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

201–210 of 565 posts

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

#201

Post by delusional »

RandomLensman wrote: post #194
threetonesun wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you’re not talking about a loan to do this (at which point you’ve reinvented indentured servitude), back when there was a smaller pool of college graduates it was easier to find a company that would pay for your education, some even offering bonuses if you completed it.

Not sure I understand: why would a loan be indentured servitude if it funds an education (not binding employment etc.)?

If there is no expectation of future income or employment, and no collateral since you don't have any. Then who would lend you the money?

I don't think anyone is stopping the private sector from extending "student loans" if they were such a good business.

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

#202

Post by RandomLensman »

delusional wrote: post #201
RandomLensman wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I understand: why would a loan be indentured servitude if it funds an education (not binding employment etc.)?

If there is no expectation of future income or employment, and no collateral since you don't have any. Then who would lend you the money? I don't think anyone is stopping the private sector from extending "student loans" if they were such a good business.

Of course, there would be an expectation for loan repayment (most likely from employment somewhere). Is any unsecured/uncollateralized loan indentured servitude for you then?

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

#203

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

delusional wrote: post #193
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…

> If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then don't take the loan, take the scenic route, get your degree slowly as and when you have the time and money, and one day you will have something to look back at. Do you see no value in young energetic people being educated while their brains are still maximally plastic, and society get maximal value out of the education? Is there no value in handing over our knowle…

> Do you see no value in young energetic people being educated

This is what the public school system is for. Post-secondary education was not meant to be for everyone. But the world has changed and universities and colleges only service as the gate-keepers to degrees and diplomas that every employer now has required to get a job (regardless of whether that education is needed for the actual job). It's not that young people passionate about learning as much as they can in a given field don't exist, its that university is not about them anymore.

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

#204

Post by cudgy »

imtringued wrote: post #181
andai wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the way things are going, maybe it should be way more subsidized... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48818544 https://archive.ph/94e7p

I personally think it is a perversion of the idea of philosophy to think that you can buy a better philosophy education by paying a higher tuition.

Perhaps it is a perversion of logic to think that someone who has not been trained yet as a philosopher would think like a philosopher.

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

#205

Post by usrnm »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #169
usrnm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We aren't talking about fundamental research here (NIH, NSF, et al) we're talking primarily about students pursuing bachelor's. At least IIUC.

You need a steady supply of new grads to keep the research going. How many exactly is a different question, of course

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

#206

Post by snerbles »

yorwba wrote: post #138
mistercheph wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Education is not something arcane, TBH it's really the vocational schools that should be forced to call themselves something different. 99% of university students are not there for an education, they are in welding school upper-middle-class edition. Vocational programs are essential infrastructure, but they are not education, and those programs should not receive funds allocated for education or be held to the same s…

What about job training disqualifies it from being education?

Because it's not elitist ivory tower navel gazing with possible 8th order effects or something.

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

#207

Post by HPsquared »

RandomLensman wrote: post #175
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…

If it is quite profitable to get a certain education, why would it need the tax payer to provide the loan for it? Shouldn't that be easy to fund from the private sector?

Student loans aren't your standard private sector loan though. They are a special legal category, which is why they can't be discharged in bankruptcy. All the usual borrowing standards don't apply either. No commercial lender would give that size of loan to an 18 year old with no collateral. The collateral is effectively a claim on the person's future earnings. What a crazy contract to have young people routinely pressured into.

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

#208

Post by foldr »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #172
cheschire wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we seen during" This was an intentionally ironic use of poor grammar in a statement against organized education, right? Hopefully?

That's grammatically correct AAVE. It's a thing they teach about in university.

Sure, but they also teach you to use SAE in contexts where that's expected (like most written work).

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

#209

Post by reactordev »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #197
anonym29 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then we set the bar for hiring to requiring a degree making it so that if you want anything above minimum wage, you’re going to have to get a degree. While this may have been true in the past, this is no longer the case, and it has not been the case for at least a decade and change now, at least in the US. If you are intelligent and self-motivated to learn in-demand skills, and you can demonstrate those skills, and…

> working fully remote for Google, also with no degree. Aquihired? My understanding, is that Google is infamous for requiring, not just degrees, but degrees at prestigious STEM colleges. Apple is known for hiring folks with patchy educational creds. They showed interest in me, a couple of times, and I’m as scruffy as you can get.

I too have spotty educational credentials and for a while it was fine but once you hit mid 30s it becomes an issue for some people in executive power. Then there are jobs and companies that won’t even speak to you without a masters degree. I’ll admit the spectrum is wide but in the last decade more and more emphasis has been on where you went to school, not what have you done.

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

#210

Post by sscaryterry »

cheschire wrote: post #167
throw94949499 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"we seen during" This was an intentionally ironic use of poor grammar in a statement against organized education, right? Hopefully?

Shame on you, attacking the grammar, not the person.
Post reply on HN