Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

321–330 of 565 posts

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

#321

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…

> You have the right to a degree in XYZ...

No, you don't.

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

#322
Call me a skeptic (which I probably am), but the bar seems incredibly low. I am glad they are finally doing something about worthless college degrees financed by the taxpayers; but this feels like too little.

The colleges don't have to prove the degree is worth the price paid for it, only that it is better than nothing. If you go to some Ivy League school and rack up $100K debt, you don't have to show that you will earn enough to pay that back; only show that you make more than if you never went to college.

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

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people severely underestimate the value and impact of the arts because they don't produce immediately visible results. But artistic works are often a massive source of inspiration and they help people through dark times.

Sure, but how much art do we need for that? One (or a few) sculpture can satisfy the needs of a large community. There are many more than that.

> Sure, but how much art do we need for that?

A lot more than we have now.

> One (or a few) sculpture can satisfy the needs of a large community.

I cannot disagree more. You may as well say that no one should tell stories anymore because we already have the Iliad and Hamlet. You may as well say that Vincent van Gogh was wasting his time picking up a paintbrush because we already had so many great Renaissance paintings.

Art isn't a commodity where you spend 15 minutes a day Admiring Art and it gives you the aesthetic equivalent of your daily protein intake.

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

#324

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…

That may have been true in the past. But in today’s world the purpose of a college degree is 100% a job — it’s the entry level requirement to be considered for almost any position. It’s basically the new high school degree. So we should treat it the same way we treat high school which is taxpayer funded to ensure as many people as possible get one

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

#325

I don't think this is a good idea but I do think colleges should be required to list the average salaries that people with those degrees have. Include the career and salary progression over the next 30 years. I'm generally against banning things like smoking and gambling but I am absolutely for putting giant warning labels on those things. Adults which means anyone over 18 should know the risks and what they are sign…

What about 17 year olds? Many kids have to decide before their 18th birthday. Even then, most kids turned 18 just months ago. Are they mature enough to sign?

For most normal people the parents are / should be involved. In general if your average case is "I am figuring out reality from scratch" you are fucked.

I can tell you that I was picking a choice of major as a recent immigrant and even my fresh off the boat grandma could have easily "poked holes" in my theory if I had chosen to study something stupid.

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

#326
I mean, just make students loans dischargeable during bankruptcy for chrissakes. Why doesn’t this get more attention? It’s ridiculous. Sometimes people make bad decisions. I did. And I went through bankruptcy, divorce and foreclose, CONCURRENTLY. it sucked and 17 years later I am a better person for it. Student loans are incredibly predatory in many cases and there is no way out. It is criminal.

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

#327

I mean, just make students loans dischargeable during bankruptcy for chrissakes. Why doesn’t this get more attention? It’s ridiculous. Sometimes people make bad decisions. I did. And I went through bankruptcy, divorce and foreclose, CONCURRENTLY. it sucked and 17 years later I am a better person for it. Student loans are incredibly predatory in many cases and there is no way out. It is criminal.

then no loans for students. with a mortgage loan the bank can take the house, with an auto loan they can repo the car. so, can they repo your degree? i can understand the claim that credit card is predatory because they send you tons of junk mails but no one is sending you tons of junk mail asking you to get student loans, you practically have to go begging for it.

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

#328

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 d…

So the jobs of the past will determine the funding of the future. This must be some new kind of economic planning. Wait, no it's not. It's how economic planning always worked. It's summed up by the saying "The generals are always preparing to fight the last war." The university near my house is just putting the finishing touches on a building to house the new Data Science program, that was started a few years ago.

If the future labor market is so unpredictable that we literally know nothing about it, then we really shouldn't be giving out student loans.

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

#329

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.

I think there is a middle ground: If knowledge (and prestige) is what matters, you avoid taking a loan. But even if you take no or a very small loan, it does not mean that you can afford to go the scenic route and get the degree slowly.

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

#330
post #317

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 want my taxes to go towards a more educated populace, full stop.

Then they don't need to tax you and you can just give the money to educational institutions. The argument for taxes is either "I don't think it is fair for me to pay for this alone since others are benefiting" or "this absolutely positively must be a group effort" (eg, the military).

"I want my taxes to..." is a generally a bad start, because the point of taxes is it doesn't matter what an individual taxpayers wants to happen to them. Most taxpayers want the taxes to not be spent the way they will be. That is why they are taxes. If people had an actual choice then in all likelihood they wouldn't pay them.

Post reply on HN