HawkShack.com

Man, this is such a losing issue for the Democrats. Former Slick Willy bomb thrower James Carville even sounded off against it. Here's a quote from a person that confronted Sen. Elizabeth Warren about the issue:

An angry father confronted Sen. Elizabeth Warren, saying those who responsibly saved to pay for student loans themselves would get “screwed” under her student debt cancellation plan.

“I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money. She doesn’t have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?” the father asked Warren in a photo line after a presidential campaign town hall in Grimes, Iowa, on Monday.

“Of course not,” Warren answered, without hesitation.

“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” the father pressed.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/elizabeth ... ness-plan/

I agree that the cost of higher education has gotten too expensive and that something should be done to make it more affordable, but this free college proposal, besides being extremely expensive, is morally a horrible idea. It gives students no accountability for their actions whatsoever. They can go to college just to chase p***y and the government will pay for it. As a college grad that paid for every penny of his education through his own funds by working summers and xmas/spring breaks, I and my fellow students used to express extreme indignation over rich kids that had daddy footing the bill just so junior could party every night, never open a book, do the minimum to keep from getting expelled, then inherit daddy's business after graduation (sound like Donald Trump?) not having to scrounge for a job like the rest of us poor suckers. Now the government is going to play the role of that rich spoiled kid's sugar daddy.

Any politician that comes out for free college will never get my vote.

Our education system needs a serious overhaul, but handouts through taxation is not the place to start.

I don't know why they keep saying free. No one with a brain thinks college will be free. It will paid for with higher taxes for all.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't know why they keep saying free. No one with a brain thinks college will be free. It will paid for with higher taxes for all.

That's only half of the problem with free college, the part where it raises our taxes. The other part is the moral part, where it absolves the individual of any responsibility for his/her own self promotion. They have not had to sacrifice anything, in terms of either money or the effort to earn it, in acquiring a very valuable asset, a college degree.

The man that hired me to the first job I had out of college told me that the reason he hired me was that despite there were others that had applied that had better resumes, ie better gpa's or better colleges. He told me that the deciding factor was that I told him that I worked my way through college.

However, some time later and under the influence of some adult beverages, he claimed that the reason he hired me was because he didn't want to hire someone that was smarter than he was. So go figure.

RiverDog wrote:That's only half of the problem with free college, the part where it raises our taxes. The other part is the moral part, where it absolves the individual of any responsibility for his/her own self promotion. They have not had to sacrifice anything, in terms of either money or the effort to earn it, in acquiring a very valuable asset, a college degree.

The man that hired me to the first job I had out of college told me that the reason he hired me was that despite there were others that had applied that had better resumes, ie better gpa's or better colleges. He told me that the deciding factor was that I told him that I worked my way through college.

However, some time later and under the influence of some adult beverages, he claimed that the reason he hired me was because he didn't want to hire someone that was smarter than he was. So go figure.

That could be taken care of by overhauling the system to make it more like Europe or Asia. I guarantee they earn their degrees in those nations. At the same time, you don't get to pick your degree and do whatever you want. You have to score high enough on the requisite tests or you'll be going to trade school. That's the thing the guys like Bernie and Warren never talk about is how difficult college will become. It won't be like it is now where you screw around in High School and then figure out what you want to do in the "free" college system with everyone partying. In most free systems, High School decides what you will do in college. You will take mandatory tests that will decide whether the government will invest in you going to a 4 year degree or a trade school or something else. None of this I'll figure it out when I get there. We'll see how Americans enjoy that when the state says, "Your child tested poorly in math and English. Their options for school are taxi driver or mechanic. That's all we'll pay for." Which is what all these socialists never discuss, the method for selection that comes with "free" services where the government weights the cost-benefits using other criteria than can you afford it.

There's a difference between "free college" an tuition free college. State Colleges didn't start charging tuition till the sixties. The world as we know it wouldn't come to an end if they began doing so again.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That could be taken care of by overhauling the system to make it more like Europe or Asia. I guarantee they earn their degrees in those nations. At the same time, you don't get to pick your degree and do whatever you want. You have to score high enough on the requisite tests or you'll be going to trade school. That's the thing the guys like Bernie and Warren never talk about is how difficult college will become. It won't be like it is now where you screw around in High School and then figure out what you want to do in the "free" college system with everyone partying. In most free systems, High School decides what you will do in college. You will take mandatory tests that will decide whether the government will invest in you going to a 4 year degree or a trade school or something else. None of this I'll figure it out when I get there. We'll how Americans enjoy that when the state says, "Your child tested poorly in math and English. Their options for school are taxi driver or mechanic. That's all we'll pay for." Which is what all these socialists never discuss, the method for selection that comes with "free" services where the government weights the cost-benefits using other criteria than can you afford it.

