Senate Republicans introduce plan to tackle student loan debt
thehill.com
thehill.com
Putting another couple pieces of paper in front of highschoolers detailing the total financial cost - while literally everyone in their lives encourages them to pursue college as the next step in their lives - and even mentioning that plan in the same breath as 'tackle student loan debt' is assinine.
Hell, even if you were going to try and fix the problem with a fucking disclosure, you'd do it by presenting and making a case for attractive alternative options.
Because realistically loads of people go to college after highschool because it has been the expectation of everyone they have known their entire lives AND symbolizes their opportunity to escape whatever the local body breaking labor is.
But if you wanted to convince me that you were serious then you'd go after the money. Probably lots of great ways to stop treating 18 year olds like great long term debt instruments but I think treating student loans as a normal form of debt that is dischargeable by bankruptcy would be a fine place to start.
Beyond the obvious effects of supporting effectively arbitrary price increases for that market - I don't think its possible to construct a sound moral argument that excuses removing a crucial safety valve on a debt that is also very large and targeted towards people that have only recently stopped being children.
Even the part about degrees that don't meet income level averages not being eligible for funding sounds good on paper but then you're essentially once again putting the onus on the arts to sacrifice for the other fields rather than fixing the system that has enabled this intersection of education and capitalistic piracy come to be in the first place.
The biggest problem for any attempt at education reform in the USA is that education is organized at the state level. It is practically impossible to get all interested parties to cooperate nationwide.
The other major problem is that the public university system has developed a huge overcapacity. They operate now as businesses whose main goal is to keep themselves employed. You see the effects in the softening of academic standards and continual pursuit of more foreign students.
It's much better suited for people with field experience who need the nice sheet of paper to move up in their field than it is for fresh HS graduates making their way in the world.
With that being said, if you know college is for you but you are concerned about the money as a fresh high school graduate, consider getting your AAS at your local community college and then getting your BS or MS from WGU (if it teaches what you want to learn).
You'll save tens of thousands early on in your career and be able to work for the 2 years between your AAS and your BS, getting experience and certifications in the process.
It won't be as fun as going to a party college but if you have a goal in mind it might be a viable path.
That seems to be the case for online education in general.
> consider...community college and then...WGU
I agree. I've worried over what to say to kids facing the terribly high cost of university education these days. If you can find a good program at a community college (quality varies), I think this route would be no worse educationally than what you get at most traditional universities in the USA now.
Students are able to borrow more, so schools increase tuition and see no appreciable drop in demand. Rinse and repeat.
Stop meddling in free markets.
You know that women are people too, right? It's not acceptable to solve a problem by simply ignoring the problem for half your population.
This is a great strategy and leaves us more money to spend on giant tax cuts for billionaires.
No society can survive with that design pattern (encouraging people to take from society, not encouraging people to sacrifice for society).
But it can’t be the only opportunity for young people:
- People with certain disabilities are disqualified, they don’t even have the choice. Not fair to them
- Some people want careers which you don’t get in the military, including “useful” careers like science. Not fair to them, and they probably wouldn’t be good soldiers or Coast Guards anyways
- Some people don’t want to join for ethical or ideological reasons, when you join you technically lose some of your Constitutional rights. This is 100% valid and they shouldn’t be pressured to join; and we probably don’t want non-committed people in the military anyways
- The military has its flaws. There’s a lot of beurocracy and inefficiency, and some people don’t like the culture. A big contributor to the recruiting problem are the horror stories (albeit maybe rare) you’ll see in forums. Many people say that joining the military was the best choice of their lives, but many people deeply regret it.
I don’t mind advocating for the military, but some people are better off going directly to college. And some of those people need scholarships, and college tuition is still unreasonably expensive.
Do you even get to select what role you want to get into?
My (conscript) experience is that everyone first goes through Basic Military Training, then you get assigned somewhere randomly and that's basically it. You never get a choice. If you're lucky, you get assigned to an interesting unit, then you enlist and are set for the next 10 years.
edit:
The way the conscript system in Singapore works is
1. if you're 'highly' educated (highschool diploma equiv), you get a chance at becoming an officer. If you enlist, you get put on a career track (ie. set for life).
2. if you're 'technically' educated (tech/vocational diplma), you get a chance to be a technician or unit leader. You automatically become a sergeant after 1.5 years. If you enlist, you get to become a slightly higher ranked sergeant and eventually on course to become an NCO.
3. you're not educated so you're disposable cannon fodder (infantry). You're rejected for enlistment.
A college degree is a requirement for becoming an officer.
https://www.nationalguard.com/tools/student-loan-repayment-p...