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

381–390 of 563 posts

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

#381

Post by Aeolun »

_bxg1 wrote: post #304
mytailorisrich wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "real median household income" in the US is $76k [1]. This means that $10k a year for university is far from being unreasonable considering that a family has 18+ years to save for it if they decide to do so. That's $185 a month (3% of income), ignoring inflation and interest rates, to get $40k in the bank on the day your child turns 18. It is therefore not a question of affordability but a question of priority fo…

Seeing as 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency, I highly doubt the average American family has a surplus $185 each month just sitting around.

Plus, what do you do if you have 4 kids? $200ish might be ok, but you don’t want to give only your eldest a university degree.

The $76k figure is median across all US households, I’d be more interested in the median amongst those aged 25-45, which is basically the ages you’d be saving for university (and even then you have to take into account that your income at the start of that range is not going to be what it is at the end).

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

#383

Post by claudeganon »

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…

I think Americans need to be a little more discriminating about tossing around “non-profit” without qualification. Many public and private universities are essentially hedge funds with schools attached to them. This money is used to do everything from real estate speculation to handing out patronage jobs to well-connected elites (and often not to running the schools well or humanely, e.g. all the labor issues around perpetual adjuncting).

That a given university is a non-profit tells you almost nothing about whether it functions like a state-funded school in a social democracy. Many are actually quite predatory in terms of saddling students with tuition, fees, unnecessary courses, etc.

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

#384

Post by ilikehurdles »

kissickas wrote: post #339
Kalium wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth remembering that the US does not lack for excellent, public, shockingly expensive universities - California, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Minnesota, and North Carolina all readily spring to mind. We're not accepting uncritically that universities are private endeavors. We're accepting that some are and they should be allowed to continue to exist.

Did you mean shockingly inexpensive? UNC Chapel Hill (what I assume you mean by North Carolina) costs students from the state $8,834 USD. Out-of-state tuition is $33,916. I would not call either number "shockingly expensive." Michigan is $14,402 and $45,410. UVA is similar. Quite a bit more but still not anything shocking. Minnesota is similar but out-of-state tuition is just $23k.

It's only not shocking because we've normalized the absurd in this country. In what world can someone earning around median US yearly income (about $32k) pay $8,834 a year in tuition + housing costs + normal costs of daily life? Now account for the reality where being successful at both a full-time job and in a full-time student role is effectively impossible, where that $32k/year disappears.

Let's assume that the average high school graduate is an outlier, some financial wizard or an uneducated but driven high-earner with the wisdom and ability to save an entire years' base income for a college fund before they're out the high school's door, giving them just around enough to pay for four years of tuition at a cheaper public university.

So let's assume they have some kind of neat free housing deal where they work the dorm cafeteria and get their meals free as well.

They would then also have to be one of the 33% of undergrads who actually complete a degree in 4 years in public universities to wrap this miracle up without debt.

This person doesn't exist. And yet, achieving a debt-free college education at a reasonable age has been possible in previous decades and continues to be possible in other nations.

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

#385

Post by vonmoltke »

dredmorbius wrote: post #353
vonmoltke wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which are not guaranteed by the government. When speaking of government-backed student loans, which this discussion is, there are no banks.

OK. That's confusing, and some brief DDGing finds a bit of a mess. Got any recommended references?

The relevant Wikipedia article to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_the_United_St...

The relevant paragraph:

> Prior to 2010, Federal loans included both direct loans—originated and funded directly by the United States Department of Education—and guaranteed loans—originated and funded by private investors, but guaranteed by the federal government. Guaranteed loans were eliminated in 2010 through the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act and replaced with direct loans because of a belief that guaranteed loans benefited private student loan companies at taxpayers expense, but did not reduce costs for students.

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

#386

Post by baddox »

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?

That system is completely compatible with the parent commenter's proposal.

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

#387

Post by buboard »

asdfman123 wrote: post #376
buboard wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this argument is made in public, people will never support debt forgiveness. not only it breaks the social contract with severe entitlement, it's also very hard to accept that people who can afford harvard or stanford "suffer" populist emotional arguments are good when there is the populus to empathize with it. the vast majority of people won't care for such "plight".

You have to realize a lot of kids who went to Harvard and Stanford were just smart kids from normal suburban families and middle class homes. And many of them have middle class jobs, just like people with similar SAT scores who went to state schools instead. Be wary of populist urges to tear down people you perceive to be "better" than you because maybe they're really not, or they're not the cause of the problem. Do…

yeah no, i m not from the US and didn't study there so i don't perceive anyone as better or worse. But if the smartest, non-poor people can't keep their promises and are looking for shortcuts that would really make society worse. Painting what's normal (paying off debts) as "bloody" revenge is pure hyperbole

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

#388

Post by sgregnt »

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.

Compared to USA Germany is a relatively poor, so it doesn't work, you see.

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

#389

Post by DominikPeters »

haditab wrote: post #113
nixass wrote: post #21

On the other hand, TUM (technical university in Munich) costs only 220 euro per semester, and you're still enrolled into top25 university in the world. The land of free..

That's impressive. As someone who works in Robotics, I rate them very highly. Does it cost the same for international students?

Yep, there are no additional fees. https://www.tum.de/en/studies/fees-and-financial-aid/ Compared to the U.S. situation, it's funny to see universities talking about financial aid for those that cannot afford the yearly fee of €258.80. Note that many other things are also vastly cheaper at German universities; for example textbook prices are reasonable, on-campus dining is dirt cheap, etc.

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

#390

Post by dsfyu404ed »

blat001 wrote: post #279
tallon wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of all college students don't finish their 4-year degree in 5 years, and it's not due to cost. Even countries like France, Netherlands, etc which have lower costs for college, place you in a track when you're in your freshman year of high school. This track determines if you're going to college, a trade, or somewhere in between, and it's hard to switch from lower to higher tracks. College should not be a goal fo…

We also need to consider modernizing our "trade" skill list. Based on the success of bootcamps etc.... I do wonder if software engineering would be better as a trade skill rather than university

>Based on the success of bootcamps etc.... I do wonder if software engineering would be better as a trade skill rather than university

There's plenty of data plumbers (myself included) who are writing a check a month to pay for skills they don't use but a lot of them don't have degrees in the first place. That blurry line between corporate IT and software development is where people would probably benefit most from trade programs.

Edit: Apparently a lot of people took offense at this comment and I'm not sure why. Please explain.

Post reply on HN