Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education • Hacker News Board

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#841

Post by CBVanderhuge » Sun, May 03, 2020, 7:18 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #607

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bulk of their customers are able to pay thanks to loan guarantees backed by special government rules. Universities are not businesses. Students are not customers. Student tuition was much more heavily subsidized by states, but funding from states to universities has declined in the past few decades. This is the reason for tuition hikes. In the past, there was an agreement between states and universities: The st…

Yours is a narrative that universities themselves like to put forth. However it doesn't make sense. Tuition rises are a long-term trend. As https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending points out, from the 1950s to the present, the share of GDP spent by government on universities went from 0.4% to 1.7%. With sometimes progress, and sometimes a loss. But the long-term trend is that spending by states has go…

You're not even thinking low enough -- I was a math grad student with a $22k stipend at a well-respected engineering school, and I was the lead instructor for three auditorium-sized sections of Calculus and Diff EQ a year (fall, spring, summer).

I'm far from understanding the financials of running a school but something always seemed off to me there. I guess technically our grad student tuition was being paid too, but after the first year that basically amounted to a spot in a cubicle farm and a bi-weekly meeting with my advisor.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#842

Post by rdgthree » Sun, May 03, 2020, 7:35 AM UTC

daseiner1 wrote: post #315

rdgthree wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the value of the average four year bachelors degree today is less than the value of the average two year trade school, so the value might not be zero but it might as well be. That being said, I think the assessment problem is real. I'm the founder of a small startup that very few people want to work for (relative to say, Google) and that means I can assess each candidate in careful/unorthodox (time-consuming)…

> the value of the average four year bachelors degree today is less than the value of the average two year trade school but why do you think this? I see this assertion more commonly than I'd expect here and it always to me seems wrapped up in an implicit glamorization of blue collar work & tradesmen without referring back to, say, quality of life, long-term earning potential, flexibility in occupation, etc.

Because I think the average four year bachelors degree has regressed to soft sciences taught by lackluster instructors with very little rigor. So no glamorization of blue collar work, it's just that a two year trade school is more transactional - if you graduate, you'll have learned a hard skill that you can earn money with. That used to be true for most four year degrees, now I'd guess it's only true for a minority.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#843

Post by mhb » Sun, May 03, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

_v7gu wrote: post #702

mhb wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that you are reversing the cause and effect.

Loans are unable to get discharged -> banks give more loans -> schools ramp up prices -> loans are now even harder to discharge It's a positive feedback loop

Right, but there's no feedback. Increasing school prices makes loans harder to pay off, not to discharge in bankruptcy. They can either be discharged or not in bankruptcy.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#844

Post by CydeWeys » Sun, May 03, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #613

CydeWeys wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unjust if that garbageman went to university too, or at least had the same opportunity. Society is better off with better educated citizens. It's why we have free public schooling up through the age of 18; many other countries simply carry that farther. On the poetry point specifically, I really think writing degrees in general would be more successful if they were granted by trade schools (i.e. a focus on d…

> It's why we have free public schooling up through the age of 18; many other countries simply carry that farther. To be fair, we also have compulsory schooling for that period as well, and it makes complete sense to use tax revenue to pay for something the same government is making you do. Note that I don't oppose the use of tax revenue to fund voluntary education, and I personally benefited heavily from it. Its jus…

There are scores of government services that aren't compulsory/universal though. I don't think that's a key differentiator. And there's plenty of things the government makes you do that they don't pay for, either.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#845

Post by bluGill » Sun, May 03, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #824

bluGill wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If educacation doesn't have some sort of monetary value what is the point? Entertainment is a valid answer, but it should be in different bucket. I did not not in any way say that some people shouldn't be able to get an education. I said if the education isn't valuable they shouldn't get one, but there are many valuable education paths to take.

Why does everything need a monetary value? If someone wants to be an artist, that doesn't necessarily come from a world of wanting to make money from their art. And who defines whether or not an education is valuable? Teachers don't have very good job prospects (low pay means they're less valuable), do you think it would be a really good idea to restrict who can become a teacher to only the reasonably well off?

Teachers should not be paying full price at Harvard (I don't know if Havard even offers a teaching degree), there is value in a teaching degree but only enough for the much cheaper state schools.

I have no problem with people wanting to be artists. The world needs art. However I have a problem with someone spending more than they can afford on anything. Want an art degree, first get a job and save up as art will never pay the bills (there are exceptions that prove this rule). Once you can afford to live (that is eat and a tiny home: the minimums) go ahead and get whatever luxury you can afford. Some get an art degree, some a nice car, some collect stamps, you can have a family. I don't care much what you choose so long as you are not beyond your means.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#846

Post by bluGill » Sun, May 03, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #824

bluGill wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If educacation doesn't have some sort of monetary value what is the point? Entertainment is a valid answer, but it should be in different bucket. I did not not in any way say that some people shouldn't be able to get an education. I said if the education isn't valuable they shouldn't get one, but there are many valuable education paths to take.

Why does everything need a monetary value? If someone wants to be an artist, that doesn't necessarily come from a world of wanting to make money from their art. And who defines whether or not an education is valuable? Teachers don't have very good job prospects (low pay means they're less valuable), do you think it would be a really good idea to restrict who can become a teacher to only the reasonably well off?

To put it a different way, if you are making an investment then it needs to be a good investment with a return on investment. If you are not making an investment that is fine but then you need to be careful not to destroy your future on bad choices.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#847

Post by thomashobohm » Mon, May 04, 2020, 4:14 AM UTC

JadeNB wrote: post #452

thomashobohm wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you're at that level, the differences are marginal. It matters if you want to go to graduate school, I suppose, but we're talking about people who just want to get a degree and go into the workforce here. For them, Princeton vs. Michigan won't matter a bit if they're studying to become an engineer.

My point was specifically about studying math.

If you want to study applied math and go into the workforce, then my point still stands, going to Princeton vs. Michigan simply doesn't matter. If you want to go to graduate school, it's unclear if it matters all that much. Princeton tends to draw the most talented young mathematicians in the world, and has for decades. Presumably if a student of that caliber went to Michigan, they would do just as well, because Michigan also has talented mathematicians who do good research and can write good letters of recommendation for graduate school.

Re: Colleges at the breaking point, forcing ‘hard choices’ about education

#848

Post by Cd00d » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

code4tee wrote: post #372

wutbrodo wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in AV development, and the number of refugees from the hard sciences is astonishing. I guess I don't blame them, but it's weird to have a physics PhD report to you and be able to use only a fraction of the skills she spent a decade and hundreds of thousands of dollars gaining. This isn't quite a complaint: adopting math and physics PhDs (first as a mentor and now as a TLM) that are seemingly unproductive has b…

Most STEM PhDs (and especially in the hard sciences) are funded from mostly government sources. It’s seen as the country making an investment in top talent. Nobody (who is any good) in the USA pays money for a STEM PhD. You get paid to do these degrees, albeit not a lot but a lot better than paying yourself!

You do get paid but quite little. I still took on debt during my physics PhD for lifestyle reasons (my significant other was 2k miles away, so flights were prioritized over savings).

I went to graduate school early 2000s. 6 years, average stipend There was significant opportunity cost, but now I've had 3 jobs that were all reasonably well paid that I only got because of the fanciness of my degree. I'm _not_ saying that's the right sorting for hiring managers to do, but it is what happened to me.

Net-net, I don't know if I'm even, behind, or ahead financially. I do know that graduate school was one of the best experiences of my life, my deepest friendships were formed in those years, and I miss pursuing my passion at that level constantly. So, I guess I'm in the position of not really caring if it lost me money.