Talk:College tuition in the United States/Archive 1

The closing college door
The widespread alarm over "the closing college door" during the 1950s, leading to the National Defense Student Loan Act, then attending and paying for MIT during the 1960s rush of tuition hikes, were formative experiences for me. Having endured those times, I never expected anything so difficult again. Yet it was so, when our two sons attended research universities (not MIT) during the 1980s and 1990s. The enormous time and expense to create a research university limits the supply of such services, which is far outpaced by the demand for them. Barring a depression of even greater harshness than the 1930s, the trends seen since World War II may well continue for another 50 years or more.

Left out of the original version of this article is any mention of loans and scholarships, particularly the "need-based" scholarships that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Someone who knows these topics better than I should undertake a summary. It is hoped that writers on this topic will deal with the reluctance of anyone ingrained in our culture to be labeled as a beggar.

Craig Bolon 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Great work, Craig! Just copyedited the article a bit &#8212; hope you don't mind. jareha (comments) 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I removed Category:Educational stages and Category:School types because college tuition is neither an educational stage or school type. It's a form of education financing, which is why I left Category:Education finance. jareha (comments) 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In state vs out of state
Can we include something about in-state tuition being cheaper than out-of-state tuition? It often has a lot of crence over where students go.
 * WHO wrote this -- and didn't sign it!? (It sure wasn't me, talking to myself LOL.) I just now noticed this undated, unsigned comment, and now will add that, finally, there IS something about the in-state vs. out of state differential as yet another way to 'address' the tuition problem.71.101.55.161 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

First Graph
As a constructive comment, I think the first graph on this page would be much more illustrative if it included only inflation adjusted lines and was not on a logaritmic scale. It would be less cluttered and convey with full force the fact that the "real" price of education is increasing very quickly over time.

Is this first graph correct? The Y scale is in orders of magnitue. I would expect the graph to dramatically flatten.

Footnote 31 contains incorrect information, including a URL that points to the wrong source; there is therefore no way to locate the original data for Toronto upon which the graph claims to be based. Mlarthur (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WHY?
Some discussion of why the cost of a college education is rising so quickly would be a very welcome addition to this article! -Toptomcat 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See the article now. Problem fixed!71.101.55.161 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

College loans cause of inflation???
Just a theory of mine although I haven't tried statistically correlating Dept. of Education figures with annual tuition increases. I reckon that gov't loans that were supposed to "help" have done the opposite and ended up subsidizing the academic "industry." Essentially, colleges are jacking up tuition because they know that students can take out large loans to pay for it. Our gov't then raises loan amounts to "help" with rising tuition costs, but of course, colleges know this and so jack up tuition again. It's essentially turned into a fookin mess that drives Americans deeply into debt. If gov't cut loans, colleges would be forced to cut tuition / pay / expenditures / etc., but colleges have turned into such huge money making businesses and proliferated greatly, meh. I think it's probably just another instance of gov't "assistance" backfiring, but I could be wrong of course - just a simple theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An old comment from 2009. OK, by now (2013), technology has advanced to the point that we can scientifically prove that it's not just "theory," but has been proven as fact. See the article now as it stands.71.101.55.161 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reprise
Since the article was created, there has been little time to revisit it. Mostly the comments seem helpful and appropriate, including a notice seeking wider perspective. It turned out to be difficult to obtain long-term data outside the United States; Toronto was the only exception. However, the issue or rising college tuition might not have a much wider perspective. Among the industrialized nations, the United States stands out for allowing its educational economy to be dominated by elite, private institutions and for allowing those institutions to charge all the market will bear. Graphs are logarithmic because data trends are exponential. Inflation adjustment needs to be explained by showing uninflated trends, because there is controversy as to an appropriate deflator and because inflation is enormously variable by country; it was somewhat a stretch to use the US CPI as a deflator for Toronto. The out-of-state tuitions are not as significant because of the social role of state colleges in supporting students from the sponsoring state. In recent years out-of-state tuitions have become badly distorted as states try to use them as money trees. The "why" of tuition increases is indeed interesting. To start with, one would probably need candid testimony from two or more generations of finance officers at elite, private colleges. It is fairly obvious that many less prestigious colleges are using elite institutions as benchmarks and finance floors. They don't carry the burdens of research universities yet have been able to charge nearly the same prices. What the article indicates is that price trends at private institutions appear to be a very long-term trend, stretching over more than six decades, and that public institutions appear to have different, perhaps more socially responsive, long-term trends. Recent trends, however, suggest public institutions may be moving toward the rates of price increases at private institutions. -- September 28, 2007

Propose move to "College tuition in the United States"
I think the US and Canada are the only two countries to use the term "tuition" for college fees. Thus it should be under a new title. --Liface (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Entitling the page "College tuition" without specifying that it only pertains to the United States is U.S.-centric and misleading for the majority of readers. (Amos True (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

I am from Australia and I have to mention that this page isn't actually about Tuition fees (in the US), it is about the growth of tution fees and the inflationary trends in student living costs. It tells me nothing about what tuition fees actually are, why colleges have tuition fees, when tuition fees were instituted, what is the average cost of tuition (no fancy graphs please - just plain English), how people pay for tuition, college funds, comparison between tuition fees in the U.S. and other forms of higher education payment in other countries and the differences in cost between, say, a science program to an arts program to a law program. In Australia we pay between $5000 and $9000 per year to go to university. How does that compare to fees in the U.S? I don't know. Because no-one thought that it was relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.212.89 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article again. See "An idea for changing the name of the article" below. Thanks. Misty MH (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Other
Changed text to accurately reflect numbers that appear on graphic of college tuition vs. helath care vs cost of living inflation. College tuition can be clearly seen to be 950% of 1978 cost of living dollars, but the text said "nearly 800%". Also, cost of living has gone up 300% but the chart clearly shows 250%. Finally the derived relationship of tuition increase relative to cost of living increase is therefore closer to 4 times and not the three times stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.136.199 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well intentioned article is out of date
While the information presented is accurate, I believe it is misleading in light of new studies by Jane Wellman, sponsored by the Lumina Foundation. Yes, the price (what students pay in Tuition & Fees) has doubled the rate of inflation, but for public institutions, this is replacing the monies lost due to cuts in state appropriation support. The costs (what colleges spend) has actually been flat in the 18 year period of study (1987 - 2005) Please see www.deltaproject.org for extensive information on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.121.1 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Student Loans
This section of the article seems to be written in highly emotive language for instance "Students today may be an exploited minority, being taken economic advantage of because they lack the historical perspective to appreciate the inequity. In any case, questions may be raised about placing young adults, who ought to be seen as be agents of change and progress, into society already burdened with debt and enmeshed in the status quo because students are often forced to take jobs they'd rather not have immediately after graduation to repay loan debts."

I would think this needs to be kept to the facts of the costs of student fees compared to ability to pay and funding - currently is sounds like a political speech.

Joss (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea for changing the name of the article
Since the note at top says "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2007)", maybe the article could be renamed:

College tuition in North America.

It apparently includes mostly USA and Canada figures.

Misty MH (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * good points, but even as a registered editor, I would not get paid, and sometimes reverted and argued at, so this is above my pay grade!
 * (-:/ -- anyhow, maybe a good idea, but should there not be an article specifically for the US? Like there is one with the UK? And, if there is one just for the US, then it may be redundant to make a North America article --maybe a 'North America' section in this article? Hmm... not sure. Seek consensus. (Translation: I'm lazy and/or underpaid help!)71.100.190.35 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request assistance here (update)
Nasnema reverted edits I made to this page just now, claiming that sources were not cited, but it would appear that sources were cited.

Could someone please look into this and determine whether this is correct --or why the sources cited did not qualify as legitimate here?

Being new to this make it all the harder, but I would seem to have cited my sources here.

I thought I followed the Wikipedia rules here -- I have heard rumors of childish arguments on this website, and if 'Nasnema' is serious with what he/she said, then this makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia.!

!

I followed the rules, and yet he/she deleted my posts, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources


 * (update)
 * (update + place it on the right part of page --- new stuff at bottom)


 * -- Since posting this, I 'canvassed' and got help from others --and I think that 'Nasnema' looks like he/she will calm down and be a 'good' editor -- On my honour, I apologise for canvassing -- but being a bit new, I did not think about going to the 'Report Vandalism' page, and this talk page is not monitored very much. OK, that is all - thank you all for your help here. Have a good day. Ta!71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Section
There are many consumer advocate and public interest groups that are advocating a number of changes. I wonder if it would be right to add a section for them, maybe as a subsection of the 'Social Concerns' section --or maybe in the existing 'External Links' section? Any thoughts here? I seek consensus and feedback of the community.71.101.40.113 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no dissent, a few links were added, ready for community review & consensus.71.101.40.113 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, there is the voice of dissent -- User, 'Petiatil' deleted the properly sourced subsection -- here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438733098&oldid=438732957 -- in light of your comments on your user page, I am posting a question to ask what is your rationale. Thank you. -- My brain is over-worked -- this page is now at least partly 'OK' -- and it's time to take time off & go to church this morning -- I wish a good and blessed day to one and all!


 * (-:/    71.101.33.24 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the inappropriate edit that contained a personal opinion of an editor per WP:SYNTHESIS (suicide is bad, a couple of students with student debt commit suicide, therefore student debt is bad). Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  72Dino (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... interesting -- the suicides were a fact -- and the claim that they are bad is a fact -- but connecting suicide to debt was, I admit, anecdotal -- not necessarily studied by a peer-reviewed study by scientists --nonetheless, I did cite my sources -- so the claim that the student debt was excessive and also 'bad' was my main claim -- Student debt is NOT bad in and of itself, but I think I made my case -- it is for the community to decide. Thank you for your input.71.101.33.24 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty new here but it seems to me that sections like "see also" and "external links" should be noticeably relevant to the article. All sorts of things are marginally relevant to any article so we can't list everything, just the more important ones. So, the question is, how big of a cause are college loans to suicides on a national/world basis? My guess is not much. This significance would need to be proven for suicide to be included.PumpkinSky (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense meant, Bro, but even one suicide is important --and something as serious as suicide for one person means there are like a hundred or 1,000 others who want to (are tempted to) but don't --and while yes, I admit I don't have a scientific study, the anecdotal evidence is pretty clear --besides, for the loss of *BLOOD* and *LIFE* here, on a *definitely* related topic, don't you think at least a few sentences are appropriate? They are properly sourced, and also, other editors (excepting a 'bot' which mistakenly deleted that section) agree -even the bot's owner was good with it -- now, the more pressing issue is the 'external links' issue (below --and in the article 'diffs') --it is that for which I seek your help. Thanks, Big Dawg!71.100.187.222 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If the suicides are related, that is SIGNIFICANT. However, if you are saying "they [suicides] are bad is a fact", that appears to be OPINION. Not everyone would agree that suicide is "bad". Some might even claim that it is good, if not important, in some cases. If the sentence only meant that some people claim that suicide is bad, then that IS a fact, as is the reverse. If a claim that suicide is bad is based on religious belief, or any other belief, as long as you quote some appropriate, published source, then you've followed at least one of Wikipedia's rules. If you think it's in some religious text -- the Bible maybe -- the question is WHERE? (The Roman Catholic Church may say that it's wrong, if not a Mortal Sin, but does the Bible?? Arguments of "self-murder" are just that, arguments.) (Continues.)


 * Changing the subject a bit, I think it would be interesting to find a direct correlation between suicide and student loan debt (dare we add unemployment or underemployment?), and I have no doubt that feeling overwhelmed by such is probably related to many people's reasons for suicide (other kinds of debt too). However, at least with OTHER DEBT, one may be able to file for bankruptcy protection; whereas, this currently (or at least recently) may not apply to student loans (according to Suze Orman's "The Money Class" video on Public Television, which I saw a couple of months back). (Continues.)


 * You are correct -- currently, neither public NOR EVEN PRIVATE student loans (those made from a private bank to a private student) can be discharged in bankrputcy --even if the person is disabled by Social Security rules --unless (this VERY high --almost impossible) standard of 'undue hardship' is met -- and by impossible, I mean like only about 5-10 people per year arer granted this --or at least that's what I recall.71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It would seem that such considerations would go under a topic (or article) related to whether to take out a loan or not. (Continues.)


 * Believe it or not, I was in an Economics class at university, and the professor sounded like he was showing that it's NOT always "better" economically (money-wise) to get a degree (when going into debt), and that the time spent working vs. being in class and studying was significant to the discussion. I've seen recent articles about this question as well. (Was it in a recent/current Wired magazine article? Hmm. Not sure. Or was it multiple articles connected to this and other Wikipedia articles? Sorry.) (Continues.)


 * -Whoah, nelley! -- HONEST Professor -- Wow! --well, most are honest, but almost NONE would dare admit these facts. (They would simply be honest by virtue of not lying LOL)71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, measuring the value of spending more time in the company of well-educated folks (etc.) vs. having less debt, would be difficult. (Continues.)


 * Yep -- that's why students are stuck in a striat these days.01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have an opinion: Most 4-year college degrees cost WAY too much! :) Misty MH (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No - you have stated a fact. LOL (-:/ 71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, do you have any idea where the advocacy and consumer groups on that subject belong? (They CERTAINLY belong *somewhere* --whether on this article or another? THX!71.100.190.35 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pick back up where we left off

 * OK, I'm back from church -- now, you said that there were links on Student_loan that were removed --and said in your edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438742669&oldid=438740642 the following: "remove per WP:EL, these links were removed from Student loan earlier as inappropriate for an encyclopedia." -- OK, as I mentioned before, I don't think that the external links that I posted on College_tuition_in_the_United_States were exactly the same as the links that you say were removed on Student_loan, but I will agree with you, after looking at Student_loan briefly, it appears that the links in question are indeed similar, and so your point is well-taken.

Now, my question to you is this: If these 'Consumer Advocacy and Public Interest Group' links were inappropriate on that page, then where would they BE appropriate? On my honour, 72Dino, my point is not to argue -- you MAY BE right on your claim they didn't belong on that page, but we do realise that since these web pages / web sites ARE related to the subject at hand, then, without a doubt, they DO belong on one of the related Wikipedia pages --since this is the sort of thing you would find in an encyclopaedia.

My only question to you, now, is 'where?' -- Thank you. (We want to provide readers information on the subject.)

Another thing: After looking closely at all the pages / sites in question -looking at stuff like the registration dates & such, it would seem that, not only are these appropriate to the subject, but also, ALL five of the sites are 'permanent' sites with loooong registration guarantee, likely to be around for a 'loooong' time --in other words, 'permanent' sites, whose links are not likely to be broken any time soon.71.100.187.222 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Here was the disputed edit / diff
RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=438742669&oldid=438740642

Which removed "Consumer Advocacy and Public Interest Groups" subsection from the "External links" section:
 * "Forgive Student Loan Debt"
 * "Project On Student Debt"
 * "Student Loan Justice"
 * "Thirst For Justice"
 * "U.S. PIRG"
 * "College Conspiracy" YouTube video by 'InflationUS' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in reference to EL, these links seem related --and (more importantly), I checked out ALL 5 of them: They look 'permanent,' insofar as the ISP's seem to have paid up the registration for their web addresses for a looong time in advance, so these links do NOT look like they will be 'bad' links any time soon a-- all 5 look permanent, deep, and related, even if quite a bit biased -- that's why it's called 'advocacy' -- it is of necessity biased, but it's related --and even if these type links don't belong in this article, they belong somewhere. Where?

Regards, -- 71.100.187.222 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe these links belong anywhere on Wikipedia. As far as this article goes, student loan debt is only tangentially related to the topic.  Many students pay their higher education tuition without incurring debt, and this article is on tuition, not debt.  Advocacy links are not appropriate, especially where listing so many gives undue weight to a particular point of view. 72Dino (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me that there was a Student_debt page --meaning that if ANY page should have these sources, THAT one Student_debt and not this page here, so that supports your arguments that these links don't belong HERE ... but... -- now, not to be disagreeable, but you actually make a good case for my argument by reminding me of this --let's look closer at this page: Student_debt -- This page has 1 of the 5 links I picked --and it was by chance, since I was not the editor who put that link there --so, my point is this: If another editor put http://projectonstudentdebt.org/ on Student_debt and I (without consultation or knowledge) also put the same link on *this* page (a related article), then that makes a good case for (partial) consensus --at least insofar as the advocacy groups belong somewhere --and that is where you come in -- you make the case that this is not the page --so, I propose a compromise that these advocacy groups belong with their own kind -- on the Student_debt  page, where one of them already is. Consensus  sought on that point tentatively.71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Relationship of Community College AA degrees, applied degrees, and certificates to Income. Plus, Overqualified.
While there are claims, related to getting work, that 4-year college degrees are worth the costs paid -- lost wages, student loans, and other time expended, etc. -- many of those degrees were made up of 2-year degrees. And many of those 2-year degrees helped people get work.

That work experience likely lent to getting more work after the 4-year degree program.

All of this is part of a statistical analysis of education related to jobs; but I almost never see it mentioned in any report on the subject. Many reports and speeches appear to be geared toward pushing for 4-year degrees (or higher).

Some degrees contrasted:

Some 2-year degrees are specifically DESIGNED for specific kinds of jobs, and focus on what people need to know for such jobs. These are generally called VOCATIONAL degrees because they directly relate to vocations, or specific work. They are also called APPLIED degrees.

The training in these AAAS (applied) degrees often does NOT include things like Distribution credits which are part of 2-year "TRANSFER" degrees (AAS). Such Distribution credits typically make up 60 credits of one's required 90 (or more) credits, maybe 2/3 of which are NOT directly related to a similarly-named vocational degree (maybe about 40, or more).

Now, When people quote statistics supposedly relating a 4-year degree to a person getting a jobs such things may not be taken into account.

Further, the relationships of specific degree to specific job is also often not referenced.

In addition, many times, people get a job all right, but one that is not closely if even remotely related to the 4-year degree they got!

In other words, their specific 4-year degree may not have affected them getting that job.

The number of jobs that people have that are unrelated to their degrees is significant.

While it is true that some companies or HR folks prefer to hire people with a degree, the relationship between degrees and jobs across the board may be poorly represented in most speeches and articles.

A particular degree may not get someone a job. In fact, a particular job may even HINDER the job-seeking process for a person.

And someone OVERqualified may not get hired for just that fact. (People sometimes leave degrees off their resumes and job applications for this purpose.)

I doubt that is calculated into most reports, speeches, and articles either!

While one might not agree with the "politics", related to this topic, I recently saw a very interesting video on YouTube called "College Conspiracy", posted there by InflationUS. It's not short. It's 1 hr. 2 mins. 47 seconds.†

If it's okay to include a link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE


 * † I should probably add that the last 3 minutes of the video is basically an ad; and that earlier, they stoked the ad with some comment about investing in "physical silver". :)


 * I just now watched/listened to most of the latter part of the video again. I previously saw it about 6 weeks ago, and had forgotten most of it already! Like college! LOL. (I didn't agree with all of its conclusions.) I don't think it mentioned my concerns about 2-year degrees affecting stats, though it did mention how folks who get GEDs are or might be included in stats on jobs related to high school graduates. I agree that they should be separated out, like those with 2-year degrees, to get some real statistics! Misty MH (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Misty MH (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny unusual update, Misty,.. I tried to add the parent link to the youtube video, to be complete --but it (in other words, the 'National Inflation Association' website ' Inflation dot US' spelled out) was blocked as on some watch list, so instead of adding that YouTube vid to the 'Debt' page which was the result of the compromise above, I did not -- thinking it would be inappropriate -- that is SAD, since your youtube link here is great -- I'm tempted to copy it to MY youtube -- wonder if their copyright says it's OK. Hmm...71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm new, but I know that it's OK to include related links in talk -- here --funny you would post this -- one of my Facebook peeps JUST TODAY (I think it was) posted this SAMER EXACT link when I asked his opinion on an article on that subject -- I saw an article that compared slavery with student loan debt, and as my friend is Black, I asked him whether this article was offensive to him --and he said 'no' and proceeded to share the SAME link you shared -- funny that!


