2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[theprestige]

The idea is, you loan people money because you're confident they'll pay it back.

Turns out, a lot of people aren't paying it back.

Sane solution: Stop loaning the money.

Warren solution: Give the money away for free.

If it's not profitable, why pay for it at all?

 

[Ziggurat]

Reducing funding would be disastrous. We are putting an untenable burden on students. The loan burdens the average student incurs is unacceptable. When I went to college the government paid for a significant percentage of my costs through various programs including Pell grants. I think I graduated with about 4K in student debt. Today, we have students graduating with sometimes 150K in debt and then cannot pay off the loan.

Something has to be done.

I absolutely agree that the government should underwrite vocational and STEM type majors.

Government funding of student loans is a major factor in inflating those costs in the first place. An abrupt halt would be disruptive, but a drawdown over time would likely drive cost reduction as well.

 

[acbytesla]

Government funding of student loans is a major factor in inflating those costs in the first place. An abrupt halt would be disruptive, but a drawdown over time would likely drive cost reduction as well.

Only a Republican thinks that way. The best way to reduce costs is to prevent people from being able to afford a good education,

Let's see the effect. A less educated work force sending more jobs overseas and a greater divide between the haves and have nots. Congratulations.

 

[Brainster]

Not everyone should go to college. That's a massive waste of money.



Can you say "moral hazard"? How about "perverse incentive"?

Well, she does reduce the debt forgiven by $1 for every $3 in income over $100k, so it isn't completely stupid, at least not that way.

Sounds insane. And desperate.

In a way, you could argue that it's an attempt to prop up the current system, which won't be able to last much longer in this internet age. I've taken courses on Coursera, and that seems like the future of higher education long-term. You won't get the personal attention you might in college, and you won't get the college experience, but you also won't get saddled with a huge debt.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, she does reduce the debt forgiven by $1 for every $3 in income over $100k, so it isn't completely stupid, at least not that way.

In a way, you could argue that it's an attempt to prop up the current system, which won't be able to last much longer in this internet age. I've taken courses on Coursera, and that seems like the future of higher education long-term. You won't get the personal attention you might in college, and you won't get the college experience, but you also won't get saddled with a huge debt.

I too have taken some Coursera courses. They're great for some things and not so good for others. You really can't learn to be a doctor or a dentist or a nuclear engineer online. You're not going to be able to use a linear accelerator or an electron microscope sitting in your underwear at home. I developed my speaking skills at college. Not going to be able to do that online either. Learning how to write well is not that suitable for online learning either.

But that's all evolving.

 

[Craig4]

It would be nice to hear a candidate start talking about things that don't cost the public money and reduce costs. Why does it take four years for an undergraduate degree when in all of Europe it takes three? Does everyone need all the core classes and required electives. Does everyone who goes to college need the same qualification? In the UK there are a variety of qualifications like the university diploma of higher education, foundation degrees and honors or without honors degrees. There are also graduate diplomas in some disciplines that aren't a full masters. Instead of throwing money at the problem, it would be nice to hear from candidates who are willing to look at how we educate people and does what we're doing make sense?

 

[acbytesla]

It would be nice to hear a candidate start talking about things that don't cost the public money and reduce costs. Why does it take four years for an undergraduate degree when in all of Europe it takes three? Does everyone need all the core classes and required electives. Does everyone who goes to college need the same qualification? In the UK there are a variety of qualifications like the university diploma of higher education, foundation degrees and honors or without honors degrees. There are also graduate diplomas in some disciplines that aren't a full masters. Instead of throwing money at the problem, it would be nice to hear from candidates who are willing to look at how we educate people and does what we're doing make sense?

I agree 100 percent. One of America's biggest problems IMV is doing things the way they have always been done. Processes, methods etc become entrenched and it's often ridiculously hard to change the paradigms.

 

[angrysoba]

New candidate: Seth Moulton, Congressman from Massachusetts. Biden is supposed to announce Wednesday. I must have missed Tim Ryan's and Eric Swallwell's announcements That makes 18 people who have been elected to some office in the land. Still not including Andrew Yang.
In Or At Least Exploring (By Current or Highest Office Held):

Governors:
Jay Inslee
John Hickenlooper

Senators:
Corey Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Mike Gravel
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

US Representatives:
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Seth Moulton
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Eric Swallwell

Cabinet Members:
Julian Castro

Mayors:
Pete Buttegieg
Wayne Messam

Not included:
Andrew Yang

Unannounced But Considered Likely:

Vice Presidents:
Joe Biden

Senators:
Michael Bennet

Mayors:
Bill De Blasio

FTFY

 

[Brainster]

I too have taken some Coursera courses. They're great for some things and not so good for others. You really can't learn to be a doctor or a dentist or a nuclear engineer online. You're not going to be able to use a linear accelerator or an electron microscope sitting in your underwear at home.

