Pretty simple to only offer federal student loans for STEM undergrads or teachers. The public has an interest in the labor pool having these degrees. OTOH, why should your tax dollars subsidize underwater basket weaving? If someone wants to study that, more power to them, but I don't want to pay for it. Even if it's just in the form of tax credits.
Chris McClellan
- Thread starter cr8zyncalif
- Start date
Pretty simple to only offer federal student loans for STEM undergrads or teachers. The public has an interest in the labor pool having these degrees. OTOH, why should your tax dollars subsidize underwater basket weaving? If someone wants to study that, more power to them, but I don't want to pay for it. Even if it's just in the form of tax credits.
Does the public not have an interest in jobs that pay well and collect more taxes? If you command top dollar for your water soaked baskets and pay more taxes than teachers is there no value there?
I understand the thinking behind investing in degrees that lead to well paying jobs and jobs with a certain level of public interest.
Im advocating for degrees that maybe you or I dont have any idea could lead to other avenues of revenue. I have 0 use for my sport management degree. I am confident I could turn an art degree into 6 figures. Hell, I dont have an art degree and Im about to do it.
Why did these sub prime loans happen in the first place Ed ? Do tell us. If someone forced me to make loans, made the rules so loose that anyone with a pulse could qualify, what would you expect Earl to do with that paper ? Keep it ? Lol.
So, like every other discussion on this board, you're going to argue the point using a sample size of one.
Our higher education system is broken, perhaps irreparably. That is not a point that is up for discussion or argument; tuition has outpaced inflation by 400% (iirc) and can be contributed almost entirely to administrative bloat. Nobody gave a shit if someone decided to spend their tuition that they earned every summer on a degree with very few job prospects, such as a Fine arts degree, mostly because it wasn't creating a gigantic vacuum in our economy while enriching those who apparently have zero interest in the welfare of their students or society as a whole. Make no doubt about it - the $16k education I got back in 95 is just as good as the $45k education kids are getting now. The difference is that putting $16k on a 20 year fed loan is the equivalent of the cable bill every month, whereas an education today will cost you somewhere between a nice midsize car payment and a mortgage payment.
In theory I don't have an issue supporting the arts, but it shouldn't be just any hippie who thinks they can paint getting tax dollars for 4 years. Like many European countries, we could run an apprenticeship program and student have to show aptitude and drive/ desire to pursue the coursework, not just "meh, I guess I'll try art and see if I like it." The current financial situation simply doesn't allow for that, and honestly school administrators should be providing more guidance for students.
But more than anything else, this discussion should start and end with getting tuition costs back to a point where a hard working kid could would part time and summers and pay their tuition. Working 40 hrs/wk for 12 weeks in the summer plus 20 hrs/wk for the rest of the year is around 13k/ year. There's your number.
Easy...return. Greed.
And you know how it was solved? Make companies hold their own paper, cant pass crap loans on. Try getting a jumbo loan right now. Funny when these companies lend their own money how conservative their underwriting is.
Jumbo loans are held within the bank or mortgage company. They do not sell these loans. Maybe Countrywide had it right...lend to everyone, and when your company starts to go out of business all of a sudden you become a socialist, take govt money, get Leo Mazzilo 160 million for making crappy loans and have BOFA take over. Meanwhile unsuspecting people had the show drop, market crashed and they lose their house. Meanwhile , Countrywide CEO is living large. Makes sense to me.
This. A big part of the administrative bloat is supporting programs that have low demand and few prospects. You want an art degree? Go to art school. Better yet, you want to make art? Make art. You don't need a degree, if you have talent, you'll make some money. Save the tuition money. If you want to be an artist, nobody's going to ask for your transcript. If you want to be an engineer, they will.
Best way to get tuition dollars down is to dump programs and professors who aren't productive. If you have more faculty in a department than you have students, its time for some cuts. Also, kill the tenure system. Nobody gets to stay just because they've been there a while. If they don't produce, they're gone.
