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

Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#81

Post by smileysteve »

kube-system wrote: post #8
throwawaysea wrote: post #2

We need to just move past the college model. They’re just expensive certification programs at best, in terms of utility. The actual teaching/learning (which I feel they do a bad job of) and the testing/certifying can be separated from each other and democratized (opened up to competition, made more available). The current costs of college are ridiculous, and a minor 10% tuition cut from the $70K/year cost mentioned i…

Top tier colleges (and even state colleges) teach a lot more than what is inside of a book. They teach interpersonal skills, social skills, work ethic, self care, professional networking, etc. I think it is misconception that these schools are respected because they teach the subject matter better, or that they provide no value outside of the lecture hall. If anything, >50% of the value is outside of the lecture hall…

> They teach interpersonal skills, social skills, work ethic, self care, professional networking

This suggests that people who don't go to college lack interpersonal skills, work ethic, ability to self care; Seems like all of these are important, especially for the other 34%.

But the other response is, this is a loud siren for nepotism -- and potentially other isms; as opposed to meritocracy, thanks for including "professional networking".

Or do plumbers, car mechanics, home builders, beauticians, and (in trade school, programmers) not have/need work ethic or self care ?

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#82

Post by krisgee »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #45
dogman144 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Federally subsidized student loans need to GO AWAY. The language I'm about to use pains me, but this is an extremely privileged take, or at least naive take, on what these loans do. Removing them will hurt about about a generation of students from the very low to the upper middle class set until the academic employment market adjusts. What do I mean? A simple, pragmatic fact is degree from a name-school, vs. a no-n…

These loans have destroyed any chance that a generation of underprivileged students will achieve financial prosperity. If they go away, the federally subsidized loan programs will likely be phased out over ~5 years or so. The private sector will replace them for students who are good bets, probably with income-share agreements or something similar and MUCH less predatory than the current federal loan programs.

Just like how private sector health insurance isn't predatory at all huh.

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#83

Post by react_burger38 »

analog31 wrote: post #75
swebs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Federally subsidized student loans need to GO AWAY. They've allowed students to enter into debt, the only long term contracts kids under 18 can legally sign, for something they can never declare bankruptcy on. I think that's something that many people would agree with, but how do we go forward with making that happen?

Consider the debt burden on society, whether that burden is borne by the students themselves, or by the government, may be roughly equal. If anything, the government pays less interest. My thought is that in the future, privatizing higher education will seem like a quaint historical anomaly, like privatizing health care, both of which have made themselves at least twice as expensive as necessary. If we can't force pr…

I really think you need to reconsider your stance on private colleges..

For example, BYU and BYU-Idaho provide affordable education for tens of thousands of students every year. Sure they're religious, but they serve as price competition to state schools in the area, keeping prices down across the state of Utah.

Secondly, the reason things are so expensive is because the federal government gives loans to everyone, driving up prices. Why would public colleges ever cease their continuous tuition increases if the government gives unlimited loans to anyone, regardless of the price? The federal government should just give a set amount per year to states that the states can allocate among their universities, so that they can continue operating, and then get rid of government funded loans.

With the government funding the schools directly, they will have enough to set up lower cost programs and then be forced to compete for the lower amount of dollars provided by students, driving down prices.

Also, the federal government should put a condition on this money that if a college takes it, they have to charge the same for in state and out of state tuition, creating a more national, competitive market for students in order to bring prices down.

Maybe we'd see more schools go to a partial or full online model, which could really drive prices down. Honestly part of the federal money could be conditioned on creating online programs which are even cheaper for students.

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#84

Post by manfredo »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #79
manfredo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make student loans no longer exempt from bankruptcy. The rationale for making student loans persist through bankruptcy is that students could just declare bankruptcy after graduation, since they probably have no assets. Maybe make the exemption only last 10-15 years. The permanence of student loans means lenders have no qualms against writing loans for people who will likely not be able to pay them off for decades, o…

This is wishful thinking. There is no collateral for a school loan. Banks have to make up for that risk somewhere. Students will have nothing to lose by staging bankruptcy, and banks will stop giving out loans.

Bankruptcy tanks your credit rating for years. Most of a decade, ~7 years IIRC. If student loans could only be cancelled via bankruptcy after 10-15 years, that would mean students trying to cancel their loans through bankruptcy would be doing it in their early to mid 30s assuming they graduated at 21 years of age. Their credit scores would be ruined until their 40s at least. Few people would pursue this route just to save some money on education.

If a graduate doesn't have enough assets by 30 to make bankruptcy a bad option, then I think it's fair to tell the lender that they made a bad investment and that the loss is reasonable. If this is how it worked, student loans to good universities would still yield a good return. It'd probably incentivize universities to track students' earnings after graduation, and focus on improving that figure. Lenders would probably stop writing loans to degree mills, or non-rigorous universities that don't substantially improve the employment prospects of students.

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#85

Post by ishjoh »

rconti wrote: post #62
pclmulqdq wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These loans have destroyed any chance that a generation of underprivileged students will achieve financial prosperity. If they go away, the federally subsidized loan programs will likely be phased out over ~5 years or so. The private sector will replace them for students who are good bets, probably with income-share agreements or something similar and MUCH less predatory than the current federal loan programs.

>The private sector will replace them for students who are good bets, probably with income-share agreements or something similar and MUCH less predatory than the current federal loan programs. [Citation needed] We already know who the "good bets" are. They're the rich kids. And if you think "income sharing" and the private sector will drive rates down from a federally-subsidized ("predatory") rate, well, I don't know…

An alternative to the current system which would be very disruptive and allow for a lot of experimentation and alternatives would be to have state level or national level certification exams that would need to be passed to obtain a degree.

