Thoughts on the tone here/people feeling attacked

[foreverbull]

I think the issue here is that some folks are placing the entire burden of the decision on the student, and not placing responsibility on the exploitative system/environment. Just generally, from our field, we know that reductionistic views can be dangerous (just like assuming cause/effect from a correlation, which completely ignores other factors that do exist as part of the relationship).

Some of us clearly disagree about the level of influence that the environment/system has on this decision-making process, etc.

I agree that some people have come into the forum wanting to confirm their previously-held beliefs, which does not bode well for the ensuing discussion in the thread. And I also see when folks get condescending to students rather than sharing facts/information in cases in which a student really wasn't seeking to confirm beliefs, but get a simple question answered regarding a particular school.

As I've said before, I think we need the facts in these threads to educate folks, and if you feel strongly that X school is terrible, feel free to share it. We just don't need people framing it in terms of "stupid decisions" and assuming right away that these students are entitled, not wanting to do the work, etc. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes it isn't, and it's not necessary to assume and operate from those assumptions when communicating facts and perspectives.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[memedoctor]

I'm more than willing to discuss in good faith, but I will not hesitate to point out ridiculous claims (e.g., students taking out loans are similar to elders with impaired cognition and like arguments). These hyperbolic and false statements do nothing to further the discussion, only to further obfuscation. You don't need to apologize for your past arguments, but I categorically refuse to accept the notion of Loan Trauma in the same category as trauma that induces PTSD. No one here disputes the notion that SES has an independent effect on trauma and PTSD, we do dispute that that is related to insane levels of debt and choosing a career path that leads to more debt than you can realistically pay back. These are two separate issues.

Okay, can you please move away from this "Loan Trauma" concept. That is not the point I was trying to advance, and I find it really frustrating that you continue to characterize my argument that way.

 

[WisNeuro]

Okay, can you please move away from this "Loan Trauma" concept. That is not the point I was trying to advance, and I find it really frustrating that you continue to characterize my argument that way.

When the argument ceases to use this as a concept, I'll gladly stop referencing it.

 

[Peacemaker36]

Are you saying that a college graduate evaluating career options is the same as an elder who has been declared mentally incompetent to manage their finances due to cognitive decline?

Depends on the college graduate. Are you saying all college graduates are basically in the same boat?

 

[Justanothergrad]

100% agreed, my friend. A true uphill battle we face.

I think you missed the point.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Are you saying that a college graduate evaluating career options is the same as an elder who has been declared mentally incompetent to manage their finances due to cognitive decline?

While I think the elder exploitation analogy may be a little extreme, I do think there is some argument to made that these institutions target a particularly vulnerable population. While it's de rigeur round these parts to say that people in their early 20's should be financially savvy, that's a bit of "musturbation"- we all know that the modal person at that age is often facing the need for financial independence and decision making for the the first time in their lives an doesn't have a well developed or experienced skill-set. Combine that with a recent realization that things aren't going to go as planned (e.g., admittance to a more traditional, cheaper grad program) and a perceived lack of other options, I think you have a particularly vulnerable demographic, and it's no mystery why and how these institutions take advantage of (note that I didn't say "abuse"- that's either a semantic or subjective argument that will not be one on the battlefield of the interwebs). Add in deceptive marketing and outright lies (e.g., "Ph.D. programs are for researchers only"; "you'll get more clinical training in our program"; "you'll easily make enough to cover debt services on a 150k loan"; "we teach you to treat the whole person"; "we use a distributed educational approach geared towards those who have to work, thus making education avaiable to the masses"; blah blah blah), and I do think it reaches some rather shady levels of deceiptfulness and manipulation of a highly vulnerable population.

 

[memedoctor]

When the argument ceases to use this as a concept, I'll gladly stop referencing it.

So you really, genuinely, with your best effort to understand and give the most charitable read, cannot possibly see how it might be relevant to consider these institutions as abusive agents without this concept of Loan Trauma?

 

[WisNeuro]

Depends on the college graduate. Are you saying all college graduates are basically in the same boat?

I am saying that the cognitive capacity of someone who just graduated college is in no way equitable to someone who no longer has capacity due to an injury or degenerative condition.

 

[memedoctor]

I think you missed the point.

Oh, no, I fully got it. I'm making clear what my values are, acknowledging the depth of the problem we face, and saying I think think it's important to do that work anyway.

 

[WisNeuro]

So you really, genuinely, with your best effort to understand and give the most charitable read, cannot possibly see how it might be relevant to consider these institutions as abusive agents without this concept of Loan Trauma?

They are definitely institutions who exploit people. It is not trauma, though. Additionally, every single piece of information needed to avoid this situation, is easily and publically available. With your best effort to understand, can you see how it may be possible that the individual has a scrap of agency in their decision?

