July 1st: Federal student loan rate doubles.

[Direckshun]

The Senate attempted to vote today to prevent that from happening. They were going to keep their vote revenue-neutral by closing a particular tax loophole used by the very wealthy.

It was blocked, by Republicans.

I didn't see a thread up about this. I just figured we needed to know about it.

Our students are doing exactly what Republicans and conservatives want them to -- they are proactively doing what they can to make life better for themselves by getting an education.

We're potentially rewarding them for their efforts by doubling what they will have to pay back, in order to protect a loophole for millionaires.

The Republican Party, theoretically for pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Theoretically for simplifying the tax code. Is violating both principles, it seems, with their actions today.

We've got a couple months. Maybe things change soon.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Well that's a brilliant solution. Take away the opportunity.

Anyone has the opportunity it's called work and save money. Novel idea huh?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Anyone has the opportunity it's called work and save money. Novel idea huh?

Because in 2 years a student could work and save up money to live on in college.

[J Diddy]

Furthermore, all this comes down to is the republicans trying to bully something off the table in the health care law.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

We aren't encouraging people to borrow tens of thousands of dollars before they have jobs anymore? Oh no!

I'm in touch with that emotion for sure.

OTOH are there federal dollars spent on things that are far less important than the education of our nation? Do we make education a thing only obtainable by those whose parents can afford to buy it for them?

Can't we look at funneling some federal $ away from non-critical programs both domestic and abroad, look at working with states to keep state university tuition as a viable option, look at revamping the student aid program to make it more merit based (e.g. grades, field of study, etc. as criteria for aid qualification)?

How many things are we spending big $ on that are more important than educating that percentage of our population who are interested and qualified in obtaining higher education?

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Because in 2 years a student could work and save up money to live on in college.

Are you telling me a student couldn't make 20k a year? If that student was smart they would go to a JUCO for 2 years.

[mikey23545]

Le's face it - this is going to harm people who want to attend the most expensive universities rather than less expensive state universities, and wish to go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars to obtain their degrees in Fine Arts.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by vailpass

I'm in touch with that emotion for sure.

OTOH are there federal dollars spent on things that are far less important than the education of our nation? Do we make education a thing only obtainable by those whose parents can afford to buy it for them?

Can't we look at funneling some federal $ away from non-critical programs both domestic and abroad, look at working with states to keep state university tuition as a viable option, look at revamping the student aid program to make it more merit based (e.g. grades, field of study, etc. as criteria for aid qualification)?

How many things are we spending big $ on that are more important than educating that percentage of our population who are interested and qualified in obtaining higher education?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/05...s/%28page%29/2

This whole thing is election year politics.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Le's face it - this is going to harm people who want to attend the most expensive universities rather than less expensive state universities, and wish to go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars to obtain their degrees in Fine Arts.

Field of study as a determinant in qualifying for loan and aid money should be looked at as an option IMHO.
Though we need to be careful to still nurture the arts, if we must make cuts, the arts will out on their own much more probably than will the sciences.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Field of study as a determinant in qualifying for loan and aid money should be looked at as an option IMHO.

This would make more sense.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Are you telling me a student couldn't make 20k a year? If that student was smart they would go to a JUCO for 2 years.

I know what you're saying about that cost, and that's what I did. Furthermore, 40 hours a week at minimum wage equates to $15,000. While attending school full time. Tell me genius, is that feasible?

[banyon]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Le's face it - this is going to harm people who want to attend the most expensive universities rather than less expensive state universities, and wish to go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars to obtain their degrees in Fine Arts.

This was probably a good criticism 15-20 years ago.

Public universities have caught up on the tuition in a big way lately.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Field of study as a determinant in qualifying for loan and aid money should be looked at as an option IMHO.
Though we need to be careful to still nurture the arts, if we must make cuts, the arts will out on their own much more probably than will the sciences.

I could see that in grants, however if I'm paying back my loans plus interest I'll be damned if someone is telling me what kind of degree I will pursue.


and no I'm not getting an arts degree.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/05...s/%28page%29/2

This whole thing is election year politics.

Oh FFS. Much ado about nothing.
Still, once the election is over it would seem a good time to appoint a committee to do an in-depth feasibility study on overhauling the current system of federal student aid IMHO.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by banyon

This was probably a good criticism 15-20 years ago.

Public universities have caught up on the tuition in a big way lately.

I go to pitt state where it's $200 a credit hour, the advantage I have is that it's a flat rate over 10 hours. So I can go for 10 hours and pay $2000 or 20 hours and pay $2000.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I could see that in grants, however if I'm paying back my loans plus interest I'll be damned if someone is telling me what kind of degree I will pursue.

Hypothetical response: And I'm damned if I'll loan you the same amount of $ to obtain a degree as I will loan someone whose field of study makes them 75% more likely to repay their loan.