The exams could then also show percentiles, so even if you were self taught you could be ranked against Ivy League students.

Cons to this approach would be the same issues that exist with standardized testing today. Emphasis on only learning to the test, high stress make or break testing (although this already exists with the SATs and other exams). I'm sure there are also a number of other cons.

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#86

Post by gregario »

altdatathrow wrote: post #77
tesmar2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> low cost Not low cost. They tax the hell out of their citizens.

You should compare the actual effective taxation rates. For example, high earners in Norway get taxed about ~8% higher than comparable earners in California but that comes with affordable healthcare, education, and government-backed pensions that people can actually survive on.

So they tax 8% higher than USA's highest tax state?

> affordable healthcare, education, and government-backed pensions

Affordable healthcare, education, and pensions are wonderful things and I want them as well. It's immoral to provide them through the federal government though, it should be done privately through the market.

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#87

Post by bko »

rconti wrote: post #62
pclmulqdq wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These loans have destroyed any chance that a generation of underprivileged students will achieve financial prosperity. If they go away, the federally subsidized loan programs will likely be phased out over ~5 years or so. The private sector will replace them for students who are good bets, probably with income-share agreements or something similar and MUCH less predatory than the current federal loan programs.

>The private sector will replace them for students who are good bets, probably with income-share agreements or something similar and MUCH less predatory than the current federal loan programs. [Citation needed] We already know who the "good bets" are. They're the rich kids. And if you think "income sharing" and the private sector will drive rates down from a federally-subsidized ("predatory") rate, well, I don't know…

> [Citation needed]

Pretty much all private student loan borrowers pick off the "good bets". Because the government rate is the floor.

This was Sofi business model. I remember looking at their securitizations and most were graduate school loans for top schools( Wharton, Harvard, Columbia, etc). It wouldn't be rare for an entire securitization of thousands of loans to have no loans even 30 days delinquent. And they paid back quickly too.

> Investors received a financial return and borrowers received rates lower than the federal government offered. The company sought to minimize defaults by focusing on low-risk students and graduates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#88

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

manfredo wrote: post #84
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wishful thinking. There is no collateral for a school loan. Banks have to make up for that risk somewhere. Students will have nothing to lose by staging bankruptcy, and banks will stop giving out loans.

Bankruptcy tanks your credit rating for years. Most of a decade, ~7 years IIRC. If student loans could only be cancelled via bankruptcy after 10-15 years, that would mean students trying to cancel their loans through bankruptcy would be doing it in their early to mid 30s assuming they graduated at 21 years of age. Their credit scores would be ruined until their 40s at least. Few people would pursue this route just to…

What problem does that solve, then? Wow, you can be bankrupt, and never be able to buy a house or car. How is that a solution? It's the same problem as now - "you can't get a house/car because your loan makes you unable to afford it." This doesn't solve the problem. See, it's just a garbage solution thrown out because it "sounds" good but on inspection it's just BS.

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#89

Post by [deleted] »

ishjoh wrote: post #85
rconti wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The private sector will replace them for students who are good bets, probably with income-share agreements or something similar and MUCH less predatory than the current federal loan programs. [Citation needed] We already know who the "good bets" are. They're the rich kids. And if you think "income sharing" and the private sector will drive rates down from a federally-subsidized ("predatory") rate, well, I don't know…

An alternative to the current system which would be very disruptive and allow for a lot of experimentation and alternatives would be to have state level or national level certification exams that would need to be passed to obtain a degree. The exams could then also show percentiles, so even if you were self taught you could be ranked against Ivy League students. Cons to this approach would be the same issues that exi…

[deleted]

Re: Some U.S. Colleges Cut Tuition

#90

Post by dragonwriter »

djsumdog wrote: post #4

> cut its tuition by $10,000 for all new students I find it insane tuition is that high. I finished grad school before 2010, and at least with the smaller state schools I went to, total cost of tuition and books was in the $3k~$5k range. Boutique schools like Vanderbilt were like $25k+ (per semester). I had a friend who got a free ride there for graduate school, and he said it wasn't really that different than our st…

> Federally subsidized student loans need to GO AWAY.

There's a good argument that its the wrong method to acheive democratization/affordability (I personally prefer a very different approach), but…

> They’ve allowed students to enter into debt,

Nope, students could enter debt before (and still can outside of) federally subsidized student loans.

> the only long term contracts kids under 18 can legally sign,

Again, no. Its true that federally subsidized student loans are not voidable under federal law even where due to the age of the borrower contracts generally might be under state law, but similar exclusions from the “defense of infancy” apply to student loan contracts, whether public or private, generally under many state laws, as well as sometimes for other contracts. So its not the only kind of contract which minors can enter into and not subsequently avoid. (And even without the exclusions minors can legally enter into the contracts and they are valid until and unless the defense is asserted, but counterparties will be unlikely to enter into the contracts because they know the defense is available to the minor.)

And even if this were a particular problem, it would be easily fixed without abandoning federally subsidized student loans, either by shifting eligibility for minor students from student loans to parent loans, or by simply limiting them to students 18+, which might force some younger students to delay college entry.

> for something they can never declare bankruptcy on.

That’s also not true; there is a fairly high threshold for discharge of student loans, but it is not impossible. Again, the problem suggested with this is easily curable (and arguably doesn’t even require removing the limitations on discharge) within the context of federal student loans. If the income contingent repayment plan with discharge of the balance after a set period were the only one available, discharge in bankruptcy would be largely a non-issue.

Now, since the discharge restrictions also apply to private student loans, you might still want to remove them to address that problem.

Post reply on HN