this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
115 points (71.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43993 readers
981 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This would save young Americans from going into crippling debt, but it would also make a university degree completely unaffordable for most. However, in the age of the Internet, that doesn't mean they couldn't get an education.

Consider the long term impact of this. There are a lot of different ways such a situation could go, for better and for worse.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 120 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Loans aren't the problem. Insane loan debt is a symptom of an unsustainable higher education system.

You can learn a lot on your own, but many careers require a formal education (medicine, law, engineering, etc.). By itself, banning student loans within our current system merely makes it harder for poorer people to attain those careers.

[–] Haywire@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Loans that can't be discharged are the problem. Tuition went out the roof when universities discovered this gold mine.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago

Student loans seem to be a massive part of the problem of out of control tuition increases. The National Bureau of Economic Research published this study in 2016 that showed that changes to the Federal Student Loan Program accounted for the majority of the 106% increase in tuition between 1987 and 2010. Whether that's some right-wing scheme to divert attention from reduction of states' funding of public universities I haven't looked into, but it seems to me that it's at least a significant factor on its face.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So education for the wealthy only? Bugger off.

[–] sparr@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

No. I predict we would revert to the status quo of 20-100 years ago, with very affordable state-run schools providing excellent education, and high price private schools catering to the rich. Cheap schools got expensive because we allowed the for-profit student loan industry to run wild.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Assuming nothing is done to curb the recent capitalist tendencies of universities to inflate tuition then yeah it would be mostly restricted to the wealthy. It might be possible that market forces would coerce them to become cheaper again in order to not end up getting shut down from lack of funding from lower enrollment though.

It's also possible that lack of access to higher education would cause SOME kind of populist uprising, which people then hope would lead sweeping economic and social reforms.

But I'm increasingly pessimistic that populist uprisings in America would lead anywhere other than Christian fascism.

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think student loans are a symptom of the problem. But not the problem itself. The problem is that college is so incredibly unaffordable for many American students. If higher education wasn't so absurdly expensive, many students could take out fewer loans.

[–] Jajcus@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (15 children)

The loans are not just a symptom. Is probably the main cause of current college prices. Prices would not be so high if students would not be given money to pay them.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

Given the other massive catastrophic defects in the fabric of our society, making student loans illegal makes about as much sense as outlawing flat tires. The law you'll probably write isn't going to punish the people who need to be punished, and it won't help the people you're trying to help.

[–] griefreeze@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, let's make getting an accredited degree something only the wealthy can afford, that'll do well for the working class you betcha.

Class mobility is stagnant enough, I truly cannot see any upside to this for the vast majority of people.

[–] alokir@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm from a country with free university education and we also have student loans available.

Here's something that works for us: forget about private universities, invest in federal or state owned collages so that they can compete with the private ones.

Do a scholarship program where students can get free entry into these universities if their grades are high enough in high school, or make it dependent on an entry exam. Those that don't get in have a paid option that's still partially funded by the state or federal government.

Student loans will still be useful, not for tuition but for families who can't afford to send their kids to study in the cities where the universities are located.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The sad part about relying on scholarships is that disadvantaged kids are much less likely to have excellent grades. These people need school more than anyone else. The system works backwards.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Shoulda been illegal/actually regulate, in the first place. Removing restrictions on raising tuition was also another lame move.

[–] SafCack@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

This is a horrible idea.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Ban, no. Cap, maybe. Completely overhaul, yes.

  • Any school that receives any public funds should make school completely free to all students with a permanent address in that constituency. If my tax money is going to a school, I shouldn't have to pay tuition for my kids to go there.
  • Students who graduate and are not offered (or are laid off or fired without cause from) a job that provides them sufficient pay and benefits to get them to 300% of the local poverty level should be forgiven each month's payment for as long as they are in that state. Not deferred or paused, forgiven.
  • Anyone who graduates and takes a job with a federal, state, or local governmental entity or nonprofit organization should likewise have their student loan payment forgiven for every month they are employed.
  • Anyone who takes a K12 teaching position after graduation should have their student loans forgiven at a rate of one year's worth of payments per month of teaching.
  • Student loan forgiveness should be taxed at 0% in every state and nationally.
  • Student loans should be capped at a total value that would limit repayment to 10 years, while allowing a student to maintain an income after repayment of 300% of the poverty line during that time. After reaching the cap, if the student is more than 50% complete with their degree, they should be permitted to complete that degree.
  • Students who do not graduate, or who change their major partially through the program, should be able to apply the value of tuition already paid, adjusted for inflation, toward eventually returning to school; or pass that credit on to a child or other family member.

