Which Convention Was More Effective? (1 Viewer)

[JerryG]

Well, first I (The Commish) don't have a model.  However, every model I've seen has had a standard for acceptance.  I.E.  they have to have the grades/portfolio, extracurriculars to get into the schools they want.  I've seen not a single plan as you frame it with the bold.  Do you have one you can point me to?  I'd like to read that plan.  I thought it was rather obvious, but maybe not, that "every kid should be able to go to college" <> "every kid should get into the school they want".

The rest is a pretty good, nonsensical rant that I'd address, but it's definitely for another thread and I'd just be repeating myself from the last time someone said something similar.   

Perhaps I typed too quickly, I'll type slower for you.  I said "every schmuck who gets into college is now on a full ride."  I never said you anyone could just go to whatever school you chose, and I have no idea how you could have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote.

Also, elite universities have large endowments and crawl over broken glass to admit and finance well-qualified applicants from lesser means.  I know this because I interview applicants for such a university.  So in many ways free education is a solution looking for a problem, unless you think the rich kid with marginal grades and scores should get a free ride.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Also, elite universities have large endowments and crawl over broken glass to admit and finance well-qualified applicants from lesser means.  I know this because I interview applicants for such a university.  So in many ways free education is a solution looking for a problem, unless you think the rich kid with marginal grades and scores should get a free ride.  

Elite universities only account for a tiny fraction of college enrollment.  If everyone is getting to go to college for free why is the student loan industry so big?

 

[caustic]

Perhaps I typed too quickly, I'll type slower for you.  I said "every schmuck who gets into college is now on a full ride."  I never said you anyone could just go to whatever school you chose, and I have no idea how you could have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote.

I guess I’d like to see a citation for this. Here in my state, the flagship university’s top academic scholarship — reserved for applicants with a 3.85 GPA & 99th percentile standardized test score — covers only 50% of annual tuition costs.

 

[JerryG]

I guess I’d like to see a citation for this. Here in my state, the flagship university’s top academic scholarship — reserved for applicants with a 3.85 GPA & 99th percentile standardized test score — covers only 50% of annual tuition costs.

I was saying that that was the proposed plan, not the current plan.  As for the current plan, that seems like a good conversation for you to have with your state Board of Regents or whatever body controls tuition.  See my next response for more info.

 

[JerryG]

Elite universities only account for a tiny fraction of college enrollment.  If everyone is getting to go to college for free why is the student loan industry so big?

The loan industry is so big because kids are going to schools they can't afford and getting degrees they can't use, if they manage to graduate.  Here is some data:

Among the 494 ranked public schools that reported their 2019-2020 tuition and fees to U.S. News in an annual survey, the average in-state price was $9,764. The 10 most expensive public schools for in-state students each charged more than $17,350, with an average cost of roughly $19,200.

Virginia’s College of William and Mary was the most expensive school for in-state students during the 2019-2020 school year, with tuition and fees that exceeded $22,900.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/colleges-with-the-highest-in-state-tuition

My kids go/went to Arizona State which is around the average.  All three had partial to mostly-covered tuition based on academic performance.  ASU does that because they want to incentivize smart kids to stay in state, get a job, and contribute to the economy.  Which my oldest is currently doing.  Middle child just took out a loan because she changed her major and needs to go 5.5 years.  I honestly don't know if it is possible to live in state and get NO aid.  Regardless, none of these loans should be bankrupting anyone who gets a decent job upon graduation.

The first thing that happens in the proposed utopia is that the AZ Board of Regents looks at Virginia and says "#### this noise, why should we kill ourselves to keep tuition under $10K when the Virginia schools charge twice as much, and we're going to get paid by the Magic Fed Money Tree?!"  And presto, tuitions everywhere rise to the high end.

 

[TripItUp]

5Dimes now has Trump favored as do most of the betting markets....which directly contradicts the results of this poll.

How do the Democrat/Equal voters in this poll reconcile that?  Is this a huge whiff from those forum voters?

 

[[scooter]]

5Dimes now has Trump favored as do most of the betting markets....which directly contradicts the results of this poll.

How do the Democrat/Equal voters in this poll reconcile that?  Is this a huge whiff from those forum voters?

What do you mean by "most"? RealClearPolitics doesn't list Trump as a favorite at any site.