 * PS: I am denied jobs both because of being under-qualified AND overqualified -- good points.71.100.190.35 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Interesting. Misty MH (talk)
 * You're welcome, and thank *you* 4 ye input --OK, so far, I'm finished with my contributions. Have a nice evening. ALSO: When looking 4 new comments, u can see the individual edit changes in the coloured 'diffs' in the 'View history' page -at top, you know? Yes, that video may be an ad for some gold or silver product --and it's loooong, but makes mostly good points, even though they forget to mention the Cost of Living Index was not what colleges should use: The Cost of Higher Education Index, with a different sub-set of materials that colleges purchase have gone up faster than the rate of inflation --so, not all colleges fault, but yes MOSTLY their dishonest fault. OK, I'm calling it a night here in the Eastern Standard Time Zone. Have a nice evening.
 * PS: You can also see MY unique edits by clicking on my IP address --like the links I added on the appropriate article page. Did I do well? Thx!71.100.190.35 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone better qualified than I -- and with time to check out the links -- should probably see if what you added was relevant and proper. Misty MH (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New disagreement over a source
Here is the capture of the discussion --see the 'Dumb Question' section at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72Dino&oldid=438964278#Dumb_Question Please weigh in. Thank you.71.100.190.190 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over recent edit: User:72Dino's edit on 03:41, 20 November 2011
Thank you for protecting editors on Student Loan debt, in the past when I had trouble with vandals and trolls, but I differ on your last edit:

(cross-posted to your talk page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=461536456&oldid=461530029#Lack_of_consumer_protection

You took out this part: "and, in response, the lenders and colleges know that students, defenseless to declare bankruptcy, are on the hook for any amount that they borrow -including late fees and interest (which can be capitalized and increase the principal loan amount), thus removing the incentive to provide the student with a reasonable loan that he/she can pay back," with the explanation that "POV not supported by references from reliable sources," however, you left in this part here:

"Under this theory, it would be more profitable for the lender if the student defaulted (due to the increases in the amount of the loan after fees and interest are capitalized), and thus there is no free market pressure-type motive for the lender or the college to help the student avoid default."

And, I agree with your assessment to leave this part in here.

But look closely at the 2 excepts, Dino:

They're basically saying the same thing... the 2nd excerpt says the lender sees that it's profitable for the student to default.

The 1st excerpts says that the lenders know the student can be more easily victimized without said protections -- don't you agree they say the same thing (in slightly different language)?

So, if you leave in the 2nd excerpt, I would ask you put back in the 1st one.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is correct in reporting this theory -- it really is true: That theory exists -- and the reason that's OK is because, whether the theory is correct or not, the facts underpinning it are cited -- and so we're just reporting the news. (Lastly, you and I both know this theory is probably correct in many instances --human nature being what it is). -- But, in short: There really are facts, and also, there really is this theory based on the facts -- both are true, and both should be reported.

What do you think?71.100.189.115 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The content I removed was not cited in the reference. I will also review the second excerpt to see if that should be removed.  The content removed about the intent of lenders is unencyclopedic and makes no sense.  A loan is not profitable if a borrower defaults.  Frankly, most of the article sounds like the opinions of students that just don't want to pay back the debt they incurred. If the loan amount and terms weren't reasonable then the student should not have borrowed the funds.  The facts in this article should be supported by reliable sources.  They currently are not. 72Dino (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * '"A loan is not profitable if a borrower defaults."' With all due respect, Dino, a defaulted loan is MUCH more profitable, as interest accrues and capitalizes --thereby causing the principal loan to go way up, so my conclusion was correct. ;"If the loan amount and terms weren't reasonable then the student should not have borrowed the funds."; I disagree: Students have NO choice BUT to borrow, if they want an education, since it is next to impossible to be anything more than a burger-flipper at McDonald's without that sheepskin, but that is moot, since I am right on my other replies to you above: both the underlying facts and the fact that diverse opinions exists, are newsworthy, and should be reported; I have cited my sources.71.100.179.96 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unsupported POV. This is not the place to fight for a cause or advocate for a position. ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)If a financial institution has to charge off a loan, then all that accrued interest is reversed and also goes away in addition to the defaulted principal. There is no incentive for a lender to encourage a loan to go bad.  And borrowing for education is not a right . . . everyone has a choice in life.  Many students have achieved an education at a university without going into debt. And again, and most importantly here on Wikipedia, there are no reliable references to support this content. 72Dino (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, my friends, but I am not following: Does the accrued interest capitalize and increase the principal loan amount? Yes. Does this mean that the lender makes more in the end? Yes. Is 'more money' a universally recognized motive for something (in other words: EVERYONE knows more money is a motive, and thus THIS does NOT have to have a source to verify it)? Yes. Thus my logic is complete, and the conclusion is correct from its flow.71.100.179.96 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Defaulted loans don't seem to make the lender more money since the money isn't paid back. More importantly, I dispute your third point and the role of profit motive in non-profit organizations.  Hence you need to provide sources. ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)As indicated by ElKevbo, a bad loan does not earn a lender more money. Accrued interest does not capitalize and is not added to the principal (i.e., interest is not charged on the interest). And if a financial institution has to charge off a loan because of default, the company loses both principal AND interest and has incurred a loss because a borrower did not pay their loan back as agreed.  And there still are no references in the article to support your edit. 72Dino (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In reply: '"a bad loan does not earn a lender more money."' Yes, it does, since (at least with Federal loans), the government eventually DOES get theirs, since they are allowed to garnish wages, retirement, and yes!, even disability. '"Accrued interest does not capitalize and is not added to the principal (i.e., interest is not charged on the interest)."' That is factually false: I know (at least my experience) is that with my college loans, I was told on the terms of service that, eventually, the unpaid interest will capitalize, and thereby increase the principal of the loan. In fact, Kevbo, this is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to most loans. I would agree that more sources would be better, but the rightness of my 2nd claim is well-known among students, and I do not feel the need to cite it. Could you provide a cite to back your POV? Also, are both my claims here correct in light of my clarification?71.100.179.96 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, the issue is not whether you are correct but whether you have reliable sources supporting your assertions. WP:V is not negotiable, particularly for assertions that have been challenged by other editors in good standing. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view, the claims seem to be verified sufficiently (I mean, really, if I said the sky was blue, would I have to cite a source for that), however, as much as I hate to admit it (you may be right here), these claims are a tad less obvious, and in this gray area (when in doubt, leave it out), I admit that it would be best to cite sources, so I will accept that your maxim is correct, namely that citation to sources is more important than accuracy (or, in the alternative, maybe not more important, but still a Sine Quo Non required element), and thus this is my final analysis.71.100.179.96 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that was gracefully done. For what it's worth, I'm sure there are sources that could be cited if you'd look around a bit since this is such a hot topic, especially with the new push by some OWS protesters for people to cease payment on their student loans. ElKevbo (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you: I concur on all points.71.101.46.53 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Short note to User_talk:Flyte35 - questions about recent edits
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyte35&diff=561771102&oldid=556099145

I was unclear on your recent edit, User_talk:Flyte35, and I posted several questions about that on your talk page at the link above. Below is a copy & paste for the benefit of others -and for redundancy in case something happens to one copy of my questions.71.101.48.122 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See User_talk: Flyte35: Question about edit summary reasoning Flyte35 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about edit summary reasoning...
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=561769844&oldid=561611852

In the edit just prior to this one, where I fix a formatting typo, you reverted my edit in this same section, and gave a pretty good reason - just not enough space in edit summary for me to get the full gist of what you were trying to say.

As you can see, in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=561611852 I made the following addition:

"This factor becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays are going to college, which means that there are less state and federal grant funds available per student."

with the following edit summary:

"(→‎Additional factors: revert good-faith mistake edit of 01:34, 30 April 2013 : This claim seems to be supported/implied by the reference; however, even if not, the fact more students are in college is common knowledge = needs no documentation/citation)"

You RE-reverted (reverted my revert) with this summary:

"(Undid revision 561595261 by 71.100.195.160 (talk) more students common knowledge, but that increasing tuition discounting (or reducing state funds) not common knowledge/in reference)"

Apparently, you had removed this in a prior edit before I got there in the Revision as of 01:34, 30 April 2013 (edit) (undo) Flyte35 (talk | contribs) (→‎Additional factors: that factor is also addressed in Kantrowitz) Next edit → http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=552819582&oldid=552805540

(This is getting confusing, but in summary -- apparently, you removed something in the article, I replaced/restored it, and you removed it again.) No offense meant, but I am confused by both of your edit summaries:


 * First Question: What did you mean in your first edit (Apr 30, 2013 @ 1:34am) that "that factor is also addressed in Kantrowitz?" (If it were indeed discussed, then this would mean that the previous editor could cite Kantrowitz as the source, and, indeed, Kantro is a national expert here.)

Secondly, your edit summary, while good, still left me confused -where you said: "(Undid revision 561595261 by 71.100.195.160 (talk) more students common knowledge, but that increasing tuition discounting (or reducing state funds) not common knowledge/in reference)."


 * 2nd Question: If, indeed, you agree that it's common knowledge that more students are in college now-days, then what is wrong with making the factual statement that there would, necessarily, be less financial aid per student, all other factors being equal? (And, even if factors weren't equal, this still would have an effect, and you don't need to cite a source to prove a commonly known fact that with more hungry people, there are less apples and oranges -e.g., money -to go around per person?)

(PS: This higher ed struggle is an important issue, as many students are hurting, and we need to work together here to present the facts, so that any solution is more-easily forthcoming.)


 * 3rd and LASTLY, since you apparently don't disagree with my statements as fact, what do you propose as the appropriate solution here? Thank you, in advance, for your clarification.71.101.48.122 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See User_talk: Flyte35: Question about edit summary reasoning Flyte35 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Need input from other editors...
This is the edit in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=565617027&oldid=565615581

In making the case that this is a good edit, please note that opposing editor made this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=565490131&oldid=565400063

While I disagree with his change, I admit (and give him credit) that he did change this partly because I asked him: I said that the additions I made would "address" rising tuition, and if he didn't agree why not change the header (which was not the best option, but did make his edit deletions technically correct).

Here is a 'diff' where we discussed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyte35&diff=565617831&oldid=565617540#College_tuition_in_the_United_States_-_-_redux

