Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 259 posts

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#111

Post by RobertRoberts »

stealthmodeclan wrote: post #24
RobertRoberts wrote: post #4

I taught college for about a dozen years (part time on the side), and may get dragged back into again soon. I can say emphatically, the quality of the schooling only helps people who would succeed anyways. Those that won't or can't, no school can help them. There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there. To not be too harsh, there are many students over their head in life (debts, rel…

> Those that won't or can't, no school can help them Rich can have unmotivated kid and poor can have motivated kids and vice-versa. Those who can't succeed, schools can still accept fees from them and create a larger pool of resources which those who 'can do' can leverage at expense of those who can't. Wether it's good or bad - it's for the society to decide.

This is exactly what I ran into. And I was really happy for the highly motivated poor kids to get the opportunities in the school. Some of the few bright moments in my life is seeing students work hard and succeed.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#112

Post by capnrefsmmat »

jononor wrote: post #98
jimhefferon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a college and we are required by the federal government to report all kinds of numbers. I know grad rate is among them, and I am 99% sure it is broken down by major. Those reports are public.

Where can I find them? Interested in mining the data

The Department of Education College Scorecard has a great deal of data which they make openly available: https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#113

Post by scarface74 »

bigmanwalter wrote: post #83
chrisseaton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can default on education loans what are they going to take as collateral? Your knowledge? What would stop every new graduate defaulting? Do you think your idea might lead to greatly increased costs for everyone due to the risk?

People like credit. The threat of losing it is more than enough reason to avoid bankruptcy.

You can completely recover from bankruptcy within 7 years - a much shorter time than it takes to pay off a loan.

More than likely though, it won’t come to bankruptcy. After not paying your credit card for awhile, you can usually negotiate a lower rate.

There are all kind of ways to get around bad credit - co-signers, putting things in your spouses name, etc.

You can also buy a house three years after a foreclosure with a government backed low interest FHA loan with only 3 percent down payment.

I did a “strategic default” on two mortgages and had a short sale. I had an unofficial “pre-pre approval” for a mortgage 34 months afterwards and started the process of getting a house built. 36 months to the day, they started the loan process for an FHA mortgage.

It’s really easy to get a secured loan. I also got a great interest rate on a car loan during those three years. I couldn’t get unsecured credit to save my life though.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#114

Post by ryanworl »

kevindong wrote: post #102
topkai22 wrote: post #36

The real problem with higher education is really how we finance it. Give the lenders the ability to discriminate based on major and borrowers the ability to default easier and all of a sudden you’ve got some banks seriously motivated to ensure students get economic return on their investments. Besides, it just shouldn’t take a decade or more for someone to discharge a bad debt. Student debt seems uniquely oppressive…

My school, Purdue, offers a program (Income share agreement - ISA) where a borrower pledges a percentage of their future income for 10 years in exchange for tuition money. To me, the most "innovative" part of the program is that the percentage charged varies by major. The main conclusion from this program is that if you're income is going to be high (basically >=$70k/year starting salary), you're better off with a tr…

Purdue also makes it simple to graduate in 3 years for certain majors (I did, 2015 MGMT) and in-state tuition is extremely affordable. I think my total tuition while I was there was less than $40,000, which included extra summer course tuition to facilitate that 3 year graduation.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#115

Post by scarface74 »

russfink wrote: post #96

The author's position is that the only reason to go to college is to learn academic subjects and obtain a job when graduating. If the same logic were applied to automobiles, there'd be no reason to choose a Lexus over a Nissan. College is about the whole experience: friends, contacts, travel, opportunities, and yeah, for some, it just comes down to wanting to to go to a place that "doesn't suck." As for innate abilit…

College is about the whole experience: friends, contacts, travel, opportunities, and yeah, for some, it just comes down to wanting to to go to a place that "doesn't suck."

And that’s a luxury that only a few have. I’m sure most parents wouldn’t get into thousands of dollars of student loan debt for that reason.