 

[TripItUp]

What do you mean by "most"? RealClearPolitics doesn't list Trump as a favorite at any site.

Check 5 Dimes...I posted the link in another thread.

 

[[scooter]]

What do you mean by "most"? RealClearPolitics doesn't list Trump as a favorite at any site.

Check 5 Dimes...I posted the link in another thread.

Right, we know you're excited about 5Dimes. That's just one site, though.

Wait....do you think that "5Dimes" means "5 betting sites"?

 

[TripItUp]

Right, we know you're excited about 5Dimes. That's just one site, though.

Wait....do you think that "5Dimes" means "5 betting sites"?

I don't respond to snarky posts like this.  Have a good night buddy.

 

[sho nuff]

I don't respond to snarky posts like this.  Have a good night buddy.

You are the one who claimed most betting markets...that info appears to be incorrect.

 

[The Commish]

Perhaps I typed too quickly, I'll type slower for you.  I said "every schmuck who gets into college is now on a full ride."  I never said you anyone could just go to whatever school you chose, and I have no idea how you could have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote.

Also, elite universities have large endowments and crawl over broken glass to admit and finance well-qualified applicants from lesser means.  I know this because I interview applicants for such a university.  So in many ways free education is a solution looking for a problem, unless you think the rich kid with marginal grades and scores should get a free ride.  

Not sure how "typing speed" has any sort of impact here at all.  So your concern is that "schmucks" that get into school now will be on a full ride because there are NO "schmucks" that are able to do this today?  What exactly is your definition of "schmuck" here.  I sense it's a pretty unique definition.  Oh, and I know the bold is absolutely true.  I see it daily.  I also know it's a small number of students and that many who qualify still aren't able to get in because schools don't have the money to fund them all (or choose not to for X reason).  Wouldn't it be nice to see every single deserving, well qualified applicant from lesser means be given that opportunity?

 

[JerryG]

Not sure how "typing speed" has any sort of impact here at all.  So your concern is that "schmucks" that get into school now will be on a full ride because there are NO "schmucks" that are able to do this today?  What exactly is your definition of "schmuck" here.  I sense it's a pretty unique definition.  Oh, and I know the bold is absolutely true.  I see it daily.  I also know that many who qualify still aren't able to get in because schools don't have the money to fund them all.  Wouldn't it be nice to see every single deserving, well qualified applicant from lesser means be given that opportunity?

"Typing speed" was responding in kind to your "non-sensical rant" comment to describe my quite-sensical post.  Didn't strike be as being excellent on your end. 

We have mechanisms in place to support your last sentence.  "Free school for everyone" is using explosives to kill a fly.  It would work I guess, but seems a wee bit overkill for the stated purpose.  Which, again, is already largely handled.

 

[The Commish]

"Typing speed" was responding in kind to your "non-sensical rant" comment to describe my quite-sensical post.  Didn't strike be as being excellent on your end. 

We have mechanisms in place to support your last sentence.  "Free school for everyone" is using explosives to kill a fly.  It would work I guess, but seems a wee bit overkill for the stated purpose.  Which, again, is already largely handled.

We have very different definitions of "largely handled" then.  There are hundreds of thousands of kids who have the grit, determination, grades to make it in higher education and thrive yet they lack the resources to get them there.  I don't consider leaving hundreds of thousands of kids behind as "largely handled.

I notice you're another who doesn't seem to like to answer questions directly asked too.  I also notice you seem to get a bit uptight when it's pointed out to you that no system that's actually been proposed rises to the level of "socialist" (the claim otherwise is the nonsensical part).  Words have meaning unless it's "socialist" used for purposes of fear mongering, then it's simply a trigger word with no real meaning as I've brought up here.

I speak of education so passionately because my father was a financial aid director at community colleges and large state run universities his entire career.  It was his job to help people figure out how to pay for their schooling and to help them find that help.  I watched him do his job admirably for 30+ years and heard countless stories of people getting passed by simply because of statistics and circumstance.

 

[JerryG]

We have very different definitions of "largely handled" then.  There are hundreds of thousands of kids who have the grit, determination, grades to make it in higher education and thrive yet they lack the resources to get them there.  I don't consider leaving hundreds of thousands of kids behind as "largely handled.

