Student loan reform

[Hyena Dandy]

1) All athletic programs must be profitable or be slashed. Coaches are paid on the same scale as faculty. (No $3 million contracts for coaches, Bill Self). Athletes on scholarship are held to strict academic standards and must remain out of legal trouble. However, they can accept sponsorship deals provided a small percentage goes back to the University. (ETA: Eliminate the NCAA and the Division system.)

I disagree with the first part of this, that all athletic programs should be either profitable or cut. Most athletic programs aren't going to be profitable, usually only the football or basketball programs. We'll basically have no college athletics at all. That, I think, is not good. I like that college athletics exists. Exercise is good, and there shouldn't be a problem with an athletic program that loses money, if it serves the students. Schools should cater to all types of intelligence, and the intelligence used in athletics is something that should be catered to as well.

I agree with pretty much everything else you posted.

[AdminAssistant]

I meant by school. For example, the KU athletics program, as a whole, is profitable, largely due to the success of the basketball team. At any rate, I don't think athletics programs should be allowed to pull any money from the university's general funds.

[HYHYBT]

If you don't teach, you aren't faculty. That goes for Emeritus Faculty as well.

Now that's an odd one. Why should retired faculty still have to teach?

[AdminAssistant]

Why should they be getting Emeritus pay? Why should they still be listed as faculty?

[bainsidhe]

I like the idea of capping payments at 10% of income, if only because few students make the grand salaries colleges advertise right after they graduate. Most people can't afford $400/mo student loan payments on a retail salary.

BUT, I hesitate to support wiping away all student loan debt after 20 years. Why should taxpayers absorb the costs of written-off loans? Our country already has trouble being responsible about debt, and I dislike the idea of people spending a fortune on college, knowing full well that they'd never have to pay more than 10% of income for 20 years and then everything gets written off.

Instead, I'd like to see a plan towards reducing or waiving interest and/or penalties, so long as people continue paying towards their loans. That way even small payments will decrease the debt load, even if the loan is huge. Enough of having payments only go towards interest.

[mikoyan29]

Now that's an odd one. Why should retired faculty still have to teach?

I had a couple Emeritus Professors and they were pretty good. I don't think they should get a full load but they should teach a couple classes.

As for getting rid of the beer and circus atmosphere...good luck with that one. About the only way that will happen is if you require people to do some sort of service between high school and college and give them the chance to grow up. Even that wont help.

[HYHYBT]

Why should they be getting Emeritus pay? Why should they still be listed as faculty?

As I understand it, they don't get pay unless they are still working, or unless you consider a pension "pay." (If you do, it's on you to explain why they shouldn't have one when that's part of the bargain they made to work in the first place.)

Why shouldn't they be listed as faculty? Generally "emeritus" means retired. Leaving them on the roll is a way of honoring their time there *without costing anything*. And it doesn't confuse anybody who has any business attending college. So what's the problem?

[Panacea]

And if some people want to just pay minimum for 20 years so they don't have to pay the entire thing, go ahead and make payments to some group for 20 freaking years and willingly hurt yourself financially. That'd be a dumb move and wouldn't save you money.

Under the new regs, repayment is based on income. As peoples incomes generally rise as they move up the ladder, repayment will rise. Most people will pay off their loans and their "minimum" will be set with that in mind. Few people will actually have their loans forgiven, most people in jobs that don't pay well to start with like public education.

Yeah, something crazy like that. Of course, it won't happen, because colleges/universities have to appeal to 17-18 year olds, who have an annoying habit of being completely fucking stupid. (That is a generalization based on current experience at a major R-1 institution. There are many intelligent high schoolers in existence. Please don't yell at me.)

Oh, I forgot one. No official Greek system/Panhellenic council. It's unnecessary at best and extremely harmful at worst. We need to eliminate the 'beer and circus' atmosphere and get students refocused on academics so that they can do well in classes and graduate in 4 years.

I'll agree with that. The Greek system is outdated and prone to dangerous excesses. However, they are largely self supporting so it won't save much money.

BUT, I hesitate to support wiping away all student loan debt after 20 years. Why should taxpayers absorb the costs of written-off loans? Our country already has trouble being responsible about debt, and I dislike the idea of people spending a fortune on college, knowing full well that they'd never have to pay more than 10% of income for 20 years and then everything gets written off.

