Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment Test, Pauses Admissions

2»

Replies to: Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment Test, Pauses Admissions

  • hebegebehebegebe Registered User Posts: 1,534 Senior Member
    If taxpayer subsidies are to occur, they should be in plain sight for taxpayers to evaluate. Pell Grants are in plain sight and have widespread approval. It is when subsidies get somewhat hidden that people can (rightly) complain. I personally disapprove of IBR because it becomes a hidden subsidy that taxpayers cannot properly evaluate ahead of time.

    You want to be an art major, or do social work? That's all well and good. But their median pay is well understood, and if you want to take educational loans to join a low paying profession, I personally believe you should be prepared to pay back every cent, with market-based interest.

    Not doing this leads to perverse incentives. Colleges are encouraged to raise tuition, knowing they will be paid. Students who believe that IBR will apply to them are encouraged to go to expensive colleges, because "why not?". Taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
  • kelsmomkelsmom Super Moderator Posts: 14,086 Super Moderator
    Such simplistic assumptions about perverse incentives is just that ... assumptions. I do not believe that colleges raise tuition just because of things like IBR. But then again, I have worked at colleges and am familiar with their budgets.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 58,617 Senior Member
    Re: #5

    Seems that those who complain about government financial aid for undergraduates (Pell grants, direct loans) should really focus on the much larger (relative to cost of attendance and graduates' future pay levels) amounts that post-BA/BS professional school students can borrow. The argument that government financial aid allows or encourages colleges to increase tuition is hard to believe for undergraduates (since the amounts have not changed much while tuition has increased to a far greater extent), but is much more believable for post-BA/BS professional school.
  • juilletjuillet Super Moderator Posts: 10,792 Super Moderator
    And if this amount is forgiven...the student will pay taxes on it. But that's after 20 years of making the minimum payments ON TIME every month.

    Not in PSLF...for public service loans, the forgiven amount doesn't count as taxable income. That's only under the forgiveness policy of the regular loans forgiveness, which happens after 20 or 25 years depending on the type of loan and when it was borrowed.

    I agree that public service jobs and careers are very important. I just think that if we are going to pay for them, then we as a society should be transparent and establish a national (or state-by-state) scholarship program for public service careers that awards scholarships to students if they agree to serve in a public service career for a period of 10 years. This also allows the selection of students who will receive the scholarship. I'm also not necessarily against PSLF either, I just think the amounts should be capped (as should regular IBR amounts).

    The other danger with borrowing lots with the expectation of PSLF is that you never know how your career desires and goals will change. I went to graduate school to get a PhD in public health and had every intention of becoming a researcher at a government agency or nonprofit or a professor. I ended up doing research at a for-profit technology company (definitely not eligible for PSLF). On the flip side, I have some friends who would be interested in leaving their public service jobs for related careers in for-profit companies, but they feel like they can't because they borrowed so much money for undergrad and grad that they need to stay in public service to repay loans. These people are less than 5 years into their careers, so they've got a ways to go before they have total career freedom.
  • Prof99Prof99 Registered User Posts: 50 Junior Member
    Graduation and retention rates comprise 30% of US News ranking criteria. That is clearly an overweighting and this is yet another fatal flaw in their methodology. The continued use of these stats (which have little to do with academic quality) will virtually guarantee that Stanford will never reach the top of the rankings where it by most legitimate measures deserves to be. I believe it is now ranked 5th, tied with Columbia. Columbia is a fine school (I'm an alum) but its profile in just about every area would put it a tier below that of Stanford.
    Every school--even HYPSM--will lose 2-3% of those who enter. Add to that Stanford's world class elite athletes AND entrepreneurial tech wizards and Stanford's graduation and retention rates WILL always lag those of HYP. Stanford's student body is arguably the most talented in the world. Its Olympians, other professional caliber athletes, techies, and entrepreneurs, in the aggregate, simply have more options than the students at any other college in America and probably in the world. Until the compilers at USNews wake up and learn what every academic "in the know" has known for years now--that Harvard and Stanford define the apex of America education, grad and undergrad--many, like myself, will continue to shake their heads and ask in a now annual ritual, " What planet is USNews on?"
  • Prof99Prof99 Registered User Posts: 50 Junior Member
    Please disregard my post above. It was meant for another discussion and has been posted there.
    Mea culpa.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.