re: Trump to ban student loans for low income college degrees

quote:

---

Eliminate federal student loans.

---

Taxpayers should have never been hook to back student loans. Let the institutions and lenders go back to due diligence loans.

quote:

---

It's in our interest to have a more educated public.

---

But that's not what happens.

Go hang around a college campus and ask some students some simple history or civics questions. They're way more ignorant than we were at their age.

Super sizing the number of students just waters down the quality of the education. You have more people with degrees, but they know less.

quote:

---

Taxpayers should have never been hook to back student loans. Let the institutions and lenders go back to due diligence loans.

---

This might actually work, but you'll have a lot of crying from potential students who's high school education and intended major don't make the cut for a loan.

It makes sense though. Someone with a 3.0 or better in high school going for a STEM degree (with the ACT/SAT score and high school transcript to back it up) should have a much easier time securing funding than someone with a sub 3.0 going for a liberal arts degree. Then require proven academic progress and maintain a 3.0 to continue to get funded.

I'm on board with treating student loans just like they treat small business loans and mortgages. It should not be easy to get it and keep it.

quote:

---

Trump is banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money

---

So any job that cant afford his $5/gal war gas?

Because i make six figures and its not enough.

quote:

---

If a business isn't selling a product they usually have sales to clear inventory.


You just suggested these businesses will raise prices to clear inventory people aren't buying.

---

No. That's not what I said.

quote:

---

Maybe something like this will facilitate a legitimate way to bring down costs and hold Universities accountable.

---

Hold universities accountable for what? To whom?

The only duty they have is to teach what they promise to teach.

Basically, to not commit fraud.

Everything else is the responsibility of the student and the potential employers.

Despite the popular default assumption (which you clearly hold), universities are not trade schools. They don't exist to "get you a job."

They exist to educate people. And people may wish to be educated on subjects that don't directly translate to employment in any given field.

Now, nobody should be attending based on taxpayer funded government backed student loans, I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that maybe employers and licensing boards and other interested parties should abandon the idea that they need someone with a college degree for any given position. Maybe they just look at your transcripts instead and see if you've taken the classes they think are useful. You don't think your English literature class contributed toward your finance education, fine. There are probably firms out there that would agree.

Matter of fact, I don't know why big companies haven't already embraced the idea of educating people themselves, for at least key positions. Instead of applying to Vassar or Brown, you apply to Microsoft. They have an education department and they teach you what they want you to know, their way.

Would cut WAY down on turnover in those positions and would streamline the whole process.

Maybe that should be the push. If it's just going to be a trade school mindset anyway. That and eliminating the government from the public equation.

quote:

---

I don't think this is the answer. That means you'll have thousands of graduates with 10% interest on several thousands of dollars. That's awful.

Lenders should not give out the loan at all if it doesn't make good financial sense (again, similar to small business loans and mortgages).

---

Well the idea is to encourage people not to pursue those fields unless their loans are covered by scholarships.

I have a feeling there will be some legal grounds where you can't pick and choose certain degrees to give loans for, but they should have the grounds to pick interest rates. And it doesn't have to be 10%, but they should have a much higher rate than an engineering student.

Also some of those fields listed are valuable to have experts in just from a societal perspective, but we need the elite of the elite in those roles and not just anyone who enjoys drawing and is slightly better than mediocre at it.

quote:

---

Well the idea is to encourage people not to pursue those fields unless their loans are covered by scholarships.

---

Could be something there. It could deter it, but I've seen a lot of people make bad financial decisions.

quote:

---

I have a feeling there will be some legal grounds where you can't pick and choose certain degrees to give loans for, but they should have the grounds to pick interest rates. And it doesn't have to be 10%, but they should have a much higher rate than an engineering student.

---

I really think you get around that by citing proper loan vetting and underwriting. Maybe the underwriting says you can only have this loan at 10% and it's only good on a per semester basis if minimum academic standards are met.

quote:

---

What can one do with this outside of academia? Not arguing you're right. You are. But the utility, and the amount invested, is what i would question.

---

It is really just classic sociology. Sociology insights lead to marketing insights, lead to product development insights, lead to business strategy, lead to anything.

The critical study of human society through research and writing informs so many things. The harder argument to make is that research methods that expose insights into how people interact with the world, their expectations, unfilled desires, etc, has no value. This entire method is being rejected by moronic right wingers because the first topics a researcher may study in school include how women view the world differently than men, or how minority groups view the world differently than majority groups in the same societies. Right wingers are focused on the topic.

And isn't it odd that right wingers reject the topics because they deem women and minority groups to be "improper subjects" for sociological research. So we can only study men in the majority group? Or is it just that we cannot study society at all?

This is all so profoundly misguided and uninformed.

quote:

---

Just classify them as elective degrees and then bar all elective degrees from the federal student loan programs

---

The universities would never allow their brainwashing classes to be made as electives.
It is mandatory to the woke, to spread woke.