Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#11

Post by layer8 »

> Alice is strongly incentivized to help her students whenever they need it, because she has equity in their long-term success.

You are assuming that the student will be interested in that help, but you can't force help onto someone. How do you prevent the student just taking the money and doing whatever?

How many students will you have to mentor to get a guaranteed return?

Also, teachers typically don't have that kind of investment money, so would have to get funded themselves for that purpose. How would risk management work along that double-tiered, decades-long funding structure? It seems like a good way to burn a lot of money.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#12

Post by koopuluri »

layer8 wrote: post #11

> Alice is strongly incentivized to help her students whenever they need it, because she has equity in their long-term success. You are assuming that the student will be interested in that help, but you can't force help onto someone. How do you prevent the student just taking the money and doing whatever? How many students will you have to mentor to get a guaranteed return? Also, teachers typically don't have that ki…

Oh absolutely, these students would be actively applying to be trained by the teacher. And you’re right, the student retains full agency; the teacher can’t (and shouldn’t) control what they do.

As for returns: there are no guarantees, just like in venture capital. The model assumes a power-law distribution — you might mentor many students, but only a few will generate outsized successes. As AI makes outcomes more extreme, this dynamic will likely intensify, which is why equity (rather than debt) is the only model that works.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#14

Post by duxup »

koopuluri wrote: post #10
duxup wrote: post #8

This sounds like a scam and teachers get their students jobs and then more people get a cut and these students really get not much…

Students wouldn’t be giving up much: typically no more than 5–10% of their personal token. And importantly, this isn’t tied to income, so nothing in their day-to-day life is taken away. Dividends only flow to shareholders when the student realizes capital gains (e.g., selling equity in a company), not from salary. Even then, there can be sensible safeguards, like only triggering dividends once total gains exceed $1M.…

5 to 10% seems like a lot.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#15

Post by koopuluri »

layer8 wrote: post #11

> Alice is strongly incentivized to help her students whenever they need it, because she has equity in their long-term success. You are assuming that the student will be interested in that help, but you can't force help onto someone. How do you prevent the student just taking the money and doing whatever? How many students will you have to mentor to get a guaranteed return? Also, teachers typically don't have that ki…

It is a long-term investment, but it doesn’t have to be decades before there’s liquidity. Teachers could sell portions of their equity along the way through secondary sales.

For example, if a student shows strong potential - say they ship a prototype that gains traction online - new investors may want to back them. At that point, the teacher can sell some of her shares to those investors (with the student’s approval), realizing value earlier while still staying aligned with the student’s long-term success.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#16

Post by koopuluri »

3np wrote: post #13

Perverse incentives. I don't think education should be optimized for future financial profitability of the student. In very specific and rare circumstances (like your PG example) it can make sense for post-grad adults.

Education is already reduced to financial profitability today — just in a worse way. Tuition and student debt force students to pay up front regardless of whether the education actually helps them succeed.

This flips the incentives: teachers only win if students do. Instead of extracting value at the start, they share in the upside when their students succeed. That seems like a healthier alignment than the status quo.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#17

Post by koopuluri »

duxup wrote: post #14
koopuluri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Students wouldn’t be giving up much: typically no more than 5–10% of their personal token. And importantly, this isn’t tied to income, so nothing in their day-to-day life is taken away. Dividends only flow to shareholders when the student realizes capital gains (e.g., selling equity in a company), not from salary. Even then, there can be sensible safeguards, like only triggering dividends once total gains exceed $1M.…

5 to 10% seems like a lot.

What do you think is more reasonable?

Also, I meant 5 - 10% over the course of their lives (across all that they raise from). I should have been more clear.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#18

Post by Disposal8433 »

It's perverse and disgusting. Also what about lazy students, neurodivergent, or poor people that are most likely not having a good outcome despite learning? In the end even average students would be ignored by the teachers.

What about everyone having the same education? What about not putting capitalism in everything?

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#19

Post by al_borland »

koopuluri wrote: post #4
al_borland wrote: post #2

What about all the people who don’t go on to start their own businesses? Do they not get taught?

This also applies to people who join companies and receive equity as part of their compensation. So initially, it’s most applicable to those who are likely to earn equity in the future — whether by starting a company or joining one. Over time, though, I see it spreading to more domains as venture-backed models expand. For example, more researchers now get equity upside because more companies are being built around va…

Why would I want to rob from my future self like that?

How many teachers might one have? What good is the equity if all of it is being siphoned off by past teachers. I’d much rather pay a once than have that hanging over my head my whole life. Buy-once cry-once.

I could see people on track to get significant equity looking to buy their way out of this indentured servitude.

Re: Ask HN: What if teachers invested in students instead of charging tuition?

#20

Post by al_borland »

Disposal8433 wrote: post #18

It's perverse and disgusting. Also what about lazy students, neurodivergent, or poor people that are most likely not having a good outcome despite learning? In the end even average students would be ignored by the teachers. What about everyone having the same education? What about not putting capitalism in everything?

Some of the richest people are neurodivergent. Musk, Gates, and Zuckerberg have all said they have or likely have ASD. I’m sure there are more.

I’m not defending the original idea, I’m not a fan, but the right special interest, properly directed, has had made billionaires. These were just 3 examples off the top of my head that I heard in passing over the last couple years.

Post reply on HN