@Tsherry "Show me a single government throughout history that hasn't fucked their population in the end."

People have always been getting effed, throughout history, all the time by somebody or other.

A government is a necessary evil, at least for some cohesive policies, if nothing else. They are given some power for executing their function, but power corrupts and then they focus on just perpetuating that power. So, yes, the governments do end up effing the people, more as a rule than an exception, and more so if there is too much centralization of power, as it is now.

The Founding Fathers were quite well aware of the above problems, so they tried to balance the US government power by creating the three separate branches of government. On top of that, the function of the press, and the freedom of speech, is to be a watchdog for the people. And they gave us the 2nd Amendment for protection against enemies, domestic or foreign.

The corruption has overtaken the good intentions of the Founding Fathers despite their best creation of a government in the history of mankind. And the press has became more of presstitudes than ever before. So, the people are now getting effed a lot more and it will continue until the people say NO MORE in a meaningful way.

But we cannot throw the baby with the bath water; we just need to flush the dirty water down the toilet!

The Brits have screwed up a great many things (and due to the current garbage culture, will continue this trend) but their college classes are still pretty kick ass (at least as of a decade ago). When the kid was there, she was writing papers multiple times a week, not just a couple of essays a quarter/semester. (degree was in English).

Their set up is this: bring two copies of your paper to class. You keep one, give the second to the don/professor.

You then read your paper OUT LOUD in front of the class. The Don then shreds it in public. For instance - explain this sentence, justify this assertion, were you drunk when you wrote this??

Apparently, the first class was finished in tears (all Americans). The Don was magnanimous and stated it was ok, they went easier on Americans, LOL.

Needless to say, she buckled down and ended up with at least one , if not a couple of Don's volunteering to write her letters of recommendation.

We have decided not to "stress" our students with too much "work" and "knowledge". Don't want to hurt anyone fweeings!

Hence, when she returned to her American college, she was bored out of her mind and completely bummed about the cost of her "higher education".

Standards exist for a reason. If someone doesn't expect you to meet OR EXCEED said standards, most people will never reach it and thus we end up with a fully mediocre population, AT BEST.

Too bad that I'm replying so long after the original post; most probably won't see this reply.

There is great wisdom in the Bible.

Psalms 37:21 wrote..

The wicked borrows and does not pay back,
But the righteous is gracious and gives.

A few years back I used to hire recent engineering grads for my department.

Often the prospective employee would ask if I'd help pay off his student loans.

I'd then chuck his resume into the garbage.

If you're too stupid to avoid the loan trap then you're too stupid to work for me.

Case in point - My son also graduated with an engineering degree around that time. He had zero student loan debt. I helped out with tuition. I did not help out with room and board. I told him he could live in the basement and have free access to the fridge. He did it for a while and then found other arrangements and a job. I did the same thing back in the 80s.

Back in the late 1980's, before I graduated from High School, there was already a big push for college.

Thinking back to all the stuff in school, outside of school, etc, here are the things I NEVER heard:

- how to determine if your chosen major is Worth It
- does your chosen profession require college and what is the best degree
- How to create a loan payback schedule and calculate interest (if needed)
- How to get done in four years (if possible)
- how to verify if your classes are high quality, and what to do if they're not
- how to have your shit together so you make it through everything
- are the people around you pushing you into college doing it for their interests, or yours?
- alternatives to the four year college degree
- what to do if you don't know where you are in life

Overall the "you must go to college" marketing is absolutely brutal to the point that it should be considered child abuse. The schools themselves employ a lot of bad teachers, I remember I had a class or two where the "professor" could barely speak english and acknowledged it when the class began. My father taught at a University of California system school, and he had friends there that had to teach, but didn't like teaching at all. Did those students get their $ worth in the class? Doubt it.

I have little to no sympathy for these individuals. I agree with Karl's points, which means it will never happen. I did a career in the military and without a degree, could not get a job being a contractor. Starting in Jan of 05, starting from scratch, completed a BS in Business and minor in Economics with honors in exactly 24 months. I took several "loans" and viewed going to college as my Job, 24/7/365. All loans paid off in 26 months. It can be done, just what is your motivation? If it's to party, maybe you don't have the chops to be there...

Packetcap wrote..

Overall the "you must go to college" marketing is absolutely brutal to the point that it should be considered child abuse.

Tickerguy wrote..

Excuse me, but at 18 you're a legal adult.

Now if you wish to argue fraud (and there was plenty) then fine -- let each of them who claims they were unwitting victims (of which I'm sure there are many) make THAT argument. Fraud vitiates ALL contracts, so if they can show it they can shove it back up the University's asshole. But, this is, I'm reasonably sure, a minority.

@Packetcap, @Tickerguy -- The fraud angle is an interesting track.