I can’t imagine a world where it makes sense to get a luxury car and get in thousands of debt before you have a good job either.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#116

Post by PeterisP »

lsiebert wrote: post #38
sigfubar wrote: post #12

I think that most people shouldn't aspire to go to college. They should learn a trade instead in order to become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, or car mechanic. There are lots of occupations that don't require a college degree, yet provide a solid paycheck without the crushing mass of student debt accrued in the pursuit of a useless degree. Michael Bloomberg himself said it best: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2…

That implies that college is only important for skill transfer towards an occupation. Historically, part of college was to help an individual grow personally and intellectually, to learn not just what to think, but how to think clearly, in order to better engage with civil society as an active participant. It's always a little off-putting when I see people suggest that higher education is just for a job, and discount…

The point is that you can thing "classic college experience" as a package of two things, one is the skills that transfer towards an occupation, and the second is the self-improvement part. But those are two separate things - they're both very nice and useful, however, the first is something that's a need for people to be able to function productively in our society (and thus we might reasonably want to ensure that a large portion of society gets it), and the latter is somewhat of a luxury, which is nice to have but if we can't afford to provide it (and it seems that we can't, not for everyone - at least if you take not only the cost of education but also on living expenses for all these years while not working) then not everybody should get it.

Spending an extra year or two on growing personally and intellectually costs comparably to a luxury car. It'd also be nice for everyone to literally drive a luxury car, but for most people it makes sense to drive something cheaper and more practical, rather than borrowing and spending that much resources on it; and in a similar manner for most people it makes sense to get practical education instead of "buying" in addition to that a year or two of self-improvement that you can't really afford.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#117

Post by reaperducer »

azemetre wrote: post #109
kryogen1c wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used to be. Doctors and lawyers would go through a decade of school on loan and then discharge it all and start a lucrative practice. That's part of how we got here.

Where are you getting this information from? Because nothing I am able to see points to people discharging their loans happening on a massive scale. The only "news article" [1] I can find that references this mentions 0.3% of student loans were discharged through bankruptcy in 1977 [2]. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-student-loans-bankrup... [2] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_s…

Seems be to be some serious revisionist history going on...

Just because it’s not a link on the internet doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

It was pretty much common knowledge when I was in school. I only knew a few pre-meds, but it certainly came up as a discussion topic more than once.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#118

Post by mkirklions »

jwally wrote: post #92

The U.S. would do itself a huge favour by allowing student debt to be bankruptable. College prices can rise infinitely because there is an unlimited supply of AAA+ debt to feed it. Drop that rating to reality and investors don't buy the debt, loans don't get originated, demand for college at $250k dries up.

(I think) I'm a fan of getting rid of subsidized loans for education.

It has only made the cost of education go up rather than make college affordable.

But on the flip side, what can be expected from people with no ability to afford college at the new price?

Ive been told over and over that my personal situation working full time on the midnight shift and going to college is 'unrealistic' for everyone to do.

So whats the solution? Get rid of the loans until college cut the cost? What happens to the first few years of lower and middle class kids who cant afford to go to college?

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#119

Post by scarface74 »

zdragnar wrote: post #25
hmwhy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those that won't or can't, no school can help them. Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about? Have you considered that maybe this isn't a problem with the students but a problem with society and the very problem with the education institutions and teachers like you that are just basically feeding on them? It's far easier (and economically viable in a shortsighted way) to blame students for their s…

I've found the same to be true for mentoring junior programmers. Those who treat it as just a job rarely advance their abilities. Those who are genuinely interested in learning grew. I've always disliked the verb "teach" because it implies that it is something I can do to you, when really all I can do is nurture, facilitate or provide a framework for you to learn.

I’m not a junior developer. By the time I started my first job, I had already been a hobbyist for ten years - since 6th grade and had a degree.

By the time I started working, it was “just a job” and 20 years later, it still is. I study and “do well”, because I am highly motivated to stay employed and stay employable at market rates.

Re: False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm

#120

Post by mkirklions »

CPLX wrote: post #41
topkai22 wrote: post #36

The real problem with higher education is really how we finance it. Give the lenders the ability to discriminate based on major and borrowers the ability to default easier and all of a sudden you’ve got some banks seriously motivated to ensure students get economic return on their investments. Besides, it just shouldn’t take a decade or more for someone to discharge a bad debt. Student debt seems uniquely oppressive…

Or instead, like most other advanced societies, we could stop trying to quantify higher education in purely personal economic return on investment grounds and consider an educated populace a public good.

This sounds like/is bad economics.

Educated populace in video game history isnt value added like an engineering degree.

You can educate yourself in anything, but society only values education in a few value-added sectors.

Post reply on HN