• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US student loans grotesquely high

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Interest on credit card debt was no longer tax deductible as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
So, well before my time then.

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but to others. It is very typical for people to cite engineering degrees as the most valuable or most desirable or hardest to obtain, with the bar being assumed to be much lower for humanities.
Well, those things are all true. Financially, engineering degrees are far more valuable on average than humanities degrees, outliers notwithstanding.
Part of it is that those degrees are objectively harder, and fewer people will therefore pursue them.


I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees. I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics. In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I also do not believe that fewer people pursue those degrees because they are 'harder.' I think it is because the degree programs are extremely rigid and not particularly interesting to a lot of people. Financially, engineering degrees command greater monetary compensation because they are traditionally male dominated. Nurses are traditionally undercompensated, not because they have lower levels of education or because their skills are less valuable (we need far more nurses than engineers!) but because of differences in how society perceives and rewards male vs female career paths. There is currently and almost perpetually a shortage of nurses and yet, there is little movement towards making changes in compensation and work conditions that would encourage more nurses to stay in the field. Nurses face a great deal of burn out, not only to the demands and stresses inherent in the work but also because of the level of violence and threats of violence and because of the way nursing shifts are scheduled, and also, because when health care providers seek to limit costs, they often reduce the number of nurses.

Here's a bit about violence in health care--note that this was true PRIOR to the pandemic:
In 2012, the Healthcare and Social Assistance (HCSA) sector was amongst the largest industry sectors in the U.S. employing an estimated 19.4 million workers (13.5% of the total workforce)[1]. On average, over the last decade, U.S. healthcare workers have accounted for two-thirds of the nonfatal workplace violence injuries in all industries involving days away from work [2]. Healthcare workers face the risk of both physical violence and non-physical violence, such as verbal abuse, on the job. These numbers represent only the assaults that resulted in time away from work and not the less severe physical injuries or the psychological trauma that HCSA workers experience from workplace violence. Additionally, these data only capture the reported incidents. The literature suggests that the number of assaults reported by healthcare workers is greatly underreported.

Teaching is another heavily female career path which is vastly undercompensated. Medical doctors, particularly those in general practice, family practice or pediatrics are less well compensated, comparatively compared with what they were 40 years ago--perhaps because more women are now physicians.


I would not say that skills in humanities are not needed or that we do not need English or History teachers. But the demand for such is obviously lower than for say people who design machines or computer chips. And I do not think universities are doing their students any favors if they admit more students to an English PhD program than society can reasonably employ. That just leads to frustration when they graduate and cannot find meaningful work in their field.

Really? It seems to me that we farmed out computer chip manufacturing a long time ago. And those are not jobs that require a high degree of education or training. Same with a lot of manufacturing of machinery. Maybe Biden will be able to bring some of those jobs back.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,489
I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees. I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics. In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I mostly agree with your post, but I thought I'd comment on the bolded. Soft skills are a huge part of many engineering jobs. About 50% of my job is collaborating with people. You can get by in engineering fields without soft skills, because there aren't a lot of people who like doing engineering work. But if you don't have good social skills you'll absolutely be bad at your job.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees. I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics. In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.

I mostly agree with your post, but I thought I'd comment on the bolded. Soft skills are a huge part of many engineering jobs. About 50% of my job is collaborating with people. You can get by in engineering fields without soft skills, because there aren't a lot of people who like doing engineering work. But if you don't have good social skills you'll absolutely be bad at your job.
You’re right of course. Most jobs really do require people being somewhat good at soft skills.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,774
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Until the great Credit Crisis of 2008, debt paper held by the FRB system was insignificant
But far from nonexistent.

"When I was walking down the stairs, gravity was insignificant; Jumping off the roof therefore caused gravity to exist."

Your arguments are nonsense, your understanding is pathetically weak, and your claim that fiat money is similar to commodity money founders on the sequence of events, that you haven't even attempted to address.

Being clueless is at least potentially curable; Being both clueless and under the delusion that you are in the role of the teacher, and never that of the student, is sadly impossible to cure.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,651
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Blah Blah Blah. [(Since 2009) The FRB attempts to increase the money supply (and finances government) by buying large quantities of debt.]

Of course it does. Is THIS your novel insight? What a joke.

The point I repeatedly emphasized — as you would have seen if you had tried to learn instead of babbling ignorance — is that this policy began in the U.S. only after 2009. I REPEATEDLY specified that monetary details changed in 2009.

In #530 of this thread:
Swammerdami said:
Setting aside coinage, postage stamps, etc. the U.S. government has three ways to pay for its spending. Please memorize this list: I refer to A, B and C below. And there WILL be a quiz! :cool:
(A) collecting taxes, and
(B) selling debt paper to private entities, foreign and domestic, and
(C) indirectly selling debt paper to the Federal Reserve Banks.

The Treasury does NOT sell debt to the FR Banks: The FRB buys debt paper on the secondary market. Things like the SocSec Trust Fund can be viewed as a hybrid: The funds are collected as tax and then invested in Treasury debt paper until needed.

Until the great Credit Crisis of 2008, debt paper held by the FRB system was insignificant — Only (A) and (B) above applied. The FRB would often buy a few hundreds of millions in bonds to lubricate financial markets, but would then often sell it back soon after.

The "money printing" rampage began during the "Great Recession" and now totals several trillion dollars.

ALL economists agree that money the government spends needs to be sucked back up (via (A) or (B)) to prevent inflation. Please note, however that the cyan line in the graph shows another form of money sucking, albeit potentially unreliable. Conventional economists view (C) — "Quantitative Easing" — as a stopgap, as paper the FRB will sell if/when normalcy returns. Economists of the MMT school believe (C) can be made permanent, although some caution must be exercised to avoid immoderate inflation. I am not prepared to adjudicate this difference of opinion.

As clearly seen in the violet line, FRB assets held steady at about 4 or 5% until about 2011: there was no "ex-nihilo" money creation. The U.S. government spent money it acquired by taxes or by borrowing from foreign or private investors.

Is THAT what your perverse obstinacy (and bilby's) has been about the whole time? Failure to read my #530?

You can't redeem yourself by pretending that you knew all along that QE was a very recent phenomenon. Had you been aware of that you would have prefaced your babbled half-truths with phrases like "during the recent MMT era" or some such.

You're still completely confused on the mechanics of course. But thanks for participating.
Well, you kept to your word to not respond to me any more.

Instead you've chosen to invent a statement and attribute it to me:
Blah Blah Blah. [(Since 2009) The FRB attempts to increase the money supply (and finances government) by buying large quantities of debt.]
It took you only a handful of posts to go from look at me I'm a rational centrist to blah blah blah. :p

Come on.