Also, kill at least half of the positions that only exist to try and prevent anyone from getting their feelings hurt. (Replace them with one position that teaches as class called "Adulting 101." Learning objective is to realize that 1) the world isn't fair, and sometimes things will happen that you don't like; and 2) it's up to you to take care of yourself and find your own path. Take the training wheels off your life and get moving.)
And then, eliminate half of the positions that have the word "vice" in the title, half of the positions with "assistant" as the first word in the title, and all of the positions that have both words in the title.
It looks like I'm going to find out about the validity of your thinking. My daughter appears to be set on attending the Colorado School of Mines to study Chemical Engineering. The school focuses primarily on engineering and science classes and only has the bare minimum of other courses available in other areas to support those classes.
I will say that although I generally agree that people shouldn't be going tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get a degree that doesn't significantly boost employment opportunities, I do believe that a well rounded education makes for a better engineer. WSU put a significant emphasis on writing (and still does) compared to other schools and I write better reports than anyone else in my office. What sucks is that I get stuck writing a lot of technical reports. Taking humanities and history classes makes a person better informed when they are making decisions at the ballot box and in life. So, I think you have to be careful about cutting too deep.
On the comment about escalating costs at universities, my daughter is part of the problem. One of the main reasons that she ended up not picking WSU is that the Chemical Engineering program at Wazzu is housed in a hand-me-down building that was abandoned by the Vet Med program when they got new buildings. The other schools that she is looking at have buildings that were purpose built for ChemE or at least engineering. That costs a lot of money to do. To me, it's insane that she is wanting to attend a school that will cost her over $200k before she is done, but then again, out of state at WSU is over $160k now. I told her that we have a college fund established plus another $6k per year in support that we'll provide. Anything over that amount is on her. Still the facilities arms race that is going on at universities on the academics side is a big cost driver for higher education and in most cases, there is limited upside to the money being spent. That old Vet Med building has all the classrooms and labs that the ChemE program needs, it's just in a weird spot on campus by itself and doesn't look as flashy as the new multi-million dollar lab that DuPont paid for at KU (her current backup plan).
Kids went from being ok with basic, military style dorms to needing luxury suites, it's not a great development.
My niece got a degree in social work at WSU. Hasn't used it once. My nephew got a degree in Construction Safety Management from CWU. He stepped out of college into an 80k a year job with Granite Construction. That was 6 years ago. He's now making over 100k in Cali with Granite.
My daughter (THIS month) is pre-law at WSU.
My daughter (THIS month) is pre-law at WSU.
In both WA and OR there is a dearth of social workers at the DSHS, and it's been that way for years. I can't help but find the irony in the fact that these two true blue, highly progressive states won't fund the dshs as it needs to be.
Well, it's been 10+ years ago for her so things may have been a little different back then job wise. Honestly I think the realities of the actual job and what her expectations were may not have lined up... shocking, I know!
Btw, she ended up working in the entertainment industry first in LA then in Vegas booking events, private parties, etc for celebrities and athletes. That lasted until the hours got to her and the gleam wore off. She's a married stay at home mom of two now. I have no idea if she's still paying off her loans for the degree she never used...
The statistics still say that you earn more with a college degree. But that leaves out the cost side of the equation of getting that "better job." The old days of just going to college and getting a degree that would float you to the top of the labor market are long gone. Kids need to have a good (not perfect, kids can and should change their minds) understanding of what they want to do, what they're willing to pay, and what the prospects are for their intended filed, before signing the FAFSA and mortgaging their futures. I'm sure it wasn't all that different in the early 90s when I was heading to college, but there is a shocking naivety in a lot of kids. Especially those whose parents are not college educated about exactly how the higher education system can fleece you.
My son is going to WSU next year. Within the last two years he wanted to be a music teacher, a music engineer (I don't really know what this is, I think recording and/or running the A/V systems for a stadium or arena) firefighter, foreign service officer, and I don't remember what else. Of those jobs, teaching and firefighter would fit him the best, IMO and have the best prospects for future employment. He barely got through Spanish, so I have no idea where the foreign service thing came from.
Sorry you are dead wrong about politicians influence in the sun prime space . They did it because of return . “W” wasn’t even around when Ocwen mortgage would come into the office peddling their product .
