Education bubble?

[southsider2k5]

On 2nd thought, you said, student loans carried by a bank. Those are similar to personal loans and a Chapter 7 would wipe them away. In fact, if any student was taking on a ton of debt, I could see significant reasons for why I wouldn't take a ton of government debt. God forbit you end up 200K in debt and its owed to Uncle Sam...you'll never get away from it (unless you land a big time gig).

 

Bankruptcy is probably something more people should do now a days. Especially if they are severely under-water. They wouldn't waste money paying stuff that theyll eventually lose or won't recover for a period of 7 years, where as the bankruptcy would free them from most things (the exception to this would be if you had a lot of cash or savings/liquid assets; your 401k I believe is protected in a bankruptcy). And your credit would eventually recover (something like 7 years later, but it would recover).

 

I'm pretty sure bankruptcy stays on for 10 years, but the ideas are all the same.

[IlliniKrush]

On 2nd thought, you said, student loans carried by a bank. Those are similar to personal loans and a Chapter 7 would wipe them away. In fact, if any student was taking on a ton of debt, I could see significant reasons for why I wouldn't take a ton of government debt. God forbit you end up 200K in debt and its owed to Uncle Sam...you'll never get away from it (unless you land a big time gig).

Bankruptcy is probably something more people should do now a days. Especially if they are severely under-water. They wouldn't waste money paying stuff that theyll eventually lose or won't recover for a period of 7 years, where as the bankruptcy would free them from most things (the exception to this would be if you had a lot of cash or savings/liquid assets; your 401k I believe is protected in a bankruptcy). And your credit would eventually recover (something like 7 years later, but it would recover).

But it is still an absolute last resort. If you can somehow find a way out from the mess, it's much better to do that than to file bankruptcy. The killing of credit portion, as well as that being on background checks, will be a big burden. It's not a true starting over point, but some people leave themselves with not much of a choice, and sometimes it is the right "answer."

 

And yeah, they can't touch 401k's in bankruptcy to my knowledge.

Edited April 28, 2011 by IlliniKrush

[Iwritecode]

A friend of my wife's went through bankruptcy about 4 years ago. This was right after she went through a divorce, racked up tons of credit card debt and had a house fire.

 

The insurance paid to have the house completed gutted and re-done. So when the bankruptcy was final she basically had a brand-new house. Which she turned around and sold. This was also after she met a new guy and got re-married. He sold his house and they bought an even bigger house. Plus a couple of cars. So it obviously didn't affect her much at all.

 

[illinilaw08]

BAPCPA (2005 Amendment to the Bankruptcy Code) made it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt, regardless of whether it is a federal or private loan in bankruptcy. You have to be able to show "undue hardship" which is nearly impossible to do.

[Chisoxfn]

BAPCPA (2005 Amendment to the Bankruptcy Code) made it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt, regardless of whether it is a federal or private loan in bankruptcy. You have to be able to show "undue hardship" which is nearly impossible to do.

That makes sense that they wouldn't discriminate between the two.

[Texsox]

A friend of my wife's went through bankruptcy about 4 years ago. This was right after she went through a divorce, racked up tons of credit card debt and had a house fire.

 

The insurance paid to have the house completed gutted and re-done. So when the bankruptcy was final she basically had a brand-new house. Which she turned around and sold. This was also after she met a new guy and got re-married. He sold his house and they bought an even bigger house. Plus a couple of cars. So it obviously didn't affect her much at all.

 

I'll bet the cars are in his name or at a really large interest rate. Far better to not get in that situation at all. I know a couple people who have filed and filing sooner rather than later, before committing even more resources at a hopeless situation, is probably better for the individuals. However, it does suck for a years. Deposits on utilities, credit cards, if you can get one, with huge fees and high interest. Same with all other consumer loans.

[StrangeSox]

The proposed Department of Education rule change for student loans, which has faced heavy industry opposition:

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/prop...d-debt-earnings

 

So, the new regulations are out. Surprise, they're heavily compromised thanks to industry lobbyists.

 

[StrangeSox]

Infographic time!

 

Sure glad we have those stringent new regulations!

 

[Quin]

Hooray student loans!

 

[iamshack]

Yeah, I am pretty sure they will actually garnish your wages at some point if you default. It is also a question on pretty much any financial form or job application you fill out..."Have you ever defaulted on a student loan or a government loan"?

 

If you are facing the question of whether to use extra discretionary income towards your mortgage or your student loans, it is actually smarter to use it on the student loans, even if they are at a lower interest rate than your mortgage, due to the fact that if you were to go bankrupt, the student loans will remain while the mortgage will go away.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

That double-dip, where Sallie Mae gets the money from the government when you default and then tacks on huge commissions to collect the debt for the government through a branch of their company, is pretty awesome.

[Balta1701]

Posting because I like data.

Although much of the Obama administration's education reform agenda promotes test score-based teacher evaluation and pay, the tide seems to be significantly turning against such policies, at least among wonks and academics.

 

Last week the National Academies of Science published a synthesis of 10 years worth of research on 15 American test-based incentive programs, finding they demonstrated few good results and a lot of negative unintended consequences.

 

Meanwhile, the National Center on Education and the Economy reported that high-achieving nations have focused on reforming their teacher education and professional development pipelines, not on efforts to measure student "growth" and tie such numbers to individual teachers.

 

Today, a paper coauthored by the Asia Society and the Department of Education itself calls Singapore a model for teacher evaluation. That nation's teachers are assessed on four "holistic" qualities, including the "character development of their students" and "their relationship to community organizations and to parents." There is no attempt to create a mathematical formula to tie student test scores to teacher evaluation or pay.

