No more student loan interest subsides for grad/prof students!

Started by Trakker
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
just another way to prevent the middle class and poor from getting ahead
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So I did the math and it amounts to $5,000 over 4 years. In the grand scheme of things, its not too bad. And economically speaking, graduate students will be the ones who can more easily pay it back when theyre done.

Im just glad were still getting loans!
 
sakigt said:
So I did the math and it amounts to $5,000 over 4 years. In the grand scheme of things, its not too bad. And economically speaking, graduate students will be the ones who can more easily pay it back when theyre done.

Im just glad were still getting loans!
Click to expand...

Remember the interest gets compounded. According to this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_students/

If you borrow the max in subsidized loans (65,500 k), the government would had paid $207 a month while you are in school until six months after graduation. Assuming it takes 4 years for you to graduate, the government would have paid over $10,000.
 
Trakker said:
Remember the interest gets compounded. According to this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_students/

If you borrow the max in subsidized loans (65,500 k), the government would had paid $207 a month while you are in school until six months after graduation. Assuming it takes 4 years for you to graduate, the government would have paid over $10,000.
Click to expand...

But right now the max they subsidize is $8500 a year...

So its $8,500x4 @ 6.8% over 4 years + 6 months. I forgot about the 6 months.

Its actually going to be less than that because its $8,500 over 4 years, $17,000 over 3 years + intrest from the year before etc etc.

@ npage, are you talking about us? Because you should be! :laugh:

Its INSANE to lend >$100k to a young person, but hey. Its how our system works nowadays.

Edit: I see what you mean now. I wish I had kept my fancy accounting calculator. lol
 
npage148 said:
If you can't afford to pay for college out of pocket you don't really deserve to go to school. There are plenty of jobs for those folks like working in fields and digging ditches.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? What a crazy thing to say. You obviously grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth. I just have to laugh this ridiculous comment off...:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: But I appreciate the support.
 
sarcasm-meter-sarcasm-meter-demotivational-poster-1223486438.jpg
 
confettiflyer said:
this is like the 3rd thread on this topic
Click to expand...

I considered consolidating, but one thread is in prepharm, one is in pharm, and the other is a more general thread about all thing debt crisis related that happens to include some posts about this issue. I don't see a logical way to merge them. I could redirect the prepharm to the pharm section sense by definition it is a professional student topic, however I feel like it has an appropriate place over there. Plus this is big news so I think we need to just let them ride for now.

If more open I will merge for sure, ok? 😉
 
If we don't talk about this, then we talk about saturation. At least we can give the other topic a little break for now.
 
owlegrad said:
I considered consolidating, but one thread is in prepharm, one is in pharm, and the other is a more general thread about all thing debt crisis related that happens to include some posts about this issue. I don't see a logical way to merge them. I could redirect the prepharm to the pharm section sense by definition it is a professional student topic, however I feel like it has an appropriate place over there. Plus this is big news so I think we need to just let them ride for now.

If more open I will merge for sure, ok? 😉
Click to expand...

fine, this is logical, argh...haha.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
great! so now the interest will accrue on student loans while you're in school...how can that be fair to grad students?

you're right. that's not fair. so let's just allow them to take a higher loan to pay for the fact that there are no subsidies

wow Obama...so in an attempt to cut costs to reduce the federal debt, you're going to make money off of students...isn't there any other way to find funds? students are taking extraordinary amounts of loans as it is that are more than a house
 
Muse600 said:
great! so now the interest will accrue on student loans while you're in school...how can that be fair to grad students?

you're right. that's not fair. so let's just allow them to take a higher loan to pay for the fact that there are no subsidies

wow Obama...so in an attempt to cut costs to reduce the federal debt, you're going to make money off of students...isn't there any other way to find funds? students are taking extraordinary amounts of loans as it is that are more than a house
Click to expand...

students don't vote. if i were in congress, grad/professional students would be the first i target too. increasing the interest cost isn't gonna dissuade most people from going anyway.
 
MissPharmB said:
Are you kidding me? What a crazy thing to say. You obviously grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth. I just have to laugh this ridiculous comment off...:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: But I appreciate the support.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are so defensive and there is no sarcasm in my post. It's been shown multiple times that student's who take out loans are poor students. Probably becasue they come from weak socioeconomic backgrounds and raised by inadequate parents (who didn't plan for their kids future). This only compounds that fact that they can't get jobs when the graduate and have trouble paying back their loans

Linked below is a review of some pertinent data. It's hard to argue with scientific facts

Data against student loans
 
npage148 said:
I'm not sure why you are so defensive and there is no sarcasm in my post. It's been shown multiple times that student's who take out loans are poor students. Probably becasue they come from weak socioeconomic backgrounds and raised by inadequate parents (who didn't plan for their kids future). This only compounds that fact that they can't get jobs when the graduate and have trouble paying back their loans

Linked below is a review of some pertinent data. It's hard to argue with scientific facts

Data against student loans
Click to expand...

