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

541–550 of 565 posts

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

#541

Post by ndriscoll »

UncleMeat wrote: post #537
ndriscoll wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

I don't understand what you mean by "do not produce economic benefits" then. So you say STEM majors do this and that humanities majors do not. But I truly do not understand. I really do not think that your understanding of a modern humanities education is correct. I get my conclusion by being married to a humanities professor and friends with a lot of humanities professors. I also get this from reviewing syllabi at l…

The original post defined it:

> The test itself is simple: If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college, that program could be cut off from federal student loans. The same goes for any graduate program whose graduates earn less than someone with only a bachelor's degree.

I'm not going to go so far as to claim that there's a widespread project to undermine our society (as opposed to individual indifference or disdain), but you yourself demonstrated the issue: when I express my doubts that supposedly educated Americans have ever actually read their own constitution, you ask why that's an issue an why we should privilege that above other reading. Ancient Chinese political theory is neat and all but how about knowing the basics of our own country?

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

#542

Post by IAmBroom »

NishanStepak wrote: post #540

Our economy is based on debt. New money comes from issuing debt. If there are not enough people taking on debt, the economy will not function as well. This is part of the reason so many people take on debt. The cultural value is worth more than the monetary value.

Only partially true. New money definitely comes from Nations issuing debt in the form of bonds, but I've never heard it claimed that my VISA interest adds to the GDP.

> This is part of the reason so many people take on debt. The cultural value is worth more than the monetary value.

That's hilarious. "Why did you spend four years getting a ___ degree?"

"For the cultural value, and to add money to the economy!"

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

#543

Post by janalsncm »

WalterBright wrote: post #74
janalsncm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of higher education is not to get you a job. This is the line universities give, knowing full well that the only reason students pay exorbitant tuitions is because bachelor’s degrees are necessary for most salaried jobs in the US. Schools want to have their cake and eat it too. If education isn’t about the money they should have no problem charging lower tuition rather than paying their presidents milli…

If one thinks doing simple derivatives is a chore, I'd suggest a career other than engineering. I've known many engineers who practiced math avoidance. None of them were worth much as engineers. I know a recruiter who would ask engineering candidates what is 20% of 20,000, without using a calculator or phoning a friend. He was surprised at how many could not, and it was an easy way to filter out the no hires.

This is the kind of attitude exposes the hubris that leaves schools exposed. The idea that students should pretend this isn’t largely irrelevant work, ignore the opportunity costs of this subject, pay enormous amounts of money, and be happy for the privilege.

> I know a recruiter who would ask engineering candidates what is 20% of 20,000

This point would have been stronger if the recruiter asked some calculus trivia like the derivative of sin(2x). Perhaps this means the recruiter agrees with me that it is not nearly as useful as schools think it is.

The problem is administrators and professors who want to be paid well, since they are performing essential white collar job training, but do not want to be accountable for actually prioritizing the knowledge students will actually need. Having their cake and eating it too.

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

#544

Post by UncleMeat »

ndriscoll wrote: post #541
UncleMeat wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you mean by "do not produce economic benefits" then. So you say STEM majors do this and that humanities majors do not. But I truly do not understand. I really do not think that your understanding of a modern humanities education is correct. I get my conclusion by being married to a humanities professor and friends with a lot of humanities professors. I also get this from reviewing syllabi at l…

The original post defined it: > The test itself is simple: If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college, that program could be cut off from federal student loans. The same goes for any graduate program whose graduates earn less than someone with only a bachelor's degree. I'm not going to go so far as to claim that there's a widespread project to undermine our society…

If that is the test then it is plainly obvious from the data that humanities majors earn more than workers who never went to college. Where are you getting this idea that this isn't happening?

In my state the text of the constitution is taught in 8th grade civics as part of the mandated state curriculum. How is this tied to undergraduate education? You immediately expanded this to "liberal ideas" and then "western canon." Are you just talking about the constitution or are you talking about reading Locke and Shakespeare?

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

#545

Post by LPisGood »

lionkor wrote: post #535
nradov wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but how many? There has to be some upper limit. It's hardly fair to ask citizens who went to work or joined the military out of high school to pay taxes to fund free education for an unlimited number of liberal arts scholars.

How is that unfair? They still have to work, you know? Free education doesn't mean that you get free money to play with, it means your college or uni is paid for. You still have to work to live, and that's not something anyone can change easily. > joined the military out of high school to pay taxes to fund free education If you think that's fair, and that changing it would be unfair, I'm not sure there's a basis for…

The military industrial complex is a massive socialist jobs, housing, education, and healthcare program. For some reason it’s one of the only ones people on the right support.

