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

The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 149 posts

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#51

Post by losteric »

kevindeasis wrote: post #39

I'm still waiting for a dramatic disruption of the college/post-secondary industry. I hope it comes really soon, but I'm starting to doubt if it'll come within the next 5 years. I think it's going to take lots of people to disrupt education especially since the government will get involve. I'm starting to feel that some courses in college/university isn't worth that much money. Like a 50,000 degree that has lectures…

> I'm still waiting for a dramatic disruption of the college/post-secondary industry. [..] I'm starting to feel that some courses in college/university isn't worth that much money.

It's still coming. As college grads increase in supply their value decreases (top-tier colleges/students aside). More and more students are realizing their college education has a negative ROI... in fact, outside of software, most of my friends are not using their degree at their job.

I think the "code-school" trend is the start of a "micro-degree" program. Self-service fluff-free education with a standard certification exam is pretty compelling. As we see that proliferate to other domains, we'll start to see micro-certifications (just the test). The missing component seems to be the in-person meetings and networking that comes with physical college. I predict we'll see more online school(s) supporting a physical meeting space for students to network and learn from each other... maybe even a new campus model that strips out the cruft of traditional centralized education institutions.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#53

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

sliverstorm wrote: post #31
lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly saying "just look at instate costs" is just as misleading. Restricting access to a quality education / future job options (depending on your field, etc) based on geography is one of the most telling failures of American Federalism. The sooner state schools are re-bundled into a federal program for affordable access to all Americans the better.

It's a natural outcome of federalism. State A invests revenues heavily in a world renowned university. State B invests little in its postsecondary education. It is each states prerogative to decide how much to spend on education- federalism. Naturally many State B residents will want to attend the world class university in State A. But they didn't pay a dime of taxes to support it. Hence, higher tuition rates for out…

Except the people effected are not the people making the choices. No child today voted for a reduction in education budgets. Given how much the volatility of job market causes people to move many people don't have much of a choice when choosing which state to live. Disadvantaging people because their parents happen to work in South Carolina and members of their parents generation decided to cut funding is the exact opposite of "reaping what you sow". An out dated view for a system designed before instant access communication.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#54

Post by slg »

crabasa wrote: post #43
devbug wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One argument I've encountered that holds water, at least with regards to being unable to discharge student debt: you can't repossess someone's mind. (Technically you can, but that'd be a messy affair.)

That's a terrible argument that I've never heard an actual policy-maker or politician make. Besides, unsecured debts are all around us, credit cards being the most common.

But it is much harder to get other forms of unsecured debt. An 18 year old with no job and no credit history is going to have a hard time getting a credit card with a $5k limit let alone a $100k loan. The lack of being able to discharge the loan in bankruptcy needs to go hand in hand with the guaranteed availability of the loan. Instead of changing one of those things, we are are better off coming up with a new system like no upfront tuition and income based repayment plans.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#55

Post by sliverstorm »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #53
sliverstorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a natural outcome of federalism. State A invests revenues heavily in a world renowned university. State B invests little in its postsecondary education. It is each states prerogative to decide how much to spend on education- federalism. Naturally many State B residents will want to attend the world class university in State A. But they didn't pay a dime of taxes to support it. Hence, higher tuition rates for out…

Except the people effected are not the people making the choices. No child today voted for a reduction in education budgets. Given how much the volatility of job market causes people to move many people don't have much of a choice when choosing which state to live. Disadvantaging people because their parents happen to work in South Carolina and members of their parents generation decided to cut funding is the exact o…

Children grow up in a world that was not created by them, but by their parents. News at 11.

Running education at the federal level is not going to suddenly lift education funding to a "10" in all states.

I am not doing a good job explaining this eloquently, but the point is federalism allows states to cut education budgets, or be lavish with them, without answering to other states. States that want to be lavish do not have the clout to force the entire country to be lavish. "Every state has top quality schools with extremely generous education spending" is not an option on the table, because the states that don't want to spend money on education have a vote, too.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#56

Post by crabasa »

slg wrote: post #54
crabasa wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a terrible argument that I've never heard an actual policy-maker or politician make. Besides, unsecured debts are all around us, credit cards being the most common.

But it is much harder to get other forms of unsecured debt. An 18 year old with no job and no credit history is going to have a hard time getting a credit card with a $5k limit let alone a $100k loan. The lack of being able to discharge the loan in bankruptcy needs to go hand in hand with the guaranteed availability of the loan. Instead of changing one of those things, we are are better off coming up with a new syste…

> An 18 year old with no job and no credit history is going to have a hard time getting a credit card with a $5k limit

Wow, citation please? Credit card companies set up pop-up stands and give away free t-shirts to students who apply for their credit cards. The VAST majority of the applications are happily approved.