Also, with the exception of a few professsions, graduate schools do not produce productive citizens. The government should not be lending 100k to students who want to enroll in culinary school just to get a dish washing job once they come out.

Health professional loans do not need to be subsidize because the interest on them are low to begin with. Banks have preferred interest rates for students going into health professions.
 
Aznfarmerboi said:
Also, with the exception of a few professsions, graduate schools do not produce productive citizens. The government should not be lending 100k to students who want to enroll in culinary school just to get a dish washing job once they come out.

Health professional loans do not need to be subsidize because the interest on them are low to begin with. Banks have preferred interest rates for students going into health professions.
Click to expand...


Right, I don't want to pay for some know-it-all to get a PhD in Art History. I mean it's cute they care about pretty pictures but despite the title "sandwich artist" it's not gonna help them make me a better sandwich at subway
 
Last edited:
Okay, well I am fairly new to this forum so you guys will just have to give me a break on this one...
 
CUninja said:
was thinking the same thing... but after that "well" comment in the other thread...I just let this one be.
Click to expand...

npage148 said:
I'm not sure why you are so defensive and there is no sarcasm in my post. It's been shown multiple times that student's who take out loans are poor students. Probably becasue they come from weak socioeconomic backgrounds and raised by inadequate parents (who didn't plan for their kids future). This only compounds that fact that they can't get jobs when the graduate and have trouble paying back their loans

Linked below is a review of some pertinent data. It's hard to argue with scientific facts

Data against student loans
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. It was such an over the top comment I just assumed it was in jest. So you were serious that people born in a low economic bracket should just dig ditches? I can't help but think you are pulling my leg.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't feel that removing the subsidy is an unreasonable measure. The trend has been from grants --> subsided loans --> unsubsidized loans for a while now. Any education beyond the compulsory 12 years is an investment. It's not a right, and people are not entitled to have their investments subsidized by the government.

I would further argue that the government provides student loans, it is making an investment decision, and the loan process should be structured to reflect that. A bank would not lend you money on a Vegas trip unless they know you can pay it back, and higher the risk of the default higher the interest rate.

So I propose that student loans should NOT be based on income and tuition cost, rather on the risks and expect ability to repay. Degrees and schools should be broken into tiers (for each degree). Take civil engineering for example. Set tier 1 civil engineering schools to those average new grads earned $70-80K with 0% unemployment rate, tier 2 $60-69K with 5% unemployment rate, tier 3.... etc. A student at a tier 2 school would be allowed up to $120k total loan, at 5% interest rate if the loan is $60K or less, gradually increase to 7% if taking out the max $120K.

In the case a liberal arts degree, Tier 1 schools might be those grad income is $30-$35K with 0-20% unemployment, tier 2 $25-30K with 20-40% unemployment, etc. So a student in tier 2 school would be allowed $25K x 70% x 2 = $35K loan at 7% max.
 
I read on CNN money that this move saves 21 billion over the next 10 years. While it's a considerable amount of money, it is nothing compared to realistically funding the trillions of dollars in deficit, while there are more realistic places to do cuts. Did you know that the government spends 3 billion dollars DAILY on both wars??! But no politician wants to touch that subject, because it would be considered unpatriotic. A few weeks ago they were showing infrastructure that the govt was building in Afghanistan, but these ppl have no way of running it or maintaining it because of the cost to do so.....why?! I am not saying we should cut defense, but if there are some things that should not be touched just like defense, education should be one of them. Without it, where would the innovation have come from that defines our military prowess? If we can borrow gigantic amounts to fund wars ( which really is the crux of the debt problem), we should also go on a spending binge to finance education and healthcare....F**K it! If anybody whining about debt and want it a better way? Cut accross the board! Stop making military spending a sanctuary. And raise taxes on EVERYBODY!! Don't care...even mine! It reduces disposable income for the middle class, but it will set a lot of people right, and teach them to live within their means!!
Ok rant over .......thanks for your time 😀
 
It's is sad that social programs in our own Country are being slashed to fund 2+ wars with no other goal than to kill Muslims and secure oil. Though on the flip side, the armed services can be seen as the largest social program ever by employing, and providing universal healthcare and pensions to 3 million Americans with the added fun of killing our "enemies"
 
npage148 said:
It's is sad that social programs in our own Country are being slashed to fund 2+ wars with no other goal than to kill Muslims and secure oil. Though on the flip side, the armed services can be seen as the largest social program ever by employing, and providing universal healthcare and pensions to 3 million Americans with the added fun of killing our "enemies"
Click to expand...

