Topic: what do you think about the way college tuitions keep increasing out of control - page 3. (Read 2683 times)

Except that discharge of priority debts is not a required precondition to corporate bankruptcy. You're tap dancing around the simple fact that in corporate bankruptcy, 'priority' is determined by active petitioning and even then, it's far from unheard of for even something as sacrosanct as employee benefits to be unloaded onto the public, or simply abandoned altogether.

This option is not available for individuals, as there are not personal equivalents to dissolution and reincorporation, outside of death or fleeing the country.

Reductio ad absurdum?

There is simply no comparing student loan debt and alimony or child support, which can only ever be consumer debts, with corporate debt such as bond, note or trade debt. Besides the fact that corporations cannot have those types of debt, there are also very clear public policy reasons why the debts are either nondischargeable or subject to a higher burden of proof for discharge. A better analogy (since you seem to only be capable of reason by comparison) would be employee wages or benefits, which receive one of the highest priorities in a corporate bankruptcy for obvious public policy reasons. Since priority and nondischargeability are two sides of the same coin--payment of priority debts being a precondition to discharge in a corporate bankruptcy--there really is no distinction.

The point at hand is that you can't tell the difference between analogy and synonymity. So if were to use the car analogy in reference to the economy, you would argue that the economy doesn't use internal combustion engines.

Corporations can get a discharge through chapter 11, but they have to effectively liquidate all of their property to do it. Whereas an individual in a chapter 11 just has to devote disposable income to a plan in order to get a discharge.

As for the debts comparison, I think you are actually agreeing with me, but again, I am having trouble understanding you.

Oh oh but corporations pay more to get a discharge -- oh but corporations are also discharging 82 times more money.

Wait so you're telling me that you compared individual bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy to illustrate that individuals can't get rid of certain kinds of debt? Well why would that matter? Corporations don't have those kinds of debt, so your point is moot

Many of my friends work in higher ed in some way...professors, coaches, office work, etc.

If a college costs $45k and you get 30% off, it's still overpriced at $30k.

Above 95% of all student loans are government loans or government guaranteed loans. Truly private loans are a very small part of the market; so I am not sure I understand your argument.

Tuition & Fees isn't real. It's a sticker price. Most private schools have "discount rates" in the 40% range. They use financial aid as a bargaining ship to get better students and improve their ranking. Only the international students an kids who barely get admitted pay the full freight.

The article posted above about the government exaggerating the cost of college from the NYT is pretty spot on.

on one hand, making it hard for borrowers to avoid paying back the loan is a good move to curb the student loan bubble. but at the same time the government didn't put any similar constraint on the lenders.
it is understandable that once you've obtained an education, unlike a house or a car, they can't foreclose or repossess it. so you need to pay them that money back. but what about the lenders? they ultimately approve and directly benefit from any investments, yet there's virtually no risk for them in case the student loan investment turns out to be bad.

bachelor degrees are like dime a dozen these days, and people with the degree can't find jobs, even in fields where they keep predicting "there won't be enough workers in industry XYZ in so many years". the reason is because although they need people, these companies only hire the top, let's say 40% - and that is a very generous number - of their job applicants at any given time, yet college students keep graduating every 6 to 12 months. so the other 60% keep piling up years after years

Corporations are liability shields and the sky is blue. How does that keep the corporation, in se, from paying its debts?

As for bankruptcy, student loan debt is not immune (child support is though), it is just subject to a higher standard for discharge. Regardless, corporations do not owe child support or student loans, so there is no point to get because it's a pointless comparison. It is much harder and more expensive, though, for a corporation to get a discharge in bankruptcy than it is for an individual.

the change in the law that makes it almost impossible to discharge student loan gave private lenders more incentive to throw money at student regardless of their earning or even employment potential. thus, everyone can now "afford" college. the vicious circle starts as a result, more people can afford college -> more people want to obtain a college education regardless of whether they need it or not (art history? "blah blah blah" studies?!)-> college education becomes more popular -> schools increase tuition -> more student loans are needed, and at the same time lenders wont hesitate to lend -> more people can afford college -> ...

