California bans ITT tech from accepting new students • Hacker News Board

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#311

Post by 50CNT » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 3:45 AM UTC

splicer wrote: post #41

iamdave wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me flip that around and offer that I've had "technical" recruiters fail their end of this transaction as well. One experience involved a recruiter who wanted a compete rewrite of a CV portion outlining a SQL project from planning to continuous implementation models I built. This on top of 8 years of other experience in data design and management. The recruiter wanted to pass on my resume because I had failed to i…

> refusing to hire a qualified electrical engineer because he didn't list AA Batteries on his resume LOL! It won't be long before the majority of EEs under 25 won't even know what an AA battery is. In fact, I bet it would be pretty hard today to find someone in their 20s who knows what a 9-volt is.

I'm 20 and know what an 9 volt is. I have also licked one before.

Now if you said 4.5V flat pack lantern batteries, then yes. I've seen like 1 before, and it was dead.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#312

Post by SamReidHughes » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #305

SamReidHughes wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I proposed increasing their pay, or letting it increase, and you disagreed, so how are you not proposing to lower their pay? If you want more teachers, you can either increase budgets to pay them more, or you can use some artifice to increase the supply of teachers so that wages get suppressed. You implied having more teachers would be nice, with your comment about Kardashian. So your own views here are self-contradi…

No, you didn't. You proposed using the "invisible hand of the free market". I told you why most of us wouldn't trust that idea.

The text you're quoting is nowhere in this thread...

Look, teacher pay is in control of the government, not the market. And nurse pay and nursing demand has already had demonstrable impact on students' selection of what to study. (You can observe this by looking at the real world.)

Is there a particular hypothesis that you're arguing against? Is it that increasing pay won't attract students to the line of study? Do you disagree with the equation (Teaching Budget) = (Teacher Pay) * (Number Of Teachers) in a material way?

In fact I ... wait a second.

Me: > I proposed increasing their pay,

You: > No, you didn't.

Me (upthread): > let their salaries increase.

Well now, looks like I did. (You can observe this by looking at the real world.)

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#313

Post by flukus » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #229

pessimizer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never-ending projects that never deliver, and management that never looks at the code. Also, cheating your way through college - which is basically a requirement for a lot of programs that offer a vertical learning curve, programs spoiled by the fact that many of the people who take a CS program have been hobbyist programmers for years. After the second semester, CS students divide into three groups: 1) stressed out…

My colleague theorizes that many of the developers that we're interviewing with 12 years of experience actually have the same year of experience 12 times. That is, they move from job to job after 12 months and do the same stuff again and again without any kind of growth.

It's common with people that have only done green field work. They learn all sorts of cargo cult practices but aren't their long enough to learn their lesson.

People that have worked in brown fields are often selected out by recruiters because they think it's harder to build a system than to maintain one.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#314

Post by eru » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 4:32 AM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #237

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point out a country where a private student-loan sector is working well? One thing the government does that the private sector won't is prioritise the needs of society over financial results. Say, for instance, that "teachers" and "nurses" were underperforming groups of student-loan takers. Private sector would say "OK, stricter controls on student-loans for those!" Meanwhile the government would say "OK, but…

"One thing the government does that the private sector won't is prioritise the needs of society over financial results." Getting young people into more debt does not prioritize the needs of society. If you want to prioritize the needs of society, provide young people a tuition free, or at least very low cost, education. Current system only really benefits scam operations like ITT.

People who can get into uni already mostly made it into middle class. If you want to subsidize anything, do early childhood care.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#315

Post by ghshephard » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 9:37 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #301

ryuker16 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those courses are paid by your company as training or to accqure some cert to obtain a contract.....its not priced accurately nor intended for guys on the street.

Not sure what you mean when you say, "Not priced accurately" - I looked around, and pretty much all the schools charge around the same price, if you want to be sitting in a lab with other students for 10 hours a day for 10 days with a best-of-class instructor. Lots of room for competition if someone thinks they can do it more cheaply, but the instructors are very expensive (they are the best in the business - and if…

Also - put another way, not even including the cost of facilities, and equipment - I'm paying $8500 for 100 hours of instructor time. $85/hr (admittedly shared with a small group of other students) of a world class education, where every single second is optimized.

Seems reasonable to me.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#316

Post by tn13 » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #259

SamReidHughes wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we need these people in society, let their salaries increase. There is no reason to prefer debt ridden graduates paying higher interest rates at lower salaries with government soaking up the cost of defaults to the benefit of employers and their direct customers.

