Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by CamouflagedKiwi » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 4:59 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #158

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?

Bankruptcy is such an alien concept. Adults took out consensual loans from another adult and now they get to just say oops "take backsies"? It's one thing if you're in a crazy desperate situation and someone takes advantage of you, I could get that. But if you're not desperate and you took money from someone else and can't pay it back? Theft. The rest is just how we manage to keep that low on an aggregate level in ou…

They don't really "just get to say" that. Declaring yourself bankrupt is a fairly major thing that will have long-term consequences. It clearly isn't desirable to do casually, we don't see it often (at least not in the personal sense; businesses can be a bit different).

> It's one thing if you're in a crazy desperate situation and someone takes advantage of you

In that kind of situation, declaring bankruptcy is likely not going to help you so much. Those people are going to come after you anyway.

I think you sort of fundamentally misunderstand this. Bankruptcy isn't thievery - it's a solution for people who get themselves into a bad situation and don't have a way forward. Say you bought a house with a mortgage, the value of the house has now dropped for some reason so you have negative equity, and you lose your job and can't afford to make the repayments any more. What should happen? You don't have money to pay what you owe, and you can't get it because your total net worth is negative. Saying that's theft doesn't help the question of what to do - society doesn't benefit from dumping on that poor person any more.

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

#412

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:01 PM UTC

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.

Google used to have such policies but gave them up sometime in the '10s. A casual search finds: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-people-2013...

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

#413

Post by nradov » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:02 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #400

nradov wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be a little confused about how the practice of medicine works. State medical boards license physicians. Earning a license usually requires an MD/DO degree, passing the USMLE exam, and completing some amount of post-graduate training (residency). Once you're licensed you can legally perform pretty much any medical procedure regardless of whether it's in your specialty or not. There may be separate co…

They didn't say license. They said certification which is issued by the relevant board. While theoretically a medical license gives you the right to perform heart surgery without the relevant certification no hospital will let you, no insurance company will cover you, and your license will be immediately revoked.

Medical licenses are not revoked based on lack of certification. There are plenty of working and employed physicians who lack board certification. Hospitals and health systems in areas with a shortage of doctors can't afford to be too picky, at least not for primary care.

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

#414

Post by fc417fc802 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:04 PM UTC

cudgy wrote: post #217

fc417fc802 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People that do fundamental research typically require a bachelor degree.

... in an economically advantageous subject I would expect.

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

#415

Post by WillAdams » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #396

WillAdams wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those texts were a standard part of grade school social studies when I was young, and my children read all in the course of a typical public education long before graduating.

They might be part of the curriculum, but apparently ~half the country doesn't know what we just celebrated[0], so I somehow doubt they actually did their reading. It's pretty easy to pass or even do well in classes without really engaging with the material at all, even at the university level. Like I got an A in a philosophy course by just reading the professor's notes on exam morning and spitting them back out on a…

By definition, half of the population is of below average intelligence.

As my daughter said to her boyfriend in college, "Welcome to the upper half of the bell curve."

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

#416

Post by fc417fc802 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:08 PM UTC

usrnm wrote: post #307

sgerenser wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of these new grad researchers have undergrad degrees in music vs. science or math? I’d suspect there’s very few of the former, and even then they got the position despite their music degree not because of it.

Do you only consider fundamental research in maths or sciences worth pursuing? Do you even realise how much of your everyday life depends on the results of fundamental research in philosophy and humanities?

> Do you even realise how much of your everyday life depends on the results of fundamental research in philosophy and humanities?

Approximately zero? Could you articulate what exactly you have in mind here?

A liberal arts degree is certainly beneficial to the individual's broader understanding of the world, and I certainly would prefer my elected representatives to have a thorough grasp of history and philosophy, but where is the fundamental research that my everyday life depends on?

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

#417

Post by xethos » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #160

collinmcnulty wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t think investing in arts, humanities, and music contributes to a functioning democracy?

Not at all, most of these are obviously "symptoms" of a well functioning society (not just democracy), not its cause.

Regardless of whether we classify it as humanities or political science (as neither seems to be looked at as terribly useful in the states), a population without some grasp of civics does not lend itself to a healthy democracy

Not everyone must be a plumber or electrician, but we're well-served by having some basic knowledge, and an ability to find answers to the questions that arise as we do basic handywork, such as changing a lightswitch or replacing a faucet. Similarly, we are well-served as a society when we can answer basic questions about our democracy past the age of 18; IE, shortly after testing ends, and typically before it actually matters - when voting.

Not everyone needs to become a licensed electrician, or have a deeper-than-average understanding of civics. But knowing someone you can trust with an answer that isn't purely to line their own pocket is still important.

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

#418

Post by treis » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #413

treis wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't say license. They said certification which is issued by the relevant board. While theoretically a medical license gives you the right to perform heart surgery without the relevant certification no hospital will let you, no insurance company will cover you, and your license will be immediately revoked.

Medical licenses are not revoked based on lack of certification. There are plenty of working and employed physicians who lack board certification. Hospitals and health systems in areas with a shortage of doctors can't afford to be too picky, at least not for primary care.

There aren't any practicing cardiology or nephrology which is the GP's point and my point.

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

#419

Post by fc417fc802 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

pocksuppet wrote: post #409

fc417fc802 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's economically advantageous shouldn't the private sector be able to fund it for a profit already?

The same private sector that's famous for not wanting to hire juniors even though the seniors obviously need to come from somewhere? People are allowed to move between employers at will despite any investment in their education. Economically advantageous to the individual and to the employer are separate things.

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

#420

Post by _DeadFred_ » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

ryzvonusef wrote: post #366

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…

I'm not an american, my profile clearly states I'm from the 3rd world. My father grew up dirt poor, and a basic associate degree (gotten via his saving from a factory job plus a partial scholarship he won) changed his entire trajectory from being a random labourer to an white collar office worker with enough funds to educate his own kids, especially his daughters. My father and my siblings helped fund my education, a…

My country (the USA) just cut taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent by a trillion dollars over the next 10 years

https://itep.org/year-one-of-trump-republican-tax-policy-con...

It is not a matter of being realistic with limited funds. Tax income is not an act of God that we are helpless to control. We chose to lower the tax floor versus having a civil, functioning, improving society where people have something to work toward, optimism that their life will be better, and an ever improving nation. Instead we want social Darwinism pushing people down instead of raising them up (benefiting us all), and people too busy fighting for scraps to improve anything.

I don't recognize post 2000s America. And I don't recognize post 2000s 'conservatives'. They definitely aren't trying to conserve American values nor the American dream. They don't care about fiscal health (see above tax cuts). They don't seem to care about anything. They claim they look out for 'the tax payer' but only in a breathless, we have to do something about this right now, low information high propaganda informercial style reactionary jerking about bullshit kind of way, not in a 'we are building a strong civilization' long term, thoughtful thinking kind of way.