Why I Defaulted on My Student Loans
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
While you got to party in College on someone else's dime, I worked 80 hours per week and built my career. I'm sorry your choice didn't pan out the way you thought it would but I'm really getting tired of the idea that people should just be able to walk away from student loan debt because they believe it is "unfair."
Thankfully I had programming skills to fall back on, but when you're 18 years old and you're surrounded by people giving you awful advice that could ruin your life, you may not be able to recognize it.
I remember being 18 and I was terrified of loans, or of any kind of arrangements that could limit the options of my future! Advices, even ones that come from well-intended people, weren't worth much for me if they weren't supported by detailed plans in which I would end up OK. Receiving such insurance plans proved to be next to impossible, because and as you may presume, those who seriously suggest you mortgaging your life aren't the most forward-looking people!
...so no, I don't sympathize with that naive kid not thinking straight about his own future. I actually feel that this kind of practice represents one of our time's laws of natural selection.
I do think our concept of adulthood is flawed and has major issues, but society will never tolerate fixing it because it would restrict rights based on abilities and many of those who are currently taken advantage of will not willingly surrender the rights that allow them to be taken advantage of.
People over here got enraged when the goverment tried to introduce tuition fees of 1000 Euros a year.
I actually think an economy profits if you make it easy for people to achieve an high education, and if you do not monitor them in the nature of the chosen field. And a society where you can do that and still have a normal and fullfilled life and being able to socially contribute to our society, that is the society i want to life in man. And while computer scientist are among the highest earner in germany, i gladly contribute my tax money to a society like this.
I do however realize that cultures a different and another point of view is just as valid as mine. Just wanted to maybe offer another perspective :)
There even was a article linked here about USA student coming to germany for education this week. It said that most of them stay. Turns out if you spend like 5 of your formative years at one place, you kind of build roots there. So maybe an attractive education system can actually help securing talent.
There even was a statement by a german official which roughly said that they are very happy with the current state of affairs, having the international exchange. If things get too out of hand, tuition fees for foreign students will be explored as an option though.
So Germany invested by subsidizing some (foreign) students and manages to benefit from the fruits of its own education investment - this is hardly the context I was talking about. I was talking about the case where a country like Germany educates for free its own citizens then they leave for greener pastures. The fact that your government managed to sell you the idea that everything is all right because at least some of the subsidized students (foreign and German) will stay is relevant only to your subjective contentment level. The overall picture can be judged pretty objectively.
"Turns out if you spend like 5 of your formative years at one place, you kind of build roots there."
These kind of people would probably rooted anywhere, in any condition, as its just a thing in their nature, not something to present as a resulting advantage of a given system. Maybe a small part them came to Germany because of something unique that they couldn't possibly find anywhere else, but I think that most likely the majority came to Germany just because of the prohibitive education costs in their own country. That's to say someone else's education system has a problem (by being unattractive in the current conditions) and that secures you incoming talent now. Just expecting others to continue having problems is not a very solid plan to rely on. I believe that it's possible to design the system a little bit better, where the students that have access to subsidized education may come to feel the education debts only when they try to emigrate (and take away the results of that subsidized education) or some other kind of solution to the leakage of public investment.
However, i do not actually think that this the point. Education has always profited heavily from a diverse enviroment, so we do profit from people all over the world coming to us. Besides, not everything is about investment, sometimes a society just has to decide what it values. We also have a really expensive social system. I value this highly and love it when my tax money goes to efforts like this. I mean sure, at the end of the day i probably contribute more than i recieve money wise, but living in a society where i feel comfortable is pretty valuable to me :)
Lasty, i think i can objectivly point out, that neither of us is very likely to make any objective statements without getting into heavy citations :)
This seems a lot like buying a Ferrari because you need a car, instead of doing the sensible thing and getting a Civic. Sure, you've got crippling debt. But it seems entirely self-inflicted.
Why does he think that? Why does he think himself somehow above the other people selling shoes, and indeed the district managers of shoe-selling operations? Does he really think other people selling shoes couldn't have gotten a liberal arts degree from Columbia if they were willing to take on foolish amounts of debt?