I notice you're another who doesn't seem to like to answer questions directly asked too.  I also notice you seem to get a bit uptight when it's pointed out to you that no system that's actually been proposed rises to the level of "socialist" (the claim otherwise is the nonsensical part).  Words have meaning unless it's "socialist" used for purposes of fear mongering, then it's simply a trigger word with no real meaning as I've brought up here.

I speak of education so passionately because my father was a financial aid director at community colleges and large state run universities his entire career.  It was his job to help people figure out how to pay for their schooling and to help them find that help.  I watched him do his job admirably for 30+ years and heard countless stories of people getting passed by simply because of statistics and circumstance.

I just looked up tuition for one of our local CCs, Rio Salado.  $2070.  Total average net price is $7200.  Plenty of grants and loans available.  Average debt at graduation $3396, average monthly loan payment $80.

https://www.cappex.com/colleges/rio-salado-college/tuition-and-aid

Is this a system which makes it impossible for large groups of lower income students to accommodate?  Should a person graduating from college be able to afford such a payment?  Again, if you want to discuss lowering that payment I suppose we can, but that is a far cry from "free for everyone."

I've noticed a few things as well.  I noticed you like the proposal of the government to control the cost and financial disbursement of money to colleges but you don't like calling that a socialist policy, presumably because associating that word with the policy is bad.  I noticed that to make that point you like to use strong definitive words like "completely" and "non-sensical," and it would not surprise me if you pull out the bold, size, and color cards in future posts.  I've noticed you don't like data, since I'm the one posting it.  I noticed you ignored my explosives analogy because it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Rich Conway]

Personally I think that adulthood, which coincides pretty well with HS graduation, is a good point for a person to decide the first step on their path, be it employment, military, trade school, college, mission/Peace Corps, etc.

That being said I believe some European countries have an extra year in their equivalent of HS; if this helps young adults to select their path, I'm open to that discussion.

I can see the argument that government funded schooling should stop at adulthood.  However, that just begs the question of when adulthood is reached.  18 = adulthood is, obviously, just as arbitrary as 13 years of schooling, considering that in many cases, we use 21 as the definition of adulthood (legal drinking age, for example).  One can easily make the argument that human brains aren't fully formed until 25, and that would be a more appropriate standard for adulthood.

I can't....at least not when people die on the sword of "we have to give all these corporations tax breaks so they can compete in the global economy".  It's completely illogical to have that position and also hold the position of "well, individual, you're on your own to figure things out.  We know there is a global market out there you have to fight in and we know other countries do what they can to help their citizens succeed, but we aren't going to do that.  You'll figure it out.  Good luck"

I'm not sold on the "at least not when..." portion of this argument.  Sure, government does lots of stupid things, but that shouldn't prevent us from evaluating any specific policy proposal in a rational manner.

"Government funding for school should stop at adulthood" seems like it might be a reasonable cutoff, considering that it seems everyone believes both "some level of government funded schooling is appropriate" and "unlimited government funded schooling for life isn't appropriate".  Of course, we then need to agree on a common definition of "adulthood", or end up back in the same place, arguing what age should be the cutoff.

 

[The Commish]

I just looked up tuition for one of our local CCs, Rio Salado.  $2070.  Total average net price is $7200.  Plenty of grants and loans available.  Average debt at graduation $3396, average monthly loan payment $80.

https://www.cappex.com/colleges/rio-salado-college/tuition-and-aid

Is this a system which makes it impossible for large groups of lower income students to accommodate?  Should a person graduating from college be able to afford such a payment?  Again, if you want to discuss lowering that payment I suppose we can, but that is a far cry from "free for everyone."

You seem open to the conversation, so here it goes...hope I'm not proven wrong.  There are many deserving people getting left behind that have what it takes to succeed but for finances.  There are also many undeserving people getting propped up and pushed forward because of the money they have.  We can sit down and talk about specific incidents all day, every day that show our POV.  That's missing the point IMO.  It is simply not true, today, to say everyone in this country has the same access to education and/or opportunity.  That needs to be fixed.  So when we have the funds available for ANYONE who's made the grades, showed the grit and done the work to support them in their quest for betterment, I'll be happy.  If you want to keep talking about "free for everyone" (I have yet to see a proposal that is #1.  Forcing everyone to go to college for the additional four years or #2, simply writing checks to everyone even if they don't go to college) go for it.  I think you can see that what I am talking about is NOT the same thing, so I don't know why you keep saying it.

