Anonymous wrote:Simplified, the proposed regulation states that federal loans would not be available if a degree holder earns less than an average HS graduate in their state.

According to AI, an average HS graduate in DC initially earns 39k year, a little over minimum wage.

If a specific college degree can’t guarantee that a graduate will make more than a minimum wage and requires to take loans to pay for it, then it is our civic duty to deny those loans. If colleges are truly in this for the betterment of society, they can discount non profitable degrees, offer merit aid, maybe even provide their own loans and see how it works out. Otherwise government needs to step in and prevent what is basically a predatory practice. 18 year olds don’t even have their cortex matured, the part responsible for making decisions and regulating emotions.

Also, how’s what government is proposing different from what a credit lender does? You want 100k loan to start a business, you better show that you can survive and at least do as well as other businesses in that space.

No, it is not our "civic duty" to deny those loans to young Americans trying to get an education, and no college degree is able to "guarantee" that a graduate will make more than minimum wage within a timeframe-there's a lot of factors that schools can't predict related to economic health, trends in hiring, and the ability of a specific student to use their degree to become gainfully employed. You're buying an education, not a toaster.

And what hypocrisy to demand that American students who need loan must show that they can survive and repay. The USA funds $40 bn in loans to Argentina to prop up a failing currency and hundreds of billions in military aid to Israel--it just shows that Republican priorities are to use taxpayer dollars for preferred allies, and not to invest in American students.

Simplified, the proposed regulation states that federal loans would not be available if a degree holder earns less than an average HS graduate in their state.

According to AI, an average HS graduate in DC initially earns 39k year, a little over minimum wage.

If a specific college degree can’t guarantee that a graduate will make more than a minimum wage and requires to take loans to pay for it, then it is our civic duty to deny those loans. If colleges are truly in this for the betterment of society, they can discount non profitable degrees, offer merit aid, maybe even provide their own loans and see how it works out. Otherwise government needs to step in and prevent what is basically a predatory practice. 18 year olds don’t even have their cortex matured, the part responsible for making decisions and regulating emotions.

Also, how’s what government is proposing different from what a credit lender does? You want 100k loan to start a business, you better show that you can survive and at least do as well as other businesses in that space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Department of Education is finalizing a rule that would judge college programs based on how much money graduates make after leaving school. Programs whose graduates don’t earn enough compared to their student debt would lose access to federal student loans. According to estimates, nearly half of graduate programs in fields like art, music, theater, and dance would fail the test. If a program loses federal loan eligibility, many students may no longer be able to afford to attend, forcing them to transfer, switch majors, or leave school.

https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-report/aau-raises-concerns-new-department-education-earnings
AAU Raises Concerns That New Department of Education Earnings Test Could Undermine Arts, Public Service Degree Programs

This is an outstanding approach. They should have implemented this a long time back.

+1. End an enormous amount of bloat and waste in colleges.

I wish they'd use their power and time to go after the for profit "colleges" that are the real scammers in the education landscape.

Or even go after the College Board's "search" that sells our kids' contact info for profit. Overhauling that system would be such a service. But I'm sure the College Board has lobbyists, just like the for-profits do.

Anonymous wrote:I understand concern about debt, but the rule proposed actually has nothing to do with debt. It focuses entirely on whether the program has an "earnings premium," meaning whether it enables students to make more money than if they'd never gone to college at all. Teaching is very relevant to this. It requires a college degree, it can pay well enough to pay off modest loans, but it might fail that test in some places.

There was a previously existing rule (it didn't apply to most colleges) that DID focus on debt, looking at whether the average debt to earnings ratio for graduates was sufficient to pay back the debt. Applying that rule universally would actually address concerns about debt, but this doesn't do that.

+1 - exactly. This isn't about debt.

And not everyone who take out loans is fully financing their education with loans. It might be the difference between being able to go or not, but still not be six figures in debt when they graduate. This is an on/off switch, not a dial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linda McMahon our Secretary of Education has a BA in French from East Carolina University and was so poor after her graduation that she was on food stamps for a few years and even filed for bankruptcy (she has that in common with Trump).

I wonder if she would argue that her college degree had no value because she wasn't rich immediately upon graduation.

The cost-benefit probably still passed this test, though, because ECU cost next to nothing in 1965.

This proposal doesn't have a cost-benefit test, it purely has a benefit test. If French BAs from ECU aren't making better than their peers with just high school degrees, they'd lose access to loans, even if they're borrowing small amounts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public policy is not a Rorschach test ! ( For the maga people, a Rorschach test is a psychological test where the patient looks at an ink blot and tells the provider what they see. ) The only way out of this dystopian hell hole of idiocracy brought to us but angry losers and tech incels, is to look at data and facts and use logic.

Why has no one responded to how many 18 year olds are applying for student loans to enter expensive graduate programs in art, theater, and dance? How many 22+ year olds? How many people have taken federal loans for those programs and defaulted?

I wonder why there is no data. Why is there no budgetary impact data?

Could it be that the administration has zero capability or interest to solve real problems? Could it be that they just want to flare up culture wars while redirecting budgetary resources to grifters? Enquiring minds want to know!

What are you on about? This current proposal isn’t a new invention. It’s merely the latest iteration of multiple previous proposals.

