What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans • Hacker News Board

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#51

Post by dnautics » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:27 AM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #47

jamesaguilar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools would immediately close departments that tend to graduate low-paid folks -- humanities, acting, psychology, history, anthropology, all gone. Not sure if it would be a problem for society because those who actually produce art tend to learn to do it before college and just spend their time in college refining, which they could as easily do in clubs and societies without the BS that goes along with college.

Based on that criteria, wouldn't universities also have to close math, biology, physics, foreign languages, environmental science, psychology, architecture, civil engineering, etc?

I'm sure there will be some rich people around who could pay for tuition in general up front, the departments that generate 'students that can get modest jobs' might become smaller. Of course, then the supply of educated mathematicians, biologists, physicists, would get smaller, too, and their pay will go up, and everything will reach a saner equilibrium.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#52

Post by sliverstorm » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:29 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #24

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I. This may seem cruel, but it's actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market in…

The universe doesn't owe you K-12 education, and neither does society, but society has decided it is worth the expense to have a populace that knows how to read, write, and do arithmetic- skills that most people simply did not have two hundred years ago.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#53

Post by maxharris » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:31 AM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #48

maxharris wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be. Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. Please lay off the Rawlsian stuff - it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. Nor does it square with the experiences of many of my friends that…

> It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be. > it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. > To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults). I like that you've indicat…

I like that you've indicated your own confirmation bias right there.

Does that really make any sense? Everyone, including you, has beliefs and hypotheses.

I've summarized some of what I've considered in coming up with my conclusion, and all you've done is to throw a convenient label on me. You'll have to try harder than that.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#54

Post by pnathan » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:31 AM UTC

purplelobster wrote: post #23

pnathan wrote: post #16

College is an interesting situation. It might be argued that collectively we all have an interest in seeing a more educated society, regardless of the earning power. It might also be argued that collectively we need to focus more on not "going to college" but instead focusing on things like "learning a sustainable trade". And, for an individual looking to maximize earnings & employment, a bachelor's in STEM/business…

About collectivizing costs, you speak as if it has never been tried and you discount the idea based on your own assumptions that it would be too expensive? As someone who has gone to university both at a free*(you actually get money to study) (~top) Scandinavian university as well as a (~top 10) US university, there is not much difference in the actual education from what I could tell. Where there's a real big differ…

Traditionally[1], I believe US universities have been funded by the government to a large degree. The defunding of the universities I believe corresponds to the ceasing of the Cold War and the dropping of heavy DoD/DoE funding.

My understanding of collectivizing costs is that it's proved extremely expensive for countries such as Germany and the UK, which are moving towards a paying model (last I heard). There's also a pyschological effect when you're paying for your own way vs. someone else paying for it. I'll let someone else more learned in physchology & motivation research comment on the details, but the change in mindset does exist. My gut feeling is that its entirely reasonable for society to generally pay the bulk of the cost of college in exchange for getting the benefit of an educated society.

If you examine the historical cost of education in the US, the tuition began its upwards run around 1980 and has not ceased. So did healthcare. I don't know if there's a connection; and, if so, why. I do know that educational costs have gone wildly up beyond inflation.

To your aside; my student loans were designed to cover the cost of housing & life in general.

I'm very sorry that you did have to go into such steep debt for college. I don't think it's right that higher education costs so very much either. I do want it reformed, but I don't want it done in ways that simply funnel money into someone's pockets without lots of people getting a quality benefit.

[1] between 1945 and ~2000

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#55

Post by dnautics » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:33 AM UTC

mordae wrote: post #49

dnautics wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is all and good for something like engineering where it is possible and maybe desirable to set some reasonable, objective standards. What about something like political sciences? Almost all of the upper-level public servants in a country like France come from the same school (ecole sciences-po)... Doesn't this become dangerous? Who gets to be the gatekeeper?

Well the entrance tests for Faculty of Philosophy that my close friend attended have been in the form of interview and they mostly asked about what authors did you read, what were they trying to say and such. It's actually not that complicated for people invested in some area (of science, politics, culture) to spot good candidates when you give them a chance. Sadly, the quality of education in Czech Republic have deg…

This sounds like a mess. So If I've read the 'wrong authors' (say, bastiat for a right-wing critique of the government and bourdieu for a left-wing critique), I'm basically hosed in the interview. Can't have any radical changers in the public service, now can we...

"the quality of education in Czech Republic have degraded significantly in capitalism... so that the university gets maximum state support."

I wouldn't think 'university gets maximum state support' to be a shining example of (free-market) capitalism. If anything, it sounds exactly like what the original article complains, if only a bit more direct and less sneaky than channeling the mechanism of subsidy through a convoluted, corrupt, and rent-seeking banking system.