I've noticed a few things as well.  I noticed you like the proposal of the government to control the cost and financial disbursement of money to colleges but you don't like calling that a socialist policy, presumably because associating that word with the policy is bad. 

I've not said any such thing.  I've said that the funds should be there to support the individual if they choose to go on and pursue a degree.  I've never suggested the government "control costs".  There's no need to presume anything.  I don't like calling it "socialist" because it's not...not unless you consider our grant/scholarship system "socialist" and if you do, why aren't you wanting to get rid of those programs too?

I noticed that to make that point you like to use strong definitive words like "completely" and "non-sensical," and it would not surprise me if you pull out the bold, size, and color cards in future posts. 

I don't like my points to be left mired in ambiguity.  I do what is necessary to make sure that I'm as clear as possible so the source of conflation is clear.  Sorry, I'm weird that way.

I've noticed you don't like data, since I'm the one posting it.  I noticed you ignored my explosives analogy because it doesn't fit your agenda.

I'm not sure what "data" you are referring to.  Are you talking about the anecdotal link you posted?  I'm not ignoring it.  I concede that some are able to get by and the system works great for them, some it works "meh" for them and for some it doesn't work at all for them.  My agenda is to have things working well for everyone and by "well" I mean our government supporting individuals who want to better themselves and the major thing standing in their way is money.  Money should not be a prohibitive obstacle in terms of education.  So your "data" is sort of relevant, but not completely.  Of course this does not mean I don't like data...I love data.  I form most of my opinions on data, so to that assertion you couldn't be more wrong.  However, I don't pick and choose anecdotes and project them as something more than that.  What you posted I take very little issue with in terms of truth.  I just don't see it very helpful in terms of discussion of our national problem.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not sold on the "at least not when..." portion of this argument.  Sure, government does lots of stupid things, but that shouldn't prevent us from evaluating any specific policy proposal in a rational manner.

"Government funding for school should stop at adulthood" seems like it might be a reasonable cutoff, considering that it seems everyone believes both "some level of government funded schooling is appropriate" and "unlimited government funded schooling for life isn't appropriate".  Of course, we then need to agree on a common definition of "adulthood", or end up back in the same place, arguing what age should be the cutoff.

I want consistency between how individuals are treated in this country and how companies are.  I'm fine with this approach AS LONG AS we have the same approach for businesses.  If we say "hey, I'm fine with helping companies of X size or smaller, but after X they are on their own" then I'm more open to taking that approach to individuals.  Right now, the way we treat companies and the way we treat individuals is completely different and the issues with those differences are glaring IMO.  

So when I say "at least not when...." that's what I'm referring to.  In my view, we have our investment almost completely backwards.  This top down stuff has been going on for years and it just doesn't work.  It creates more need for social programs and more long term reliance on government.  It seems to me if we take the time to invest in individuals and build them up, these other things go away.

 

[JerryG]

You seem open to the conversation, so here it goes...hope I'm not proven wrong.  There are many deserving people getting left behind that have what it takes to succeed but for finances.  There are also many undeserving people getting propped up and pushed forward because of the money they have.  We can sit down and talk about specific incidents all day, every day that show our POV.  That's missing the point IMO.  It is simply not true, today, to say everyone in this country has the same access to education and/or opportunity.  That needs to be fixed.  So when we have the funds available for ANYONE who's made the grades, showed the grit and done the work to support them in their quest for betterment, I'll be happy.  If you want to keep talking about "free for everyone" (I have yet to see a proposal that is #1.  Forcing everyone to go to college for the additional four years or #2, simply writing checks to everyone even if they don't go to college) go for it.  I think you can see that what I am talking about is NOT the same thing, so I don't know why you keep saying it.

I've not said any such thing.  I've said that the funds should be there to support the individual if they choose to go on and pursue a degree.  I've never suggested the government "control costs".  There's no need to presume anything.  I don't like calling it "socialist" because it's not...not unless you consider our grant/scholarship system "socialist" and if you do, why aren't you wanting to get rid of those programs too?

I don't like my points to be left mired in ambiguity.  I do what is necessary to make sure that I'm as clear as possible so the source of conflation is clear.  Sorry, I'm weird that way.

