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

351–360 of 565 posts

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

#351

Post by rdsubhas »

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…

I think everyone would have been up in arms had the OP said the opposite.

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

#352

Post by ndriscoll »

quacked wrote: post #303
bitmasher9 wrote: post #284

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 admit this leans into pedantry, but I think it's important not to conflate "amount of education received" with "amount of knowledge possessed". In the US our people are more educated than they've ever been, but I wouldn't say they're more knowledgeable than ever. I completely agree that the more knowledgeable a society is the better off it is, but if the education industry is allowed to prop itself up with the wide…

To that point, how many university educated American adults have actually read, say, Locke? It's been freely and easily accessible for decades, e.g.:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370

How many university (liberal arts even) educated Americans have read the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

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

#353

Post by ryzvonusef »

jclulow wrote: post #144
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 mean, says you? We live in a society and to some extent we decide what that means. I believe many countries outside the US have heavily subsidised loans or cost deferment mechanisms, or just outright government funding for school. Certainly in Australia you essentially don't have to pay back your HECS debt if you don't end up with a salary of sufficient magnitude, and then the rate at which you pay it back is scale…

> We live in a society and to some extent we decide what that means

Precisely my point! Tax-payers/Voters (effectively the same thing) get to decide how much indulgence they want to give.

In Australia you are happy to extend the base, but in the US it seems they are reducing the base, and thus they are limiting options.

Some countries limit the indulgence not by limiting access to loans/aid, but by limiting available seats in university instead.

Ultimately it's up to the paying party how much risk they want to tolerate.

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

#354

Post by Aurornis »

sethammons wrote: post #148
dyauspitr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because then the normal thing to do would be to graduate, declare bankruptcy when you have nothing to lose in life because you are just starting out, work for 7 years and you’re in the clear by your late 20s. Everyone would do it.

> Everyone would do it. No, they wouldn't. Source: go back a couple decades, and student loans had low interest rates and were dischargeable in bankruptcy. It was an option. And, in fact, practically nobody did that.

> Source: go back a couple decades, and student loans had low interest rates and were dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Student loans are still dischargeable in bankruptcy to this very day, but there are restrictions.

Those restrictions started being introduced in 1978, so more than a couple decades ago.

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

#355

Post by ryzvonusef »

N_Lens wrote: post #313
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…

Unless you specialize in Egyptology, which then leads to getting tenured somewhere so you teach Egyptology to others. A pyramid scheme, if you will.

I actually wrote Egyptology in my comment but then deleted it and wrote XYZ instead ;p

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

#356

Post by ozim »

xyzelement wrote: post #319
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 think we are past the age where the folks who went to higher education were scholars in pursuit of some higher truth and a broad elevation of themselves. The percentage of people who care about that is very low. As college became "a universal must." Nearly 40 percent of US adults have a bachelor's degree or higher, and obviously 40% of any population aren't inherently…

Really not fun part is that loads of office jobs can be done with high school education level where companies require a degree.

I guess it is because there are not enough office jobs and not enough masters/bachelors level jobs so we are all at rat race.

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

#357

Post by throw94949499 »

watwut wrote: post #301
throw94949499 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just checked with ai about Berkley (I like this uni from telly): EECS B.S.: You must complete six humanities/social-science courses. Two are Reading and Composition courses, and four come from approved areas such as history, philosophy, arts, international studies, or social sciences. At least two must be upper-division. https://engineering.berkeley.edu/students/undergraduate-guid... All Berkeley undergraduates must…

The woke horrors of having take history and composition. Or art and reading. Or, OMG sociology! Oh no! A class about culture or race or gender! Famously race dont matter, except when choosing military leaders.

Black History Month lectures at $100/hour. Amazing deal!

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

#358

Post by chneu »

Aurornis wrote: post #341
sethammons wrote: post #142

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 "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…

Two centuries?

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

#359

Post by senordevnyc »

ashton314 wrote: post #21

This is not great. The purpose of higher education is not to get you a job. That's certainly a nice side-effect and I hope that all my students will be able to support themselves through good employment. The university is there to educate you, not train you. It's to turn you into a better thinker, a better person, and someone more capable of living well. Making art and humanities programs demonstrate some kind of pec…

No offense to your wife, but why should the taxpayers fund her English degree so that she can then stay home with the kids? Sure, there might be some diffuse societal benefit, but if you can’t quantify it, how can we collectively decide if the benefit is worth the cost?

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

#360

Post by amanaplanacanal »

nxm wrote: post #191
dv_dt wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Student university edication shouldn't even be a loan. The vast majority of student loans are financed by the government itself. The US spends trillions procuring defense (or war), it should also procure an educated workforce without saddling the citizenry with all the extra red tape and misery of collecting back a loan

Well someone has to do it as its bulk of NATO’s funding. It also should not waste tax payer’s money of worthless degrees

Most of US defense has absolutely nothing to do with NATO. Look at the current Iran fiasco for example.
Post reply on HN