Student Loans

Post Reply New Topic

My husband and I had a debate about student loans, and I would like eveyone's opinion on it.

He has a conserviate view of student loans, he thinks it teaches people wiser spending habbits and say that just about anyone can get one, even if you are poor. He also says that free education would not work because it would require a tax hike somewhere and Canadian's will not go for it.

I have a liberial view of student loans. Education is a right, not a privilege. Not everyone can get a loan. You can't get one if your parents make too much, and if your credit is too low.
Federial student loans have high interest, and if you only pay the minimum, it will take YEARS to pay off, which is bad it you are struggling to make ends meet.

When you get out of university/college, most people are not going to get that magic job right away that will offer a lot of money to pay off the loan, it takes years to get that job. Loan also discourage people from getting a education to become something that Canada needs.... medical personale.

I live in a country where I do not need a wallet when I get sick, why should I need one when I go to school? Newfoundland is moving forward by removing the interest rate in the provicinal student loan program.

The situation is really bad in America, more and more people are leaving the country in order to escape the stress of the dept.

What do you all think about student loans?

I didn't realize anyone else was obligated to pay for me to pursue my personal goals. I'll gladly take what help I'm offered.

It's a sad state of affairs that a higher education is a priviledge, and not a right.

Not to sound like an elitist schmuck, but the vast majority of people are not suited for higher education. Anyways, opportunities exist to cover college expenses, so there aren't that many qualified people who are prevented from attending a university for purely financial reasons.

Not true. No way I could have afforded college without student loans - even state schools are hideously expensive and you have to be one of the "elite" HS students to get a scholarship. I wound up with better than a 3.0 in college. I voted no in the poll, meaning I disagree with the way they do it. They're worse than the mafia. The only way to get out of paying them back is to flee the country. Even bankruptcy doesn't get rid of them - and getting a job after college isn't at all guaranteed. I think a college education should be free as long as someone shows aptitude that they can get through. Politically I'm at the left end of Socialist.

This year I turn 24, so by the FAFSA I am now an independent student. Prior to this I have not been able to attend college because of the lack of financial aid. I now can sign for loans without my stepdad cosigning (which he said he would never do, or help in any way as my education would be a waste of his money supposedly). Now I'm getting to go to college, even if I have to pay for it with mega interest in the end.

What I don't get is why I have to wait until the year I become 24 for financial aid, why does it arbitrarily change my legal status of "dependent"/"independent" whether I am or not?

Of course, rich kids are too privileged for those "opportunities", and shouldn't need to worry about paying back a student loan.

EDIT: And yes, you do sound like an elitist schmuck. There is a potential in everyone, it's just you who push them down.

Last edited by Henriksson on 13 May 2009, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It isn't just the way the system works that is rotten, it's the fact that you need to 'pay' to go to school. In Canada the government pays for our healthcare... they should pay for higher-education too. If it can work for France it can work for us too.

There are other ways of paying for your education.


Who am I pushing down? I have student loans of my own that I'll have to pay back. I did not come from a family that could shell out the cash to send me to school without outside assistance. And outside assistance does exist. For the truly disadvantaged, there are numerous programs (both public and private) that are specifically targeted to making sure poor kids don't have to pay for college. Or you could just try for scholarships.

Here's the question:

Considering there are serious flaws with this system, why do you think it's better?

Your pronouns are unclear. "This system" refers to the present one, yes? I don't think I've agreed that there are serious flaws in it. People can go to college, even from poor families, so I don't see where the problem is. Better than what? Have you proposed an alternative? No, I don't want all schools to be government-run. I attend a private university, and I am glad that they are mostly free of state encumbrances.

Well, here's my opinion:

1) I agree with Orwell, not all people are suited for college. It isn't even just a matter of "pushed down" but rather that it is pretty true that not all people will receive an economic benefit above the economic cost for taking a college course, and this is based upon personal traits, such as ability and desire. This should not be ignored at all, otherwise it just leads to economic waste.

2) I disagree with the notion that college education is a right. In fact, I wish that they found another way to do things other than the college system. Period. I also do not feel alright with the idea that people have the right to another person's labor, in this case the educator or the taxpayer. I also think that a major reason for the importance of college seems more cultural than it is just a matter of education, and I don't see why we should be so extravagant on a cultural interest. If anything, we should try to counter it.

3) Opening up college to everyone without regard for economic interests, does seem likely to be wasteful. I mean, if you want to know history then study history, buy books on history, watch the history channel, read history papers, etc, but that does not mean you should go to college. If you studied the history books, you would be able to set your pace, select your own interests, and go with that just fine without having to pay a single instructor and probably saving 90% of the resources spent on college or more.

4) I am indifferent to loans, however, student-based financing does seem to make sense to me. College is an investment into capital, like other investments into capital. It should not be promoted above electrician school, culinary school, or massive investments into Microsoft. This is not to say that it is the perfect system at all, but I don't see how one could reasonably work the system in a manner neutral to investments other than taking this approach.

Added on later: In the end, I disagree with the notions of college on 2 bases:
1) As a financial investment, it should be compared to other financial investments, not to rights.
2) As an educational experience, it should be compared to other educational opportunities, and not to rights.

If we recognize that college is not the only financial opportunity that people can go into, and the only educational opportunity that people can pursue, then I do not see why it would be subsidized above all of these other things.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 13 May 2009, 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It would not have to be government-run, the government would just pay the tuition fees for you, that is how the healthcare system works in Canada. All the government does is pay the costs to run the hospital and the bill for the paitent, the government doesn't control what the doctor or the medical disctrict does, the hospital can hire who ever it wants.

Suuure. The government is just going to hand over millions or billions of dollars without exerting any control over the people they're giving that money to. Even private universities face state restrictions when they have a bit of money from a government grant.

That it favours a certain people not based on merits sure is a flaw.


See above.


The alternative is to actually have a right to have an education.


Who said all schools should be government-run? I propose private universities should be allowed, but only be allowed to charge as much as government schools. Doesn't that seem fair to you?

If schools set their own tuitions, and governments have to pay them, doesn't this mean that schools are free to extort the government? If schools are unfree to set their own tuitions, then isn't this already getting into the regulatory issue that Orwell is afraid of? Isn't this an even bigger issue given that the value of a given dollar is different across the nation and the fact that people will have value preferences for college that will include a desire to pay more for a better experience?