Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

COLLEGE: Extend low rate for student loans

Letter by Kara S. Sherman, Olympia on April 25, 2012 at 11:43 am with 70 Comments »
April 25, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: “White House sees an opening in the student loans battle” (TNT, 4-24).

As a college student who has many student loans, I can’t imagine having the interest rate on my loans double to 6.8 percent, especially since I have at least three more years of college to pay for and will be taking out more student loans I’m sure.

I strongly agree with legislation that would keep the interest rate where it is. Otherwise, fewer people will be able to afford going to college and therefore will lack good education, leading to low-paying jobs and a higher likelihood of being impoverished.

The last thing we need is more people living in poverty.

Leave a comment Comments → 70
  1. What drives up the price of any commodity?

    Answer: increased demand

    It’s a sad irony that the more government subdizes education, the more expensive it gets. Just take a look at what has happened over the past couple of decades. A 3.4 percent rate on a commodity that is doubling in cost every decade isn’t necessarily a great deal.

  2. philichi says:

    Kara, great letter. However, isn’t it funny that our President seems to be able to find a new issue every week to keep him from talking about the most important issue, which is how his policies are keeping the economy from growing. Lets see, last month it was contraceptives, this month it’s student loan interest rates. Your more fitting letter should have been what will he talk about next month? I would suggest parking lot stripes. He should then figure out how Republicans are keeping them too narrow for disabled.

    If this guy wins again I would suggest that you not go into further debt for college. It is doubtful that you will find a job when you get out.

  3. aislander says:

    I saw an interesting stat: continuing this subsidized interest rate will cost more than the “Buffett Rule” will gain…

  4. There has to be some price paid for an education. You want it, you pay for it.

    Exceptional students get scholarships or free education.

    If you can’t afford it and are a run of the mill student, don’t go to college. There is a glut of unemployed college grads out there.

    Become trades people. Plumbers, electricians, make good money and probably a better use to society than just another social science grad looking to become a government social worker or clerk.

    If you cant do either,or have no useful talent whatsoever, become a politician.

  5. LornaDoone says:

    “What drives up the price of any commodity?
    Answer: increased demand”

    Student loans are not a comodity.

    Oil is a comodity. Consumption is down, the price is up.

    So much for this comment

    I’m sure glad that Mitt Romney said that he supports keeping the interest rates for student loans DOWN.

  6. wow what bunch of nonsensical hateful cynical replies to a sincere letter.

    this place is wacked.

  7. Fibonacci says:

    philchi
    “which is how his policies are keeping the economy from growing”–another day same right wing load of manure. Let’s try one more time about how the bad economy is Obama’s fault. It went to crappola under Bush. The last I read private sector jobs were getting back to normal, but the huge loss of jobs for teachers and other public employees were keeping the numbers high. Most of those losses were in states with Republikan governors or Republikan legislatures.

    He has gotten ZERO cooperation from the right whose motto is “defeat Obama at all costs, even if the country is hurt in the process”. The Party box NO is alive and well, but I think the majority are seeing them for what they are. Good old Mitten wants to go back to the same policy that Shrub had that caused this mess in the first place. Remember, Obama got elected because of the sad state of the economy art the time, but hey, let’s go back to those same policiers, they worked so well the first time.

  8. Fibonacci says:

    God I hate typos

  9. Thats it, lets all be plumbers, really? Race to the bottom, just what the GOP wants. We can all be the surfs to our Lords. They don’t have to fear an educated populous and can keep us in our place. By the way, plumbers are being undercut by corps that send out uncertified workers (I can’t call them plumbers, they aren’t licenced.

  10. RLangdon says:

    Very well comrade! You cannot afford college. No problem! You become plumber now. You become laborer now. Only rich people must be allowed to get higher education. That is the RIGHT way!

  11. Pacman33 says:

    Each year, federal financial aid increase, but college tuition continue to rise above and beyond the rate of inflation. Much like the effects of subsidies on health care and the housing market.

    Unfortunately economics isn’t an approved field of study qualifying for federal grants that artificially inflate tuition. If it were so, the concept of such an obvious, reoccurring effect of government manipulation in every market it meddles in, wouldn’t be so difficult to grasp.