Most people will pay off the balance. As your income rises your payments will rise, too.

This system is very similar to the Dutch and Finnish systems, which work VERY well.

[HYHYBT]

The Greek system is outdated and prone to dangerous excesses. However, they are largely self supporting so it won't save much money.

Whatever cost there is is probably worth it. Not because fraternities and such are such great things, but because you can't really ban them outright (freedom of association and all that), and having an official system gives at least some leverage to get them to behave.

(I suspect that killing them off would also hurt the bottom line when it comes time to solicit alumni, but that's just a guess.)

[Hyena Dandy]

I meant by school. For example, the KU athletics program, as a whole, is profitable, largely due to the success of the basketball team. At any rate, I don't think athletics programs should be allowed to pull any money from the university's general funds.

So if the athletics system doesn't make money, then the school shouldn't have any athletics?

[AdminAssistant]

If a university can't afford to pay it's faculty and staff a decent living, then, no, it shouldn't have any athletics. Or it should at least focus on sports that aren't super expensive. My master's program, for example, didn't have a football team. Instead of paying a $100 athletics fee like I did at my undergrad and my current school, the fee was something like $30. Basketball, soccer, and track. Done.

[tabbyblack13]

I am currently paying off 2 student loans. They told me that I should be done paying it off in 10 years if I did minimum payments. I did my own calculations and declared Bullsh*t on that idea. To get out from under this debt I have been over paying each month. I have even paid off several of the small ones in full. This is mostly through keeping my spending in check and making sure that all of my bases are covered. When I chose my school I went to an out of state school that was half the cost of the closet college in my state. This really helped me out keeping costs down. I also worked during the summers and vacations to earn extra money.

As for the Greek system. Very little of the school's money goes to the Greek system. Most of the time it is supported by the members that pay dues. There are also fundraisers that they do to earn money for the Greek organization.

I seriously think that there are a lot of predatory companies out there that went into the loan business to make money. These companies are the ones with the high rates and no flexibility in payments. There was a lot of people that took these loans out thinking that the would make enough to cover the costs and still have the "Upper Middle Class" lifestyle. Everyone thought that a degree was the key to get an awesome job. It's not the truth anymore and people are suffering.

[Hyena Dandy]

If a university can't afford to pay it's faculty and staff a decent living, then, no, it shouldn't have any athletics. Or it should at least focus on sports that aren't super expensive. My master's program, for example, didn't have a football team. Instead of paying a $100 athletics fee like I did at my undergrad and my current school, the fee was something like $30. Basketball, soccer, and track. Done.

There's a difference between what you just said, and what you said earlier. You said if the athletics program doesn't make money for the school it should be cut. Now you're saying that if the university is losing money, they should take money out of the athletics budget. Those are two very different statements.

[AdminAssistant]

Now you're saying that if the university is losing money, they should take money out of the athletics budget.

I never said that. I said that schools that can't afford to pay faculty/staff shouldn't have athletics. Simply not having a football team can save you a million dollars a year. Our athletic program is profitable, but I still think we should dump the football team. It's awful, an embarrassment, and extremely expensive. Cut it.

Also, if they're going to tie professor salaries directly to performance (tenure/raises being dependent on student evaluations and publication), then that's how coaches should be paid as well.

To simplify: I would like universities to prioritize education instead of athletics and other extras. Hell, our student union has a bowling alley, a hair salon, and tanning beds. That's dumb. There's a million better uses for that money: better food services with longer hours, longer library hours, cheaper childcare for students, better technology. Maybe even hiring an IT staff that actually knows what the fuck they're doing. Hell, basic infrastructure at most universities is just crumbling....plumbing, HVAC, electricity. This is a significant problem that must be addressed.

[Hyena Dandy]

I understand where you're coming from with that. I would like them to prioritize academics over athletics as well.

There would be some difficulty tying coaches to performance, though. At least with student evaluations,

Our athletic program is profitable, but I still think we should dump the football team. It's awful, an embarrassment, and extremely expensive. Cut it.

That I don't understand. Its extremely expensive, BUT its making the school money?

I'm not trying to fight here, I'm just confused by what you said.