I don't think I like that idea. Drawing from my own experience and that of my daughter's 30 years later, neither of us knew exactly what we wanted to do until well into college, and it wasn't due to the influence of any social activities. College is a lot more specialized than high school, so you don't have an opportunity to see if you're going to like a certain major until you've had a thorough introduction to it in college.

The system is fine the way it is. It's just too expensive.

c_hawkbob wrote:There's a difference between "free college" an tuition free college. State Colleges didn't start charging tuition till the sixties. The world as we know it wouldn't come to an end if they began doing so again.

That's not entirely true. Some state colleges and universities did allow for some of their schools, primarily community or junior colleges, to attend tuition free, but certainly not all of them, and those that did offer free tuition it was for in-state students only. Here's a fact check from one of Bernie Sanders speeches:

In Sanders’ home state at the University of Vermont (a state school), a book about the school’s history indicates that tuition was charged in the 19th century. Senior class tuition was $8.34 in 1827.

"I don't think there was ever a time that UVM did not charge tuition," said Jeffrey D. Marshall, director of research collections.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... t-oversea/

There wouldn't have been much need for the GI Bill, which gave returning WW2 veterans free tuition at colleges and universities, if all or even most of the state colleges were tuition free.

It's unarguably much more expensive to attend college nowadays than when I was when I was in college in the mid-70's and I'm open to some sort of government subsidy to help bring tuition costs down or offer free or greatly reduced tuition at some select colleges or perhaps some sort of work-study partnership with private industry, 50% debt forgiveness if they complete their degree, etc. But free tuition nation-wide and at all colleges and universities for everyone? Nope.

BS. State colleges were predominantly tuition free for state residents before the 60's. Period.

c_hawkbob wrote:BS. State colleges were predominantly tuition free for state residents before the 60's. Period.

First off, you didn't limit your first statement to state residents, and you didn't say "predominantly". You said: State Colleges didn't start charging tuition till the sixties. You're back peddling.

Secondly, I'd like to see where it is that you came to such a definite conclusion. Do you have a link or quote that you can share?

Edit: From the fact check of Sander's speech that I linked above:

"There was a time in the United States when some public colleges and universities charged no tuition."

Its total BS. My brother in law had no college whatsoever and he's a microsoft master systems engineer worth millions. My best buddy is the same in fast food, a multimillionaire. I attended a little bit of college but no formal education in golf course maintenance and im very good.

College is great for some people but when I've worked 60 years without it along with my friends why do we have to subsidize someone who wants to go. My sisters all went and they paid their loans off as did my wife, a medical professional. Why move the goalposts now? College is hardly a prerequisite for a successful life.

Medicare for all has quite bit more support than this loser and I think its general election disaster..

c_hawkbob wrote:BS. State colleges were predominantly tuition free for state residents before the 60's. Period.

I attended what is now Eastern Washington University from 1973-77. My tuition for my entire time was $169/quarter. I find it highly unlikely that the school would have gone from nothing in the 60's to $150+ in the early 70's. Additionally, I can remember researching tuition costs in my World Almanac starting in 1970, and I can't recall any colleges outside of community colleges in California that did not charge tuition.

My best friend was born in 1938 and attended Oregon State University as an undergraduate student from 1956-61. He said that he paid between $50-$100 tuition per quarter. I have a second friend, born in 1959 and attended University of Washington from 1968-74. He said that it "seems like" tuition was $120/quarter, which seems a little low if mine was $169 at Eastern in '73. Neither can recall any public college or university that was ever tuition free.

I can do some more research by messaging other friends of mine from that era, but that seems like a pretty fair sampling so I'm calling BS until proven wrong.

I know tuition for school was far less in my dad's young days, even compared to what they were making. He paid almost nothing to go to school out of state in California and books were super cheap from what he said.

