Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

Why punish students who believed the marketing instead of punishing the schools and professors who sold students a degree that isn't worth the cost?

View on HN

Because the students chose to pursue that degree. They're the ones who signed the debt paperwork, they're the ones responsible for making sure that decision was worth it.

Here's the problem, though: since student loan debt is one of the ONLY types is debt that is almost impossible to discharge through bankruptcy, banks and colleges have almost no incentive to do proper underwriting. They are pretty positive they'll get their pound of flesh, come hell or high water. If there were better rules around getting rid of these debts in bankruptcy ("You loaned 200k to someone who wanted to get an English degree at a low tier, private college? Then you, the lender, deserve to lose."), these ridiculous loans wouldn't be made in the first place.

Then no one will issue loans to those students, who have a very high likelihood of never paying it back. You're right back to cheap schools and only issuing loans for degrees that will pay a very high salary. The whole point is to make it possible for people who can't get loans otherwise to get them, the inverse is that they have to pay them back. It's a fair trade, you want to borrow 100k for something that isn't tangible. You have no income, and a very high likelihood of defaulting, and the thing that was purchased can't be resold by the lender. That's a pretty awful deal for any lender. So if you make it possible to default then you won't see those loans being made anymore. Why issue the loan?

If you don't want a loan you have to pay back, then don't get a student loan get a personal loan which you can default on. Sure it won't be as much, but that's all you can get when you have a low likelihood of paying it back. Or enlist in the military and earn the money to pay for school. Or get a job and pay your way through school. Or go to a cheaper school, and get a more practical degree.

There are other options.

> Then no one will issue loans to those students

This is not the case, the non-dischargability in bankruptcy only came about in 2005 and there were plenty of student loans before then

Except one of the motivations for making unsecured loans available to everyone is the idea that kids should go to the best (most expensive) school independent of their parents' ability to pay.

Chicken or the egg.

Maybe. I mean - at the time of getting loans most people are around age 18 and legally adults responsible for their decisions, so sure there's that. But we're not talking about living with the decision to grow a mustache or try the paleo diet - we're talking about the decision to borrow thousands and thousands of dollars at huge interest rates, the kind of money most kids haven't seen in their entire lives at that point.

I don't think most people making this decision understand the full weight of the choice when making it, not at that age. I certainly didn't - especially when EVERYONE around you is saying that ones NOT taking the loans and getting the degree are the silly ones.

What other choices are they unable to make at age 18? Are they unable to choose whether or not to get a tattoo which may last for a lifetime? How about whether to join the military and potentially die for their country?

I'm not meaning to imply they're babies who can't make life decisions. What I'm saying is that 1) many## people aren't informed when they make the decision to take out such a large sum of money, 2) the consequences of the decision don't set in until 4 or 5 years after making the decision (bring on the cognitive dissonance!), and 3) there's incredible social pressure to do it. For many families, the degree is the Golden Ticket, which should be obtained no matter the cost.

## I'm using many in the sense of personal experience and the experience friends and family. So if you want do to a [citation needed] argument here - sure, whatever.

Irrelevant, but to entertain - they're considered too young to consume an alcoholic beverage.

At least once a week since I was 5 until I was 18, I was told that if I didn't want a job flipping burgers at mcdonalds, I had to go to university.

It was strongly implied that jobs like plumbers and electricians were for stupid people who would end up poor.

That was what I was told, my entire childhood. At what point do we start talking about indoctrination during this conversation? Because I think we should.

Indeed. This is what's led to the skyrocketing costs of college degrees, the irrational belief that without one you're financially doomed. So any degree is presumed to be better than not having a degree, which is pure bunk. So everyone "knows" you have to get a degree, no matter what.

Meanwhile kids aren't told about other options or what the reality is about degrees. Trades pay very well, different degrees have a much higher likelihood of getting you a job or a better paying job, and of course only having a degree is no guarantee of even getting a job at all.

We need to reset expectations so kids don't get sucked in by the marketing machine that is today's higher education. Your masters degree in foreign languages does not guarantee you a job. Do your research and understand, really brutally understand the field you are trying to get work in. Don't listen to the hype, ask normal people in that field how they got that job and be skeptical. Find out how many people get degrees in that field annually, and how many new hits exist in that field. You might be surprised to find out it's a small field that simply doesn't support all the graduates produced, or that a degree alone won't get you that dream job.

I would love to see examples of this "marketing machine" you are referring to

Not the OP you're asking. But I'd say all sorts of politician-talk can be clumped under the marketing machine that drives perverse college incentives:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/8/obama-free-co...

#Edit. Linked article was just the first I found that looked semi-related to a big politician and college-romanticizing.

Assuming you're serious and not just a shill: https://youtu.be/P8pjd1QEA0c?t=420

Watch that to the end (or at least the end of the veteran benefits bit), and then get back to us.

Absolutely. I was devastated when I realized my life-long expectation of an academic career would have to be deferred or cancelled for financial reasons. I was furious that others around me seemed subject to no such restriction - including those I felt were less suited to or deserving of such a position. We do set kids up for failure by focusing so much on the benefits of college, while shrugging off the costs and risks. It's easy to understand how someone in an emotional turmoil like mine might see all of this and convince themselves that they owe nothing to a fraud.

We do need to address the ways in which government supports lenders' predatory behaviors, while educational institutions at all levels push unprepared barely-adults into the trap. Education prior to college must include education about student loans and the dangers thereof. After all, there are minimum educational requirements for all other subjects. Why not this one?

This is very true. As much as I understand that people need to be responsible for their own decisions, there are also unknown unknowns. If the message one receives is constantly: get a degree, it doesn't matter what, employers like to see the stick to it ness, etc. (the messages I got growing up) how are you supposed to know you are REALLY supposed to discard that bombardment and everyone has it wrong about plumbing? Some are reckless, some are just following the instructions despite their reservations.

In addition to that, people like to be optimistic. Many college graduates (even from not-very-prestigious ones) end up in careers that pay much more than plumbing, or at least have less middle class stigma attached.

One of the things that really pissed me off was that when the shell finally cracked about 3/4 of the way through my degree and I started looking at these things, I realised that actually, plumbers can earn way more than a lot of university professions.

And isn't the school also responsible for its actions?

You will never get those that believe that the poor are "lazy" to admit that they're easy prey for student loans, payday advances and high interest loans.

That's great. So some assholes are following me around and downvoting me for having an opinion. If you disagree with what I'm saying, how about having the gumption to argue your fucking point?

No. The government is for making it so easy to qualify for student loan. The school basically charges what the market will allow.

There really should be a cap to how much debt one can take on student loans.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is right.

Loaning many tens of thousands to 18 year olds is predatory, plain and simple. To pass laws making those debts non-dischargable makes it 10 times more predatory.

We all consider title pawns sleazy, but in the case of student loans, our government and our society is the predator, and our children are the prey.

What would it look like if our government wanted to be a protector instead of a predator in this case? A law limiting student loans to a small, managable amount.

Nobody force you to take loan.

Not so fast. My first lectures to freshmen deal with precisely this issue. This problem comes from, and could not survive without college administration. One problem with that is that the students have already been led to the slaughter by the time they hear any of this.

Because that's not how the world works. If I go spend all of my money on alcohol, whoever sold me that alcohol isn't going to get punished.

If you fuck up, that's on you. Not anyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com