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

521–530 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#521

Post by gameman144 »

jedberg wrote: post #448
gameman144 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They study in a field which has a high likelihood of loan repayment, or study at a less expensive school. If a really smart poor person wants to become a really smart rich person by pursuing a degree in film studies, it's reasonable (in my opinion) for a bank to say "borrowers whose only education is a bachelors in film studies tend to have trouble paying back loans, so we won't lend you very much". If that very smar…

I'm not sure loan companies want to get into the business of rating specific programs at specific universities and their ability to produce students who can get good jobs. And also if they did do that, we get back to other problem which is that schools will only offer programs that lead to high paychecks making them just job training and not places of overall learning.

Loan companies might not want to do that, but it's absolutely part of the due diligence they have to do. If I borrow a few hundred thousand for a home, the loan company does a deep dive to ensure that my home is a sensible buy (e.g. appraisal) and that I'm in a position to pay back the loan (e.g. credit check, historical performance). It's absolutely wild that we'd absolve loan companies from this due diligence for young adults with less credit history and no ability to default on the loans.

Also, you may be right that schools start to prioritize programs that allow borrowers to earn enough to repay their debt. Why is this a bad thing? I would absolutely argue that a poor student would be better off being unable to obtain loans for a degree with poor returns then they would be taking on mountains of debt that they can never discharge.

For the rich, those talented enough to earn scholarships, and those willing to accommodate loan companies' stringent conditions on risky borrowing, degrees with poor monetary returns will absolutely stick around as they always have.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#522

Post by godelski »

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…

This is not wrong (despite being common and the de facto explanation) but it isn't complete either. The reason I say this is because people that often say this (or read this) also conclude that the way to fix this is to just get rid of government backed loans. The issue is that this model doesn't question why the government backed loans in the first place. How they were seen as an investment in the people, as higher education was already prohibitively expensive. The solution failed because it did not account for a feedback loop, relying on competition to keep prices low rather than implicit coordination (sometimes explicit collusion). Mostly being due to momentum and prestige having an ineffable market value.

So we need to resolve that issue as well if we're to stop federally backed loans. There's more things at play as well and the convoluted mess is the real reason we haven't solved the problem. Realistically, this is probably true about most of the larger issues we face. I'm concerned that over simplifying the problem statement results in an over simplification of the solution and it just causes us to argue (which can be supported by evidence) or take ineffective/theatrical action rather than actually resolving the problem (meeting the intended goals (plural)).

We can keep having this conversation over and over, but it has happened for well over a decade now and no real progress has been made. We gotta start looking at the actual complexity of the situation as first order modeling isn't good enough.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#523

Post by eitally »

thebradbain wrote: post #85
hospitalJail wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does it say that? Btw private school looks quite affordable. I used to think my neighbor was rich, they were, but for only $20k/yr you can send 2 kids to private school? That is cheaper than daycare.

Depends on the city… in Los Angeles private schools can push $70k/yr/student easily; In the Bay Area I would imagine even higher. In Dallas, where I grew up and went to the same school for much less, tuition is now around $40k/student/year for top private schools.

The highest I've found in the bay area are a small handful of residential private schools (e.g. Athenian is $82k for boarding students). Most of the top private day schools are still <$50k/yr, but I strongly suspect they top that once fees & "discretionary" expenses are added.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#524

Post by dragonwriter »

gottorf wrote: post #421
dragonwriter wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government actually can do, and often does, policy with racially disparate impacts. Disparate impact is not a Constitutional limit on government discrimination, its a judicially-created rule in the application of certain statutory anti-discrimination laws. (And the disparate impact rule is politically and legally unpopular with the same faction that currently dominates the Supreme Court and whose members on the C…

The disparate impact rule is challenging to begin with because literally every policy has a disparate impact, because there is and always will be an uneven distribution of people of whatever cultural or ethnic subgroup they can be divided into in whatever social roles that exist. It should rightly be rid of. There are many other better ways to address discrimination.

> The disparate impact rule is challenging to begin with because literally every policy has a disparate impact

“Disparate impact” prohibited by the rule isn't just unequal impact, its unequal impact without sufficient justification (what qualifies for that differs between the employment and housing contexts where the rule is applied.)