I'm not sure what "data" you are referring to.  Are you talking about the anecdotal link you posted?  I'm not ignoring it.  I concede that some are able to get by and the system works great for them, some it works "meh" for them and for some it doesn't work at all for them.  My agenda is to have things working well for everyone and by "well" I mean our government supporting individuals who want to better themselves and the major thing standing in their way is money.  Money should not be a prohibitive obstacle in terms of education.  So your "data" is sort of relevant, but not completely.  Of course this does not mean I don't like data...I love data.  I form most of my opinions on data, so to that assertion you couldn't be more wrong.  However, I don't pick and choose anecdotes and project them as something more than that.  What you posted I take very little issue with in terms of truth.  I just don't see it very helpful in terms of discussion of our national problem.

I have no idea where you get these strawmen... force people to go, write checks?  

You may love data, but you don't use or provide it.

For $80/month after graduating you can get a degree at Rio Salado, yes or no, is this good enough?  Is any expectation of some amount of payback for the education in the form of loan payments acceptable, yes or no?

Speaking of which, part of the problem I've observed with the liberal approach is the perfect being the enemy of the good.  "ANYONE" creates an unreachable goal, short of, well, paying the costs for everyone who attends.  Jackhammer to a fly.

I believe that we have a system that handles the vast majority of cases, you believe it is hopelessly broken, so I don't know where to go from here.  I will propose however that a much larger problem than the availability of funds is the KNOWLEDGE of such availability and how to go about applying for it.  That seems like a good place to start to me.

 

[The Commish]

You may love data, but you don't use or provide it.

Sorry...is there a request from you that I missed?  What would you like me to provide?

For $80/month after graduating you can get a degree at Rio Salado, yes or no, is this good enough?  Is any expectation of some amount of payback for the education in the form of loan payments acceptable, yes or no?

I think you know that these aren't yes/no questions, right?  Why would you limit me to those choices?  I have a myriad of thoughts on each of these.  If you're interested in a meaningful discussion, I am willing to provide them, but these aren't simply yes/no questions and I won't reduce them to such.

Speaking of which, part of the problem I've observed with the liberal approach is the perfect being the enemy of the good.  "ANYONE" creates an unreachable goal, short of, well, paying the costs for everyone who attends.  Jackhammer to a fly.

I've observed that this isn't unique to "liberal approaches".  Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I don't subscribe to  this particular theory (with a few exceptions), so I agree in principle.  If you could explain why "anyone" creates this unreachable goal.  I am left to guess by your "jackhammer to fly" remark that you think that's overkill, so I'd like you to explain what you mean because it doesn't make sense to me.  I could see how "everyone" would fit that description far better, but I didn't use "everyone", I used "ANYONE who's made the grades, showed the grit and done the work to support them in their quest for betterment"  That's significantly different.

I believe that we have a system that handles the vast majority of cases, you believe it is hopelessly broken, so I don't know where to go from here.  I will propose however that a much larger problem than the availability of funds is the KNOWLEDGE of such availability and how to go about applying for it.  That seems like a good place to start to me.

I believe it's broken. Hopelessly?  No.  To the bold, I agree 100%.  I know for a fact many scholarships go unclaimed.  I had 37 different scholarships over the course of my 5 years of college to help with expense.  It's not a large enough source of money to be a silver bullet, but it could sway the stats a few % points.  It's not going to get us close to a resolution.

 

[JerryG]

Sorry...is there a request from you that I missed?  What would you like me to provide?

I think you know that these aren't yes/no questions, right?  Why would you limit me to those choices?  I have a myriad of thoughts on each of these.  If you're interested in a meaningful discussion, I am willing to provide them, but these aren't simply yes/no questions and I won't reduce them to such.

I've observed that this isn't unique to "liberal approaches".  Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I don't subscribe to  this particular theory (with a few exceptions), so I agree in principle.  If you could explain why "anyone" creates this unreachable goal.  I am left to guess by your "jackhammer to fly" remark that you think that's overkill, so I'd like you to explain what you mean because it doesn't make sense to me.  I could see how "everyone" would fit that description far better, but I didn't use "everyone", I used "ANYONE who's made the grades, showed the grit and done the work to support them in their quest for betterment"  That's significantly different.

I believe it's broken. Hopelessly?  No.  To the bold, I agree 100%.  I know for a fact many scholarships go unclaimed.  I had 37 different scholarships over the course of my 5 years of college to help with expense.  It's not a large enough source of money to be a silver bullet, but it could sway the stats a few % points.  It's not going to get us close to a resolution.

"Data" would be anything objective to substantiate your "belief" that the system is broken.  You seem to be operating under a false premise that your beliefs equal facts and are not to be questioned.

You seem caught up in everybody vs. anybody, is that why you think I'm saying we are going to make people go to college, or cut them checks?  That makes no sense.  But it is worth noting that Trump said anybody from a family under $125K and everybody going to CC goes for free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Zbhn5atW8

Whether or not any loan amount can be expected is, well, pretty darn close to a yes/no question.  Is $0.01/month unreasonable to expect from a college graduate?  Is it unreasonable if their family makes $125K, say in a rural area where that is a lot of money, vs. an urban area where it is... still not exactly poverty?  I tend to hate one-size-fits-all approaches to things BTW.

 

[CentralPA]

Trump's favorability and perceptions of COVID-19 response stagnate post-convention

 

[The Commish]

"Data" would be anything objective to substantiate your "belief" that the system is broken.  You seem to be operating under a false premise that your beliefs equal facts and are not to be questioned.

Based on what exactly?  You've not asked me once (until now) for the data I'm using to come to my positions.  It's interesting you've already projected this on to me without even beginning the conversation.  If you're really interested, I am happy to do another thread but we'd have to agree on some things that we could agree on that would classify as "broken".  Like for example, if you think it's not "broken" that over a million students a year drop out of school simply because they don't have the money to go, then we're probably not going to get very far.  If you think that not having the data or technical resources to accurately predict those who are probably going to struggle because of circumstance isn't a big deal, then we're probably not going to get very far.  If you think it's acceptable that over 40% of the students on our campuses also work 30+ hours a week and STILL can't put food on their table or pay their rent, lending to more stress and lower grades then we probably aren't going to get very far.  There are a litany of issues that we can talk about.  I'll happily start another thread to show you as many as you want to know about.  But if you are reading this and simply excusing these sorts of things away in your mind, then it's probably a waste of both of our time.  Let me know what you'd like to do on this.

You seem caught up in everybody vs. anybody, is that why you think I'm saying we are going to make people go to college, or cut them checks?  That makes no sense.  But it is worth noting that Trump said anybody from a family under $125K and everybody going to CC goes for free.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Zbhn5atW8

There seems to be an underlying message here in your posts.  They seem very familiar to numerous other people I have run across here.  Certainly not unique.  I give benefit of the doubt though.  I don't know if you're new and just happen to make the same arguments or if you're someone I've talked with before and you're just wasting my time.  Anytime anyone says "School for everybody" it throws a red flag, because it comes across like it's going to be required whether people want it or not...like high school.  I don't know if that's your position or not.  That's how it comes across.  It's very different to say "anybody who wants to do it and done the work to earn it".  It's not just a difference between "everybody" and "anybody".  I've explained this three times now, and you keep misstating it for whatever reason.  It'd go a long way with me if you'd stop doing that.  I've been looking, since 2015 for a written, documented plan from Trump on this.  He started talking about it back then.  You'll be surprised to know, I have yet to find anything outside some bullet points on a powerpoint presentation.  Get me a plan and I'm intrigued, but at initial glance, it comes across as picking and choosing, just like Hillary's plan, but depending on the detail, it might be a good first step.

Whether or not any loan amount can be expected is, well, pretty darn close to a yes/no question.  Is $0.01/month unreasonable to expect from a college graduate?  Is it unreasonable if their family makes $125K, say in a rural area where that is a lot of money, vs. an urban area where it is... still not exactly poverty?  I tend to hate one-size-fits-all approaches to things BTW.

No it's not....$80 can be expected for someone making good money.  For the person who can't get a job, it can't be expected.  It's funny that you say you "hate one size fits all" but reduce the questions to yes/no.  I'd think if what you're saying is true, you'd appreciate the fact that nuance is woven into these questions you've posed.  This isn't a topic that one looks at through a vacuum.  There are many factors that go into answering the question.  It's far from black/white to the point I'd say every situation is unique.  To this point, if I could make ONE change to the current lending practices in education it would be to make it so that forgiveness be allowed via bankruptcy.  You change that one thing and the lending practices change SIGNIFICANTLY.  At that point we could have a real discussion about what's driving student loan debt in this country.