Talk:Student loans in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

history of tax deductibility of student loans

If I recall correctly, US student loans have a checkered history of alternating between between tax deductibility and non-deductibility: sometimes the interest (and perhaps even principal) have been payable with a debtor's before-tax income, other times not. Sometimes their deductibility has been only available to those who itemize, other times not. Perhaps hardest of all is borrowing money with hopes of a continued favorable tax situation that evaporates with changes in the tax code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Dufresne (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

government loans and interest rates

The section on private loans and interest rates notes in passing that "pending legislation would raise government student loan rates to similar rates as private student loans." This should be expanded and include citations and links to the pending legislation.Camille Allyn (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

loans can't be paid off

I've heard a few people say that some student loans "can't be refinanced." I don't understand how that would work. Why can't you pay off one loan and with another loan? Isn't that 'refinancing?' Do student loans prevent you from making more than your monthly payment?! --68.228.47.100 07:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Who said loans can't be paid off I've heard that you can get credit cards to pay off your student loans and then claim bankrupt. I don't know if people are allowed to refinance their student loans but I don't see why they can't, isn't all about making money anyway? All these rules have me very worried about paying back my student loans, to the point that I am beginning to wonder if I did the right thing by borrowing money to help support my family while getting a better education.97.82.242.185 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Interest rate data?

Could we get a table going with actual sample interest rates for the various types of loans, at given time(s)? Maybe annual? Doesn't have to be comprehensive, but it'd be nice to compare e.g. some common student loan rates with LIBOR at any given time. Tks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.5.208 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We calculate student loan rates for all loan types (stafford, plus, private, consolidation) based upon LIBOR, PRIME and other indexes for dozens of lenders. We have a large audience/sample of students and parents on-line so the data we see is generally valid and we cross-reference with lender information. We can dynamically render apples-apples comparisons of these complex instruments and would entertain producing a table, or an on-line tool of some sort, for Wikipedia in a way that would be useful to the Wikipedia audience and consistent with the integrity of the site. Let me know how we can help.

Cwmstevens (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)cwmstevens

Criticisms

Most of the critism was erased, but I reintroduced this quote:

According to Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren in a Wall Street Journal piece by John Hechinger, 'Student-loan debt collectors have power that would make a mobster envious.'

Because the political group advocating criticism of student loan lenders was actually a secondary source -- a professor still said this, and it's still a criticism.

Needs a good reference though -- but not necessarily erasible.

Also, looks bad to simply leave the subject line open.

This article almost completely ignores the many substantial criticisms of the student loan program, which include the profitability, government subsidies, high rates, lack of bankruptcy protection, and the question of why we don't have more free public higher education (as we used to and as many other countries in the world do). As such, it violates WP:NPOV.

I added an external link to http://studentloanjustice.org which as far as I know is the major advocacy organization for students with loans. On the right side of their page, they have a column headed "Media Coverage." Each one of those links is a WP:RS and meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. You can get as much as you need to beef up the criticism section there, including quotes from Elizabeth Warren, etc. I would start with http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/how-much-student-debt-is-too-much/ which is a good overview. The Wall Street Journal has had many good articlesl; they're usually behind a paywall but they're sometimes posted publicly. --Nbauman (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Student Loan Justice is ONE advocacy group, but by FAR, not the ONLY one -- so, therefore: These are the links to which you refer -- one of them is Student Loan Justice and ALL five look like they are registered for a long time as permanent websites -- these cats paid their ISP's so these links aren't going bad any time soon:

Consumer Advocacy and Public Interest Groups===

* "Forgive Student Loan Debt"

* "Project On Student Debt"

* "Student Loan Justice"

* "Thirst For Justice"

* "U.S. PIRG"

Regards, -- 71.100.187.222 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Please come on over to Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Pick_back_up_where_we_left_off as we need to reach consensus on the same issues I raise here: 'External Links.' Thanks.71.100.187.222 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

much obsolete material

This page does not reflect changes made by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. For example, the Parent PLUS loan can now be deferred while the student is in school and for six months after graduation. The FFEL program no longer exists; since July 1, 2010, all new federal education loans have been made through the Direct Loan program. Mkant (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that Standard repayment be merged into this article. See it's talk page for further discussion. - Benzband (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Been awaiting since October 2010, consensus was merge. - Benzband (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

