Talk:College tuition in the United States

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.40.113 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The closing college door

The widespread alarm over "the closing college door" during the 1950s, leading to the National Defense Student Loan Act, then attending and paying for MIT during the 1960s rush of tuition hikes, were formative experiences for me. Having endured those times, I never expected anything so difficult again. Yet it was so, when our two sons attended research universities (not MIT) during the 1980s and 1990s. The enormous time and expense to create a research university limits the supply of such services, which is far outpaced by the demand for them. Barring a depression of even greater harshness than the 1930s, the trends seen since World War II may well continue for another 50 years or more.

Left out of the original version of this article is any mention of loans and scholarships, particularly the "need-based" scholarships that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Someone who knows these topics better than I should undertake a summary. It is hoped that writers on this topic will deal with the reluctance of anyone ingrained in our culture to be labeled as a beggar.

Craig Bolon 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Great work, Craig! Just copyedited the article a bit — hope you don't mind. jareha ^(comments) 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I removed Category:Educational stages and Category:School types because college tuition is neither an educational stage or school type. It's a form of education financing, which is why I left Category:Education finance. jareha ^(comments) 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In state vs out of state

Can we include something about in-state tuition being cheaper than out-of-state tuition? It often has a lot of crence over where students go.

First Graph

As a constructive comment, I think the first graph on this page would be much more illustrative if it included only inflation adjusted lines and was not on a logaritmic scale. It would be less cluttered and convey with full force the fact that the "real" price of education is increasing very quickly over time.

Is this first graph correct? The Y scale is in orders of magnitue. I would expect the graph to dramatically flatten.

WHY?

Some discussion of why the cost of a college education is rising so quickly would be a very welcome addition to this article! -Toptomcat 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

College loans cause of inflation???

Just a theory of mine although I haven't tried statistically correlating Dept. of Education figures with annual tuition increases. I reckon that gov't loans that were supposed to "help" have done the opposite and ended up subsidizing the academic "industry." Essentially, colleges are jacking up tuition because they know that students can take out large loans to pay for it. Our gov't then raises loan amounts to "help" with rising tuition costs, but of course, colleges know this and so jack up tuition again. It's essentially turned into a fookin mess that drives Americans deeply into debt. If gov't cut loans, colleges would be forced to cut tuition / pay / expenditures / etc., but colleges have turned into such huge money making businesses and proliferated greatly, meh. I think it's probably just another instance of gov't "assistance" backfiring, but I could be wrong of course - just a simple theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reprise

Since the article was created, there has been little time to revisit it. Mostly the comments seem helpful and appropriate, including a notice seeking wider perspective. It turned out to be difficult to obtain long-term data outside the United States; Toronto was the only exception. However, the issue or rising college tuition might not have a much wider perspective. Among the industrialized nations, the United States stands out for allowing its educational economy to be dominated by elite, private institutions and for allowing those institutions to charge all the market will bear. Graphs are logarithmic because data trends are exponential. Inflation adjustment needs to be explained by showing uninflated trends, because there is controversy as to an appropriate deflator and because inflation is enormously variable by country; it was somewhat a stretch to use the US CPI as a deflator for Toronto. The out-of-state tuitions are not as significant because of the social role of state colleges in supporting students from the sponsoring state. In recent years out-of-state tuitions have become badly distorted as states try to use them as money trees. The "why" of tuition increases is indeed interesting. To start with, one would probably need candid testimony from two or more generations of finance officers at elite, private colleges. It is fairly obvious that many less prestigious colleges are using elite institutions as benchmarks and finance floors. They don't carry the burdens of research universities yet have been able to charge nearly the same prices. What the article indicates is that price trends at private institutions appear to be a very long-term trend, stretching over more than six decades, and that public institutions appear to have different, perhaps more socially responsive, long-term trends. Recent trends, however, suggest public institutions may be moving toward the rates of price increases at private institutions. -- September 28, 2007

Propose move to "College tuition in the United States"

I think the US and Canada are the only two countries to use the term "tuition" for college fees. Thus it should be under a new title. --Liface (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Entitling the page "College tuition" without specifying that it only pertains to the United States is U.S.-centric and misleading for the majority of readers. (Amos True (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