Nothing I've said is specific to post-GFC monetary policy. I would have thought the article published in 2000 would have been a clue.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,523
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
It would have been such a better idea to simply make student loan debt dischargeable through bankruptcy. The borrowers get a negative mark on their credit record for making a bad decision, the lenders get a loss for making a bad decision, and future bad decisions are discouraged all around. Instead we have a transference of debt to the government and neither the borrowers nor the lenders suffer any consequences for their decisions.

Not suffering consequences is progressive dogma though.

So while everyone is concentrating on whether or not people are ghouls to the borrowers, the fact is under this arrangement you are either choosing to be a ghoul to borrowers or choosing to be a ghoul to non-borrowers. The question isn't if you are going to be a ghoul, it is who you are going to be a ghoul towards.
Two words: Strategic bankruptcy.

If student loans were dischargeable they would cease to exist because most people would complete their education and then declare bankruptcy. People who take student loans almost certainly exit college with negative net worth.
You are correct, which is why this will work better in the long run. Lenders will be less likely to make the riskier loans. Right now Student Loans are absurdly safe because they can't be discharged. Fewer loans will force colleges to reduce their prices in order to attract students. Fewer loans also means people want more "bang for their buck" and will look at fields that are more likely to help getting a job after graduation. Lower prices also mean a reduced need for loans in the first place.
Yeah, re: your first paragraph response to Loren makes me think exactly the same thing. It's almost like you kinda sorta watched a youtube and now you think you know something.
One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
It would have been such a better idea to simply make student loan debt dischargeable through bankruptcy. The borrowers get a negative mark on their credit record for making a bad decision, the lenders get a loss for making a bad decision, and future bad decisions are discouraged all around. Instead we have a transference of debt to the government and neither the borrowers nor the lenders suffer any consequences for their decisions.

Not suffering consequences is progressive dogma though.

So while everyone is concentrating on whether or not people are ghouls to the borrowers, the fact is under this arrangement you are either choosing to be a ghoul to borrowers or choosing to be a ghoul to non-borrowers. The question isn't if you are going to be a ghoul, it is who you are going to be a ghoul towards.
Two words: Strategic bankruptcy.

If student loans were dischargeable they would cease to exist because most people would complete their education and then declare bankruptcy. People who take student loans almost certainly exit college with negative net worth.
You are correct, which is why this will work better in the long run. Lenders will be less likely to make the riskier loans. Right now Student Loans are absurdly safe because they can't be discharged. Fewer loans will force colleges to reduce their prices in order to attract students. Fewer loans also means people want more "bang for their buck" and will look at fields that are more likely to help getting a job after graduation. Lower prices also mean a reduced need for loans in the first place.
Yeah, re: your first paragraph response to Loren makes me think exactly the same thing. It's almost like you kinda sorta watched a youtube and now you think you know something.
One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.
Your analysis would be complete if you changed "progressive economics" to "progressive or libertarian or any economics with which I disagree".
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.
The right is just as guilty as the left about this.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Your analysis would be complete if you changed "progressive economics" to "progressive or libertarian or any economics with which I disagree".
Although it would satisfy you, it would no longer be accurate. Perhaps that is why it would satisfy you.
LOL - that one broke every irony meter that ever has and will exist.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,523
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.
The right is just as guilty as the left about this.
True, corporatism is as guilty of this as progressiveism.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It would have been such a better idea to simply make student loan debt dischargeable through bankruptcy. The borrowers get a negative mark on their credit record for making a bad decision, the lenders get a loss for making a bad decision, and future bad decisions are discouraged all around. Instead we have a transference of debt to the government and neither the borrowers nor the lenders suffer any consequences for their decisions.

Not suffering consequences is progressive dogma though.

So while everyone is concentrating on whether or not people are ghouls to the borrowers, the fact is under this arrangement you are either choosing to be a ghoul to borrowers or choosing to be a ghoul to non-borrowers. The question isn't if you are going to be a ghoul, it is who you are going to be a ghoul towards.
Two words: Strategic bankruptcy.

If student loans were dischargeable they would cease to exist because most people would complete their education and then declare bankruptcy. People who take student loans almost certainly exit college with negative net worth.
You are correct, which is why this will work better in the long run. Lenders will be less likely to make the riskier loans. Right now Student Loans are absurdly safe because they can't be discharged. Fewer loans will force colleges to reduce their prices in order to attract students. Fewer loans also means people want more "bang for their buck" and will look at fields that are more likely to help getting a job after graduation. Lower prices also mean a reduced need for loans in the first place.
Yeah, re: your first paragraph response to Loren makes me think exactly the same thing. It's almost like you kinda sorta watched a youtube and now you think you know something.
One of the problems with progressive economics (and further left economics) is understanding consequences of actions. Change a law here, and people adjust their economic behavior there. One term for this is "unintended consequences". So if bankruptcy law were changed to allow discharge of student loans, I guess we are supposed to pretend this will have no impact on the behavior of lenders. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of lenders, it won't impact the decisions of students deciding on their studies. If by some chance it does impact the behavior of student, it certainly won't impact the decisions of the schools.

In government the ability to ignore the consequences of a decision does exist, but once a decision enters the economy the decisions will have effects that a government mindset can never anticipate.
It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,523
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

My version of economics involves things like supply, demand, risk factors, time preference, and recognizing that changes made to a complex system introduce unintended and unanticipated consequences. Your version of economics involves things like monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and pretending there are no unintended or unanticipated consequences, or that people would even adjust their behavior in response to government policy.

The former is economics, the latter is saying that the former doesn't know economics.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

My version of economics involves things like supply, demand, risk factors, time preference, and recognizing that changes made to a complex system introduce unintended and unanticipated consequences. Your version of economics involves things like monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and pretending there are no unintended or unanticipated consequences, or that people would even adjust their behavior in response to government policy.

The former is economics, the latter is saying that the former doesn't know economics.
There are different types of economies and there are different branches of economics and different economic theories. There are not different 'versions' of economics. There are different economic theories. Every single theory is built upon the the principle that changing one factor (including laws) in an economic system has consequences. Anticipating and determining those consequences is exactly what economics is supposed to do. You are suggesting that I am unaware that there might be consequences that are unintended or unknown at the beginning. I'm not stupid. I didn't get my economics from youtube videos or political ideology.

It would be an anticipated and intended consequence if lenders and borrowers changed their behavior with regards to loans if they were to become dischargeable through bankruptcy. That would be one point of making student loans dischargeable through bankruptcy. Note: I have not argued that bankruptcy is a desirable way to discharge student loans.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,523
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Yet when I wrote that lenders and borrowers would change their behavior, you accused me of not knowing economics. Wow.

