Better ways to pay for college: Rubio and Clinton on reform of higher education - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48522508]Yes it acts like a regressive income tax but that's the point. It makes the student imminently aware of the cost of their education; adds the price signal. Having the regressive brackets would encourage students to seek out productive degrees (and work harder in them), so that the more income they expect to earn after graduating, the lower their repayment rate. Having the minimum weekly repayment of $10 per week (so if your income is below $10,400 you still pay $10 per week) would further weed out unmotivated students. And before people blast the latter idea, do consider that the student is receiving federal assistance to pay for their degree, so $10 mandatory repayment per week is the least they can do. Or they can just get a private loan.[/QUOTE] I don't think students think that way. People are already aware that they're paying for college and are working hard because of that, feeling like they might be in trouble after graduation won't make them work harder. It won't "weed out unmotivated students" because the reason unmotivated students even go to college is because they feel like they have to, and this won't change that. And students failing to seek productive degrees is an issue of lacking leadership, no one starts seeking a degree that they know won't be able to land them a job.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48522556]I don't think students think that way. People are already aware that they're paying for college and are working hard because of that, feeling like they might be in trouble after graduation won't make them work harder. It won't "weed out unmotivated students" because the reason unmotivated students even go to college is because they feel like they have to, and this won't change that. And students failing to seek productive degrees is an issue of lacking leadership, no one starts seeking a degree that they know won't be able to land them a job.[/QUOTE] Yeah you're probably right on most of that, and it does go to show that at least having the awareness of eventually paying back a debt is evident in students, but it wouldn't be the case with single-payer higher education. Regardless of the rate structure there should still be a transition to income-based repayments anyways, even while the students are still studying. Doesn't have to be a regressive rate structure although I did outline the thought behind it.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48522633]Yeah you're probably right on most of that, and it does go to show that at least having the awareness of eventually paying back a debt is evident in students, but it wouldn't be the case with single-payer higher education. Regardless of the rate structure there should still be a transition to income-based repayments anyways, even while the students are still studying. Doesn't have to be a regressive rate structure although I did outline the thought behind it.[/QUOTE] There are things I do like about private colleges. I like the fact that students feel like they need to work harder because they're personally paying for it. I like the fact that the teachers and administration feel more dedicated to students because they know they're paying for it. I like the fact that the school can afford better teachers, software, hardware, etc. These are all things that, from my experience at least, public primary schools have lacked. However, I don't like the fact that school is getting more and more expensive at a higher rate than inflation. I'm lucky enough to have incredible skills in an extremely in-demand career path, so I'm almost guaranteed to get a fairly high paying job. Society is getting harder and harder for people who lack skills, which is why I think people who aren't on the path to a mid to high paying job shouldn't be getting a lot of debt from college. I don't know what the solution to this is though.

as a democrat and leftist, i like chris christies plan: unbundle college. colleges spend money on shit like sports and a ton of student ameniyies that most dont even use. perhaps instead of making every share in the cost, dont charge for athletics if someone isnt going to be on a sports team and maybr dont charge to build a rovk climbig wall at the gym if nobody uses the gym. strip it down to tuition and dormitory [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] also cut out humanitiea. i spend freshman and sophomore year taking one class per semester related to my major. why do i need to take english or history 101? i learned that shit in highschool; just let me learn my skill now

[QUOTE=Wayword;48517617]this sounds awful lol. it would kill any non STEM degrees[/QUOTE] non stem degrees are useless anyway, wouldn't be much of a loss

[QUOTE=lyna;48527304]non stem degrees are useless anyway, wouldn't be much of a loss[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/GLsQQAk.png[/img]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48526100]as a democrat and leftist, i like chris christies plan: unbundle college. colleges spend money on shit like sports and a ton of student ameniyies that most dont even use. perhaps instead of making every share in the cost, [B]dont charge for athletics if someone isnt going to be on a sports team and maybr dont charge to build a rovk climbig wall at the gym if nobody uses the gym. strip it down to tuition and dormitory[/B] [editline]23rd August 2015[/editline] also cut out humanitiea. i spend freshman and sophomore year taking one class per semester related to my major. why do i need to take english or history 101? i learned that shit in highschool; just let me learn my skill now[/QUOTE] the entire idea of socialzing athletics costs is so everyone feels inclined to use the gym. there are positive health benefits to using the gym, and having extremely cheap gym memberships for college students encourages people to use the gym. a gym membership at my alma matter for university students was like 100 dollars a semester (which is very little all things considered).

