Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

341–350 of 565 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available. If bankruptcy was allowed then the obvious play would be to take the loan, max out credit cards right before graduation, then declare bankruptcy before you get your first job. Lenders would respond by increasing interest rates dramatically and restricting loans to those who had assets. This wo…

> The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available "They are eating the dogs and cats." It simply isn't true. I got my student loans a quarter century ago. Back then the loans were dischargeable and low. My loans came in at like 4% interest at the time. It is propaganda that it was a widespread problem and the "solution" was to legally protec…

> It simply isn't true. I got my student loans a quarter century ago. Back then the loans were dischargeable and low.

The Bankruptcy Reform Act which introduced restrictions on discharging student loans was introduced in 1978, a full quarter century before your experience.

Loan dischargeability was further restricted in subsequent years.

If you got your loans a quarter century ago, you were deep into the time when it was hard to discharge loans. You are remembering wrong.

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

#342

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…

Perhaps I should have written it a bit more clearer, but in my mind I was comparing degrees with certifications. I feel studies/degrees that have an associated certification (possibly legally mandated) linked to it should have a different loan profile as compared to open-ended degrees.

Whether you are going to Trade school to become a Plumber, or Med school to become a Doctor; in both cases there is the study part (that may or may not issue a degree also) and then there is the certification part, and that certification part is what's important for the job and thus directly linked to it. You studied medicine but your certification is specifically for Cardiology, so THAT's you career path. Please stop looking at kidneys, you are disturbing the Nephrologist.

But ordinary college degrees NOT linked to certification, just have the study part... and there is NO direct linkage with a job.

An English degree can be done just for the sake of it, or to become a Teacher, or to become a Journalist or Author or whatever.

The degree itself isn't linking itself to one single career or closely related group of careers; they may waggle their eyes and pose innuendoes, but unless there is a specific certification, they are open ended, and that's deliberate by choice.

They WANT it to be open-ended because then the responsibility isn't on them. Oh you did Chemistry? Look at ALL the career options you have! We are just here to broaden your mind with the wonderful world of chemicals!

You might have the potential to become a chemist or pharmacists or a lab tech or who knows even a famous researcher; look at this example of XYZ who become world renowned in lithography machine lubrication who studied chemistry at this very institution! Or look at ABC, they now work at NASA, wouldn't YOU like to be an astronaut-chemist doing stuff on the ISS? Go forth, the world is your oyster!

The possibilities are limitless, and therefore the degree is NOT about the job, it's just about the education. Whether you end up as a chemistry teacher or a drug dealer in like Walter White is up to you.

And thus it's your duty to research, what job options do you feel are possible for you after the degree? and is a loan worth it for you?

Compare that with career-specific certifications, and there you have exact data of how many jobs are in demand and more importantly you KNOW you will be locked to a certain path and thus you (and the loan giver) can plan accordingly.

Sorry if this reply was a bit of a ramble, but I hope I was able to clarify what I meant.

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

#343
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.

> 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.

If that were the goal then universities would have like 300 students. This function just doesn't require that many people.

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

#344

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…

> 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.

Absolutely agree, and if we could work up a way for there to be endless education, I'd be down for that (and would sign up in a heartbeat --- I'd love to have the wherewithal to pursue a PhD --- one of my most favourite books is Roger Zelazny's _Doorways in the Sand_ and a big part of that is envy for the protagonist's situation, his rich uncle's will provides for his full tuition, room, board, and a generous stipend for so long as he attends his uncle's _alma mater_ which he has been doing for decades --- naturally, the story opens with his having been assigned a special advisor whose assignment is to get him graduated).

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61998.Doorways_in_the_Sa...

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

#345
post #258

This is great. Federally subsidized loans is directly (not solely) responsible for rapid inflation of college costs in the US. Anything to limit its use is a good thing. I’d argue that this test would be better expanded to actually having an ROI, not just do no harm, to encourage schools to not only provide value but also constrain costs (eg your school may make sense at $10k debt not $100k debt). This and/or making…

You know why many companies prefer employees without a degree? Easier to exploit and manipulate. This step makes it even easier for them

Yes as we all know Employers are just bursting at the seems to hire people without a post secondary degree. Even more so if they don't even have a highschool degree. Just cant get enough of them lol.

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available. If bankruptcy was allowed then the obvious play would be to take the loan, max out credit cards right before graduation, then declare bankruptcy before you get your first job. Lenders would respond by increasing interest rates dramatically and restricting loans to those who had assets. This wo…

If that was an actual problem wouldn't people be doing it without the college already? When I was in my early 20s I got non-stop credit offers and I could have easily pulled out tens of thousands in crappy debt.

And what is the interest rate on those credit card offers?

Is it the low single digits of a student loan which is not easily dischargeable?

Or is it 18-30% like you’d expect from a loan where the recipient can discharge it more easily?

This proves the point.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think that. Like, how specifically has our society gotten better since High School became universal and college became the norm?

Not the person you are responding to, but please see:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48870955

and consider how cancer used to be a death sentence and now, many forms are quite survivable.

EDIT: Moreover, what is the great benefit of vast swaths of uneducated peons? Do you really feel that the oligarchy needs more minions to sway?

>The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines which he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. --- H.L. Mencken

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

#348

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

> 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

There are no college graduates I've interviewed in the last two decades, whose quality of output suggests to me college is something the tax payer should be on the hook for.

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

#349

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.

As in, you and the college can decide privately if they want to teach you XYZ in return for money from you. Getting tax payers to chip in brings in a 3rd party and then they have right to decide whether you get to learn or not.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bet…

Software engineering is a pretty unique field as far as self study goes. There are others since the dawn of the internet, but many domains dont have great online learning resources. And then there's labs and research.
Post reply on HN