 

Lastly, even the free-market American Enterprise Institute has a new paper, by Fairfax County, Virginia Superintendent Jack Dale, arguing that the path forward should be differentiated pay based on teams of teachers taking on additional mentoring, curriculum development, and planning responsibilities. Test-based merit pay plans "miss a crucial point: teaching must be a collaborative team effort, and incentivizing individual teachers will not accomplish our ambitious goal," Dale writes.

[iamshack]

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the last few generations of American children (mine included), have had a soft, easy lifestyle for the most part due to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world and has failed to develop a work ethic.

[Balta1701]

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the last few generations of American children (mine included), have had a soft, easy lifestyle for the most part due to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world and has failed to develop a work ethic.

WTF?

[iamshack]

WTF?

We've been bending over backwards to try and figure out why our test scores are so poor compared to many other industrial nations. We've tried to find new ways to evaluate our teachers, tried tie poor-perfomring classes to their teachers, which has caused their teachers to actually cheat, etc. Now we are basically just encouraging teachers to teach to the standardized tests, instead of an actually effective curriculum that teaches concepts.

 

Maybe it's the students and not so much the teachers or the system?

 

There has been speculation that the reason the Chinese kick our asses in math and science is because their culture has a much stronger work ethic than our own. Generations and generations of laborious farming has engendered a work ethic that lends itself to more focus and hard work put towards subjects like math and science.

[bmags]

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the last few generations of American children (mine included), have had a soft, easy lifestyle for the most part due to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world and has failed to develop a work ethic.

 

Probably has nothing to do with that or else the nordic countries would be way behind indian and african children that are still grinders.

 

Also, interesting enough, Harvard pumps out top talent every year despite their campus being remarkably wealthy.

[iamshack]

Probably has nothing to do with that or else the nordic countries would be way behind indian and african children that are still grinders.

 

Also, interesting enough, Harvard pumps out top talent every year despite their campus being remarkably wealthy.

That's a great analogy. Interestingly enough, Harvard also has how many legacy students that have had access to the best opportunities possible?

 

We're talking more about the average student, who has sat on his ass all day playing nintendo and never been asked to focus for more than 9 minutes at a time.

[bmags]

you know, I know what you are saying probably feels great, but it isn't really constructive at all, nor proven. And while it's probably annoying seeing kids play with video games, their familiarity with technology will be a big asset to them.

 

Our problems are structural. Anyway feel free to suggest repealing 50 years of standard of living so kids can be educated better and achieve a great standard of living.

[iamshack]

you know, I know what you are saying probably feels great, but it isn't really constructive at all, nor proven. And while it's probably annoying seeing kids play with video games, their familiarity with technology will be a big asset to them.

 

Our problems are structural. Anyway feel free to suggest repealing 50 years of standard of living so kids can be educated better and achieve a great standard of living.

Honestly, do you live to take potshots at me?

 

I included my own generation. Why would it feel great to say that? If you're going to dispute my opinion, at least say something other than your usual snide bs.

 

You are a really smart guy. Why don't you demonstrate that more often and cut out the attitude, because you come off as a monster jerkoff much of the time.

[Balta1701]

Ok, that's at best borderline folks...I think it'd behoove everyone if this argument ended here.

[iamshack]

Ok, that's at best borderline folks...I think it'd behoove everyone if this argument ended here.

Well if he wants to dispute my opinion, then dispute it. There are so many different areas that debate can go in. Instead, he chooses the same way everytime...a smartass, I am 24 and know everything approach.

 

I know he is a really intelligent person. Why can't he just argue the issue I brought up? Why this continuous pattern of veiled insults?

[NorthSideSox72]

Well if he wants to dispute my opinion, then dispute it. There are so many different areas that debate can go in. Instead, he chooses the same way everytime...a smartass, I am 24 and know everything approach.

 

I know he is a really intelligent person. Why can't he just argue the issue I brought up? Why this continuous pattern of veiled insults?

Drop it.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

you know, I know what you are saying probably feels great, but it isn't really constructive at all, nor proven. And while it's probably annoying seeing kids play with video games, their familiarity with technology will be a big asset to them.

Our problems are structural. Anyway feel free to suggest repealing 50 years of standard of living so kids can be educated better and achieve a great standard of living.

 

Or it's a huge, huge part of their lives these days, more so for minorities apparently:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...599ce21237e0650

Minority youth spend more than half their day consuming media content, a rate that's 4.5 hours greater than their white counterparts, according to a Northwestern University report released Wednesday.

 

Television remains king among all youth, but among minorities who spend 13 hours per day consuming media of various types, electronic gadgets such as cell phones and iPods increasingly are the way such content gets delivered, the report found.

[Balta1701]

Of course, the question that data makes one ask is why...is it that minorities are inherently not as good as white people, or is it perhaps a question of already existing biases imposing lifestyle changes, for example, due to the much heavier concentrations of poverty already in those communities?

 

At least in my view, just about every bit of data like that which you could cite about how inferior the African population is winds up coming back to the fact that the population is inherently disadvantaged through the much heavier concentration of poverty. It leads to worse nutrition, worse development, worse health care, worse education, and keeps the cycle going.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course, the question that data makes one ask is why...is it that minorities are inherently not as good as white people, or is it perhaps a question of already existing biases imposing lifestyle changes, for example, due to the much heavier concentrations of poverty already in those communities?

 

At least in my view, just about every bit of data like that which you could cite about how inferior the African population is winds up coming back to the fact that the population is inherently disadvantaged through the much heavier concentration of poverty. It leads to worse nutrition, worse development, worse health care, worse education, and keeps the cycle going.

 

Does the poverty angle work in a study which is based on entertainment usage from TV, premium cable, smartphones, etc?