aceluby Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Scot, of course these are not medical students. that was the point of my comment. The people who put themselves $100,000 in debt for a generic degree from a university that people go to when they couldn't get into a decent university, well, they put themselves there. I dont feel bad for them a bit. Victim blaming legitimate cases of fraud now? Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Have you no honor?Where is the honor of preying on children, indoctrinating them into a cycle of debt? Honor...That's hilarious. It's like that quote from A League of Their Own. "Honor?! Honor!? There's no honor in capitalism!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Have you no honor?If you put your mark on the paper it's your responsibility to follow through with your end of the bargain. It's not like the bank sought these students out and forced them to sign up for the loans. These students(or anyone for that matter) should take responsibility for their actions. Can I go on strike with my bank over my mortgage payments?Either figure out a way to make your payments or take the black, Night's Watch cab always use bodies Yes, you can. It's called foreclosure and bankruptcy. It happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Barry Whitebeard Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Victim blaming legitimate cases of fraud now? Nice. Just because someone is a victim doesn't mean they don't deserve some of the blame. You can feel sorry for someone while acknowledging that they should have known better than to send $5000 to a nigerian prince. Unless the school was claiming to be accreddited when they weren't, than I don't think it's fraud. That being said, my understanding is that their accredidation was under investigation, which was not made public. The fact that the government was investigating their accredidation while at the same time guaranteeing loans to that university does provide the building block for a case to have their loan dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Just because someone is a victim doesn't mean they don't deserve some of the blame. You can feel sorry for someone while acknowledging that they should have known better than to send $5000 to a nigerian prince. Unless the school was claiming to be accreddited when they weren't, than I don't think it's fraud. That being said, my understanding is that their accredidation was under investigation, which was not made public. The fact that the government was investigating their accredidation while at the same time guaranteeing loans to that university does provide the building block for a case to have their loan dismissed. They do deserve some of the blame, and a way out. It's nothing like getting scammed for your savings. It's more akin to sending the Nigerian scammer the $5000k, but then you're legally bound to keep paying him month after month for the pleasure of getting scammed on top of it. I have a friend who got an AA from an 'accredited' school that promised job placement. The jobs on their school site are for dishwashers, cooks, and fast food joints. The only reason this happens is because the money is easy to get, and it's debt that's impossible to get rid of. It's easily solved by having a maximum time to pay back your loans. If you only have 10-15 years, loaners of that money won't approve as much, and school's won't be able to charge as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Barry Whitebeard Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The problem with allowing students to declare bankruptcy on a student loan is that there is nothing to hold for collateral. You can't reposess an education the same way you can a car or a house. I wonder what the possibilities would be of having to surrender your diploma, so to speak, in order to have a loan forgiven. Though that would be more about punishing the student rather than renumerating the lender. I don't think having a maximum time to repay debt is as easy a fix as you think it will be. As long as demand for higher education continues to increase, so too will the cost. In my opinion, not everyone needs to or should go to college, but that is increasingly the message being pushed out in high school, at least in my upbringing. Another aspect of the 'fraud' in higher education is schools allowing everyone in, even though the student has no reasonable expectation of being able to perform academically at a college level. There was another case recently where students were getting massive loans to attend a school only to fail out in a year or two with nothing to show for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Yes, you can. It's called foreclosure and bankruptcy. It happens all the time. But that's the problem, as I think you acknowledge below, the student loan debt is not dischargable in the same way. That say, I would like us all to call a spade a spade. You don't go on strike from paying a loan. You default. There may be legitimate questions as to whether the loan itself is an enforceable loan for whatever reason, and that will, I am sure, be worked out in the courts. But as I believe Scot is, in fact, a bankruptcy lawyer, he knows a lot more about this sort of stuff (at least the stuff under the bankruptcy code) than I do. ETA: BBW - there is plenty of unsecured debt in the world (at least in the corporate context). It's not wholly uncommon, and that debt is dischargeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Barry Whitebeard Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 ETA: BBW - there is plenty of unsecured debt in the world (at least in the corporate context). It's not wholly uncommon, and that debt is dischargeable. That is a good point, but if we were going to treat student loans that way the terms would be even more onerous than they are now, with interest rates likely being much higher. While it would help the unemployed, an even greater number of student debtors would be pulled into default than exist even now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 That is a good point, but if we were going to treat student loans that way the terms would be even more onerous than they are now, with interest rates likely being much higher. While it would help the unemployed, an even greater number of student debtors would be pulled into default than exist even now. But - why shouldn't that be the case. That is, perhaps it should be harder to get student loans in the first place. That would probably lead to the closure of [even more] for profit and not for profit higher education institutions. IMO this is not a bad thing. It also might lead to us looking again from a policy perspective as to what the cost of a publicly provided education (meaning state university) should be and the availability of more educational alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The problem with allowing students to declare bankruptcy on a student loan is that there is nothing to hold for collateral. You can't reposess an education the same way you can a car or a house. I wonder what the possibilities would be of having to surrender your diploma, so to speak, in order to have a loan forgiven. Though that would be more about punishing the student rather than renumerating the lender. I don't think having a maximum time to repay debt is as easy a fix as you think it will be. As long as demand for higher education continues to increase, so too will the cost. In my opinion, not everyone needs to or should go to college, but that is increasingly the message being pushed out in high school, at least in my upbringing. Another aspect of the 'fraud' in higher education is schools allowing everyone in, even though the student has no reasonable expectation of being able to perform academically at a college level. There was another case recently where students were getting massive loans to attend a school only to fail out in a year or two with nothing to show for