If you can't understand the point that foreverbull made, then I really cannot explain this any further. If you need to believe this is a meritocracy, and you do not want to accept data that demonstrate that it is not, then I suppose you can go on thinking this loan problem is simple and just requires more personal responsibility on the part of borrowers.
Who is oversimplifying (and also misinterpreting) now?
Meritocracy is not a value statement.
Who here has denied that? I sat in one of those too as an undergraduate. I don’t see anyone here saying predatory practices aren’t a problem.
Just because I stated that doesn't mean I was suggesting anyone here was denying that.
I already addressed the class mobility question. I am discussing it in the context of why people take out student loans.
They need to look up calorie counts and stop eating so many damn calories
well, you've solved the obesity problem!
Obesity is a personal problem, not a societal one
I disagree, so do my insurance rates and taxes.
Absolutely both should be, taxes shouldn’t be used to force one person to pay for another. And insurance should be allowed to exclude preexisting conditions because it’s absurd for me to pay the same health insurance rates as someone who is 600lbs
That sounds like a great way to help students understand the need to explore different career options, including educational requirements and the other nuances to consider. I wish other programs/departments/universities would do this. I remember in undergrad, career services was general in nature and the "counselors" didn't know all the things needed to get into a doctorate program. They may not have even known the differences between masters programs. I had to rely on faculty mentors. But some departments may not provide that.
I think this is an aspect of the fundamental attribution error. “I overcame my situation to get where I am and so the other should be able to do the same and if not then it is not their situation, but an inherent flaw in their makeup.” Of course, the predators will take advantage of this and especially if the government is handing out free money. Meanwhile, the truly wealthy are very motivated to keep the free money flowing because that’s how they get theirs. Just like pigs at a trough and us caring types are just grist for the mill. How’s that for mixed metaphors?
of a political tax bill and associated entitlement programs for student loans, the net arguments also seem to behave in a very binary way. It isn’t surprising to me given the current political climate.Of course, you noted that I repeatedly stated that this issue is not binary. Never did I say that people have no personal responsibility in their choices. My point was merely that this is not the whole picture, and on this forum it is often presented as if it is.Foreverbull, speaking for myself, I’m not denying that context matters. It certainly does. Some factors influence decisions that people make about their careers and their finances - in my view those factors might most directly influence how someone perceives their choices.
At least for me, I’ve spent a nice portion of my adult life exploring (professionally) the influence of sociocultural context on certain behaviors - from a clinical and academic standpoint. While someone like you, or me, or others on this forum might be pretty used to applying these notions to conceptualize behavior and can accept that there is a contextual backdrop as well as personal responsibility involved in decision-making, some of the reaction you see might reflect a couple of things.
1) A lot of people invoke these contextual issues in an attempt to deny personal responsibility. Again, while many of us can understand that it is not “binary” from a conceptual standpoint - functionally I have seen it play out that way in how people view decisions that they have made. The net result of this binary way of thinking is blame/external locus of control.
2) So in the same way that you find it frustrating that some people on the forum seem to have a binary view of this issue (bootstraps and what-not), I admit that I find it quite frustrating myself when people invoke sociopolitical context at the individual level to avoid taking responsibility. I’ve seen this happen quite frequently with students and with clients, and I spend a great deal of time considering context in my professional settings. Most of the time, I am not hearing someone say “I had it rough and didn’t really have a full understanding of my options, but now I do and want to get the message out to people who are in the position I was.” I am hearing “I had it rough and no one explained everything to me well enough, so I don’t think I should have to pay this much.” Perhaps some others also see it play out this way too IRL?
3) When these contextual terms are invoked in the context
foreverbull, another poster kept quoting a statement that you made highlighting things like lower SES folks having a “poverty of information.” This quote of yours was repeatedly presented as fact, even though it seems to reflect your opinion or a theoretical framework. I disputed that opinion/theory with my own thoughts/opinion about how now, more than ever, there really isn’t a poverty of information (or access to it) out there, and how a lot of folks (regardless of SES background) have to make an effort to educate themselves using that information when making these decisions.
To come in and present one opinion as fact and then to make insinuations that smack of accusations of power and privilege really is not a constructive way to communicate (IMHO). IMO this type of communication impedes progress in making headway towards getting a larger proportion of the population to want to consider context and support compromising solutions to actual political issues. Someone like me might not want to subsidize really bad loan decisions, but would be interested in preventing really bad loan decisions and would be open to listening to new ideas about how to do this.
So foreverbull, this is me agreeing with you that socioeconomic/cultural context plays a role in how people perceive their options when considering student loans. But in my opinion, personal responsibility is still the most important factor when it comes to this specific issue.
A lot of us can say that we had a lot of similar experiences - I know some of the things on this list you have provided were also my own experience (eerily similar). That's where I think you might be overestimating how much "capital" there is out there, as many of us struggle with things like helping parents in financial trouble, transportation problems, navigating large public universities, being unable to afford interviews and professional clothing as graduate students, etc. etc...which might be why some people don't view having to navigate these problems as out of the purview of life in general or more specifically a part of being in this profession. I think people are sympathetic/empathetic to these types of issues, but when they get politicized and grouped such that you pretend some groups don't have to deal with these problems, then it no longer reflects the day-to-day reality that many people face.
I wish it were that easy. For a long time I was hard-line about personal accountability and responsibility as it relates to attaining a job, paying for insurance, etc. It’s not as simple as “don’t be 600lb” as there are cultural and societal factors that influence individuals. I still have hope that we can improve in these areas, but only blaming the individual is ignoring part of the problem.
Yes and no. I wish basic money management was taught in high school, finance classes in undergrad, and business classes in grad school.
This well illustrates the different types of capital that can come into play in this situation. As psychologists, we should recognize these complexities.
I am not in complete disagreement with you. As a relatively young and healthy male, I find it ludicrous that I must pay higher insurance rates to supplement the costs of others (I am speaking in generalities and not about the wasted costs in the current managed care system). However, the realities of the world, as I have experienced through anecdotal or empirical evidence, tell me differently. Its hard to fight reality after a while. Others have much greater willfulness to maintain support for an ideology that has no practical supporting evidence or a historical precedence.
I am all for voluntarily helping causes and people that I choose to, I vehemently oppose the notion that someone else gets to decide that I have to spend even that single cent on others.
Freedom is good, try coming back
Except that the us was largely just that when we started......
Actually, it didn't work, which is why we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went with the Constitution instead.
This is by far the best post in this thread, but I want to emphasize the latter part about stupid and selfish people. Of course there are socioeconomic issues of financial literacy, inequality, etc., but let's not kid ourselves that all the people who take out >$100K for doctorates in clinical psychology are victims and that this is entirely a social justice issue. Sure, many people fall into this category, but don't act like that this indebted population is some homogeneous monolith. There are plenty of people like the OP of this thread who knew damn well the financial ramifications of their decisions, but were banking on other people paying it off for them. They decided that delayed gratification wasn't for them and they shouldn't have to substantially change their lives in pursuit of a doctorate to make them competitive for funded programs.
Ok, but that's the education/survival of the grad student, not their parents. Doesn't this seem like an abuse of the system if your loans are going to get forgiven by PSLF or some other program.
