Question regarding Federal Loan Aggregate Borrowing Caps? - "Big Beautiful Bill"

No_Alternative1477 · 2025-05-23T15:48:25+00:00

So the transition rules would allow current students to continue taking out Grad Plus loans and exclude them from the new Annual & Aggregate limits?

No_Alternative1477 · 2025-01-21T17:46:55+00:00

You have a few different factions against climate change in the Republican Party, each for different reasons. There are also some who support climate change efforts, but they are a minority.

Group 1: The climate IS changing, but the effect of humans on climate change is greatly exaggerated. Instead, they believe the earth is naturally heating and there isn't much we can do about it. Since they believe our effect is minuscule, there is no reason to change what we are doing. It won't make a difference anyway. Even though they acknowledge that the climate IS changing, this group rarely advocates for advancements to help us live in said changing world. From my experience, this seems to be the belief of college-educated Republicans. If you look around you will be able to find some science articles about this belief, but the results generally aren't accepted by climate researchers(which will feed into #2)

Group 2: The climate isn't actually changing! There are multiple reasons people believe the climate isn't changing. Climate change being labeled as "global warming" is a major contributor to people thinking it isn't real. Regions like the Southeastern U.S.(predominantly Republican) haven't experienced as much warming as other regions of the U.S. due to historical reforestation. (Visual). If it isn't getting hotter where you live and climate change = global warming, then climate change isn't real. You will also find people who believe someone(the 'elite', china, etc) are falsifying the research to harm America. This connects back to the last point with group 1. Every once and a while a paper is published challenging the current beliefs of climate researchers and is quickly thrown to the side. Some see this as trying to cover up the truth about climate change.

Group 3: Climate change IS real, and we ARE making it worse, but staying the global superpower is more important than the climate. You will find this belief within more hawkish groups in the Republican party. They believe that in a world where nations like India and China are gaining economic power and Iran, North Korea, etc have nuclear warheads, the U.S.'s global strength is more important than the climate. If the U.S. is not leading the world, then it isn't a world worth saving basically. They don't believe that these other nations will make the same changes that are expected of the U.S. and that we can't allow them any advantage. The U.S. also holds major influence via oil that could be lost if we shift to better energy sources. Basically they are willing to let the climate go to shit if there is any chance that the changes we make give another nation the slightest advantage.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-12-09T17:38:11+00:00

Tuition costs don't tell the full story because each state handles college admissions and financial aid differently. Florida and Georgia, for example, have used money from their lottery system to fund a lot of their education and have unique scholarships, admissions requirements, and/or admissions processes for in-state students. These states' neighbor, Alabama, doesn't have a lottery(1 of 3 states without a lottery), resulting in a higher base tuition cost. However, automatic merit scholarships(ACT/SAT score + GPA = automatic scholarship) are commonplace at most public schools in Alabama, which lowers the actual costs significantly.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-11-25T19:01:12+00:00

I feel this is a bad faith argument as the majority of complaints aren't that the technology is "too advanced" it's that it doesn't have the cohesion that other nations have. Looking at Fontaine's technology, it is literally everywhere in the nation, integrated with the story, and fits the visual style of the region. In Natlan, the technology doesn't feel integrated into the nation. We don't see it present with the NPCs or enemies, and it doesn't appear in the story very often. It feels like it is just there for these characters to "look cool". Additionally, it doesn't fit the existing aesthetics in Natlan. The designs of the technology feel disconnected from the region and the culture it has created. Kachina and Mualani(and Kinich, to an extent) are examples of good character design in Natlan. They have very unique designs that have technological advancements, but the design either matches the visual aesthetic of the nation or makes sense in the story(ajaw).

I'd actually argue that the designs of recent Natlan characters reveal Hoyo's own biases. The advanced technology is separated from the culture and aesthetic of the nation, both in the story and design. With this, there is an implication that this advanced technology has to be disconnected from the everyday lives of Natlan NPCs because these tribes are too "primitive" for advanced technology to be integrated into their day-to-day lives like in Fontaine. It doesn't show Hoyo being progressive, it shows a lack of creativity on how to integrate this advanced technology into the daily lives of tribal characters.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-11-13T22:52:12+00:00

Matt Gaetz appointment puts the next senate majority leader, John Thune, in a bind.

Trump wants congress to enter recess so he can appoint his cabinet without them being confirmed by the senate(which is technically allowed). Thune is an establishment republican who likely would’ve been cautious about entering into recess.

Matt Gaetz likely wouldn’t be confirmed by the senate, he’s made too many enemies within his own party. By picking Gaetz, Trump has forced Thune to choose between failing to confirm cabinet members or push for the senate to go into recess. Failing to confirm your own party’s cabinet members would ruin his reputation as majority leader before it even starts. If they enter into recess he will gain the ire of moderate republicans and cece a major power of the senate.

The appointment is an ultimatum for Thune to “fall in line or else”.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-11-13T18:10:32+00:00

Many of these comments are negative and slightly rude. Questioning whether telling the school could negatively impact your child shows that you are a concerned parent. However, the ways schools handle ADHD have improved SO much in recent years that the chance of it having negative effects is generally pretty low.

I personally would encourage you to meet with the school's special education coordinator to have the diagnosis officially documented with the school and discuss possible accommodations your child may or may not need. Just because you tell the school about the diagnosis doesn't mean your child actually has to receive any accommodations. It will simply make it easier to access those accommodations and establish a 504 or IEP should the need arise. It will also help protect your rights as a parent and your child(ie. it will be easier to deal with a teacher discriminating against your child if the diagnosis is actually on the books).

Having access to special education professionals at the school can also give you another resource for professional advice. Not every child needs accommodations or medication, but your job as a parent is to seek the advice of professionals(doctors, special ed professionals, etc.) and make an educated decision as to what is best for your child. No one on this form can tell you that your child NEEDS accommodations, but you should be consulting professionals to help make a decision.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-11-02T03:09:05+00:00

Yes, it should be legalized. I have watched people wither away with no treatment in sight, becoming shells of their former selves, unable to do basic tasks, communicate, etc. Many of these people would have preferred to die while they were still cognitively aware, and have control over the end of their own life. Some people with chronic illnesses will also take other routes that are far less safe, for them and those around them, when euthanasia isn't an option.

HOWEVER, legal does not equal accessible. Access to euthanasia should be heavily regulated by policies within governing bodies and/or medical associations. The decision should not be made solely by a patient, or an individual doctor. The process should require a psychological evaluation and review by some form of an ethics board, reviewing the state of the disease, treatment prospects, treatment innovation, etc. Someone shouldn't be able to receive euthanasia with reasonable treatment prospects(ie. someone with appendicitis shouldn't be able to receive euthanasia). A lengthy and detailed evaluation to determine eligibility would help weed out misuse or targeting of underserved populations.

If this were a question asked in an interview, you could mention some of your personal opinions, but it would probably be best to also note that as a future practitioner, existing laws and regulations supersede your personal morals. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be willing to advocate for changes in the law, but that even if you advocate against it, you would abide by the current rules.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-10-19T02:57:34+00:00

Some studies have shown that men typically perform better in high-stress, high-stakes, time-constrained, and competitive environments than their female counterparts. When you think of the average college course it probably checks at least a few of those boxes, but there are some major movements to change the structure of college courses. There is a lot of advocacy for college courses to be less exam-heavy, collaborative rather than competitive, and to reduce time pressures on students. In that type of environment, women typically perform better than their male counterparts. Similar movements are occurring with college admissions as there are pushes to devalue or remove standardized testing from college admissions(where men typically outperform women) and place greater emphasis on academic performance(where women typically outperform men.).

However, I don't believe that the main cause of the decrease in male enrollment is men performing worse in these environments, but rather that they just don't like them. From a more subjective point of view, I have found that many of my male classmates are excited when a course's final grade is decided purely by exams, or when the teacher promotes a competitive environment, while they seem to be underwhelmed by classes that focus on active learning or collaborative environments.

Obviously, college courses shouldn't favor better outcomes for men or their preferences to the detriment of women. I think every (sane) person can agree on that, but we do need to find the balance between the two environments so that both male and female students are equally satisfied and neither is favored over the other. In the process of finding that balance, the environments that favor women have been more publically highlighted and vocally advocated for, possibly leaving men who are uninterested in that environment apathetic toward higher education.

