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

501–510 of 565 posts

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

#501

Post by mistercheph »

snerbles wrote: post #206
yorwba wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly:

Elitist ivory tower as in free education for all that want it.

8th order effects like a well functioning society that isn't on the verge of collapse, where people live well, love each other, and think about interesting, important problems.

Distinct from the 1st order effects of a really high GDP thanks to all of the code monkeys we've trained to glue react components together: which has netted us a society on the verge of collapse, where poverty abounds, crime is universal, basic infrastructure like roads and water are crumbling, and we are plagued by mental illnesses, suicide, drug addiction, and mass shootings.

Hmm, if only there were any analogues in history that could show us the way forward, anyways, I've got to run, I've got a meeting in five with my agent who's going to show me how to 100x my SAAS revenue.

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

#502

Post by linkregister »

senordevnyc wrote: post #340
linkregister wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UC system is an outlier in both price and quality for public education in the United States. The California State system, which costs $7-9 thousand per year, is far more representative.

The UC system has about 300k students, CSU has about 475k. So more representative, yes, but I wouldn’t say far more so.

Truly torturing the data to index on student body size as the relevant metric

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

#503

Post by anon291 »

theahura wrote: post #371
anon291 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shifting the goalposts. For most of american history a high school education was considered sufficient to be part of a functioning democracy. If a music education (or whatever) is required to be part of democracy, then everyone should have it.

Education isn't a binary, so I'm not sure why we should arbitrarily draw the line at highschool as we become richer as a nation

Because high school is what we fully fund as a nation

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

#504

Post by atomicthumbs »

scoofy wrote: post #462
dragonwriter wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No, the purpose of a college loan is to enable a student to pay for college with future earnings. It can be perfectly rational even if the loan/degree doesn't improve job prospects (and even more especially so if it doesn’t “improve” them in a purely financial se…

This is a fine thesis, but under this thesis student loans should be discharged under bankruptcy just like any other liability. The previous poster is arguing that the underlying rules that block student loans being discharged under bankruptcy, generally speaking, mean that the loan is about a job, and not just about borrowing for education.

yes, they should

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

#505

Post by atomicthumbs »

tyleo wrote: post #218
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 think folks would agree with you in valuing arts and humanities, just that they shouldn’t do it on someone else’s dime. I suspect you’d find that a widely held belief and not just an American one. It’s hard out there and I have some non-college educated family who also struggled in life wondering why we should pour money into degrees people can’t pay off when they received no help themselves.

This sort of attitude is how you get a culturally impoverished nation.

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

#506

Post by atomicthumbs »

BeetleB wrote: post #106
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…

This isn't banning such programs. The question is why the federal government needs to support them. If you want to set up a teaching program to learn something arcane, by all means go for it and charge a fair/reasonable/whatever amount. Just because you're teaching it doesn't mean the Federal government should give you money. Let those who can afford it pay for it. If not many can, you need to make an argument why yo…

so poor people don't get to do to school?

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

#507

Post by pinkmuffinere »

linkregister wrote: post #502
senordevnyc wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UC system has about 300k students, CSU has about 475k. So more representative, yes, but I wouldn’t say far more so.

Truly torturing the data to index on student body size as the relevant metric

The discussion is about what the average person pays.... surely student body size _is_ the relevant metric? What else would you propose?

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

#508

Post by linkregister »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #507
linkregister wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truly torturing the data to index on student body size as the relevant metric

The discussion is about what the average person pays.... surely student body size _is_ the relevant metric? What else would you propose?

If you look at the annual tuition rates for public schools in the United States, you will find the UC system to be an outlier. I gave a system in the same state that is closer to the national median. How much simpler can this be communicated?

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

#509

Post by AnthonyMouse »

foldr wrote: post #208
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

They more teach you that judging people on the basis of that is cultural bias.

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

#510

Post by foldr »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #509
foldr wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They more teach you that judging people on the basis of that is cultural bias.

I agree. However, as it's clear that OP is not an AAVE speaker writing a comment in AAVE (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48880115), I thought you were being somewhat facetious.
Post reply on HN