Growing up, it was common to hear the older generation talking about how essential going to college was, usually with advice of the form of "get a degree, any degree". (This is also where the meme of "burger-flipping" comes from, where the Boomer says: "You need to get a degree or else you'll end up flipping burgers.") -- And when I entered community-college and then the university, I had already resolved that I would not go into debt, at all, for my degree... but it was surprising (and off-putting) how strongly loans were pushed --and I went to a state university; I've heard it's a LOT worse in private universities-- to the point that I have no doubt that, if they could, they would make student-loans automatic on admission with some hidden "opt-out" check-box hidden in the application.

So, let's examine the elements of fraud, to see if there's any merit to considering this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/construc....

Elements of Fraud wrote..

Under contract law, a defendant can be liable to a plaintiff for constructive fraud if there was: (1) a false misrepresentation; (2) in reference to a material fact; (3) for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely on such representation; (4) on which the other party did justifiably rely; (5) which resulted in damages or injury; and (6) a fiduciary relationship between the parties.

Clearly, the usually-implied-but-sometimes-explicit construction of "degree = job" is a false misrepresentation: not only are there trades, but the refrain of "take any job, even if it's flipping burgers!" when confronted with the difficulties of finding employment clearly illustrates its falsity; this also does not take into consideration the active undermining of the "good jobs" that getting a degree was supposed to secure: just look at H1B and tech-jobs. -- This clearly satisfies #1 & #2.

#3 is shown in the sheer pervasiveness of pushing "get a degree, at any cost" & "get any degree" -- the intent of inducing the obtaining of a degree is, again, obvious.

#4 is shown by the pervasiveness of the student debt problem: obviously if they had not relied upon the advice of their elders (parents, teachers, aunts/uncles, family-friends, etc) this would not be the case... or certainly not to the extent it is. -- This is to say that certainly a majority of society has been pushing for degrees, whether it be in obtaining career-advice or in job-application requirements, there can be no denying that there has been great pressure to obtain a degree. -- and because of #4, we see how this has undercut many people's ability to thrive, which is why many millennials (albeit a minority of society) are advising their youngers to stay away from student debt, proving #5: this has harmed a large quantity of people.

#6 is the most difficult to prove. If we were to allow the argument of the social contract, then we have a generation of people who were promised that if they obtained a degree they would obtain good and gainful employment; while the employer-employee relationship certainly is fiduciary in nature, one could argue that the promise of employment is not and, furthermore, that the advice and instruction of society did not rise to "promise" or "contract" (even verbal)... so that is all arguable. -- HOWEVER, what is not arguable is that there was a literal fiduciary relationship between the university and the student, and between the lender and the student also. As I showed above, given the PR/marketing and pushing of student-loans by and on campuses, it is also arguable that there is a fiduciary relationship between the lenders and the universities (certainly if you consider the student as their medium of exchange).

So, in that light perhaps voiding student debt is not unjust; however, I would want something in-place to keep it from happening again: perhaps something to the effect that all student loans must be co-signed by the university, putting them on-the-hook for repayment.

And while it might superficially appear be just having the university guarantee employment, such a law would violate the right of association of the employers, arguably making slaves of them. -- Perhaps a better thing to do would be to allow employers to record degrees of those they hire and, upon dismissing employees from a certain university above a certain ratio, to sue the university for issuing degrees

Quote:

#6 is the most difficult to prove. If we were to allow the argument of the social contract, then we have a generation of people who were promised that if they obtained a degree they would obtain good and gainful employment; while the employer-employee relationship certainly is fiduciary in nature, one could argue that the promise of employment is not and, furthermore, that the advice and instruction of society did not rise to "promise" or "contract" (even verbal)... so that is all arguable. -- HOWEVER, what is not arguable is that there was a literal fiduciary relationship between the university and the student, and between the lender and the student also. As I showed above, given the PR/marketing and pushing of student-loans by and on campuses, it is also arguable that there is a fiduciary relationship between the lenders and the universities (certainly if you consider the student as their medium of exchange).

EXCEPT.... the Federal Government (since Obama) issued the loans, not the University.

But it is the University that has the fiduciary responsibility -- not the federal government. There is no fiduciary responsibility between a lender and a borrower except to clearly disclose terms, and that responsibility was met.

Thus the question to be decided at the (legal) bar is this:

Did the university make representations as to the marketability and value of said degree which was materially false and misleading, and without which said student would not have entered into the agreement?

That's an individual case of fact; in some cases I bet its yes, but not in ALL cases. Further, the university has wildly-superior data to the student in that they have handed out THOUSANDS of said degrees and they know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what attributes must be present (or absent) in a given student to lead to them succeeding and what sort of renumeration they get from employment as a result of said degree.

To the extent the university through either explicit action including admitting students they either knew or should have known did not have the chops to compete in the field, or to the extent they priced their product when the money was borrowed beyond the reasonably-expected carrying capacity of a student with said degree you can get them as to fraud -- and thus force the UNIVERSITY to eat the loan.

