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

#521

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 1:21 PM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #516

UncleMeat wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how the only use of the humanities is to teach people about classical liberalism. Surely my polysci friend who worked on 21st century dictatorships and my history friend who worked on early modern communication networks are doing something valuable too? You are begging the question here and just starting from a position that only your very narrow conception of the humanities has any value at all. I…

I'm not making nearly that strong of an argument, and indeed neither is the regulation under discussion. They need to demonstrate that it's somehow beneficial on average to economic outcomes. That could mean: * You were able to apply that knowledge to something someone wanted. * The experience somehow inspired you to find your own path to success. * Your degree helped convince someone else that you're a generally int…

> They need to demonstrate that it's somehow beneficial on average to economic outcomes.

Well we can demonstrate conclusively with data that people who get a humanities education have lower unemployment and earn higher wages than people without college degrees. What else is needed?

> I added on top that as a liberal society, we could perhaps agree that being well versed in liberal tradition is itself valuable.

I do not agree that being well versed in liberal tradition is more valuable than being well versed in other humanities domains. The things that a humanities education teaches that are good for society are not adherence to libertarian philosophy.

> Though actually if we back up a bit here, my original point was more that I doubt people are even learning [these] things

And I asked where you are getting this conclusion from. This is a pretty strong claim given that you don't seem to be engaged with humanities departments in a meaningful way.

> I agree that people at Instagram and DraftKings are negatives to society, and probably they also failed to obtain their liberal arts education. Largely I think people with these things on their resume should be blacklisted by others as they proudly wear their lack of morals, and we should do more to regulate such things.

Why then can we assume that a STEM education is good for society in ways that you insist we cannot assume for a humanities education? If this education can be actively harmful to society then surely we need to apply your same concerns there.

> Maybe my wording was off; by textbook my meaning was more along the lines of treatise, i.e. not casual.

Usually "monograph" is the term used for academic books in the humanities.

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

#522

Post by mishellaneous » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 1:45 PM UTC

RandomLensman wrote: post #101

What if it takes decades or centuries to pay off for society and perhaps never for the individual (in strictly monetary terms)? How should these things be funded? Could also look the other way around: if things pay off anyway, why should should tax payers fund it?

> if things pay off anyway, why should should tax payers fund it?

i believe the idea is that when someone is educated, it's not themselves alone that benefits from it, but rather everyone else around them. thus the interest in funding the education of other people.

> What if it takes decades or centuries to pay off for society and perhaps never for the individual (in strictly monetary terms)? How should these things be funded?

i'd look into how other things having such characteristics are funded. for example, research. a lot of research is indeed funded by companies because even though, say, "the cure for cancer" may be 40 years into the future, they do make money off of the incremental improvements along the way. what about more fundamental research? like, particle physics. or, whoever funded the research that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA, what were they thinking? i haven't read a lot about it actually, but i get the idea that they were simply some forward/long-term thinking people.

... overall, i think these are good questions. the kind of questions people with a (ideal) humanities education should be more capable of answering (mine is lacking...)

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

#523

Post by ndriscoll » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #521

ndriscoll wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making nearly that strong of an argument, and indeed neither is the regulation under discussion. They need to demonstrate that it's somehow beneficial on average to economic outcomes. That could mean: * You were able to apply that knowledge to something someone wanted. * The experience somehow inspired you to find your own path to success. * Your degree helped convince someone else that you're a generally int…

> They need to demonstrate that it's somehow beneficial on average to economic outcomes. Well we can demonstrate conclusively with data that people who get a humanities education have lower unemployment and earn higher wages than people without college degrees. What else is needed? > I added on top that as a liberal society, we could perhaps agree that being well versed in liberal tradition is itself valuable. I do n…

People earning higher wages as the result of their degree are explicitly and exactly not the topic of discussion. The discussion is about funding for programs that measurably do not produce economic benefits, and some supposed intangible benefit to just being educated.

I get the conclusion from having been a student, having socialized with other students, observing discussions from teachers online and seeing that things are either the same or worse, and observing my fellow citizens. It's like asking how I know most young people in the US have premarital sex or how I know the obesity epidemic isn't actually a bodybuilder epidemic: because I live here. If studies said otherwise, I'd have to assume the study was wrong.

STEM education is easy to demonstrate the utility of because it shows how to make things that improve our lives. People working at Instagram should face criminal stalking charges, and gambling (or at least advertising it) should likely be made widely illegal again. That doesn't mean people programming inventory management systems or ensuring bridges have adequate safety factors and avoid catastrophic resonance aren't directly providing value with skills they learned.

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

#524

Post by pocksuppet » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

Muromec wrote: post #489

pocksuppet wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an odd way to say "a country that elects stupid people deserves to collapse". It's true, but it's an odd way to say it, and also quite pessimistic.

