If you had an SO who really liked an activity, interest or passion, and they thought they wanted to make this their life's work BUT they aren't good at it, as in they aren't going to be able to actually support themselves or the family doing it, would you tell them the truth? Would you continue to encourage them or not?
This actually happens with kids too....they want to major in music in college when there are next to no jobs for a concert pianist...
A similar topic can up when my family recently got together for my brothers high school graduation.
My brother talked about how when he wanted to join the school band in middle school the music teacher told him he could not play drums and would not be good at it because of the way he was playing. This expert just knew based on his experience. My brother never joined the school band. But now hes now living in Austin playing drums for a band, and has been asked to join other bands.
My dad had other similar stories about proving doubters wrong in his career.
Our dad encouraged us to recognize that among the things we enjoyed doing, there were things that might help us earn a living and things that probably will not. He said the best way to find out is to try. He said thats how you find the difference between a job and a hobby. He never talked us out of many things we wanted to do. He encouraged us to try them instead, while learning from mistakes. We would hear his opinion, but he would remind us that his experiences that formed the basis of his opinion were based on different circumstances.
Giving people your best advice to not pursue their interests might just be the motivation they need to prove you wrong.
Its probably also a good idea to ignore advice from self righteous people who never admit they make mistakes or might be wrong about things.
With kids its about recognizing their talents and coaching them in the direction that makes their success (however they measure it) more of a probability. There's always the occasional success story where someone overcame adversity and against advice succeeded anyway. That's the exception and not the usual.
Sometimes the truth about yourself from people who know you might hurt but it may be just whats needed. For instance, I cant draw a stick figure but I think In can be the next Norman Rockwell. It ain't going to happen.
This is a podcast that had a topic posted just last week. Even though its about the science behind letting our minds be changed, it also goes into how stubborn and wrong we can be when it comes to our opinions.
Theres an audio version and a transcript posted. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/change-your-mind/
Of course not. But the fix might be in shifting the risk from students to investors.- offering them a cut of the students earning power as payback for the loan. One model being used for software engineers promises students no upfront costs, and that instead of paying tuition, the student agrees to pay 17% of their income after they are employed and only if they are making more than $50,000 per year.
Actually I think that almost all loans are a bad idea The Dave Ramsey model. My high school Econ teacher promoted this model.
Should almost all people rent? Or is there a better way become a home owner than to wait until you can pay the full price of a home? What percentage of people do you think should finance their homes? And who are these people (income?) that would pass the EoK test of being able to finance their homes?
I don't always agree with Dave Ramsey. I don't have any objection to mortgages. I hold mortgages for two families. What I object to is mortgaging a house the person can't afford. The Cinton changes in the CRA in the late 90s is what precipitated the housing crisis and foreclosure rate and the recession of 2007 I wouldn't finance a house unless the person had 6 months (preferably a years) annual income in the bank. I won't finance a house that exceeds 1.5 times that persons annual income.
One reason people were being foreclosed on was a variable interest rate. Locking in a low interest rate works for people who have a locked in salary.(Providing they don't an unrealistic monthly payment, after adding in taxes and interest.)
What? The investors are the ones taking the risk. The student risks nothing except bad credit.
I was paraphrasing Purdue University President Mitch Daniels. He was speaking about the advantages of an Income Sharing Agreement (ISA), when he said something similar to what I posted but Ill look it up to see where I might have missed something.
Well I got it pretty close. Heres the full quote:
It shifts the risk from the student to the investor. So if things go very poorly, its the investor who is on the hook and not the student. Exactly the reverse of what happens in a debt or loan situation.
So does that add more context to the reason you asked What?
ÂIt shifts the risk from the student to the investor. So if things go very poorly, itÂs the investor who is on the hook and not the student. Exactly the reverse of what happens in a debt or loan situation.Â
Its the investors money to start with. Therefore its their money at risk when they make the loan. If student doesn't pay its the investor and taxpayer that loses money. The student has no risk because its not their money.
In a normal loan situation its the investor who loses some or all of the money if the debtor doesn't pay.
After reading closer, the Purdue President is talking about transferring the risk in the context of government loans.
Under his proposal to expand ISAs, more information would be available to students as the market develops. Students will learn which academic markets are most likely to be rewarded with a lower repayment rate or a shorter repayment term.