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

251–260 of 565 posts

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

#251

Post by WillAdams »

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 would argue that a child has a right to a certain number of years of education.

The best school which I attended divided classes between academic and social --- the latter were attended with one's age peers (so homeroom, social studies, PE, &c.) while the former were attended at one's ability level (with a cap of four years through 4th grade, so I was in 4th grade but taking 8th grade science, English, and history classes) and for older students, some teachers were accredited as faculty at a nearby college, so it was possible to take college courses while still in high school --- it was even possible to earn a college degree (or even multiple degrees) at high school graduation.

There was also a trade school track for students so inclined.

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

#252

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> The collateral is effectively a claim on the person's future earnings

Back in the Russian empire a person could buy themselves out of serfdom if they could come up with the money… which was difficult for obvious reasons.

And this feels like a modern reincarnation of the system.

It’s categorised as ‘ Unfree Labour’

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

#253

Post by dml2135 »

greyb wrote: post #99

I’m an arts graduate from a well-ranked public Canadian university where domestic/in-state students are heavily subsidized by public funds (domestic students pay only 20-30% of the real cost of enrollment[1]), and I’m probably more sympathetic to this rule than a lot of people in this thread. A lot of my peers fell behind financially after graduation, struggled to find work relevant to their interests, and then concl…

As a fellow arts graduate, I strongly agree. I’ve seen many friends and colleagues fall into catastrophic student loan debt as they tried to find some direction in life, helpfully exploited by universities along the way. It’s borderline predatory.

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

#254

Post by dml2135 »

stcg wrote: post #104

Yet another case of mistaking price for value. When evaluating whether public money is well spent on education it must be more important how valuable it is to the public , not what the price for the work is to the individuals. I like the "what if these workers stopped today" test: Pick a profession. For example pick from 'trader', 'dentist', 'cleaner', 'sales person' or 'nurse'. Then imagine that all people in that p…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it actually looks like this rule does not take the price of the degree into account at all.

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

#255

Post by lesuorac »

lizknope wrote: post #182

I don't think this is a good idea but I do think colleges should be required to list the average salaries that people with those degrees have. Include the career and salary progression over the next 30 years. I'm generally against banning things like smoking and gambling but I am absolutely for putting giant warning labels on those things. Adults which means anyone over 18 should know the risks and what they are sign…

> I do think colleges should be required to list the average salaries that people with those degrees have.

Idk, I think just making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy is enough. Make both sides have skin in the game and you'll find students not able to get loans in situations that they would never get a salary to afford it.

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

#256

Post by ericd »

WillAdams wrote: post #251
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 would argue that a child has a right to a certain number of years of education. The best school which I attended divided classes between academic and social --- the latter were attended with one's age peers (so homeroom, social studies, PE, &c.) while the former were attended at one's ability level (with a cap of four years through 4th grade, so I was in 4th grade but taking 8th grade science, English, and history…

Sounds great, if you don’t mind sharing, what school was it? We have a couple of young kids that that seems like maybe a good fit for.

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

#257

Post by cheschire »

throw94949499 wrote: post #185
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?

I am foreigner. It is normal spoken english in UK where I lived. Sorry for not using "proper cambridge english" here.

No need to be defensive. If you were unaware of the irony before my comment, then my point was that there may be more still for the education system to offer.

This isn't directed at you specifically. I am making a broader connection to the need for higher education even when people feel it has no immediately obvious value. Sometimes the things learned in school are more subtle than what's on the syllabus.

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

#258

Post by croes »

mchusma wrote: post #245

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…

You know why many companies prefer employees without a degree?

Easier to exploit and manipulate.

This step makes it even easier for them

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

#259

Post by lesuorac »

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…

> This doesn’t prevent people from learning to paint or play the clarinet. It prevents students from taking out enormous loans for it.

The problem is going to that there's going to be a large shock to the system. As pointed out in the article, a lot of teachers make $55k. So basically no education degree should be awarded because the average worker is better than a teacher.

Eventually the supply of teachers will dry up so much that salaries will go up. But how many years do you think until that happens? And then add 4 to when the supply catches up. Although I would bet what happens is that states no longer require a degree.

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

#260

Post by RandomLensman »

techpression wrote: post #249
RandomLensman wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lending is a business in itself, no?
Post reply on HN