I am from Australia and I have to mention that this page isn't actually about Tuition fees (in the US), it is about the growth of tution fees and the inflationary trends in student living costs. It tells me nothing about what tuition fees actually are, why colleges have tuition fees, when tuition fees were instituted, what is the average cost of tuition (no fancy graphs please - just plain English), how people pay for tuition, college funds, comparison between tuition fees in the U.S. and other forms of higher education payment in other countries and the differences in cost between, say, a science program to an arts program to a law program. In Australia we pay between $5000 and $9000 per year to go to university. How does that compare to fees in the U.S? I don't know. Because no-one thought that it was relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.212.89 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article again. See "An idea for changing the name of the article" below. Thanks. Misty MH (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Other

Changed text to accurately reflect numbers that appear on graphic of college tuition vs. helath care vs cost of living inflation. College tuition can be clearly seen to be 950% of 1978 cost of living dollars, but the text said "nearly 800%". Also, cost of living has gone up 300% but the chart clearly shows 250%. Finally the derived relationship of tuition increase relative to cost of living increase is therefore closer to 4 times and not the three times stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.136.199 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well intentioned article is out of date

While the information presented is accurate, I believe it is misleading in light of new studies by Jane Wellman, sponsored by the Lumina Foundation. Yes, the price (what students pay in Tuition & Fees) has doubled the rate of inflation, but for public institutions, this is replacing the monies lost due to cuts in state appropriation support. The costs (what colleges spend) has actually been flat in the 18 year period of study (1987 - 2005) Please see www.deltaproject.org for extensive information on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.121.1 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Student Loans

This section of the article seems to be written in highly emotive language for instance "Students today may be an exploited minority, being taken economic advantage of because they lack the historical perspective to appreciate the inequity. In any case, questions may be raised about placing young adults, who ought to be seen as be agents of change and progress, into society already burdened with debt and enmeshed in the status quo because students are often forced to take jobs they'd rather not have immediately after graduation to repay loan debts."

I would think this needs to be kept to the facts of the costs of student fees compared to ability to pay and funding - currently is sounds like a political speech.

Joss (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea for changing the name of the article

Since the note at top says "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2007)", maybe the article could be renamed:

College tuition in North America.

It apparently includes mostly USA and Canada figures.

Misty MH (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• good points, but even as a registered editor, I would not get paid, and sometimes reverted and argued at, so this is above my pay grade!
• (-:/ -- anyhow, maybe a good idea, but should there not be an article specifically for the US? Like there is one with the UK? And, if there is one just for the US, then it may be redundant to make a North America article --maybe a 'North America' section in this article? Hmm... not sure. Seek consensus. (Translation: I'm lazy and/or underpaid help!)71.100.190.35 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request assistance here (update)

Nasnema reverted edits I made to this page just now, claiming that sources were not cited, but it would appear that sources were cited.

Could someone please look into this and determine whether this is correct --or why the sources cited did not qualify as legitimate here?

Being new to this make it all the harder, but I would seem to have cited my sources here.

I thought I followed the Wikipedia rules here -- I have heard rumors of childish arguments on this website, and if 'Nasnema' is serious with what he/she said, then this makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia.!

!

I followed the rules, and yet he/she deleted my posts, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources

(update)

(update + place it on the right part of page --- new stuff at bottom)

-- Since posting this, I 'canvassed' and got help from others --and I think that 'Nasnema' looks like he/she will calm down and be a 'good' editor -- On my honour, I apologise for canvassing -- but being a bit new, I did not think about going to the 'Report Vandalism' page, and this talk page is not monitored very much. OK, that is all - thank you all for your help here. Have a good day. Ta!71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Section

There are many consumer advocate and public interest groups that are advocating a number of changes. I wonder if it would be right to add a section for them, maybe as a subsection of the 'Social Concerns' section --or maybe in the existing 'External Links' section? Any thoughts here? I seek consensus and feedback of the community.71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, a few links were added, ready for community review & consensus.71.101.40.113 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there is the voice of dissent -- User, 'Petiatil' deleted the properly sourced subsection -- here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438733098&oldid=438732957 -- in light of your comments on your user page, I am posting a question to ask what is your rationale. Thank you. -- My brain is over-worked -- this page is now at least partly 'OK' -- and it's time to take time off & go to church this morning -- I wish a good and blessed day to one and all!

