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

High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

shrewdcuriosity.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 326 posts

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#151

Post by TimPC »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #35
sorenn111 wrote: post #19

I think the cultural stance in the U.S. that to progress in life/elevate oneself/stigma against forgoing college is also a large part of it. I personally think that one policy that could have an outsized effect in solving this problem is establishing a max percentage of income that student loan repayment can be required to be for a maximum number of years (I'm pulling these numbers out of nowhere but just as an examp…

If you let students default on debt - most of the problems get solved. Creditors are going to make risk-free high-interest loans. As long as the loans are available - students will take them to get their underwater basket weaving degrees. If students could default on debt - then there wouldn't be an endless supply of creditors willing to lend them money to get degrees they know won't pay enough money to pay them back…

This doesn't work though because even the attractive degrees can declare bankruptcy based on having greater liabilities than assets immediately after finishing their degree. Allowing students to default on student loan debt without requiring a minimum time period to do so basically means no one can safely provide loans for any degrees regardless of income potential.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#152

Post by lapcat »

gedy wrote: post #112
memish wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Student debt is mostly held by the richer half of the US population. Serious question: would it do more good if instead of giving money to people with student debt, you gave money to people without it? The first test of a potential policy is whether it's better than doing exactly the opposite. If you can't even prove that, it's probably not a good policy. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1521112550770946048

Yes I went to a cheap state school that I could afford. I'm from a modest background and it didn't occur to me I could borrow beyond my means and go to a nicer school. I certainly don't feel student loan forgiveness is "fair" in that circumstance!

> Yes I went to a cheap state school that I could afford.

The state school prices have gone way up too. It's possible that the state school you could afford back then would no longer be affordable now.

(By the way, I had to go to a state school too instead of a nicer school that accepted me, because of money. And yet, I still accumulated student loan debt! Because college is pretty expensive no matter what.)

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#153

Post by stillbourne »

colinmhayes wrote: post #134
stillbourne wrote: post #104

Let's be real here, our generation was sold a bill of goods. Do well in high school and you'll get into college, which is the only chance you have to succeed in the world. If we didn't do well, we were shamed, grounded, told we were failures and punished. Do good, get a degree and the world will be your oyster! There will be an ocean of jobs all of which will allow you to retire with a big fat nest egg! The problem h…

College is still the best investment you can make in yourself, even accounting for opportunity cost. Expected earnings increase by over a million for getting your degree. That's a large reason why people are willing to pay so much.

What you are excluding is the risk factors for if you fail to find entry into your specific profession, and the chances of finding a job in a given major. Saying college is the best investment is so generic a statement when degree selection and the barriers to entry into the job market are also variables to success. The question isn't if, as a generic or on the whole, college is the best investment you can make. It's more like, is the major I've chosen going to be profitable after I graduate? What is the degree to market conditions like? Will my job be robust enough to stand against automation? The way I see it the number of available degrees vs graduates entering into the market has a high enough risk that failure to enter the job market becomes enough of a risk as to not be rewarding. Your statement is what is wrong with the industry, because it doesn't preclude the other option, what if you fail? Even if you passed all your classes and graduated top of you class, what happens if you can't find a job? Your statement assumes everyone is a winner if they invest in college, but that is not the case.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#154

Post by nonethewiser »

Gunax wrote: post #52

I think there is a trilemma in uni funding: 1. Anyone can receive funds, regardless of cost/financial sense. 2. Anyone can receive funds, regardless of academic performance. 3. Burden on the state will be low. There has to be a filter somewhere. Germany (and others) chose 1 & 3. It's cheap, but only available for good students (but tell me if I am wrong, I am not German). For historical reasons, this is largely unten…

> For historical reasons, this is largely untenable in the USA: if they chose the same, it would be seen as enhancing privilege (both economic and ethnic) and a transfer from poor -> rich.

Devils advocate - how is the current situation any different? Education has skyrocketed in price which disproportionately disadvantages people with less.

I totally take your point and think you're right about picking 2 of the 3. It's just that the people who think that way aren't considering the larger picture (and probably never will).

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#155

Post by suture »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #141
suture wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The child tax credit would be an example of ‘buying votes’ too, right? What about promises to increase milk subsidies? Or promises to keep protecting the limber industry from competition from Canada? Aren’t all such things ‘buying votes’ as you put it? I’m not an economist but I suspect that in a society with a strong welfare system, universal healthcare, and free higher education then wages wouldn’t have to be as hi…

Yes, I do consider the child tax credit buying votes and I likewise consider farm subsidies vote buying as well. This situation, in particular, seems egregious because of the amount being proposed - $10,000 - and because the executive branch is planning to do it unilaterally. I would still disagree with the measure, but I wouldn't feel as strongly if this happened a result of a vote from Congress.

