The rich white lib elite females will benefit the most from student loan forgiveness

[Dutch Uncle]

It is women that hold 2/3s of student debt and refuse to be responsible for it.

You are such a cute little "twumpian propagandist". Your OP is nothing but wing nut fever dream garbage.

the pup laps up so much Trump jizz that it's leaking out of his ears. He's another lonely, elderly Euro-American male going insane in a Geezer Warehouse waiting to die. As he posted elsewhere, he's dickless.

Have you noticed how many Trumpian cocksuckers are misogynists?

 

[Lionfish]

the pup laps up so much Trump jizz that it's leaking out of his ears. He's another lonely, elderly Euro-American male going insane in a Geezer Warehouse waiting to die. As he posted elsewhere, he's dickless.

Have you noticed how many Trumpian cocksuckers are misogynists?

Mr. Tiny Penis, have you ever noticed how often you turn any thread into a Trump screed? Seriously, long past time to seek a different psychiatrist.

 

[Flash]

No, I'm not.

"Women hold nearly two-thirds of the outstanding student debt in the U.S. — close to $929 billion. The price tag of a college education has more than doubled over the past generation, while household income has risen by only 14%. Women graduate owing almost $22,000 in student debt, compared $18,880 owed by men.

That leaves over $300 billion owed by men. Having $18,880 loan forgiven is still a lot of money.

Upon further consideration, not any rich males or females or rich liberals or conservatives are going to benefit from the latest loan default. This was for the schools that closed down with students still owing money.

Those are the private, for-profit schools (many online) that take advantage of taxpayer money and poorer people who qualify for federal financial assistance and usually have no credit to ruin. They are fly by night schools with no standards.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mr. Tiny Penis...............

Lionfish's Mr. Tiny Penis NSFW

Every time Lionfish posts "Mr. Tiny Penis" please remember this:

Spoiler

 

[Bigdog]

That leaves over $300 billion owed by men. Having $18,880 loan forgiven is still a lot of money.

Upon further consideration, not any rich males or females or rich liberals or conservatives are going to benefit from the latest loan default. This was for the schools that closed down with students still owing money.

Those are the private, for-profit schools (many online) that take advantage of taxpayer money and poorer people who qualify for federal financial assistance and usually have no credit to ruin. They are fly by night schools with no standards.

Twice as many females as men hold college debt. So they benefit the most, just like with social security retirement.

And you know the JPP lib narrative is that conservatives don't have college degrees. That conservatives are all uneducated toothless rubes. That the blue collar working class is subhuman.

I'm ok with the latest forgiveness because those people were told by the gov't the schools were gov't approved. But the schools were just shell corporations used to funnel taxpayer money to gov't cronies.

So now we have taxpayer money funneled to corrupt corporations, and funneled to the students who were screwed by the gov't.

The question becomes, ... why did the gov't approve those schools? .. why does the gov't NOT look out for the taxpayer's money?

 

[Flash]

Twice as many females as men hold college debt. So they benefit the most, just like with social security retirement.

And you know the JPP lib narrative is that conservatives don't have college degrees. That conservatives are all uneducated toothless rubes. That the blue collar working class is subhuman.

I'm ok with the latest forgiveness because those people were told by the gov't the schools were gov't approved. But the schools were just shell corporations used to funnel taxpayer money to gov't cronies.

So now we have taxpayer money funneled to corrupt corporations, and funneled to the students who were screwed by the gov't.

The question becomes, ... why did the gov't approve those schools? .. why does the gov't NOT look out for the taxpayer's money?

I think the answer is that Congress included them as accredited institutions eligible for financial aid after they created their own accreditation agency. They convinced Congress the accrediting process for regular colleges is not appropriate for vocational/technical colleges. At one point the Obama administration passed a regulation to restrict aid if their loan default rate but Trump revoked that rule as part of his deregulation efforts. Businessmen don't usually like government restrictions on their ability to make money off government.

The same thing is true of many accredited colleges. The push to send more kids to college and communities wanting colleges in their area has created many new schools. The more kids go to college the more you are recruiting from the lower ability/less motivated. Schools get them to attend by dangling Pell Grants (that don't have to be repaid) to pay for their school. To get them to stay the schools often resort to "easy" classes because if they lose students they lose funding---few ever flunk out.