I still think they should do a full school revamp at this point to make us competitive with foreign nations. This tolerance for lax K1-12 is a bad idea. Every foreign person I talk from even close to an organized education system talks about how rigorous they are at educating kids. None of this Cs and tolerance for low participation or missing homework. You do the work or you get the hammer. If you don't score well on the compulsory tests, then you limit your options. We could use some of that here. From what I've seen of college, you have a bunch of people spending money to retake courses they should have learned in High School. Why are our college kids retaking algebra and composition when that should have been rigorously taught in High School. You could cut a year off degrees by better preparing kids so they don't have to retake the same material they took in High School in college. They can focus on actual job classes and career preparation rather than paying to take High School twice because our K1 to 12 system was lax and poorly structured.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I know tuition for school was far less in my dad's young days, even compared to what they were making. He paid almost nothing to go to school out of state in California and books were super cheap from what he said.

I still think they should do a full school revamp at this point to make us competitive with foreign nations. This tolerance for lax K1-12 is a bad idea. Every foreign person I talk from even close to an organized education system talks about how rigorous they are at educating kids. None of this Cs and tolerance for low participation or missing homework. You do the work or you get the hammer. If you don't score well on the compulsory tests, then you limit your options. We could use some of that here. From what I've seen of college, you have a bunch of people spending money to retake courses they should have learned in High School. Why are our college kids retaking algebra and composition when that should have been rigorously taught in High School. You could cut a year off degrees by better preparing kids so they don't have to retake the same material they took in High School in college. They can focus on actual job classes and career preparation rather than paying to take High School twice because our K1 to 12 system was lax and poorly structured.

There's no question that when factored for inflation the expense of attending college has increased. Not only that, but with labor laws as they are now, it's nearly impossible for a young adult to have the ability to make the kind of money I was able to and help finance their own education.

But that's not the point. The argument is who's responsibility should it be to fund college education and to what degree?

RiverDog wrote:There's no question that when factored for inflation the expense of attending college has increased. Not only that, but with labor laws as they are now, it's nearly impossible for a young adult to have the ability to make the kind of money I was able to and help finance their own education.

But that's not the point. The argument is who's responsibility should it be to fund college education and to what degree?

Nations like Germany, India, and many nations have proven investing in education done right can be a very effective way to build your education system. We're generally getting our buts kicked in tech, medicine, and advanced degrees from people from other nations. At some point you have to ask yourself, why? I think you can point not just to a lack of money as some politicians like to push, but to low standards, often due to long-standing racial issues where "white" liberals like to dumb down the system to levels they feel will allow supposedly historically oppressed minorities to pass. Even in Washington State we have liberal "racists" who view certain minorities like Latins and Africans in one way as lesser, but Asians and European ancestry another way as privileged and advanced.

Given how education affects your career path, I would be ok investing in education if it was done in an efficient and effective way. Education can be a path out of poverty and a way to advance your interests in life. But it can't be the "I'm going to school because that is what society expects of me" way we have now. High School should be used as a preparation and testing ground for your career, not a place to screw around, meet friends, and party until you graduate not knowing what you want to do. If you want to change job skills at a later time, have at it and pay for it yourself. High School and the education citizens pay good money for should be focused on a goal that does not tolerate this lax standard regardless of your ethnicity or poverty level. Fact is that anyone can learn what High School teaches, even kids from the poorest nations can learn math and language.

There should also be no shame in teaching a kid that he is better off going to trade school and preparing them for a trade. Our education system should be evaluating changes in the job market to prepare kids for new jobs like robotic engineer or drone pilot.

So as far as responsibility goes, I believe it is a joint responsibility between the government and the citizens to invest in education and ensure the education system prepares people to succeed in life. What kind of society do you want to live in? One where people avoid education if they feel like it producing a lot of ignorant, unprepared rubes that might end up on welfare or a school system that rigorously prepares people for the competitive job market?

Aseahawkfan wrote:So as far as responsibility goes, I believe it is a joint responsibility between the government and the citizens to invest in education and ensure the education system prepares people to succeed in life. What kind of society do you want to live in? One where people avoid education if they feel like it producing a lot of ignorant, unprepared rubes that might end up on welfare or a school system that rigorously prepares people for the competitive job market?

It has been a joint responsibility between the government and its citizens. The taxpayers spend billions each year on higher education and have been doing so for decades. But the proposals for free tuition is moving the entire responsibility away from the individual and to the taxpayers.