Not the government, and its not forgiven -- the University is forced, if it can be proved, to disgorge it.

----------

I just hope we dont get a university equivalent of Fannie and Freddie for those loans.

Rather than the debt following the person, as it is now, Fan-Ed and Fred-Ed take the loan and push it off on the Treasury, just like 2008 for Diversity getting home loans.

That would be a back door debt forgiveness.


My bottom line is: until we come to the realization that Diversity isnt going to be able to acquire degrees at a reasonable price, we are going to continue to subsidize it through all manner of opaque means.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

Colleges and Universities care so much about the success of their students.

Most, if not all, have an Orientation CD/DVD that the students get for 'free'.

It covers a wide range of topics and is very useful/helpful/informative for the new students.

However, there is ONE TRUTH BOMB topic not discussed on said discs, a series of mathematical EQUATIONS involving $$$ that should displayed with various data points in examples.

This would take about 20 seconds to do, but, for some reason, it's omitted.

Caring about success? Or.. running a business into the ground.

----------

"We have resolution authority under Frank/Dodd... How about we USE IT?" Karl Denninger, 10/07/10 on the Dylan Ratigan Show, MSNBC.

I'm not at all opposed to giving the guillotine to many college administrators, particularly reagents and the finance folks. I extend that same "courtesy" to those schools with degree programs that are in fact undisclosed farm systems for SPECIFIC businesses, and there are many that I'm aware of that used to do it 30+ years ago, and it probably is still going on.

But -- when it comes to financial shenanigans where you allege FRAUD that is, in nearly every case, individual. You should have to prove it, and if you DO prove it then the guilty party eats it -- in this case, the university.

----------

Let's say the University of California Los Angeles issues a bunch of loans for students whom ultimately fail and declare BK.

It could be University of Washington, U of Illinois, SUNY, Florida State, etc.

If the state run university eats a billion dollars worth of bad loans, does not that just backfire right to the state budget, and ultimately the taxpayer?

Either that, or the state has a sane legislature (what are the odds the same legislature that authorizes this nonsense ultimately gets fiscally responsible when it blows?) shutters the university.

I'm in favor of it, and like the idea, but how do we get to a point politically where the taxpayer doesnt ultimately eat it?

For a private university, it seems a bit more easy to enforce, since (in theory) there is no .gov backstop.

It would further seem that private religious universities would then be on the hook for money, and then still face a MASSIVE, MASSIVE, MASSIVE ethnic discrimination suit, because those universities would be really looking out for two things:

Ability to pay
Aptitude and follow-on success

Neither of which have a high correlation (other than strong inverse) with Diversity.

Then (this just came to me), if women from these religious schools had a mind to exit the work force and start families, their degree either becomes worthless and they can't pay on it, or a burden on their new husband, who may wish to seek women without this financial anchor.

We may be in a situation where a school like TCU is taking White males wildly out of proportion to what the University of Texas is taking, since UT's loans to Diversity are ultimately backstopped by the .gov, and TCU spends whatever savings they have paying for Lawfare.

I'm not opposed to putting this on the university, but the entire political reality is the cancer.

The current system is already cancer. I'm just trying to think out loud on this topic.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

Tickerguy wrote..

EXCEPT.... the Federal Government (since Obama) issued the loans, not the University.

Then, being the creditor, the Federal Government can forgive the debtor, regardless of what you or I think.
Such in inherent in the nature of being the lender.

Eleua wrote..

I just hope we dont get a university equivalent of Fannie and Freddie for those loans.

@Eleua -- Isn't this what we already have, at least in essence?


Would I particularly like "loan forgiveness", considering that I put myself through College via enlistment, being careful to avoid debt? No.
However, I can understand the false-promises that were pushed, particularly on the Millennial generation: get educated, get a good job, get a house and car, and family... and at every turn this has been undermined by society/government: H1Bs to depress wages, requiring more experience than exists in a product to get H1Bs, the housing inflation, "cash for clunkers" destroying the used-car market, the current fuel and food "difficulties" (absolutely engineered), pushing foodstamps/section-8 (meaning women "don't need no man!"), and so on -- given all this, I would not be opposed to as-a-society trying to ease their burdens.

We should also remember to be merciful.
This doesn't mean rolling over an allowing injustice to run rampant, but sometimes it means laying down a legitimate grievance for the sake of the other.

Tickerguy wrote..

I'm not at all opposed to giving the guillotine to many college administrators, particularly reagents and the finance folks.

I am coming to agree with you here; though more motivated by their horrifying embrace of tyranny over the "mandates".

Edward: Not without an explicit act of Congress.

The Executive has no power to spend without authorization originating in the House.