However, discussion, proper, needs to be on this 'talk' page, not on another editor's page, so I thus request input from the community to break this tie, and get consensus and resolution. I think my edit is correct, and presents the most complete set of recommendations to address these problems.71.101.54.213 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see much encyclopedic value in the first edit. First, it reads very much like a set of instructions or recommendations for students which is not our charge. Second, the sources are pretty weak which has led to the text itself being weak (e.g., "...many students have started working part time" - aside from the grammatical issue of the missing hyphen, the statement itself is facile and ignorant of historical context in which part-time work has been common for many students for many years). ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC).
 * I looked at your not our charge link and can not see how it would preclude this type of edit. (None of the exception here apply to this edit.) Therefore, I see plenty of encyclopedic value here: The students have always worked -and always NEEDED to work; however, with "bad" governmental policies that result in oppressive predatory loans, these burdened students need even more help. I agree, however, that the hyphen is needed. I will "assemble a committee" to look into it. :) 71.101.55.161 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the specific part of the policy in question: "...an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box." Telling students what they should do is an obvious violation of that policy. ElKevbo (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is telling the students to do these things, any more than they are "telling" the lawmakers to "do" the recommended changes in federal law. These are merely encyclopedic entries for solutions, not unlike, for example, entries for "how to" counteract an overdose: See, for example, Iron_deficiency or Iron_poisoning or (better yet) Drug_overdose: These 3 lists read like a "how to" manual, but, in all reality, that is because you are misreading them: They do not say you must do A-B- or C; they merely offer a short, concise encyclopedia list of recommendations or solutions (antidotes, ventilation, dialysis, diagnosis of the deficiency, supplements if low, etc.) -no different than those offered in this article --for both lawmakers and consumers. PS: I do see your recommendation to step back (due to maybe objectivity issues) below (and for simplicity, I am replying all in 1 place, here), and I do not have a problem doing that, if indeed there will be genuine community support for a complete encyclopedic entry -as opposed to your views only. (Lastly, how are my 'recommendations' any different -any worse -than those offered in the Iron and Drugs articles I link above?) Thank you, 71.101.54.16 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the better sentence . It states the issue with more clarity and more impact. It gets the intended message across much better than the other edit (hopefully that is what you're asking). Also, sorry to say, but "slow tuition growth" is much more cumbersome and seems almost vague when compared to the other, better, statement. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I KNOW it is a better sentence. I wrote it! (Thank you for the kudos.) This version addresses all aspects of the problem, thus leaving open all avenues of correction/assistance. With proper respect to the other editor, Flyet35, he meant well, but his edit, restricted to addressing how to "slow tuition growth" was/is restrictive. Thank you for backing/supporting my edit. :) 71.101.55.161 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that " "slow tuition growth" is not the best line ever, and I'd be happy to hear other suggestions. The point is that reformers are proposing policy changes in order to make it so that tuition doesn't increase so fast every year. "Address rising tuition" strikes me as far too ambiguous. Reformers aren't talking about "addressing" rising tuition; they're talking about curtailing it.Flyte35 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although you may have lost the battle, you won the war: Your edits, overall, have been excellent. To answer your suggestion about "and I'd be happy to hear other suggestions," I would suggest that sometimes, doing nothing is the right thing: If it isn't broke, don't fix it: The original language ('address' problem) was less restrictive than your proposed solution (to 'slow' the tuition growth: Good, but restrictive, and precluded the other ideas I had). Yes, I'm all about curtailing the tuition, but being an 'inclusionist' (is that the word you use on your planet to describe a Wiki editor open to several ideas, including all?), I would prefer my edit over yours: My edit includes ALL of your ideas -plus a few unique ones. Don't worry, Flyet35, things won't get out of hand, it it will make the article stronger, more robust, and more well-rounded. :) 71.101.55.161 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "curtail tuition growth"? The point is these are policy recommendations to keep tuition down.Flyte35 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we were going to restrict recommendations (e.g., solutions) solely to "their" side (i.e., addressing only the solutions that "they" could do), there would be an almost infinite variety of possibilities: "Recommendations from experts and consumer and students' rights advocates to..."
 * #1: ...Slow Tuition Growth (your original edit)
 * #2: ...Curtail Tuition Growth (your newer suggestion)
 * #3: ...Reduce Average Tuition (actually reversing course, and not just slowing rate of velocity)
 * #4: ...Seek Compensation for excessive tuition
 * #5: ...Make Corrections to the way tuition is calculated.
 * Can you see where I'm going with this? These methods only allow or permit suggestions for "them" to change "their" behavior; however, even though we, plebeians don't like to be told that WE can "do something," in all fairness, we CAN (even though I will readily admit that our culpability here is MUCH less than either the illegal monopoly that IS "Higher Education" OR the government, itself, which created this mess by not only making loans available to people who didn't need them (thus inducing colleges to raise tuition to match our increased borrowing abilities), but also by further preventing the bubble from growing: By illegally changing the terms of our loan contract AFTER THE FACT (cf: Contract Law) to strip the bankruptcy safety-net provisions, this was VERY illegal!! Furthermore, even in cases where new loans already had no bankruptcy protections, the lack of 'Truth in Lending' protection prevented students from even knowing about these terms, which is a Due Process Violation, insofar as proper notice of a danger is not explained, thus violating "Implied Warrant of Merchantability." (That's a legal term: Google it; in plain English, it's like if you buy apples, and they're poison, the seller has violated an implied warrant of "merchantability" because fitness of the apples, while not in an actual contract, is implied.) Also, when students are not able to protect themselves from Predatory Lending via Bankruptcy Protections, the 'easy loan' monies rush in even quicker (the lender has much less rick here), thus fueling the bubble.
 * ...sorry to get off on a rant, but my point is simply this, Flyte35:
 * Yes, I would agree with what I'm sure you would conclude: The 'bad guys' are much more culpable then we, the little guy borrowers here, but in all fairness, if there are solutions that we, student borrowers, can do to help, it is MORALLY WRONG to have an encyclopedia entry that omits these solutions. While I have only listed a few -to be representative (and imply the rest), these are necessary; they don't take up too much space in the article and they do add to the depth, vibrancy, and completeness of this subject matter. Therefore, using the language that I left with my most recent edit here, which lists things that 'address' the problem, we are permitted to have the few (but important) 'extras' in these proposed solutions -and, cited via sources to boot, in good English grammar that flows. (And, this may also help save a student's life, since suicide attributed to Student Loan Debt stress is NOT getting smaller in incidence!) Therefore, it is logical to accept the article as optimal as it is now. I don't see it as "hurting" anything, and I certainly hope that you don't take in offense my prosecution of my case: I necessarily must be ardent in my prosecution (and certainly hope that such arguments or disagreements are less and less often, instead of the other way around). Thank you for hearing me out.71.101.55.161 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone else weigh in on this? Only solutions #1 and #2 actually address what the recommendations are really about. I feel like we've already had this discussion. The other recommendations are policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. Your edit, and the sources for that edit, do not represent policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. That's why it doesn't belong in this article. Flyte35 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (to the community) Even though there would be a greater-than-zero risk of there being a revert to the final version (which I support), I do agree with Flyte35 "on principle" that I, too, do welcome other input. (replying to you, Flyte35, and quoting you in italics as indictated) "I feel like we've already had this discussion." Yes, we did. "Your edit, and the sources for that edit, do not represent policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing." Correct, but they do address the problem with other solutions on the opposite end (supply of money vs. amount of debt). "That's why it doesn't belong in this article." Well, technically, you are correct, but, the way the header is worded now, the newer recommendations (that I added) do fit/belong. Please read (or re-read) my previous answer above; it does offer much clarification/insight. For the record, our edit dispute ended in a technical draw, with 2 editors for and 2 against, and on that basis alone, I would have declared you a winner (since my 'vote' as an unregistered editor counts for a little less than you all; however, as on of the registered editors who was initially against me has decided to null/mull his vote by inaction (perhaps in deference to my arguments), I (technically) won by the slimmest of margins, but I am not gloating or trying to make fun of you: Your edits are usually spot-on correct: that is why I ask you to slowly re-read my previous reply right above before you proceed to consider this further. Thank you. :) 71.101.54.16 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

71.101.54.213, I strongly recommend that you step away from this article. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advocate for your personal causes, correct wrongs, or provide personal or legal advice to readers. ElKevbo (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied above for the sake of simplicity.71.101.54.16 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We reached no consensus on this matter. This is somewhat complicated by the fact there were two (related) edits under discussion. I've already made clear my feelings about the edits, but since this is essentially a deletion discussion, WP:NOCONSENSUS is that the edit generally remains. So there it is. I will leave this matter alone.Flyte35 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Inflationary effects lacking in Loan Forgiveness discussion requested by Flyte35
I am starting a thread, based on the request of another editor to discuss this matter in talk.71.101.50.196 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is the edit in question, which added the following text:

"Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods"), it is not inflationary."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=617129328&oldid=617126963

Furthermore, here are the edit summaries of the edit war which resulted from competing editors, myself and Flyte35:


 * (cur | prev) 02:31, 16 July 2014‎ Flyte35 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,421 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (Undid revision 617126963 by 71.101.50.196 (talk) No, you're drawing a conclusion based on two sources, even if it's valid it's still OR. Discuss in talk if you have questions.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 02:02, 16 July 2014‎ 71.101.50.196 (talk)‎ . . (44,768 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (rv possible vandalism or possibly Good faith (Reverted edits by Flyte35) who removed properly sourced content, which was not Original Research]])) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 05:30, 14 July 2014‎ Flyte35 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,421 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (Undid revision 616869566 by 71.100.192.81 (talk) original research?) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 04:47, 14 July 2014‎ 71.100.192.81 (talk)‎ . . (44,768 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (→‎Recommendations: add pros/cons of this option: not inflationary + cite source) (undo)

