning, something like art history majors, to name a few, getting loans for $35k/year would never happen without the government, but when the government steps in and loans this money it allows people to make incredibly poor decisions. This is a theme reflected across society, that is the government intervening when they should not to allow people to make poor decisions, to the point of encouraging these poor decisions. Ultimately it leads to a bloating of the government, more parasites living off the government and the rapid decline of our country.
I used to think this was sometihng that can be turned around, judging by the response of many students and younger people to the idea of government "having" to drop interest rates on student loans and the need for government to supply this loans, not to mention the morons that think it is their right to get these loans, this country is lost. There is no turning back, America has failed and will now decline, whats more is that those in government know it and continue to proceed down this path because they get rich and power, the ignorant masses which they employee in this are so blinded they will continue to give more and more to this government until they have nothing except what is provided them by the government, this is how it ends.
yes, i just typed "we be here:"
trance dance turn in shawowski wrote:
Says who? Yes, a college education is expensive but there are state-policy reasons behind it. You can educate yourself through self-study and MIT-online videos - very inexpensive, ignorance = 0. Unfortunately, this is not as valued in the market place (at this time).
Self study isn't valued because people rarely learn very well without being forced to sit in a lecture and do homework. Would you trust a surgeon who had learned through online videos?
Like the poster before you, I am just going to have to disagree with your presumption about "people rarely learn very well" and I think bringing up the case of a self-taught surgeon is dragging my statement to an extreme. Like any general statement/conclusion, my comment needs to be viewed along a curve. At one extreme (day labourer, field hand, housemaid) self-study is irrelevant and at the other end (surgeon, astronaut, lawyer) a formalized environment would be necessary. If the incentives are there, people will learn very well self studying. Before someone brings up the my seeming contradiction with online classes < bricks-and-mortar VERSUS self-study, I believe each has there place depending on what you want to do. But fooling yourself into "going" to a for-profit online program with the belief that you are getting the equivalent of a 4y college/university will only result in disappointment.
Azaleas wrote:
[quote]
Self study isn't valued because people rarely learn very well without being forced to sit in a lecture and do homework. Would you trust a surgeon who had learned through online videos?
trance dance turn in shawowski wrote:
Like any general statement/conclusion, my comment needs to be viewed along a curve. At one extreme (day labourer, field hand, housemaid) self-study is irrelevant and at the other end (surgeon, astronaut, lawyer) a formalized environment would be necessary.
The requirement for formalized training for a lawyer is a ridiculous false market barrier. There have been self-study and mentorship paths to the bar for hundreds of years. Unfortunately many states are limiting these options because of lobbying by law schools. Sure, set a bar exam as a requirement to entry but don't dictate teh way somebody needs to get there.
My point still stands. Your exception does not disprove the idea.
I did not know that about the bar exam/law school and it is too bad that the old statute is being eroded. Special Interests/Lobbying takes many forms and sometimes makes me question the democracy that we have.