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

Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

statecraft.beehiiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#251

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #77
treeman79 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper solution is government to stop guaranteeing the loans and to allow people to put them in bankruptcy. Prices will collapse to what people are willing to pay in real time, or save up for.

The government cannot and will not do that, because such a policy would have racially disparate impacts.

The government actually can do, and often does, policy with racially disparate impacts. Disparate impact is not a Constitutional limit on government discrimination, its a judicially-created rule in the application of certain statutory anti-discrimination laws.

(And the disparate impact rule is politically and legally unpopular with the same faction that currently dominates the Supreme Court and whose members on the Court have shown an unusual willingness to discard precedent, so its quite likely it won’t be a limit on discriminatiom under those statutes much longer, either.)

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#252

Post by shkkmo »

hamandcheese wrote: post #174
tempsy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not Literally says "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Aggregate Loan Limit $31,000-No more than $23,000 of this amount may be in subsidized loan" Just confirms most people have no clue how small the limits actually are.

Again - the rules about student loans during bankruptcy apply to all student loans , including from private lenders.

That is not as clear cut as you make it. There have been rulings in the last several years that have allowed some private loans to be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

> In January 2020, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York discharged over $200,000 of student loan debt for one borrower. Then, in August 2020, a ruling by the 10th circuit federal appeals court based in Denver, Colorado eliminated $200,000 for a Colorado couple who held 11 private student loan accounts. And in September 2020, a judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled to enforce a prior bankruptcy discharge of a borrower’s $400,000 of federal student loans that a servicer had failed to carry out.

> These decisions could serve as a precedent for future bankruptcy cases involving student loans, says John Rao, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

> "A lot of people, even some of the lawyers who represent consumers, thought for years that you really shouldn’t even try because there's not a chance you’ll win, but I think everyone is looking at it now with sort of a fresh look," Rao says.[0]

[0] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/stude...

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#253

Post by roamerz »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #204
adventured wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At least, they would be taking on too much risk, if they hadn't captured the market so effectively The lenders? Risk? 93% of all student loan debt is owned by the US Government. What risk? How is it everybody pretends it's the Big Evil Bankers making all the money on this racket? It's equivalent to the false narrative about private prisons driving…

People hate Comcast for raising their rate $10/month but when the government prints trillions causing you to lose 20% of your income and assets to inflation it’s not a big deal.

It’s easy to miss the connection between printing money and the affect of printing money since there is always a time period between cause and affect. The example of comcast raising hour bill is immediate. Well comparatively.

Eventually and hopefully people will wise up.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#254

Post by tkiley »

a counterpoint to this narrative: grants/scholarships have been rising rapidly, so actual net tuition prices are surprisingly flat in recent years.

> Between 2006-07 and 2019-20, COA [cost of attendance] increased by around 27% at both types of institutions, but declined by 7-8% in the few years after that. The recent decline occurred because colleges posted similar nominal COA increases as in the past, but inflation was higher. Overall, COA increased by almost 20% over those 16 years at both types of institutions.

> But average net prices rose at a considerably more modest pace. Between 2006-07 and 2019-20, average net price increased by 13% and 7% at public and private four-year institutions, respectively. Those increases reversed in the post-COVID years. Overall, average net prices are largely unchanged, adjusted for inflation, compared to 2006-07.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/college-prices-arent-skyr...

in the past 15 years in particular, the big story of college pricing is that it has become more progressive, i.e. more expensive for those with higher incomes.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#255

Post by lordnacho »

ye-olde-sysrq wrote: post #11
toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

The only service category that has outpaced higher education is hospital services. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century/

How cheap TVs are is unreal. I was looking at the display TVs at Target and the largest one was only about a grand, maybe a touch less. Ridiculous how big of a panel, complete with "smart" OS and etc, you can get for (Mind you, I know "largest" doesn't mean most expensive usually - indeed the most expensive TV was "only" 65" but was still Capitalism has certainly worked really well for this one specific consumer good…

Yeah it's weird explaining it to my kid:

"When dad was your age, TVs cost a heck of a lot of money, had terrible resolution, took several grown men to carry, and were almost as deep as they were tall"

"Last year I carried home a larger TV with 40x the number of pixels by myself, and paid for it with one day's work"

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#256

Post by shkkmo »

monero-xmr wrote: post #128
tempsy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not Literally says "Subsidized and Unsubsidized Aggregate Loan Limit $31,000-No more than $23,000 of this amount may be in subsidized loan" Just confirms most people have no clue how small the limits actually are.