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#56

Post by javert » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:38 AM UTC

krichman wrote: post #40

javert wrote: post #24

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I. This may seem cruel, but it's actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market in…

Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads. Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money to educate their children have snatched up the slightest fraction of what the wealthy extract from the economy, so I don't see why that's the problem to focus on if your concern is "entitlements". > Were it not for government control of education, education would have already underg…

> Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads.

I completely agree. A better example is food, clothing and shelter. Those are available to most people without government coercion. We could easily handle the remainder with charity, if it weren't for government programs that breed endemic poverty.

> Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money

I did not say any of that, and I definitely don't think about it that way. I don't think poverty is a problem of laziness, but of ignorance. And I don't think the poor are stealing from me. If anyone is, it's Republicans and Democrats, with broad support from the middle and upper "classes." But I don't even think of it that way.. it's more of a societal decision. And we have a much better society, in many ways, than most of those in the past, so overall, I'm pretty thankful.

> Yes, like the for-profit prisons.

That's a highly government-regulated industry, so it's not a valid counter-example. The prison system is corrupt for the same reasons the finance system is.

(I wouldn't have any problem with prisons being completely government run, since prisons are a function of law enforcement, which is a necessary and proper function of government.)

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#57

Post by ahomescu1 » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:38 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #52

javert wrote: post #24

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I. This may seem cruel, but it's actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market in…

The universe doesn't owe you K-12 education, and neither does society, but society has decided it is worth the expense to have a populace that knows how to read, write, and do arithmetic- skills that most people simply did not have two hundred years ago.

You don't need 12 years of education to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. K-12 does teach a lot more, but most students seem unwilling/unable/disinterested in more than the basic stuff (in my experience). Do we really want to throw money at educating people who aren't interested?

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#58

Post by pnathan » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:39 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #36

pnathan wrote: post #16

College is an interesting situation. It might be argued that collectively we all have an interest in seeing a more educated society, regardless of the earning power. It might also be argued that collectively we need to focus more on not "going to college" but instead focusing on things like "learning a sustainable trade". And, for an individual looking to maximize earnings & employment, a bachelor's in STEM/business…

>>Anyway, that's my undercooked idea to help college education. So undercooked, in fact, that consuming it would make everyone sick.

That's not very constructive, but let me engage in a metacomment.

Good ideas are born out of bad ideas sharpened and the bad bits thrown out over time. I am not a professional administrator in college, but I did spend time at a variety of institutions of higher ed and wound up with a Master's degree and experience teaching, researching, and studenting. I think my thoughts are not entirely worthless. But they are not taking into account the full picture, as I've not been a professor, support staff, or an admin. However, if experienced people from each side of the University structure contribute their ideas, perhaps out of the pool of undercooked ingredients will be the parts for some really great pieces; and those ideas would be truly awsome.

So. Yes. My idea is undercooked. But maybe it can help contribute to a better solution. Maybe. :-)

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#59

Post by dnautics » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:39 AM UTC

I'm surprised the absolute nondischargeability of student loans is not brought up in the article. This is, ultimately immoral, because that is exactly (fractional, voluntary, nonchattel) slavery.

The US, to Obama and congress's credit (those who know me know I'm not a huge fan) engaged in some credit reform in the wake of the 2008-2009 economic crisis. Credit cards firms were required to allow their customers to restructure their loans and became obligated to outline the loan payments afterward, and rotating credit became dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. One wonders why college credit hasn't undergone such reforms. Does academia have that powerful of a lobby?

Re: What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

#60

Post by pathy » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:41 AM UTC

purplelobster wrote: post #23

pnathan wrote: post #16

College is an interesting situation. It might be argued that collectively we all have an interest in seeing a more educated society, regardless of the earning power. It might also be argued that collectively we need to focus more on not "going to college" but instead focusing on things like "learning a sustainable trade". And, for an individual looking to maximize earnings & employment, a bachelor's in STEM/business…

About collectivizing costs, you speak as if it has never been tried and you discount the idea based on your own assumptions that it would be too expensive? As someone who has gone to university both at a free*(you actually get money to study) (~top) Scandinavian university as well as a (~top 10) US university, there is not much difference in the actual education from what I could tell. Where there's a real big differ…

Just a slight country point: The US is actually quite low in number of articles published per million citizens.[1] Now that doesn't say anything about the quality or distribution of research areas of course. Switzerland is in a clear lead with Sweden second.

Does US universities really outpace European ones? I don't know if that statistic means anything in reality. I guess it also depends on the percentage of the population with a degree.

[1] http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/innovation/scienti...