Live data from Hacker News

More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

bloomberg.com

291–298 of 298 posts

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite the opposite! > According to a visualization of MOOC completion rates assembled by Katy Jordan (2013), the 50 investigated MOOCs have generated 50.000 enrollments on average, with the typical completion rate hovering below 10%. Put it somewhere around 7.5%, or 3.700 completions per 50.000 enrollments. Meyer (2012) reported that the dropout rates of MOOCs offered by Stanford, MIT and UC Berkley were 80-95%. For…

I don't know, a similar argument could have been made about Amazon not overtaking retail in 1999. I'm not saying the MOOCs market we have today is mature enough to fully replace university but I'm convinced technology will eventually reduce costs massively.

It’s not a tech issue. What tech will get more information into a brain?

This is a people issue.

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#292
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. This seems a much better solution than raising the cost per credit hour. Also, some STEM-type departments get grants (public and private) at a rate that's much greater than liberal arts departments, and grant recipients have to tithe back a large portion to their parent institution in a way that defrays facilities costs, etc.…

> The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each departmen…

Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. What you probably shouldn't do is admit that it doesn't make sense to try to compare the economic value of knowing Milton vs Maxwell, and then suggest doing so anyway.

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#293

Serious question: Who loses out if all the student debt got canceled? Not the colleges, I assume, because they already got the tuition. And not the students. So would it be loan companies and the US government? Would such an action be catastrophic?

I think this is kind of a nonsensical question but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Imagine you and I agree to a deal, both verbally and contractually (i.e. on paper). I give you 10 euros and you pay me back 11 euros in exactly 1 year. Now 6 months into the deal you suddenly ask yourself: "Well who would lose out when this debt gets cancelled?" Do you see now why I think it is a nonsensical question?

What happened if you sold the default risk as a swap to a 3rd party. Who loses now?

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The directors of the Federal Reserve, if they had some secret interest in tricking everyone, wouldn't be flatly admitting they consider why inflation isn't hitting targets a "mystery." [2] So you're saying these people with all the humility required to announce they have solved economic crises for at least a lifetime [1] wouldn't lie or deceive themselves ? I wouldn't make that point. Seems unlikely that hubris lik…

Your argument about the so-called certainty of the Fed Chair and the other directors is disingenuous and not supported by the links you provided. Link #1: She talks back this assertion in the very next sentence ! She says she is probably exaggerating, but she has good reason to think there won't be another major crash of that magnitude, provided there are [list of conditions]. Furthermore, she at no point takes credi…

> Link #2: Yellen gets asked why she doesn't raise rates all the time. Far from unwarranted certainty, she admits that she expected the economy to to better, doesn't know why it hasn't, and has therefore revised predictions of when the rates will be raised! Any consumer of financial news over the past 4 years should be familiar with this. The fact you omit this is highly disingenuous.

I agree with you, to some extent. Yellen is actually one of the more humble central bankers. Not much competition there, of course. But I would still classify what she says, and doubly so what she does, as unwarranted certainty.

The net effect of what she does, incidentally, is an unprecedented redistribution of wealth in the US economy (and elsewhere) from the poor to the rich. The fact that she does this things like this while being unsure about the consequences ...

And of course, she is like all other central bankers. As you say, she doubts whether what she's doing is the right thing. So what does this person do when she doubts the effects of her unprecedented policies ? Why, more of them, of course. She errs on the side of making the rich richer yet again and sabotaging the poor even more ...

Let's just be glad this woman is not a pilot.

My personal connection to this is that, like all central bankers, Yellen is effectively spending (sorry "loaning") my own money back to me, enriching a lot of people in the process. Needless to say, I feel less than ecstatic. And please don't make the central banker's argument (that it's to "save me from an economic crisis that didn't happen", ie. a counterfactual argument. It's about as realistic and useful as the quintessential example of such an argument "why didn't they just kill Hitler/Stalin/...")

And, yes, I understand why she can't be really humble.

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each departmen…

Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher ed…

> From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education.

They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Some companies also pay tuition for employees going to school.

> Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world.

Great Britain doesn't have free higher education.

"Make higher education free" is certainly a worthy goal. But there needs to be some debate for how to get there. "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket.

Something to consider: German universities are free to everyone who passes an entrance exam [1]. But German universities also spend half the amount per student per year as US universities[2]. $10,164 vs $23,064. They also spend more on R&D proportionally, and in absolute terms per student-year.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_...

2. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf (page 215)

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher ed…

> From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Some companies also pay tuition for employees going to school. > Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. Great Britain doesn't have free higher educati…

> They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want.

Seriously?

> "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket.

"I've got mine, fuck you Jack" is a popular sentiment across all age brackets, but charity and compassion are also not age-restricted.

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#297
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The schools would undoubtedly respond that in doing so, they would necessarily have to stop educating people from anything less than the most privileged (and thus low-risk) backgrounds. You'd need to cook up some sort of risk-pooling scheme if you wanted schools to extend that credit to anyone coming from a background that made payment statistically less-likely. And once you started doing that you'd have to be carefu…

Find some way of blinding schools from the individual financial background of applicants.

You could do that, I suppose, but the ability to pay back the loan and the downstream income potential of the graduate are likely to be very strongly correlated to the student's financial background (really, their family's financial background).

If you're wealthy enough, it basically doesn't matter what you major in while in college. But if you don't have a rich family, then it matters a hell of a lot. Students seem to already know this; at least when I was in school last, there weren't a lot of first-generation college students or immigrants in the liberal arts programs; the kids who were betting everything on their education were in the business or engineering schools, mostly. (Or sometimes preprofessional programs, pre-med was a big one.)

Re: More Americans Are Falling Behind on Student Loans, and Nobody Quite Knows Why

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each departmen…

Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher ed…

> From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education.

At least at some points in the past, this was a significant funding source for universities. (In the US, not sure about outside of it.) The number of engineering schools founded by American industrialists is probably not coincidental, either.

That companies no longer feel the need to invest in universities in order to ensure a steady supply of workers suggests one of two things: (1) either the planning horizon of private companies has contracted to such an extent that they are no longer willing to make such a long-term investment, or (2) they believe they can just hire sufficiently skilled graduates without investing in the "supply chain" that produces them.

Argument 1 is largely a financial question, because it hinges on the long term discount rate; Argument 2 is essentially political, in that it assumes the ability to hire graduates from a large, slack labor pool outside of its immediate community in which it might otherwise invest. My guess is that both of these have played a role in declining private-sector funding of educational institutions vs. the early 20th century and prior.

Post reply on HN