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

Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#141

Post by zaroth »

ams6110 wrote: post #94
madengr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. My wife would like to be stay-at-home-mom, but she works so we can save $2k/month for two kids college expenses, currently in elementary school. Goal is to have $160k over next 10 years. So by saving, I'm screwing myself. It's equivalent to another mortgage.

You're not screwing yourself, you're taking responsibility. Financial aid comes with strings as well as a highly invasive personal finance anal exam called FAFSA (which database I'm sure will get hacked and disclosed at some point, if it's hasn't already, as most other big government databases have). If you can pay your own way you avoid all that.

That’s mighty puritanical thinking. When a family works their ass off to be denied financial aid and pay full freight for highly inflated university tuition, that’s not what I would call “taking responsibility” that’s just being taken.

College financial aid is just another policy in the pile of progressive taxation and needs-based benefit programs which conspire to enact a near 100% effective marginal tax rate on the middle class.

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#142

Post by lerpa »

zbentley wrote: post #70
lerpa wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual problem is people getting into debt without reasonable expectation of paying it, just wishful thinking.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to this position, but that's an unnecessarily extreme way of stating it. "Reasonable" is a weasel word. If I study for 4 years for a job in a lucrative, degree-requiring field with very high jobs demand when I matriculate, and I go into debt to study, is that "reasonable"? What if that field encounters a sea change on the year I graduate, or the economy crashes, leaving me with bleak prospect…

> It seems like that argument easily ends up in the "educations that require significant debt are always useless" position, which is false.

That's not my position.

> "Reasonable" is a weasel word.

You can have a reasonable definition of what is reasonable ;-) It just has to do with the ammount of risk you're willing to take, yes, it involves personal risk.

But you can see, for example, in such and such people that get a degree are >70% unemployed or working in a different area that has nothing to do with it. Then well perhaps it's not a good choice if I don't have the liberty to do it just for the sake of it, without expecting money in return.

Some other career choices probably have better expected outcomes for the average Joe. So maybe if you need the money, chose that.

The bottom line is: it's just silly to live as if you were rich and but then after complain you don't have the money for it.

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#143

Post by clintonb »

paulus_magnus2 wrote: post #54

Time for market disruption? How about free online MOOC that ends with a widely recognized (accredited) diploma. Lectures are free, same for notes. Exams are paid for. You learn on your own or in groups. With additional paid tutoring on request. Technology allows everyone to get MIT grade education for free.

MIT and edX have already started doing this with the Supply Chain Management MicroMasters [1]. Other universities are coming aboard soon with other MicroMasters [2].

[1] https://www.edx.org/micromasters/mitx-supply-chain-managemen... [2] https://www.edx.org/micromasters

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#144

Post by wdr1 »

This doesn't eliminate all loans. It eliminates loans as a component of a financial aid packages.

If you did not qualify for aid & need loans, those will still exist.

I feel there's an "uncanny valley" when it comes to affording college. I came from a family of modest means so was able to attend a top (and expensive) school for very little. As an engineer at a large company I'm pretty sure my kids won't qualify for financial aid, yet it's unlikely we'll be able to afford the sticker price of a top school (~$70k/year/kid).

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#145

Post by longerthoughts »

goialoq wrote: post #131
MikeTheGreat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to start by saying that it's awesome that Brown, Cornell, Yale, and whatever other Ivies are need-blind. That's awesome, and I applaud them for it. That said, economic status and academic performance correlate closely. A college that's very selective will necessarily filter out a lot of lower-income kids purely because it's hard to do extra-curriculars if you need to work after school and/or if you can't affor…

Why should a school select students based on extra-curriculars? Why is "working at a job" not considered an extra-curricular? Why should a college even choose the highest academic performers? It's an educational institution, not a contest. At the end of the day, what is a college optimizing for, and why? Colleges could be selecting for students who the college can provide the most value to, or which students need tha…

>Why should a college even choose the highest academic performers? It's an educational institution, not a contest.

It will inherently be a contest as long as admission rates are below 100% and schools' reputations are non-uniform. If you shake up admission criteria to be more holistic and less weighted on academic performance, applicants will refocus their attention and compete to satisfy the new set of criteria (at least those within their control).

I definitely wouldn't argue that colleges are optimizing for greatest societal benefit, but it would take a lot to truly align their self-interest with a selection process that doesn't heavily consider academic performance (particularly for private universities).