    In 2010, the Department of Education distributed $133 billion in student aid. In 2011, it was nearly $157 billion, a 17% increase. Pell Grants increased from $29 billion in 2010 to $36 billion in 2011, a 24% increase.
    At the same time, in 2011, costs at the average public university rose 5.4% for in-state students, or about $1,100. Average tuition at public universities rose 8.3%. The increases have greatly outpaced the rate of inflation, which was 3% in 2011.

    This gap between enrollment and graduation costs the U.S. economy millions of dollars in potential earnings each year and expands the growing student loan bubble. Weighed down by rising tuition costs, students borrow more money each year to pay for college. The federal mechanism intended to make college more affordable is doing the opposite, while concurrently sustaining the danger of another bubble filled with hot air of an effort to buy the votes of the naive.

  12. sumyungboi says:

    letter writer: “As a college student who has many student loans, .. since I have at least three more years of college to pay for and will be taking out more student loans I’m sure.”

    I just have to ask.. If you have “many student loans” but have three more years of college to pay for, that would indicate that you’re not exactly in your second year of a four year degree. Now, maybe I’m just being presumptuous, but did it ever occur to you to take a four year degree out into the market? Many, many people further their education while earning a living, and thus avoid more debt while paying down the initial loans. I have no sympathy or patience for professional students who’re racking up debt while contributing zilch.

  13. After WW II the first GI bill increased the number of college graduates by about 20%, did that lead to huge increase in college costs? No! But this investment in higher education did directly contribute to a huge post war economic boom! And guess what we had a huge budget deficit at the time but we decided investing in higher education was the right thing to do for our country and our veterans. Guess what it worked and we grew our economy as result helping to pull us out of debit. Also back then Republicans were for the GI bill and investing in education. Only wish that was so today!

  14. alindasue says:

    LornaDoone said, “Oil is a comodity. Consumption is down, the price is up.”

    That reminds me of when the city encouraged us to conserve water – and then once we as a city were doing to they raised the water rates to make up from the revenue loss from water that was being conserved.

    Pacman33,

    Business and economics is an approved field of study and federal grants do not raise tuition. They may raise need for tax revenue, but that is not the same thing. Unless the school itself is subsidizing tuition for some students, there are no additional costs to the school caused by loans or grants.

    What drives up school costs (tuition and fees) is capital projects, new stadiums, increased staff cost of living raises, etc. Another thing currently raising tuition and fees at state colleges is the decrease in funding from the state. The schools are allowed to raise fees and tuition to compensate for the budget cuts – and they do.

    College isn’t like buying new TVs. Lower demand doesn’t lower prices. It just means a smaller pool of students are paying the costs to run the school, so the price per student goes up accordingly.

    Loans, scholarships, and grants make it so that more students can attend school and a larger pool of students are covering the schools’ operating costs.

    IQof88 said, “You want it, you pay for it.

    Exceptional students get scholarships or free education.”

    Somebody, usually taxpayers, pays for those scholarships and “free education”, just as much as the subsidies for lower school loan rates. The only difference is that school loans eventually get paid off. Scholarships and grants aren’t.

  15. IQof88 said, “You want it, you pay for it.

    Taking out a loan IS paying for it. Don’t understand why student loans should be have an interest rate that is almost double of what my mortgage is. It used to be that student loans were at lower than the rates of other loans. They are normally excluded from bankruptcy – you can’t get rid of them. Way back when, my wife had a student loan at 9% – the interest rates went below that – and she was not allowed to renegotiate for a better rate.

    Something seems hinky here.

  16. The response of many right-identified posters reveals an all too common overtone of anti-intellectualism and classism.

  17. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    First of all, bB, it’s tough to get excited about another 0bama administration/ democrat-controlled Congress manufactured issue.

    But the question that begs is why “raising” interest rates on federally subsidized (Stafford) student loans, back to the exact same rate they were in 2007 is so “harmful”? The loan annual repayment cost if the maximum loan ($23,000) were taken to term (10 years) would increase by $42.00 per month.