One of the friends I queried about tuition costs...my bleeding heart/bed wetting liberal friend... had an interesting way to measure the costs nowadays compared to when he was in college in the late 60's. He said that he was making $2.73/hr at summer jobs and that tuition at UW cost him $120/quarter so it took him 44 hours of labor to pay for one quarter's worth of tuition. Nowadays, tuition costs $4500/quarter at UW so at $15.00/hour it would take 300 hours of labor to pay for a quarter's tuition. That's 7 times what it was back in the mid 60's. Plus as I mentioned, it's more difficult for kids to earn money like I was able to.

Obviously something needs to be done, but two things I don't want to see happen is to make it free and to forgive everyone's debt. As the voter that approached Sen. Warren indicated, forgiving debt would be a slap in the face to those parents and students that played by the rules and paid their own way. It would be similar to the feeling one might have in granting amnesty to a draft dodger when you were conscripted and risked your life fulfilling your obligation.

RiverDog wrote:It has been a joint responsibility between the government and its citizens. The taxpayers spend billions each year on higher education and have been doing so for decades. But the proposals for free tuition is moving the entire responsibility away from the individual and to the taxpayers.

One of the friends I queried about tuition costs...my bleeding heart/bed wetting liberal friend... had an interesting way to measure the costs nowadays compared to when he was in college in the late 60's. He said that he was making $2.73/hr at summer jobs and that tuition at UW cost him $120/quarter so it took him 44 hours of labor to pay for one quarter's worth of tuition. Nowadays, tuition costs $4500/quarter at UW so at $15.00/hour it would take 300 hours of labor to pay for a quarter's tuition. That's 7 times what it was back in the mid 60's. Plus as I mentioned, it's more difficult for kids to earn money like I was able to.

Obviously something needs to be done, but two things I don't want to see happen is to make it free and to forgive everyone's debt. As the voter that approached Sen. Warren indicated, forgiving debt would be a slap in the face to those parents and students that played by the rules and paid their own way. It would be similar to the feeling one might have in granting amnesty to a draft dodger when you were conscripted and risked your life fulfilling your obligation.

Some of the debt should be forgiven as it was charlatan schools the government should have never paid for. Some of the lending levels are insane. I don't get how they can allow these charlatans to loan money to levels that will take decades to pay off even after they graduate in essence putting this person in the same debt they would for a house for their education. Fiscal responsibility and skills is another area the government is failing to educate citizens. You have all this credit being used and how many citizens could calculate what it will cost them to pay off their debt? It's nutty.

We have a lot of work to do and what I don't like about people like Warren and Sanders is the absences of standards. It's one thing to discuss forgiving debt or lower college costs, but what does that do if you don't force standards on citizens? They make it sound like it's going to be a bunch of free crap rather than a system with a goal. Where is the goal? If you want more money from taxpayers, then stop with the victim talk. People are not victims. They are bad decision makers. What steps will these folks take to prevent bad decision makers from continuing to make irresponsible and costly choices like choosing a degree worth no money to cover using a student loan? When are we going to get hard on people again? The one thing they never talk about with Europe, Asia, and India is the pressure and standards these socialist systems are using to ensure education investment is returned.

It's like they want American freedom with everything free and no standards or expectations for "victimized" citizens. That is just BS. I paid for my college while working back in the 90s while living on my own paying my rent and bills. I worked and did school. I didn't waste my time partying or spending on frivolous things ilke cable, video games, or phone crap. When we will these clowns like Sanders and Warren say to these young people, "how about you step up and act responsibly before you turn to the government for help?" What happened to those types of standards?

I can support more money in the education system if I see some higher expectations of the students. I don't want to toss money so some American kids can go to school for free retaking High School Courses while they figure out what they want do partying on the taxpayer dime. That I do not want. But I am doubtful that these sad "leaders" of America will ever look down at the citizens and have some expectations of them because that doesn't win votes.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Some of the debt should be forgiven as it was charlatan schools the government should have never paid for. Some of the lending levels are insane. I don't get how they can allow these charlatans to loan money to levels that will take decades to pay off even after they graduate in essence putting this person in the same debt they would for a house for their education. Fiscal responsibility and skills is another area the government is failing to educate citizens. You have all this credit being used and how many citizens could calculate what it will cost them to pay off their debt? It's nutty.

I agree that some of the debt for some students/parents should be forgiven. Have you ever seen the graduation rate for colleges? It's about 60%, a bit higher for women than it is for men. Now the Dems want to pay for the party goers or those that made a bad judgement and left for some other reason whether they underestimated the costs, couldn't get the grades, or found a better alternative.

