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

U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

hechingerreport.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 563 posts

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#171

Post by kansface »

stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

Most colleges/universities are nonprofits and they still charge tens of thousands per semester. I will also point out that the European model is not free, universal college degrees for all - access is restricted behind rigorous entrance exams. Such a system would be politically untenable in the US wherein a growing movement wants to do away with all entry tests. What would actually happen in practice is that we would get a different flavor of the worst of both worlds.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#172

Post by Rebelgecko »

codedokode wrote: post #166

The prices in USA look exorbitant. If a worker works full year for minimum wage, they earn $7.25 * 8 * 253 = $14674. Such worker will have to work for 6 years and 9 months to pay tuition costs for 1 year, if we assume that they don't have to pay taxes, buy food, visit a doctor and pay the rent. A house may cost several hundred thousands dollars or higher. If that worker has paid for a university, no way they will be…

Minimum wage in Chicago is $12, not that it makes a huge difference in the math.

I think you can make the argument that if someone is going to be making minimum wage after getting their degree, they should go to a cheaper school like a community college or a trade school. Or just start working right out of high school.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#173

Post by joefife »

mc3 wrote: post #162
stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

They used to do this in the UK probably until the 90s but then they'd start charging "tuition fees" although to be fair I think they were standardised, so the same fees for any university, and fairly small, with support for poorer families. I think having so many people go to university is a big burden to pay for. Part of the solution is not so many people going to university.

Must point out that we have no tuition fees in Scotland, which is unfortunately part of the UK.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#174

Post by brycesbeard »

gtirloni wrote: post #159
stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

[flagged]

Why does it become socialist at age 18? Taxes support up to 12th grade currently.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#175

Post by mc3 »

fortran77 wrote: post #83
misiti3780 wrote: post #71

As a US citizen, I see the US debt bomb ending it two different ways 1. Sanders/Warren get elected and somehow forgive 1.5 trillion in student loans and make education free going forward. 2. 2008 level crisis with (2) is the more probable I think universities tuition is way too expensive in our country, but I'm against (1) currently because I don't think retroactively forgiving debt is a good policy. The students too…

I'm completely against forgiving student loans. I want to solve the problem, which means no more Government backed student loans. (I'm all for the Government building more low-cost public Universities, though.) But if they are going to forgive them, certainly the students who prided themselves on being the best and the brightest should have known better! Therefore, anyone in the top 10% of SAT scores or at the top 10…

In addition, forgiving loans is probably not practical - where is all the money going to come from? More tax or less spending on some other service.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#176

Post by nothal »

mc3 wrote: post #162
stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

They used to do this in the UK probably until the 90s but then they'd start charging "tuition fees" although to be fair I think they were standardised, so the same fees for any university, and fairly small, with support for poorer families. I think having so many people go to university is a big burden to pay for. Part of the solution is not so many people going to university.

I think the entire solution is increasing the tax burden on the upper class in the US but that's just me.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#177

Post by theflyinghorse »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #49
chrischattin wrote: post #17

How to fix student loans... The .gov backs student loans. And, they are non-dischargeable. So, it is zero risk for the lender to give loan to the 2.7 GPA moron getting a worthless basket weaving degree from the local private lib arts school for $100k. So, they give as many loans as possible, since they can't lose (taxpayer on the hook). Colleges are incentivized to drive up costs of tuition b/c tons of free money. It…

I'd go one step further. Make the universities guarantee the loans. If a student earns a degree and isn't able to earn a living sufficient to pay back the loans then the University has failed.

What you are effectively saying is that university education exists solely for providing job training. That's not something most universities will agree with.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#178

Post by asdfman123 »

maxerickson wrote: post #30
big_chungus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, many elite schools have need-blind admissions and excellent aid if you are poor. If you are rich, it's affordable. As usual, it's the middle class that gets screwed.

Depends a lot on how you define "middle class" and "screwed". For example: https://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/how/index.html https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-sheet

I went to Stanford. My mom did part time office work and my dad was the director of planning for a local city government. It was very affordable for us.

Everyone thinks they're in the middle class.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#179

Post by t0mas88 »

mc3 wrote: post #162
stefano wrote: post #154

What I find funny in these discussions on HN is how most people seem to be completely oblivious to the obvious solution, proven to work in many developed countries around the world: have the state directly fund universities and don't charge tuition to students (or charge them a small amount). Why is the assumption "universities are private endeavours that should make a profit" something that goes unchallenged on HN?

They used to do this in the UK probably until the 90s but then they'd start charging "tuition fees" although to be fair I think they were standardised, so the same fees for any university, and fairly small, with support for poorer families. I think having so many people go to university is a big burden to pay for. Part of the solution is not so many people going to university.

But that's a very short term solution. Because with low cost labor globalizing and moving out of the EU and US, you will either need more highly educated knowledge workers to be competitive or accept a bigger group in society get very low wages or unemployment.

Re: U of Chicago projected to be the first U.S. university to cost $100k per year

#180

Post by qaq »

chrischattin wrote: post #17

How to fix student loans... The .gov backs student loans. And, they are non-dischargeable. So, it is zero risk for the lender to give loan to the 2.7 GPA moron getting a worthless basket weaving degree from the local private lib arts school for $100k. So, they give as many loans as possible, since they can't lose (taxpayer on the hook). Colleges are incentivized to drive up costs of tuition b/c tons of free money. It…

U of Chicago is ranked #6 in US 2.7 GPA morons are nor likely to be accepted.
Post reply on HN