PSLF revisions: New budget proposal screws anyone in PI. Forum

[Big Dog]

Except the AMA or whatever association it is already severely caps entrance into med school,

This is a common misconception on TLS. (Dunno why).

Med schools are constrained by the number of residencies available, and those are tightly controlled by the feds, who pay for them. The number of residencies has been capped since 1999.

The AMA has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the AMA is like a union -- the more members, the better. They have been advocating for more docs for years.

[dresden doll]

Med students in the Reddit forum from the link above seem to think there is NO grandfathering in for 2015 and prior PSLF students...

Is there a reason we are more optimistic?

I know people have already addressed this, but I'm going to go ahead and add that the very douchebags who got the president to include this on the wishlist known as the president's budget proposal emphatically claim that the cap won't be retroactive:

http://www.edcentral.org/obama-administ ... repayment/

Also, if you scroll through the thread, you'll notice that the previously mentioned Heather Jarvis (the supposed expert on the subject) notes that PSLF is actually one of the terms listed on the Promissory Note. Since the language does use the word "may," I wouldn't put much stock into it, but I still really doubt that Congress will want to open the can of warms that is the retroactive gutting of the PSLF cap.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that retroactivity isn't at all possible. I just think it's very unlikely.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Except the AMA or whatever association it is already severely caps entrance into med school,

This is a common misconception on TLS. (Dunno why).

Med schools are constrained by the number of residencies available, and those are tightly controlled by the feds, who pay for them. The number of residencies has been capped since 1999.

The AMA has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the AMA is like a union -- the more members, the better. They have been advocating for more docs for years.

Ah, sorry (that's why I said AMA or whatever organization). I've heard that in misconception all over the place, not just here, but it's just what I've heard people say, I didn't have any first hand knowledge about it. Main point I wanted to make is that med school entrances are capped, so I don't know how incentivizing people to go to med school plays into anything.

[dresden doll]

Wouldn't the sensible solution have been to simply refuse to give federal student loans to schools with high tuition.

I don't see any good reason to fix this on the back-end, rather than the front-end.

Of course, addressing the issue at the front end would be much, much better. But that's the non-lazy way of doing things and thus not the route that's particularly appealing to the administration/Congress.

[Rahviveh]

Med students in the Reddit forum from the link above seem to think there is NO grandfathering in for 2015 and prior PSLF students...

Is there a reason we are more optimistic?

I know people have already addressed this, but I'm going to go ahead and add that the very douchebags who got the president to include this on the wishlist known as the president's budget proposal emphatically claim that the cap won't be retroactive:

http://www.edcentral.org/obama-administ ... repayment/

Also, if you scroll through the thread, you'll notice that the previously mentioned Heather Jarvis (the supposed expert on the subject) notes that PSLF is actually one of the terms listed on the Promissory Note. Since the language does use the word "may," I wouldn't put much stock into it, but I still really doubt that Congress will want to open the can of warms that is the retroactive gutting of the PSLF cap.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that retroactivity isn't at all possible. I just think it's very unlikely.

That poor guy is getting hammered. He does point out that the proposal recommends removing the tax bomb for non-PSLF forgiveness. Not of much use to you PI folk, though.

[nouseforaname123]

Except the AMA or whatever association it is already severely caps entrance into med school,

This is a common misconception on TLS. (Dunno why).

Med schools are constrained by the number of residencies available, and those are tightly controlled by the feds, who pay for them. The number of residencies has been capped since 1999.

The AMA has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the AMA is like a union -- the more members, the better. They have been advocating for more docs for years.

Ah, sorry (that's why I said AMA or whatever organization). I've heard that in misconception all over the place, not just here, but it's just what I've heard people say, I didn't have any first hand knowledge about it. Main point I wanted to make is that med school entrances are capped, so I don't know how incentivizing people to go to med school plays into anything.

Don't back down. The AMA and AOA have limited the number of med school spots. While Big Dog is correct that the Feds cap residency spots (around 22k per year) the AMA and AOA have only accredited 19k med school spots per class year since the early 80s. Recently the country has gotten to 20k MD and DO grads per year still leaving a gap of 2k med school spots per year. Hence, many of the less desired residency programs have to use internationally educated students to fill their spots.

[ColbyBryant]

More and more medical schools are popping up each year. DO schools are skyrocketing. They have uncorked the limit on the number of US medical graduates. The bottleneck is residency programs, which is funded mostly through the centers for Medicare/Medicaid. This is rapidly making the residency matching process more and more competitive.

This is beside the point of the thread, but wanted to clarify that point for you all.

[cron1834]

Fuck doctors, they have employment and $$ prospects that the average LS student would kill for. Besides, this isn't TMS. That message board would suck.

[Hipster but Athletic]

I thought the petition limit was only 25K signatures? Must have changed it with all the people petitioning the government to recognize Mars on the Security Council.