Not sure what the “foreclosure” loan added to “new” people coming into yeh market place . Rates had zip to do with the crash . It had to do with liquidity .
World Savings in 1993 had a 30 % down loan for borrowers like Donald Trump who didn’t show income on their returns . Their 1040. The loan was for those skilled in writing off every penny. It was designed for self employed .
Then Great Western brought in the 25% down NIV loan . Then the race was on . Green Point and Aurora Savjngs and Loan(Lehman) had a zero down fourplex loan for investors . That has ZERO to do with the government wanting everyone to be in a home . It was solely about return .
Rates in 06 were at 6.5%. The tick up was part of the reason for the meltdown ? No... it was allowing the kid workinb at Denny’s to buy a 500k house working as waiter or waitress . When the water heater blew he/she couldn’t afford the mortgage payment . Then liquidity issues came about . So they could no longer reset the mortgages that were three months behind cause the foreclosures caused more inventory than demand . While George may have wished for more home ownership this was about greed and making crappy loans . Notice it wasn’t Fannie or Freddie that came out with these products in 97 98 etc .
Ed- the purpose of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 was to promote affordable housing. Thirty percent of Fannie and Freddie loan purchases had to he "affordable housing" pushing up mortgage loans for low and moderate income borrowers to 50 percent of annual purchases, then up higher during the Bush administration. Guess what that means- more subprime.
Ummmm....Fannie and Freddie weren't writing sub prime loans until they came up with "Alt A" in 2006. . Sub prime wasn't even around in 1992. Tell me how many FHA loans were written in that time.
So are we still claimingthe push for home ownership? Is that why "Non Prime" is making its way back into the market place.
Fannie and Freddie don't write loans. Fannie and Freddie buy them.
And yes, the government wants people to own property. Your pal Biden talks about building wealth through home ownership. The governments get their taxes.
Sorry...business lingo regarding Fannie and Freddie . Thanks for clarifying for people who aren't reading these posts. They are underwritten to Fannie and Freddie standards. Fannie and Freddie did not "BUY" sub prime loans when the explosion came out. Feel free to talk about Biden Bush, Clinton. They had zero to do with the explosion of Sub Prime. Trust me when I tell you, Countrywide didn't develop a BC division to promote home ownership. They were developed to get yield. Look at the number of refis that went through the subprime channel (more industry lingo...so feel free to argue there are no TV channels in the subprime market) from 97 to 2007.
Do you know who Lane Sapp is? Granite falls high graduate who started MILA. Trust me he didn't start MILA because a Clinton or Bush "mandate". And if you want his number to ask him personally I will get it for you.
And his operation feel apart (like all Sub Prime Loans) when he couldn't get money to fund the loans. When the mortgage backed securities went bad there was no funding for these loans. Not because interest rates went up or any other BS excuse.
I don't trust you, and you don't know what you're talking about.
Since you're proclaiming your knowledge and expertise here, go ahead and explain the purpose of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
BTW, his first name is Layne.
I could care less if you "trust me". Simply telling you what happened.
Since you know how to spell Layne's first name, tell me about his lawsuit, and how he makes money these days.
They appropriated funds in 93 and 94 for low and moderate housing, among other things that were to enhance the bill from 1937ish.
Again. Subprime wasn't even around in 93. Argue all you want....Subprime was developed for margin. You think New Century said "hey in 1975 they have the community reinvestment act, we better get on board because Clinton and Bush wanted everyone to be a home owner?
Why do you think they paid the originator another point to 2 points to extend a 2 year prepay to a three year prepay? Why do you think a heavy mix of their business was refinances? Why do you think a guy like UW's Scott Greenlaw who had a nice lake front house and his frat/business in Kirkland went out of business when the market crashed? Their sub prime business was heavily loaded with refinances and no funding.
In 1992, 1993, 1994 when the appropriations came out there was FHA to accommodate low income and credit problem files. They had the bandwidth to handle all of that business.