IMO I would link a certain percentage of debt forgiveness to graduation in order to give students an incentive to finish what they start. What's always irked me as a student was those that go to college solely for the social aspect and weren't serious students. Those people should have to pay for their mistakes and/or excesses. Additionally, the debt is going to be higher for those students that spend 4 or more years completing their degree than it will be for the ones that drop out as freshmen and sophomores.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We have a lot of work to do and what I don't like about people like Warren and Sanders is the absences of standards. It's one thing to discuss forgiving debt or lower college costs, but what does that do if you don't force standards on citizens? They make it sound like it's going to be a bunch of free crap rather than a system with a goal. Where is the goal? If you want more money from taxpayers, then stop with the victim talk. People are not victims. They are bad decision makers. What steps will these folks take to prevent bad decision makers from continuing to make irresponsible and costly choices like choosing a degree worth no money to cover using a student loan? When are we going to get hard on people again? The one thing they never talk about with Europe, Asia, and India is the pressure and standards these socialist systems are using to ensure education investment is returned.

It's like they want American freedom with everything free and no standards or expectations for "victimized" citizens. That is just BS. I paid for my college while working back in the 90s while living on my own paying my rent and bills. I worked and did school. I didn't waste my time partying or spending on frivolous things ilke cable, video games, or phone crap. When we will these clowns like Sanders and Warren say to these young people, "how about you step up and act responsibly before you turn to the government for help?" What happened to those types of standards?

I can support more money in the education system if I see some higher expectations of the students. I don't want to toss money so some American kids can go to school for free retaking High School Courses while they figure out what they want do partying on the taxpayer dime. That I do not want. But I am doubtful that these sad "leaders" of America will ever look down at the citizens and have some expectations of them because that doesn't win votes.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of that. My point is mainly a financial/moral argument over who's responsibility it should be to personally finance their education. I want to make it more affordable for those that, in more ways than one, do their homework. As a taxpayer, I don't like financing poor decisions or ulterior motives.

I was fortunate in that I got cooperative education job (work a semester, then go to school a semester - summer, spring, fall, summer - delayed graduation 1 year) with a major railroad and then I became a resident assistant my last two years to get a little extra jingle and have my room paid for. That balanced with a couple of scholarships got me through undergrad, and a summer internship with a construction engineering company (worked 70hrs/wk at 1.5/hr for OT) got me through my first year of grad school with a TA position helping out. Also got a summer job engineering for a ship yard that paid really well before my last semester of grad school. I only had a loan for the last semester of grad school.

I know a lot of kids don't land opportunities like that, and they certainly are going to have a hard time paying for school and working. It cannot be done that way with no debt this day in age. College is ridiculously overpriced, and this country continually supports the notion that college = success no matter what you go for. That has to change.

Asea, you make great points. K-12 is incredibly lax. High-performers know they are going somewhere, and generally do. The ones that don't excel are generally the ones that have a harder time paying for and getting through college. I have interviewed young engineering graduates and I know right away which ones don't have a strong foundation. It is sad, but I don't even give them a second look. They have this notion that the job will teach what they need to know; that their GPA isn't a big deal; the degree is all that matters. Here I am thinking they were supposed to have learned something in their 4-6 years in school. I'd rather other engineers and I work extra than bring somebody on who is basically a massive project just to get them to be semi-productive. Not worth it.

I am also on board with placing by aptitude, though I know that will be unpopular. Not knowing what you want does not really matter in my book when someone else is footing the bill. Universities won't like it either as it will limit the amount of students that enter their programs. You only need so many philosophy, communication, and *insert topic* studies majors. The degrees that don't pay off out number the ones that do, so the colleges want to keep that money train rolling. I see aptitude testing and quotas as just about the only way to control the cost of government funding college education.

Fiscal responsibility is a whole other matter. Some of it is wiring. I know I am wired to avoid debt, save money, buy quality. Others don't see it that way and can't unless they learn some hard lessons and, even then, may not come around. Financial literacy is another. K-12 doesn't teach about how loans work and cost-benefit analysis. Some may get it in their home life, others don't; I didn't, so I had to learn about it myself. I'll never understand how the "woke" youth of our colleges' student bodies can espouse their rights and have it all figured out as to how the country should be run, and, yet, they cannot make an informed, responsible decision regarding taking out loan amounts in the tens sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars and cry foul when it doesn't work out. I saw a FB post about students making statement about the "rigged" college loan system. One stated: "So I can't get a $20,000 business loans but they let me take out $200,000 for an art degree." Okay, yeah, that sucks, but, WTF, art degree for $200k? Are you a special kind of stupid? My sympathy meter reading zero on that one.