This is just off-the-cuff; I haven't thought about the implications of all of these. But I think it would help significantly.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Generally oppose.

We would need massive structural changes in education and funding before banning student debt; you'd need to make university free, and give students a living stipend while they were there, as loans usually cover living expenses as well. I can't see that happening in the current political climate. So if we simply outlawed educational loans, the effect would be that millions of people would no longer have access to higher education at all.

The idea that you can learn things on the internet ignores the fact that the internet is rife with misinformation--i.e., bullshit and outright lies--and it allowed people to get into thought bubbles, which higher education fights against pretty effectively.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I hate capitalist economics, but the ease of obtaining student loans is one of the reasons for the high price of college tuition.

If student loans didn't exist, then most people would not be paying outrageous tuitions. Colleges will be forced to accomodate.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Canada recently stopped charging interest on their student loans, that goes a long way to affordability. The other thing though is just plain cost of education. It can be cheaper to get a 4-year degree from a Canadian University than take one year of a comparable program in the US.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Completely nonsensical and screws everyone involved.

Student loans are supposed to be an investment the government takes in its population. If it works properly then the money that the government spent on the students tuition is both paid back monetarily by the student as well as societally because now you have an educated citizen providing ever increasing tax revenue. If you make student loans illegal you not only make it impossible for students to educate themselves beyond public school you destroy the entire post secondary school industry now that so few can afford to educate themselves.

What needs to happen is cutting out all the middleman bullshit and just making post secondary education free with your taxes, at least a couple years worth. If someone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer or someone who needs to have more than a couple years worth then sure that can be on their dime. Otherwise those first 4 years are just unnecessarily saddling people with mountains of debt that there is no guarantee they can pay back after they are done

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel the same way about that as I do about making ALL education - K through 16 (or tech/vocational) FREE.

I am all for it. We have way too many stupid people shoving their voices in matters that don't concern them. Educated would be better.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's not at all what OP proposed though. They want to keep tuition as is, just eliminate loans.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago

You may know everything, but no degree no luck?

Why not think a but further? Money for people that need it, free universities? Like... in the EU?

[–] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What issue are you looking to solve? You state that you believe people are able to seek out, and attain their education independently through resources like the internet. So why would it matter if there are alternatives that cost money which one can pay, and receive loans for?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

In my country loans are interest free. This makes them easy to pay off with destroying your life. You can also pause payments with no issue.

[–] HugeCounterargument@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

with destroying your life

(Ν‘β€’_ Ν‘β€’ )

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In the short term, only the children of the wealthy could continue into higher education. Anyone else who had dreams of doing anything that required higher ed, including professions that are already in short supply like doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, would be SOL. I can see how "starve the beast" makes an appealing, easy to understand fix for the issues in higher education, but I think the cost to people is too high to do it like that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The loans in my country aren't too bad.

It's not a normal loan, it doesn't appear on my credit checks.

It's provided by the government and has low interest.

You only pay it back once you earn over a certain amount and they take a single digit percentage of your wages.

It's more like a graduate tax as paying it off doesn't matter, short of not wanting it taken from your wages.

I earn around double the national average and pay around 100 a month. Which isn't a huge amount. Basically a decent meal out + drinks a month.

[–] rjs001@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

I would oppose it. It would make colleges far harder for most people and severely limit access to education. In the future yeah, I don’t want to see student loans being a thing (free education) but right now I could only see the effects of that being negative

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Better solution would be a cap on tuition imo.

But even no interest loans or at the very least let them be discharged in bankruptcy would be better than what we have.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] knobbysideup@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Health insurance first please.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί