Student loans are based on a simple idea: that a graduate’s future flow of e

游客2023-11-12  24

问题     Student loans are based on a simple idea: that a graduate’s future flow of earnings will more than cover the costs of doing a degree. But with unemployment rates in parts of the rich world at post-war highs, that may no longer hold true for many people. The consequences will be felt by everybody.
    All over the world student indebtedness is causing problems—witness this month’s violent protests in Chile. In Britain, according to a recent parliamentary report, rising university fees mean that student debt is likely to treble to £70 billion by 2015. But, partly because higher education there is so expensive, the scale of the problem is far greater in America. When the next official estimates of outstanding student debt there are published, it is expected to be close to $1 trillion, higher than credit-card borrowing. Credit quality in other classes of consumer debt has been improving; delinquency rates on student loans are rising.
    Many of the anti-Wall Street protesters push the idea of blanket debt forgiveness as a solution. But that is the wrong answer. Higher education is not a guarantee of employment, but it improves the odds immensely. Unemployment rates among university graduates stood at 4.4% on average across OECD countries in 2009. People who did not complete secondary school faced unemployment rates of 11.5%. Much of the debt that students are taking on is provided or guaranteed by the government. Imposing write-offs on all taxpayers to benefit those with the best job prospects is unfair; and ripping up contracts between borrowers and private lenders is usually a bad idea.
    That said, student-loan systems in America and elsewhere are often badly designed for an extended period of high unemployment. In contrast to the housing crash, the risk from student debt is not of a sudden explosion in losses but of gradual financial suffocation. The pressure needs to be eased.
    One option is to change the bankruptcy laws. In America, Britain and elsewhere, these treat student debt as a special case: unlike other forms of debt, it cannot be wiped out. If student debt is not to bound existing graduates and put off future ones, the rules could be changed so that it is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Yet the reasoning behind the current bankruptcy provisions is logical enough; education is an asset that cannot be repossessed and that keeps on benefiting the individual through his or her lifetime. Some worry that graduates would rush to declare bankruptcy, handing losses to taxpayers.
    So a second option is preferable. Many countries, America included, have designed student debt primarily as a mortgage-like obligation: it is repaid to a fixed schedule. Other places, like Britain and Australia, make student-loan repayments contingent(依情况而定的)on reaching an income threshold so that the prospect of taking on debt is more acceptable to people from poorer backgrounds. That approach makes sense, especially when jobs are scarce. Barack Obama this week proposed to limit loan payments for some struggling American graduates to 10% of discretionary(任意的)income and forgive outstanding debt after 20 years. Income-based repayment ought to become the norm.
    Both changes would lead to a repricing of student debt. That would be a bad thing for taxpayers, but a good thing overall. If such information were made public, other useful data would follow—on the average financial returns to graduates of specific subjects, for example. Those studying less profitable subjects would have to pay more, or be subsidised more. It would be a controversial approach, but a more educated one. [br] In the last paragraph, the author concludes that______.

选项 A、repricing student debts would be constructive and sensible
B、taxpayers would also welcome a reduction in student debts
C、students studying less profitable subjects would benefit most
D、the whole society has settled the dispute over student debts

答案 A

解析 推理题。根据文章最后一段前两句“以上两种方案都会导致学生债务的重新定价。对纳税人而言这不是个好消息,但总的来说还是一件好事”以及最后一句“……(给学生债务重新定价)将是有争议的一步,但却是更理性的”可知,[A]“重新定价学生债务是建设性的、合情理的”准确概括了作者的意思,故为正确答案。根据本段第二句可知,纳税人可能并不欢迎这样的政策变动,故排除[B];根据本段第四句“那些冷门专业的毕业生可能会支付更多,或接受更多的政府资助”可知,[C]的陈述过于绝对化,故排除;根据本段最后一句“怎样解决日益严重的学生债务依然是有争议的”可知,[D]“全社会已就学生债务的争论达成一致”陈述错误,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3179869.html
最新回复(0)