In the 4th, and last, edit, UserFlyete35 requested this matter be discussed on the talk page, and so, agree or disagree with his/her edit, this is a reasonable request.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar request for discussion by ElKevbo
In a sister page, there was a similar edit war. With three registered editors (2 here and 1 in the other page, above), all of whom are against my edit, it seems "hopeless" that my edit will be upheld, even if (even though) it is a properly sourced and truthful statement. Things like this - rejecting a truthful and properly sourced "on-topic" statement -are chief reasons why people like me chose not to register an account, but, be that as it may, I must, 'myslef', give a good faith effort to fixing this omission, and assume good faith (on the part of the other editors as well), and discuss it: What is alleged both by ElKevbo in the Higher Education bubble page here -and by Flyte3 the College Tuition in the United States page above is "Original Research," and so, instead of running from this, I will be honest and let both sets of editors know of this common discussion, even though I will exponentially increase the odds that I am "ganged up on," and my edit defeated: I am human, but I am honest, so I will give all parties fair notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education_bubble&diff=617129679&oldid=617126025 is the last diff edit with these being the last 4 edit summaries:


 * (cur | prev) 02:35, 16 July 2014‎ ElKevbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,024 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (rv OR; discuss in Talk, please) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 01:50, 16 July 2014‎ 71.101.50.196 (talk)‎ . . (40,371 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (rv (Reverted edits by Jim1138 (talk): who removed properly sourced content) reverted possible vandalism by this user who may (or may not) have acted in Good faith) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 05:32, 14 July 2014‎ Jim1138 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (40,024 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 71.100.192.81 (talk): addition of unsourced content (HG)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 04:48, 14 July 2014‎ 71.100.192.81 (talk)‎ . . (40,371 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (→‎Recommendations: Add pros/cons of this option: not inflationary + cite source) (undo)

The text in question is the same for this edit. OK, I have come to the discussion page, as asked. Let me have a moment to notify all parties and also the other talk page (Higher Ed bubble) of this discussion. Be right back.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that alleged "addition of unsourced content" in Jim1138's edit summary, which is false: you all can see I sourced it. I will assume good faith, and assume this was an honest, human mistake: I am human too, and shall not rail on or attempt to insult anyone here, but I must point out Jim1138's error to be fair. :) 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant by "unsourced" is that I did not see anything in the cite that supported the edit. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Further reflection - thanks for the synth link, Jim. I might word it better like this:


 * * "Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") [source for definition], and so it can not, in this way, directly result in inflation of the currency."


 * This quote leaves open the possibility that other effects may, indirectly, occur, such as people freaking out and somehow indirectly causing inflation (jacking up prices, harassing the Fed to print more Dollars, etc.), but these are only "maybes," and since these Butterflies' Effects are neither proven not disproved, they remain out. I think my compromise is a reasonable -and correct -one. What u think, Jim? 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like a source that actually supports your entire assertion. The problem here is that you, a Wikipedia editor, are taking it upon yourself to try to apply basic principles to reach a conclusion and that's textbook synthesis.  If this is a correct and important fact that belongs in this or any other article then you shouldn't have any trouble finding one or more reliable sources that directly support it. ElKevbo (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Half-time report: I admit, ElKevbo (talk), that I am having trouble finding a source that directly addresses whether or not there is a relationship between Loan Forgiveness and Inflation. But, it is HARD to prove a negative. What if, for example, you made an edit that said: "Since President Obama has never been over seven feet tall, then he would not have been able to cast a shadow of a certain such-and-such size in front of a given light."?? We all know that The President is a little taller than 6-feet tall, and we all know that people USUALLY don't grow to 7-feet, and then back again in a short period of time. But, how would you like it, Kevin, were I to accuse you of synthesis simply because you asserted that no usual medical or physical science conditions would be expected to make him grow to 7' for a short period of time? You would rail against me (and rightly so!). So, what you are doing is the same.


 * (I would think you could not find a source that makes the claim that The President didn't do something "crazy" like this, but asserting it based on logical known facts is not inappropriate.)


 * So, what I propose is this: We look at the ACCEPTED causes of inflation, and if loan forgiveness is not one of them, then we can safely conclude that it did not "directly" cause it. Here is my proof:


 * http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-inflation.htm
 * http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Causes-Of-Inflation.htm
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes
 * http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/macroessays/what-causes-sustained-period-inflation/


 * So, how would you word this sentence, were it you? Thank you.71.101.54.88 (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's not something written about it in the many reliable sources on this subject then it's probably not something we should include in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I wrote below, the section is a summary of possible policy solutions to address rising tuition. One of these is "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans." That's sourced and complete. There's no need to say what that policy IS NOT. Flyte35 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only indenting this six colons (not seven), Flyte35, which means that, like you, I'm responding to ElKevbo (thus making my reply parallel to yours and saving a bit of space), but, more to the point, this matter has been discussed before. To avoid an edit war, Flyte35, I would suggest that we follow the consensus that was, apparently, hammered out here before. But, anyhow, to respond to ElKevbo: Apparently, this now can be included in the article, as I've found no less than four credible sources (all different, so there is support from multiple, unrelated sources, cited) - and cited them. Moreover, to address the edit comments Flyte35 makes here, where he says "(→‎Recommendations: not a recommendation)," I would point out that the edit is support for the recommendation in question. In other words, the recommendation, proper, is loan forgiveness (via bankruptcy), one of several standard consumer protections. But, the edit cites 3 advocates and 1 professional page (giving a definition) to support this recommendation, therefore, it is proper. Reverting.96.59.168.147 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the line in question is "One advocate for college loan forgiveness have argued the same thing from the opposite angle, namely that the 'lack of consumer protections,' particularly 'removing bankruptcy protections,' for college loans, has led to inflation." That is not a recommendation. The recommendation is just "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans." That's sufficient as is. Flyte35 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Original Research: The Official Wikipedia Definition
As stated in this recent diff link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=616964747&oldid=616964190 we have this official definition for OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)"

OK, what about OR do u guys not understand? Am I missing something? Am I wrong, or did all 3 of you really miss it here?

Flyete35 admits 2 sources (and that, technically, is true: You only see 1 source here, but the preceding sentence in question has an additional source, for a total of 2.) This (my claim that Loan Forgiveness is not inflationary, since it does not require printing of of more currency) is a fact, alright, but not one for which no reliable, published sources exists. Also, this matter is directly related to the Loan Forgiveness: The lack of an inflationary effect makes it more desirable.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole edit, for context
Since Flyte35 righty pointed out that two sources were cited, not just the 1 in my original post, I owe it to him/her to show the whole thing -of course, this will undermine his/y'alls' argument, but that is fair, as it is seeking the truth - here is the full quote before it was destroyed by this recent edit-war:


 * The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans.  Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods"), it is not inflationary.

