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

221–230 of 565 posts

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

#221

Post by ourmandave »

HPsquared wrote: post #207
RandomLensman wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

You can discharge them through bankruptcy but it's not automatic. You have to prove repayment would cause "undue hardship".

https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation...

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

#222

Post by tyleo »

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?

I think the point is that it’s so beneficial to society for people to get these degrees that we should lower the barrier even further. I think you are right that having the private sector fund it is a good base state, I suspect you’d find that you can improve on that base by funding it with some public money. We’ve probably gone a little too far in that direction though.

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

#223

Post by sajithdilshan »

I think the pure purpose of a university should be to mould students into critical thinkers and innovative mindset that would ultimately add value to the society so they can contribute back as tax payers to help the next generation.

The cycle breaks if the university suddenly produces a group of people that cannot contribute in any meaningful way back. In that case it’s totally fair to ask where did we go wrong and how can we fix it and get back on track rather than trying to keep the broken system

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

#224

Post by arenaninja »

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?

I'm not convinced it's necessary but it sure as hell is nice. I got through undergrad with subsidized loans and it was nice to not worry about interest while I wasn't working yet.

The private sector does fund some loans but I think the current program just needs re-working. Forgiving all these loans is a no-go so this measure is a step in the right direction. I'd like them to lock down the interest rate to 2% + inflation next. The government does need to incentivize a certain degree of higher education for innovation.

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

#225

Post by dml2135 »

This is getting somewhere but the criteria is too crude, and doesn’t take the cost of the school into account.

A better criteria would be, does the increase in salary that the degree program provides allow the student to pay off the cost of the degree in ten years (the length of the standard repayment plan).

It’s not really a big deal if a degree didn’t increase your earnings, provided your school was cheap. If your degree is worthless AND your school was expensive though, the results can be catastrophic.

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

#226

Post by anonym29 »

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.

No, and removed anyway because n=1 of me isn't a load-bearing pillar of my broader point, and came across as braggy in a way that detracts from the message I want to present upon a re-reading.

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

#227

Post by datakan »

IsTom wrote: post #128
tadfisher wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I want a philosophy degree then it's my God-given right to pay $240,000 plus interest for it. Maybe it shouldn't be subsidized, though.

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.

There are a lot of dumb people that pay ridiculous amounts for college. I went to a state school and they paid ME to go there. My job prospects have been just as good as anyone elses. I learned the same material they did. I had all the same experiences.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

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

#228

Post by arenaninja »

lionkor wrote: post #213
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…

This is such a shitty American take (or any of the countries that somehow decide the USA is a good model to follow), it's kind of baffling that this is a popular opinion and explains a lot of the social issues (or near lack of social system) you guys have. You know that technically, people are allowed to have fun and not strive to be a billionaire, right? Its everyones right to pick a path they want, and enjoy, and i…

Why not gather up with other like-minded individuals and fund scholarships and grants if you feel strongly about this? I disagree that taxing the rich is our way out of this. There's a reason the starving artist is a cultural trope.

Not only that but the higher ed industry has abused the hell out of this program. I'm close to people who were studying degrees they will never come close to paying and now they're $100k+ in the hole. The reality is that degree shouldn't have been available to them.

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

#229

Post by sgerenser »

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 have only a bachelors degree from a school ranked #57 in U.S. news undergraduate engineering programs (not terrible, but hardly prestigious). Google still interviewed me a few times (including back in the old days when that meant flying out for a full day on-site interview). I’m not convinced they really even looked at my college beyond seeing that I had a bachelors degree.

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

#230

Post by bluGill »

lionkor wrote: post #213
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…

This is such a shitty American take (or any of the countries that somehow decide the USA is a good model to follow), it's kind of baffling that this is a popular opinion and explains a lot of the social issues (or near lack of social system) you guys have. You know that technically, people are allowed to have fun and not strive to be a billionaire, right? Its everyones right to pick a path they want, and enjoy, and i…

You are allowed to have fun. Do what you want I don't care. I don't even know you.

However if you want me the taxpayer to pay for the fun it needs to be a good investment for me. Otherwise I want to use my money to have fun myself.

Post reply on HN