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

#546

Post by conductr »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #98
conductr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could also just decide to provide people higher level of education as a right. And, put some Medicare level pricing in place for colleges and universities to get cost in check. I personally would want to see it with greater student participation/testing. The US education has been watered down to be so easy specifically because failing reduces LTV of a student. They want to just crank out degrees to as many people…

I agree. College is not for everyone. Also, we already have an option for those of us who want to provide higher education for people who can't afford it: charities. The advantage of giving my money to a charity instead of the government is that if the organization mismanages the funds it takes me 2 minutes to switch my monthly donation to a different organization. If government mismanages funds it takes between 2-6…

Charity is fine, but the scale I’m talking about usually makes sense as a social program that we all participate in and that’s usually where governments come into the picture

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

#547

Post by conductr »

labcomputer wrote: post #470
conductr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could also just decide to provide people higher level of education as a right. And, put some Medicare level pricing in place for colleges and universities to get cost in check. I personally would want to see it with greater student participation/testing. The US education has been watered down to be so easy specifically because failing reduces LTV of a student. They want to just crank out degrees to as many people…

Well, yes, and I agree, but that means colleges would need to do some considerable belt tightening. There’s plenty of fat to trim, mostly as a result of the last quarter century of student loan policy.

Yes, they can’t be expected to do so voluntarily though so I think the economic pressure to force them to decide how to prioritize their spending is a good thing

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

#548

Post by janalsncm »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #121
frognumber wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the corollary is about taxpayer accountability. It's easy to make the argument: "If we invest $1M in education, we will have $10M in additional future economic output, $4M in future taxes, and $20M less in law enforcement / criminal prosecution / jail fees. It improves global competitiveness." That's a no-brainer. Education is a very high ROI investment for a country. Like infrastructure spending or industria…

A lot of people severely underestimate the value and impact of the arts because they don't produce immediately visible results. But artistic works are often a massive source of inspiration and they help people through dark times.

> But artistic works are often a massive source of inspiration and they help people through dark times

I completely agree with you, but

1) you can make art without taking out enormous loans and

2) if you want to pay cash or take out a private loan to attend these schools you still can

3) learning about art does not make you an artist, it makes you a museum curator.

The last one is probably the most important. An expensive degree does not make your painting more beautiful, or your notes more in-tune, or your bakery more delicious. It is a credential.

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

#549

Post by stevenalowe »

BeetleB wrote: post #115
stevenalowe wrote: post #29

I'm all for informed consent - publish the data - but leave the choice to the individual. The goal of education is self-improvement, not necessarily/only money. The way student debt is (mis)managed is a different issue.

> I'm all for informed consent - publish the data - but leave the choice to the individual. The choice is not being taken away - the Federal government is merely telling the universities to find some other way to fund those programs.

the federal government is making value decisions for us. no bueno.

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

#550

Post by ndriscoll »

UncleMeat wrote: post #544
ndriscoll wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original post defined it: > The test itself is simple: If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college, that program could be cut off from federal student loans. The same goes for any graduate program whose graduates earn less than someone with only a bachelor's degree. I'm not going to go so far as to claim that there's a widespread project to undermine our society…

If that is the test then it is plainly obvious from the data that humanities majors earn more than workers who never went to college. Where are you getting this idea that this isn't happening? In my state the text of the constitution is taught in 8th grade civics as part of the mandated state curriculum. How is this tied to undergraduate education? You immediately expanded this to "liberal ideas" and then "western ca…

I didn't say humanities majors don't earn more. People who earn more with their degree aren't the contention. The contention is the nebulous, intrinsic value of a "more educated society", c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48880930

The constitution might've been mandated as part of the curriculum. That doesn't say much. The question in this subthread was about the relation between "education received" and "amount of knowledge possessed", to which I replied that I doubt most American college educated adults have actually read the constitution.

To illustrate, I had never actually bothered to read the constitution at the time that I got a 4 on the AP US History Exam. It is not hard to pass tests without reading or thinking about the material, and when it comes to what's part of state standards, we all know it's nearly impossible to fail US K-12.

So I am talking about all of those things; the constitution and Locke and Shakespeare and Homer are all supposed to be on the curriculum. How many people actually read them? To what extent is even more education a delusion? If you don't need expensive lab equipment (and this includes some STEM fields like math/CS), do we need everyone going to universities? Or if you actually want to learn the material, can you just do so?

Post reply on HN