The Resident's Financial Problem
-
There is a real structural problem with funding education in this country.
A daughter of an extended family member of ours got into a UCLA for undergrad in a selective program - but the all in sticker price per year is $60K. It's her dream school.
The parents have been hard workers their whole life and the kid doesn't qualify for any need-based aid. They don't have nearly enough saved up to be able to pay that.
The kid's probably going to have to turn it down.
How do you pay off $200K+ for an undergrad degree? This is nuts.
Nothing happens in undergrad that's worth that much money.
-
There is a real structural problem with funding education in this country.
A daughter of an extended family member of ours got into a UCLA for undergrad in a selective program - but the all in sticker price per year is $60K. It's her dream school.
The parents have been hard workers their whole life and the kid doesn't qualify for any need-based aid. They don't have nearly enough saved up to be able to pay that.
The kid's probably going to have to turn it down.
How do you pay off $200K+ for an undergrad degree? This is nuts.
Nothing happens in undergrad that's worth that much money.
@xenon said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
There is a real structural problem with funding education in this country.
A daughter of an extended family member of ours got into a UCLA for undergrad in a selective program - but the all in sticker price per year is $60K. It's her dream school.
The parents have been hard workers their whole life and the kid doesn't qualify for any need-based aid. They don't have nearly enough saved up to be able to pay that.
The kid's probably going to have to turn it down.
How do you pay off $200K+ for an undergrad degree? This is nuts.
Nothing happens in undergrad that's worth that much money.
You don't go to UCLA. Not unless the school can make it affordable for you to do so.
Remember Tom, the guy in Florida who used to hang out in TOCR? His wife had a teaching degree. From Harvard.
Now, unless the family is wealthy enough it doesn't care, why would anybody borrow money to go to Harvard for an education degree?
-
@xenon said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
There is a real structural problem with funding education in this country.
A daughter of an extended family member of ours got into a UCLA for undergrad in a selective program - but the all in sticker price per year is $60K. It's her dream school.
The parents have been hard workers their whole life and the kid doesn't qualify for any need-based aid. They don't have nearly enough saved up to be able to pay that.
The kid's probably going to have to turn it down.
How do you pay off $200K+ for an undergrad degree? This is nuts.
Nothing happens in undergrad that's worth that much money.
You don't go to UCLA. Not unless the school can make it affordable for you to do so.
Remember Tom, the guy in Florida who used to hang out in TOCR? His wife had a teaching degree. From Harvard.
Now, unless the family is wealthy enough it doesn't care, why would anybody borrow money to go to Harvard for an education degree?
@Jolly said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
@xenon said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
There is a real structural problem with funding education in this country.
A daughter of an extended family member of ours got into a UCLA for undergrad in a selective program - but the all in sticker price per year is $60K. It's her dream school.
The parents have been hard workers their whole life and the kid doesn't qualify for any need-based aid. They don't have nearly enough saved up to be able to pay that.
The kid's probably going to have to turn it down.
How do you pay off $200K+ for an undergrad degree? This is nuts.
Nothing happens in undergrad that's worth that much money.
You don't go to UCLA. Not unless the school can make it affordable for you to do so.
Remember Tom, the guy in Florida who used to hang out in TOCR? His wife had a teaching degree. From Harvard.
Now, unless the family is wealthy enough it doesn't care, why would anybody borrow money to go to Harvard for an education degree?
I'm sure they churn out only the very finest teachers. Like fire hoses of education, compared to state colleges' educational squirt guns.
-
"Debt is never canceled.
It's just paid by others who didn't get the benefit of the loan."
-
"Debt is never canceled.
It's just paid by others who didn't get the benefit of the loan."
-
@Axtremus said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
@George-K said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
"Debt is never canceled. ..."
Deuteronomy 15.
Can you loan me about $15K? I'll get back to you at the end of the decade, m'kay?
-
Have you ever known, in nigh on 20 years, of George citing scripture to buttress his argument?
@Mik said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
Have you ever known, in nigh on 20 years, of George citing scripture to buttress his argument?
Reading this thread inspired me to ask “What Would Jesus Do”, so I looked it up. (Of course Deuteronomy is OT so if you really want to and don’t mind overlooking the Trinity idea you can claim that Deuteronomy predates Biblical Jesus and thus disqualify it from answering any WWJD question. But I digress.)
With regards to “student debt” and it’s funding via the public purse, I am still trying to sort through a few things:
- Is all higher education a public good?
- The implication is that if it’s a public good, then maybe there is a rationale to fund it via the public purse.
- Is some higher education a public good but some other higher education is not? If so, who gets to decide what higher education is a public good and what other education isn’t?
- If you’re going to allow the public purse to fund some higher education but not some other higher education, who do you let decide which portions of higher education to fund via the public purse? An agency of the (people’s democratically elected) government using criteria set forth by the same government, or individuals (such as private schools’ financial aid officers and private banks’ loan officers) making these decisions using the private schools and private banks’ respective criteria?
The ship to not use any public funds to finance higher education has long sailed, pretty much very state has a public university system that’s supported by public funds.
