Ackel and other critics say the crux of the problem is that nonprofit guarantors like EdFund are making tens of millions of dollars annually on the backs of struggling defaulted borrowers. And that probably will not change if California sells EdFund -- a private company would be likely to make that money instead.
The idea is that the unfortunate students were duped into borrowing money for higher education, and now they are being unfairly punished with onerous lending terms. That is, they have to pay off the loans, but they can't afford the payments.
Now, of course, we have this:
Education officials at the state and national level have called on the federal government to grant amnesty to borrowers such as Ahrens and Collinge and reduce their debt to the amount they borrowed plus simple interest.
My point is this: I earned my PhD in an area of extremely high cost of living, while borrowing as little as possible. In other words, I lived in poverty. My student loan debt is small. I can pay it off easily. Why should I be expected to relate to someone borrowing more money than they could possibly pay back? Why did they borrow so much anyway?
I have the same feeling about mortgage relief. I rent an apartment because purchasing a home in my area is beyond my current means, unless I take out a ridiculous, punishing mortgage. Why should I be expected to relate to people defaulting on homes they could never afford?
Personally, I feel punished for being fiscally responsible. Apparently, there are few long term consequences for financial irresponsibility. Graduate school would have been much more fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment