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... 

Gotta be honest with them. If you support them unconditionally, you're part of the problem. Starbucks has enough baristas with gender studies degrees and $150,000 in student loan debt already. 

I'd teach them the difference between vocation and avocation. 

Anyone that out of touch with reality wouldn't be my SO. Unless they're intellectually challenged, you're doing them a disservice by supporting nonsense. 

Maybe you’re not a good judge of viability? 

It's NOT ABOUT ME. Read again SLOWLY. 

fuzz81 --- 6 hours ago - quote - hide comments
Maybe you’re not a good judge of viability?

He just likes to insult people. It's SOP for him. He usually doesn't have anything nice to say. Maybe he should switch to "not KU" He and muckster would get along fine. 

OrdinaryGuy ---

He just likes to insult people. It's SOP for him. He usually doesn't have anything nice to say. Maybe he should switch to "not KU" He and muckster would get along fine.

I doubt it, even muckie will have him sittin' in the box. 

It's NOT ABOUT ME. Read again SLOWLY. 

Do you know what a rhetorical question is, pumpkin? 

Do you know how to answer a question posed to the board in a mature non trolling manner? Do you ever say anything without taking pot shots at people? You sure feel threatened by me. Lol



Again, I'm not in this situation. It was asked to those who actually ARE TO GET THEIR INPUT.

Move along 

I gave you input that maybe the other party in your scenario isn’t qualified to justify the viability of success.

You’re the one having a temper tantrum and typing in all caps for no reason, doll. 

You’re the one having a temper tantrum and typing in all caps for no reason, doll

It's not a temper tantrum when you state facts. 

A similar topic can up when my family recently got together for my brother’s 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 he’s 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 that’s 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.

It’s 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. 

A for student loans, they're a really bad idea. Also, their availability should be based on program of study. For instance, 1% art degrees, 40% STEM, the rest medical and accounting. 

How many of those bad idea student loans were taken out due to getting advice from parents or other family members who should have known better?

I’m not interested in the precise answer. I’m just making a point about the value of taking advice from others that should know better, and believe they do, but don’t. 

Are student loans always a bad idea? Many families don't have the money to put their kids thru college. 17 and 18 year olds can't get a low interest loan any other way. 

Are student loans always a bad idea?[i]

In my opinion yes.

[i] Many families don't have the money to put their kids thru college. 17 and 18 year olds can't get a low interest loan any other way.

Then you work your way through college or get some sort of scholarship. Many companies offer tuition reimbursement if your major is in line with the company needs. 

This is a podcast that had a topic posted just last week. Even though it’s 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.

There’s an audio version and a transcript posted.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/change-your-mind/ 

Actually I think that almost all loans are a bad idea. 

Are student loans always a bad idea?

Of course not. But the fix might be in shifting the risk from students to investors.- offering them a cut of the student’s 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? 

But the fix might be in shifting the risk from students to investors.-

What? The investors are the ones taking the risk. The student risks nothing except bad credit. 

Should almost all people rent?

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 I’ll look it up to see where I might have missed something. 

Well I got it pretty close. Here’s the full quote:

“It shifts the risk from the student to the investor. So if things go very poorly, it’s 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?” 

“It shifts the risk from the student to the investor. So if things go very poorly, it’s the investor who is on the hook and not the student. Exactly the reverse of what happens in a debt or loan situation.”

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. 

If you are referring to the investor being "on the hook" to make the taxpayer whole again then you can say good bye to student loans. 

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. 

Used to be, many hospitals, law firms, and the such would pay for the student's education, in return for a certain number of years of employment. 

Larger companies still do.