it. No, the problem is that lenders are allowed to make these loans without any risk. Banks don't loan money to people so they can start a business that is doomed to fail, because they know the person will end up in bankruptcy and they won't get their money back. (Let's ignore government bailouts for now.) In this case, the lenders are allowed to make loans for something they know is almost assuredly doomed to fail, but they dont' have the risk attached to it because the loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. They're getting governmetn protection to prey on the desperate and ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The students weren't forced to take on debt for their degrees but don't discount the amount of societal pressure put on them by their parents, teachers and peers to get a degree. When I was going through high school we were constantly told we would get stuck working in minimum wage jobs if we didn't get a degree, but there wasn't much advice on what kind of degree to get we were just told to follow our interests. Now we have millions of young people in debt with psychology and history degrees who are stuck in minimum wage jobs. You could just blame them for their problems and tell them to deal with it but a lot of them were just doing what their elders told them to do. We could just ignore this situation but I don't think that would be healthy for the future of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 No, the problem is that lenders are allowed to make these loans without any risk. Banks don't loan money to people so they can start a business that is doomed to fail, because they know the person will end up in bankruptcy and they won't get their money back. (Let's ignore government bailouts for now.) In this case, the lenders are allowed to make loans for something they know is almost assuredly doomed to fail, but they dont' have the risk attached to it because the loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. They're getting governmetn protection to prey on the desperate and ignorant. Of course, the alternative is that the 'desperate and ignorant' can't get funds at all, or at the very least, with some difficulty and under more onerous terms. Which I think makes a lot of sense, actually, and would go a long way toward solving some of these problems. Seems like this is all being looked at so I'm not sure there';s much to say here besides what has already been said, namely, there is no such thing as a 'loan strike'. That's default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 RH,I have a BA in History. I'm not rich but I'm a long way from poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Of course, the alternative is that the 'desperate and ignorant' can't get funds at all, or at the very least, with some difficulty and under more onerous terms. Which I think makes a lot of sense, actually, and would go a long way toward solving some of these problems. Seems like this is all being looked at so I'm not sure there';s much to say here besides what has already been said, namely, there is no such thing as a 'loan strike'. That's default. No, that's not the alternative. It's an alternative, but not the only one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 RH,I have a BA in History. I'm not rich but I'm a long way from poor. Doing a lot of "history" with that history degree? No, that's not the alternative. It's an alternative, but not the only one It should be difficult to get the funding. Loans of any kind that aren't likely to be paid back are bad for society as a whole. Decent schools have plenty of financial aid options to get low income people through school. The problem is, those schools only accept qualified individuals, and its the people who have no business going to college that are taking out these loans and using them to pay for schools that offer them zero opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 RH,I have a BA in History. I'm not rich but I'm a long way from poor.And the rest of the story is that you also went to law school. most people who graduate with a degree in history do not do as well as you. I went to college with a guy who graduated with a history degree. The only job available for him was working at a museum for $14 an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 I built on my BA in history with a JD. The BA was the foundation of the graduate degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Barry Whitebeard Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 No, the problem is that lenders are allowed to make these loans without any risk. Banks don't loan money to people so they can start a business that is doomed to fail, because they know the person will end up in bankruptcy and they won't get their money back. (Let's ignore government bailouts for now.) In this case, the lenders are allowed to make loans for something they know is almost assuredly doomed to fail, but they dont' have the risk attached to it because the loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. They're getting governmetn protection to prey on the desperate and ignorant. I partially agree with that, but it's not like these lenders are out there preying upon and hoodwinking people. The desperate and ignorant as you call them are the ones reaching out to the lenders asking for money. If they truly are desperate and ignorant they probably shouldn't be applying to college. Though this brings up an interesting point. Do you think that lenders should be making their loans based on the academic record and academic plans of the borrower? If I have straight As but I want to major in Women's Studies, should I be denied a loan because that doesn't have good earning potential? Should I have to declare my major before taking out a loan? And then be legally obliged to follow through with that regardless of whether I like it once I start studying it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Barry Whitebeard Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I built on my BA in history with a JD. The BA was the foundation of the graduate degree. My degree was in Political Science & History, and I haven't used either since. It was enough to get a commission in the army though, and I've built nicely on top of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Actually, the history and psychology degrees are not the issue here. If you have a degree from Harvard with a concentration in history, you are fairly likely to do well although your job will only indirectly involve your degree (e.g. government, law, etc.). The problem here is that the "college" they went to was a scam:CCi's schools offered career-oriented diploma and degree programs in health care, business, criminal justice, transportation technology and maintenance, construction trades, and information technology....The California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, stated that Corinthian Colleges targeted single parents who were close to the poverty level, a demographic that its internal documents described as "composed of 'isolated,' 'impatient,' individuals with 'low self-esteem,' who have 'few people in their lives who care about them' and who are 'stuck' and 'unable to see and plan well for future,' through aggressive and persistent internet and telemarketing campaigns and through television ads on daytime shows like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich.'"Notice that they deliberately offered degrees in fields that are thought of as valuable (and so they are... but only from decent colleges). They deliberately went after people whom they knew were poor, uneducated and without friends or family who would be able to point out to them that this is a bad idea. They knew that most of these people could never pay back the loans, but it did not matter because by that time, they would have already collected the money from the federal government and from private lenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.