Live data from Hacker News

Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

newsnationnow.com

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#121

Sorry to depart from the feel-good narrative, but this kind of student labor is token or symbolic at best. The kinds of jobs that students can perform are not nearly the kind of jobs that a college with a physical plant to maintain, professors to pay, finances to administer, etc. can make a meaningful dent in. (By and large), students are not going to be doing electrical work, maintenance, financial accounting, admin…

>> Having students work is not a bad thing. My first day of law school. Big intro lecture from the Dean. "Quit your part-time jobs now. The amount of money you can earn waiting tables is a pittance compared to your tuition and scholarships." He had a good point. A student's job is to study and learn. People fail out of law school all the time. Every minute doing anything else other that studying increases the risk of…

Better advice would be "Spend $7 to read Don't Go To Law School (Unless) and then quit law school." https://jakeseliger.com/2012/11/11/dont-go-to-law-school-unl...

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you hint at, I think you would quickly find that the university would look like it's run by a bunch of slumlords, with things falling apart, and no one responding when the toilet gets clogged or the wifi goes down.

Why is it that people think it's okay to give 18 year old a machinegun and a granade and to send them to kill, or trust them with a 40 ton vehicle, but they can't be trusted at basic everyday life? Even teenagers are perfectly capable of most administrative tasks. People rise to the challange, if the environment is right

They don't trust 18-year-olds to tell the people with guns who to shoot at, or where to drive the trucks, though.

Anyone who has operated in a student-run organization will tell you that when you're doing anything complicated (like managing a college IT department), the ~4-year limit on institutional memory is a serious issue, especially when it involves people who mostly don't have the experience to be proactive about documentation (and, I should note, institutional documentation is not an easy problem for organizations filled with seasoned professionals).

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admit I don't know about university endowments, so the question is: what are those $40+ billion dollars sitting there for every year? Does a university really need a balance that may be larger than some nation's GDP?

> what are those $40+ billion dollars sitting there for every year? It’s not sitting there - it’s invested and working. Investment returns pay for operating expenses.

Thanks for the answer, makes sense from a purely economical perspective, but I wonder if universities should fund themselves through speculation and financial instruments. Sounds way too detached from the actual purpose of the institution.

Would it make sense for hospitals to do the same? Why not theaters next? In the end, if keeping the balance in check is the main thing an istitution is bound to do, why not stop doing education (= expenses) and just focus on investments?

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what are those $40+ billion dollars sitting there for every year? It’s not sitting there - it’s invested and working. Investment returns pay for operating expenses.

Thanks for the answer, makes sense from a purely economical perspective, but I wonder if universities should fund themselves through speculation and financial instruments. Sounds way too detached from the actual purpose of the institution. Would it make sense for hospitals to do the same? Why not theaters next? In the end, if keeping the balance in check is the main thing an istitution is bound to do, why not stop do…

> Sounds way too detached from the actual purpose of the institution.

I literally don't understand what you mean. The purpose of the institution is to educate people (and other stuff.) They do that by investing money that they were given for this exact purpose.

What on earth could the problem with that be?

No only are they providing education to people, often for free, they're also lending people money to build and develop businesses along the way.

I think you've got some idea they have their billions in a Duck McScrooge style vault? They don't - being invested means they lend it to people to build things. It's all being actively used.

> Would it make sense for hospitals to do the same?

Many hospitals and health organisations have endowments. For example the Wellcome Trust has an endowment of $37 billion. I think they funded my wife's PhD in cancer.

> Why not theaters next?

Many art institutions have endowments. For example the Getty uses a $7 billion endowment to fund the arts so they're preserved for and accessible to people like you.

What is the issue you see here? If they kept it as cash in the bank it'd depreciate rapidly and they'd end up with none left.

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have some kind of trophey to give this gentlemen? Like 'stubborn and presumptious of the year'? Its like writing to tell people they are illiterate

Which Gentleman (or lady?)? supernova87a, himinlomax, or vt85

My original reply to

> loquation

> Living in a country, where there basically is no college tuition in the US sense and scale, this sounds all so alien to me. There's nothing "utopian" about it. From my perspective, it's more of an ideological problem than anything else.

was responding to my perception that his or her written / implied sentiment was conveying that it's so strange that students would need to work to be able to afford to go to college. That we should have a system where students have a special right to get something for free as an entitlement of society.

Now, whether that is a good policy is a legitimate question. My response was to point out that the above kind of thinking regards students as a special class of people who should be insulated from having to work. While implicitly, it is ok for other people to have to work or pay taxes to fund that privilege. Often that attitude is easy to adopt when you forget who's paying the bills.

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#126

>Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws. I can't read the site from Europe. How are their European visitors important if they can't access the site?

By the same rules of logic that makes 'your privacy is important to us' superficially true.