 

[WisNeuro]

While I think the elder exploitation analogy may be a little extreme, I do think there is some argument to made that these institutions target a particularly vulnerable population. While it's de rigeur round these parts to say that people in their early 20's should be financially savvy, that's a bit of "musturbation"- we all know that the modal person at that age is often facing the need for financial independence and decision making for the the first time in their lives an doesn't have a well developed or experienced skill-set. Combine that with a recent realization that things aren't going to go as planned (e.g., admittance to a more traditional, cheaper grad program) and a perceived lack of other options, I think you have a particularly vulnerable demographic, and it's no mystery why and how these institutions take advantage of (note that I didn't say "abuse"- that's either a semantic or subjective argument that will not be one on the battlefield of the interwebs). Add in deceptive marketing and outright lies (e.g., "Ph.D. programs are for researchers only"; "you'll get more clinical training in our program"; "you'll easily make enough to cover debt services on a 150k loan"; "we teach you to treat the whole person"; "we use a distributed educational approach geared towards those who have to work, thus making education avaiable to the masses"; blah blah blah), and I do think it reaches some rather shady levels of deceiptfulness and manipulation of a highly vulnerable population.

They are definitely targeting vulnerable populations, relatively speaking. These are still college graduates we are talking about. They are capable of processing and evaluating information. As I said, let's hold institutions more accountable, but that doesn't mean absolving the individual from any responsibility at all. They are directly responsible for perpetuating these institutions, they are not blameless. Life does not operate on the principle that you must follow one and only one career path.

 

[memedoctor]

They are definitely institutions who exploit people. It is not trauma, though. Additionally, every single piece of information needed to avoid this situation, is easily and publically available. With your best effort to understand, can you see how it may be possible that the individual has a scrap of agency in their decision?

Yes, I can see that, and have conceded this in plenty places.
Do you think there is a conceptual difference between abuse and trauma? Or do you define abusive behaviors as necessarily having a directly traumatic impact?

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, I can see that, and have conceded this in plenty places.
Do you think there is a conceptual difference between abuse and trauma? Or do you define abusive behaviors as necessarily having a directly traumatic impact?

There is definitely a distinction between abuse and trauma. As for abusive behaviors having a traumatic impact, that is mediated by a host of factors.

 

[MCParent]

Is the position being put forth seriously that attitudes about debt should be considered on a sliding scale in response to the debtor's level of marginalization? Jeez.

STEM has been dealing with this over the last decade, with their push to have marginalized folks enter sciences only for many of them to be trapped in a decade of low pay post-doc work.

 

[memedoctor]

There is definitely a distinction between abuse and trauma. As for abusive behaviors having a traumatic impact, that is mediated by a host of factors.

Okay, right. I agree. I'm making the comparison of these institutions are being abusive, and that when we think about addressing the issue, it makes sense to center the abusive, asymmetrical power dynamics as the problem as opposed to focusing on the "complicity" of the people that get stuck in those relationships. When you're individually working with someone who is in a situation like that, yes, it makes sense to work to highlight and help them find their agency; but in the framing of the social problem I think it's a harmful trap.

 

[WisNeuro]

Okay, right. I agree. I'm making the comparison of these institutions are being abusive, and that when we think about addressing the issue, it makes sense to center the abusive, asymmetrical power dynamics as the problem as opposed to focusing on the "complicity" of the people that get stuck in those relationships. When you're individually working with someone who is in a situation like that, yes, it makes sense to work to highlight and help them find their agency; but in the framing of the social problem I think it's a harmful trap.

Whereas, when addressing the issue of debt/diploma mills, I think we address is by both holding institutions and individuals accountable for their actions. Also, I don't see dealing with this as similar to how I would deal with my trauma/anxiety clients, these are two VERY different issues in my mind, for countless reasons.

 

[Peacemaker36]

Speaking for myself, I am not saying that we should fully absolve the students. But I think more of the blame falls on the predatory schools.

Look at it this way: if you eliminated the predatory schools, it's not like most of these would-be students would instead drop $200,000 - $300,000 on something similarly foolish, like clown school.

 

[WisNeuro]

Look at it this way: if you eliminated the predatory schools, it's not like most of these would-be students would instead drop $200,000 - $300,000 on something similarly foolish, like clown school.

I think many would.

 

[StellaB]

While I think the elder exploitation analogy may be a little extreme, I do think there is some argument to made that these institutions target a particularly vulnerable population. While it's de rigeur round these parts to say that people in their early 20's should be financially savvy, that's a bit of "musturbation"- we all know that the modal person at that age is often facing the need for financial independence and decision making for the the first time in their lives an doesn't have a well developed or experienced skill-set. Combine that with a recent realization that things aren't going to go as planned (e.g., admittance to a more traditional, cheaper grad program) and a perceived lack of other options, I think you have a particularly vulnerable demographic, and it's no mystery why and how these institutions take advantage of (note that I didn't say "abuse"- that's either a semantic or subjective argument that will not be one on the battlefield of the interwebs). Add in deceptive marketing and outright lies (e.g., "Ph.D. programs are for researchers only"; "you'll get more clinical training in our program"; "you'll easily make enough to cover debt services on a 150k loan"; "we teach you to treat the whole person"; "we use a distributed educational approach geared towards those who have to work, thus making education avaiable to the masses"; blah blah blah), and I do think it reaches some rather shady levels of deceiptfulness and manipulation of a highly vulnerable population.

I think this is absolutely true. And I think that what is harder for some of us who are, shall we say, "slightly older" to understand is just how extreme the economy has become for people in their 20s. I happen to have a much younger sibling, and it is really shocking how restricted their choices are, based on the rampant inflation of housing costs. Getting started these days is extremely difficult and expensive, and I think as a result of this and other factors, many young people now are simply resigned to the idea that they will be debt slaves and essentially poor forever. This doesn't absolve all personal responsibility - to do so would be to utterly ignore the free agency that does exist. But the truth is that recent economic changes have put newer graduates into an even smaller barrel for predatory schools to shoot into. If you don't perceive many options to launch yourself, pay rent, start a career, etc. without taking out a lot of debt anyway, might as well at least have a doctorate to show for it with the hope of better prospects on the other side. To that end, it does seem like a big part of the dynamic that pops up on here a lot is us "older" (but not old) people struggling to truly appreciate how dramatically the economy has shifted, and some of the younger posters getting angry and "shooting the messenger" when the likely consequences of their choices are discussed. I put the vast majority of the blame on the student loan policies, just like I put the bulk of the blame on the last (and current) housing bubble on the cheap debt policies of the Fed. But at the same time, no one puts a gun to someone's head and forces them to buy a house they cannot afford or pay an arm and a leg to attend a subpar school. There is some amount of personal responsibility too. To ignore this is really unfair to the people who have made other sacrifices (like attending a good, reasonably priced master's program instead). It's just not a black-and-white issue, as most things are not.

 

[Pragma]

There is a tendency I am noticing for people to want to assign blame externally, and some of the pushback here is a response to that.

Not all expensive programs are predatory. There is a lot of nuance. There are people actively taking out 250k in debt with the assumption that the government/taxpayers will bail them out through one mechanism or another.

 

[ClinicalABA]

They are definitely targeting vulnerable populations, relatively speaking. These are still college graduates we are talking about. They are capable of processing and evaluating information. As I said, let's hold institutions more accountable, but that doesn't mean absolving the individual from any responsibility at all. They are directly responsible for perpetuating these institutions, they are not blameless. Life does not operate on the principle that you must follow one and only one career path.

There is definitely responsibility on the part of the student. This is especially so once they are given the accurate information- even an old deterministic behavior analyst like me will admit that (but only on psychology message boards, not on the ABA ones!). I also think there is a decent percentage of perspective students who ignore the information and and consider defaulting on loans to be an ok solution if things don't work out.

End of the day, I think it's tough for young adults (and some of us "less young" adults) to change our plans. It's also tough to get the feedback that we might not be ready, prepared, qualified, etc. to do what we always wanted to do. These programs offer what is often false hope to keep that dream alive, when the better solution is to revise the dream.

 

[memedoctor]

I think many would.

Ah, but why would they when they could just get free lessons, right here, from you? ;-*

 

[StellaB]

These programs offer what is often false hope to keep that dream alive, when the better solution is to revise the dream.

We really need an expression for this phenomenon. I humbly suggest "kind to be cruel." Though it really is basically what any con artist does: locate the mark, and then furiously sell them on what they really wish to be true.

There are people actively taking out 250k in debt with the assumption that the government/taxpayers will bail them out through one mechanism or another.

In the now-deleted thread in which student debt was heavily discussed, I mentioned people I know who have astronomical levels of debt for their PhD, and only a small handful of those people I was thinking of attended programs that could be considered predatory. Some of them specifically cited PSLF as the reason for taking out more loans, with ample self-justification of course. They're not actively trying to rip anyone off, they just didn't seem to think about the full consequences of that mindset. There is a real moral hazard when we rely on programs that cap payments without capping the borrowing limit (notice how I put the onus here on policy, not individuals). This observation does not imply that everyone with student debt is some kind of idiot or horrible monster; it's just one part of a multifaceted social problem. I work with the SMI population, so I definitely do not buy the idea that it's the duty of each individual to make sure they aren't a "burden on society." It absolutely is the responsibility of our elected officials and policymakers to make sure these situations don't happen. Students shouldn't be able to go into so much debt. The only reason they can is our federal lending policies. And there is a direct relationship between how much predatory programs can charge for their courses and how much debt the federal government lets grad students take out.