 

[Bigdog]

I think the answer is that Congress included them as accredited institutions eligible for financial aid after they created their own accreditation agency. They convinced Congress the accrediting process for regular colleges is not appropriate for vocational/technical colleges. At one point the Obama administration passed a regulation to restrict aid if their loan default rate but Trump revoked that rule as part of his deregulation efforts. Businessmen don't usually like government restrictions on their ability to make money off government.

The same thing is true of many accredited colleges. The push to send more kids to college and communities wanting colleges in their area has created many new schools. The more kids go to college the more you are recruiting from the lower ability/less motivated. Schools get them to attend by dangling Pell Grants (that don't have to be repaid) to pay for their school. To get them to stay the schools often resort to "easy" classes because if they lose students they lose funding---few ever flunk out.

It's a complex issue. It's easy to get lost in the minutia. I'm not familiar with Trump's repeal of the Obama law regarding default rates. Can you share it.

The public schools do the same things. They even tack on an extra 200 SAT points for being Black. Which pretty much ensures a failure to get a degree.

I blame the gov't for letting taxpayer money be stolen by crooked conmen.

 

[Flash]

It's a complex issue. It's easy to get lost in the minutia. I'm not familiar with Trump's repeal of the Obama law regarding default rates. Can you share it.

The public schools do the same things. They even tack on an extra 200 SAT points for being Black. Which pretty much ensures a failure to get a degree.

I blame the gov't for letting taxpayer money be stolen by crooked conmen.

Yes, it is bad because there are many students who benefit from the grants and loans who do well and provide teachers and nurses to their communities (especially from older, female students). Many do not see those taking advantage of the grant program and are reluctant to toughen the rules. I had students who never attended class but continued in school 2-3 semesters just to get the money, because they needed to be full-time students to be covered under their parents health insurance, etc.

I question the giving 200 points on SAT for black students. The Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action have struck down any provisions which would eliminate any students.

Gratz v. Bollinger - Wikipedia

Below is a link to the rules Obama imposed on private for-profit colleges default rate. It involves "gainful employment" of their graduates. I will search for the Trump changes in the rules.

Final gainful employment rules drop loan default rate (insidehighered.com)

 

[Bigdog]

Yes, it is bad because there are many students who benefit from the grants and loans who do well and provide teachers and nurses to their communities (especially from older, female students). Many do not see those taking advantage of the grant program and are reluctant to toughen the rules. I had students who never attended class but continued in school 2-3 semesters just to get the money, because they needed to be full-time students to be covered under their parents health insurance, etc.

I question the giving 200 points on SAT for black students. The Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action have struck down any provisions which would eliminate any students.

Gratz v. Bollinger - Wikipedia

Below is a link to the rules Obama imposed on private for-profit colleges default rate. It involves "gainful employment" of their graduates. I will search for the Trump changes in the rules.

Final gainful employment rules drop loan default rate (insidehighered.com)

The link says the final version will NOT use default rates.

The gainful employment act caused many schools to decide to close because they feared being sued. The closings lead to more defaults.

Technically the 200 is not added. But there is 310 point 'advantage' awarded by many schools for being Black.


"Asian Americans are hit the hardest: they must score on average 140 points more than their equivalent white counterparts, while Hispanic and black students are given leeway with 130-point and 310-point bonuses respectively.Sep 12, 2018

Affirmative action in SAT hurts education standards, minoritieshttps://dailyevergreen.com › opinion › affirmative-action-..."



And of course, we haven't even addressed the issue of why college costs have outpaced inflation by a whopping 400%.

 

[Flash]

It's a complex issue. It's easy to get lost in the minutia. I'm not familiar with Trump's repeal of the Obama law regarding default rates. Can you share it.

The public schools do the same things. They even tack on an extra 200 SAT points for being Black. Which pretty much ensures a failure to get a degree.

I blame the gov't for letting taxpayer money be stolen by crooked conmen.