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;48527363]the entire idea of socialzing athletics costs is so everyone feels inclined to use the gym. there are positive health benefits to using the gym, and having extremely cheap gym memberships for college students encourages people to use the gym. a gym membership at my alma matter for university students was like 100 dollars a semester (which is very little all things considered).[/QUOTE] If people were going to college to get in shape I might see your point.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48527485]If people were going to college to get in shape I might see your point.[/QUOTE] well fitness can help you succeed academically, you can basically run the stress away.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48527485]If people were going to college to get in shape I might see your point.[/QUOTE] people like u are ridiculous

[QUOTE=Wayword;48528026]people like u are ridiculous[/QUOTE] People like me? You mean people who don't like paying for things that I don't use, have no intention of using, and are totally unnecessary to the function of the thing I'm paying for?

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48522670]There are things I do like about private colleges. I like the fact that students feel like they need to work harder because they're personally paying for it. I like the fact that the teachers and administration feel more dedicated to students because they know they're paying for it. I like the fact that the school can afford better teachers, software, hardware, etc. These are all things that, from my experience at least, public primary schools have lacked. However, I don't like the fact that school is getting more and more expensive at a higher rate than inflation. I'm lucky enough to have incredible skills in an extremely in-demand career path, so I'm almost guaranteed to get a fairly high paying job. Society is getting harder and harder for people who lack skills, which is why I think people who aren't on the path to a mid to high paying job shouldn't be getting a lot of debt from college. I don't know what the solution to this is though.[/QUOTE] Maybe there could be a system for federal loans where the student pays 1% of the tuition upfront, and defers 99% to the loan, which would definitely add that price signal. Like shit if you're going to pay I dunno like $200 in tuition per year you'd hope you don't fail any courses as then you'd have to personally pay upfront to repeat them next year. Then with the loan it would still be repaid based on income, so eg under the new schedule you'd pay 4% of taxable income between $10,000 and $50,000 and 3% of taxable income between $50,000 and $100,000, so that might mean some students will pay off the loan as they study. But this combined with the 1% upfront, and say if Congress set a lower interest rate of perhaps 2% instead of 5% of whatever it is, would help curb debt upon graduating (especially the interest component). Having income-based repayments would also prevent students defaulting on debt, and going back to the 1% upfront that would create a tangible price signal for students to work with and so that might create incentives for universities to curb cost growth so as to compete with each other. Also the state governments should offer their own student loans to compete with the federal loan.

Rubios plan is stupid, we are not going to solve student debt by selling our future income to investors through shares, its literally indentured service with a bit of modern vinear and it represents what's wrong with Republicans, the notion that everybody can just bootstrap by applying corporate America's playbook to everything. The government isn't a business, peoples lives aren't businesses, healthcare shouldn't be a business, but that's what one side of the conversation is about anymore

[QUOTE=Sableye;48528107]Rubios plan is stupid, we are not going to solve student debt by selling our future income to investors through shares, its literally indentured service with a bit of modern vinear and it represents what's wrong with Republicans, the notion that everybody can just bootstrap by applying corporate America's playbook to everything. The government isn't a business, peoples lives aren't businesses, healthcare shouldn't be a business, but that's what one side of the conversation is about anymore[/QUOTE] His plan really isn't a bad idea, it's much more similar to what we do in Australia and the UK compared to what the US does now (and apparently we have exemplary tertiary education systems), but I don't think it goes far enough to solve the problem of tuition rising so fast.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48528115]His plan really isn't a bad idea, it's much more similar to what we do in Australia and the UK compared to what the US does now (and apparently we have exemplary tertiary education systems), but I don't think it goes far enough to solve the problem of tuition rising so fast.[/QUOTE] Both have a sensible plan to tie university financing to costs, performance, graduation and employment, but his plan on addressing the student loan is totally a piece of right wing bullshit, just like the rich argue that the poor aren't entitled to a share of their earning I argue that the rich aren't entitled to a share of my earnings, his plan is to make the rich into barons reminiscent of the European nobility