Then you have folks who like to draw a line separating “federal funding” and “state funding.” This federal vs. state split isn’t very practical either because all states take federal money.
Maybe it’s fine to use the public purse to fund only the sort of public education that satisfies government criteria. (Sounds like the status quo.) And we are left to argue over what those criteria should be. (Also sounds like the status quo.)
Maybe we publicly fund only the institutions but never the individuals. E.g. give public money to public universities (so they keep tuition low for all students) but don’t give any public money to any individual student. (Will wreak havoc to well understood concepts like school funded “work study”, “research assistantship,” “teaching assistantship,” etc.)
Maybe we let private lenders do whatever they want with regards to “student loans,” and resist the urge to not treat private “student loans” any different from other private loans. (The private lenders themselves do not want this, though, they lobbied hard to make “student loans” ineligible for discharge through bankruptcies. Heck, they also want the government to guarantee the loans too if they can get it.)
Still left with the status quo.
-
@Mik said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
Have you ever known, in nigh on 20 years, of George citing scripture to buttress his argument?
Reading this thread inspired me to ask “What Would Jesus Do”, so I looked it up. (Of course Deuteronomy is OT so if you really want to and don’t mind overlooking the Trinity idea you can claim that Deuteronomy predates Biblical Jesus and thus disqualify it from answering any WWJD question. But I digress.)
With regards to “student debt” and it’s funding via the public purse, I am still trying to sort through a few things:
- Is all higher education a public good?
- The implication is that if it’s a public good, then maybe there is a rationale to fund it via the public purse.
- Is some higher education a public good but some other higher education is not? If so, who gets to decide what higher education is a public good and what other education isn’t?
- If you’re going to allow the public purse to fund some higher education but not some other higher education, who do you let decide which portions of higher education to fund via the public purse? An agency of the (people’s democratically elected) government using criteria set forth by the same government, or individuals (such as private schools’ financial aid officers and private banks’ loan officers) making these decisions using the private schools and private banks’ respective criteria?
The ship to not use any public funds to finance higher education has long sailed, pretty much very state has a public university system that’s supported by public funds.
Then you have folks who like to draw a line separating “federal funding” and “state funding.” This federal vs. state split isn’t very practical either because all states take federal money.
Maybe it’s fine to use the public purse to fund only the sort of public education that satisfies government criteria. (Sounds like the status quo.) And we are left to argue over what those criteria should be. (Also sounds like the status quo.)
Maybe we publicly fund only the institutions but never the individuals. E.g. give public money to public universities (so they keep tuition low for all students) but don’t give any public money to any individual student. (Will wreak havoc to well understood concepts like school funded “work study”, “research assistantship,” “teaching assistantship,” etc.)
Maybe we let private lenders do whatever they want with regards to “student loans,” and resist the urge to not treat private “student loans” any different from other private loans. (The private lenders themselves do not want this, though, they lobbied hard to make “student loans” ineligible for discharge through bankruptcies. Heck, they also want the government to guarantee the loans too if they can get it.)
Still left with the status quo.
@Axtremus said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
@Mik said in The Resident's Financial Problem:
Have you ever known, in nigh on 20 years, of George citing scripture to buttress his argument?
Reading this thread inspired me to ask “What Would Jesus Do”, so I looked it up. (Of course Deuteronomy is OT so if you really want to and don’t mind overlooking the Trinity idea you can claim that Deuteronomy predates Biblical Jesus and thus disqualify it from answering any WWJD question. But I digress.)
With regards to “student debt” and it’s funding via the public purse, I am still trying to sort through a few things:
- Is all higher education a public good?
- The implication is that if it’s a public good, then maybe there is a rationale to fund it via the public purse.
- Is some higher education a public good but some other higher education is not? If so, who gets to decide what higher education is a public good and what other education isn’t?
- If you’re going to allow the public purse to fund some higher education but not some other higher education, who do you let decide which portions of higher education to fund via the public purse? An agency of the (people’s democratically elected) government using criteria set forth by the same government, or individuals (such as private schools’ financial aid officers and private banks’ loan officers) making these decisions using the private schools and private banks’ respective criteria?
The ship to not use any public funds to finance higher education has long sailed, pretty much very state has a public university system that’s supported by public funds.
Then you have folks who like to draw a line separating “federal funding” and “state funding.” This federal vs. state split isn’t very practical either because all states take federal money.
Maybe it’s fine to use the public purse to fund only the sort of public education that satisfies government criteria. (Sounds like the status quo.) And we are left to argue over what those criteria should be. (Also sounds like the status quo.)
Maybe we publicly fund only the institutions but never the individuals. E.g. give public money to public universities (so they keep tuition low for all students) but don’t give any public money to any individual student. (Will wreak havoc to well understood concepts like school funded “work study”, “research assistantship,” “teaching assistantship,” etc.)
Maybe we let private lenders do whatever they want with regards to “student loans,” and resist the urge to not treat private “student loans” any different from other private loans. (The private lenders themselves do not want this, though, they lobbied hard to make “student loans” ineligible for discharge through bankruptcies. Heck, they also want the government to guarantee the loans too if they can get it.)
Still left with the status quo.
Alpha and Omega.
Period.