To correct an error: The Obama administration cut off the accreditation agency that would accredit any school to qualify for federal funding. It accredited one school with no faculty of students. These were schools with high high loan default rates, but, as you pointed out, default rate was not used in the final regulation.

The Trump administration allowed that accreditation agency to continue. That agency has again been cancelled.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Education Department has canceled its recognition of an accrediting agency that oversees mostly for-profit colleges, placing in jeopardy the survival of schools that serve about 5,000 students.
The decision bars colleges certified by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools from participating in federal student aid programs unless they can get approval elsewhere. Schools will have 18 months to find new accreditation.Twenty-seven colleges will be affected, Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said Friday, although three already are in discussions with other agencies. Department officials did not provide the names of the schools.The department’s action is the culmination of a years-long effort to put ACICS out of business that began under the Obama administration. Multiple high-profile colleges approved by the agency had misled students about job placement rates, and ACICS hadn’t fulfilled its watchdog role, the Education Department determined. But Betsy DeVos, education secretary under President Donald Trump, restored federal recognition of the agency.The accreditor’s reprieve was short-lived. In 2020, an investigation by USA Today showed the group had approved a college in South Dakota that lacked evidence of students or faculty. The Education Department began another review of ACICS, and on Friday announced that Deputy Secretary Cindy Marten had denied the accreditor’s final appeal.At one time, ACICS accredited more than 240 institutions that, in 2015, received a combined $4.76 billion in federal aid and enrolled more than 600,000 students.In a statement posted on its website, ACICS said it was disappointed by the decision. “We are evaluating all of our options and how best to serve our institutions, including any decision to appeal the Deputy Secretary’s decision in federal district court,” the statement said.Accrediting agencies serve as gatekeepers for the federal government, vouching for the legitimacy and quality of colleges. If a college is approved by a recognized accreditor, it can receive federal money, such as student loan payments or Pell Grants. That money is crucial for many universities’ survival, especially the for-profit colleges approved by ACICS.“ACICS is known for accrediting some of the most infamous colleges like Corinthian Colleges and ITT that engaged in widespread wrongdoing,” Kvaal said. “The cost of that wrongdoing to students and taxpayers is still being tallied.” As recently as this week, the Education Department forgave nearly $4 billion in debt of over 200,000 former ITT Tech students. Their college credits and degrees were of questionable value after the school closed.Similarly, the Biden administration in June canceled federal student debt for hundreds of thousands of students who had attended Corinthian Colleges. Once one of the nation’s largest for-profit college companies, Corinthian shut down in 2015 amid widespread findings of fraud.Kvaal said the decision was made not because of ACICS’ history or reputation, but because it had failed to meet minimum standards required of accreditation agencies. Those duties include monitoring colleges whose finances or practices put them at risk of closing while students are in the middle of their degrees.Students at the 27 schools accredited by ACICS will not immediately lose their financial aid. Their schools will receive provisional certification that allows them to participate in federal financial aid programs while they look for new accreditation.“Unless a court orders otherwise, the department has a responsibility to enforce accountability in the accreditation system and to ensure that students and taxpayers are protected,” Kvaal said.The department’s decision requires the affected schools to submit “teach-out” plans for students to complete their studies in the event the college must close. Colleges also will be barred from admitting new students to programs that cannot be completed in 18 months and from adding new programs or locations that qualify for federal aid.
Accreditor of for-profit colleges loses federal recognition | AP News

 

[Bigdog]

The department’s decision requires the affected schools to submit “teach-out” plans for students to complete their studies in the event the college must close. Colleges also will be barred from admitting new students to programs that cannot be completed in 18 months and from adding new programs or locations that qualify for federal aid.
[/SIZE]Accreditor of for-profit colleges loses federal recognition | AP News

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Ok, thanks.

Yes, in 2018 Devos was court ordered by a Federal judge to review new evidence. The ACICS had a record for over a century of doing a good job. She gave them a second chance to reform, and they failed again.

So, it was a bad decision by Devos. Tho, for a short time, it did allow students and schools to more smoothly ease out of a bad situation and did, somewhat, ameliorate the shock of defunding. Most schools had already closed or planned to. And innocent schools were punished, too.