I guess even those who prefer government economics can't avoid actual economics forever.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Nope. History teaches people to look at the context or big picture which helps people grapple with all sorts of problems by looking and understanding how the past influences today. Historians learn how to identify and shift through various original documents and sources and then how to organize disparate sources and events into a single coherent narrative. Simply put, historians learn how to use the past to tell simple but compelling true stories that help us deal with issues today.
Sure. And I am not saying that history as discipline is not useful. Just that there is a limited demand for historians.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Yes, there are Pell Grants but for the 22-23 academic year, they are for less that $7K, which will go a long way toward covering tuition in many state schools but probably not fully cover the tuition nor touch books, fees or living expenses.
That should cover about half the instate tuition. Not bad for a grant that is not meant to be paid back.

What is the income limit for fafsa 2020?
For the 2020-21 cycle, if you're a dependent student and your family has a combined income of $27,000 or less, your expected contribution to college costs would automatically be zero. The same goes if you (as an independent student) and your spouse earn no more than $27,000 annually
The answer does not answer the question. The question was about income limit for FAFSA (afaik there isn't one and you have to fill out FAFSA if you seek out loans too, not just need-based grants). The answer is about the income limit after which federal government expects at least some family (or student if considered independent student) contribution.

Pell grants are available well above that threshold though. This website gives some details.

Obviously, income limits depend heavily on number of dependents, etc. but as you can tell, there is a huge number of students whose families would not qualify for Pell Grants but who would also be unable to contribute or contribute more than very minimally for college expenses, even assuming the students live at home and work part time.
Obviously, in many cases students will need at least some loans. But Pell grants, state scholarships (like HOPE) and family contributions/part time work can go a long way eliminating or at least reducing the amount of loans needed.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I would argue no, that's not why you take English courses. That's why many/most universities require freshman composition and why many universities require ALL majors to have some required coursework that is heavy in writing.
As I said, science/engineering degrees are far more well-rounded than say English degrees.
You seem to agree with me now.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees.
It being popular does not mean it's false. :)

I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics.
In terms of rigor, hard science >> huminites degrees like English.

Nursing is a special case. There is some science content, but obviously not as much as a pre-med program would have. Let alone med school itself. Nursing is more about practical skills than having a good understanding of how the human body works "under the hood".

In nursing, in addition to intellectual skills, one must master so called soft skills: relating to patients, gaining patient's confidence, etc. No one expects an engineer to be empathetic or a good listener.
I do not know what you mean by "good listener". Good communication skills are important in every field.
I get your point about soft skills, but I wished nursing had more hard skills too. Especially now that "midlevels" (including NPs) are being given more independence in treating patients.

I also do not believe that fewer people pursue those degrees because they are 'harder.' I think it is because the degree programs are extremely rigid and not particularly interesting to a lot of people.
Explain "rigid". How is a program in engineering, with many different fields and subfields, more rigid than say a program in English? Same with hard sciences.
I think difficulty and rigor are important factors for people when choosing a major. If somebody doesn't think they can hack a program, they choose an easier one.

Financially, engineering degrees command greater monetary compensation because they are traditionally male dominated.
*Sigh* Not everything is about "sexism".

Nurses are traditionally undercompensated, not because they have lower levels of education or because their skills are less valuable
Nurses are hardly undercompensated - $77k is a median salary for a registered nurse according to this. Also there are several different levels of nurses. Some are at "lower levels of education" and their compensation is therefore less than a more educated nurse. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) have a program that is only weekslong and make ~$30k in median. On the other end of the scale, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) that requires more education, but they also make ~$124k in median.

(we need far more nurses than engineers!)
There are also a lot more nurses than engineers. That does not mean nurses are underpaid in the US.

but because of differences in how society perceives and rewards male vs female career paths. There is currently and almost perpetually a shortage of nurses and yet, there is little movement towards making changes in compensation and work conditions that would encourage more nurses to stay in the field.
If you increase compensation (that is already pretty good) you increase costs of healthcare. If you improve working conditions (by for example cutting hours without reducing pay) you increase both the cost and the nurse shortage as you now need more of them. It's not as easy as you make it seem.

Also, how did we get to nurses? How is that an argument that humanities degrees like English are relatively easy and that we need a limited number of English majors? Maybe all those underemployed English PhDs (working as part time adjunct profs like in that old thread) should go back to school and take up nursing. They could make more and help alleviate the nurse shortage you mentioned. But grading papers is way easier than changing bandages or taking BP. Also far less danger to get in contact with those icky bodily fluids.

Nurses face a great deal of burn out, not only to the demands and stresses inherent in the work but also because of the level of violence and threats of violence and because of the way nursing shifts are scheduled, and also,
I am sure they do.

because when health care providers seek to limit costs, they often reduce the number of nurses.
I have heard the opposite. "Midlevel encroachment" where hospitals hire more PAs and advanced nurses and give them more autonomy so they can save because actual physicians cost way more.

Teaching is another heavily female career path which is vastly undercompensated. Medical doctors, particularly those in general practice, family practice or pediatrics are less well compensated, comparatively compared with what they were 40 years ago--perhaps because more women are now physicians.
Again, not everything is about gender. Many men are teachers or general/family practice physicians.


Really? It seems to me that we farmed out computer chip manufacturing a long time ago.
Much of fabrication has migrated to Taiwan actually. But there are still semiconductor fabs in the US. And obviously, design is different than manufacture. A lot of chip design is in the US even if manufacture takes place overseas.

And those are not jobs that require a high degree of education or training. Same with a lot of manufacturing of machinery.
The more automated a fabrication site is, the more educated and well-trained the employees need to be.
And of course, design of chips requires a great deal of education.
Maybe Biden will be able to bring some of those jobs back.
Hopefully. More manufacture in the US will not only increase jobs, but would also make supply chains less vulnerable.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Nope. History teaches people to look at the context or big picture which helps people grapple with all sorts of problems by looking and understanding how the past influences today. Historians learn how to identify and shift through various original documents and sources and then how to organize disparate sources and events into a single coherent narrative. Simply put, historians learn how to use the past to tell simple but compelling true stories that help us deal with issues today.
Sure. And I am not saying that history as discipline is not useful. Just that there is a limited demand for historians.
You miss the point. While there may be limited demand for historians that does not mean that people with history degree face limited demand.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I know that it is popular for engineer type people to believe wholeheartedly that engineering degrees are objectively harder (and also more valuable) than other degrees.
It being popular does not mean it's false. :)
Engineers thinking it is true does not make it true. I don't think that many engineers would do well in humanities majors.

I don't believe that is objectively true. In term of rigor, I would match a degree in any hard science, or nursing (BS) or mathematics.
In terms of rigor, hard science >> huminites degrees like English.
I realize that this is true of the subset of individuals who lack the creativity, language ability and emotional intelligence of an English major.

Nursing is a special case. There is some science content, but obviously not as much as a pre-med program would have. Let alone med school itself. Nursing is more about practical skills than having a good understanding of how the human body works "under the hood".
This is not entirely accurate nor is nursing school analogous to medical school, although obviously there is a shared body of knowledge. Nursing degrees --and for the purposes of this discussion, I am only talking about 4 year nursing degrees, not LPN degrees--involve a tremendous amount of knowledge about human anatomy and physiology as well as pharmacology, I think that a 4 year RN degree is at least as rigorous as a 5 year engineering degree which is why I mentioned nursing in this discussion. Both disciplines use applied science(s). Nursing includes additional components beyond biology/chemistry fields such as anatomy and physiology and pharmacology to include psychology and depending on specialty, also developmental psychology.

I do not know what you mean by "good listener"
This inability to understand what is meant by 'good listener' is a trait common to engineers and in very broad terms, men. Obviously not universal but...

Good communication skills are important in every field.
Good communications skills ARE important in every field. In some fields, particularly in medical and educational fields, they are critical. Good communications skills is much more than being able to express oneself well. It also involves being able to listen and understand other people and what they are communicating, verbally and non-verbally.

I get your point about soft skills, but I wished nursing had more hard skills too. Especially now that "midlevels" (including NPs) are being given more independence in treating patients.
In every state, a nurse practitioner is required to hold a Master's degree and in some states, they are required to hold a Doctorate. I think that you, like many people who aren't very familiar with nurses' education and training or with the many subspecialties within the very broad field. The other factor is sexism: It is just generally assumed that nursing (a female dominated field) is much 'easier' than being a doctor or an engineer (more male dominated fields).

When I was first at university as an 18 year old, I was taking a very rigorous course of science courses, as I contemplated becoming a physician. My best friend was taking nursing courses, a supposedly 'lighter' version of some of the same classes I took. Yes, the chemistry was 'lighter' if by lighter, one means condescending and sexist but her anatomy and physiology classes were much, much more rigorous than my comparative anatomy or human physiology classes, both designed for premed majors. My 'honors' courses were much easier than her regular course work. I'm basing that assessment on the fact that we helped each other study.

because when health care providers seek to limit costs, they often reduce the number of nurses.
I have heard the opposite. "Midlevel encroachment" where hospitals hire more PAs and advanced nurses and give them more autonomy so they can save because actual physicians cost way more.

Those are not mutually exclusive. I have friends who left nursing because they were so frequently left short staffed and placed in situations where they felt that it was dangerous for patients. Fun fact: nursing is actually a dangerous profession with risks of assault on the job.


Again, not everything is about gender. Many men are teachers or general/family practice physicians.

They are indeed. However, teaching and nursing are long considered 'female' professions and receive less compensation compared with various other careers, considered more 'male.' This is changing, of course but it is still true.

More manufacture in the US will not only increase jobs, but would also make supply chains less vulnerable.
My hope as well.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,861
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
What is the opposite of the "naturalistic fallacy"? I mean, the idea that because it is written in law it defines what is true (18 year olds are equivalent in terms of personal responsibility to every other adult in America)?
So do you want to raise the age of majority in general, or does this only apply to student loans?
And what should the new age of majority be? 25? 30? 40? 50?
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,428
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

My version of economics involves things like supply, demand, risk factors, time preference, and recognizing that changes made to a complex system introduce unintended and unanticipated consequences. Your version of economics involves things like monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and pretending there are no unintended or unanticipated consequences, or that people would even adjust their behavior in response to government policy.

The former is economics, the latter is saying that the former doesn't know economics.
There are different types of economies and there are different branches of economics and different economic theories. There are not different 'versions' of economics. There are different economic theories. Every single theory is built upon the the principle that changing one factor (including laws) in an economic system has consequences. Anticipating and determining those consequences is exactly what economics is supposed to do. You are suggesting that I am unaware that there might be consequences that are unintended or unknown at the beginning. I'm not stupid. I didn't get my economics from youtube videos or political ideology.

It would be an anticipated and intended consequence if lenders and borrowers changed their behavior with regards to loans if they were to become dischargeable through bankruptcy. That would be one point of making student loans dischargeable through bankruptcy. Note: I have not argued that bankruptcy is a desirable way to discharge student loans.
You know, if it can't be discharged or reclaimed and came with no final guarantee of efficacy, it's almost identical to medical debt.

I'm having a hard time seeing why they should be treated differently.

I benefit equally as much from others being healthy and not spreading diseases as I benefit from our minds being healthy and not spreading diseases of ignorance.

What is the opposite of the "naturalistic fallacy"? I mean, the idea that because it is written in law it defines what is true (18 year olds are equivalent in terms of personal responsibility to every other adult in America)?
So do you want to raise the age of majority in general, or does this only apply to student loans?
And what should the new age of majority be? 25? 30? 40? 50?
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Hmmm maybe add a new age. Age of Fiscal Majority, the age at which one: loses all unsecured debts incurred prior to that age.

We can recognize that there are ages at which one starts to be capable of understanding contracts or thereabouts and enters into the primary social contract, with bills and such (18).

We can recognize that later on, one starts to be capable of understanding immediate recreational self-modification, drugs and alcohol and addictions and the like, and this happens YEARS later (21).

We can, and should in fact recognize a third point, at which long-term personal promises of liability are well grasped as an extension of the other two things. I think that some mechanism some 7-10 years following primary social contract majority would be best served as a measure of financial adulthood.

Ideally, we would have Ala Carte rites of passage developed around these rather than having them at fixed age boundaries, but our society uses age, so that's what it would be.

Even so, yes, people need the means to recognize decisions made before a boundary point of personal financial capability.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It is absolutely unclear 1) what it is you believe the point of your post above is and 2) exactly how that addressed my post you are supposedly responding to.

We all understand that you bleed libertarian ‘ideals.’ What is absolutely unclear is why you think you know anything about economics.

My version of economics involves things like supply, demand, risk factors, time preference, and recognizing that changes made to a complex system introduce unintended and unanticipated consequences. Your version of economics involves things like monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, and pretending there are no unintended or unanticipated consequences, or that people would even adjust their behavior in response to government policy.

The former is economics, the latter is saying that the former doesn't know economics.
There are different types of economies and there are different branches of economics and different economic theories. There are not different 'versions' of economics. There are different economic theories. Every single theory is built upon the the principle that changing one factor (including laws) in an economic system has consequences. Anticipating and determining those consequences is exactly what economics is supposed to do. You are suggesting that I am unaware that there might be consequences that are unintended or unknown at the beginning. I'm not stupid. I didn't get my economics from youtube videos or political ideology.

