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

Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 565 posts

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#281

Post by rightbyte »

tyleo wrote: post #218
lionkor wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a shitty American take (or any of the countries that somehow decide the USA is a good model to follow), it's kind of baffling that this is a popular opinion and explains a lot of the social issues (or near lack of social system) you guys have. You know that technically, people are allowed to have fun and not strive to be a billionaire, right? Its everyones right to pick a path they want, and enjoy, and i…

I think folks would agree with you in valuing arts and humanities, just that they shouldn’t do it on someone else’s dime. I suspect you’d find that a widely held belief and not just an American one. It’s hard out there and I have some non-college educated family who also struggled in life wondering why we should pour money into degrees people can’t pay off when they received no help themselves.

> do it on someone else’s dime.

Money is just a social construct and the amount of tax dollars spent on classes in progressive tea pot clay handcraft is minuscule.

Non-tech academics were more or lessed forced into getting degrees by the job market.

There were no choice involved on part on the victims of a systematic issue, which is, gatekeeping access to middleclass jobs by the parents' bank account size with usury lending as some sort of pressure release valve.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#282

Post by LPisGood »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #203
delusional wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then don't take the loan, take the scenic route, get your degree slowly as and when you have the time and money, and one day you will have something to look back at. Do you see no value in young energetic people being educated while their brains are still maximally plastic, and society get maximal value out of the education? Is there no value in handing over our knowle…

> Do you see no value in young energetic people being educated This is what the public school system is for. Post-secondary education was not meant to be for everyone. But the world has changed and universities and colleges only service as the gate-keepers to degrees and diplomas that every employer now has required to get a job (regardless of whether that education is needed for the actual job). It's not that young…

Why not expand “public school” to include post secondary education to reflect the realities of the modern economy?

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#283

Post by class3shock »

ryzvonusef wrote: post #140

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…

"The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job"

Check the marketing literature for any college and you will find that is not true.

The only people doing degrees for knowledge and prestige are the filthy rich and while they may make up a significant percentage of students at the top 5 schools, they make up a tiny percentage of all college students.

The last point is where I end up aswell though and I think no matter how you look at it colleges are doing a disservice to young people and taxpayers pushing worthless degrees backed by government loans that they (the colleges) don't have to worry about repaying.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#284

Post by bitmasher9 »

WillAdams wrote: post #251
ryzvonusef wrote: post #140

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…

I would argue that a child has a right to a certain number of years of education. The best school which I attended divided classes between academic and social --- the latter were attended with one's age peers (so homeroom, social studies, PE, &c.) while the former were attended at one's ability level (with a cap of four years through 4th grade, so I was in 4th grade but taking 8th grade science, English, and history…

> I would argue that a child has a right to a certain number of years of education.

I would also argue society is better if its people are more educated.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#285

Post by beej71 »

ryzvonusef wrote: post #140

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…

One thing to add to your argument is the cost of the degree, which is now 5x more (inflation adjusted) than when I went to school. None of these programs would be at risk under these new rules back in the day.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#286

Post by bitmasher9 »

sib wrote: post #247
ryzvonusef wrote: post #140

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…

>> The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job >> If knowledge and prestige is all that matters I disagree. The primary purpose of the college degree is the job. If you don't need a job (which derives from the signaling factor of the degree == the prestige), you can just study the same material and gain the knowledge by yourself without getting a degree.

Self study can only go so far, and often when someone self studies there are obvious gaps in their education compared to someone that entered a formal program.

Studying in a university has the advantage of learning from experts and being surrounded by people that are also learning from experts. This has significant advantages.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#287

Post by bluGill »

LPisGood wrote: post #277
bluGill wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are allowed to have fun. Do what you want I don't care. I don't even know you. However if you want me the taxpayer to pay for the fun it needs to be a good investment for me. Otherwise I want to use my money to have fun myself.

Having people highly educated in the arts and humanities is a good investment, albeit not a financial one.

I don't know. There seem to be a large number of people in the arts and humanities who are communists. Which I consider a terrible investment.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#288

Post by djoldman »

The calculation is interesting:

(For bachelors degrees): Each year, they will calculate the median earnings 4 years after graduation of graduates of every (Institution, CIP code) tuple. (CIP Code: 6 digit code that identifies a "program"; there are ~2,000).

Then they calculate the median earnings of high school grads in that Institution's state across all jobs.

If the high school grads earn more than the bachelors degree grads for 2 out of the past 3 years, the Feds won't offer student loans for that (Institution, CIP code) tuple.

Incidentally, the IRS already supplies this data in aggregated form to the US Dept. of Ed.

Check it out here: https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/

Here is MIT: https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166683-Massachusetts...

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#289

Post by beej71 »

rightbyte wrote: post #281
tyleo wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think folks would agree with you in valuing arts and humanities, just that they shouldn’t do it on someone else’s dime. I suspect you’d find that a widely held belief and not just an American one. It’s hard out there and I have some non-college educated family who also struggled in life wondering why we should pour money into degrees people can’t pay off when they received no help themselves.

> do it on someone else’s dime. Money is just a social construct and the amount of tax dollars spent on classes in progressive tea pot clay handcraft is minuscule. Non-tech academics were more or lessed forced into getting degrees by the job market. There were no choice involved on part on the victims of a systematic issue, which is, gatekeeping access to middleclass jobs by the parents' bank account size with usury…

> amount of tax dollars spent on classes in progressive tea pot clay handcraft is minuscule.

Seriously. Our debt goes up by $1T every 7 months, but I'm sure dropping even all student loans from all education won't stop it.

I guess I get way more value from having artists in society than most people do. I get a lot of value out of city parks and libraries, too, both perpetual money-losers.

Re: Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid

#290

Post by ndriscoll »

delusional wrote: post #193
ryzvonusef wrote: post #140

The purpose of a college degree is NOT a job... but the purpose of a college LOAN is 100% a job, and it's very important to differentiate between the two. The whole point of the loan is to buy time; you don't want to wait for when you have savings to purchase the degree, you want to do it now . If you are not doing it for the job, then why the loan, what's the rush? If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then…

> If knowledge and prestige is all that matters, then don't take the loan, take the scenic route, get your degree slowly as and when you have the time and money, and one day you will have something to look back at. Do you see no value in young energetic people being educated while their brains are still maximally plastic, and society get maximal value out of the education? Is there no value in handing over our knowle…

Assuming you were educated, your assertion that natural rights are meaningless is a good argument to me that the project of universal tertiary education is simply not worth it. If we can't even get people to see that there's a difference in kind between e.g. your right to reciprocal force in the event someone attempts to take your life vs. your "right" to have people work for you to do nothing but attend classes (when all of the information is already free online, so really it's just social hour for years on end plus a credential), then the value of the "education" we're providing seems dubious to me.
Post reply on HN