12-03-2017, 07:03 PM
(12-03-2017, 03:29 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(12-03-2017, 05:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-03-2017, 12:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(12-02-2017, 06:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The student loan and tuition rebate treatment merely levels the playing field with those who save for their own or their kids' education. Why should people who manage their money well be penalized relative to those who save nothing and depend on loans or payment in kind for their education?
Tell me how a poor child with great college scores and great talent can save $80K for college through work. The savings that most kids have for college end up going for clothes, recreational reading, an occasional movie ticket, a dinner date, or maybe (if 21+) a drink.
A kid with great college scores and great talent should have no problem saving $20k/year from a part time job. That said, the bill doesn't prevent people from taking out loans; it just stops advantaging such people over those who work their way through college or save first.
$20K a year from a part-time job? Millions work full-time jobs and get much less than that. Working-class kids have expenses like commuting costs, clothes, food...
Millions don't have "great college scores and great talent". Those without the scores and talent shouldn't be going to college in the first place.
Quote:Quote:Quote:We are going to throw away talent that could be our great engineers, creative people, and executives, perhaps to be domestic servants and farm laborers because they cannot pay taxes on a college scholarship.
Scholarships continue not to be taxed. It's only people who are being paid partially through tuition forgiveness that are now taxed on that pay - you know, same as if they were paid the full amount in the first place and then used some of that money for their tuition payments. Basically the law just closed a loophole that permitted universities to bilk grant payers - usually the taxpayer - by artificially inflating their tuition rates.
The work that gets the tuition forgiveness is often a condition of work for a degree, typically research or graduate teaching. Research and graduate teaching are legitimate parts of graduate-sch9ool education because of their connection to what one does with a graduate degree -- quite often, research or teaching.
It's never required to get an RA or TA to get a graduate degree. Research is required, sure, but some people pay their own way, and do the research without being paid for it. If students want to get a TA or an RA, that's fine, but they shouldn't expect taxpayer subsidies. If they can't get an actual scholarship, it should be easy to get the minimal loans required to cover the difference - though I doubt they'll have to since the universities will likely change their policies to make things work, once they can't milk the taxpayer as much any more.
Quote:One of the schools mentioned for such a practice is MIT. You know what its students are like, and how desirable their research can be.
Some of the research is top notch. Most of it is forgotten as soon as it's published. Some of it is misleading and we'd be better off without it.