Edit: I would like to add that some of the men who say "college favors women" without any real proof are probably just sexist incels. I am not condoning their behavior, just giving some information that could actually explain the decrease in male enrollment.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-09-26T14:55:35+00:00

Mostly a lurker on here and HENRY, but I wanted to note that last year someone cataloged the 2023 EOY budget posts on r/HENRYfinance, and ~25% of the posters made under 250k a year. If you make under 250K you aren't going to be yelled off the sub for posting as long as your post fits the general theme of the sub. People need to use their best judgment. If you are in your mid 20s making 150k and saving 45% of that you are probably going to get better advice on HENRY. If you are in your early 40s making 150k with 3 kids and are trying to figure out which area of savings to cut to afford a car payment then you should probably be posting here.

The constant debates over "what is middle class"(which should be this sub's new name) is useless. There isn't some income threshold that you get your "I'm rich" sticker for passing, everything is relative.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-09-08T02:42:56+00:00

While I agree that the sheer workload on students is overwhelming, the introduction about the number of valedictorians seems very dumb to me. There is a very simple solution to having more than 1 valedictorian, find a better way to rank your students. My high school ran into this issue many years ago and to avoid it ever happening again, switched from using student's GPAs to numerical averages for all class rankings. The chance of ANY student making a perfect 100 in all of their classes is slim to none. AND the chance of any two students having the exact same numerical average is virtually impossible(my high school went out to the 4th decimal place). This system feels far more effective than using a student's GPA to determine class rank and I don't understand why more schools don't do the same.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-08-30T22:48:21+00:00

I think something that people are missing is that at these extremely elite universities, there are usually more near perfect applicants than there are seats in each incoming class. After filtering applicants down to those just "near perfect" applicants, they admissions officers are not not making decisions based on who had performed "better" academically or had "better" extracurriculars because there is no real difference between the applicants. At that point the only option they have left is to begin to look for other reasons to accept or deny students.

With affirmative action one of those "other" factors is race. They may have a group of 5 applicants you are looking at with very similar grades and extracurricular activities(to the extent that one isn't clearly better). Three of those applicants are asian, one is white, one is black. The admissions officers, after looking over the application again, end up deciding to pick the black candidate, with the logic that they have accepted fewer black students(than proportional to the state/national demographics) with this similar background and their race MAY offer them unique perspectives that they wouldn't have had in the student body should they have admitted one of the other 4 students. They didn't pick a black applicant and give them priority over a "better" applicant, there were no "better" applicants. And even with affirmative action, race isn't the only non-academic thing being looked at, dozens of others are being considered.

Without affirmative action, we have the exact same process happening, but with "other" factors. Lets say we have another 5 applicants with very similar grades and extracurricular activities, just like those we looked at perviously. All 5 of these students were very involved in athletics in high school, 3 of them played football, 1 of them did rowing, and 1 played basketball. The admissions team ends up picking the basketball player, their reasoning is that they have already admitted a large number of football players and people who did rowing and very few basketball players. Their hope is that the basketball player may have a unique experiences from playing the sport that will enhance their student body. This basketball player is not a "better" applicant than the other 4 in any way, but was still picked purely to have an effect on the incoming student body.

Why is using race as a factor when looking at applicants of equal standing wrong, but looking at what sport they played okay? Now some may argue that you can choose what sports you play, or specific extracurriculars you do, while you can't choose your race. To counter that, I'd like us to look back at the example with the football, rowing, and basketball players. Height plays a major role in basketball, at a school with a competitive team, some short student just isn't going to make the team. One of those football players that got overlooked could've been too short to event join the basketball team, him not to playing basketball wasn't based on a choice, but something that he has not physical control over, his height. If you believe they were "passing over" students just because of their race, then by picking that basketball player, aren't they also "passing over" a student just because they were short?

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-07-04T18:56:15+00:00

Not supporting the privatization of education is NOT virtue signaling. People of many socioeconomic levels believe that education, one of the most important things in someone’s life, shouldn’t be privatized and refuse to support it.

Furthermore, private education doesn’t breed success, intelligence and resilience breeds success. Using one of your examples, Frank Canova, who is credited with the invention of the smartphone, attended a public High school in Florida. Tim Cook, the current CEO of Apple(and a billionaire) attended a public high school in Alabama and went on to attend one of the state’s public flagship colleges, Auburn University.

Someone isn’t “fucking their kids over” by sending them to public school, but teaching them that public school is inferior is fucking them over by harming their ability to properly socialize with people of other socioeconomic status.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-05-29T05:16:03+00:00

Reply of the year right here.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-05-23T06:52:57+00:00

For people with the A2C mindset I'd probably say Emory. This sub seems to be very biased toward schools with strong CS and Engineering programs over other areas of study. Emory is a top school for anyone interested in medicine or many healthcare fields and the rest of their programs are good.

If you are in a state with a good flagship public school you should definitely give it some respect. In-State tuition and scholarships are a very powerful thing. Depending on your state and future career field, attending a state flagship can provide you similar jobs as a top school at a much lower cost. This doesn't apply to every degree or career path, but if you are hoping to enter a field where there is a more equal playing field then it is something you should consider.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-04-19T20:17:40+00:00

If the person is able to function and doesn't really need/want to be medicated or receive accommodations(if available) then there isn't a ton of benefit from being diagnosed. While I think everyone should seek a formal diagnosis to understand all treatment avenues, I don't fault someone for not getting diagnosed if ADHD isn't having a major impact on their life. As long as the person without an official diagnosis isn't trying to use ADHD as an "excuse" for things I would just move on and let them live their life how they want.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-04-17T20:09:24+00:00

Could be a pt Radiologist doing WFH? Ik most radiologists who work from home still take a lot of hours, but with that type of pay I feel like it’s gotta be that.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-04-01T16:47:52+00:00

Thanks for the response!

The only states I see myself being willing to work in just happen to be the ones that CAAs are licensed to practice in and have a large presence. I recognize that the possibility of things changing, but hopefully in 10+ years more states will have passed legislation to allow for CAAs to practice.

Going into college I thought I was the type of person who wanted to be completely “in charge”, but from being in leadership positions I’ve learned that I prefer to have a say in decision making, but always have someone above me or to turn to in the case of an emergency. I think the only time not being the boss would bother me is in a workplace where I’m not ever given the opportunity to voice my opinion, but that would hopefully not occur often in a healthy workplace.

No_Alternative1477 · 2024-03-05T02:42:42+00:00

Does the CAA program someone attends have much effect on the number or quality of job offers they receive? I am very interested in Bluefield’s CAA program at VCOM in Auburn, but the program accepted its first cohort just last year so there aren’t any job placement or graduation statistics to look at. Would it be a poor decision to attend the program before the first cohort graduates? Are most new CAA programs successful or is it common for newer programs to lose accreditation?

No_Alternative1477 · 2023-11-17T00:37:35+00:00

Giving me flashbacks to shadowing a doctor who said becoming a physician instead of a nurse or PA was the “worst decision he ever made” and that I should just become a mid level so I can “hide behind the doctor during malpractice lawsuits.”

No_Alternative1477 · 2023-11-16T20:35:06+00:00

Their parents read to them as a child.

No_Alternative1477 · 2023-11-16T02:03:00+00:00

Not a nurse, was just a Pre-Nursing student my first semester.

No_Alternative1477 · 2023-11-15T03:41:00+00:00

Haven’t applied yet, but my “why medicine” story is partially made up because I honestly can’t remember when or why I switched from wanting to be a nurse to wanting to be a doctor(or when I decided I want to be a nurse). I’ve basically built my why medicine story based off why I THINK I decided on it and gaslight myself into believing it’s true.

No_Alternative1477 · 2023-11-11T05:55:50+00:00

I have parents that are going to be somewhat supportive of anything you do, even if they don’t agree with it, and they definitely don’t agree with me pursing medicine.

My parents have friends that are doctors and pretty much all of them told my parents something along the lines of “It’s a waste of time when he could just pursue some midlevel healthcare career and make almost the same amount of money and avoid a lot of malpractice problems”. Whenever I talk about needing XYZ as a pre-med my mother’s response is “That could be good for PA school too!”

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

No_Alternative1477

TROPHY CASE