Talk:Student loan

message: I just wanted to point out that I am the lawful copyright owner of ParentPLUSLoan.com and the text previously entered is permitted for redistribution. I'll put a notice on the site to let everyone know that Wikipedia is permitted to use it under the GNU FDL. Feel free to call me toll-free at 877-328-1565.
As a side note, StaffordLoan.com is NOT a pay site. It's one of ours too, and the application there will deliver to you a 100% approved Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note. Our Federal Lender Code is 833838.
Christopher S. Penn, Chief Technology Officer, ParentPLUSLoan.com
Yes, but that link leads to a "partners" link on another site that is commercial (if not precisely "paid") The bottom line is that federal guarantors DO make money on the loans they originate, and I have to think that any "partners" link means a commission or per-click profit is being made. So let's be up front about this and be clear that not being a "pay" site doesn't mean the site isn't commercial...
24.137.5.110 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They've cited a source at the bottom.  But I agree with all your other comments, this needs some work.  :)  fabiform | talk 18:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright permission 

message: I've gotten rid of all the links that led nowhere, but someone else is going to have to cleanup the tone part (I don't know enough about Student loans loans).
Is [www.loanslog.com/category/student-loans/ my student loans page ] worthy of an external link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.37.149.157 (talk • contribs) .
:All the content seems to be taken from this blog, except you have put in extra AdSense ads. I would suggest you suggest the original link, but it seems to be part of yet another affiliate farm. Please insert content instead of links. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial Cleanup 

message: I believe that the quote from HDRC is okay under the Government of Canada's Copyright and permissions which can be reviewed here. Please contact me if it is not and I'll work up something better.Flehmen 17:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDRC Copyright 

message: The link under the United States See also points to a page which seems more like an advertisement than an article.  I am going to remove it and recommend it stays removed until the linking article is brought up to snuff.  I am researching a private loan for myself and did not find the link useful.  If I am wrong in my methods let me know. Edit: Since it is the only link under See also I'm removing the entire section.  Thawt 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also United States 

message: I think this page should be turned into a disambiguation page and have its content turned into pages of their own.  For example, instead of one big student loan page have Student_loan (United States), Student_loan (Denamrk) etc.  I would do it myself but I am not sure of the process.
:I rather like that idea, I have to say. This article as it is I find rather discouraging to edit, and because it crosses so many political and jurisdictional lines it has no flow and no continuity. I think it would be likely to see more editing, not to mention more patrolling, if it were broken up. To do it, well, you'll just have to cut-and-paste from this article into blank, new articles, leaving a good, descriptive edit summary in each place. I'd suggest article titles like Student loans in the United Kingdom, ...the United States, ...Denmark etc. There can be a :Category:Student loan systems by country (or something snappier!).
:Maybe give this idea a couple days to float here on this talk just in case anyone spots a major no-no in doing so? Otherwise, we can be WP:BOLD and do it. Splash - tk 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am glad someone has done this. I made the category I suggested above. Splash - tk 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be appropriate to fold in Student debt into this order the article mentioned above, too. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation on cleanup 

message: There are enough serious differences between federal issued student loans (Stafford, Pell, Direct, etc) and private loans to warrant a discussion/mention of them as separate entities.
For example, federal repayment programs like the Income Based Repayment option do not apply whatsoever to private student loans. The repayment terms, interest rates, deferment and forebearance options are different as well.
Beyond that, the majority of political talk and the legislation passed has dealt specifically with federally issued student loans, and not their privately held and issued counterparts. The Income Based Repayment option is a prime example of this, as are the interest rate caps and deferment options.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.168.219 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiate Between Federal Loans & Private Loans 

message: Please come to this talk pages and help reach consensus Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Pick_back_up_where_we_left_of
Thank you.71.100.187.222 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please come to this talk pages and help reach consensus 

message: The lead and United States sections are biased in violation of WP:NPV with respect to their presentation about discharge of student loans.  The lead section also violates WP:LEAD and arguably WP:UNDUE with its overemphasis on discharge issues, which are really not that central to the overall subject. The U.S. section does not present a balanced view because it implicitly endorses the pro-discharge position, exaggerates the pro-discharge arguments, fails to mention the main anti-discharge arguments, and distorts the anti-discharge arguments that it does mention. The main argument for the non-dischargeability of student loans is not the potential for abuse (which exists for any debt in bankruptcy) but the fact that borrowers get guaranteed loans at below-market rates. Non-dischargeability is seen as a tradeoff for these benefits. Another argument is that by receiving student loans a borrower generally has a higher earning capacity (i.e. long-term ability to pay off the loans) than if borrower had not taken out the loans. I'm sure there are more arguments that I can't think of of the top of my head. The section doesn't articulate these arguments but it does articulate the opposing arguments. It also says that "most bankruptcy scholars" support dischargebability, but it does not cite any support for this. This section just generally seems to have a pro-discharge bent and should be fixed. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the lead has been changed for the worse with a dramatic overemphasis on the U.S. and the non-dischargeability of student loans in the U.S.  This article should certainly briefly discuss student loans in the U.S. and include a very brief mention of bankruptcy but the details need to be left for the appropriate article.  And the lead should be reverted back to its previous state before all of the bankruptcy material was introduced. ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Let's give our anon contributor until Memorial Day to respond. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Since we got no response from the contributor I have undone his/her changes in the discharge section. I am open to adding some of the material back in if it is balanced and well-sourced, but any suggestions should be discussed on this talk page first.--Nstrauss (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. discharge POV 

message: References for this phrase are not found in the referenced article:
"and universally increasing tuition at all colleges and graduate institutions".
Last paragraph of Criticism section:
The New York Times published an editorial in August 2011 endorsing the return of bankruptcy protections for private student loans in response to the economic downturn and universally increasing tuition at all colleges and graduate institutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loan#cite_note-23  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansalmo (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement attributed to NY Times article could not be found in article 

message: User:Beland added a merge tag to the student loan article more than a year ago, but the reason for this merge proposal is still unclear. Was the merge tag added for any particular reason? Jarble (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual reason - the topics the articles cover overlap significantly, and in this case nearly entirely.  There's very little to be said about debt that isn't student loans (as evidenced by the fact that student debt talks almost entirely about loans) so it would be much clearer for readers and easier for editors if there was just one article. -- Beland (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging ''[[student loan]]'' into ''[[student debt]]''

message: Under Criticism
However, most peer-reviewed studies by economists do not support this claim.
This statement doesn't seem to have any source.  This is a pretty definitive statement that should have a reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrocktonDave (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: — Assignment last updated by ProfHobbit (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 10 - Both Classes