    Is that too much to ask in order to insure the government doesn’t actually lose money on these types of loans, in exchange for aiding in the financing of qualified students who might not have any other resource, and assisting an opportunity to average $650,000 in additional working-life income?

    Another misconception is that all student loans will revert to the 6.8% rate, when in fact only federally subsidized Stafford loans benefit from the current low interest half rate (3.4%) – all non-qualifying students who take loans pay, and will continue to pay, the 6.8% rate.

    And as to the snarky comments about going to work in the trades, I can’t wait for them to be read by all your leftist comrades in the trade unions. Talk about elitist arrogance.

    Fact is, after plans to use the GI Bill to pay for my college education “washed out”, I was force to pay my own way through the first two years of college (and when I say “first two years, I don’t mean calendar years – it took closer to four). I did it by working in the trades. The upshot is that an employer saw enough determination and management potential in me to pay for my final two years at a four year school – while I worked pretty much full time for the company – and I made my career out of that experience.

    The irony is that if I hadn’t worked in the trades, I would never have had the opportunities that unfolded for me. And if I had borrowed money to earn a BA in business or some other basically worthless (at that time) degree? Sorry, I don’t see where that would have been a better outcome.

  18. Education is never a bad investment, however the rightwing’s war on education sure is making it tough!

  19. “But the question that begs is why “raising” interest rates on federally subsidized (Stafford) student loans, back to the exact same rate they were in 2007 is so “harmful”?”

    Why is “raising” tax rates to the 2000 level ‘harmful’??

  20. LornaDoone says:

    “it’s tough to get excited about another 0bama administration/ democrat-controlled Congress manufactured issue.”

    Any issue that comes up where the Republicans are on the down side of the voter popularity are now:

    “another 0bama administration/ democrat-controlled Congress manufactured issue”

    I’m still trying to understand how the Democrats control The House. They are not the majority and there is no filibuster. “Black is white, good is evil, Orwellian”

    “But the question that begs is why “raising” interest rates on federally subsidized (Stafford) student loans, back to the exact same rate they were in 2007 is so “harmful”?”
    Why is “raising” tax rates to the 2000 level ‘harmful’??”

    BUT…BUT…BUT….they are JOB CREATORS.

  21. Vox – anyone who thinks the Dems control Congress is to uninformed to have a valid opinion.

    Kulmer,
    Raising Taxes takes money away from the rich.
    Raining intrest rates gives more money to the rich.

  22. Pacman33 says:

    alindasue concludes –
    “Loans, scholarships, and grants make it so that more students can attend school”
    This is a fallacy. Federal aid for college students, as currently structured, only leaves students more burdened with unnecessary higher debt in what has become a trillion dollar albatross. Furthermore, by it’s impact on increasing the cost of tuition, there are nearly as many students priced out, many of whom don’t meet the financial needs eligible to qualify for aid.

    Obama is foolishly suggests every American should jump in. He says the water is fine, at a time when 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of those who possess a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed. Yet, many of the those 1.5 million are employed in jobs that require a high school diploma education or less.
    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/23/half-of-new-college-grads-jobless-or-underemployed/

    It is equally careless of Obama to extend the interest rate without making changes to the system. Reform options could be redirecting the cost of the subsidy into an expansion of Pell Grants and refundable tuition tax credits. Kicking the can down the road is as irresponsible as suing banks for not issuing the toxic loans that did in the financial sector. Subsidizing education need not mean subsidizing borrowing.

  23. The left wing war on education continues: In 2007 the democrat congress headed by Speaker Pelosi, (D. San Francisco), reduced government student loans by 50% for five measly years! If this was such a great program it would have lasted forever and also covered private student loans . . .

    The economics are quite simple: pay for the educatin ‘you’ receive.

  24. alindasue says:

    Vox_clamantis_in_deserto said, “Is that too much to ask in order to insure the government doesn’t actually lose money on these types of loans…”

    I fail to understand how, if the government is already collecting any interest at all on the student loans, the could “actually lose money” by not raising the interest rate. It’s not like these loans aren’t going to get repaid – especially since even bankruptcy can’t erase this debt any more.

    An extra $42 per month may not seem like much to you or to an engineer or doctor who’s been in practice for ten years, but for a recent graduate just starting out in the first few years, that $42 could mean the difference between having enough gas to get to work or not.

  25. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Why is it someone always has to remind Larry and x to educate themselves on a topic before blabbering-on about a subject of which they are so obviously ill-informed?

    Two examples of federally subsudized loans gone bad I guess.

    Okay smart guys, here’s your homework questions for today – come back with correct answers, only, if you wish to be a serious participant:

    1) Who controlled both houses of Congress in 2008?
    2) Which Congress reduced the rate on certain federally subsidized student loans from 6.8% to 3.4% in 2008?
    3) Which same Congress established the sunset for said loans as July 2012?
    4) And which political party and presidential candidate then decided to make it yet another phony distraction/ issue, after the slaughter of 2010?

  26. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Why is it someone always has to remind Larry and x to educate themselves on a topic before blabbering-on about a subject of which they are so obviously ill-informed?

    Two examples of federally subsudized loans gone bad I guess.

    Okay smart guys, here’s your homework questions for today – come back with correct answers, only, if you wish to be a serious participant:

    1) Who controlled both houses of Congress in 2008?
    2) Which Congress reduced the rate on certain federally subsidized student loans from 6.8% to 3.4% in 2008?
    3) Which same Congress established the sunset for said loans as July 1, 2012?
    4) And which political party and presidential candidate then decided to make it yet another phony distraction/ issue, after the slaughter of 2010?

  27. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Wow, triple post – new record.

    No worries, Larry, I’m not attempting to threaten your post-count record.

    Last one has the proper editing.

  28. Pacman33 says:

    Vox informs –
    “federally subsidized Stafford loans benefit from the current low interest half rate (3.4%) – all non-qualifying students who take loans pay, and will continue to pay, the 6.8% rate.”

    Sure is a different picture then lefty’s paint when facts are presented isn’t it? In addition to your remarks regarding the burden on the nation, in this ball game there is nothing to repo or foreclose on.

    Kara karelessly submits in her letter-
    “As a college student who has many student loans, I can’t imagine having the interest rate on my loans double to 6.8 percent”

    Another common misconception and one that is made by the letter writer, the rate increase would only apply new loans and not existing ones.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sherylnancenash/2012/04/24/student-loans-road-to-confusion-over-public-private/

  29. alindasue says:

    nanook said, “In 2007 the democrat congress headed by Speaker Pelosi, (D. San Francisco), reduced government student loans by 50% for five measly years!”

    And the “tax cuts” the were instituted under President Bush were only for 10 years. Limits on just about any finance related bill will have a time limit placed on it. That’s how they get the bills passed. The hope is always that they will be renewed when the term ends.

    It has nothing to do with any “war on education”.

    As to not extending the interest cuts to privately funded school loans – given your anti-liberal bias, do you really want the government to force the financial institutions to earn less money? I thought the conservatives were against government interference with business.

  30. Pacman33 says:

    Re: APRIL 25, 2012 AT 9:18 PM
    alindasue,
    It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of “extend and pretend” Welfare-Statism.

    Supply and demand is not what’s at issue here, at least in the traditional sense. In review, the blatantly obvious and reoccurring inflationary effects accompanied with government’s “acts of random kindness” in every market it meddles in: health care, housing market, gasoline, etc.

    These negative effects are generally referred to as ‘Distortions’. For example increasing student aid is insulating colleges from having to make market-driven cost-cutting measures, like improving productivity or efficiency. Another is the impact from artificial increase in supply of, not services or goods, but money supply. As Forbes explains below:

    “Making cheap Stafford Loans available encourages people to consume more education than they otherwise would, which is a good thing. But the policy also causes some negative distortions. The value of the Stafford Loan subsidy is larger the more money you borrow. This pushes students, at the margin, to choose more expensive educational institutions than they otherwise would, and to finance more of their education with borrowing than they otherwise would.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/25/the-problem-with-cheap-stafford-loans/

  31. RLangdon says:

    xring wrote on APRIL 26, 2012 AT 8:37 AM

    “Vox – anyone who thinks the Dems control Congress is to uninformed to have a valid opinion.”

    should be “too” instead of “to”

    “Kulmer,” Who is “Kulmer”?

