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

Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 565 posts

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#141

Post by noelwelsh »

This blog post is very relevant to the discussion: https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-multiversity-is-finis...

A quick summary: the modern university is really a "multiversity", combining research, trade school, broad "liberal arts" education, and residential coming-of-age in one organization. The author argues this model is finished, and the pieces should be separated. I don't know if the author is correct, but I think the idea that the university is many things is important to recognize for this discussion (and just about every discussion around universities).

This law, in sense, wants to distinguish the trade school and general education parts of the university (though I suspect it more aimed at owning the libs than anything else).

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#142

Post by sethammons »

Aurornis wrote: post #87
dataflow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like I have not really heard a compelling reason why student debt should not be dischargeable thru bankruptcy like (afaik) all other forms of debt. According to Reddit [1] it was to discourage students from immediately declaring bankruptcy upon graduation. I don't see why they couldn't have put a time limit on it though, if that was the reason. Say you can't declare bankruptcy for 7 years after you leave sch…

The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available. If bankruptcy was allowed then the obvious play would be to take the loan, max out credit cards right before graduation, then declare bankruptcy before you get your first job. Lenders would respond by increasing interest rates dramatically and restricting loans to those who had assets. This wo…

> The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available

"They are eating the dogs and cats." It simply isn't true. I got my student loans a quarter century ago. Back then the loans were dischargeable and low. My loans came in at like 4% interest at the time.

It is propaganda that it was a widespread problem and the "solution" was to legally protect banks from risk. Then rates exploded and regulatory capture kept people locked in.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#143

Post by usrnm »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #57
theahura wrote: post #34

imo this is pants on head backwards. The whole problem with the current university system is that it has become exclusively a credentialing system that everyone uses to justify higher salaries. We’ve completely left the education part of it by the wayside…except for the liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn! This rule is just encoding the existing tulip mania into federal law directly, by making it…

Still it would seem to make some amount of sense for federal aid to be restricted to economically advantageous persuits, no? Doesn't mean that's the only thing institutions can offer nor do I necessarily think it's the best way to improve the status quo.

On the contrary, who else is going to fund fundamental research that is not immediately useful? Stuff that prints money will have no problem finding funding, looking at the greater picture is exactly what the government is supposed to do

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#144

Post by jclulow »

ryzvonusef wrote: post #140

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…

I mean, says you? We live in a society and to some extent we decide what that means. I believe many countries outside the US have heavily subsidised loans or cost deferment mechanisms, or just outright government funding for school. Certainly in Australia you essentially don't have to pay back your HECS debt if you don't end up with a salary of sufficient magnitude, and then the rate at which you pay it back is scaled to what you earn.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#145

Post by sethammons »

dansquizsoft wrote: post #86
CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really tell people that they just can't be bankrupt though. What are they supposed to do if they have debts they can't pay but they're not allowed to declare bankruptcy because they pinky swore they wouldn't do it seven years ago?

Yeah I had a big lol when I read “just don’t let people declare bankruptcy for 7 years after graduation” - how in the world could this be good public policy?

Why would it be better to not allow the debt discharged ever? That is the current situation. 7 years as a limit is better policy than "you owe this forever no matter what"

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#146

Post by bradleybuda »

janalsncm wrote: post #41

> But this new test, known as "do no harm," raises some thorny questions about the purpose of college. Like: Is it just about making more money? If this is a fair question to ask students, then it is a fair question to ask the schools as well. They are the ones charging enormous amounts of money to students for this. This doesn’t prevent people from learning to paint or play the clarinet. It prevents students from ta…

Is United Airlines “just about making more money”? Yes. Has it done so by offering people a valuable product and generating massive consumer surplus? Also yes.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#147

Post by amclennon »

> But more than 800,000 students attend a program that would likely fail the measure, according to department data. Roughly half of those students are enrolled in for-profit schools, which already have a reputation for shortchanging students.

> Most traditional, four-year bachelor programs fare well, with roughly 1% failing the earnings test. When these programs do fail, it's often in areas like theater, music and studio art.

My knee jerk reaction was to suspect some kind of academic purge, but this honestly seems to mostly affect schools that were kinda scammy to begin with.

In practice, I could also see this resulting in people double majoring in art if they were truly passionate

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#148

Post by sethammons »

dyauspitr wrote: post #26
hankbond wrote: post #7

I feel like I have not really heard a compelling reason why student debt should not be dischargeable thru bankruptcy like (afaik) all other forms of debt. I am curious what the ramifications would be if higher education institutions had to (in some form) co-sign the debt being issued. I do get that not all education should be purely for economic reasons, but as an autodidact I feel that "learning for the sake of lear…

Because then the normal thing to do would be to graduate, declare bankruptcy when you have nothing to lose in life because you are just starting out, work for 7 years and you’re in the clear by your late 20s. Everyone would do it.

> Everyone would do it.

No, they wouldn't. Source: go back a couple decades, and student loans had low interest rates and were dischargeable in bankruptcy. It was an option. And, in fact, practically nobody did that.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#149

Post by mschuster91 »

The problem is... that won't help. Academia simply has gotten completely perverted from its original purpose: advancing science and training the next generation of scientists.

Companies, by requiring college degrees even for the most mundane tasks, simply turned academia into multiple things at once: it saved them money for training their staff (as the majority of "industry standard" knowledge gets taught there), it offloaded the cost to the prospective employees (remember when we were taught "if you are supposed to pay for your job you're getting scammed"?), and most importantly it offloaded all of the risk too. Got ADHD? Any other mental or physical health issue? You likely won't even pass college. Everyone who passed through college already passed the "filter gates" employers want - can cope with stress, likely has some sort of support network if they can't on their own, and doesn't carry baggage that reduces their ability to work compared with their peers.

Oh, and a nice side thing for companies, requiring college degrees saves them from ADA and other anti-discrimination regulation violations. It's well-known that being Black (or otherwise in a minority) results in markedly lower chances of finishing with a degree, having children results in lower chances, living in poverty results in lower chances, the list goes on and on. Requiring a college degree is a very easy proxy to say "I want a workplace that's as male, white and rich-frat-boy-ish as possible".

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#150

Post by linkregister »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #130
IsTom wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this like, a real sum of money americans pay for a degree? Overhead must be mind-boggiling if like just two students are needed to pay educator's salary for the period.

That is very much a real sum of money people pay. The UC system is (I believe) 30k per year tuition if you’re in state. Add rent and you’re probably looking at 45k per year. Out of state is higher. And many systems are more expensive as well

The UC system is an outlier in both price and quality for public education in the United States.

The California State system, which costs $7-9 thousand per year, is far more representative.

Post reply on HN