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

241–250 of 565 posts

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

#241

Post by knome »

userbinator wrote: post #65
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…

No, it's making it clear that government aid, i.e. taxpayer money, should not be paying for education that won't result in the population, and in turn the government, earning more. liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn s/learn/be indoctrinated/

>s/learn/be indoctrinated/

Yeah, this comment demonstrates my own perspective on it quite well, in that it's likely just another bald political attack by the current administration on education, wherein a bureaucrat will get to decide what does and does not constitute a worthwhile degree, and is allowed to become the gatekeeper of what universities may teach by selective topic by topic defunding.

Will they decide to ignore the salaries of students "not working in their field"? That could be used as an instant bludgeon against anything centered on history, philosophy, or other educational paths that do not generally have high paying careers associated with them, even if those graduating from them do generally earn more on average than those with only a high school diploma.

Twenty years ago something like half of those in tech didn't have a college degree of any kind. Plenty of businesses are run by folks that don't have college degrees. Crafting statistics through careful manipulation of who is counted for making the comparisons could be used to exclude almost any set of courses that isn't STEM, law or medicine.

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

#242

Post by whatisthiseven »

ourmandave wrote: post #221
HPsquared wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What that page doesn't tell you is the precedence courts have set for those tests is so high that nearly no one qualifies for them, and thus it is the case that the loans are virtually impossible to discharge even if it means losing your home and all your possessions.

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

#243

Post by somedude895 »

boringg wrote: post #231

The war on education continues. Tactically this serves the current political administration well. It is definitely a sad state of affairs in the US right now. Both the colleges letting their costs get out of control to the control to open the door to this kind of rule and that the current admin thinks this is what secondary education is about. See if it goes to actually rule implementation or if its just posturing.

> that the current admin thinks this is what secondary education is about

Why should the taxpayer fund someone's liberal arts degree, or rather their professor's livelihood? You can think that they should, but that's a question not just "the current administration" is asking.

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

#244

Post by confidantlake »

cudgy wrote: post #204
imtringued wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who trained the first philosopher?

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

#245

Post by mchusma »

This is great. Federally subsidized loans is directly (not solely) responsible for rapid inflation of college costs in the US. Anything to limit its use is a good thing. I’d argue that this test would be better expanded to actually having an ROI, not just do no harm, to encourage schools to not only provide value but also constrain costs (eg your school may make sense at $10k debt not $100k debt).

This and/or making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy.

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

#246

Post by defrost »

confidantlake wrote: post #244
cudgy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who trained the first philosopher?

Sorites was the first of a heap more.

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

#247

Post by sib »

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…

>> The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job >> If knowledge and prestige is all that matters

I disagree. The primary purpose of the college degree is the job. If you don't need a job (which derives from the signaling factor of the degree == the prestige), you can just study the same material and gain the knowledge by yourself without getting a degree.

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

#248

Post by dml2135 »

mistercheph wrote: post #133
fwipsy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the value of studying arts, social sciences, etc. But why should taxpayers cover that? There are lots of online courses which could provide the same education for free. Community colleges also show that it's possible to provide a decent in-person education at a fraction of the cost of major universities. If we could get tuition under control, then federal tuition assistance would be fine, but also hardly…

Why should taxpayers pay for jobs training programs? since these vocational students expect to make lots of money with their certificate in hand, they can just take out a loan. this makes an actually rational system where the cost of job training is forced to be commensurate with the economic value of the output after the job program. OTOH education should obviously be subsidized because it is a public good to have a…

The issue IMO is precisely that taxpayers don’t pay, they give out loans. Yes, sometimes those loans are “forgiven”, but only after decades of struggle and distress. And I put forgiven in scare quotes because often the original balance has been paid by then anyway.

Not providing loans for programs that will not provide the means for a student to repay them is the right thing to do, as those loans are a path for the exploitation of the student.

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

#249

Post by techpression »

RandomLensman wrote: post #202
delusional wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So company A pays for your education to go work for company B (their competitor) and all they get is a lousy interest rate with no security? If they don’t get ten years (or whatever amount) of your output, why waste the time and energy when someone else will do it for them?

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

#250

Post by mlrtime »

bluGill wrote: post #230
lionkor wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The post is full of inaccuracies. USA has more Art degree graduates as a % of population than Germany, almost double. It is incredibly difficult to get a subsidized art degree in Germany.

Only under 0.4% of the total yearly graduates receives a subsidized state art degree

Post reply on HN