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#146

Post by JoeAltmaier »

longerthoughts wrote: post #145
goialoq wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a school select students based on extra-curriculars? Why is "working at a job" not considered an extra-curricular? Why should a college even choose the highest academic performers? It's an educational institution, not a contest. At the end of the day, what is a college optimizing for, and why? Colleges could be selecting for students who the college can provide the most value to, or which students need tha…

>Why should a college even choose the highest academic performers? It's an educational institution, not a contest. It will inherently be a contest as long as admission rates are below 100% and schools' reputations are non-uniform. If you shake up admission criteria to be more holistic and less weighted on academic performance, applicants will refocus their attention and compete to satisfy the new set of criteria (at…

Still don't understand. By expanding the pool of admissible students (including those with other attributes than academic), don't they increase their rates?

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#147

Post by dwcnnnghm »

burritofanatic wrote: post #98
geebee wrote: post #80

I feel somewhat ambivalent about this. I'm glad that Brown wants to eliminate student debt, and I'm glad that low income students at ivies often pay no tuition. However, this doesn't change their essential model, which is to enroll a very small number of undergrads[1], deny admission to the vast majority of applicants, and generally lean toward affluent students. Compare this with an elite public research university…

I can confirm the general profile of undergraduate students at UC Irvine. I graduated in 2004 as a first-generation high school/college graduate and went on for an advanced degree. A substantial number of my classmates were also the same. I believe in the UC because, for the most part, it maintains its mission of providing Californians access to higher education if you want it. I recall the rule (not sure if it's sti…

This is true except for Berkeley and UCLA. They require you to submit separate applications (at the very least at some high schools, it could be that the elite high schools in California are allowed admittance into any UC).

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

burritofanatic wrote: post #98
geebee wrote: post #80

I feel somewhat ambivalent about this. I'm glad that Brown wants to eliminate student debt, and I'm glad that low income students at ivies often pay no tuition. However, this doesn't change their essential model, which is to enroll a very small number of undergrads[1], deny admission to the vast majority of applicants, and generally lean toward affluent students. Compare this with an elite public research university…

I can confirm the general profile of undergraduate students at UC Irvine. I graduated in 2004 as a first-generation high school/college graduate and went on for an advanced degree. A substantial number of my classmates were also the same. I believe in the UC because, for the most part, it maintains its mission of providing Californians access to higher education if you want it. I recall the rule (not sure if it's sti…

> I recall the rule (not sure if it's still the same) that if you are within the top 10% of your high school class, you will be admitted to a UC campus so long as you meet a minimum SAT score.

If you are in the top 9% of all California graduates, and you are not accepted at any of the campuses you applied to, you will be offered a space at some other UC campus, if there is space available. [0]

If you are in the top 9% of your California high school class, that's a competitive factor in admissions but not a guarantee of admission. [1]

[0] http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/califor...

[1] http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/califor...

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#149

Post by longerthoughts »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #146
longerthoughts wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should a college even choose the highest academic performers? It's an educational institution, not a contest. It will inherently be a contest as long as admission rates are below 100% and schools' reputations are non-uniform. If you shake up admission criteria to be more holistic and less weighted on academic performance, applicants will refocus their attention and compete to satisfy the new set of criteria (at…

Still don't understand. By expanding the pool of admissible students (including those with other attributes than academic), don't they increase their rates?

This is a little beside my point, which was that competition will remain as long as schools remain selective ("selective" defined for the sake of this argument as accepting less than 100% of applicants). Even if there was a broad increase in admission rates, people would still compete to be part of the X% accepted to "top" schools.

To address your point, though, I'll assume your use of "admissible" is synonymous with "admitted" students. An increase in rates would require that the number of admitted students increase relative to the size of the applicant pool. If the applicant pool increases with the number of admitted students there isn't necessarily an increase in the rate of admission depending on the relative increase in the size of the applicant pool. If we instead define "admissible" as meeting criteria for admission but not necessarily being admitted, I wouldn't be surprised to see a corresponding increase in admission standards to maintain existing admission rates. Interested to see if anybody has evidence to support or refute this based on historical trends in admission criteria (GPA, SAT, etc.) vs. admission rates.

Re: Brown University raising $120M to eliminate all student loans

#150

Post by [deleted] »

goialoq wrote: post #130
cphillips wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brown (and most likely all other Ivies) is need-blind (except for international students). So, unless you think they are lying, your point doesn't stand on limiting low-income students. You point on size of college is an altogether different issue. "Beginning with the Class of 2007, Brown implemented its need-blind admission policy. Need-blind admission simply means that an applicant's ability to pay for their educat…

note that Brown was decade(s) later than other Ivies in implementing need-blind admission. need-blind is great, but it's only useful if it's paired with a commitment to make attendance affordable -- which other Ivies have done, and Brown is now trying to do.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN