Student Loans

Post Reply New Topic

Your dad should read up on Sweden, it works fine here. We have lots of students coming here from all over the world - really, who care if there are 5 extra non-tax-paying students attending seminars? It does not affect the quality of the education much either.

Do note: While the education (tuition) itself is free, study material, living and eating is not. The student funds/loans you can take wont let you live a life in luxury, but it will get you an education - if you can pass the entry requirements for the course/program. You cannot just walk in and start learning even if it seems so.

This is also the case with some advanced vocational education programs, like IT and more academic subjects. College is also free but the requirements to be allowed to study are way lower, far from everyone continue on to a university level education.

Not to a terrible extent, and in some situations you can actually come out better off for being poor when you apply to college.


I don't believe there is a "right" to education. Certainly not higher education.


Absolutely not.

Really. Care to name such a situation?


Why the f*ck not? Are you really so unemphatic that you think some people don't deserve an education? No wonder there is such a gap in equality, and a general dumbing-down trend in America. Those children in sweat shops really don't deserve an education either, oh no, they need to make your t-shirts, after all.


I actually went to a private school last year. Works for me.

I agree that learning from books at one's own pace is a whole lot more cost effective, and is basically what I did after I got my GED, while buying time before this year July (When I start college). Such as my interest in Latin, it comes and goes, but having textbooks and studying them when I want to, well so far that has only cost me about $30, whereas for a degree in Latin would cost about $80,000, which is a percentage difference of 99.9625% so studying on one's own does cost a heck of a lot less, though there is no paper to prove it, just knowledge to display.

As for my going to college now, it is for a paper. I want to be able to get a job. Accounting is supposed to be in high demand from now throughout 2016 and I'll graduate in 2013 and hopefully get some years of experience to flout before, if it ever, decreases in demand.

I am not sure where you live, but here I come from things like health-care are 'government-funded' not 'government-ran'. It is done with grade school, why can't they do it with secondary education? Let people graduate debt-free, get a job and contribute to the economy, rather then slow it down by not having money to spend.

That is quite true in the US ... there is a large form similar to the tax form that a student or his parents must fill out ... that form determines a student's 'need' and 'ability to pay' and determines what government grants and loan a person can receive. Individual schools also use the numbers to determine how much assistance to give a student. If a family has money in the bank, they are expected to use it for educational expenses ... less money = more assistance.

Last edited by monty on 13 May 2009, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Most of the stuff I study is really for my own benefit. I mean, sticking around in college for a whole bunch of degrees might be interest, but it is ultimately a waste of economic resources if I can study things for my own benefit for cheap.

Yeah, that's the only real reason to go to college that I can think of, and honestly, I think that if we could replace college with internships, massive exams, or anything, we would have a better system. I mean, here's what a person gets for the thousands of dollars of tuition:
Some grad students who will talk at them a few times a week, and grade stuff. Along with a few non-degree benefits that people don't use very much.

I think that is a terrible deal, and I think the real reason that college has economic benefit is just that the paper is hard to replace.

In any case, accounting is likely to be big. Financial scandals always increase the demand regulation which increases the demand for accountants to act as auditors for the government and bookkeepers for the private sector, and so that is a major reason. So I've heard that accounting is a great field to get into.

Sure. Loads of scholarship programs are open only to poor applicants, and I remember one program in particular that not only offered full rides for poor students at elite universities, but also coordinated with the universities in question to give poor students an edge in admissions. And lots of the top universities like their diversity points, so they're eager to admit lower-class students. Part of the college rankings system is based on how many students qualify for Pell Grants, so again, there is significant incentive to favor poorer applicants. A good friend of mine got a boost in the admissions process by being a "first-generation college student," and that would normally correlate with coming from a lower-class background.


Not everyone needs a university education, and not everyone is capable of completing a university education. Look, my education is something that I pursue to help further my career goals. Why the hell would the rest of the country be beholden to paying for my desires?

And you foreigners probably overestimate the extent of inequality in America. Are you really so delusional as to believe there is no way for a poor person in America to gain a college education? My grandfather was dirt-poor growing up, and dirt-poor for most of his adult life. He never progressed past the 8th grade. But he was able to send all seven of his children through college, and all four of his sons have terminal degrees in their fields (two JD's, one PhD, and one MD). Opportunities are out there for anyone willing to stand up and take advantage of them, and I don't have much sympathy for people who refuse to do what is necessary for their own benefit.


I'm not in favor of the government telling private schools what they can and can't do.

My dad?



Well if that where the case, what is stopping public schools from doing it? Those are government-funded.

In high-school I got to choose what courses I took, kinda like college, only difference is I did not have to pay to go to high-school.

I guess my big question is if grade-schools can be government-funded, why can't college?

I'm afraid I must leave this conversation, there is no sense talking to people who value money more than the quality of life of people.

I'm not sure if it's different in Canada, but in the US public schools (K-12) are government-run. We elect school board members as part of our local government, and teachers are government employees. The government also handles our textbooks and laboratory supplies, which is why we generally have out-of-date textbooks and not enough working lab equipment in public high schools. Also, when attending public schools, there is a massive amount of bureaucratic red tape that must be navigated to get a diploma, which varies by state.

I don't see how "slowing the economy down" is a major factor. I suppose we could argue that higher rates of debt lead to greater financial instability in the face of short-run shocks(although an argument would have to be developed as for why that would cause greater variability), but the driving factor in economic growth is investment. Investment increases the amount of capital in existence and improves technology. In any case, if you are going to argue from investment for college subsidies, then why college and not other forms of investment to the extent you want a subsidy? I mean, why not subsidize stock market investments to the same financial extent? Or subsidize culinary school to the same extent as college? Why pick one path over another?

Sadly North America is becoming more and more like that. Personal greed comes before your fellow man. Thankfully Tommy Douglas changed Canada's mind when it came to healthcare, we just need a Tommy Douglas for secondary-education.

Some countries in Europe have free secondary-education, and they are doing just fine... if it can work there, it can work here.

Have to agree with Orwell - not everyone is suited for another 4 years of classes. Many students are there only because mom and dad said college was the thing to do ... many with no interest in learning. Scarcity in education has its drawbacks, but so does over supply. I taught a one month intensive class at a private university a few years ago. One night a week for 5 weeks. Most of the students were employed full time, many had families, most had social lives, few were prepared for each class. They were merely chasing a piece of paper, and would not have been paying thousands of dollars a year for "an education" if not for government loans and slick advertising.

I'd imagine that there are some politics involved with this, as I know that the legislator for a state has significant control over the admissions policies of a state-university.


My big question is in return, is why should we fund any specific program? I mean, yes, it is probably logically possible to fund college, but it does not follow that we should fund college.

Henriksson, you cannot avoid the fact that this conversation at the most intimate level, is about economics. This means, that the question of where we get the most benefit for our money is a major concern.

You can say "quality of life", but there isn't much here to say why college and not something else. I mean, frankly, if you gave every young adult $80,000, then that might also improve their quality of life a lot as well, so why not do that? Why only pay $80,000 dollars for college and not for other paths?