Politically speaking the best course of action for Biden is to say that the repayment pause will continue until Congress passes comprehensive legislation addressing higher education funding and reforms.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#156

Post by Spivak »

elliekelly wrote: post #97
monetus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like a broader version of keeping up with the joneses.

A bit of a hot take but I definitely think Facebook/social media factors into this more than we realize. Colleges regularly have major artists perform “Spring Weekend” concerts and being top-tier headline comedians to perform. That costs a ton of money and it just wasn’t happening in the 90s. Or maybe it was? And no one else knew about it...

It's kinda great though, we got John Mulaney and Chvrches -- loved them both. I mean the uni is like the second or third largest concert venue in the area so it's not like it's a huge departure.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#157

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

TimPC wrote: post #151
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you let students default on debt - most of the problems get solved. Creditors are going to make risk-free high-interest loans. As long as the loans are available - students will take them to get their underwater basket weaving degrees. If students could default on debt - then there wouldn't be an endless supply of creditors willing to lend them money to get degrees they know won't pay enough money to pay them back…

This doesn't work though because even the attractive degrees can declare bankruptcy based on having greater liabilities than assets immediately after finishing their degree. Allowing students to default on student loan debt without requiring a minimum time period to do so basically means no one can safely provide loans for any degrees regardless of income potential.

Sure - if you want to exchange your ability to get any financing for 7 years for ~$100k.

Additionally, IIUC, you can't just declare bankruptcy because you feel like it.

But maybe my understanding is incorrect.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#158

Post by dap »

taurath wrote: post #70
Loughla wrote: post #16

I mean, yeah. But also, the expectations placed on colleges have grown exponentially. Retention staff, student life staff, counseling staff, new innovative (read: Expensive) programs, the 'experience'. These all cost money. My experience of expectations of college in the 90's - can I drink? Do the faculty let me miss if I need to? My experience of expectations of college now - is my child safe? Can s/he access approp…

Isn’t this in some ways just growing up and directly having experience with the intricacies of a big system? All those new things sound like considerations that were there before, yes even in the vaunted 90s to me. Maybe the average role of parent has changed - I sorta remember college being perceived culturally as roughly a time to go be an adult, make your own choices haven taken a rough idea of the path, and get o…

> Isn’t this in some ways just growing up and directly having experience with the intricacies of a big system?

From what I've read, I don't think so. The underlying considerations may not have changed. But societal awareness of various problems has increased, causing both parents and students to ask things like "how many mental health counselors do you have for your student body?" or "what's the waiting time for an appointment?" I think consumers have become a lot more educated, too.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#159

Post by the_only_law »

Spivak wrote: post #146
the_only_law wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Retention staff, student life staff, counseling staff, new innovative (read: Expensive) programs, the 'experience'. These all cost money. Looking at going back sometime within the next few years. I don’t need any of this shit. I want to learn, do research and make new connections, but I’ll certainly half to help fund it for it, at least for a couple years. For example: > Do you have co-curricular and curricular exp…

> I don’t need any of this shit. I want to learn, do research and make new connections You're running into the fact that universities aren't set up for adults, and what you're buying isn't really what they're selling. The activities that actually fund the learning is the undergrad college experience and grant money. If you want to join a PhD program and do research you'll find lots of resources, connections, and acce…

> If you want to join a PhD program and do research you'll find lots of resources, connections, and access to people in the field, and if you want to party, go to football games, and learn some stuff along the way there's plenty of resources for that too.

Yes, unfortunately before I even think much about that, I have to completely and undergrad degree.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#160

Post by giorgosts »

nonethewiser wrote: post #144
giorgosts wrote: post #62

Why are tuition fees and student loans necessary? Instead of the government backing up or paying up the student loans, can't it just pay the university directly and then the student would study for free? (after perhaps some common sense adjustments to prevent abuse). Like in, you know, Europe.

Well, then everyone would be paying for it instead of the people that go.

If most students end up being paid their loans by the government its the same, minus the bureaucracy and the optics (we are not socialists, we discourage socialist behavior).

You can apply this rationale to the army, police, fire brigades, hospitals, schools, street lighting, public roads, public transport etc. and you end up in a jungle, not a civilized society.

Post reply on HN