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#525

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#526

Post by Baader-Meinhof »

mrguyorama wrote: post #249
patrickthebold wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Able to pay", but where is the "Want to pay?" I feel you also need to argue: "18 year olds don't realize they are being ripped off", or "college is actually worth that much". It's probably a different answer for different students.

Society is better off as a whole with a well educated populace. We shouldn't optimize for college only for kids who can learn to program or whatever. Most other developed nations manage to send every smart kid to college for ten thousand dollars per kid or less. Once again, it is only the US that thinks it is a special butterfly that can't somehow manage to give kids college. Sure, most European colleges don't spend…

City and community colleges exist, and are mostly free. But for most people, colleges are more than just an education. College is about signaling their aptitude. And so people keep trying to pile into expensive private school for the prestige.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#527

Post by brightlancer »

taeric wrote: post #277
tylerhou wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Student loans can be discharged through bankruptcy, if you pass hardship requirements. - https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation... - https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/busting-myths-...

I'd love to see numbers on how many are actually discharged. My understanding is this is almost as akin to saying that the lottery does, in fact, pay out.

I don't have numbers but I've read enough stories about it that I think it's far more likely than winning the lottery.

The bigger problem is that people _think_ it won't work and they don't bother trying. How many folks could have met the hardship burden but didn't apply?

We need to stop repeating the falsehood and instead be truthful: Student loans CAN be discharged via bankruptcy, if the applicant meets a hardship threshold.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#528

Post by fragmede »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #515
jedberg wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one problem with this scheme is that it turns colleges into job training and nothing else. They would most likely drop any major that doesn't make a lot of future money. There is still value in providing philosophy courses and music and art and all the other things that don't lead directly to high paying jobs.

This value is nowhere near 200 thousand dollars, and everyone knows it

For whom? John Lennon, Qunicy Jones, Yo-Yo-Ma might disagree with that. John WIlliams, Alicia Keys? It's fine to point out that almost nobody with that education gets to that level of fame, but, I dunno, I'd value it at well over $200k if I were Phillip GLass, Jonny Greenwood (of Radiohead), or Herbie Hancock.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#529

Post by jedberg »

gameman144 wrote: post #521
jedberg wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure loan companies want to get into the business of rating specific programs at specific universities and their ability to produce students who can get good jobs. And also if they did do that, we get back to other problem which is that schools will only offer programs that lead to high paychecks making them just job training and not places of overall learning.

Loan companies might not want to do that, but it's absolutely part of the due diligence they have to do. If I borrow a few hundred thousand for a home, the loan company does a deep dive to ensure that my home is a sensible buy (e.g. appraisal) and that I'm in a position to pay back the loan (e.g. credit check, historical performance). It's absolutely wild that we'd absolve loan companies from this due diligence for y…

> It's absolutely wild that we'd absolve loan companies from this due diligence for young adults with less credit history and no ability to default on the loans.

We haven't absolved them per se. At first they tried to get the data and make smart decisions, but there just wasn't enough data for them to make good decisions, so they denied everyone. That's why the government got into the business of backing the loans in the first place -- it was the only way to get the loan companies to make the loans.

> For the rich, those talented enough to earn scholarships, and those willing to accommodate loan companies' stringent conditions on risky borrowing, degrees with poor monetary returns will absolutely stick around as they always have.

There wouldn't be enough students to support that, because amongst those people, many would still choose the lucrative majors.

> Also, you may be right that schools start to prioritize programs that allow borrowers to earn enough to repay their debt. Why is this a bad thing?

Now we have a philosophical debate. Do we want to live in a society where no one studies philosophy, poetry, art, music, creative writing, and so on? Ironically, someone who studied philosophy would probably be more suited to answering this question than I am.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#530

Post by jedberg »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #515
jedberg wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one problem with this scheme is that it turns colleges into job training and nothing else. They would most likely drop any major that doesn't make a lot of future money. There is still value in providing philosophy courses and music and art and all the other things that don't lead directly to high paying jobs.

This value is nowhere near 200 thousand dollars, and everyone knows it

I agree, the price must come down. But how do we get the price to come down while still making sure poor kids get a chance to study?
Post reply on HN