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

High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

shrewdcuriosity.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 326 posts

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#261

Post by jedberg »

the_only_law wrote: post #259
jedberg wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UC schools have always tied enrollment to the top 9% of California High School seniors. As High School graduation rates increased, the UC system increased its enrollment (most recently by building a new campus). Enrollment at UC wouldn't change if it were free -- it will always be ~9% of graduating seniors.

Sorry, I must be misinterpreting, because I’m he way I read this now, you can’t get into the school system without having gone to HS in California?

The UC system accepts out of state admits but they have always paid full tuition. In state residents get a discount (which used to be 100%).

But they also guarantee that they will admit 9% of state grads.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#262

Post by kansface »

hackererror404 wrote: post #28

Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed and it would actually be a signal to universities and students alike, that Universities can charge more, and students can continue to take out larger loans because... they might be forgiven at some future point in time.

Debt forgiveness is indeed an extreme, perverse incentive. Capping federal aid seems unthinkable. Asking something of all of those grads (service) on behalf of forgiving their debt also seems unthinkable. Forgiving college loans is a wealth transfer to the highest earning cohort... I'm not in favor of a debt jubilee.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#263

Post by dap »

chongli wrote: post #203
dap wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top students (and athletes). To attract these students they invest in massive infrastructure projects (new buildings and renovations), often with the support of earmarked donations from wealthy alumni. These new facilities must then be staffed with administrators and mai…

It's a zero sum game. Bob the student can either attend Charles State or Derek University, not both. If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at…

> If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major.

Why do you think it's zero sum? Everything I've read suggests the total number of college students is increasing while school count isn't. Schools are increasing capacity, but not necessarily fast enough. Bob may not matriculate, but many others might because of the aquatic center.

I can't imagine schools are building an aquatic center for one individual who might not even matriculate. I can imagine schools building an aquatic center to increase the overall matriculation rate. If it works, and this example is representative, then what you're describing sounds like a competitive market causing all the producers to make investments to improve their product. (You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate.) If it doesn't work, then it sounds like it was just a bad decision, and possibly one with long-term costs for upkeep. But as far as I can tell, on average these things _are_ working, because colleges are only getting more selective.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#264

Post by solveit »

kodah wrote: post #234
bergenty wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities are centers of research so working towards funding and endowments makes sense. The students are there to learn and be a part of the existing culture. There are plenty of small and community colleges directed totally towards imparting academic knowledge however.

What percentage of published research is done by a university versus a private entity?

Depends on the field, but 100% is not a bad answer for most non-applied fields.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#265

Post by dragonwriter »

hackererror404 wrote: post #28

Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed and it would actually be a signal to universities and students alike, that Universities can charge more, and students can continue to take out larger loans because... they might be forgiven at some future point in time.

> Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness.

I mean, it should be an unpopular opinion that a claim that both misrepresents the basic processes and incentives involved and requires effect to precede cause by more than a decade is perceived as “exactly why we should“ do or not do anything, but unfortunately it's actually a very popular opinion in this case.

(To the extent there is a real argument—and this one is not it—for federal student lending being a cost driver for education, that would be a good reason why debt forgiveness, if done, should be accompanied by lending reform to correct the problem going forward; of course, even without it being a cost driver, any argument for debt forgiveness is itself an argument for lending reform preventing the problem addressed by forgiveness from recurring.)

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#266

Post by pnutjam »

willcipriano wrote: post #249
pnutjam wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, good news. We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.

> We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. Is that you chipping in or you just taking less of what I have produced? I'm still far and away a net taxpayer. > There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society. Have any examples I don't already pay for?

Classic "I got mine" libertarian thinking. You know the old saying, death and taxes. Your taxes are set, you're getting money back.

Things you don't pay for, just a small list: 1. better dating pool, for you and your kids (assuming you like brains) - this is not to say each person went to college, but they are influenced by people around them who did.

2. Better job candidates 3. Less narrow minded people, but it sounds like that might be a negative.

Things you get without paying for it, or paying a small fraction - clean environment - Neighbors who can have an intellectual conversation - food that won't make you sick - Parks, roads, airports - First responders

--- last comment alert --- not wasting anymore time on this

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#267

Post by bumby »

dragonwriter wrote: post #220
scottcodie wrote: post #184

I often think about the role of universities in the education process. It seems that universities are just profit maximizing entities. They don't care about student's education unless it impacts their reputation or ability to make more money. They give the bare minimum support to teachers to teach as well as bare minimum investment in processes like admissions. Seems like universities are doing exactly what you'd exp…

> It seems that universities are just profit maximizing entities. Most universities are nonprofits; universities tend to be research maximizing entities, with teaching as a distant second function. There are institutions with teaching- (as opposed to research-) centric models, but they tend to do at most undergraduate, vocation, and/or professional education, not academic graduate education, and (somewhat ironically,…

>universities tend to be research maximizing entities

This really hit home for me reading "Excellent Sheep" by William Deresiewicz. At one point, a professor won an award for excellence in teaching and I believe the dean took the professor aside to reassure them that the award wouldn't negatively impact their career. Apparently, the common wisdom was you could either prioritize research or teaching and that an award in the latter implied you may not be completely committed to the former.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#268

Post by solveit »

michaelt wrote: post #176
the_only_law wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shit I’m fine with keeping stuff if majority of the student body wants to pay for it, but let me opt out. The education system and tangential friends have so far proven the hardest bureaucracy I’ve ever tried to find a way around. I hate that now, when I’m more mature, more experienced, and know exactly what I want from it is the time it’s the most difficult for me to go back.

> Shit I’m fine with keeping stuff if majority of the student body wants to pay for it, but let me opt out. For things like swimming pools and gyms, sure. But some of the new services are things like 'mental health support' - it would be problematic if you'd opted out of mental health support to save $50/month, then you committed suicide.

Schools should have none of those. And I say this as someone who happily uses my institution's nice gym and happy that decent mental health support will be available to me should I desire it.

Schools try so very hard to be the entirety of their students' lives. They want students socialisation to be within their bounds, they want students to go to their hospital, exercise at their gym, be policed by their police force, work at their on-campus jobs, eat at their cafeteria, live in their dorms, cheer for their sports teams, and so on and so on. And society mostly caters to this desire, which the students and parents are also more-or-less on board with. But even as these integrations individually benefit the students, the net effect is to bubble students away from the rest of the world while also creating a bloated administrative entity that is both too powerful for its own good and completely unable to get things done.

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#269

Post by jalk »

popcube wrote: post #240
kodah wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of published research is done by a university versus a private entity?

sorry...most of researchers work for university, usually when open a random article, we can presume it is my wrote by a professor.

I hear that in many fields, papers are mostly written by grad students / post-docs. Professor gets their name on for raising the funds and sometimes managing the project, but not a whole lot of actual writing from their hands - any truth to that?

Re: High tuition costs mostly stem from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1993

#270

Post by [deleted] »

hackererror404 wrote: post #28

Might be an unpopular opinion... but this is exactly why we shouldn't do student loan debt forgiveness. The root core of the issue wouldn't at all be addressed and it would actually be a signal to universities and students alike, that Universities can charge more, and students can continue to take out larger loans because... they might be forgiven at some future point in time.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN