This is a common misconception on TLS. (Dunno why).Except the AMA or whatever association it is already severely caps entrance into med school,
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:cactusflower wrote: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?
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.Big Dog wrote:This is a common misconception on TLS. (Dunno why).Except the AMA or whatever association it is already severely caps entrance into med school,
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.
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.Nomo wrote: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.
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.dresden doll wrote: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:cactusflower wrote: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?
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.
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.A. Nony Mouse wrote: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.Big Dog wrote:This is a common misconception on TLS. (Dunno why).Except the AMA or whatever association it is already severely caps entrance into med school,
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.
Or the private loan market would just grow you idiot.cotiger wrote:I've posted this before, but here's my solution..timbs4339 wrote: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).
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.
Yes, wage garnishment.worldtraveler wrote: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, this.bjsesq wrote:Troll another thread, Lax.
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.worldtraveler wrote: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.
(Is aware and grateful for the benefits received in the past via my parents, doesn't begrudge them when such benefits are retracted)smaug wrote:(hates handouts from government)
(awaits handouts from parents)
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.Hipster but Athletic wrote: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.
So basically forced IBR and a trashed credit rating? That's not nearly as bad as I thought.Tiago Splitter wrote: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.worldtraveler wrote: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.
ETA: Looks like wage garnishment is capped at 15% of disposable income. Sounds like IBR.
Subsidizing public interest work only benefits those doing the work? What about, y'know, the public? Go be a contrarian somewhere else, please.Hipster but Athletic wrote: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.
No, the reason this would go into the lounge is because of baiting claims like that, not because everyone here disagrees with it.Retracting public interest subsidies is something that is likely beneficial everyone not interested in that line of work
bjsesq wrote: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.Hipster but Athletic wrote: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.
you guys are hardly just reporting consequences. You've politicized the issue and there's no reason to make a second thread. 