A lot of courses that doctors and dentists and nuclear engineers take can be taught online; not everything is in a lab setting.

I developed my speaking skills at college. Not going to be able to do that online either. Learning how to write well is not that suitable for online learning either.

Why not? You can upload your speeches online and your fellow classmates can review them. Or you could join Toastmasters. As for learning how to write well, I can't imagine a subject more suited to online education.

 

[acbytesla]

A lot of courses that doctors and dentists and nuclear engineers take can be taught online; not everything is in a lab setting.

Some courses sure. But there is a limit. And my experience with Coursera were mixed. It's a lot harder and easier to do things online. Feedback and encouragement can make a huge difference.

Why not? You can upload your speeches online and your fellow classmates can review them. Or you could join Toastmasters. As for learning how to write well, I can't imagine a subject more suited to online education.

It really makes a huge difference speaking in front of people. It's like the difference acting on film or a video and live theater. There is no substitute for an audience.

 

[Venom]

It really makes a huge difference speaking in front of people. It's like the difference acting on film or a video and live theater. There is no substitute for an audience.

Right, with the control of body language and all.

Students might have to be pressured into doing a presentation against their wishes to complete the curriculum. If students were given a choice I bet most of them would not want to speak at all, much less seek training outside of a normal classroom setting.

 

[tyr_13]

The idea is, you loan people money because you're confident they'll pay it back.

Turns out, a lot of people aren't paying it back.

Sane solution: Stop loaning the money.

Warren solution: Give the money away for free.

If it's not profitable, why pay for it at all?

Because a highly educated citizenry and workforce is a compelling interest of a nation, if and only if, it wishes to remain competitive internationally. Simplifying it to the loans themselves being a direct profit center or not misses the point.

If the loans aren't working for their intended purpose, or have significant detrimental effects, it could well be a perfectly reasonable move to start 'giving the money away for free'.

 

[theprestige]

Because a highly educated citizenry and workforce is a compelling interest of a nation, if and only if, it wishes to remain competitive internationally. Simplifying it to the loans themselves being a direct profit center or not misses the point.

If the loans aren't working for their intended purpose, or have significant detrimental effects, it could well be a perfectly reasonable move to start 'giving the money away for free'.

You're missing a very important step in this process.

 

[acbytesla]

Because a highly educated citizenry and workforce is a compelling interest of a nation, if and only if, it wishes to remain competitive internationally. Simplifying it to the loans themselves being a direct profit center or not misses the point.

If the loans aren't working for their intended purpose, or have significant detrimental effects, it could well be a perfectly reasonable move to start 'giving the money away for free'.

Very well said!

 

[acbytesla]

You're missing a very important step in this process.

I think YOU'RE missing the point. We can either have a dumb uneducated workforce that believes in creationism and think science is some kind of liberal conspiracy or a highly educated and skilled workforce that values logic and science.

Hmmmm. What should we do?

 

[tyr_13]

You're missing a very important step in this process.

Which process? What step?

Was that step included in your post?

 

[Ziggurat]

Only a Republican thinks that way. The best way to reduce costs is to prevent people from being able to afford a good education,

Only a liberal would think giving people loans they can't pay back helps them afford anything. indeed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because a highly educated citizenry and workforce is a compelling interest of a nation, if and only if, it wishes to remain competitive internationally.

Our higher education institutions are churning out lower and lower quality graduates at higher and higher expense. Pouring money on the problem isn't going to fix that.

If the loans aren't working for their intended purpose, or have significant detrimental effects, it could well be a perfectly reasonable move to start 'giving the money away for free'.

Or it could simply make everything worse. And odds are, that's exactly what it would do.

 

[acbytesla]

Only a liberal would think giving people loans they can't pay back helps them afford anything. indeed.

Don't issue loans. Pay for the education outright. Find out how to improve the results and do that. Your solution is screw itl. We don't need an educated workforce. Let them work at McDonald's.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think YOU'RE missing the point. We can either have a dumb uneducated workforce that believes in creationism and think science is some kind of liberal conspiracy or a highly educated and skilled workforce that values logic and science.

Hmmmm. What should we do?

You say that as if the two policy choices being considered map directly onto these two different outcomes. There is no reason to believe that.

And if you think non-STEM fields will let you exclude them from any massive pork giveaway, well, it would be fun to watch the fallout from trying.