    “Raining intrest rates gives more money to the rich.”

    should be “Raising” and “interest”

    1. Take a breath after you type.
    2. Proofread your comment.
    3. Fix the errors.
    4. Delete the foolish comments.
    5. Then, and only after you have corrected your errors, click on the Submit Comment button.

  32. vox – don’t know where the preemptive response to imagined snarky comments about the trades comes from. Having extensively remodeled two warehouse spaces into live/work spaces and subbing out as little as possible (plumbing, electric, heat, concrete) after doing as much as that work as I could and still feel secure that I was doing it right, I have huge respect for the trades.

    You know, of course, that your question about what is so wrong about returning the rates to previous years could easily be applied to tax rates: what is so disastrous about returning to Clinton-era tax rates?

  33. Of course – with tuition increasing at a faster rate than inflation every year for at least a decade, any increase on interest required on student loans is compounding the rise in the cost of getting a college degree.

    I, and I daresay most of the commenters on this thread, was fortunate enough to have been a student when tuition was still relatively cheap (though interest was a lot higher). My student loans were restricted to paying my tuition – work covered my living expenses and additional supplies needed for class – even with higher interest rates I was able to pay off my loans fairly quickly (I pre-paid on the principal whenever I could). The costs now have become rather prohibitive.

  34. aislander says:

    The loans are not the commodity in question: education is.

    The price of commodities is influenced not only by current supply and demand, but by a number of factors.

    These include perception of FUTURE supply and demand; fear or hope of governmental intervention; number of dollars chasing the commodity (which may or may not reflect actual demand).

    Let’s not oversimplify.

  35. aislander says:

    RLangdon: Thanks! Sometimes I have no idea WHAT xring is on about, but, since he and I are ideological opponents, I’m reluctant to say anything about it, so I have to let the comments stand.

    I take it that you and xring are coreligionists, giving you the freedom to critique without anyone’s questioning your motivation…

  36. alindasue says:

    “Federal aid for college students, as currently structured, only leaves students more burdened with unnecessary higher debt in what has become a trillion dollar albatross.”

    Students who take on more debt than they can handle, REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE, are a problem. That is why it is important for students to not only come up with as much money as they can on their own, but to also apply for scholarships and grants (also “federal aid” in many cases) to help them pay for the costs before accepting any loans.

    Where federal college loans make a difference is that they make it easier for a student who does not yet have established credit obtain a student loan, if needed. THAT and the availability of grants are what can make the difference between a student being able to attend college or not.

    “Furthermore, by it’s impact on increasing the cost of tuition…”

    That is your fallacy. To the schools, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from – only that they get their money. Only in situations where the school itself is providing the money would a loan or grant have a direct effect on overall tuition costs.

    In the article you site, he says, “This pushes students, at the margin, to choose more expensive educational institutions than they otherwise would…”

    The availability of the loans “pushes” no one to do anything. The student CHOOSES to go to a more expensive school. The fault is in the choice the student makes, taking on more debt than he should, not in the availability of financial aid.

    Raising the interest rates on school loans won’t make the irresponsible student choices any more responsible. Raising the interest rates will have the effect though of lowering the amount the responsible student has available to spend on school if he wants to keep the same affordable payments.

  37. aislander, You are most welcome, and I hope the lesson is not lost on xring that I truly am trying to help him improve his ability to communicate coherent ideas and views on these blogs.

    I actually do agree with many things he has written, when they were written well enough to follow the flow of thought that was in there somewhere. As to being a “coreligionist” of xring, I kind of doubt that, but who knows. That’s really not for me to say, as others, like you, are entitled to make their own judgement on that score.

    xring has agreed with me at times, and then disagreed without really knowing what he was disagreeing with, because his cursory reading skills were no better than his ineffective writing skills. But, I am really hoping to help him to be better understood by taking more care with his analysis and subsequent commentaries.

    You have a good day aislander!

  38. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    You know, of course, that your question about what is so wrong about returning the rates to previous years could easily be applied to tax rates…

    bB, I was ignoring this red herring due to its troll origins. But since you want to wade in now I have to say, emphatically, NO – this is an apples-to-oranges comparison to which (if I wanted to play the game) I could just as easily reply; “why would elimination of the Earned Income Credit be harmful”, or “why would the Fair Tax – insuring people who earn under 50k actually have to pay income tax – be harmful”?

