Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:God, the people in this forum are AWFUL. Late stage capitalism in its ugliest incarnation. Some of the people posting here just have zero sense that art or education or ideas have any value to society because they don't make someone rich. These MAGA parents think their rape-y investment banker bro is contributing more to society through self-enrichment than an art teacher or public humanities professional ever could. This is why our country can't have nice things.
I have a rising senior and so have checked out this forum for tips. No more. So glad I never encounter these people in real life.
+1 And they don't even realize it. They are probably "educated" in that they have degrees, but they don't have a well-rounded education. It's really sad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.
Like education?
I don’t know… I kind of feel we should help people who are interested in serving others over self.
We can’t all serve ourselves.
+1 Seriously. Good luck to all the students out there who aren't rich but want to go into teaching, government service, social work and yes, the arts. I guess those fields are only for rich people who want to do them.
They would just attend state universities, not an over priced liberal arts school.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.
Like education?
I don’t know… I kind of feel we should help people who are interested in serving others over self.
We can’t all serve ourselves.
+1 Seriously. Good luck to all the students out there who aren't rich but want to go into teaching, government service, social work and yes, the arts. I guess those fields are only for rich people who want to do them.
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. I
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
What a self-own this is.
Your family clearly doesn’t have any talent in the arts and you don’t have a home where art, music, dance, and drama are present. If you did, you would support arts education. How sad.
I don't think they don't support arts education. They just don't think the American people should be financing it for students who will most likely default on their loan (as history has shown). There are plenty of full pay families that can continue to pay the tuitions for these humanities programs.
What about financing an education degree? Elementary English - reading?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fine with me. Schools should not be offering degrees that never pay off.
Like education?
I don’t know… I kind of feel we should help people who are interested in serving others over self.
We can’t all serve ourselves.
Anonymous wrote:This is crazy. We had an awesome student loan program with almost zero defaults. We should not have changed a thing.
It is our duty to prevent 18 year olds from making a serious mistake. Just because a college sends them a glitzy brochure (or a few dozen), does not make it a good decision.
The “Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell” rule, once implemented, will require undergraduate programs currently eligible for federal student aid funds to show that their graduates are earning more than individuals with high school diplomas. The rule would also require graduate and professional programs to show that their graduates are earning more than graduates of bachelor’s degree programs.
Anonymous wrote: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.