Yes, because everyone has that perfect negotiating power to do so. There are no school districts that are struggling or can only afford to pay so much for teachers, and hospitals that can't afford higher salaries for nurses. The "invisible hand" is not what should be guiding society. The "invisible hand" has declared that it's more worthwhile to be a Kardashian than it is to be a teacher or nurse.

Invisible hand is something I trust far more than anything else to guide the society.

We need lot of teachers and nurses and that is possible only if they are cheap. If the teachers and nurses are expensive we will have few of them making education and healthcare more expensive.

The probability that some celebrity would earn disproportionately more than a conventional career will always be 1 in a fairly free society. Even in sports like say sprinting 1 player often is far better than rest of others.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#317

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 11:09 AM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #93

gremlinsinc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not allow them to operate instead of force them out--make them pay for all defaulted loans above 8% -- that might make them work harder to get their students gainfully employed so they can cover their loans. -- not that I like ITT, I abhor them, and think that Bootcamps are WAY better in terms of quality education and quality of job prospects.

Would they do that or just become more aggressive at debt collection?

In economic policy, the Federal Reserve has as its mandate controlling inflation and unemployment. Inflation is exogenously measurable, but unemployment isn't. Rather than have the Fed measure unemployment, a seperate government agency, the Burea of Labor Statistics, does. Hence: the Fed doesn't measure what it manages.

Forbidding ITT from pursuing collections, leaving that to an industry which has experience with loans (banks), and instead, leaving it to modify what it can control -- the control, the recruitment of students and instruction standards -- might result in a successful incentives alignment.

You'd have to police and very heavily penalise any kickbacks or covert communications between ITT and lenders.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#318

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 11:20 AM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #312

st3v3r wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you didn't. You proposed using the "invisible hand of the free market". I told you why most of us wouldn't trust that idea.

The text you're quoting is nowhere in this thread... Look, teacher pay is in control of the government, not the market. And nurse pay and nursing demand has already had demonstrable impact on students' selection of what to study. (You can observe this by looking at the real world.) Is there a particular hypothesis that you're arguing against? Is it that increasing pay won't attract students to the line of study? Do y…

You two are talking past each other.

The response to your "let their salaries increase" pointed out that there are districts (and counties and states) where this simply does not and can not happen given how government policies are structured. Much of that the result of quite deliberate "starve-the-beast" anti-tax policies, but also frequently a simply quite inadequate economic base.

In the deep south of the US, say, the state of Mississippi, you have a de-facto segregated school system. Whites, even poor whites, attend private schools, largely religious, known as "Segregation Academies". Public schools are almost wholly the domain of blacks.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/in-south...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_segregation_in_Sun...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy

Markets don't exist independent of power constructs, a fact explicitly recognised by Adam Smith: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." Much of Smith's Wealth of Nations is about those dynamics.

This thread reads as if two ideological agendas are being pushed on the other, rather than some seeking of greater truth. I'm finding your line of argument the less pesuasive and less sincere.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#319

Post by st3v3r » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #312

st3v3r wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you didn't. You proposed using the "invisible hand of the free market". I told you why most of us wouldn't trust that idea.

The text you're quoting is nowhere in this thread... Look, teacher pay is in control of the government, not the market. And nurse pay and nursing demand has already had demonstrable impact on students' selection of what to study. (You can observe this by looking at the real world.) Is there a particular hypothesis that you're arguing against? Is it that increasing pay won't attract students to the line of study? Do y…

You said, "let their salaries increase". HOW? If the district doesn't have the budget, the salary isn't going to increase. Just like any business, they're not going to be able to pay out money they don't have. So no, you did not propose increasing their pay.

Re: California bans ITT tech from accepting new students

#320

Post by st3v3r » Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #316

st3v3r wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because everyone has that perfect negotiating power to do so. There are no school districts that are struggling or can only afford to pay so much for teachers, and hospitals that can't afford higher salaries for nurses. The "invisible hand" is not what should be guiding society. The "invisible hand" has declared that it's more worthwhile to be a Kardashian than it is to be a teacher or nurse.

Invisible hand is something I trust far more than anything else to guide the society. We need lot of teachers and nurses and that is possible only if they are cheap. If the teachers and nurses are expensive we will have few of them making education and healthcare more expensive. The probability that some celebrity would earn disproportionately more than a conventional career will always be 1 in a fairly free society.…

"Invisible hand is something I trust far more than anything else to guide the society."

And I don't. The invisible hand has said that the Kardashians are more valuable than teachers. So to me, any argument that says the "invisible hand" should be used is completely invalid.