I'm glad the ACICS is gone. I don't know who will replace them, or if they will do a better job.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Public education should be ENTIRELY tax supported.
That's the commitment that civilized nations make to educating their people. Not us, though.

Private schools are another matter, but the good ones are well endowed by their successful alumni.
The lousy ones (like Fundamentalist Christian academies) don't need to exist.

 

[Bigdog]

Public education should be ENTIRELY tax supported.
That's the commitment that civilized nations make to educating their people. Not us, though.

Private schools are another matter, but the good ones are well endowed by their successful alumni.
The lousy ones (like Fundamentalist Christian academies) don't need to exist.

As we transitioned into the a more technical industrial age, corporations needed their workers to be more highly trained/educated than farmhands. So the gov't stepped in and paid for public education, in effect, subsidizing the corporations.

 

[evince]

Republicans have done everything they could think of to starve public schools my entire adult life

 

[Bigdog]

Republicans have done everything they could think of to starve public schools my entire adult life

Democrats have done everything they can to deprive poor minorities of a real education.

 

[Flash]

Ok, thanks.

Yes, in 2018 Devos was court ordered by a Federal judge to review new evidence. The ACICS had a record for over a century of doing a good job. She gave them a second chance to reform, and they failed again.

So, it was a bad decision by Devos. Tho, for a short time, it did allow students and schools to more smoothly ease out of a bad situation and did, somewhat, ameliorate the shock of defunding. Most schools had already closed or planned to. And innocent schools were punished, too.

I'm glad the ACICS is gone. I don't know who will replace them, or if they will do a better job.

I'm glad it is gone also, but I think that was only one such agency and several others still exist at the national and regional level. As long as the government makes money available somebody is going to find a way to get it without concern whether it is providing a useful service.

 

[Bigdog]

I'm glad it is gone also, but I think that was only one such agency and several others still exist at the national and regional level. As long as the government makes money available somebody is going to find a way to get it without concern whether it is providing a useful service.

Yes. And the politicians don't care because it buys votes ... and they didn't work to earn the money.

 

[Bigdog]

"Women hold nearly two-thirds of the outstanding student debt in the U.S. — close to $929 billion. The price tag of a college education has more than doubled over the past generation, while household income has risen by only 14%. Women graduate owing almost $22,000 in student debt, compared $18,880 owed by men.

https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-student-debt/

.

 

[Matt Dillon]

"Women hold nearly two-thirds of the outstanding student debt in the U.S. — close to $929 billion. The price tag of a college education has more than doubled over the past generation, while household income has risen by only 14%. Women graduate owing almost $22,000 in student debt, compared $18,880 owed by men.

https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-student-debt/

Welp, everyone else for generations will be subsidizing them, I suppose.

That is some seriously irresponsible stuff. Now..do I think some of that debt is bloated by schools padding costs? Absolutely.

They started doing it right when Uncle Sugar agreed to back student loans. They lowered standards and college enrollment about tripled and so did Administrative offices at colleges.

That was during my last 1 1/2 year of school. I crammed some extra stuff in at the end to get the hell out of there.

I saw this policy and the results of it happening in real time. They started admitting tons of seriously non-college material students to get the loan money.

Created new immediately remedial entry-level classes and things like that. That's right: Boom Boom in college.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Like with the Dems subsidizing luxury cars for the white lib elite, loan forgiveness is also welfare for the wealthy white libs.

"The highest-income 40% of households (those with incomes above $74,000) owe almost 60% of student loan debt. These borrowers make almost three-quarters of student loan payments.

The lowest-income 40% of households hold just under 20% of student loans and make only 10% of the payments.

Brookings attributes this to two factors. First, people from higher-income households are more likely to go to college. Second, people with a college or graduate degree earn substantially more in the labor market than those who never went to college.

In 2019, households with graduate degrees owed 56% of the outstanding education debt. And the 3% of adults with a professional or doctorate degree hold 20% of student loans. The median income in these households are twice as high as the overall median – $106,000 versus $47,000 in 2019."

https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/who-owes-the-most-student-loan-debt

It is women that hold 2/3s of student debt and refuse to be responsible for it.

My communist niece has a PhD in Spanish Literature from a private university. I don't think she's ever had a job.