Student Loan Bubble Bursting?

[cpwill]

My bet would be : yup.

And about time. Although the administrations' response will probably be something along the lines of "this just proves that a market can't make decisions about allocating education resources" :roll:

The largest bank in the United States will stop making student loans in a few weeks.

JPMorgan Chase has sent a memorandum to colleges notifying them that the bank will stop making new student loans in October,according to Reuters.

The official reason is quite bland.

"We just don't see this as a market that we can significantly grow," Thasunda Duckett tells Reuters. Duckett is the chief executive for auto and student loans at Chase, which means she's basically delivering the news that a large part of her business is getting closed down.
The move is eerily reminiscent of the subprime shutdown that happened in 2007. Each time a bank shuttered its subprime unit, the news was presented in much the same way that JPMorgan is spinning the end of its student lending....
There is over $1 trillion in outstanding student loans, making it the second largest source of household debt after mortgages. Just 10 years ago, student loans stood at $240 billion. About $150 billion of the total is comprised of private student loans made by banks and other financial institutions, according to a report issued by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau last year....

 

[DDD]

Interesting! What will no loans for students lead to then?

In the face of non education would Universities agree to charge students for less then?

 

[ChezC3]

Pop goes the weasel til the weasel goes pop!

Education should be paid for through taxation. Goes with the whole Equal in Opportunity thing both sides of the fence like to jawbone about...

 

[Excon]

Education should be paid for through taxation.

:naughty
Education should be paid for by the individual desiring and receiving it.

 

[MaggieD]

My bet would be : yup.

And about time. Although the administrations' response will probably be something along the lines of "this just proves that a market can't make decisions about allocating education resources" :roll:

[/COLOR]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

When the student loan money dries up, if it ever does, the cost of education will fall. High time.

 

[cpwill]

Interesting! What will no loans for students lead to then?

...My goodness. You don't suppose students would become discerning consumers, and demand fair return for their education dollars, and perhaps even select their investment venues (majors) based off of ROI, do you?

In the face of non education would Universities agree to charge students for less then?

They won't have a choice.

But, again, Obama is just going to use this as a chance to talk about how we need to fund higher education through taxes, and undergrad will just become the new High School.

 

[DDD]

...My goodness. You don't suppose students would become discerning consumers, and demand fair return for their education dollars, and perhaps even select their investment venues (majors) based off of ROI, do you?

No, sorry. The Socratistic response to asking a question to a question did not work this time. Care to elaborate?

They won't have a choice.

But, again, Obama is just going to use this as a chance to talk about how we need to fund higher education through taxes, and undergrad will just become the new High School.

You make it sound like it is a problem?

 

[DDD]

When the student loan money dries up, if it ever does, the cost of education will fall. High time.

Hope it does while I am studying in USA. What is your estimate though? When might the cost fall?

 

[head of joaquin]

:naughty
Education should be paid for by the individual desiring and receiving it.

Yeah, one's desire to go to Harvard pays Harvard's tuition costs. Get a little bit real.

 

[head of joaquin]

When the student loan money dries up, if it ever does, the cost of education will fall. High time.

Yeah, and so will education levels and the skills of our population.

This sounds like a conservative plan!

 

[Fisher]

Yeah, and so will education levels and the skills of our population.

This sounds like a conservative plan!

Not necessarily. People will just go back to learning on the job; and once tuition plummets people will be able to afford to work their way through college without loans. There just will be fewer people in college because they would have to make some effort to be there beyond signing a master promissory note and filling out a form once a year.

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, and so will education levels and the skills of our population.

This sounds like a conservative plan!

yeah. Which party is it, again, that wants to import a massive demographic of low-skill, low-education workers into our populace?

 

[Boo Radley]

When the student loan money dries up, if it ever does, the cost of education will fall. High time.

Wouldn't count on that.

 

[douglas]

The solution could very well be these volunteer/open source online degrees they've been buzzing about lately. As of late, most employers tend to treat online degrees to be equivalent to traditional degrees, so it all comes down to getting some of these "free" colleges accredited. Then, the burden of paying for a degree wouldn't exist, not for the taxpayers or the scholar.

