Like, that's the "joke" I think, but Obama's community organizing was before law school. He went to law school when he was like 29 or something, and afterwards he and the wife became a lawyer and a law professor. Traditionally pretty high paying jobs, took them around 10 years to pay off what was likely pretty significant debt.

Even back then? Certainly less than 100k combined, probably more like 50, no?

This is a very bad and pointless post and you should feel bad for making it, no?

The diploma mill **** isn't actually the issue. It's a symptom of a bad policy: govt guarantees

How would you feel if govt only guaranteed certain in-demand diplomas, like engineering, computer science, etc., and let the drama and lit history majors fend for themselves?

The more I read about this issue, the more I think that it would actually be better to just stroke a $100k check to everyone on their 18th birthday than continue on this path to fail.

My understanding is that in many European countries the government runs the universities, and if you don't get in you are steered towards trade school type stuff. Seems like a much better approach.

what is the "market rate" for a loan to attempt (not actually, purchase, understand, there's no guarantee that a loan-taker will actually graduate) to earn a degree that has no impact on the borrower's future earning potential, and may in fact lower it?

The way you word this post makes it sound like you think people just get assigned a major when they show up and have no choice in the matter.

It'd be an improvement over the status quo, but far from a good policy.

Are you not familiar with incentivizing?

How are mortgage rates set? I honestly don't know the ins and outs but I assume the numbers aren't simply drawn from a hat like Congress seems to do with the student loan rates.

curious how earning a degree in anything would lower earning potential

Graduates with a stupid major from a bad school are less likely to work higher paying trade jobs because they feel that would be beneath them. They end up working a Starbucks or something for minimum wage.

that would be the borrower lowering their own earning potential, not their degree

The govt can start by letting those who choose education for profit schools to fend for themselves. Students in those schools have a much higher default rate.

I don't know but it's pretty hard to get a mortgage for a house built on top of an active volcano or one that is currently physically underwater in a swamp.

they have also spent four years taking "critical analysis of miley cyrus" classes instead of improving their human capital, putting them behind the curve.

yes, are you? I mean if these people aren't able to get the loan in the first place then they're not exactly being hung out to dry.

I also think some employers for tough trade jobs/apprenticeships would be hesitant to hire a guy with a sociology degree from Timbuktu university because they would feel that this degree holder would not be willing to get his hands dirty and do hard physical labor.

So two possible employees/apprentices, all else being equal, the employer will decide against the person with any degree whatsoever because he, the employer, is a school snob?

Well yeah, that's rather the point. Still waiting for you to say something meaningful on the subject.

How, then, are these cartoon students who are disincentivized from ever majoring in stuff they can't afford to pay for (and hence, not taking on loads of debt they won't be able to afford later) in the first place being "left to fend for themselves"?

Let's imagine a world where we (the taxpayers) give people $100 bills on the condition that they light them on fire.

We note that some people are lighting way too many of these benjamins on fire, it's getting expensive, we thought they would only burn two or three each.

So we put a stop to it somehow, whether it's a full stop of the program or a cap or whatever doesn't matter.

Mr. Low Key, friend of the lowly common man, swings by and is all totally panicked by this new development. WHO is going to PAY for these people burning $200k/day now? They can't afford it themselves! Don't LEAVE THEM OUT IN THE COLD, have some HUMANITY, people!

You seem confused, so let's take a look back at the tape.

Ikes was talking about how guaranteed loans for all was a bad thing. See this post:

To which I responded:

The idea being that the government could guarantee loans for in-demand fields.

I guess I assumed this went without saying, logically, but apparently you need it stated explicitly. If we are only guaranteeing loans for some majors, would you think the other majors are also guaranteed? Or not guaranteed?

I assumed it was pretty obvious that the idea was that non-guarantee majors would have to find loans or work out payments on their own (i.e. they would fend for themselves in the loan market, no govt assistance). That way, if a broke chump is silly enough to want to major in underwater basket weaving then perhaps the bank can be the last line of defense in preventing him wasting time and money on a worthless degree by not giving him a loan.

Does this help clear things up for you?