    But let’s just take this hypothetical:
    Let’s say the economy improves to the extent that sunsetting all or part of the Bush Tax Cuts becomes feasible. Do you and the rest of the liberal Democrats favor increasing the interest rates on Stafford loans at that time?

    Somehow I doubt it. Thus the red herring.

    Listen, for purely political reasons, I am not in favor of playing into 0bama’s hand just now, so I agree the rates will have to be kept at 3.4% for another year, as Republicans are proposing. But ultimately, I see this as just another extension of the entitlement mentality that we simply cannot afford going forward. I know, I know, it “only” cost’s the government about as much as it would take in from the laughable “Buffett Rule”. But as we have discussed ad-nauseum here, small amounts add up quickly and, more importantly, lessons in fiscal responsibility – especially the personal kind – are invaluable.

    And as to the snarky replies to the suggestion that not everyone should borrow money to go to college when they could find work in the trades (for example), I refer you to comments made on 4/25 at 6:18 and 6:52 PM.

  39. LornaDoone says:

    And then there is this:

    “I was ignoring this red herring due to its troll origins”

    if you bring up an analogy that places the conservatives in a position of “well, duuuuuuuuh!!!” that is “trolling”

    couple this with:

    “another 0bama administration/ democrat-controlled Congress manufactured issue”

    and the Republicans/conservatives have no reason to answer to any challenge of their policies. They can just spew “manufactured” and “trolling” and avoid ever answering a challenge.

    CT7 will be in conservative heaven.

  40. LornaDoone says:

    I’m sure glad that Mitt Romney supports extending the low interest rates on student loans.

    At least to today. Etch-a-Sketch Candidate may change that if the party powers tell him to.

  41. LornaDoone says:

    three in a row for the tightening of undies

  42. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Don’t worry, Larry, you still lead in every post-count category – from most redundant to just plain stupidest.

    Congratulations.

    Hey why not re-post your musings on Chuck Colson here? Or better yet, I’m sure you can come up with some kind of racial angle to this story.

  43. If you keep feeding them they will keep coming back.

  44. Dooone, you idiot, education is a commodity. One degree is equivalent to another for the vast majority. Ill waste no more time on you.

  45. RLangdon says:

    vox, Sometimes snarky (like at 6:52) really is sarcy (pronounced sar-key). Just having fun with the subject. You know?

  46. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    So true, beerBs, thanks for reminding.

    RL, my apologies – sarcasm and appropriately placed cynicism are two of my favorite writing methods. But when used by others they can fly over my head just as easily as anyone’s, so thanks for the clarification.

  47. RLangdon says:

    No problem Vox! It would have been easier to spot if I could have added a Russian accent, then you would have gotten it for sure. Alas, with only the written word there is just so much one can do.

  48. phillchi – isn’t it wonderful that the President has such a wide selection of issues offered up by the disloyal opposition.

    vox – for the forty-eleventh time – Control of the Senate requires control of 60 votes. Currently there are 51 Democrates, 47 Republicans, and 2 Independents in the Senate.

    RL – I have some deck chairs that need to be rearanged. Until you have a comment that addresses an issue other than how some of us write and spell, just stand up and give your mouth a rest.

    Aislander and RL – welcome to the real world of bloggers where real bloggers don’t need no stinking spell checker.

    RL – try reading for content not style.

    velmak -‘one degree is equivalent to another’ So an degree in Modern Dance is equivlent to one in Medicne?

  49. RLangdon says:

    cross-ring, Your content has no style! Sorry dude

  50. aislander says:

    …but he seems to be content with his style…

  51. RL and you have no class.

  52. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    x, you can argue with yourself.

    The simple fact is that the democrat majority House and Senate of the 110th Congress reduced the interest rate for certain federally subsidized student loans (Stafford Loans), and established the sunset date of July 1, 2012.

    And both you and Larry failed your assignment… again.

  53. RLangdon says:

    … because I am in a “class” by myself! Thank you!!!