Programs such as this, if implemented correctly, could be a great benefit to the nation/world.
Tuition-Free Online Degree, Tution Free Online Degrees

 

[Excon]

Yeah, one's desire to go to Harvard pays Harvard's tuition costs. Get a little bit real.

Is that what I said?
Or did I say it is the one desiring the education and receiving it, who should pay for it?

Maybe you got confused with the use of the word "and". Which as most know, as written, does not mean "or".

 

[Boo Radley]

The solution could very well be these volunteer/open source online degrees they've been buzzing about lately. As of late, most employers tend to treat online degrees to be equivalent to traditional degrees, so it all comes down to getting some of these "free" colleges accredited. Then, the burden of paying for a degree wouldn't exist, not for the taxpayers or the scholar.

Programs such as this, if implemented correctly, could be a great benefit to the nation/world.
Tuition-Free Online Degree, Tution Free Online Degrees

I'm sure the economy will handle all the unemployed teachers just fine.

But I wouldn't count on it.

 

[douglas]

I'm sure the economy will handle all the unemployed teachers just fine.

But I wouldn't count on it.

Giving someone a job for the sole purpose of reducing the employment is kind of ridiculous; if we find that we don't need teachers, it's a waste of money to have them. When people have more money to spend on the economy instead of student loans, unemployment rates go down. If we lose 1,000 teachers and gain 2,000 industrial positions, it's a success story. Do you really think Joe Unemployed is thinking to himself, "Well atleast professor Robingtonerson still has a job."?

Mind you, I trained to be a Math Teacher in College. That was what I wanted to be, and I really feel for them. But, that doesn't mean I should give up my money and opportunities just to keep them on the gravy train. There's no such thing as truly losing a position, the market is all about variable vacuums; if losing a teacher creates a vacuum for 2 others (whatever occupation), that should be lauded as a success. In the end, we would love to just employ everyone, but we should be happy for progress in any fashion.

 

[Boo Radley]

Giving someone a job for the sole purpose of reducing the employment is kind of ridiculous; if we find that we don't need teachers, it's a waste of money to have them. When people have more money to spend on the economy instead of student loans, unemployment rates go down. If we lose 1,000 teachers and gain 2,000 industrial positions, it's a success story. Do you really think Joe Unemployed is thinking to himself, "Well atleast professor Robingtonerson still has a job."?

Mind you, I trained to be a Math Teacher in College. That was what I wanted to be, and I really feel for them. But, that doesn't mean I should give up my money and opportunities just to keep them on the gravy train. There's no such thing as truly losing a position, the market is all about variable vacuums; if losing a teacher creates a vacuum for 2 others (whatever occupation), that should be lauded as a success. In the end, we would love to just employ everyone, but we should be happy for progress in any fashion.

That's not what I said. Personally. If you remove the human touch, you will lose all that us great about education. Yes, you will have many more unemployed, and that will have consequence if what you propose come about about.

But I followed with, "don't count on it." Internet classes on the whole are inferior. So. Subjects lend them selfs to it more than others, but on the whole, too much is lost to meet every need. If you remove the more and more routes to education, we revert to the past and will see education limited to only those able to pay for it. While it might become a little cheaper (and it might actually go up a little), it won be cheap enough to allow universal access, or anywhere near the access we have now. This will likely lead to a greater wealth divison in tis country.

 

[douglas]

~snip~ Internet classes on the whole are inferior. So. Subjects lend them selfs to it more than others, but on the whole, too much is lost to meet every need. If you remove the more and more routes to education, we revert to the past and will see education limited to only those able to pay for it. While it might become a little cheaper (and it might actually go up a little), it won be cheap enough to allow universal access, or anywhere near the access we have now. This will likely lead to a greater wealth divison in tis country.

I really don't see your logic; how will making online education free, remove routes to education? The point to getting an education is to get a job, and 83% [1] of employers accept online degrees as being equivalent for hiring purposes. Even if they are "inferior" from your point of view, the only point of view that matters is the employer's.

