Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983 • Hacker News Board

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#321

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #139

tempsy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is it misleading? most undergrads are considered dependent, which means they can only borrow $31k in total over 4 years. beyond that they would need to tap alternative sources.

> how is it misleading? Because the limit cited only applies to students whose parents can get (federal, direct, and capped only by the school’s estimate of costs) PLUS loans, and yet is characteized as a limit of the impact of federal subsidies on school costs. A cap that only applies where another unlimited federal loan stream is available to the same student is, well, not a limit at all, when discussing federal im…

The cap when PLUS loans are not available is $57,500.

The impact on prices is not just the direct, but the general understanding that private educational loans also could not be discharged in bankruptcy that was created by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Courts have started to push back against that but there are only a handful of precedents.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#322

Post by naijaboiler » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #147

Workaccount2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't going to happen because the whole point of the current government back student loan program is to give kids from not-ideal backgrounds access to credit, and hence access to the full range of schools available.

Why not just make it free? Kids from not-ideal backgrounds can compete on merit alone. The way this Supreme Court intended?

there's nothing like pure merit if you are talking about not-ideal backgrounds. those folks are already heavily disadvantaged. Making it "merit" is just compounding their disadvantage while advantaging those already with advantages. The myth of pure meritocracy lives on usually perpetuated by those blind to their own privileges.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#323

Post by bryanrasmussen » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #36

taeric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government. Being one of the small list of things you can't bankrupt out of, the risk in giving out the loans has been fully pulled from the lenders. It is frustrating to hear the discourse over the inappropriate students that are taking on too much debt, all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At…

> lenders that are taking on too much risk The lenders are taking no risks since these loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. There are also very large late fees and penalties that can triple (or more) the amount owed.

I believe that was the posters original point, because the lenders have no more risk it means that the market solution has been put out of balance, and the current situation is arguably a logical consequence of that imbalance.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#324

Post by mrguyorama » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #12

drew-y wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a source for that claim?

Common sense? Government (taxpayers) underwrite unlimited amounts to uninformed buyers paying informed sellers. I am a seller (college boss), and I can boost my own income, and I know I have no competitive pressure to keep prices down, so why not increase the college budget and spending, hence justifying tuition increases.

Common sense is horseshit. You know what was common sense in the 1600s? A gentleman is clean, so he doesn't need to wash his hands between cutting open a corpse and delivering a baby, and oh gee why do so many women get awful infections after childbirth?

Common sense is the rallying cry of people who cannot backup their claim by other means.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#325

Post by uejfiweun » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #270

During the same period the house prices have risen 586% I think the way we calculate inflation is kinda weird.

Kinda weird? That's a nice way to say "total bogus". It strikes me that the CPI is practically propaganda at this point, a way to placate the citizens by saying "oh look inflation is fine", distracting them from the mega-hyper asset price inflation that has been happening over the past 40 years.

Suppose it kind of makes sense, since the rich control the country, and they are the ones directly benefitting from the asset price inflation.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#326

Post by gumby » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

As a single datapoint, in 1983 MIT tuition hit $10K -- highest in the nation according to a cartoon in the paper. It's currently $60K (total cost estimated $80K) so 7X is about right.

However there's another way to look at it: over the summer I would earn over $10K so roughly covered my tuition. Admittedly that was at the high end of summer job compensation due to the AI boom, but gives you a rough idea of where that tuition fee fit. I finished school with no debt.

These days I doubt anyone is getting $50K for a summer job.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#327

Post by mistrial9 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

pixelatedindex wrote: post #227

pclmulqdq wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, the government has become a predatory lender with some intermediaries.

Which I find really weird, they take this stance against education but businesses don’t have to deal with such predatory loans - in fact govt loans for businesses tend to have low interest rates, or forgiven like the PPP loans. Why do we take anti-individual stances, but pro-business stances? Is that a byproduct of capitalism, or am I misreading the world?

you are right basically -- with the caveat that "business has shown the ability to be responsible with money" while individuals fail at this for a large variety of reasons. However, in many societies past and elsewhere, not every single individual adult has to manage money like a business. Zoom out a bit and you might imagine that government now treats corporations as a person, and persons like they have to behave like a business.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#328

Post by indymike » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

eschulz wrote: post #10

Makes sense when you have student loans backed by the federal government. If an 18 year old with no money and no credit history gets accepted into a qualifying university, she will be able to receive a loan since the bank knows that the government will protect their investment if she fails to pay them back. So now young people have this easy access to credit, and universities can greatly increase tuition and fees wit…

> Makes sense when you have student loans backed by the federal government. If an 18 year old with no money and no credit history gets accepted into a qualifying university, she will be able to receive a loan

This is the exact problem. Whoever makes the loan has an incentive for eternally increasing prices.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#329

Post by mistrial9 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

taeric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government. Being one of the small list of things you can't bankrupt out of, the risk in giving out the loans has been fully pulled from the lenders. It is frustrating to hear the discourse over the inappropriate students that are taking on too much debt, all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At…

What "lenders," and what "market" are you talking about? 92% of all student debt was issued by the federal government. As a matter of social policy, the government does not meaningfully consider credit risk when issuing student loans.

where does that exact figure come from?

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#330

Post by mc32 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

boeingUH60 wrote: post #219

Xeronate wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems wrong to influence your son's decision based on your financial situation rather than his desires/passions. Of course if he's naturally interested in the trades then sure.

Passion doesn't pay the bills. It's good to be passionate about something, but many passions are not marketable. Many have drowned in student debt following their passions, but this wouldn't be so in many countries that have university education fully covered or significantly subsidized by taxes.

Exactly! Passions are good hobbies. Many people who take their passion and turn it to make it their source of income regret the decision because it sours the passion —it become a job.