Maybe this sir should have thought about what he was learning in school. And if he was too young to think about that at the time he went to school, maybe we shouldn't be giving him the power to make those spending decisions at that age--or maybe we should be withholding loans from students pursuing such worthless degree programs.
This idea that the world must mold itself to the interests of liberal arts students or the hysterical theories of liberal arts professors--oh reading the classics will expand your mind!--is a bunch of bullshit.
Of course the liberal arts faculty want you to keep buying into the failed state that is their department. That's the only way they keep chugging along. But employers have long ago figured out that they want to hire smart kids. And smart kids were smart before they entered these programs.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I distinctly remember almost every intro class I took the professor would try to sell me on the fact that it would be the greatest degree ever. Unfortunately, while some areas of study may be interesting, they are not always a good ROI and I think that is what alot of college kids don't understand.
Also, while the ROI on some majors is terribly negative over a large population, that choice has likely worked out very well for the professors teaching the class. A tenured position at a major university is the closest you're ever going to get in life to a sure thing.
In the end, each society has to decide for themself in what they want to invest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and...
See, there are two primary forms of financing for higher education: The heavily regulated federal market, where the federal government guarantees the loans, but also maintains rules that ensure that repayment is affordable by way of myriad flexibility in repayment (including a very reasonable $50k total cap in principal lended), and the private market which is very much similar to other forms of consumer financing.
The BAPCPA changed the rules and handed out protection to private lenders outside of the federal system that made private student loans special in that they became nondischargable in bankruptcy.
Now take a room, throw in some profit hungry lenders drunk on an elixir or reduced risk prepared by the federal government, a bunch of kids that aren't old enough to drink, some old school notions about the value of expensive college degrees, more old school notions about the value of liberal arts degrees and a pile of overzealous university administrators looking to expand by pushing overpriced preparation for vaporcareers and guess what you get, this mess.
How is this person supposed to be a sympathetic character, when he paid none of the investment towards higher education, reaped a number of the benefits, and then lumps people who played by the rules/lived within their means as sad?
The sheer level of entitlement and narcissism displayed by acknowledging "I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn’t want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school" but then going on to shirk the debt for your own personal benefit is disgusting.
Because usefulness isn't measured only in money.
(Think of the children! No, really. They cost a ton, no guarantee they'll live to support you in your dotage even, but people still have them.)
I do agree with you that education is overpriced and the value for your buck is insane, but people are paying it, and those who do, especially those who are studying the right fields of science, mathematics, medical, engineering, and computer science are coming out on top and making great money. With the exception of several degrees in which a further education is necessary, those who study anything else tend to find it harder and rougher to get jobs. Truth about the workforce is: YOU NEED SKILLS. YOU NEED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOU IN DEMAND! Unfortunately, the college degree helps you get into the door, but it's what you truly have to offer that brings you much further in life. In my case, I am extremely good at picking up new computer languages, from computer programming to web design. Add value to yourself by acquiring new skills and selling them to companies.
But...
I was talking to my sister the other day, who just graduated from an Ivy League school. All her life she's been in accelerated programs with other well-to-do kids. I realized that she has always interacted with people with above average intelligence, above average connections, above average wealth. I'm betting that many HNers have at least one of those privileges. The overwhelming majority of people do not.
Over time I see a recurring theme: that people who are uneducated and poor are so easily taken advantage of. I've seen single moms lease $30000 SUVs for 600 a month. People who, after work, sit in front of the television and spend -all their money on the weekends.
The world makes it so easy to fuck up. I always have to remind myself, a person with the single privilege of above average intelligence: what is obvious to me is not obvious to others. Yes, books are ubiquitous and cheap. Yes, people should know what they are signing up for. Yes, debts should be paid. But perhaps these things some of us take for granted as simple realities are not so obvious for an overwhelming majority. It is not their fault.
The alternative is to tell them they aren't educated enough to take out a lease.
Imagine how this would be applied to other scenarios. Say... telling someone they aren't educated/financially secure enough to have children.
And that right there is an indictment of the college system.