Please tell me how these two loans helped with home ownership....WAMU 10% down investment loan that was negative AM. Please tell me how that is helping low and moderate income people to "own" a home. How does Aurora Loan Servicing's zero down, stated income, investment loan with a 630 credit score on a fourplex help low and moderate income people buy a home.
When it did come to purchases, subprime took over for FHA, and the reason why is because of margin to the company. That is why now a loan originator can't be compensated for the margin to the company. They have a fixed compensation. Get someone in on a three year prepay probably paid 6 points to originate that loan. You do the math on a 300,000 dollar loan.
Again, none of this was "government" driven. It was about capitalism. And guess what, one small piece of regulation would have prevented the mortgage meltdown, ad it would have not affected the buyers ability to get financing, and sub prime would have never been around.
Ed, the one thing that your post fails to account for is that Republican policy makers, in the pursuit of "small government" and the desire to put Fannie Mae out of business, loosened up lending rules to allow private companies to take on more loans in the late 90's. FWIW, Clinton didn't keep it from happening as he and Democrats pursued an agenda that opened up home ownership to minorities and the poor. In the early 2000's, the Fed dramatically dropped interest rates that then started dropping the cost to enter the market. This was done to "stimulate the economy".....a common practice of Republican leadership. The combination of reduced regulation and low interest rates inspired rising prices where idiots who had no business buying houses started buying based on house payment instead of price, often ignoring the ARM loans and other scams that looser lending rules were allowing to happen. You are absolutely right that greed and #profits were the main drivers, but it was the elimination of government oversight and regulation that provided the opportunity.
Unfortunately, Republicans have eliminate a lot of the safeguards that were put in place after the 2008 housing crisis, so we are seeing the same bubbles forming again. People never learn. As far as "stimulating the economy" goes, there is a reason that there has been a recession late in every Republican President's terms for the past 40 years. Nature seeks equilibrium and artificial stimulus always results in a pullback at some point. You just have to hope that you make profits in the good times and don't get hurt too bad in the hard times and that is some other poor bastard holding the bag.
I didn't bring in the advent of the mortgage backed securities which allowed these sub prime loans to bundled and sold. Again, private companies were simply looking for yield. To say it was because the federal govt wanted increase home ownership is simply inaccurate. If that were the case Wall Street would not have had derivatives and credit default swaps which had zip to do with home lending.
It is like anything else, there was money to be made in the subprime space. It was never regulated and was a giant monster that got out of hand.
Freddie, Fsannie, VA and FHA could have easily handled the demand and supply of teh day. Take a peek at FHA's numbers when sub prime came into existence. No one sent loans to FHA because it could have easily been the difference between $2500 to the originator and 9 grand,.
Is "non prime" trying to come into the market place because of the "every one needs to be a home owner mantra"...the answer is no.
Your jealousy of others is apparent.
Maybe the third time will be the charm- What was the purpose of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992?
Who and what I am jealous of....that I know when Subprime came into play and why?
Why do so many of your posts reference a lakehouse, or someone owning a business, or a PPP loan?
Fourth time the charm? What was the purpose of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992?
When did they "just drop" their credit score. Let me ask you one question...do you believe FHA is approving The automated underwriting min down at 550? And how many investors do you know who will buy and service a score that low. Wells and Chase at last glance will not go below 640. Cross Country with exception will go to 580. But you have to have an AUS approval. And those approvals typically come with over 20% down...which isn't your typical FHA buyer.
Gawd you are really clueless. Jealous? I am lucky, I get to enjoy those comforts. I bring it up on how congress spends money, and how there is a lack of guard rails who got the PPP money, and the lack of fiscal restraint. And it was about people getting 1400 a month. And so I am clear, I have issue with people who have taken a hit in income but are still easily making it and they still get 1400. BUT....if our congress people are going to dispense money like a Pez dispenser, then those who were fiscally reckless in giving PPP money to businesses who didn't "need" the money, then don't start getting fiscally responsible when "Joe the Plumber" gets a little boost. Sorry you missed the greater point about fiscal responsibility.