It would be an anticipated and intended consequence if lenders and borrowers changed their behavior with regards to loans if they were to become dischargeable through bankruptcy. That would be one point of making student loans dischargeable through bankruptcy. Note: I have not argued that bankruptcy is a desirable way to discharge student loans.
You know, if it can't be discharged or reclaimed and came with no final guarantee of efficacy, it's almost identical to medical debt.

I'm having a hard time seeing why they should be treated differently.

I benefit equally as much from others being healthy and not spreading diseases as I benefit from our minds being healthy and not spreading diseases of ignorance.

What is the opposite of the "naturalistic fallacy"? I mean, the idea that because it is written in law it defines what is true (18 year olds are equivalent in terms of personal responsibility to every other adult in America)?
So do you want to raise the age of majority in general, or does this only apply to student loans?
And what should the new age of majority be? 25? 30? 40? 50?
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Hmmm maybe add a new age. Age of Fiscal Majority, the age at which one: loses all unsecured debts incurred prior to that age.

We can recognize that there are ages at which one starts to be capable of understanding contracts or thereabouts and enters into the primary social contract, with bills and such (18).

We can recognize that later on, one starts to be capable of understanding immediate recreational self-modification, drugs and alcohol and addictions and the like, and this happens YEARS later (21).

We can, and should in fact recognize a third point, at which long-term personal promises of liability are well grasped as an extension of the other two things. I think that some mechanism some 7-10 years following primary social contract majority would be best served as a measure of financial adulthood.

Ideally, we would have Ala Carte rites of passage developed around these rather than having them at fixed age boundaries, but our society uses age, so that's what it would be.

Even so, yes, people need the means to recognize decisions made before a boundary point of personal financial capability.
Medical debt is currently dischargeable through bankruptcy, which student loans are not.

I would agree that NO ONE should be burdened by medical debt for needed medical care (including mental health/psychiatric care). I feel somewhat differently about some cosmetic surgery: breast augmentation: No. Breast reduction: probably yes. Rhinoplasty? Depends--sometimes this is medically indicated. And sometimes, it is necessary because of deformity, injury, etc. But because I want my nose to look like Liz Taylor's? Nah. But most medical care should be available to all, both in terms of cost and in terms of being able to access needed care. I'm ok with low co-pays but I also recognize for some, even a very modest co-pay can be too great a financial burden.

Do I think 18 year olds can/should pay bills? I think that some 18 year olds are capable of managing their finances and some are not. I also think it depends on what bills you are talking about. Certainly before 18, kids ought to be given some money, given the chance to earn some money and given the responsibility and the education to know how and why to pay bills, heavy on the responsibility of paying bills for goods/services you purchase or use.

I've mentioned a bunch of times that I live in a college town and actually in a student adjacent neighborhood. I see a LOT of students taken advantage of by unscrupulous landlords who do not provide liveable apartments or fulfill promises to fix plumbing, etc. I also see a LOT of students who clearly are not mature enough to a)know how to deal with landlords and b)know how to manage their own living space so that it does not become a burden to neighbors, room mates, landlords, etc. And C) Some are not up to managing living with room mates. Some of my kids have been caught in some .....difficult situations because they trusted a friend and never dreamed their friend would be so irresponsible or because they thought their friend was doing better with their alcohol problem because they went to rehab, etc. Stuff young people trust friends to follow through on because they like them, not because they've actually observed the friend being responsible. And frankly, I've seen some kids who, at age 18, were told they were 100% responsible not only for their own finances/living arrangements but also to take care of (adult family member who never got around to learning to take care of themselves but is still willing to blow through any amount of cash they can lay their hands on. I've seen some really lousy situations all around, from a variety of perspectives. So, no , I do not think that most 18 year olds are capable of fully comprehending the financial implications of student loans. Many are not really capable of understanding their rights and responsibilities as a room mate or a tenant--or rather, they haven't yet that that experience. Some sail right on through with few problems. Others find themselves in some lousy situations because they were too trusting, or too naive or were themselves not very responsible.

We decided in the early 1970's that we would call 18 year olds adults because we were drafting them and sending them to Viet Nam, so we thought they should be allowed to vote. I agree that 18 year olds should be allowed to vote. I don't agree with the draft, period, and certainly not with drafting 18 year olds.

Adulthood really comes in stages. We need to do a better job of recognizing that in our legal and financial systems.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nope. History teaches people to look at the context or big picture which helps people grapple with all sorts of problems by looking and understanding how the past influences today. Historians learn how to identify and shift through various original documents and sources and then how to organize disparate sources and events into a single coherent narrative. Simply put, historians learn how to use the past to tell simple but compelling true stories that help us deal with issues today.
Sure. And I am not saying that history as discipline is not useful. Just that there is a limited demand for historians.
You miss the point. While there may be limited demand for historians that does not mean that people with history degree face limited demand.
It comes down to how many get that degree vs how many jobs there are for that degree. Many of the soft sciences have a problem with supply exceeding demand, I don't know specifically about history.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I would argue no, that's not why you take English courses. That's why many/most universities require freshman composition and why many universities require ALL majors to have some required coursework that is heavy in writing.
As I said, science/engineering degrees are far more well-rounded than say English degrees.
You seem to agree with me now.
Actually I do not agree!
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,525
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
question. The question was about income limit for FAFSA (afaik there isn't one and you have to fill out FAFSA if you seek out loans too, not just need-based grants). The answer is about the income limit after which federal government expects at least some family (or student if considered independent student) contribution.
Yes, there is a limit to whether FAFSA will get you any need-based services, including regulated loans. They won’t say what it is because it depends on so many factors, like siblings, mortgages, etc, so they can’t make a handy table, but it exists.

There is very definitely a set of circumstances which will return the answer, “you do not qualify for any need based grants or subsidized loans.”

They will tell you to fill it out anyway, for the possibility of a merit-based scholarship which requires FAFSA to be done, but that is so they can claim all the poor people getting the schlarship, not so they can make the rich people eligible for it (since it is not need-based).

Likewise there is an upper income limit to itemizing tuition on one’s taxes, above which the deduction is zero.

I gave up after the first few years. Spending two hours of my life to find out my kids could apply for a $100 scholarship for their high GPA and maybe get it, while not being eligible for any guaranteed loans and certainly not any grants was not a good use of time. However, I have no heartburn over this, as we were indeed able to handle it, and therefore the system was working as intended.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Yes, there are Pell Grants but for the 22-23 academic year, they are for less that $7K, which will go a long way toward covering tuition in many state schools but probably not fully cover the tuition nor touch books, fees or living expenses.
That should cover about half the instate tuition. Not bad for a grant that is not meant to be paid back.

What is the income limit for fafsa 2020?
For the 2020-21 cycle, if you're a dependent student and your family has a combined income of $27,000 or less, your expected contribution to college costs would automatically be zero. The same goes if you (as an independent student) and your spouse earn no more than $27,000 annually
The answer does not answer the question. The question was about income limit for FAFSA (afaik there isn't one and you have to fill out FAFSA if you seek out loans too, not just need-based grants). The answer is about the income limit after which federal government expects at least some family (or student if considered independent student) contribution.

Pell grants are available well above that threshold though. This website gives some details.

Obviously, income limits depend heavily on number of dependents, etc. but as you can tell, there is a huge number of students whose families would not qualify for Pell Grants but who would also be unable to contribute or contribute more than very minimally for college expenses, even assuming the students live at home and work part time.
Obviously, in many cases students will need at least some loans. But Pell grants, state scholarships (like HOPE) and family contributions/part time work can go a long way eliminating or at least reducing the amount of loans needed.
They can for middle class students especially those whose family is willing and able to make a significant financial contribution.

The advice given to parents of prospective college students is to NOT shortchange their own retirement savings in order to pay for their kids’ college. College students can take out loans to fund their education. There are no loans to fund retirement—pretty much word for word advice I’ve read many times in pieces written by financial advisors.

I’m just pointing out another way that we’ll meaning people of moderate means are advised by professionals to act in ways that put their kids at a huge disadvantage. Parents are not very well prepared financially to help their kids with costs of college. Partially because conventional wisdom is to not shortchange your own retirement and let the kids take out loans. Partly because parents often do not have realistic understanding of costs of college today or implications of the loans on their kids’ futures. There are a lot of people with their heads in the sand or up their butts. Note: I’m talking here about people who have gone to college.

I just did a quick look up of costs for my local public university for the 22-23 academic year:

Instate tuition $9K/year plus meal plans. Total estimated costs for incoming freshmen (in state) tops $20K/year.

Students may or may not be able to save money by living off campus, depending on the situation. Rents in my town are quite high for what you get and almost all rentals are geared towards students rather than families.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
question. The question was about income limit for FAFSA (afaik there isn't one and you have to fill out FAFSA if you seek out loans too, not just need-based grants). The answer is about the income limit after which federal government expects at least some family (or student if considered independent student) contribution.
Yes, there is a limit to whether FAFSA will get you any need-based services. They won’t say what it is because it depends on so many factors, like siblings, mortgages, etc, so they can’t make a handy table, but it exists.

There is very definitely a set of circumstances which will return the answer, “you do not qualify for any need based grants or subsidized loans.”

They will tell yo to fill it out anyway, for the possibility of a merit-based scholarship which requires FAFSA to be done, but that is so they can claim all the poor people getting the schlarship, not so they can make the rich peope eligible for it (since it is not need-based).

Likewise there is an upper income limit to itemizing tuition on one’s taxes, above which the deduction is zero.

I gave up after the first few years. Spending two hours of my life to find out my kids could apply for a $100 scolarship for their high GPA and maybe get it, while not being eligible for any guaranteed loans and certainly not any grants was not a good use of time. However, I have no heartburn over this, as we were indeed able to handle it, and therefore the system was working as intended.
The other thing I will tell people whose kids are contemplating attending a private university: If your kid is a very good student, you can negotiate the price of tuition down, sometimes until it is comparable to a state school. I discovered this by accident.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,525
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The other thing I will tell people whose kids are contemplating attending a private university: If your kid is a very good student, you can negotiate the price of tuition down, sometimes until it is comparable to a state school. I discovered this by accident.
Yes, that was the only “aid” my kids received, the reductions negotiated during admissions. The, “gee, school B was able to offer us $N, are you able to match that?” negotiation. Which is certainly worth doing, and is based on whether you are judged to be an asset to the student body, whether by grades or diversity of ideas or background.

However, this turns out to be a gift to the midlle/upper class because the poor and need-based students aren’t aware of the privilege of saying, “wait, won’t you give me more?” and having the answer be yes.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The other thing I will tell people whose kids are contemplating attending a private university: If your kid is a very good student, you can negotiate the price of tuition down, sometimes until it is comparable to a state school. I discovered this by accident.
Yes, that was the only “aid” my kids received, the reductions negotiated during admissions. The, “gee, school B was able to offer us $N, are you able to match that?” negotiation. Which is certainly worth doing, and is based on whether you are judged to be an asset to the student body, whether by grades or diversity of ideas or background.

However, this turns out to be a gift to the midlle/upper class because the poor and need-based students aren’t aware of the privilege of saying, “wait, won’t you give me more?” and having the answer be yes.
This is definitely true. But poorer students are also much less likely to apply in the first place. FWIW, my kid felt very much like they were poor among that student body and ekected not to return to that school after the first year.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
This is definitely true. But poorer students are also much less likely to apply in the first place. FWIW, my kid felt very much like they were poor among that student body and ekected not to return to that school after the first year.
Yeah. It must suck being surrounded by fellow freshmen driving Beamers and Mercs ...
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The other thing I will tell people whose kids are contemplating attending a private university: If your kid is a very good student, you can negotiate the price of tuition down, sometimes until it is comparable to a state school. I discovered this by accident.
I mean they have to use their endowments for something.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The advice given to parents of prospective college students is to NOT shortchange their own retirement savings in order to pay for their kids’ college. College students can take out loans to fund their education. There are no loans to fund retirement—pretty much word for word advice I’ve read many times in pieces written by financial advisors.
But there are also 529 plans that can help save for your kids' college education in a similar way to an IRA. Of course, parents should not neglect their own futures to say fund their kids' private college adventures (assuming their kids are not the few who can negotiate a discount), but that is different than contributing a reasonable amount.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Yes, there is a limit to whether FAFSA will get you any need-based services, including regulated loans. They won’t say what it is because it depends on so many factors, like siblings, mortgages, etc, so they can’t make a handy table, but it exists.
I understand. My point was that the $27k figure wasn't a cutoff for Pell Grants, but only the level at which expected family contribution is no longer $0.

And you may not be eligible for subsidized loans, but the only difference to the unsubsidized is that interest accrues during school for the latter. And afaik there is no income limit for direct student loans themselves and you have to fill out FAFSA for them. I do not remember if FAFSA was required for HOPE (being a state scholarship), but I would imagine it was. HOPE does not have an income limit, although at one point it did.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Actually I do not agree!
Why do you not agree? Degree requirements for hard science and engineering require a lot more humanities and social science coursework than humanities (like English) degrees require math and natural science coursework.
So why do you think English majors are more well rounded, when hard science and engineering people get much more exposure to other disciplines, not to mention all the writing involved in their major classes?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
We can recognize that later on, one starts to be capable of understanding immediate recreational self-modification, drugs and alcohol and addictions and the like, and this happens YEARS later (21).

