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

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

#191

Post by AcerbicZero » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

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…

I mean, you're not wrong. I'd say 9/10. Its pretty easy to see the parallels to gov involvement in many other areas, where they create a special type of problem, by only being partially involved. Then everyone can stake out their positions, and just work on fighting over the middle of the issue, never letting gov be involved enough to be effective, nor entirely removed enough to let the market fix it.

Its the worst kind of half assed capitalism, that only benefits the political class. Kinda like our healthcare system, among others.

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

#192

Post by virmundi » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

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.

It’s a metaphor for a degree that does not generate an income. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_basket_weaving

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

#193

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

geogra4 wrote: post #10

It's one thing for private universities to cost so much, but there needs to be a tuition free public option.

That exists to some extent in 26 states, though generally at the community college (associates degree, 2 year) level:

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-co...

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

#194

Post by JBorrow » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

kansface wrote: post #171

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?

Most colleges/universities are nonprofits and they still charge tens of thousands per semester. I will also point out that the European model is not free, universal college degrees for all - access is restricted behind rigorous entrance exams. Such a system would be politically untenable in the US wherein a growing movement wants to do away with all entry tests. What would actually happen in practice is that we would…

Your point about entrance exams is, in general, not true. University applications in Europe are very similar to those in the USA.

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

#195

Post by merpnderp » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

t0mas88 wrote: post #179

mc3 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to do this in the UK probably until the 90s but then they'd start charging "tuition fees" although to be fair I think they were standardised, so the same fees for any university, and fairly small, with support for poorer families. I think having so many people go to university is a big burden to pay for. Part of the solution is not so many people going to university.

But that's a very short term solution. Because with low cost labor globalizing and moving out of the EU and US, you will either need more highly educated knowledge workers to be competitive or accept a bigger group in society get very low wages or unemployment.

If the workers were getting educations that were worthwhile, they wouldn't need the state to pay for them. No one cries for a doctor leaving school with $150k in loans, since their starting salary will likely be $150k.

But yeah, the grandparent is right - the US's problem is non-dischargable loans which removed back pressure on schools to control cost.

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

#196

Post by asdfman123 » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

pojntfx wrote: post #54

Why not just do it like any other developed country on earth, make the universities public and drop tuition altogether. Works very well here in Germany.

Conservatives in America literally liken such proposals to the socialist takeover of America, with the actual belief that authoritarianism and basic social programs are inescapably intertwined.

So half the country is resisting those sorts of programs with all of their might.

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

#197

Post by asdfman123 » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #69

Why not!? If our next president will just wipe out student debt--without ending government backed loans--why not charge $1MM/year?

I guess you're being downvoted for your sarcasm but I do think a giant uneven payoff is a bad idea and cheap populism. Part of the reason the price keeps going up is the ready availability of money via student loans.

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

#198

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

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?

The US has state funded universities that charge an order of magnitude less than 100k. In fact there are 3 of them in Chicago. Generally, anyone with acceptable high school grades can find a spot in a state university if they want. Students attending U of Chicago would have specifically decided not to attend a state university, typically because their local state university is less prestigious.

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

#199

Post by Consultant32452 » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

theflyinghorse wrote: post #177

Consultant32452 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go one step further. Make the universities guarantee the loans. If a student earns a degree and isn't able to earn a living sufficient to pay back the loans then the University has failed.

What you are effectively saying is that university education exists solely for providing job training. That's not something most universities will agree with.

Rank and file students are there to get a job, and the University marketing is commensurate with that. I don't care what they agree with.

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

#200

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

chrischattin wrote: post #104

slg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that everyone should be able to afford to go to college and private institutions need to foot the bill for the costs. We as a society prioritized availability of college education over costs. In order to get both you would likely have to change to some income percentage based repayment system instead of traditional loan repayments and that probably wouldn't be possible…

College was dirt cheap before student loans became non-dischargeable and the government started backing them.

College was also dirt cheap in an entirely different era where people could earn a living even with menial labour and where the average purchasing power was higher.

Trying to correlate the two and say it's because of government loans is just plain ignorant. Or are government loans also to explain why people can't save money, or afford rent, or survive off of a single 40h job etc.