(-:/ 71.101.33.24 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate edit that contained a personal opinion of an editor per WP:SYNTHESIS (suicide is bad, a couple of students with student debt commit suicide, therefore student debt is bad). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 72Dino (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting -- the suicides were a fact -- and the claim that they are bad is a fact -- but connecting suicide to debt was, I admit, anecdotal -- not necessarily studied by a peer-reviewed study by scientists --nonetheless, I did cite my sources -- so the claim that the student debt was excessive and also 'bad' was my main claim -- Student debt is NOT bad in and of itself, but I think I made my case -- it is for the community to decide. Thank you for your input.71.101.33.24 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty new here but it seems to me that sections like "see also" and "external links" should be noticeably relevant to the article. All sorts of things are marginally relevant to any article so we can't list everything, just the more important ones. So, the question is, how big of a cause are college loans to suicides on a national/world basis? My guess is not much. This significance would need to be proven for suicide to be included.PumpkinSky (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense meant, Bro, but even one suicide is important --and something as serious as suicide for one person means there are like a hundred or 1,000 others who want to (are tempted to) but don't --and while yes, I admit I don't have a scientific study, the anecdotal evidence is pretty clear --besides, for the loss of *BLOOD* and *LIFE* here, on a *definitely* related topic, don't you think at least a few sentences are appropriate? They are properly sourced, and also, other editors (excepting a 'bot' which mistakenly deleted that section) agree -even the bot's owner was good with it -- now, the more pressing issue is the 'external links' issue (below --and in the article 'diffs') --it is that for which I seek your help. Thanks, Big Dawg!71.100.187.222 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If the suicides are related, that is SIGNIFICANT. However, if you are saying "they [suicides] are bad is a fact", that appears to be OPINION. Not everyone would agree that suicide is "bad". Some might even claim that it is good, if not important, in some cases. If the sentence only meant that some people claim that suicide is bad, then that IS a fact, as is the reverse. If a claim that suicide is bad is based on religious belief, or any other belief, as long as you quote some appropriate, published source, then you've followed at least one of Wikipedia's rules. If you think it's in some religious text -- the Bible maybe -- the question is WHERE? (The Roman Catholic Church may say that it's wrong, if not a Mortal Sin, but does the Bible?? Arguments of "self-murder" are just that, arguments.) (Continues.)

Changing the subject a bit, I think it would be interesting to find a direct correlation between suicide and student loan debt (dare we add unemployment or underemployment?), and I have no doubt that feeling overwhelmed by such is probably related to many people's reasons for suicide (other kinds of debt too). However, at least with OTHER DEBT, one may be able to file for bankruptcy protection; whereas, this currently (or at least recently) may not apply to student loans (according to Suze Orman's "The Money Class" video on Public Television, which I saw a couple of months back). (Continues.)

• You are correct -- currently, neither public NOR EVEN PRIVATE student loans (those made from a private bank to a private student) can be discharged in bankrputcy --even if the person is disabled by Social Security rules --unless (this VERY high --almost impossible) standard of 'undue hardship' is met -- and by impossible, I mean like only about 5-10 people per year arer granted this --or at least that's what I recall.71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that such considerations would go under a topic (or article) related to whether to take out a loan or not. (Continues.)

Believe it or not, I was in an Economics class at university, and the professor sounded like he was showing that it's NOT always "better" economically (money-wise) to get a degree (when going into debt), and that the time spent working vs. being in class and studying was significant to the discussion. I've seen recent articles about this question as well. (Was it in a recent/current Wired magazine article? Hmm. Not sure. Or was it multiple articles connected to this and other Wikipedia articles? Sorry.) (Continues.)

• -Whoah, nelley! -- HONEST Professor -- Wow! --well, most are honest, but almost NONE would dare admit these facts. (They would simply be honest by virtue of not lying LOL)71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, measuring the value of spending more time in the company of well-educated folks (etc.) vs. having less debt, would be difficult. (Continues.)

• Yep -- that's why students are stuck in a striat these days.01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have an opinion: Most 4-year college degrees cost WAY too much! :) Misty MH (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• No - you have stated a fact. LOL (-:/ 71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• OK, do you have any idea where the advocacy and consumer groups on that subject belong? (They CERTAINLY belong *somewhere* --whether on this article or another? THX!71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pick back up where we left off

• OK, I'm back from church -- now, you said that there were links on Student_loan that were removed --and said in your edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438742669&oldid=438740642 the following: "remove per WP:EL, these links were removed from Student loan earlier as inappropriate for an encyclopedia." -- OK, as I mentioned before, I don't think that the external links that I posted on College_tuition_in_the_United_States were exactly the same as the links that you say were removed on Student_loan, but I will agree with you, after looking at Student_loan briefly, it appears that the links in question are indeed similar, and so your point is well-taken.

