Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

statecraft.beehiiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#411

Post by Xeronate »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #371
Xeronate wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 29 and have 500k saved up (live in Santa Monica which is quite expensive), but yes I think I will quit my next stock vest which is Friday. And idk. My best friend from high school moved out here with me and he's a waiter making 40k a year and seems totally happy. Works like 30 hours a week, no mental stress, able to work out and work on himself. I think money is highly overrated.

Making 40K a year is only sustainable while you're in good health and don't have a family to support. I remember my carefree twenties as well, but things can change as you get older. There is no retirement plan on that kind of income other than waiting tables till you die. At least you should recognize that your relationship to money is very different than theirs. Having half a mil in savings is a completely differen…

I think both situations are unsustainable. I'm not financially stable because I hate my job and might quit at any time and he doesn't make enough money.

But I think my main point is both of us have a way of becoming sustainable so you might as well do what makes you happy instead of working a job you hate for 8 years. Being a waiter making 40k isn't enough long term, but working your way into a higher end establishment or management is. A girl I dated started out as barista, became a store manager, and is now the regional manager and makes ~125k a year and more importantly she is a perfect fit for the job and enjoyed it the entire time.

All I'm trying to say is there are a lot of paths to a sustainable life even when following your natural inclinations.

But anyway OP responded his son's not super interested in college anyway so his plan sounds good to me anyway.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#412

Post by pixelatedindex »

nightski wrote: post #366
pixelatedindex wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which I find really weird, they take this stance against education but businesses don’t have to deal with such predatory loans - in fact govt loans for businesses tend to have low interest rates, or forgiven like the PPP loans. Why do we take anti-individual stances, but pro-business stances? Is that a byproduct of capitalism, or am I misreading the world?

PPP loans weren't really loans. It was known they would be forgiven before taking them out. If that had not been the case, most businesses would not of participated. I believe they were structured as loans providing a mechanism for congress to pass the aid immediately. Actual business loans require assets/collateral, even those from the SBA. At least this has been my personal experience with my businesses. You can't…

That’s the part that doesn’t make sense to me. Businesses make way more money than an individual, so why charge the individual more APR?

And PPP really should not have been forgivable - if you run a business, then it’s your responsibility to have enough money in the coffers to survive any economic downturns. Individuals get punished way more harshly than businesses when things go south.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#413

Post by tejohnso »

taeric wrote: post #24
eschulz wrote: post #10

Makes sense when you have student loans backed by the federal government. If an 18 year old with no money and no credit history gets accepted into a qualifying university, she will be able to receive a loan since the bank knows that the government will protect their investment if she fails to pay them back. So now young people have this easy access to credit, and universities can greatly increase tuition and fees wit…

Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government. Being one of the small list of things you can't bankrupt out of, the risk in giving out the loans has been fully pulled from the lenders. It is frustrating to hear the discourse over the inappropriate students that are taking on too much debt, all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At…

>It is frustrating to hear the discourse over the inappropriate students that are taking on too much debt, all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk

But as you point out, the lenders are not taking on risk. The only ones who are silly in the deal are the students.

The system is really messed up. But when it comes to your individual student making that deal, it's often a dumb idea.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#414

Post by gorjusborg »

allenrb wrote: post #352
Xeronate wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems wrong to influence your son's decision based on your financial situation rather than his desires/passions. Of course if he's naturally interested in the trades then sure.

Giving the benefit of the doubt here, I assumed the push toward trade school is because that makes the most sense for the child in question. College is not for everyone, including a lot of people pushed into attending.

It really baffles me sometimes how readily we assume our conclusions apply to others. Most serious decisions in life require balancing multiple difficult trade-offs. To think that our particular biases, experiences, resources and difficulties are anywhere close to another's is a huge leap.

It's fine to speak from one's experience, but to say that someone else should make the decision one thinks is wise based on a single comment is either ignorant, arrogant or both.