I swear its like everyone god hit with the stupid stick and forgot that having an educated and informed populace is a requirement for a functional democracy, and that the indirect returns the country gets on education is enough that it would be completely worth it to give free college educations. How many industries depend on having educated people that need some kind of product? If you pay for college for people, you have more consumers who will want things that can only be provided by an educated work force. Without that demand for these things, of course automation is going to replace most jobs. Can you imagine home computers taking off in the 80s and 90s if no one in the USA had any uses for them at home or any interest in science and technology? [editline]24th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48528084]People like me? You mean people who don't like paying for things that I don't use, have no intention of using, [B]and are totally unnecessary to the function of the thing I'm paying for?[/B][/QUOTE] "modern medicine shows that exercise improves brain function? no! its the data thats wrong!"

Clinton's plan is the one that makes the most sense to me, too bad shes probably not going to be elected and nobody else will pick up her plan because of stigma.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;48531264]"modern medicine shows that exercise improves brain function? no! its the data thats wrong!"[/QUOTE] Since when is a gym necessary, or even helpful, for basic exercise? Go jog around the block and do some basic body weight workouts. It's not that hard. Weight Rooms and treadmills are totally excessive for staying healthy.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48530615]Both have a sensible plan to tie university financing to costs, performance, graduation and employment, but his plan on addressing the student loan is totally a piece of right wing bullshit, just like the rich argue that the poor aren't entitled to a share of their earning I argue that the rich aren't entitled to a share of my earnings, his plan is to make the rich into barons reminiscent of the European nobility[/QUOTE] Well 'the rich' would be entitled to a share of your earnings because they would pay for your tertiary education. And it's not as if it's for life, such equity financing would be very reminiscent of debt financing. You'd have all different sorts of terms for different financing. Someone with merit studying a degree where they'll be set for life with a six-figure job would be able to get equity financing with a lower dividend rate and like ten-year limited life on the equity. Someone with lower prospects would have a higher dividend rate and like a twenty-five-year equity life. However it's not as if the overall disposal income of each of those graduates would be regressive, because the income tax schedule is heavily progressive. [editline]25th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kybalt;48531264]I swear its like everyone god hit with the stupid stick and forgot that having an educated and informed populace is a requirement for a functional democracy, and that the indirect returns the country gets on education is enough that it would be completely worth it to give free college educations. How many industries depend on having educated people that need some kind of product? If you pay for college for people, you have more consumers who will want things that can only be provided by an educated work force. Without that demand for these things, of course automation is going to replace most jobs. Can you imagine home computers taking off in the 80s and 90s if no one in the USA had any uses for them at home or any interest in science and technology? [editline]24th August 2015[/editline] "modern medicine shows that exercise improves brain function? no! its the data thats wrong!"[/QUOTE] If you have single-payer tertiary education you may have an over-supply of skilled labour and skyrocketing government expenses. It's all a balancing act I think. At the least I would still advocate for uncapped federal loans with repayments based on income, and maybe something like 1% tuition upfront could be explored as a condition for such loans.

And should we bring debtors prisons back too?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48534129]And should we bring debtors prisons back too?[/QUOTE] You can't default on loans (or equity financing) where repayments are a proportion of income, or at least if you do then you really suck with managing money. Eg if the repayment rate is 5%, your annual repayments are $1,000 if you earn $20,000 per year, or $4,000 if you earn $80,000 per year. That's what we do here, except in our system you don't make repayments as long as you earn less than $50,000 per year, and once you do earn that much your repayment rate slides from 5% to 9.5% of taxable income (9.5% at $100,000 income iirc).