Do countries actually collapse or it's another bit of christian end of the world lore? It doesn't have to be that dramatic to be noticed and course corrected. No, it won't be course corrected based on the hypothetical (even if it's highly likely hypothetical) before the feedback function slaps somebody in the face.

Countries collapse very often. The land, cities, and people remain, and organize into new countries. Democracy was meant to pre-empt this with a regular controlled collapse and handover, like a controlled forest burn, but a democracy itself can also collapse.

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

#525

Post by pocksuppet » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 2:22 PM UTC

sajithdilshan wrote: post #512

pocksuppet wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is tax payment the only possible contribution to society?

What other ways of contributions do you have in mind that can fund the education of the next generation?

For example, you could teach them things. But why is funding the education of the next generation the only possible contribution to society?

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

#526

Post by BoingBoomTschak » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

mishellaneous wrote: post #517

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually don't like to get into these subjects on HN, but I'll expand just a little bit on what I mean. All political systems (all of them) have "holes" in that they're more or less dependent on individual virtue to function in a long-term fashion - some of them having holes so large they can only work as naïve thought experiments with perfect civically-minded (thus imaginary) people - and not academic knowledge, wh…

i like your framing of "holes" in political systems. one way to put it is that a political system has "holes" if the ideal/desired outcome is not a Nash equilibrium. however, my understanding (though i can't speak for the other commenters) is that the reasoning behind "humanities-educated people make better democracies" is NOT that humanities-educated people are more virtuous, and thus will willingly not degrade the…

> rather, it's that humanities-educated people cannot be manipulated as easily by a demagogue (and other similar things).

I can see where your reasoning is coming from but I mostly disagree. I can see two factors that could prevent manipulation: 1. The rare case of wisdom (that I define as being strong willed enough to think independently and not fall for self-deception/wishful thinking + intelligent enough to think correctly) which doesn't apply here since education doesn't influence this and 2. Manipulation going too much against the previous indoctrination, which does apply here but kinda defeats the point.

In fact, I'm mostly distrustful of intellectuals (!= intelligent people). That misattributed Thucydides quote about scholars ("The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.") further illustrated by Uncle Ted ("Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today.") summarize my position.

Where I do agree is that practical/technical knowledge allowing individuals to be more independent and less reliant on specialized technicians to change a light bulb is highly important. Sadly, the Western world I (we?) belong to has almost finished removing teaching of DIY and even the individual ability to do so (cf modern cars, appliances or operating systems). I suspect that this isn't a coincidence considering the aforementioned ramifications...

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

#527

Post by Muromec » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 3:02 PM UTC

pocksuppet wrote: post #524

Muromec wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do countries actually collapse or it's another bit of christian end of the world lore? It doesn't have to be that dramatic to be noticed and course corrected. No, it won't be course corrected based on the hypothetical (even if it's highly likely hypothetical) before the feedback function slaps somebody in the face.

Countries collapse very often. The land, cities, and people remain, and organize into new countries. Democracy was meant to pre-empt this with a regular controlled collapse and handover, like a controlled forest burn, but a democracy itself can also collapse.

Mind giving two examples that are attributable to questionable policy choices and not the usual empire lifecycle?

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

#528

Post by nullc » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

mishellaneous wrote: post #520

nullc wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard non-profit grift-- you can't take profits out of a non-profit directly, but you can give particularly robust salaries for yourself and your friends, use the funds to build powerful influence networks by directing projects, build prestigious glittering facilities, etc. It's difficult to control because an outsider isn't in a position to know the best way to allocate funding. The best control is to not provide…

another possibility to combat grifting would be to have competition. another university comes up and provides the same service as the wasteful university at a smaller cost, and thus displaces the wasteful university. the advantage is that we don't need performance measurements and similar things that can create distorted interests / be gamed (just like the proposed profit limit). that's the theory, at least

Who does the choosing?

Today it's the students but they significantly don't pay the cost, so competition can be gamed by wasting money on student perks.

This is generally a problem that comes up when the party that pays isn't the party that gets the benefit-- it breaks competition's utility for getting good results.

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

#529

Post by stevenalowe » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #43

stevenalowe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To help people get the education that they want. Not pick winners/losers.

They're not picking. They're rewarding.

rewarding winners somehow is not picking?

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

#530

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

eudamoniac wrote: post #480

theahura wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really want to make the case that the Federal government should fund these? No, but I don't think means testing is a better alternative. You and I both know that this is a wedge to punish perceived political enemies, as much as you know that the total number of people who graduate with a degree in "somatic body work" is such a small fraction of people as to be negligible > Nationally, about 10,600 to 10,700…

If it's such a negligible amount of people then what is the issue with denying them student loans? Very few people will be affected by this, so you say; not worth arguing about then I suppose.

If it's such a negligible amount of people then what is the issue with funding them?