“How” let me help you out. I know a kid who was in the AAU program I volunteered for who probably had a sub 950 SAT score . The kid just doesn’t test well.
You could not tell visually she multi-racial. When she was born the “guideline” was if she was even 1/32 black that is what was suppose to be put on her birth certificate.
She had a great grandfather who was on the back of the bus when he went off to war. (Meanwhile her grandfathers brother who had lighter skin could have been in the front of the bus)
But the moral of this story is the girl with the sub 950 sat score made it into Oregon , WSU, western , ups, plu, central . While a limited sample the school she decided on She had a very good start to her college career from what has been relayed to me.
Guess what ... she is white. She did not use any minority status she could have claimed to help her make it into school. She is not using any federal aid . Her college is paid for.
The worse case is she doesn’t fulfill all four years of her education. But she gets the benefits of being away at college, being around various array of people and thoughts.
So not sure how this benefits just the “woke” people.
I thought I gave you the answer but let me give you another one... to promote low and moderate income hone ownership g to through of the use sub prime lending sponsored by Congress either funded orTax cuts to entities that weren’t even around until 6 years later ?
OK, so you have heard of one person who you think you know her SAT score, think you have an idea of other particulars of her situation and specific aspects of her college application, like which boxes she checked, who is in a college somewhere (your sentence cut off), and you think they're doing OK. So this verbose, oddly specific yet indeterminate anecdote makes the case. Cool.
I don't think I know the SAT score, I know it. I don't think I know the particulars of the situation, I know it.
Since I volunteered for a group of basketball kids for the last 8 plus years, I write letters of recommendation, know parents personal finances etc. When the above mentioned kid's mother told me her daughter's SAT score, I mentioned she had "WOKE" advantages she should look into. The mother and the kid said "it is what it is" when referring to her SAT score, that her GPA will either compensate for the lack of a decent score or it won't.
It cracks me up, we cheer on guys like Leon, Eaton, Pointer etc...this is a football board and never ONE mention about their lack of scores. Not one. No one really mentions Mike Prices sub 50% grad rate. No one mentions the lack of true student athletes Doba and Wulff produced. No one mentioned that Leach's classes from 14 to 16 had a sub 50% grad rate. I am not using Mike Price's formula when he had a class of 20 and ten players remained in the class and 9 out of 10 graduated. I am using the rate of incoming freshman who signed with WSU to that who actually graduated.
In 2018 I watched our office manager at work hire two UW grad woman, one had a soc degree, the other had a math degree. Their pay and responsibilities t was what a 19 year old high school would earn at our company. But they did have 1400 plus SAT scores.
As I mentioned I volunteered for AAU basketball. And I watched a guy whose kids attended a private school. He helped two minority kids get into that private school. He helped feed one of them, and I am sure the WIAA had a problem with him.
Both kids will be the first two graduate college in their entire family. One from an IVY league school, another from a lower division school, but academically very intense. That is life changing they had that opportunity. An opportunity to be honest if they hadn't played hoops they would not have met the right people.
But back to the person I originally mentioned, if you have issue with her admittance feel free to call WSU's admission office....personally I applaud their decision...whether the kid graduates or not.
You know how Ed rolls. Anecdotes and outliers become the Iron Laws.
Got it. Sort of like the wall. A wish list in which Mexico never was going to pay for it.
Surprised you didn't bring up the CRA of 1975. That impacted what happened in the 2000's as much as politicians stating they wanted everyone to become homeowners.
FHA always serviced first time homebuyers. That didn't change in 1992 thru 2000. There was no government support for subprime. What caused the explosion was not the government stating they wanted more sub prime loans, it was the securitizing of the sub prime loans.
On the site's home page today is an offer to a second Owasso kid; Jake Clifton. Interesting. Something going on there...
An offer for what?
A HUD loan or a chance to retake the SAT?
It is hard to tell from this thread.
OK...so here is a link from the WazzuWatch home page. Sorry I wasn't clear enough regarding that it was this site's home page...
https://washingtonstate.rivals.com/news/rec-cougs-offer-under-the-radar-2022-ath-from-oklahoma
Similar threads