----------

@Edward.fish

Yes, other than the debt is currently not dischargeable. Thus the arm waiving over loan forgiveness (putting it on the taxpayer)

I'm trying to figure out how to have any system of loans that do not ultimately end up on the taxpayer, while at the same time, "democratizing" higher education and having endless Diversity going to any college they want, to study watered down social studies, and having the system subsidize them.

I don't think that needle can be thread.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

I have made this solution to the student loan problem on this forum before. There is no reason too forgive a student loan. There were 3 parties when the student loan was issued; the student, bank, and school. As noted Obama changed the bank to the gov't which I believe is Sallie May.

My solution where the bank is involved is the three parties are required to submit to a formal review of how the loan was approved. Was there any fraud on the part of the 3 parties? Examples of fraud are applying for a loan under one set of circumstances, such as changing the major you intend to pursue without notifying the bank, the school overpromoting a major's job market prospects or value, or using the borrowed funds for other than allowed expenses. If fraud is found the offending party will be the responsible party to repay the majority of the loan.

If no fraud exists then all three parties pay 1/3, end of story.

Where the gov't made the loan and the taxpayers are expected to repay the debt, the the gov't official who approved the loan may be held responsible fiscally or legally in writing the loan. The student and the school will be responsible for repaying the debt.

NO TAXPAYER MONEY should be used to repay any student loan, especially one fraudulently obtained or used.

The jurisdiction for these matters if it involves federal money should be the federal court system under the US Attorney's office. The US Attorney or Federal judge will NOT have the authority to cancel the debt only to set up and approve the complete repayment plan by all parties.

----------

(Politicians), 536 commoditized temple monkeys pawing through the ruins of America in search of bribes. (The District of Corruption) works like a vending machine. You put coins in the slot, select yo

I received my engineering degree from a 4 year private university. However, I did my first 2 years at the local junior (community) college. I saved over $20K in tuition costs. I had $7500 in student loans I had 7 years to pay off, did it 3.5 years. I paid approximately 40% of my college costs and my parents paid the rest. I started college in 1979.

My children are in or heading to college. All of them started or will start at the local community college. There is no shame in going to the local CC to get started. You save a tremendous amount of money and since my taxes help pay for it, I am making out even better and so are my kids.

The nice thing about the community college is if you are undecided on your career choice, then you can easily change majors. In the universities you have to get approvals from deans and counselors. The professors are easily accessible and will work with you personally. You are not stuck with a teaching assistant. I found all of my instructors were well qualified and did a great job of teaching.

Forty years ago their wasn't much information and assistance on transferring from the CC to a 4 years school. Now I would look at the 4 years school in my initial CC year and verify the transfer of credits they would take an not take. I had to retake a few classes not accepted by the 4 year school.

----------

(Politicians), 536 commoditized temple monkeys pawing through the ruins of America in search of bribes. (The District of Corruption) works like a vending machine. You put coins in the slot, select yo

Evergreen wrote..

They're 18 to 20 year-olds who largely cannot process the math to understand what a loan obligation truly amounts to in the first place.

If they cannot cope with rudimentary arithmetic, they should not have a high school diploma, much less be admitted to college.

----------

The vast amount of 18-20 year olds cannot spell "loan obligation", let alone understand what it means.

----------

When everything appears to be going in one direction, take a long, hard look in the opposite direction.

For those discussing cost shifting and demographics in higher education (and medicine) - spot on.
I believe our Western civilisation was built on the backs of straight, white Christian males and their high trust, social contract, nuclear family orientation. This allowed engineering, community, and corruption was at about as low as a society could be (it's never zero!)

Well, the straight white males are getting kicked out of every facet of society, and guess what? The engine room of the ship is gone. We are now seeing that strong powerful women and diversity hires CANNOT keep the ship moving. Everything is going to crap.

I have strong views on banking, which many of you would be sympathetic with, and that is also an underlying issue (and perhaps driver, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you go).

But the point remains, the less straight white males of the type of the founding fathers there are, the worse things get.

@Doladin


I am interested in hearing about your views on banking. Not on this thread, as it is a MARKET TICKER thread, but if you can get "Bar" access, that would be a good place.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

Eleua wrote..

I am interested in hearing about your views on banking.

You didn't ask me, but have you read "The Creature from Jekyll Island"?

at Sane. I guess I'm getting old, but I gotta laugh at the TF cubs when I remember E's posts over the years.

----------

@eleau
Certainly, this brings me up to post #30 so perhaps that will admit 1 to the bar

Along with FASFA is the bullshit that grades and other pertinent information are released only to the student and not the parents.

So, you college administrators want it both ways - you want mommy and daddy to be responsible for paying for college, but have no access to the product of the student? Go fuck yourselves, pricks.

----------

Molon Labe
Where is Henry Bowman when you need him?
How many are willing to pledge this? We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor