Tucker Carlson Finds an Acorn!

I guess it's true that even a stopped clock is right twice a day... I actually agreed with a couple of minor policies Obama put forward; AOC at one point stated that Congressmen should not be paid during a government shutdown; now of all things, Tucker Carlson comes out with a good idea!

I woke up a little while ago, watched the last of Smackdown!, and flipped the boob-tube over to Fox for background noise. Tucker Carlson came on and started his normal 'gotchas' with his pre-set-up 'guests' which I normally ignore. Then something caught my ear: student loans need to be addressed.

Well, duh! So I listened for a while. Here's the idea he presented:

Student loans, in theory, are actually a good thing. They allow students to receive degrees, which should increase their earnings potential and keep them off assistance programs. At the same time, the government makes more off these students since the students make more and pay more income tax. Society benefits because financial means early in life has no bearing on the possibility of a student advancing science, so by allowing students to be students, society gets the benefit of an increased chance of new scientific discoveries.

In practice, student loans have become something a bit less optimistic: school tuition has increased drastically, and many schools are now offering majors that have a proven track history of not providing the increased earning potential in life. The why is simple: attract more students, including those who really don't want anything more than a degree to make Mommy and Daddy happy, and those students have easy access to money at an age early enough that they usually don't fully understand how hard it will be to pay back. A student that runs up $50,000 in debt to get a degree in "African American Studies," for instance, will rarely attain a higher rate of pay after school, and thus the student is more likely to live in poverty, pay less taxes, and default on loans. Those defaults are a direct cost to the government because student loans are simply unsecured loans with the government acting as a co-signer. In other words, everyone loses when a student fails to receive the benefits the student loan is supposed to afford them... or do they?

There is indeed a winner: the universities that have hiked prices because student loans are so easy to get, who have entire staffs devoted to helping students receive student loans regardless of consideration of future earnings, and who have even offered those useless majors mentioned above, apparently to attract more students who really don't want to nor have the ability excel in more fruitful career choices.

And these winners in the game of student loans are the only ones not on the hook when the loans fail.

So here's Tucker's idea, which I support: Change the way student loans work. The government still guarantees student loans up to certain levels (which would be dependent on major), but if the student is unable to obtain or keep a job after school in that profession, the school becomes responsible for the loan! Now, what would that accomplish? Quite a lot actually:

• Schools would be less willing to assist with student loans for majors that they know will not translate to earnings commensurate with school costs.
  
• The government (aka the taxpayers) would no longer be providing what is essentially school welfare through defaulted student loans.
  
• Students would not be held accountable for bad decisions they made under advice of the school.
  
• Schools would likely focus more on needed, aka profitable, career choices.
  
• Students who are more capable and have a better attitude toward learning would become preferable over those with family connections and a desire to just party for four years.
  
• Professors would be expected to teach actual useful information that would equate to the ability to get and keep a job.
  
• Overall readiness for job performance would return to the curriculum.
  
• It is likely that tuition rates would actually decrease, because the number of students who were seriously considered by the schools would drop (less demand = lower prices).

Now, Tucker is not usually my favorite pundit (although at times he can be my favorite comedian). But this one time, I think the boy got a keeper of an idea. What say you, ATS?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

IMO, higher education should happen later in life, say mid twenties.

After some life experience and some maturity, one would be in a better place to decide what it is they wanted to do, also make better financial decisions.

a reply to: JinMI

That suggestion does have merit, but it also has a downside: most education is not geared toward comprehension as much as repetition, at least in public schools, and thus the few years out of school would be equivalent to entering college from the 9th grade. Not realistic for most.

If we could fix our public education system, I could buy into your idea.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That suggestion does have merit, but it also has a downside: most education is not geared toward comprehension as much as repetition, at least in public schools, and thus the few years out of school would be equivalent to entering college from the 9th grade. Not realistic for most.

Noted and valid. So on top of predatory lending, one could make an argument that the government is complicit in a ponzi scheme.

I agree and fear that the current U.S. education system is beyond repair if the above is true.

Can the Federal Government legally force a college/university to repay a student loan? If so, is it the right thing to do in a capitalist society?

Tucker has always been a gatekeeper in my eyes since cross-fire. He has made good points lately mainly because he picks up fringe stories like the "theybies" chick. But that is a good idea.

Alot of these people getting dumb degrees that could only get them niche careers are half of the people complaining about their loans post graduation. How gender or feminist studies degrees could be taken seriously as a major is a good example about how colleges have went downhill in the past few decades. That's why trade schools are becoming a superior alternative to 4 year colleges. Useless classes have been the bane of the educational system for a while now.

a reply to: JinMI

So on top of predatory lending, one could make an argument that the government is complicit in a ponzi scheme.

One could make that assertion. Getting anything done about it is the issue. I think it would be better to let the bygones be bygones and fix the system. We're a little deep in the rabbit hole to be worrying about blame first, IMO; we can figure out who did what when they are no longer doing it.

Priorities.

I agree and fear that the current U.S. education system is beyond repair if the above is true.

Look around you. We have people making up new definitions for words when the old definitions don't fit their agenda. We have people completely ignoring evidence even when spelled out for them. We have people who will believe every conspiratorial thought that comes down the pike, but refuse to believe established facts.

Yes, in its current form, our public education system is indeed as doomed as June bug caught in a chicken's throat.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think it would be better to let the bygones be bygones and fix the system. We're a little deep in the rabbit hole to be worrying about blame first, IMO; we can figure out who did what when they are no longer doing it.

Can't fix what ain't broke!

We have people making up new definitions for words when the old definitions don't fit their agenda. We have people completely ignoring evidence even when spelled out for them. We have people who will believe every conspiratorial thought that comes down the pike, but refuse to believe established facts.

Working as intended?

If you keep them/us uneducated and without experience, you can keep bilking dollars from students and parents alike.



I do get what your saying, just spitting semantics now. Fixing the core issue would be a suitable road to follow however who is heading up that fight?

a reply to: carewemust

Can the Federal Government legally force a college/university to repay a student loan?

The loans already made, probably not. However, new loans could have stipulations attached; most student loans can be paid directly to the school. If the school is to be a signatory to the transfer, then the school is able to accept restrictions.

If so, is it the right thing to do in a capitalist society?

I fail to see why not. Many quite capitalist companies offer guarantees on their products and services.

What Tucker seems to be requiring here is that schools place a similar guarantee on their services if they are to receive what amounts to assistance from the government. That guarantee states that any student who is unable, through no fault of their own (as in unable to obtain a position in their chosen profession after a period of time or has been unable to hold a position due to inability to perform in that time period), to pay back a loan they have been talked into making under false pretenses, can be forgiven and the entity which made the false pretenses held responsible for the money they received.

No school can be held responsible for everything that can go wrong, of course, and that would need to be taken into account. But quite often blanket lies are told to get a student to stay in school, even though the school is well aware the studen't major is useless after graduation and the student will be saddled with debt they cannot pay, simply so the school can make more money. I consider that simply wrong... it would be wrong under any economic system.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JinMI

Can't fix what ain't broke!

Are you suggesting there is no issue with public education?

If you keep them/us uneducated and without experience, you can keep bilking dollars from students and parents alike.

Until they have no more dollars. But you can bilk something more important: votes.

Fixing the core issue would be a suitable road to follow however who is heading up that fight?

Ah, there might be the problem, don'cha think?

If we the people ever hope to have anyone take up that fight, we need to make a lot of noise... enough to convince someone in power that doing so would be conducive to maintaining their status.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you suggesting there is no issue with public education?

No sir, I'm suggesting that by the actions (not words) of local and federal governments, that there is no issue with public education.

Until they have no more dollars. But you can bilk something more important: votes.

6 in one hand, half dozen in the other. It all comes out in the wash. (wow, sorry, full of cliches tonight!).

If we the people ever hope to have anyone take up that fight, we need to make a lot of noise... enough to convince someone in power that doing so would be conducive to maintaining their status.

I very much agree. I guess the argument I am horribly trying to make is that from their standpoint, there is no logic in that. By keep on doing what they are doing they are keeping their constituents uneducated and poor.

S+F

I really think this is a huge topic that doesn't get enough attention. Gov't backing college loans, on the surface, means more intelligent people to man gov't/influential positions. At the same time though, gov't backing means there is absolutely NO reason for colleges to manage their costs/tuition. The gov't will pay for it so who cares right?


Not much else to add but replying to sub.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That sounds like a good idea to me.

One big problem that jumps out though, is that it would take anywhere from 5 - 15 years to see any kinds of effects from this change. I'm not saying that's a reason to not do it.

But I'm not sure the patience exists in society to see it through. I'd expect someone to try and implement free education for all before it could come to fruition. Which would just stick us with more of the same and result in more useless degrees in Beyonce studies.

IF you get rid of social programs, and amenities at college and universities.

The cost of tuition would dramatically decrease.

It ain't your fathers, or grandfathers college anymore.

People either don't understand or just ignore what they've become.

Country clubs.

a reply to: JinMI

I very much agree. I guess the argument I am horribly trying to make is that from their standpoint, there is no logic in that. By keep on doing what they are doing they are keeping their constituents uneducated and poor.

I thought I was misinterpreting your post. This is one of those times I am happy to have been wrong.

Yes, I am sure that politicians like to keep their constituency uneducated and unaware... it makes them easier to deal with. Educated, critical-thinking people tend to ask uncomfortable questions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: thov420

At the same time though, gov't backing means there is absolutely NO reason for colleges to manage their costs/tuition. The gov't will pay for it so who cares right?

That's the crux of the issue. Student loans are advertised as free money for the taking. To a student living on very limited means, that's an irresistible offer, especially since most students are under 25 (the age where the brain fully matures, including the ability to have forethought). On top of that, the very idea of a student loan is pressed by the schools' financial departments themselves. "Have you exhausted your student loans?" is literally the very first question they ask if a student comes to them for help. And why not? It's the easiest way for a student to get financial assistance, and the student who questions owing money after school when they believe they will be rolling in cash is not worried about how much they will owe later on.

It's another case of the government not understanding the dynamics of those they are dealing with and an institution taking full advantage of the fact. Those the programs were designed to help are the ones who end up bearing the brunt of the problems caused.

TheRedneck

a reply to: watchitburn

it would take anywhere from 5 - 15 years to see any kinds of effects from this change.

I'm not sure the patience exists in society to see it through. I'd expect someone to try and implement free education for all before it could come to fruition. Which would just stick us with more of the same and result in more useless degrees in Beyonce studies.

Free education (at least free financially) has some possibilities; the problem would likely come into play with the government still not understanding the dynamics.

Bernie Sanders' idea of free education is simply not sustainable. A student who gets something for free places no value on that which they get; it's human nature. However, if there were a program that would reward academic excellence with free education after high school, perhaps it might have a chance. I am thinking of allowing, say, the top 20% of each graduating high school class to have free education: the top 10% to a university and the rest to a community college or trade school. As long as the recipient can continue with their GPA, let them go as far as they can. It would have to be limited to specific fields of study (no graduate studies in useless majors), and it would have to be pretty demanding, because the idea is that the student still has to have "skin in the game."

But back to the topic... I don't think we would need to wait quite that long. If we were to simply pass a bill that said next academic year, all government-guaranteed student loans would carry with them requirements to make the schools themselves part of the picture, we would likely see some pretty big changes start occurring almost immediately. Perhaps it would take 10-15 years for things to completely stabilize, but not to see results.

TheRedneck

a reply to: neo96

I actually oppose removing most of the 'luxuries' that college comes with. They actually have a purpose, if properly controlled.

Take fraternities and sororities, for example. They may sound frivolous a'la the movie Animal House, especially with the hazing issue, but the reality is (or at least should be) quite different. They serve as group support and socialization opportunity. It's hard to socialize among a peer group who do not have the same priorities and schedule as oneself, and college is not exactly a walk in the park on those counts.

I do support controlling these extracurricular activities, however. We are dealing with young adults that still need occasional guidance from adults. They are simply not ready to be turned completely loose to party all night.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I actually oppose removing most of the 'luxuries' that college comes with. They actually have a purpose, if properly controlled.

Feel free.

However, Education needs to get back to the basics, and start teaching useful skills.