Agreed that expectations need to be higher, but, even if that happens, there will always be those who choose to work harder and choose to delay gratification and take responsibility for examining the weight of the decisions they make. That's where the separation happens in what is largely a country with equal opportunity. Any measure of success is usually not just handed to anyone; the boobs like Trump and the kids that River mentioned may catch a break that way, but that's such a small percentage of population. Not who Warren/Sanders are campaigning this legislation for.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Agreed that expectations need to be higher, but, even if that happens, there will always be those who choose to work harder and choose to delay gratification and take responsibility for examining the weight of the decisions they make. That's where the separation happens in what is largely a country with equal opportunity. Any measure of success is usually not just handed to anyone; the boobs like Trump and the kids that River mentioned may catch a break that way, but that's such a small percentage of population. Not who Warren/Sanders are campaigning this legislation for.

Have you seen the college graduation rates? They're just 60% nation wide for all colleges, and that number is undoubtedly skewed as the better private schools that are more difficult to get into have much better percentages. Harvard, for example, has a 96% graduation rate, Stanford 94%. Meanwhile, Washington State University is 62%. Your alma mater, Mississippi State, graduates 58%. My former college, EWU, which is a state school that's cheaper and isn't as difficult to get into as others, is just 44%. That can't be explained by some random boobs like Trump or a few party goers like I referred to. Something is broken, and paying for their failures isn't the answer.

Additionally, it's logical to assume that the average student debt is much higher for those that put their noses to the grind stone and graduate. I'd be more inclined to help those folks than I would the ones that bail after a year or two at a state school and don't have that big of a debt load.

I can be talked into free tuition at community colleges for a limited period of time to help undecided students or those on the bubble financially get some time and exposure to curriculum so they can figure out what they want to do without or before going to the more expensive 4 year colleges, but I'm not for an across the board waving of tuition and student debt.

It's also very bad politics for the Dems, and will hurt them in a general election.

I was referring to the kids you mentioned that got to go on daddy's dime, screw off for four years, and still have a cushy job waiting for them. They are an outlier as it pertains to getting through college "successfully" with little to no debt.

As far as the 60% nation wide average of finishing a degree, I really don't know what that is about. I do remember hearing from some of the leadership at Mississippi State during my time as an RA, that they were concerned with retention rates and thought that if they made the freshman experience better (nicer residence halls, get them plugged in, help them with finding resources), more of these students would stick it out. I really don't know how much that would actually help. I've seen a lot of kids that would simply go to class and come back to the dorm and play video games all day and then go out all weekend. Homework and studying were a foreign concept to them (one could skate by in high school and still graduate) and they paid for it by no longer being academically viable. College is seen too much as an experience than as the start of one's career. Harvard, Stanford, and the like are highly competitive to even get in, so I am not surprised they have high graduation rates. I wonder that state schools are low because entrance requirements are low; you really only have to have a pulse to get accepted and qualify for a loan. The student is no longer under anybody's wing; they are responsible for themselves at that point, and some of them (40% of them) are not cut out for college.

That probably is true that students that carry significant debt likely stuck it out and graduated, but that includes the kids that went with cake majors in the first place. A degree in japanese studies cost the same as one in mechanical engineer, and we both know who is better equipped to handle that debt after graduation. I am sure they need some relief, but wasn't that a bad decision to begin with?

Ultimately, I think there needs to be some kind of compromise. Not sure how to implement it, but I agree it can't be a blank check that just wipes all the debt out. There's too many people that worked their tails off to avoid or minimize student debt to just turn around and put the cost of others on them. Is there a way to settle some of the debt? Have the Fed offer to "forgive" a certain amount every year so long as regular payments are made but the forgiven amount is taxable as income (not just the public service option they implemented, if it is still there)?

I like your statement of free tuition for community colleges. I think they are very underrated and are probably looked at as a less than option, but they would help the situation.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I was referring to the kids you mentioned that got to go on daddy's dime, screw off for four years, and still have a cushy job waiting for them. They are an outlier as it pertains to getting through college "successfully" with little to no debt.