I agree that we shouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan, but are you seriously comparing members of our military to welfare recipients? 😕
 
RX CARE said:
I read on CNN money that this move saves 21 billion over the next 10 years. While it's a considerable amount of money, it is nothing compared to realistically funding the trillions of dollars in deficit, while there are more realistic places to do cuts. Did you know that the government spends 3 billion dollars DAILY on both wars??! But no politician wants to touch that subject, because it would be considered unpatriotic. A few weeks ago they were showing infrastructure that the govt was building in Afghanistan, but these ppl have no way of running it or maintaining it because of the cost to do so.....why?! I am not saying we should cut defense, but if there are some things that should not be touched just like defense, education should be one of them. Without it, where would the innovation have come from that defines our military prowess? If we can borrow gigantic amounts to fund wars ( which really is the crux of the debt problem), we should also go on a spending binge to finance education and healthcare....F**K it! If anybody whining about debt and want it a better way? Cut accross the board! Stop making military spending a sanctuary. And raise taxes on EVERYBODY!! Don't care...even mine! It reduces disposable income for the middle class, but it will set a lot of people right, and teach them to live within their means!!
Ok rant over .......thanks for your time 😀
Click to expand...

I agree, in some ways I feel like bitching because taxes are going to be increased (reasonably) is in some ways unpatriotic. If the country needs more money to stay afloat then we are all going to have to make sacrifices for the greater good. I know it is not always this black and white, but I know what we are paying in taxes now is not even close to what our parents and grandparents were paying in the 50-60's. If we have to tighten things up for a little while so we can get back on our feet economically then so be it.
 
kvl1027 said:
I agree, in some ways I feel like bitching because taxes are going to be increased (reasonably) is in some ways unpatriotic. If the country needs more money to stay afloat then we are all going to have to make sacrifices for the greater good. I know it is not always this black and white, but I know what we are paying in taxes now is not even close to what our parents and grandparents were paying in the 50-60's. If we have to tighten things up for a little while so we can get back on our feet economically then so be it.
Click to expand...

Tax must be raised, and big cuts must also be made. It's a given. With the government running $1.37 trillion in red a year, there is just no way to solve that with cuts alone. Even if we cut off the military and medicare/medicaid it still wouldn't be enough. And it goes without saying that will need to keep some level of a respectable military, and moderate amount of social safety net. It has to be done by a combination of taxation and budget cuts. The current cuts in the compromise will NOT be enough, as it doesn't touch social security or medicare/medicaid.

What I think is unpatriotic is just how weak stomached the average Joes in the country is. Nobody wants to make sacrifices and bite the bullet themselves, always want other people to pony up. I almost wish we can borrow the Chinese government's economic committee for a year or two to do some serious butt kicking and forcing tough but correct budget decisions down people's throat for once. Their methods are undemocratic and harsh but produce results, which is what we need right now. :meanie:
 
Last edited:
xiphoid2010 said:
Tax must be raised, and big cuts must also be made. It's a given. With the government running $1.37 trillion in red a year, there is just no way to solve that with cuts alone. Even if we cut off the military and medicare/medicaid it still wouldn't be enough. And it goes without saying that will need to keep some level of a respectable military, and moderate amount of social safety net. It has to be done by a combination of taxation and budget cuts. The current cuts in the compromise will NOT be enough, as it doesn't touch social security or medicare/medicaid.

What I think is unpatriotic is just how weak stomached the average Joes in the country is. Nobody wants to make sacrifices and bite the bullet themselves, always want other people to pony up. I almost wish we can borrow the Chinese government's economic committee for a year or two to do some serious butt kicking and forcing tough but correct budget decisions down people's throat for once. Their methods are undemocratic and harsh but produce results, which is what we need right now. :meanie:
Click to expand...

👍👍👍 YES!

It does seem pretty natural that you would want the Chinese economic committee, since you are a Panda. BTW, I love your orange chicken and shanghi beef.😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WestTXisGr8
Exactly How IHS Student Loan Repayment works
Replies
10
Views
5K
GrandTheftAutumn
G
WildWing
[Announcement] Walmart Health Equity Scholarship for Pharmacy Students
Replies
0
Views
3K
WildWing
WildWing
Mr.Smile12
[AJPE] Pharmacy students get anxiety
Replies
7
Views
2K
nickw2401
N
C
PRN Hospital Job Claims No Flexibility on Wage Rate
Replies
3
Views
2K
PharmDBro2017
PharmDBro2017
K
  • Locked
Student loan forgiveness ruled unconstitutional
Replies
44
Views
4K
confettiflyer
confettiflyer