Now, my question to you is this: If these 'Consumer Advocacy and Public Interest Group' links were inappropriate on that page, then where would they BE appropriate? On my honour, 72Dino, my point is not to argue -- you MAY BE right on your claim they didn't belong on that page, but we do realise that since these web pages / web sites ARE related to the subject at hand, then, without a doubt, they DO belong on one of the related Wikipedia pages --since this is the sort of thing you would find in an encyclopaedia.

My only question to you, now, is 'where?' -- Thank you. (We want to provide readers information on the subject.)

Another thing: After looking closely at all the pages / sites in question -looking at stuff like the registration dates & such, it would seem that, not only are these appropriate to the subject, but also, ALL five of the sites are 'permanent' sites with loooong registration guarantee, likely to be around for a 'loooong' time --in other words, 'permanent' sites, whose links are not likely to be broken any time soon.71.100.187.222 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Here was the disputed edit / diff

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438742669&oldid=438740642

Which removed "Consumer Advocacy and Public Interest Groups" subsection from the "External links" section:

• "Forgive Student Loan Debt"
• "Project On Student Debt"
• "Student Loan Justice"
• "Thirst For Justice"
• "U.S. PIRG"
• "College Conspiracy" YouTube video by 'InflationUS' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in reference to Wikipedia:EL, these links seem related --and (more importantly), I checked out ALL 5 of them: They look 'permanent,' insofar as the ISP's seem to have paid up the registration for their web addresses for a looong time in advance, so these links do NOT look like they will be 'bad' links any time soon a-- all 5 look permanent, deep, and related, even if quite a bit biased -- that's why it's called 'advocacy' -- it is of necessity biased, but it's related --and even if these type links don't belong in this article, they belong somewhere. Where?

Regards, -- 71.100.187.222 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe these links belong anywhere on Wikipedia. As far as this article goes, student loan debt is only tangentially related to the topic. Many students pay their higher education tuition without incurring debt, and this article is on tuition, not debt. Advocacy links are not appropriate, especially where listing so many gives undue weight to a particular point of view. 72Dino (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for reminding me that there was a Student_debt page --meaning that if ANY page should have these sources, THAT one Student_debt and not this page here, so that supports your arguments that these links don't belong HERE ... but... -- now, not to be disagreeable, but you actually make a good case for my argument by reminding me of this --let's look closer at this page: Student_debt -- This page has 1 of the 5 links I picked --and it was by chance, since I was not the editor who put that link there --so, my point is this: If another editor put http://projectonstudentdebt.org/ on Student_debt and I (without consultation or knowledge) also put the same link on *this* page (a related article), then that makes a good case for (partial) consensus --at least insofar as the advocacy groups belong somewhere --and that is where you come in -- you make the case that this is not the page --so, I propose a compromise that these advocacy groups belong with their own kind -- on the Student_debt page, where one of them already is. Consensus sought on that point tentatively.71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Relationship of Community College AA degrees, applied degrees, and certificates to Income. Plus, Overqualified.

While there are claims, related to getting work, that 4-year college degrees are worth the costs paid -- lost wages, student loans, and other time expended, etc. -- many of those degrees were made up of 2-year degrees. And many of those 2-year degrees helped people get work.

That work experience likely lent to getting more work after the 4-year degree program.

All of this is part of a statistical analysis of education related to jobs; but I almost never see it mentioned in any report on the subject. Many reports and speeches appear to be geared toward pushing for 4-year degrees (or higher).

Some degrees contrasted:

Some 2-year degrees are specifically DESIGNED for specific kinds of jobs, and focus on what people need to know for such jobs. These are generally called VOCATIONAL degrees because they directly relate to vocations, or specific work. They are also called APPLIED degrees.

The training in these AAAS (applied) degrees often does NOT include things like Distribution credits which are part of 2-year "TRANSFER" degrees (AAS). Such Distribution credits typically make up 60 credits of one's required 90 (or more) credits, maybe 2/3 of which are NOT directly related to a similarly-named vocational degree (maybe about 40, or more).

Now, When people quote statistics supposedly relating a 4-year degree to a person getting a jobs such things may not be taken into account.

Further, the relationships of specific degree to specific job is also often not referenced.

In addition, many times, people get a job all right, but one that is not closely if even remotely related to the 4-year degree they got!

In other words, their specific 4-year degree may not have affected them getting that job.

The number of jobs that people have that are unrelated to their degrees is significant.

While it is true that some companies or HR folks prefer to hire people with a degree, the relationship between degrees and jobs across the board may be poorly represented in most speeches and articles.

