Re: Government Guarantees for Lenders who Provide Student Loans

[Boojatta]

Suppose that a student takes, at school #1, half of the courses required for a degree. The courses satisfy the departmental program requirements for a program of studies in subject area #1.

Then the student chooses subject area #2 and school #2 and the student takes half of the courses required for a degree at school #2, selecting the courses so as to satisfy the program requirements for a program of studies offered by the department at school #2 that is responsible for subject area #2.

If both schools have restrictions on the number of academic credits that can be transferred, then it is possible that neither school will award a degree. Suppose that the student chooses a school #3 and a subject area #3 and proceeds in the same manner. At this point, a government agency might refuse to provide a guarantee to a financial institution (such as a bank) that offers a student loan to pay for the student to study subject area #3 at school #3. What would be the justification for the refusal?

You could claim that it's not good enough to randomly pick courses and earn credit in them. You could claim that it's necessary to have a critical mass of courses in at least one area of study. However, does it make sense to claim that real learning isn't occurring unless the majority of courses are studied at one school? Either school #3 is providing education in subject area #3 good enough to warrant providing student loans or student loans shouldn't be made available for anybody to study subject area #3 at school #3.

A student could easily quote the Bible to justify not worrying about money. In the absence of worry about money, what reason is there to worry about whether or not one is getting closer to earning a degree? Perhaps politicians should stop claiming that they wish to encourage learning and instead say that they wish to encourage people to earn diplomas and degrees.

[Boojatta]

1. Kick