Understood. Thanks for clearing that up.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:As far as the 60% nation wide average of finishing a degree, I really don't know what that is about. I do remember hearing from some of the leadership at Mississippi State during my time as an RA, that they were concerned with retention rates and thought that if they made the freshman experience better (nicer residence halls, get them plugged in, help them with finding resources), more of these students would stick it out. I really don't know how much that would actually help. I've seen a lot of kids that would simply go to class and come back to the dorm and play video games all day and then go out all weekend. Homework and studying were a foreign concept to them (one could skate by in high school and still graduate) and they paid for it by no longer being academically viable. College is seen too much as an experience than as the start of one's career. Harvard, Stanford, and the like are highly competitive to even get in, so I am not surprised they have high graduation rates. I wonder that state schools are low because entrance requirements are low; you really only have to have a pulse to get accepted and qualify for a loan. The student is no longer under anybody's wing; they are responsible for themselves at that point, and some of them (40% of them) are not cut out for college.

I haven't dug into the drop out rate problem, but I don't like the idea of simply concentrating on the retention aspect. The problem with the colleges approach is that since their funding is dependent on enrollment all they care about is keeping butts in the chairs. There are some kids that simply are not cut out for college. Making residence halls nicer and their "college experience" more appealing might just prolong their dilemma instead of solving it. Rather, many of those that are dropping out should be, or should have been given, other options that don't require college, such as trade schools or work apprentices, before they enroll in college. There's a huge need for blue collar workers like electricians, construction trades, and truck drivers that pay very well but don't require that you take two years of core classes, like humanities and sciences or other subjects unrelated to their interests, that 4 year liberal arts colleges normally require. High school counselors should be diverting these kids to other alternatives.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:That probably is true that students that carry significant debt likely stuck it out and graduated, but that includes the kids that went with cake majors in the first place. A degree in japanese studies cost the same as one in mechanical engineer, and we both know who is better equipped to handle that debt after graduation. I am sure they need some relief, but wasn't that a bad decision to begin with?

Ultimately, I think there needs to be some kind of compromise. Not sure how to implement it, but I agree it can't be a blank check that just wipes all the debt out. There's too many people that worked their tails off to avoid or minimize student debt to just turn around and put the cost of others on them. Is there a way to settle some of the debt? Have the Fed offer to "forgive" a certain amount every year so long as regular payments are made but the forgiven amount is taxable as income (not just the public service option they implemented, if it is still there)?

The 'cake majors' is a separate issue. WTF are we as taxpayers doing supporting idiotic majors like that in the first place? It's one thing to offer a minor in something like Japanese studies, but the primary objective is to prepare kids for a career that they can live on. If those departments aren't successful at placing grads in careers relevant to their curriculum, they need to be eliminated.

Like I said earlier, I'm open to forgiving some debt based on circumstances, but certainly not a blanket forgiveness as being discussed by the major Dems. Looks like we agree on that part of the discussion.

I am with you on all of that River. What worries me is the issue isn't going away. You'll still have today's youth that want "free" college, and the previous crop of college students are going to keep pushing for relief of their loans. Perhaps there is some merit to the system being completely out of control cost wise and the system itself is stacked against them, but, for crying out loud, they still had to sign on the dotted line. Such a mess.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I am with you on all of that River. What worries me is the issue isn't going away. You'll still have today's youth that want "free" college, and the previous crop of college students are going to keep pushing for relief of their loans. Perhaps there is some merit to the system being completely out of control cost wise and the system itself is stacked against them, but, for crying out loud, they still had to sign on the dotted line. Such a mess.

The economy is by far the biggest issue in surveys of Millennials and Gen X. Personal finance was ranked behind immigration, health care, and national security in both those groups. As the generations get older, ie the Boomers and the Silent Majority (a group coined by Richard Nixon), health care shoots up to #1, but personal finance still holds the same low ranking that it does with the two younger generations.

That's why it's so absurd for the Democrats to make this an election year issue. It's a losing proposition for them as the majority of the public isn't that alarmed about it. If Warren or Sanders get nominated and start pushing free college and debt forgiveness as part of their campaign, Trump will eat them alive.

Here's one survey with a good graphical comparison, taken in June of 2019:

https://www.bankrate.com/surveys/presid ... july-2019/

There's a lot wrong with the financing of higher education, but we have bigger fish to fry. Personally, I'd like to see something done to make housing more affordable before we go throwing billions at people that aren't that bad off. We need to keep in mind that people don't have to go to college to find a good paying job. It's far from being a life necessity. This should not trump (sorry for the pun) other more important needs.