  54. Vox- I already knew about the sunset provisions and they have nothing to do with you arrogant igoranace of how the senate works.

    No RL there are plenty of no-class jackass to keep you company.

  55. ROFL – it’s so funny to see all the manufactured outrage from the wrong wing when their own candidate agrees with Obama.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57419791/romney-backs-student-loan-proposal-obama-supports/

    Let the backtracking begin!

  56. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I’m reminded of a CSN&Y song… “… helpless, helpless, helpless, helpless”.

  57. So an degree in Modern Dance is equivlent to one in Medicne?

    Nope – a degree in Modern Dance requires much more dedication to earn, especially with the realization that it will not lead to a lucrative career.

    Seriously – denigrating a discipline of study without having any real knowledge of what that study entails is just a load of BS (and I don’t mean the degree). The BA in Dance that I just helped create includes course work in Philosophy, History, Anthropology, Business, Kinesiology, Biology – on top of a huge number of hours required to train in a physically demanding athletic endeavor.

    What velmak wrote is “One degree is equivalent to another for the vast majority.” You ignored the last part of her sentence in you attempt to ridicule her statement of what is actually a well-known fact – the vast majority of college graduates end up in a career that is not directly connected to the major study.

    This is why a good Liberal Arts requirement (aka “General Education”, “Core”, “Breadth”) is, in many respects, more important than the actual major a student selects.

    You know xring, Jimm attempts to put me down by referencing the fact that I am in Theatre and Dance – making the implication that somehow that is a lessor area (I also believe he is attempting to challenge my manhood with this as well) but he hasn’t so directly denigrated my area of expertise.

    Good job – you just thoroughly annoyed one of the regulars here who has been supportive of your viewpoints.

  58. RLangdon says:

    Who is Jimm?

  59. bBoy,

    Just as there is a hierarchy of schools so is there a hierarchy of degrees, and a degree from one school may count for more or less than the same degree from another school (Harvard Law Degree vs Freedom University Law Degree).

    My degree is from a Christian Liberal Arts College whose second priority was critical, cross discipline thinking. (Their first was Jesus Christ).

    Many jobs require ‘a college degree’ but do specify a field of study.

  60. bBoy,
    Note the question mark (?) at the end of my equivalency comment. My comment was aimed at Velmak’s comment posted at 1:08 pm on 4-26-2012.

    PS: One of the most successful of kids from my college class spent 4 years taking every PE activity and Foreign Language course offered. How he is an independent translator and interpreter for several multinationals and wealthy individuals.

  61. Who is Jimm?

    Today he calls himself averageJoseph and, maybe, a few other names I’m not certain about.

  62. aislander says:

    beerBoy: If that is the area in which one finds Theater and Dance, who grants the lease?

  63. RLangdon says:

    Thanks for the info beerBoy!

  64. The republican congress passed their extension of the reduced rates today. The demokrat controlled Senate and Obama threaten to kill it. So, there you are. And yes, it was Pelosi and her henchmen who set the sunset rule of 2012 on this increase back in 2007.

  65. frosty – and who sunsetted the bush tax cuts?

    The republican controlled house passed a bill that would to drain money out of preventive health care to cover the decreased rates.

    Funny how tax cuts for the rich don’t have to be paid for by cuts in spending.

  66. aislander – don’t understand your question. Please rephrase it or let it drop unanswered.

  67. P.S. beerBoy, I thought xring was Jimm.

  68. RL – your problem is you don’t thank.

  69. RLangdon says:

    xring, I do “Thank” people all the time. See my comment above on the 27th at 5:00 PM where I “Thank” beerBoy.

    I also “think” and “proofread” my comments so that I have far fewer errors in my comments than you have in yours. You should try to “proofread” your comments and “think” about what you have written BEFORE you hit the Submit button. Okay?

    THANK YOU!!!

  70. Although I have not read all the comments above, it is interesting the federal government borrows money from China and investors at almost a zero rate. Look at the savings bonds rates. Look at the rates offered on certificates of deposit and savings accounts. And, we want to saddle recent college graduates with loan rates at 6+%? Higher education is basically taking a back seat in this country.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0