POV in discharge section

The discharge section is biased in violation of WP:NPV. The section does not present a balanced view because it implicitly endorses the pro-discharge position, exaggerates the pro-discharge arguments, fails to mention the main anti-discharge arguments, and distorts the anti-discharge arguments that it does mention. The main argument for the non-dischargeability of student loans is not the potential for abuse (which exists for any debt in bankruptcy) but the fact that borrowers get guaranteed loans at below-market rates. Non-dischargeability is seen as a tradeoff for these benefits. Another argument is that by receiving student loans a borrower generally has a higher earning capacity (i.e. long-term ability to pay off the loans) than if borrower had not taken out the loans. I'm sure there are more arguments that I can't think of of the top of my head. The section doesn't articulate these arguments but it does articulate the opposing arguments. It also says that "most bankruptcy scholars" support dischargebability, but it does not cite any support for this. This section just generally seems to have a pro-discharge bent and should be fixed. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the NPOV issue exists largely because of the exceptionally poor sources used by the unregistered editor who rammed through his or changes without consensus a few weeks ago (see the section above). The primary source used for much of the discussion is an unpublished working paper that hasn't undergone any of the typical peer review or editorial processes that we use to judge reliability. And many of the secondary sources are of obviously poor quality (e.g. lawyers.com, MONEY-ZINE.COM). I'm all for wholesale reverting back to an older version of the article so we can evaluate the intervening edits more carefully and critically. ElKevbo (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although I think the bias is more than the result of the choice of sources. Let's give our anon contributor until Memorial Day to respond. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we got no response from the contributor I have undone his/her changes in the discharge section. I am open to adding some of the material back in if it is balanced and well-sourced, but any suggestions should be discussed on this talk page first. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Student loans as the new debt tsunami...

There is a lot of talk of the student loans as the new debt tsunami, perhaps a special page on that debate? --Mats33 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

prolix

This page has a ton of material but does not answer simple questions, such as: Which types of loans are interest-deferred and is the interest deferment continued while in graduate school?

The opening is awful, explaining what is meant by the word "loan." For Pete's sake, learn English or get a dictionary. All the empty references take up too much space. If that is Wikipedia policy, something has gone very wrong with Wikipedia. Jabeles (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Genoeconomics is not an encyclopedic source

The introductory paragraph cites the dubious belief that genetics impact financial well-being, known as "genoeconomics". This very recent, very controversial, and very insubstantial "field" is not at all a notable or reliable source to be cited in an encyclopedic article. Thoughts? Mattgilbertnet (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Where's the history

That. 71.13.142.199 (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a history section to the federal loans. Most of the history of U.S. student loans seems to be centered around the federal government processes.Aemartinofscb (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources; Updates

Conversation with ElKevbo revolved around reliability of using a draft academic article that was posted on SSRN as source. The article is a reliable source under Wikipedia's policy because the author is an established academic expert on bankruptcy and credit markets who has been published in notable academic journals. The edits using this source corrected many of the errors noted below, including the obsolete references to guaranteed loans (which are no longer available) and a brief history of student loan interest rates, and substantively improved the article.

ElKevbo indicated that the source was acceptable for use, but preferred more citations to other sources. The source cited includes an extensive literature review citing to statutes, case law, and published academic articles. I suggest leaving the edits in citing to the SSRN source for now and allowing other editors to add additional sources, possibly using the SSRN source and its footnotes as a jumping off point for adding citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.227.251 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I continue to dispute the extensive use of a self-published source that has had no peer review or editorial oversight. If the opinions of the author or his conclusions are widely accepted then surely we can find better sources.

I also object to the specific edits that were just made to the article's lead. The lead of an article should present a very broad and basic overview of the topic for readers and not launch immediately into esoteric arguments.

I also condemn the manner in which this unregistered editor is attempting to ram these edits through without consensus. The initial edits were bold and that is commendable. But two editors in good standing have objected and reverted those edits. So the next step should be conversation until consensus is reached, not an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo, and I strongly condemn the anon Virginia editor's decision to re-revert his/her additions without first reaching consensus. This is poor behavior that inflames tensions and can only lead to an WP:EDITWAR. The anon editor's bias (see section below) only strengthens the conclusion that his/her edits should be removed. 108.46.227.251, please respond. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am finding that since the 2010 passage of Federal Law making the Bank of Ed, it is pretty difficult to find any reference that is not a commercial entity on the support of private student loans. Majority of academic information out there appears to be in support of government direct loaning vs. private loaning. Aemartinofscb (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the one sentence dealing with loan interest rates more important than originator fees chiefly because I cannot find a good reference except some odd dental website which appears to quote the same sentence. Are loan interest rates more important than originator fees? The problem is originator fees can be lumped into the overall costs which in turn compounds the expenses long term through the interest rate. So neither are more important than each other where costs are concerned because overall you still have higher costs once the originator fees are added into the compounded interest.Aemartinofscb (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal Historical Background

I am concerned for the lack of legal historical background concerning this topic on student loans. The lack of historical perspective I think is causing a problem with the overall consistency with current legislative realities present.

