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

U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

hechingerreport.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 563 posts

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#181

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

rayiner wrote: post #121
chrischattin wrote: post #17

How to fix student loans... The .gov backs student loans. And, they are non-dischargeable. So, it is zero risk for the lender to give loan to the 2.7 GPA moron getting a worthless basket weaving degree from the local private lib arts school for $100k. So, they give as many loans as possible, since they can't lose (taxpayer on the hook). Colleges are incentivized to drive up costs of tuition b/c tons of free money. It…

The government doesn’t just back student loans, it makes the student loans. The government is the lender. More than 90% of all student debt is carried on the government’s books.

The other 10% is still $156Bn... That's more than the GDP of Hungary. It's still worth considering.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#182

Post by Consultant32452 »

stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

Our system produces the best universities and most sought after students on the planet. Why would we adopt a model that gets worse results?

If states want to find community college or something I wouldn't gripe too much, but universities are for advancing human knowledge. Don't hold them back.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#183

Post by mountainofdeath »

chrischattin wrote: post #17

How to fix student loans... The .gov backs student loans. And, they are non-dischargeable. So, it is zero risk for the lender to give loan to the 2.7 GPA moron getting a worthless basket weaving degree from the local private lib arts school for $100k. So, they give as many loans as possible, since they can't lose (taxpayer on the hook). Colleges are incentivized to drive up costs of tuition b/c tons of free money. It…

This. To the lender, it's a virtually risk-free loan and a very high yielding one at that (10%+ interest). I don't think there is even a way of discharging it, even death.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#184

Post by dredmorbius »

paulcole wrote: post #61
bluedevil2k wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make the college take a 10% stake in each loan. Suddenly they’ll start being more discerning about who they accept and what their majors are.

If someone told me they'd give me $1 if I throw away a dime, why wouldn't I just keep taking their dollars all day long?

Future risk-affected dollars != current risk-free dollars.

You have a cost of production.

The risks can be managed.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#186

Post by ummonk »

hedvig wrote: post #153
chimi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debt as an investment is fine. If you are investing in your future with your education, okay, but that requires the education be practical. It must have a value greater than its cost. That is not true for most education and thus we are not investing in our future as a society with this debt. I'd rather the debt we incur as a society be spent on infrastructure and engineers than wicker baskets. Wicker baskets don't la…

Okay - can anyone actually cite me even a class, let alone a degree, that has the word wicker baskets in them? If not, stop using this straw-man term.

Dude it is a satirical term to symbolize low value programs. It isn’t supposed to be taken literally.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#187

Post by mountainofdeath »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #182
stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

Our system produces the best universities and most sought after students on the planet. Why would we adopt a model that gets worse results? If states want to find community college or something I wouldn't gripe too much, but universities are for advancing human knowledge. Don't hold them back.

The "best" here is really in the eye of the beholder. At the undergraduate level, the most important value of a degree is the signaling value.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#188

Post by [deleted] »

saagarjha wrote: post #168
codedokode wrote: post #166

The prices in USA look exorbitant. If a worker works full year for minimum wage, they earn $7.25 * 8 * 253 = $14674. Such worker will have to work for 6 years and 9 months to pay tuition costs for 1 year, if we assume that they don't have to pay taxes, buy food, visit a doctor and pay the rent. A house may cost several hundred thousands dollars or higher. If that worker has paid for a university, no way they will be…

Or those with scholarships.

[deleted]

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#189

Post by asdfman123 »

fortran77 wrote: post #83
misiti3780 wrote: post #71

As a US citizen, I see the US debt bomb ending it two different ways 1. Sanders/Warren get elected and somehow forgive 1.5 trillion in student loans and make education free going forward. 2. 2008 level crisis with (2) is the more probable I think universities tuition is way too expensive in our country, but I'm against (1) currently because I don't think retroactively forgiving debt is a good policy. The students too…

I'm completely against forgiving student loans. I want to solve the problem, which means no more Government backed student loans. (I'm all for the Government building more low-cost public Universities, though.) But if they are going to forgive them, certainly the students who prided themselves on being the best and the brightest should have known better! Therefore, anyone in the top 10% of SAT scores or at the top 10…

I would be angry because I lived in the cheapest apartment I could and biked as much as I could until I paid everything off. Had I been less responsible, I would get more money under debt forgiveness. The incentives are inverted. I'm all for wealth redistribution but messing with incentives is shown over and over again to be a bad idea.

Also, my perspective as the kind of frugal guy that everyone else calls cheap is that we live in the most rampantly consumerist society that has ever existed on the planet earth and we think we need all kinds of things that we really don't.

I just can't stomach the idea of throwing money to people who knew what they signed up for but then decided paying back what they owed was too hard.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#190

Post by dredmorbius »

vonmoltke wrote: post #106
belltaco wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will automatically happen because lending banks will do it, just like car, home and health insurance.

There are no lending banks. The money comes directly from the Department of Education.

There are both US-government, and nongoverment private bank, student loans, in the US.
Post reply on HN