Somebody needs to make a petition about skin in the game for schools. Let's hear some real solutions, not passing on costs to students to "incentivize" 18 year olds who can't even legally drink to make rational life choices (or, for that matter, 21 year olds who spent the last four years drinking copious amounts of alcohol they aren't supposed to have).

I've posted this before, but here's my solution..

Cap the amount of loans given out by the feds for law school at $100k. The max tuition schools could charge and have sticker students borrow exclusively from the government would be ~$15k/yr (assuming COL loans). If a school wanted to set its tuition at $50k, they of course could, but those loans (and thus the assumption of risk) would come from the school itself. Schools that were confident that they could place students at a rate that justifies a high level of tuition would do so; schools where 40% of their grads are completely unemployed would price at the 15k/year rate or else quickly go out of business due to massive defaults.

This would constrain law schools' pricing in a relatively organic, market-based way.

Or the private loan market would just grow you idiot.

[worldtraveler]

What happens if you just don't pay your loans? I'm assuming wage garnishment at some point? Not planning on doing this but I am genuinely curious.

[Hipster but Athletic]

(Does PI FOR THE PUBLIC'S GOOD)
(Refuses to pay public back for loans)

[bjsesq]

What happens if you just don't pay your loans? I'm assuming wage garnishment at some point? Not planning on doing this but I am genuinely curious.

Yes, wage garnishment.

[Hipster but Athletic]

(Mocks school funded jobs)
(Does PI)

[bjsesq]

Troll another thread, Lax.

[smaug_]

(hates handouts from government)
(awaits handouts from parents)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Troll another thread, Lax.

Yes, this.

[Tiago Splitter]

What happens if you just don't pay your loans? I'm assuming wage garnishment at some point? Not planning on doing this but I am genuinely curious.

Yep. No more tax refund and wages garnished for a while. They could sue you but that's probably only an option if you have real money and are just trying to screw the system.

ETA: Looks like wage garnishment is capped at 15% of disposable income. Sounds like IBR.

[Hipster but Athletic]

(hates handouts from government)
(awaits handouts from parents)

(Is aware and grateful for the benefits received in the past via my parents, doesn't begrudge them when such benefits are retracted)

[Hipster but Athletic]

I'm not trolling, and this is a political thread that should be in the lounge. Retracting public interest subsidies is something that is likely beneficial everyone not interested in that line of work, and for yall to make these "everyone must agree with me" threads is pretty absurd. Forming lobbies, writing OP-eds, calling congressman --I feel strongly that yall need to cut the shit.

[bjsesq]

I'm not trolling, and this is a political thread that should be in the lounge. Retracting public interest subsidies is something that is likely beneficial everyone not interested in that line of work, and for yall to make these "everyone must agree with me" threads is pretty absurd. Forming lobbies, writing OP-eds, calling congressman --I feel strongly that yall need to cut the shit.

People are protecting their interests. If you want to create a thread in the lounge to debate the issue, then do it. You can be contrarian there all you like.

[worldtraveler]

What happens if you just don't pay your loans? I'm assuming wage garnishment at some point? Not planning on doing this but I am genuinely curious.

Yep. No more tax refund and wages garnished for a while. They could sue you but that's probably only an option if you have real money and are just trying to screw the system.

ETA: Looks like wage garnishment is capped at 15% of disposable income. Sounds like IBR.

So basically forced IBR and a trashed credit rating? That's not nearly as bad as I thought.

[Cal Trask]

I'm not trolling, and this is a political thread that should be in the lounge. Retracting public interest subsidies is something that is likely beneficial everyone not interested in that line of work, and for yall to make these "everyone must agree with me" threads is pretty absurd. Forming lobbies, writing OP-eds, calling congressman --I feel strongly that yall need to cut the shit.

Subsidizing public interest work only benefits those doing the work? What about, y'know, the public? Go be a contrarian somewhere else, please.

[Tanicius]

Retracting public interest subsidies is something that is likely beneficial everyone not interested in that line of work

No, the reason this would go into the lounge is because of baiting claims like that, not because everyone here disagrees with it.

[Hipster but Athletic]

I'm not trolling, and this is a political thread that should be in the lounge. Retracting public interest subsidies is something that is likely beneficial everyone not interested in that line of work, and for yall to make these "everyone must agree with me" threads is pretty absurd. Forming lobbies, writing OP-eds, calling congressman --I feel strongly that yall need to cut the shit.

People are protecting their interests. If you want to create a thread in the lounge to debate the issue, then do it. You can be contrarian there all you like.

you guys are hardly just reporting consequences. You've politicized the issue and there's no reason to make a second thread.

And Cal, if people want to frame the problem as a loss of fundamental services that is greater than the value recouped in the budget retraction, that's fine. But zero people here have because I'm suspecting that that's not a sincere belief.

[bjsesq]

Stop engaging it, people.