timbs4339 wrote:There weren't many student loan takers intending to file bankruptcy, just like I bet the current number of students who sign up intending to go on IBR is probably still very low. But some people would see IBR as a subsidy even without the forgiveness, because you're having your payments capped.
You'd remove Gradplus because you'd be singling out grad students (and mostly law students and medical students within that group), who are not that politically powerful or sympathetic compared to the UG students and their parents. The idea would also be to focus on those programs that are actively taking advantage of IBR as a recruitment tool, or those students that build it into their budgets before they go to law school.
This is all obviously speculation and rests a lot on where public opinion is over the next 20 years. But all it takes is one election cycle, or one interested politician who wants a pet issue. I wouldn't bet my future on it, and law schools and professors that encourage you to do that are just scum.
Oh, yeah, I agree that IBR works as a subsidy. I just think there's a difference between having already entered the subsidy program vs. assuming it will be there if you need it.
And that makes sense about GradPLUS, I get that. I think only removing the GradPLUS loans seems way more complicated than excluding based on income, or nature of the grad program, given all the different kinds of loans out there and how many separate loans each loan-taker has (I get like 6 statements mailed to me every month, and I've only taken loans for law school). But I see your point.
And no, I totally agree schools shouldn't encourage students to rely on it.
(I tend to come off as defending IBR in these threads, but in part it's because I'm shooting for PSLF, and sometimes I forget the different kinds of policies behind the 2 programs. I keep thinking we need IBR for people like PDs, then I remember that's what PSLF is for and it's not the same. So, carry on...)