Corporations are specifically designed be liability shields. That's the primary reason they exist as a legal institution.


But like I said, you're missing the point. The point being made here was that people can normally file for bankruptcy (just like a corporation), but student loan debt is immune from bankruptcy (which is why I compared it to child support).

Meanwhile the government also made it impossible to avoid paying back student loans. Persons with student loan debt are treated just as bad as deadbeat fathers in terms of how they're punished for their debt and their ability to get out from under their debt.

They went that much because the government started giving stupid cheap loans to anybody who wanted one. That meant colleges could raise tuition and people could get loans to pay them, so NOT raising tuition meant leaving money on the table.

A water main burst at UCLA yesterday and flooded Pauley Pavillion, parking structures and closed down Sunset Blvd - for the 30 minutes I watched the report they reported about 9 times that it would interfere with basketball, volleyball and they expressed great concern about not ruining the athletic field for football practice.

30 minutes, 21 people taking in 9 clips about sports - not one person mentioned anything about classes or academics.

Look at this article in USA today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/07/29/ucla-flooding-pauley-pavilion-water-main-breaks/13341019/

search for the word "class" and your will get no hit.

Tuition = money to "buy" better NCAA "stars".

I think that pretty much sums up academia in the US.

I went to the University of Iowa 1977-1981. I ended up with only $2500 in student loans to pay back for my BGS degree. Tuition, room and board were only about $1000 a semester and I did get some grant aid that paid about 40% of it. My parents college fund for me paid the rest.

Now in most schools that $8000 in total cost would not even make it one semester.

2013-2014 RESIDENT school year costs at the U of I:$20,691 (From the U of I website)

this includes everything: dorm, meals, books, tuition, everything

http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/...rsity-of-iowa/
this site says $18,525 for RESIDENT


There is no way in the world expenses should have gone up that much since then.

The driving force behind rising collegiate prices is the government guarantee of student loans. There's no free market mechanism determining who's worth the risk of the loans, what degree programs should have a cap on loans since they won't pay off or the market doesn't need those careers outside of a few and there's no incentives to cut costs/personnel/infrastructure.

At big universities w/ all their endowments, there should never be a need to ever increase tuition but that stuff is largely used beef up the accommodations to entice better athletes and the like to come there. And since these U's already have the name going for it, every tom, dick and harry want to come there so there isn't any shortage on demand and thus even in a market situation a rising price isn't much of a deterrent of entry. Those graduates (w/ loans), via alumni and university programs that place jobs, have the ability to pay off so it's no big deal.

At average colleges and universities where middle class kids by and large go, this is where the student loans more so come into play and these are the bulk of the collegiate schools that are passing out diplomas and the holders less than 50% of finding employment in their field. 6 months go by and now loan payments start up but these kids mostly have no experience but just a piece of paper that isn't really in demand for the current employment market as it was 10 years ago. We all know that most of the jobs 'coming back' are seasonal, part time and/or minimum wage. This is the likely starting platform for many of 50% that couldn't find field jobs and they reside at their parent's houses or continue their college rental setups w/ friends but it's hard to pay loans when you're in a setup like that. From there, very few w/o connections can make it into something of an upwardly mobile position unless something changes drastically in the job market. Then, less people are getting married/having kids or are putting it off for 5-10 years or more. Then there's that many less people being financially able to purchase the Baby Boomers' houses allowing them a stake for retirement if they can even consider it. I could go on but it's maddening.

In a capitalist state the real power is wielded by the 1% elite. The politicians is simply their pawns. The elite can dictate what they want, they control almost everything.

There can be only so many managers in a company. And the low paying jobs are being occupied by immigrant or illegal immigrant. What other option is left for the rest of the population?