Under federal rule, colleges must leave grads better off or lose financial aid • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by ndriscoll » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:25 PM UTC

LPisGood wrote: post #304

ndriscoll wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a program doesn't leave the student [economically] better off, then it wasn't about the realities of the modern economy.

If we need to meet in the middle for now and only make all degrees required for jobs free I would be willing to do that, but I also won’t deny the obvious societal benefits to having a collection of people educated in the liberal arts.

I'll go ahead and deny the benefits of widespread tertiary liberal arts education. I honestly don't see it working; if anything modern "liberal arts" seem to be undermining liberalism. Certainly it's not obviously beneficial.

I do also think we need to reduce degree requirements. e.g. it should not require a university degree to teach elementary school. If we actually allowed people to fail high school, then a diploma would more than suffice. Likely the same for most "any degree required" type of jobs. Then we should have merit scholarships for things that actually require the additional education. Engineers and doctors should not have to pay for their degrees, but it should be hard to get them, and most people will not be capable. That's fine; you want very competent people there.

Some credentials could also be granted purely through tests again. e.g. my mom self-studied for her CPA. Now you can't do that. There's absolutely no reason you should need school for that.

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

#332

Post by newsoftheday » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

bitmasher9 wrote: post #286

sib wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

> Self study can only go so far

I retired last year after a career as a software engineer for several decades, 99.99% self-taught. I'm not unique. I've known many others who did the same.

> Studying in a university has the advantage of learning from experts

Whether they are experts is something I highly doubt when thinking about all the graduates I interviewed and worked with over the years. In my experience, the better software engineers came from the self-taught route.

> being surrounded by people that are also learning from experts

Homogenized learning produces likewise results; the quality of the result is highly subjective and debatable.

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

#333

Post by aleph_minus_one » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

class3shock wrote: post #283

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 ho…

> 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.

I already wrote it quite some times on HN: at least in Germany, where university is rather cheap, the situation is typically different:

- The really rich kids will typically have a "career on rails", for example because of family connections. They thus often consider getting the university degree as an annoying obstacle on their way towards a certain career.

- If you, on the other hand, don't come from a wealthy background, you better are very idealistic with respect to your chosen degree course (with the only typical constraint that it will not be not be some "useless degree" (including what is called in German "Orchideenfächer" (i.e. small, obscure degree courses for which there is often no real job market))). If you are not in deep love with the subject that you study, family and friends will likely "suggest" that you should drop out of university and get a form of tertiary education that is a better fit for you, such as Fachhochschule, Berufsakademie (both offer a much more applied tertiary education than universities do) or Ausbildung (vocational training).

TLDR: In Germany, typically not the rich kids get a university degree for their seek of knowledge (the rich kid rather often consider attending university as an annoying obstacle on their certain career), but rather the smart, idealistic kids from a less well-off family background.

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

#334

Post by Arubis » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #330

Arubis wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay.

I want all my nation’s taxes to contribute to a more-educated populace and I’m willing to vote to effect this.

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

#335

Post by WillAdams » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:30 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #256

WillAdams wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds great, if you don’t mind sharing, what school was it? We have a couple of young kids that that seems like maybe a good fit for.

It was a school in rural Mississippi which was next to an Air Force Base and filled primarily w/ children of base personnel --- apparently it was changed away from that shortly after my father retired, I had thought because of legal challenges, but that was from the uncertain organic memory of 10 year old me of half a century ago.

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

#336

Post by Aurornis » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

class3shock wrote: post #283

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 ho…

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

I actually had the opposite takeaway. The last university literature booklets I saw were all about the experience, the facilities, the sports, the events, and the fun. I don’t even remember if they included content about getting a job at the end.

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

#337

Post by analog31 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

Bratmon wrote: post #328

analog31 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don't know literally nothing. For instance we know which college majors are favored politically, and which ones are popular. /s Or we can survey high school students. They are probably closer to the reality of the job market than the economic planners.

Anecdote: My kids were in the regional youth orchestra, and every year at the last concert of the season, the program included a bio of every graduating senior, including their future plans. The hottest major was computer science, followed by biochemistry and engineering. These kids knew exactly which majors the economic planners would have chosen for them.

But I agree. Student loans were a band-aid on a system that could have just as effectively subsidized college education directly.

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

#338

Post by aleph_minus_one » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

ronjakoi wrote: post #300

sib wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

I think it's best for universities to train their own future researchers. Research, science, and the university's own core goals should be the focus of teaching. Anything that spills over from that can be jobs, industry, innovations and all that.

> Anything that spills over from that can be jobs, industry, innovations and all that.

Most companies are not interested in applying the trove of knowledge that graduates have even for the company's own economic advantage.

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

#339

Post by newsoftheday » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:35 PM UTC

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

I agree, I think the purpose of college is supposed to teach students how to learn and the importance of commitment to lifelong self-learning. The output quality of graduates the past two or three decades suggests to me that doesn't seem to actually happen very much.

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

#340

Post by senordevnyc » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 2:35 PM UTC

linkregister wrote: post #150

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is very much a real sum of money people pay. The UC system is (I believe) 30k per year tuition if you’re in state. Add rent and you’re probably looking at 45k per year. Out of state is higher. And many systems are more expensive as well

The UC system is an outlier in both price and quality for public education in the United States. The California State system, which costs $7-9 thousand per year, is far more representative.

The UC system has about 300k students, CSU has about 475k. So more representative, yes, but I wouldn’t say far more so.