I am afraid you are woefully confused. A good friend had $150k in debt from undergrad and $200k in additional debt from law school, and this was 10 years ago.

That would have likely been a mixture of direct loans (which have the current 31k limit for undergrad) and private loans.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#257

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

Xeronate wrote: post #162
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I read that Wall Street is creating CDO's based on these loans, like they (continue to) do on mortgages. Some people die "early" without paying back these loans, and sometimes, they will owe more than they took out. Given the mounting problems with the numbers here, it seems a whole generation of people in the middle of this bubble are going to go to the grave while still owing on these loans. What happens to the…

Seems wrong to influence your son's decision based on your financial situation rather than his desires/passions. Of course if he's naturally interested in the trades then sure.

His grades do not warrant the gamble on the expense, either mine or his. He's very artistically inclined, rather than academically.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#258

Post by RyanAdamas »

malfist wrote: post #218
RyanAdamas wrote: post #205

Accreditation Boards Textbook Publishers University Tuition It's a triangle scheme where one feeds the other and it's all fueled by non-dischargeable government loans. Student Loans are the hill to die on. As someone who isn't eligible for Military Service, I don't get supplemental housing, free healthcare, free college education, hiring preferences, small business loan preferences, nor a lifetime of "OH THANK YOU FO…

> can't join the drunken sexfest that is modern military service Wait, what did I miss?

Apparently you missed being social. Having worked with a number of vets it's absolutely true.

Here, in case you missed this too:

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/11/19/36...

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#259

Post by gameman144 »

jedberg wrote: post #221
gameman144 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that only rich people can go to college, because they are the only ones who can afford it. I hear this a lot, but I don't understand the argument to be honest. If someone is poor today , then they can take an exorbitant amount of debt that they can't discharge in order to attend university. In a world where loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy and the federal government limits subsidizes loans, we'd expec…

The interest rates would be so high that it wouldn't make sense for a promising student to take that loan. If you're a loan company and someone comes to you asking for $100,000, and they have no credit and no family with assets, even with a 4.0 GPA and perfect SATs, they are still a huge risk.

This seems fine to me. If someone has no assets and no reasonable prospects to pay back $100,000 of debt, then saddling them with $100,000 of debt is a bad idea.

Additionally, discharging student loans in bankruptcy should absolutely not be a way to get off scot-free, it's meant as an escape valve. If your options are the terrible downsides of declaring bankruptcy and the terrible downsides of a life in extreme debt, neither option is great, but having the choice is useful.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#260

Post by taeric »

adventured wrote: post #159
taeric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government. Being one of the small list of things you can't bankrupt out of, the risk in giving out the loans has been fully pulled from the lenders. It is frustrating to hear the discourse over the inappropriate students that are taking on too much debt, all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At…

> all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At least, they would be taking on too much risk, if they hadn't captured the market so effectively The lenders? Risk? 93% of all student loan debt is owned by the US Government. What risk? How is it everybody pretends it's the Big Evil Bankers making all the money on this racket? It's equivalent to the false narrative about private prisons driving…

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Government debt has been discharged before. Look into the number of cities that have declared bankruptcy. (That is, you don't even have to look at failed nation states. Plenty of places in the US have done this.)

That is, no amount of lending is ever risk free. To pretend that you can hedge all risk out of a loan is the problem. It doesn't matter who issues it. It doesn't matter why they issued it.

So, to put the question back to you, why would you feel there is no risk in lending to students to go to college?

Post reply on HN