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#127

Sorry to depart from the feel-good narrative, but this kind of student labor is token or symbolic at best. The kinds of jobs that students can perform are not nearly the kind of jobs that a college with a physical plant to maintain, professors to pay, finances to administer, etc. can make a meaningful dent in. (By and large), students are not going to be doing electrical work, maintenance, financial accounting, admin…

It's certainly true that students can't produce enough value by cooking food and sorting mail to pay for the cost of a modern US college tuition, but there are some specific areas where I do think students can perform high-value "jobs", and which are currently underutilized.

- Internships/co-ops prove that students in high-skill degrees can command high wages by working for industry. How can we capture similar sorts of value in other places, either by integrating real industry projects into class work or something else. My senior capstone project tried this, but integrating it across the entire curriculum is hard.

- Professors command high salaries, and are the largest single cost of most universities, but with proper resources and support students can also be very effective instructors. We had a few student-taught classes at university, and in many cases they were regarded as better than professor-taught classes because student instructors can empathize with the other kids better. Again, scaling this to cover most classes is a hard problem.

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#128
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean how can you not want to work at a place that has both office cowboy and run-of-the-mill cowboy as job titles

I'd like to know why "stay-at-home cowboy" isn't an option.

all cowboys are wfh

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

"Home on the Range" is a classic cowboy song, sometimes called the "unofficial anthem" of the American West.

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#129

Sorry to depart from the feel-good narrative, but this kind of student labor is token or symbolic at best. The kinds of jobs that students can perform are not nearly the kind of jobs that a college with a physical plant to maintain, professors to pay, finances to administer, etc. can make a meaningful dent in. (By and large), students are not going to be doing electrical work, maintenance, financial accounting, admin…

It's certainly true that students can't produce enough value by cooking food and sorting mail to pay for the cost of a modern US college tuition, but there are some specific areas where I do think students can perform high-value "jobs", and which are currently underutilized. - Internships/co-ops prove that students in high-skill degrees can command high wages by working for industry. How can we capture similar sorts…

> Professors command high salaries

I guess it depends on what you mean by "high". At most institutions, faculty will make $50K-$60K starting, max out at $100K, and often do not have access to a pension. In many states, you're really better off, financially, as a high school teacher or police officer.

Which, I mean, high school teachers are highly paid by some standards. But saying professors command high salaries on a tech forum where even new grads are probably making more than the average full professor is probably misleading.

> but with proper resources and support students can also be very effective instructors... better than professor-taught classes

1. It really depends on the course; undergrad-lead core courses tend to be a disaster.

2. On that note, there's an important confounding factor: undergraduate-lead courses are often "topics" courses outside of the core curriculum, which naturally attract better feedback than "broccoli and spinach" courses regardless of the instructor. E.g., in CS, a course on game design or crypto will always attract higher ratings than "core" courses like Data Structures or especially Intro Programing.

3. Good faculty do a lot more than teach. And I don't even mean research. Industry relations and job placement are huge value adds of a good faculty member.

There's an important split between courses that need careful pedagogy and courses that really just need engagement. For an intro programming course serving all students, you really need a professional educator who is practiced at going through the slog of helping people understand for loops. Sometimes an undergrad will pass through who could totally teach the course, but that tends to be an exceptional student.

Once you have a bunch of juniors/seniors who know how to program, and assuming you're teaching a course that's primarily about applied programming (eg, not a proof-based CS Theory or Algo course), engagement becomes more important than pedagogy.

Student-lead courses can be great, and ARE often way better than prof-lead courses especially for "applied programming" type courses, but it's probably not feasible to run core major requirements with undergraduate instructors as a steady-state.

Re: Colleges where everyone works and there's no tuition

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the answer, makes sense from a purely economical perspective, but I wonder if universities should fund themselves through speculation and financial instruments. Sounds way too detached from the actual purpose of the institution. Would it make sense for hospitals to do the same? Why not theaters next? In the end, if keeping the balance in check is the main thing an istitution is bound to do, why not stop do…

> Sounds way too detached from the actual purpose of the institution. I literally don't understand what you mean. The purpose of the institution is to educate people (and other stuff.) They do that by investing money that they were given for this exact purpose. What on earth could the problem with that be? No only are they providing education to people, often for free, they're also lending people money to build and d…

It's just a very foreign concept to me as a european. Perhaps I'm more inclined to the idea that institutions like education and healthcare should be publicly funded and shouldn't aim to be economically sound, as some services can only be done properly at loss.

In 1992 in Italy hospitals became "hospital companies", meaning what was once a public service with the sole aim of providing the best possible treatments to citizens for no cost, became at all effects a business (although still state owned) with incomes, expenses and a budget. You may think this makes sense, but since then our healthcare quality has tanked.

One notable side effect is that all hospital companies cut on the intensive treatment beds to save on costs, which backfired heavily during covid since we didn't have enough beds and many patients died without proper treatment as a consequence.

Post reply on HN