Student loans... worse than we thought

[lne937s]

It is clear you have several deep-seated misconceptions that I doubt I will be able to change, however:

Did your parents ever earn income and claim you on their taxes?

A tax break is NOT a subsidy.

A tax break is, by definition, a subsidy. This is especially the case with refundable tax credits, where people get back more than they pay in. Does it really make a difference to you which government agency cuts the check?
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpol ... sidies.htm

Did you go to public school or have your parents write off private school?

A public school. Schools are funded by property taxes. You pay for schools whether you rent or own because the cost is part of the rent. My parents paid for my school.

~1/3 of public school funding comes from property taxes. And everybody pays those, whether or not they have kids. Based on your description, chances are other people paid significantly more in property taxes for your education than your parents. It is the taxpayers as a whole who have paid for your education, and people without children and with higher incomes pay more in taxes.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp

And if the taxpayers are going to spend ~$140k on your public education, I expect you to learn about more than just state history and American literature.

They don't and I did.

Maybe you were educated years ago and this statement would have to be stipulated adjusted for inflation. However,
"Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States amounted to $632 billion in 2010–11, or $12,608 per public school student" Multiplied by 13 years (as kindergarten students are included in the average), that would work out to be $163,904 for someone who graduated. Granted, some students cost more than others and some areas are more expensive than others, but $140k is a conservative estimate.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

"Financial education (as well as the basic math needed to comprehend it) should be an essential part of public education in its objective to create a productive workforce.

Or parents could teach their kids. It's not the government's job to parent someone's kids, it's theirs.

And like I said, the information is out there and available for everyone already. Hell, I learned a lot from Hitman and the others here on NICO. If you can't find the information, you're doing it wrong. I would rather have a school that teaches our kids how to learn and not how to think.

Over 100 years ago, as we left an agrarian economic base behind, we determined that teaching children things they weren't learning from their often illiterate parents improved the outcomes of those kids and benefitted our economy as a whole. Those parents could have taught themselves to read and learn basic math, the books were out there, and they could have taught their kids to read. Or those kids could have taught themselves. However, it was in the best interest of our country to teach them.

We currently live in a country with many financially illiterate people. Many people, even those with decent incomes, are heavily in debt. Students are running up loans. Many people will rely solely on Social Security and government benefits for retirement. And much of our debt is being held by foreign entities. Giving students basic financial education will help them comprehend future developments and make better financial decisions. It is in the best interest of our country to teach children what they are not learning from their parents about finances.

[OriginalWheelman]

Over 100 years ago, as we left an agrarian economic base behind, we determined that teaching children things they weren't learning from their often illiterate parents improved the outcomes of those kids and benefitted our economy as a whole. Those parents could have taught themselves to read and learn basic math, the books were out there, and they could have taught their kids to read. Or those kids could have taught themselves. However, it was in the best interest of our country to teach them.

I was going to respond but this piece of ignorant trash proves you're not getting the core concept. Teaching yourself to read is not the same as going to google and searching. It's not feasible in those circumstances for someone to teach themselves to read. It is feasible for a kid today to go to google, search, and read. This analogy doesn't even make sense. I'm done with this.

[lne937s]

What I said really wasn't an analogy, I stated the reason why we have public education and described the current situation regarding financial literacy, which clearly fits within that paradigm. Financial education would benefit individuals and the nation as a whole, and the cost for an adjustment of curriculum would undoubtedly be justified by the benefit.

And if you think that a Google search is an adequate replacement for a formal financial education, you obviously do not know how much you do not know. Relying on self-educating through Google is problematic on many levels:
- Many people do not have the fundamental knowledge needed to understand and evaluate what they are looking at
- The internet is filled with misinformation that many people do not have the ability to properly analyze
- There are a lot of people intentionally painting distorted pictures to make a buck on investments with dubious prospects (e.g., gold bullion)
- Many people do not know where to look to find the right information, and do not have the ability to prioritize the information available (especially the case when reading prospectuses, balance sheets and income statements)
- Confirmation bias leads people to seek out information in searches that reinforces their preconceived notions and what they want to hear. If someone wants to believe buying a new car on a $20k income with no savings is a wise move, they can undoubtedly find an army of people who will tell them it is. And without someone giving people the whole picture or a countering position (especially without training to properly analyze the situation), people get a more and more distorted picture, which eventually leads them to believe anyone with a countering position is "ignorant".
- While it is easy to find the rewards or benefits of a loan or investment, the true risks, costs and alternatives are typically harder to find. As such, if you want to believe something is a good investment, chances are you will easily be able to convince yourself of it if you haven't been taught the right questions to ask.
- People without a formal education will tend to use confirmation bias to reinforce their instincts... which are typically wrong in finance. People want to invest when the market is doing well and pull their money out when it goes down-- the opposite of "buy low, sell high". This is not only bad for their personal finances but also has the net effect of making capital less accessible when it is needed most, hurting the overall economy...

And the list goes on and on. There is a reason why people with MBA's in Finance make a lot of money, and they don't just accept "I Googled it" as a replacement. But regardless, it is obvious that on both an individual and national level that this country could greatly benefit from some basic financial education.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Jeez, MoD, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

As much as you detest it, I love it. Not only am I student, I'm a tutor at the college as well, and one day hope to become a professor.

I have TREMENDOUS respect for good teachers. Genuinely good teachers are the single most rare and valuable thing in the universe--and that's true whether in the context of school and education as well as anywhere else. The problem (and I think what separates my view of school from those debating with me) is that I don't have some idealized view of school as a magical place where everyone comes together to share wisdom and experience. That's what it SHOULD be, and what I would be ecstatic to see it become. And if every professor was like my old Physics or Electronics professor, or perhaps like you, that might become the reality. But they're not. 99% of my professors were passionless, soulless, life-trudging, miserable heaps. It's impossible to impart passion about learning in any form (nevermind your own classroom subject) if you don't bring any passion to the teaching of that subject. With one exception, I have never met a single professor who was half as excited to be teaching as I was to be learning and, like Bernoulli's principle, their absent enthusiasm rapidly curbed my own.

It's great to talk about the wonders of what education can be when it works. It's the fact that it rarely works right, and in fact has become wrong by design, that I take such profound issue with. School long ago stopped being about learning. Now, it's about the motions and the ritual. And there's nothing in life that disgusts me more than ritual.

[Jesda]

[Bubba1]