Update: excellent citation kileywm. I guess my perception was a bit dated.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#57

Post by S4M »

vmarsy wrote: post #47
S4M wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France the very elite students get paid during their studies (equivalent to Msc, not PhD). In exchange they are supposed to work as civil servants for some time (not sure all are supposed to do that), but some go work abroad right after their studies so that investment is mostly lost by the French government.

You're probably referring to the Ecole Polytechnique. Indeed newly graduates are supposed to work as a civil servant or pay the "pantoufle", which according to [1] is roughly 45000€, and as of last May when the article was written, it says only 10% of the graduates were paying it, but the government was starting to go after them. [1]In French: http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/polytechnique-le-gouvernement-...

I was indeed referring to Ecole Polytechnique, but also Ecole Normale Superieure. I think alumni from Polytechnique can be expected to join the army if needed, since it depends from the Ministry of Defense.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#58

Post by moron4hire »

Alupis wrote: post #46
moron4hire wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, not exactly. If you're living at home, your parents are paying for your housing. It's money that is already getting spent. If you have to live in the dorms, your parents don't get a break on their mortgage or rent because you moved out. If your parents are helping you out, they now have their own rent to pay, plus a new rent for you, where before they essentially got "your" rent "for free". Similarly, addin…

The main point I was making, is it's unreasonable to complain about high student debt when majority of it is living expenses. People often complain about the high cost of attending university, but don't differentiate between tuition fees and living expenses, often lumping them together to reach a seemingly egregious yearly tab. It's not so egregious when you examine where the money is going... You would have spent ne…

But you'd have a job, so you wouldn't be going into debt to pay your living expenses, debt you're going to pay interest on. With the repayment schedules many people end up on, they spend two to three times more in just interest payments than was the original cost of everything.

It's not equivalent at all. You wouldn't take on unsustainable debt to move to a new city to sit around for 4 to 5 years with no job, with the hopes that it would open up a job that you could eventually use to pay your debt before or after the degree. But we make kids do it during their degrees.

It took me seven years to pay off my student loan debt. I was lucky. I know people on 15- and 30-year plans. 4 to 5 years of lack of income, then missed investment opportunities because--even though you're technically making more with this degree--you have less disposable income because of all the debt servicing you have to do. It adds up. it's not 1-to-1 at all.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#59

Post by blisterpeanuts »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #44
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #33

It's quite likely that by the time my 11-year-old hits 18, private universities will cost over $100,000 per year (tuition plus fees, housing, and food plan), and public schools will be $25K [EDITED orig. $50K] (plus or minus, depending on state subsidies and other funding such as corporate donations). While the university experience is undoubtedly a valuable one for the 18-22 age range, with tremendous intellectual a…

What evidence do you have for your assertion that public schools would cost $50k a year?

I've edited it down to $25K. I was thinking of 25 year estimates I've read, rather than 10 year estimates. In-state public 4-year tuition averages $9K or so right now, plus housing. In ten years this number will likely double or at least grow 150%, if the 5% growth rate continues to hold. If the Fed's monetary policy continues to push up interest rates, though, who knows how much more it might increase during that time.

Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)

#60

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

Amezarak wrote: post #22
lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly saying "just look at instate costs" is just as misleading. Restricting access to a quality education / future job options (depending on your field, etc) based on geography is one of the most telling failures of American Federalism. The sooner state schools are re-bundled into a federal program for affordable access to all Americans the better.

I'm not aware of major educational problems with in-state schools. I've compared my curriculum at a nobody southern in state school with the CS curriculum at MIT and I don't see any major differences and I don't feel shortchanged. I'm pretty sure the only your school matters in the real world is at the most elite levels of a few fields and even then its mostly just about hiring people who went to the same school as y…

My ancedote here is that it's more about opportunity than educational quality. The "secret sauce" of higher education isn't the course work, or even the individual lecturers (although there is a certain minimum bar there) as evidenced by the growing trend to offer those for free. It is rather a case of brand recognition and access to a given network. The graduate of MIT has pull in pretty much anywhere of her choosing, the Georgia Tech grad faces friction as soon as she leaves the south east, the Clemson grad faces that same friction as soon as she leaves South Carolina (top tier private, top tier public, mid teir public for engineering), all other things being equal. Given the unequal distribution of employment across the nation it seems ridiculous that there are these huge paywalls in connecting qualified students to institutions best suited for them based solely on something as ephemeral as which state their parents are working when they turn 17.
Post reply on HN