 

[memedoctor]

Interesting that there isn't a market for predatory clown schools and that people aren't going into astronomical debt at more legitimate clown-schools to be clowns.

We really need an expression for this phenomenon. I humbly suggest "kind to be cruel." Though it really is basically what any con artist does: locate the mark, and then furiously sell them on what they really wish to be true.


In the now-deleted thread in which student debt was heavily discussed, I mentioned people I know who have astronomical levels of debt for their PhD, and only a small handful of those people I was thinking of attended programs that could be considered predatory. Some of them specifically cited PSLF as the reason for taking out more loans, with ample self-justification of course. They're not actively trying to rip anyone off, they just didn't seem to think about the full consequences of that mindset. There is a real moral hazard when we rely on programs that cap payments without capping the borrowing limit (notice how I put the onus here on policy, not individuals). This observation does not imply that everyone with student debt is some kind of idiot or horrible monster; it's just one part of a multifaceted social problem. I work with the SMI population, so I definitely do not buy the idea that it's the duty of each individual to make sure they aren't a "burden on society." It absolutely is the responsibility of our elected officials and policymakers to make sure these situations don't happen. Students shouldn't be able to go into so much debt. The only reason they can is our federal lending policies. And there is a direct relationship between how much predatory programs can charge for their courses and how much debt the federal government lets grad students take out.

This seems like the most balanced framing of the issue I've seen so far, though I maintain that the impact of the debt on the debt holders is a much, much bigger issue than the presumed loss of resources to society from people not being able to pay back over-inflated debt. That is an austerity framing that is a smokescreen for the people who profit from these institutions to get away with never facing a single consequence.

 

[Pragma]

The loan system is definitely a huge problem! Large sums of easy money that can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. A lot of us have been vocal about those systemic issues as well.

 

[WisNeuro]

The loan system is definitely a huge problem! Large sums of easy money that can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. A lot of us have been vocal about those systemic issues as well.

Definitely several culpable actors. Takes more than one to debt tango.

 

[StellaB]

Interesting that there isn't a market for predatory clown schools and that people aren't going into astronomical debt at more legitimate clown-schools to be clowns.

This seems like the most balanced framing of the issue I've seen so far, though I maintain that the impact of the debt on the debt holders is a much, much bigger issue than the presumed loss of resources to society from people not being able to pay back over-inflated debt. That is an austerity framing that is a smokescreen for the people who profit from these institutions to get away with never facing a single consequence.

Undoubtedly there has to be some kind of accountability or "skin in the game" for schools, as well as the debt processors, who are known bad actors. While each individual student's loan balance might not be that big of a deal, there is currently 1.5T in outstanding debt, of which the Brookings Institution estimates a substantial portion will be defaulted on. Because this debt is largely owed to the US government, on a whole, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that it aggregates across the board into a substantial problem. This isn't solely the fault of the borrowers, and many will pay back their loans plus truly unreasonable amounts of interest. But the problem wouldn't exist without all the players doing their part. Again, it's not black and white. While I don't necessarily agree with proposals to cancel all student debt outright (hardly seems fair considering many people could have used that type of hand-out who aren't intelligent enough to go to college), clearly something will have to be done, because the current situation is unsustainable and getting worse by the day. Perhaps the solution will be more along the lines of substantially reducing the interest owed on loans (which for most borrowers would take a very big bite out of the overall bill), preferably by forcing the loan handlers to take some loss. At the end of the day, the interest is the only negotiable part once the loans have been dispersed (except in the rare case of egregious abuse by the school that leads to lawsuits). The principal has been spent, on courses, food, housing, etc - that money has to come from somewhere. If it isn't coming from the student through paying back the loans, it's coming from the collective because federal loans are backed by tax revenue.

 

[Meteora]

I don't have anything meaningful to contribute other than a quote from my favorite Game of Thrones character Stannis Baratheon: Hard truths cut both ways.

 

[cara susanna]

I don't have anything meaningful to contribute other than a quote from my favorite Game of Thrones character Stannis Baratheon: Hard truths cut both ways.

Stannis the Mannis! The HBO adaptation did him SO dirty.

That is all that I have to contribute to this discussion. Thank you.

 

[WisNeuro]

In the immortal words of Passenger 57 "Always bet on black."