[1] Employers on online education - CNN.com

 

[Boo Radley]

I really don't see your logic; how will making online education free, remove routes to education? The point to getting an education is to get a job, and 83% [1] of employers accept online degrees as being equivalent for hiring purposes. Even if they are "inferior" from your point of view, the only point of view that matters is the employer's.

[1] Employers on online education - CNN.com

It's a pipe dream that it'll ever be free.

I was speaking more to removing funding. I don't believe any huge free movement will ever take place.

btw, employers are not experts on education.

 

[douglas]

It's a pipe dream that it'll ever be free.

I was speaking more to removing funding. I don't believe any huge free movement will ever take place.

btw, employers are not experts on education.

It's already moving towards a free movement; I was commenting on current trends, not what I wanted.

University of the People (An online university that is currently applying for Accreditation, and is already licensed in California to give out legally recognized degrees.)

Eight Tuition-Free Colleges - WSJ.com (8 physical campuses that are considered tuition-free for most applicants)

There are dozens more that are following suite, it's not really a question of if, but when this will be a wide spread and accepted trend.

The only thing an employer needs to be an expert at is running there business; I really don't know what your point is, nobody expects them to be an expert on education, whether it's free or not.

 

[gavinfielder]

The student loan - rising tuition cooperation seems as disastrous an effect of crony capitalism as our bloated military-industrial complex, but the key word is seems. Nobody has really connected the dots on it yet, which makes it either wrong, or too complicated to depend on any assumed outcome, so the notion that costs will come down as student loans dry up is, as of yet, baseless. I have much more faith in a very liberal generation growing up to fill public offices and then legislating costs down.

But if this is a burst, it's a hell of a slow burst, yet.

 

[gavinfielder]

I really don't see your logic; how will making online education free, remove routes to education? The point to getting an education is to get a job, and 83% [1] of employers accept online degrees as being equivalent for hiring purposes. Even if they are "inferior" from your point of view, the only point of view that matters is the employer's.

[1] Employers on online education - CNN.com

83% is quite a liberal number. Reading the article, that simply means that 17% say hell no and the rest say "it depends".

Online education is inferior--there's really no argument about that, it's fact. It's a good thing it exists, even MOOCs, but it should not replace traditional education for an economy of scale.

btw, employers are not experts on education.

Well, no, employers who stay in business are. They have to be. That's why a lot of them don't take online degrees. The group that is almost never experts on education is politicians, and they're the real dangerous group pushing this idea. That, and that now most of our orders are being handed down from Washington doesn't do anyone any favors.

 

[douglas]

83% is quite a liberal number. Reading the article, that simply means that 17% say hell no and the rest say "it depends".

Online education is inferior--there's really no argument about that, it's fact. It's a good thing it exists, even MOOCs, but it should not replace traditional education for an economy of scale.

The issue I have is "why" does it matter whether one degree is inferior to another. If an employer would take you in either case, they don't consider it to be inferior in the context of hiring you. Getting hired is all that matters, unless you're just learning for the hell of it (which you can do for free at any library or with online lectures).

My last employer (for a good job, not my very last employer) had a requirement of atleast a BA in Accounting or higher level Mathematics (I have one in Math/Physics). I got the job and did the job great, several promotions and lots of money. In my entire stay at that job, I was never criticized for my performance and received several compliments from upper management. The job entailed basic arithmetic, a 3rd grader could've done it. When the jobs that require a degree don't actually need them, the quality of the degree is kind of a moot point. When a janitor now needs a BA in Custodial Engineering, I can only assume that employers would be content with it being an online degree.

 

[gavinfielder]

Getting hired is all that matters

No, it's not, for several reasons. Most significantly, underemployment. There's also a number of benefits of traditional education that aren't considered in the hiring process, like civic values. Online education is fine for education, and it's fine being integrated into the existing system, but allowing pure online education, which everyone remotely knowledgeable about higher ed knows to be inferior, to be accredited would only raise barriers to success. Politicians try to pass it off as a revolution and talk about replacing traditional education, and that's insane. It should be developed further alongside classroom education so as to promote educational access without devaluing the institution.