A particular degree may not get someone a job. In fact, a particular job may even HINDER the job-seeking process for a person.

And someone OVERqualified may not get hired for just that fact. (People sometimes leave degrees off their resumes and job applications for this purpose.)

I doubt that is calculated into most reports, speeches, and articles either!

While one might not agree with the "politics", related to this topic, I recently saw a very interesting video on YouTube called "College Conspiracy", posted there by InflationUS. It's not short. It's 1 hr. 2 mins. 47 seconds.†

If it's okay to include a link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE

† I should probably add that the last 3 minutes of the video is basically an ad; and that earlier, they stoked the ad with some comment about investing in "physical silver". :)

• I just now watched/listened to most of the latter part of the video again. I previously saw it about 6 weeks ago, and had forgotten most of it already! Like college! LOL. (I didn't agree with all of its conclusions.) I don't think it mentioned my concerns about 2-year degrees affecting stats, though it did mention how folks who get GEDs are or might be included in stats on jobs related to high school graduates. I agree that they should be separated out, like those with 2-year degrees, to get some real statistics! Misty MH (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Misty MH (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Funny unusual update, Misty,.. I tried to add the parent link to the youtube video, to be complete --but it (in other words, the 'National Inflation Association' website ' Inflation dot US' spelled out) was blocked as on some watch list, so instead of adding that YouTube vid to the 'Debt' page which was the result of the compromise above, I did not -- thinking it would be inappropriate -- that is SAD, since your youtube link here is great -- I'm tempted to copy it to MY youtube -- wonder if their copyright says it's OK. Hmm...71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm new, but I know that it's OK to include related links in talk -- here --funny you would post this -- one of my Facebook peeps JUST TODAY (I think it was) posted this SAMER EXACT link when I asked his opinion on an article on that subject -- I saw an article that compared slavery with student loan debt, and as my friend is Black, I asked him whether this article was offensive to him --and he said 'no' and proceeded to share the SAME link you shared -- funny that!

• PS: I am denied jobs both because of being under-qualified AND overqualified -- good points.71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Interesting. Misty MH (talk)

• You're welcome, and thank *you* 4 ye input --OK, so far, I'm finished with my contributions. Have a nice evening. ALSO: When looking 4 new comments, u can see the individual edit changes in the coloured 'diffs' in the 'View history' page -at top, you know? Yes, that video may be an ad for some gold or silver product --and it's loooong, but makes mostly good points, even though they forget to mention the Cost of Living Index was not what colleges should use: The Cost of Higher Education Index, with a different sub-set of materials that colleges purchase have gone up faster than the rate of inflation --so, not all colleges fault, but yes MOSTLY their dishonest fault. OK, I'm calling it a night here in the Eastern Standard Time Zone. Have a nice evening.
• PS: You can also see MY unique edits by clicking on my IP address --like the links I added on the appropriate article page. Did I do well? Thx!71.100.190.35 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone better qualified than I -- and with time to check out the links -- should probably see if what you added was relevant and proper. Misty MH (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New disagreement over a source

Here is the capture of the discussion --see the 'Dumb Question' section at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72Dino&oldid=438964278#Dumb_Question Please weigh in. Thank you.71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over recent edit: User:72Dino's edit on 03:41, 20 November 2011

Thank you for protecting editors on Student Loan debt, in the past when I had trouble with vandals and trolls, but I differ on your last edit:

(cross-posted to your talk page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=461536456&oldid=461530029#Lack_of_consumer_protection

You took out this part: "and, in response, the lenders and colleges know that students, defenseless to declare bankruptcy, are on the hook for any amount that they borrow -including late fees and interest (which can be capitalized and increase the principal loan amount), thus removing the incentive to provide the student with a reasonable loan that he/she can pay back," with the explanation that "POV not supported by references from reliable sources," however, you left in this part here:

"Under this theory, it would be more profitable for the lender if the student defaulted (due to the increases in the amount of the loan after fees and interest are capitalized), and thus there is no free market pressure-type motive for the lender or the college to help the student avoid default."

And, I agree with your assessment to leave this part in here.

But look closely at the 2 excepts, Dino:

They're basically saying the same thing... the 2nd excerpt says the lender sees that it's profitable for the student to default.

The 1st excerpts says that the lenders know the student can be more easily victimized without said protections -- don't you agree they say the same thing (in slightly different language)?

