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

211–220 of 563 posts

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

#211

Post by Kalium »

alkonaut wrote: post #206

I can’t imagine paying $100k even for a 4- or 5 year degree. My student loans (zero tuition, only food/rent/books) was $35k for 5 years I think. I have paid over $200/month for 15 years and I’ll be done paying it back this year. I just can’t even imagine my calculation if the loan had been 10x. My US paycheck would certainly be bigger, but I still fail to see how it could be a good investment.

Chicago is one of the private schools where the sticker price is essentially fictional. There may be a small number of students each year from wealthy families who pay that, but I'm reasonably sure it's nowhere near what the average student actually pays.

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

#212

Post by selimthegrim »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #198
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.

I’m not sure Chicago State is going to be around much longer...

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

#213

Post by mountainofdeath »

julienb_sea wrote: post #160
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…

Good luck with that. You just made college out of reach for everyone that isn't already wealthy, exacerbating inequality and further entrenching class boundaries. To be clear, I agree with you, rip out the loan guarantees and let the private market deal. But progressives would never allow this.

You say that like it's a bad thing and not the real intent.

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

#214

Post by chimi »

julienb_sea wrote: post #156
wholepointofcc wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you FrozenTuna for your input but I was specifically thinking of physical people, as opposed to companies. I also meant a more specific application rather than a general iteration on the (perfectly valid) idea that if one can make more money with a value now, rather than later, and this opportunity cost is larger than the interest rate minus inflation, then the deal is good. Student loans would be a good exampl…

Mortgages are, typically, a functional debt market which is good for all parties involved. Well qualified buyers generally lack the capital needed to purchase a home outright. However, a bank can come in and provide long term financing at reasonable rates. The buyer is pleased, because despite the interest payments, over time the buyer is building equity in a fairly stable or appreciating asset. This is a great examp…

I've been doubting a mortgage is worthwhile debt for society for a while now. For the individual, it's not worthwhile, it's just pretty much the only way you can get a house anymore -- unless you are very adventurous. Even the amortization schedule is weighted to benefit the banks.

The reality is if you get a typical 30-year mortgage, your house costs you 3x the list price you thought you were buying it for.

>In 1940, the median home value in the U.S. was just $2,938. In 1980, it was $47,200, and by 2000, it had risen to $119,600. Even adjusted for inflation, the median home price in 1940 would only have been $30,600 in 2000 dollars, according to data from the U.S. Census.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/how-much-housing-prices-have...

Why 1940? Because Fannie Mae was created in 1938 after a housing crisis in the 1930's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

The majority of a person's labor throughout their life is now given to banks. It doesn't take 30% of your productivity for 30 years to build a house. It doesn't take 10 years for a person to build a house. You can build a 1,000 sqft house in a year with $50,000 worth of materials (even less) and a piece of land.

Where has the rest of the typical $200/sqft home cost gone? To the banks! That's $150,000 cash, and $450,000 total outlay of capital, if you buy that cash with a mortgage.

I propose, the loans themselves are the reason we now dedicate a decade of our life to our shelter. I do not believe this is a good thing. I do not believe this is worthwhile.

You will save money and have a better, more free life -- debt free life, if you save up enough money to buy land, plus $50,000 of materials and build your house yourself.

Loans enable every single level of the housing industry vertical to extract more money from you. Architects costs more. Utility services cost more. Building codes get more onerous. Builders charge more. Insurance companies charge more (since the houses cost more). Taxable values go up, costing you more. All of these increased costs are enabled and exacerbated by mortgage "innovation."

Everyone wants this except the first time buyer, but the first time buyer takes all the risk with a new purchase.

It is completely unbalanced. The younger generation is suffering the most and I think it's unfair and detrimental to the future of society.

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

#215

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

selimthegrim wrote: post #212
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not sure Chicago State is going to be around much longer...

I buy it. I'm just going off the Wikipedia list, I don't actually know anything about Chicago.

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

#216

Post by gok »

The key is in the subtitle:

> But fewer students are paying the full tuition

Any seller who can legally charge different prices based on means is under impossibly strong pressure to exercise that power. Universities do this by having "full" tuition rates that almost no one pays.

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

#217

Post by war1025 »

pastor_elm wrote: post #35
sorenn111 wrote: post #7

One thing I find crazy is the very same institutions that are generally very left leaning, decry income inequality, and espouse generally liberal views then turn around and having tuition costs that having been rising at rates so far above inflation. Student debt is a major issue in the US and the ever increasing costs of tuition are a MAJOR culprit in pushing this crisis. Where are these costs coming from? How can y…

It's pretty clear how these schools operate. They charge high tuition for people with a lot of money and cover the costs for people that can't afford it. >With over $159 million in financial aid distributed this year, UChicago is committed to ensuring that its students graduate debt-free and prepared for lifelong success, no matter their chosen major or background prior to enrolling in The College. UChicago is a need…

That's basically how healthcare works as well, and I don't think anyone would argue that healthcare is in a good place in the US.

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

#218

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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?

Shusshh, don't wake HN.

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

#219

Post by afarrell »

JBorrow wrote: post #194
kansface wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is the European version of SAT/ACT scores and AP tests?

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

#220

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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…

> access is restricted behind rigorous entrance exams

In some countries there is no exam at all.

Post reply on HN