Edit: I replied to you @allenrb, but I'm not directing these thoughts toward you. I'm just pointing out a general behavior I see (but wish I didn't) on the internet and HN.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#415

Post by hospitalJail »

burkaman wrote: post #187
hospitalJail wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No no don't let the Physician cartel get out of this. Year over year they get at least 5% pay increases with US tax dollars. Not to mention, they get private pay increases by weaponizing the ACGME to keep residency slots low. Residency does not need to be paid. Outside of the Medical industry, people pay for their college. For some reason Physicians make tax payers pay for their education and a decent salary.

Postdocs are paid, and that's basically what a residency is. Or you can think of it as a co-op during a CS degree, which is also paid.

Postdocs/PhDs theoretically are supposed to be paid to advance scientific knowledge.

Physicians are not advancing scientific knowledge.

Also a co-op during a CS degree isnt paid with taxes.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#416

Post by kolbe »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #227
pclmulqdq wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, the government has become a predatory lender with some intermediaries.

Which I find really weird, they take this stance against education but businesses don’t have to deal with such predatory loans - in fact govt loans for businesses tend to have low interest rates, or forgiven like the PPP loans. Why do we take anti-individual stances, but pro-business stances? Is that a byproduct of capitalism, or am I misreading the world?

> Why do we take anti-individual stances, but pro-business stances?

You're presuming a fact that's not in evidence. I know it's the flavor of the month whataboutism to point to PPP as an excuse to forgive student debt, but PPP was wildly unpopular amongst people who didn't directly benefit from it as well. I have full faith the SBA makes terrible loans as well.

Also, anti-student loan isn't exactly an anti-individual stance. It can also be interpreted as anti-University subsidy. And when you look at the absurd wages professors and administrators can command at these places, I wouldn't blame someone for thinking these loans are distorting the market so badly that it harms consumers/taxpayers while enriching professors and administrators.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#417

Post by chmod600 »

The only thing that keeps a system functional is external pressure. Otherwise it will always turn into some weird messed up versions of itself that satisfies none of the original objectives but is somehow larger than ever.

Universities used to be separate systems, and you could opt out of one and into another, and most people wouldn’t even go to one at all. But now they are basically all parts of one whole (within the US, at least) and everyone is going and the universities are all failing in the same way.

It could be financial, but I think it’s because of the academic track and social status.

There’s a consensus that college is good and will turn you into a professional leader with a nice job title that reflects elite values (which happen to be a certain kind of liberal but it’s more about social status than politics philosophy). But it turns out the world only needs so many Environmental Justice Media Liaisons, so the universities are just making up these job titles to absorb their own graduates.

Of course, that doesn’t work well financially, so they pay them nothing for as long as possible and then close to nothing after that, and crank up the tuition promising the next batch the same deal.

The students put up with it because it’s hard to evaluate the numbers that they can actually expect from such a ridiculous job, and because it sounds like a cool (or at least acceptable) job title to announce at parties. The fact that a plumber makes three times as much is not worth acknowledging.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#418

Post by jjoonathan »

lr1970 wrote: post #388
taeric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government. Being one of the small list of things you can't bankrupt out of, the risk in giving out the loans has been fully pulled from the lenders. It is frustrating to hear the discourse over the inappropriate students that are taking on too much debt, all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At…

> Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government. It is really strange that government does not constrain tuitions of the colleges participating in the loan program. Currently, Universities have no incentives to control costs in any way.

Well yeah, the problem is never that prices are too high and always that customers can't afford it so therefore they need more debt to help them!

(This message brought to you by people-with-thing-to-sell.)

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#419

Post by sgustard »

yardie wrote: post #198
mwerd wrote: post #125

You have to look at net price not sticker price. faulty analysis. better data here https://usafacts.org/articles/college-tuition-has-increased-...

You only get the net price after applying and submitting a FAFSA. The net price is only useful if you intend to go there. It's functionally useless for any other purpose. If the price says $100 then for most everyone it's $100.

I was offered a $10k/year academic scholarship in my state school offer letter, no application required.
Post reply on HN