Student Loans for post secondary education is primarily controlled by various federal acts and public laws. These laws continue to frequently change thus changing the commerce environment of student loans and making some of the information contained in this article obsolete pretty fast.

With this being said, I am noting that in the academic world there doesn't seem to be much in the way of presenting legislative histories of student loans in the U.S. There is one piece out there published in 2005 showing a brief history (see http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542500) and the only other information seems to be confined to Public School Law texts which recap most the legal traditions.

Aemartinofscb (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Private Student Loans

I noticed the federal loans section gives examples such as the Perkins and Stafford loan. However, the private loans section doesn't. could we add some examples such as Wells Fargo, Discover, and Sallie Mae? Other than that I think the article does a great job of explaining student loans so consumers can make more educated choices. Kpayne2 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Student loans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611183745/http://www.asa.org:80/repay/options/standard/default.aspx to http://www.asa.org/repay/options/standard/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928142927/http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=3511 to http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=3511
• Added archive web.archive.org/web/20110704192031/ to bankruptcy.lawyers.com/consumer-bankruptcy/Student-Loans-In-Bankruptcy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• U.S. Student Loan Debt Distribution Q4 2012.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Genetics and inequality

There has been some recent back-and-forth in the edit history of this article over the claim,

Some believe this substantially increases intergenerational correlations in income (having two generations of a family have similar earning ability), although other factors, including genetics, have been estimated to play a larger combined role.

I am inclined to agree with those who would remove the reference to genetics. There does not appear to be a reason to single out genetics for mention without also listing other factors. Singling out a genetic link from an otherwise unenumerated list of "other factors" seems unnecessarily provocative when we should strive for neutrality. Further, the attempt to associate genomes with economic outcomes is a new field of study and remains controversial, reliant upon correlation rather than actual evidence of causation, so selecting a reference that promotes remains a controversial view then singling out the most controversial element from that reference seems dubious. This article is about student loans, not about theories of genetic determinism and geno-economics.

I thus suggest dropping "including genetics" from that sentence. Arllaw (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Any counter-argument? If not I'll implement in a couple of days. Arllaw (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So I have quickly scanned but not read the reference. How about we simply list all the factors mentioned, in the order mentioned, thus not emphasizing one factor over the other, but not hiding each factor in the term "other factors" ?? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire assertion itself veers toward weasel words ("some believe..." without establishing who the people are, or the extent to which their views are representative or generally accepted). Listing all factors that may affect intergenerational wealth or success might at some level be interesting, but to me seems like the list will end up being quite long and serve primiarily as a distraction from an article about U.S. student loans. To the extent that others differ I would assert that any such list should be supported by references that are both relevant to the article and relate to the subject matter, while also resolving the weasel words issue. Arllaw (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

First U.S. federally insured student loan?

The Bank of North Dakota makes the following claim on their website https://bnd.nd.gov/history-of-bnd/

In 1967, BND (Bank of North Dakota) made the first federally-insured student loan in the United States.

Is it true? Is it notable? Sandcherry (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

We'd need an Independent Source WP:IS to include that info in this article, otherwise it's just Promotional by that bank. WP:PROMOTIONAL ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The claim is also made by the college and names the student. The link is https://bismarckstate.edu/master-news/BSCalumwasfirstfederalloanrecipient/. It appears to be an Independent Source per WP:IS. Sandcherry (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Forgiving

Forgiving student loans would be net regressive. No surveyed economist disagreed with this. Benjamin (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Only 60% agreed of the surveyed economists agreed that forgiving student loans would be net regressive. Therefore, a definitive statement is inappropriate. Also, a peer reviewed source would be a much better citation than a survey. Sandcherry (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Would you prefer a different phrasing, like "most agreed"? IGM surveys are generally very reliable for gauging the consensus of top economists. Benjamin (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The cited survey supports the statement "Some economists believe forgiving student loans would be net regressive." Additional surveys or preferably a peer reviewed article agreeing with the economists would justify a definitive statement. Sandcherry (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You could phrase it the way one of these IGM surverys was phrased in Rent control:

In a 2012 poll of the 41 leading economists by the Initiative on Global Markets (IGM) Economic Experts Panel, which queried opinions on the statement "Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them," 13 members said they strongly disagreed, 20 disagreed, 1 agreed, and 7 either did not answer, were undecided, or had no opinion.[30] [2]:1 [31]:1

I think IGM is notable enough as a source, as long as it is properly phrased; but yes, it does NOT necessarily speak for the entire economics profession. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Including all of the survey results instead of the summary seems excessive. Referencing one survey instead of multiple surveys or a neutral study risks cherry picking and violating NPOV. An explanation of "net regressive" would also help. Sandcherry (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If a quick look finds good sources, a slightly more intensive look should turn up better sources. So why not do that instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole? Part of editing is finding and using those better sources, right? Arllaw (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to find better sources, feel free to find some here and ADD to the article, but your THEORY that better sources exist is not reason to keep valid sources out of the article. In addition, YOU are the only one CLAIMING that this isn't a good source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sandcherry: You said: Referencing one survey instead of multiple surveys or a neutral study risks cherry picking and violating NPOV. You'd be correct IF multiple surveys existed. There are many acceptable article additions which cite ONLY ONE study, because in most cases, we don't have a meta-analysis to cite.

"net regressive" could be explained as "more beneficial to higher income earners than lower income earners" ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The suggested definition sounds good. "Some economists believe forgiving student loans would be more beneficial to higher income earners than lower income earners" is suggested. It is consistent with the citation and easily understandable.Sandcherry (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there other surveys of economists that are similarly well regarded as IGM? Saying "some economists" implies a false balance with an opposing perspective that does not exist. Benjamin (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No other surveys that I know of.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Over a third of the respondents were uncertain. Therefore, an opposing perspective or at the very least lack of consensus may exist. Sandcherry (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Most" would still be more accurate. Benjamin (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose the following wording: (the survey found 60% "agreed" or "strongly agreed" ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In 2020, a majority of economists surveyed by the Initiative on Global Markets felt that forgiving all student loans would be more beneficial to higher income earners than lower income earners.

The proposed entry is concise and consistent with the citation. Looks good. Sandcherry (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Benjamin (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of searching for a source that makes a particular point, without regard for whether it is representative of the beliefs of economists at large, as opposed to finding a reliable source that attempts to gather and present views in a neutral or scientific fashion. Rephrasing to work around the dubious nature of a source is not a suitable alternative to citing reliable sources. MOS:WEASEL Arllaw (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

IGM surveys highly regarded economists from a variety of sub fields and political leanings. I am not aware of any survey more representative. Why do you think it's unreliable? Benjamin (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

A quick internet search did not yield any articles claiming forgiving student loans would not be regressive. There were articles claiming that forgiveness would be regressive including:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2020/11/17/the-case-against-student-loan-forgiveness/?sh=6c6c9ad3464c Sandcherry (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

and this: "Despite her best intentions and her description of the plan as progressive, a quick analysis finds the Warren proposal to be regressive, expensive, and full of uncertainties. " https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/

and this: "The best way to forgive student debt is to focus on those who need it most - Universal debt forgiveness would help high earners more than anyone else." https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/28/student-loan-forgiveness-repayment-income-regressive/

And these are just two I found yesterday when I thought it might be interesting to search for this. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Student Loan Death and other consequences of the student loan debt crisis

It appears to me that this article is short on information and sources related to the consequences of student loan debt for consumers, such as:

• staying with family members or moving back with family members
• doubling up with housing
• taking less appealing jobs
• delaying marriage or not getting married
• delaying childbirth or not having children
• not buying a home
• delaying or not starting businesses
• inability to save for retirement
• anxiety
• suicidal ideations
• any other negative consequences--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

None of that seems specific to student loans, as opposed to generic issues relating to debt that could be included in any article about debt. Arllaw (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Arllaw, I believe there are several studies and numerous credible articles about how each of these negative consequences is directly related to student loan debt in the US. I was hoping for some help in digging them up. There is probably enough material for 8-10 subsections. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I would expect that similar articles can be found about other forms of debt -- credit card, medical, etc. -- as broadly speaking the stress of debt comes from the debt itself, not its form. If you have a $1,000 student loan, $30,000 in credit card debt, and $100,000 in medical debt, which keeps you up at night? Arllaw (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Arllaw that these consequences come from ANY type of debt (and also from debtless poverty), but Wikipedia's policies do allow you to add stuff like this as long as it is not Original Research WP:OR. I don't think investopedia.com or studentloanplanner.com would be considered a Reliable Source though. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Arllaw, Avatar317, It would be helpful if someone could help me comb through Google Scholar for articles specifically about the consequences of student loan debt.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahbutlr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruthieruth101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)