Whoops - I see five (5) sources, not two, as Flyter35 said. ?? 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

---
 * Do any of the sources state "loan forgiveness does not cause inflation" in those words or a paraphrasing of those words? My cursory search does not seem to revel that. If you are connecting multiple sources to generate that statement, it is probably wp:synth. Jim1138 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, good question, Jim... Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of dollars (this is common knowledge, like that the sky is blue, etc., and does not need to be sourced.) It is also true that lacking the printing of dollars is not inflationary. So, the loan forgiveness, itself, can not cause inflation -not directly, anyhow. Now, you raise a good point I had not initially considered: Is there some indirect "Butterfly effect," which might cause inflation...? Maybe, but not directly: I sourced that.71.101.50.196 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first part of the statement might be obvious. The second part is not. The banks would need to be paid back by the government and/or lose collateral. So, money may need to be "printed". So, you need to find a source supporting that conclusion directly. Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... good point, but I believe that when a loan is forgiven in, say, Bankruptcy, then no dollars need to be printed. If you can show me even one instance of dollars being printed, then I will concede that you may be right. Yes, the Government normally backs loans, but when in the history of this nation has a loan, which was discharged in Bankruptcy, ever forced the government to back it? I don't know the answer, so I won't hound you, but in the absense of even 1 example that $$'s were printed, I will assume in good faith that I am right. Go get help if u don't know the answer; I won't blame u if u need to: it's a legit question.71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you have the wp:burden, not others. Jim1138 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, wait a second, Jim: When you pointed out that there may be an inflationary effect (albeit unexpected or indirect), I conceded that I had worded that new sentence wrongly, and admitted that I could not prove that, and backed away from that edit addition. However, when I reworded it to state only what the sources prove, then the burden is on you. Now, I'm not saying that you are wrong. Maybe what you suggest is true. But, then again, maybe little green men live on the moon too! In the absence of any proof otherwise (especially with a wild claim like yours), we must assume that a discharge in bankruptcy, or any type of forgiveness, for that matter, is just that, and no more. Never in the history of mankind, have I ever heard that some governmental agency would print up new dollars to "make up" for some loan that has 'gone south' in a lack of repayment (forgiveness, bankruptcy, failure to repay, etc.), and so your claim is a "wild claim" that can not be ignored. Now, yes, it is true that, perhaps, the unemployed Bank President of a bank that had a loan go south when it was forgiven, discharged in bankruptcy, etc., may become unemployed, and then go on Food Stamps, which, in theory, could require the printing up of more Government $$, but this would be indirect, and nowhere do I say that in my revised edit proposal - let me reprise you of that, if you are a "Doubting Thomas":


 * "Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") [source for definition], and so it can not, in this way, directly result in inflation of the currency."
 * This quote leaves open the possibility that other effects may, indirectly, occur, such as people freaking out and somehow indirectly causing inflation (jacking up prices, harassing the Fed to print more Dollars, etc.), but these are only "maybes," and since these Butterflies' Effects are neither proven not disproved, they remain out. I think my compromise is a reasonable -and correct -one. (Would you argue with me if I said that the earth had a moon? I think so!) Therefore, as my proposed compromise is indisputably correct, the wp:burden is on you to show otherwise:


 * "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material [that's you, Jim!] has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Burden#cite_note-2


 * Thank you, in advance, for clarifying here.10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.50.196 (talk)


 * The requirement is that you wp:cite a wp:reliable source (RS) supporting your statement. I don't see that in your sources. It appears that you are using multiple sources to generate this conclusion. That is called wp:synth and is not considered RS. You stated If you can show me even one instance... above. This implies that I need to prove otherwise. My needing to prove my assertion is not the case on Wikipedia. Per wp:burden, you need to show RS that what you are claiming is the case. Jim1138 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Earlier, Jim, you said that you "did not see anything in the cite that supported the edit," and I responded, but I am copying/pasting my reply here, so it flows with our discussion -and bears repeating - I said, and I quote:

"Further reflection - thanks for the synth link, Jim. I might word it better like this:


 * "Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") [source for definition], and so it can not, in this way, directly result in inflation of the currency."

This quote leaves open the possibility that other effects may, indirectly, occur, such as people freaking out and somehow indirectly causing inflation (jacking up prices, harassing the Fed to print more Dollars, etc.), but these are only "maybes," and since these Butterflies' Effects are neither proven not disproved, they remain out. I think my compromise is a reasonable -and correct -one. What u think, Jim?" (End of my copy/paste) 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, the line isn't useful or necessary at all. The section is a summary of possible policy solutions to address rising tuition. One of these is "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans." That's sourced and complete. There's no need to say what that policy IS NOT.
 * Leaving that aside, however, what's going on here is that there is sourcing for the fact that people are making policy suggestions about loan forgiveness. Then there's have another source defining inflation. There is not sourcing supporting the idea that loan forgiveness does not cause inflation. That's why this isn't OK, you're drawing your own conclusion based on different sources.Flyte35 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So what's going on here? ElKevbo weighed in. So did I. Is there more to discuss at this point?Flyte35 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had thought that I would be able to find a source to verify my claims, but I can not recall where (if anywhere) I saw these claims. While I think you all are being over-technical here, I concede your point as correct: I was not able to verify my claims independently. Nonetheless, in my reading of this last edit (on both this page as well as the Higher Ed Bubble page, I will be honest enough to admit), the way it "reads" to me 'sounds' like a 'real' Encyclopedia, so I think, perhaps, this rule of yours is not valid. (It would be like an encyclopedia saying that hot objects are a danger to one's health, which would be 'ok' even if they failed to cite a doctor as a source!) But, if you think that this page (and its sister page, the Higher Ed Bubble which has a similar edit) is incorrect, you are free to revert it. It's your call.71.101.53.253 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To directly answer your last question, '"Is there more to discuss at this point?,"' (sorry I missed it!), well, one thing 'could' be discussed: If the rule in question is not something you'd expect of a real encyclopedia (and I showed just now an example of where your rule appears to fail), then maybe the Wikipedia rule itself needs either to be changed or modified to allow a 'little' "Original Research," insofar as it does not need a source to cite the obvious. But, strictly-speaking, I am in technical violation of the rule. It is your call, bro.71.101.53.253 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed the inflation line.Flyte35 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, very well, but you did not remove the analogous line in the sister article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education_bubble&action=history Like I said, I think that it would not be unencyclopedic to state an obvious thing (like how hot items can be a health danger) even if you don't have a doctor's website stating such, but, be that as it may, to be transparent and fair on my end, and consistent on your end, I am providing you the link, since apparently you didn't understand my prior comment, but I will leave it up to you to make the same revision/removal in this link there as you did here.71.101.48.141 (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)