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

Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 164 posts

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#21

Post by chiefalchemist »

jseliger wrote: post #2

This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At…

> "At the moment, zero incentivizes colleges to reduce costs. If they can get a student in the door"

This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!!

The market has been injected with cheap money and relatively under qualified candidates. The edus make out. The lenders make out. The students loose. And the public is completely clueless as to why. Most actuallt believe more / even cheaper loans are the solution.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#22

Post by dr_ »

ohazi wrote: post #14

Rising tuition costs + more generous financial aid packages are a shell game for donor money. Money usually comes in from various donors with strings attached, so that it must get spent on the donors' pet projects. College administrators then go "oh no! tuition is so high, look at all these qualified students who won't get to attend," to convince these donors that financial aid is a worthwhile pet project. Administra…

But do you really think Michael Bloomberg doesn’t get this? There’s money spent on research projects and there’s money spent on retaining high quality faculty who could probably do well in a corporate environment if they chose to.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#24

Post by chiefalchemist »

closeparen wrote: post #13
jseliger wrote: post #2

This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At…

Graduation rates as they are, college access is probably too high. Increasing selectivity would prevent the waste of time and money on programs people aren’t equipped to complete.

You can't expect the edus to say no to easy money. And the students are raised to think they are entitled tto success, whether they are cut out for that path or not.

It's PC to say "everybody gets a degree." The reality is, that's a very expensive empty promise.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#25

Post by kristianp »

jseliger wrote: post #2

This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At…

It is just insane that 1.8B should be spent on just Johns Hopkins. This doesn't sound like anywhere near the most efficient way to help the most students who are missing out on places because the institution looks at their ability to pay. Does Bloomberg have an alterior motive to limit his donations to just his Alma Mater? Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something? I'm frustrated reading this article, it compares poorly to the Gates foundation model of trying to help the maximum number of people per dollar.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#26

Post by wenc »

jorblumesea wrote: post #16
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

First off, this is a great thing for Michael Bloomberg to do so props to him, but I think there needs to be a much broader discussion about moving away from college as a sort of 'eye of the needle' mechanism for upwards mobility in the United States. I'm German so my perspective may be biased, but over here you can pick up an apprenticeship, a dual university/work program and still earn comparable wages to college gr…

The US does have numerous vocational schools and training programs, and they result in placement in positions which do pay reasonably livable wages. They are pretty effective, the problem here is a class issue. Getting into the middle class in the US still means you are at the mercy of a variety of problems. Higher education is still the ticket to an upper middle class life, partly due to ingrained structures like la…

On a related note, we often hear about folks losing their jobs and having a hard time retraining.

A college degree is theoretically supposed to teach one critical thinking and self-didactic skills. I wonder if vocational education is less robust to economic shifts than a college degree?

Certain trades like cooking, plumbing and electrical work are always going to be in demand, but suppose one trained as a machinist and finds oneself unemployed as society deindustrializes. Is it harder for a machinist to retrain than for an English major to pick up basic clerical skills?

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#27

Post by sjg007 »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #24
closeparen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graduation rates as they are, college access is probably too high. Increasing selectivity would prevent the waste of time and money on programs people aren’t equipped to complete.

You can't expect the edus to say no to easy money. And the students are raised to think they are entitled tto success, whether they are cut out for that path or not. It's PC to say "everybody gets a degree." The reality is, that's a very expensive empty promise.

We should really improve K-12 education. The fact that kids are not qualified for college after 18 years in public school is a travesty.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#28

Post by docbrown »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #21
jseliger wrote: post #2

This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At…

> "At the moment, zero incentivizes colleges to reduce costs. If they can get a student in the door" This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!! The market has been injected with cheap money and relatively under qualified candidates. The edus make out. The lenders make out. The students loose. And the public is completely clueless as to why. Most actuallt believe m…

>This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!!

Partially true but there are many other reasons why. Personally, I always thought it was administrative bloat which in turn put higher costs on the students. A 2015 study[0] shows that the real culprit could be as simple as less state support per research institution.[1]

>more than half of core educational expenses at “public” 4-year universities are now funded through tuition, a private source of capital, they have effectively become subsidized private institutions.

[0] https://www.demos.org/publication/pulling-higher-ed-ladder-m...

[1] https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/Pulling%20Up%...

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#29

Post by jogjayr »

master_yoda_1 wrote: post #3

Until you won't fix hiring discrimination based on school name, you can't fix the problem. Just see around in silicon valley you can find the example.

I don't think it's that big of a deal in Silicon Valley anymore. If you have a few years' work experience as a software engineer and are currently working in the Bay Area, you are sure to be contacted by at least one recruiter from each of the FAANGs, regardless of where you studied. Possibly more.

Don't know if it's more difficult as a fresh grad from a no-brand name institution though - I would imagine so.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#30

Post by evanelias »

kristianp wrote: post #25
jseliger wrote: post #2

This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At…

It is just insane that 1.8B should be spent on just Johns Hopkins. This doesn't sound like anywhere near the most efficient way to help the most students who are missing out on places because the institution looks at their ability to pay. Does Bloomberg have an alterior motive to limit his donations to just his Alma Mater? Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something? I'm frustrated reading th…

> Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something

No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B.

Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions.

This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined.

I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.

Post reply on HN