So, if you leave in the 2nd excerpt, I would ask you put back in the 1st one.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is correct in reporting this theory -- it really is true: That theory exists -- and the reason that's OK is because, whether the theory is correct or not, the facts underpinning it are cited -- and so we're just reporting the news. (Lastly, you and I both know this theory is probably correct in many instances --human nature being what it is). -- But, in short: There really are facts, and also, there really is this theory based on the facts -- both are true, and both should be reported.

What do you think?71.100.189.115 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The content I removed was not cited in the reference. I will also review the second excerpt to see if that should be removed. The content removed about the intent of lenders is unencyclopedic and makes no sense. A loan is not profitable if a borrower defaults. Frankly, most of the article sounds like the opinions of students that just don't want to pay back the debt they incurred. If the loan amount and terms weren't reasonable then the student should not have borrowed the funds. The facts in this article should be supported by reliable sources. They currently are not. 72Dino (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

'"A loan is not profitable if a borrower defaults."' With all due respect, Dino, a defaulted loan is MUCH more profitable, as interest accrues and capitalizes --thereby causing the principal loan to go way up, so my conclusion was correct. ;"If the loan amount and terms weren't reasonable then the student should not have borrowed the funds."; I disagree: Students have NO choice BUT to borrow, if they want an education, since it is next to impossible to be anything more than a burger-flipper at McDonald's without that sheepskin, but that is moot, since I am right on my other replies to you above: both the underlying facts and the fact that diverse opinions exists, are newsworthy, and should be reported; I have cited my sources.71.100.179.96 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's unsupported POV. This is not the place to fight for a cause or advocate for a position. ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)If a financial institution has to charge off a loan, then all that accrued interest is reversed and also goes away in addition to the defaulted principal. There is no incentive for a lender to encourage a loan to go bad. And borrowing for education is not a right . . . everyone has a choice in life. Many students have achieved an education at a university without going into debt. And again, and most importantly here on Wikipedia, there are no reliable references to support this content. 72Dino (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, my friends, but I am not following: Does the accrued interest capitalize and increase the principal loan amount? Yes. Does this mean that the lender makes more in the end? Yes. Is 'more money' a universally recognized motive for something (in other words: EVERYONE knows more money is a motive, and thus THIS does NOT have to have a source to verify it)? Yes. Thus my logic is complete, and the conclusion is correct from its flow.71.100.179.96 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Defaulted loans don't seem to make the lender more money since the money isn't paid back. More importantly, I dispute your third point and the role of profit motive in non-profit organizations. Hence you need to provide sources. ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As indicated by ElKevbo, a bad loan does not earn a lender more money. Accrued interest does not capitalize and is not added to the principal (i.e., interest is not charged on the interest). And if a financial institution has to charge off a loan because of default, the company loses both principal AND interest and has incurred a loss because a borrower did not pay their loan back as agreed. And there still are no references in the article to support your edit. 72Dino (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply: '"a bad loan does not earn a lender more money."' Yes, it does, since (at least with Federal loans), the government eventually DOES get theirs, since they are allowed to garnish wages, retirement, and yes!, even disability. '"Accrued interest does not capitalize and is not added to the principal (i.e., interest is not charged on the interest)."' That is factually false: I know (at least my experience) is that with my college loans, I was told on the terms of service that, eventually, the unpaid interest will capitalize, and thereby increase the principal of the loan. In fact, Kevbo, this is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to most loans. I would agree that more sources would be better, but the rightness of my 2nd claim is well-known among students, and I do not feel the need to cite it. Could you provide a cite to back your POV? Also, are both my claims here correct in light of my clarification?71.100.179.96 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the issue is not whether you are correct but whether you have reliable sources supporting your assertions. WP:V is not negotiable, particularly for assertions that have been challenged by other editors in good standing. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the claims seem to be verified sufficiently (I mean, really, if I said the sky was blue, would I have to cite a source for that), however, as much as I hate to admit it (you may be right here), these claims are a tad less obvious, and in this gray area (when in doubt, leave it out), I admit that it would be best to cite sources, so I will accept that your maxim is correct, namely that citation to sources is more important than accuracy (or, in the alternative, maybe not more important, but still a Sine Quo Non required element), and thus this is my final analysis.71.100.179.96 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; that was gracefully done. For what it's worth, I'm sure there are sources that could be cited if you'd look around a bit since this is such a hot topic, especially with the new push by some OWS protesters for people to cease payment on their student loans. ElKevbo (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you: I concur on all points.71.101.46.53 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)