That is another one of American peculiarities that has never made much sense to me. I guess we can blame MADD and their Helen Lovejoyesque guilt-tripping for that.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Do you also think age of consent should follow suit? Be charged with a crime for having consensual sex with a 29 year old?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Engineers thinking it is true does not make it true. I don't think that many engineers would do well in humanities majors.
Maybe there should be a competition. Get an English major into a ECE or PHYS 3000 or 4000 level class and a physics and an ECE major into an 3000 or 40000 level English class. Who do you think does better? Please be honest.

I realize that this is true of the subset of individuals who lack the creativity, language ability and emotional intelligence of an English major.
LMAO!

This is not entirely accurate nor is nursing school analogous to medical school, although obviously there is a shared body of knowledge. Nursing degrees --and for the purposes of this discussion, I am only talking about 4 year nursing degrees, not LPN degrees--involve a tremendous amount of knowledge about human anatomy and physiology as well as pharmacology, I think that a 4 year RN degree is at least as rigorous as a 5 year engineering degree which is why I mentioned nursing in this discussion.
What do you base your belief that a BSN matches BS/MS in engineering in terms of rigor?

This inability to understand what is meant by 'good listener' is a trait common to engineers and in very broad terms, men. Obviously not universal but...
Throwing shade for no good reason is a trait common to people dissing engineering I suppose?
The problem with human language is that often it is equivocal. So again, what do you mean by the phrase "good listener"?

The other factor is sexism: It is just generally assumed that nursing (a female dominated field) is much 'easier' than being a doctor or an engineer (more male dominated fields).
No. Nurses do get far less medical education that actual physicians. It has nothing to do with the gender.

When I was first at university as an 18 year old, I was taking a very rigorous course of science courses, as I contemplated becoming a physician. My best friend was taking nursing courses, a supposedly 'lighter' version of some of the same classes I took. Yes, the chemistry was 'lighter' if by lighter, one means condescending and sexist
Again that word. Where does it say these courses are open to womenfolk only?

but her anatomy and physiology classes were much, much more rigorous than my comparative anatomy or human physiology classes, both designed for premed majors. My 'honors' courses were much easier than her regular course work. I'm basing that assessment on the fact that we helped each other study.
I have a hard time believing that. Do you have anything to back that up? What university was that even at?

Those are not mutually exclusive. I have friends who left nursing because they were so frequently left short staffed and placed in situations where they felt that it was dangerous for patients. Fun fact: nursing is actually a dangerous profession with risks of assault on the job.
Yeah, you said so before.

They are indeed. However, teaching and nursing are long considered 'female' professions and receive less compensation compared with various other careers, considered more 'male.' This is changing, of course but it is still true.
Do you really think physicians are paid more than nurses is because nurses were mostly women in the old days?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Maybe there should be a competition. Get an English major into a ECE or PHYS 3000 or 4000 level class and a physics and an ECE major into an 3000 or 40000 level English class. Who do you think does better? Please be honest.

I think that it very much would depend upon the individuals. I have a friend who is extremely intelligent but their intelligence leans more towards concrete reasoning rather than abstract. They absolutely excel in anything that is very concrete--but always felt 'stupid' because they struggled a great deal in English courses where they were supposed to identify underlying themes and symbols used.

What do you base your belief that a BSN matches BS/MS in engineering in terms of rigor?
I've told you that I am familiar with the beginning (qualifying) curriculum that prospective students who wished to be admitted into the nursing program my friend was admitted to and I'm also familiar with engineering curriculum for some types of engineering. I think that you are conflating rigor with mathematics content. I may be wrong. Could you please specify which type of engineering and keep it to BS rather than MS?

When I was first at university as an 18 year old, I was taking a very rigorous course of science courses, as I contemplated becoming a physician. My best friend was taking nursing courses, a supposedly 'lighter' version of some of the same classes I took. Yes, the chemistry was 'lighter' if by lighter, one means condescending and sexist
Again that word. Where does it say these courses are open to womenfolk only?

but her anatomy and physiology classes were much, much more rigorous than my comparative anatomy or human physiology classes, both designed for premed majors. My 'honors' courses were much easier than her regular course work. I'm basing that assessment on the fact that we helped each other study.
I have a hard time believing that. Do you have anything to back that up? What university was that even at?

I'm not identifying the university for personal privacy reasons. It was a large public university in the midwest that is well known. This was also several decades ago: Male nursing students were extremely rare. I only ran into one male nurse during that time period, during which I also spent a fair amount of time in hospitals and nursing homes and rehab centers as my mother recovered from a traumatic brain injury. One single male nurse--and he may not have even been a nurse, now that I think of it. I assumed that he was. Def. not a physician and there were no PAs, etc.

I don't have access to course catalogues from that time period. I can just say that I was shocked at the detail in anatomy that she was expected to know and identify, and the same in physiology. I was expected to know much broader concepts and principles--and to correctly identify bones, structures, muscles, etc.. She was supposed to be able to identify and correctly name/spell the names of every marking on every bone. I was not expected to do so as I would have been in medical school.

The difference was of course that her nursing curriculum was supposed to prepare her to go directly into nursing. Mine was to prepare me to go to medical school where I would have gained much more extensive and detailed education and training.

No, males were not forbidden to be in nursing programs but very, very few were. None at that particular time in those particular courses. Yes, it was extremely sexist to have a bunch of nursing students combine unknowns and heat for a specific period of time ....to bake a cake. Because, of course, that's what girls did: bake cakes. FWIW, my friend was not infuriated. I was infuriated.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,525
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
And afaik there is no income limit for direct student loans themselves and you have to fill out FAFSA for them.
Since the student loan terms ABSOLUTELY SUCK (as shown in this thread) it is better, when you make enough money to be ineligible for government loans, to get an unsecured loan. At least then when you make extra payments they reduce the principle.

Moreover,
I understand. My point was that the $27k figure wasn't a cutoff for Pell Grants, but only the level at which expected family contribution is no longer $0.

When the expected family contribution is higher than the cost of the tuition, it all becomes a moot point and you are not eligible for any of the offerings.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The advice given to parents of prospective college students is to NOT shortchange their own retirement savings in order to pay for their kids’ college. College students can take out loans to fund their education. There are no loans to fund retirement—pretty much word for word advice I’ve read many times in pieces written by financial advisors.
But there are also 529 plans that can help save for your kids' college education in a similar way to an IRA. Of course, parents should not neglect their own futures to say fund their kids' private college adventures (assuming their kids are not the few who can negotiate a discount), but that is different than contributing a reasonable amount.
Yes, there are 529 plans. But one has to be in a position to contribute or to have family that can contribute sufficiently for such a plan to be very helpful. FWIW I'm not at all concerned about people not being able to fund their kids' private college costs. I'm talking about people not being able to fund their kids' state school costs. Local state university now is $20K+/year, taking into account only tuition, room and board, fees and books---no extras. That's a lot for a family to come up with.
This is definitely true. But poorer students are also much less likely to apply in the first place. FWIW, my kid felt very much like they were poor among that student body and ekected not to return to that school after the first year.
Yeah. It must suck being surrounded by fellow freshmen driving Beamers and Mercs ...
Not sure most of the kids had cars on campus, tbh. Also, tbh, my kid isn't the kind of kid to notice or care about fancy cars or designer...shoes/bags/whatever. It was more a sense of entitlement rather than possessions that bugged them.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Republicans are readying lawsuits to block Biden’s student debt plan - The Washington Post - "GOP attorneys general, top lawmakers and conservative groups are discussing legal options, alleging the White House’s move to cancel student debt is illegal"
Republican state attorneys general and other leading conservatives are exploring a slew of potential lawsuits targeting President Biden’s plan to cancel some student debt — challenges that could limit or invalidate the policy before it takes full effect.

In recent days, a number of GOP attorneys general from states including Arizona, Missouri and Texas have met privately to discuss a strategy that could see multiple cases filed in different courts around the country, according to a person familiar with their thinking who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the confidential talks.

“We’re going through that analysis right now, not only in Arizona but other states,” Attorney General Mark Brnovich said later Thursday. “You have a dangerous precedent. Any time any president thinks they can unilaterally dismiss debt or transfer wealth from one group to another group, it’s a huge power grab. The ends can’t justify the means.”
Manufactured outrage.
Other influential conservatives — including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and allies of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank — are mulling their own options as they ratchet up criticism of Biden’s debt-relief plan, two additional people familiar with the matter said. And a conservative advocacy group founded by a major Trump donor said it would file a lawsuit against the policy.

“The conservative public interest law firms in our network are exploring filing lawsuits against this. They are doing background legal research, trying to find out who might be the most suitable clients for them,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center at the Heritage Foundation, said in an interview. “They have to find a client with the standing and the gumption to take on a lawsuit. There are several groups in our network who are exploring that right now.”
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,861
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Do you also think age of consent should follow suit? Be charged with a crime for having consensual sex with a 29 year old?
I think those thresholds should be relative to the difference in age between them, adjusted by the older person's age (i.e 10 years apart is fine for a 40 year old with a 30 year old... but not a 20 year old with a 10 year old... or even a 50 year old with a 20 year old
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,428
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Do you also think age of consent should follow suit? Be charged with a crime for having consensual sex with a 29 year old?
I think those thresholds should be relative to the difference in age between them, adjusted by the older person's age (i.e 10 years apart is fine for a 40 year old with a 30 year old... but not a 20 year old with a 10 year old... or even a 50 year old with a 20 year old
There was an equation I saw once that worked like this. It's "is too old for you?"

rather, I think that you should see something like "x+x^(some_small_fraction*x)/some_number"

Adjust it so that the result is a value which will grow large as the number becomes greater than 16, but not so large as to make 20 appropriate for 17, or >21 appropriate for <18.

Y=x+F(x)
F(x)= a curve that meets the requirements.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Do you also think age of consent should follow suit? Be charged with a crime for having consensual sex with a 29 year old?
I think those thresholds should be relative to the difference in age between them, adjusted by the older person's age (i.e 10 years apart is fine for a 40 year old with a 30 year old... but not a 20 year old with a 10 year old... or even a 50 year old with a 20 year old
There was an equation I saw once that worked like this. It's "is too old for you?"

rather, I think that you should see something like "x+x^(some_small_fraction*x)/some_number"

Adjust it so that the result is a value which will grow large as the number becomes greater than 16, but not so large as to make 20 appropriate for 17, or >21 appropriate for <18.

Y=x+F(x)
F(x)= a curve that meets the requirements.
The "standard" formula is age/2+7
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,774
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Do you also think age of consent should follow suit? Be charged with a crime for having consensual sex with a 29 year old?
I think those thresholds should be relative to the difference in age between them, adjusted by the older person's age (i.e 10 years apart is fine for a 40 year old with a 30 year old... but not a 20 year old with a 10 year old... or even a 50 year old with a 20 year old
There was an equation I saw once that worked like this. It's "is too old for you?"

rather, I think that you should see something like "x+x^(some_small_fraction*x)/some_number"

Adjust it so that the result is a value which will grow large as the number becomes greater than 16, but not so large as to make 20 appropriate for 17, or >21 appropriate for <18.

Y=x+F(x)
F(x)= a curve that meets the requirements.
The "standard" formula is age/2+7
That formula was intended to specify the ideal age difference, not the maximum.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,428
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
yes. 30 would be better. back when the human life span was like 40 years, 15 years old was "Adult"... now that has doubled, the age "adulthood" begins can also be doubled.. .so, yeah, 30 seems right.
Do you also think age of consent should follow suit? Be charged with a crime for having consensual sex with a 29 year old?
I think those thresholds should be relative to the difference in age between them, adjusted by the older person's age (i.e 10 years apart is fine for a 40 year old with a 30 year old... but not a 20 year old with a 10 year old... or even a 50 year old with a 20 year old
There was an equation I saw once that worked like this. It's "is too old for you?"

rather, I think that you should see something like "x+x^(some_small_fraction*x)/some_number"

Adjust it so that the result is a value which will grow large as the number becomes greater than 16, but not so large as to make 20 appropriate for 17, or >21 appropriate for <18.

Y=x+F(x)
F(x)= a curve that meets the requirements.
The "standard" formula is age/2+7
That formula was intended to specify the ideal age difference, not the maximum.
Yeah, that's why I didn't use it. Really, we should start at y=x and add on from there, to give folks a rising ceiling.

Ideally that rising maximal ceiling would curve up, and age/2+7 is linear.

Beyond 21, it needs to swing up, so 21 can be with 25-27, 27 can be with 35-40, and so on.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
There was an equation I saw once that worked like this. It's "is too old for you?"
The point is that these types of suggestions should not have legal force. An adult at least should not be deemed to young to consent to sex with somebody deemed too old for them by the intrusive nanny state, which seems what Gun Nut is suggesting.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I think those thresholds should be relative to the difference in age between them, adjusted by the older person's age (i.e 10 years apart is fine for a 40 year old with a 30 year old... but not a 20 year old with a 10 year old... or even a 50 year old with a 20 year old
I completely disagree. If somebody is above the age of consent (ideally 16, but at most 18) a person should be able to consent no matter how much older the other person is. What you are proposing, that there should always be some sort of limit on ability to consent, is inappropriate intrusion by an oppressive government. I mean, do you really want the government to be able to prosecute 50 year olds for consensual sex with 20 year old adults?
 
Top Bottom