The loan amounts could be 100k. They could be 30k. Maybe you could write a check right now for 30k but most people can’t. This problem wasn’t invented in the last year. It’s a long discussed issue. I’m sure your kids’ 529s are nice and plump. Good for you. Seriously. But that’s not a lot of people’s reality.

You can’t be for or against something without understanding what it is and who it will impact. You need the data, especially with the current cast of idiots in charge to decide.

I would wager that the default rate for people taking on federal student loans for art, theater and dance graduate programs is far lower than the default rate for federal student loans at for profit universities in so called financially viable programs.

Anonymous wrote:Public policy is not a Rorschach test ! ( For the maga people, a Rorschach test is a psychological test where the patient looks at an ink blot and tells the provider what they see. ) The only way out of this dystopian hell hole of idiocracy brought to us but angry losers and tech incels, is to look at data and facts and use logic.

Why has no one responded to how many 18 year olds are applying for student loans to enter expensive graduate programs in art, theater, and dance? How many 22+ year olds? How many people have taken federal loans for those programs and defaulted?

I wonder why there is no data. Why is there no budgetary impact data?

Could it be that the administration has zero capability or interest to solve real problems? Could it be that they just want to flare up culture wars while redirecting budgetary resources to grifters? Enquiring minds want to know!

What are you on about? This current proposal isn’t a new invention. It’s merely the latest iteration of multiple previous proposals.

The loan amounts could be 100k. They could be 30k. Maybe you could write a check right now for 30k but most people can’t. This problem wasn’t invented in the last year. It’s a long discussed issue. I’m sure your kids’ 529s are nice and plump. Good for you. Seriously. But that’s not a lot of people’s reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this bad? I rather have 18 year olds adjust their dream major to a minor or a club than have them be broke at 30 and default on loans.

This, go to community college or their state school. Our kids will go to the state school except if they get aid.. we strongly believe in no debt.

You believe the value of an education is directly related to the financial compensation someone gets afterwards. That's sad.

How many artists (actors, musicians, dancers, etc) struggle in those early years? It takes years to build up the portfolio and experience to make a living purely from art. Does that mean arts education isn't valuable? Poorz shouldn't get proper instruction?

DP here. I don’t think we should enjoy our arts on the backs of the poor, indebted, and impoverished. It’s a conundrum with no good solutions.

I don’t think there is any problem with people choosing their art over their finances. Living frugally as an artist is as old as time. Getting loans to live frugally as an artist is not as old as time. As we’ve discussed endlessly on this forum, something is wrong with the cost of higher ed. For young artists to-be, your state schools are where it’s at.

Public policy is not a Rorschach test ! ( For the maga people, a Rorschach test is a psychological test where the patient looks at an ink blot and tells the provider what they see. ) The only way out of this dystopian hell hole of idiocracy brought to us but angry losers and tech incels, is to look at data and facts and use logic.

Why has no one responded to how many 18 year olds are applying for student loans to enter expensive graduate programs in art, theater, and dance? How many 22+ year olds? How many people have taken federal loans for those programs and defaulted?

I wonder why there is no data. Why is there no budgetary impact data?

Could it be that the administration has zero capability or interest to solve real problems? Could it be that they just want to flare up culture wars while redirecting budgetary resources to grifters? Enquiring minds want to know!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this bad? I rather have 18 year olds adjust their dream major to a minor or a club than have them be broke at 30 and default on loans.

This, go to community college or their state school. Our kids will go to the state school except if they get aid.. we strongly believe in no debt.

You believe the value of an education is directly related to the financial compensation someone gets afterwards. That's sad.

How many artists (actors, musicians, dancers, etc) struggle in those early years? It takes years to build up the portfolio and experience to make a living purely from art. Does that mean arts education isn't valuable? Poorz shouldn't get proper instruction?

Anonymous wrote:Linda McMahon our Secretary of Education has a BA in French from East Carolina University and was so poor after her graduation that she was on food stamps for a few years and even filed for bankruptcy (she has that in common with Trump).

I wonder if she would argue that her college degree had no value because she wasn't rich immediately upon graduation.

The cost-benefit probably still passed this test, though, because ECU cost next to nothing in 1965.

Linda McMahon our Secretary of Education has a BA in French from East Carolina University and was so poor after her graduation that she was on food stamps for a few years and even filed for bankruptcy (she has that in common with Trump).

I wonder if she would argue that her college degree had no value because she wasn't rich immediately upon graduation.

Anonymous wrote:Why is this bad? I rather have 18 year olds adjust their dream major to a minor or a club than have them be broke at 30 and default on loans.

This, go to community college or their state school. Our kids will go to the state school except if they get aid.. we strongly believe in no debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.

Well, we shouldn’t be financing such degrees with public loans. If some heiress wants a degree in studio art, she should absolutely be allowed to spend daddy’s money on it, even if the degree will never pay off in a narrow economic sense.

I feel the opposite. If you have an extrememly talented person with limited means, we lose so much by not susidizing the full development of their talents. It's like susidizing theaters and art museums.

This. It has always been the case that richer students gravitated towards majors in the arts, but now they will be the exclusive domain of the 1%ers if students can't access loans because their earning potential might be low.