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

241–250 of 326 posts

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

#241

Post by SoftTalker »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157
TimPC wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah bankruptcy is a legal process. Judges and probably lawyers are involved. It's not "free" and (my supposition) if you have legitimate near-term future prospects for income the judge may not grant it and tell you to get a job and pay what you owe.

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

#242

Post by pnutjam »

willcipriano wrote: post #237
pnutjam wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's to your benefit to have educated people around you.

All of the ways I benefit, I pay for. From the educated doctor who treats my illness to the educated engineer who designed my car. I don't find that I benefit enough to want to pay twice. Really the degree holders benefit from having me around. I've been a taxpayer since 13, worked full time since 15, consumed essentially only the government services that I was forced to at gunpoint and even then I left school before…

Hey, good news. We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions.

There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.

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

#243

Post by SeanLuke »

devwastaken wrote: post #192
Agamus wrote: post #24

"The solution is and always has been to cut the fluff from the academies. For context, go add up the salaries the 'student services' area of the expensive school of your choice. Having worked for one such office for ~15 years, the most appalling part was that they are largely antagonistic toward the faculty and mission of the schools. The waste is dizzying." I made the above comment on another thread with a similar t…

I work at a well known public uni. We can get state and federal funding for anything that aligns with democrat political talking points. We cannot get funding for basic tech and projects. We have a program where students design and build actual tech related directly to their degree and future employment, and we have to beg people to fund us. The school nor grants will find us in any way yet we are entirely bound to a…

No post body was provided.

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

#244

Post by GlenTheMachine »

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #236
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #219

Wait, the claim doesn't match the little data presented and the primary claim is not examined or supported. 1) The Omnibus bill passed in 1993, but from the graph tuition was already increasing at 200% greater than inflation, and appears to have started in the mid 1980's; and 2) Why would the fact that the loans are now from the government mean that universities no longer had to compete on costs? The bill ultimately…

> Why would the fact that the loans are now from the government mean that universities no longer had to compete on costs? The bill ultimately goes to the student in either case. Because 17 years old student taking out the loan is not financially experienced, so the issue of cost is often not properly considered.

The students were 17 before 1993, just like they are now.

Maybe what you're trying to say is that the private lenders vetted their loans better than the government does. And that might be true, but nothing in the article backs it up. In addition, note that even before the Omnibus bill, the government still insured the loans. So private lenders had basically no risk, and hence no incentive to deny a loan.

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

#245

Post by Agamus »

veilrap wrote: post #223
Agamus wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is at least partially wrong. Are you only speaking of public universities? I worked at an expensive, private, liberal arts, non-profit college, where I witnessed revolting inefficiency. Do such schools receive _significant_ state funding? Any? One example of the waste I witnessed: at the end of the financial year, the student services departments where I worked would blow wha…

The spending all the money you have so that you don't lose it is a problem actually created by anti-corruption bureaucracy, and is very common in government funded areas. The problem is that in an effort to avoid being wasteful, the bureaucracy aggressively tracks money spent, and forces a return of unused funds. This in turn disincentivizes saving because there is literally no benefit to spending efficiently or savi…

My apologies, and my mistake - I didn't mean to say that this only happens in Student Services!

I worked in a Student Services office for 15 years, but I suspect this happens all over the place.

I also suspect that much of this changed after the 2008 financial crisis, as universities suddenly had to match their programs with career outcomes. Then the worst thing happened: administrations expanded even more, while the essential liberal arts are being suffocated and squeezed out.

We lost the best part of the college concept, and kept all the worst parts.

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

#246

Post by Agamus »

yardie wrote: post #197
Agamus wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is at least partially wrong. Are you only speaking of public universities? I worked at an expensive, private, liberal arts, non-profit college, where I witnessed revolting inefficiency. Do such schools receive _significant_ state funding? Any? One example of the waste I witnessed: at the end of the financial year, the student services departments where I worked would blow wha…

> These departments were given executive privileges with very little oversight of expenditure or outcomes. If only they hired an inspector general or auditor to keep tabs on these sort of shenanigans! /s

This one took me a moment, and I almost replied that they're a step ahead of you and already have entire departments of auditors!

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

#247

Post by willcipriano »

lovich wrote: post #231
willcipriano wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing the poor, sure. Subsidizing the upper middle class? Not so much.

Is college solely the domain of the upper middle class? Additionally we subsidize people of all wealth classes for things which have a social good that most people don’t seem to have a problem with. For example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone.

> Is college solely the domain of the upper middle class?

Pretty much. At least the sort of degrees that leave you 100k+ in debt with no way to repay it. Poor kids don't have the luxury of making mistakes like that.

> for example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone.

Only if you ignore opportunity costs. Those same dollars could've resolved food insecurity for a family for a few years instead they are sitting on a rich guys roof so he can brag about it in a condescending manner at dinner parties.

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

#248

Post by the_only_law »

Barracoon wrote: post #222
the_only_law wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really noticed this when reading the page for a grad school at a nearby university, maybe one of the students on any of the research teams in the department were American.

Were they not American or did they not have traditionally white Anglo-Saxon names?

Both, I believe most of them were from China.

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

#249

Post by willcipriano »

pnutjam wrote: post #242
willcipriano wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the ways I benefit, I pay for. From the educated doctor who treats my illness to the educated engineer who designed my car. I don't find that I benefit enough to want to pay twice. Really the degree holders benefit from having me around. I've been a taxpayer since 13, worked full time since 15, consumed essentially only the government services that I was forced to at gunpoint and even then I left school before…

Hey, good news. We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.

> We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions.

Is that you chipping in or you just taking less of what I have produced? I'm still far and away a net taxpayer.

> There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.

Have any examples I don't already pay for?

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

#250

Post by dragonwriter »

> Up until 1993, the federal government merely guaranteed/backed student loans that private lenders gave. This meant that only in the case of someone defaulting on their loan would the government be on the hook, stepping in and paying the college what’s owed.

No, the college gets paid on day one by the lender, whether it's (1) a non-federal loan, (2) a federally-guaranteed loan, or (3) a direct federal loan. The only case where the college would be out money is if they were the lender, but loans from schools were not the norm in the guaranteed loan program, school-issued loans tended to be (an old still are found as) private non-federal loans that are most commonly offered by for-profit institutions.

The difference between (1) and (2) is that the feds pay the lender (not the school) in case of default, so lenders have no real risk and behave accordingly.

From the schools perspective, there is no incentive difference between #2 and #3.

Post reply on HN