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

561–570 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#561

Post by milsuj2 »

GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #36
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…

> lenders that are taking on too much risk The lenders are taking no risks since these loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. There are also very large late fees and penalties that can triple (or more) the amount owed.

Just because the loan cannot be discharged doesn't mean there are no risks. The money doesn't just appear out of nowhere if the borrower doesn't already have the money.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#562

Post by secabeen »

hnburnsy wrote: post #549

Much better data on changes in published and net tuition paid over time... https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-colleg...

Yes, thank you. The OP analysis is terribly naive. Nameplate tuition has little relationship to what actual students pay. The net data from the college board is much better, and shows that actual tuition paid at many schools is flat over the past decade.

The OP also barely acknowledges the huge reductions in state funding for higher ed. In the 60s California paid 100% of educational costs for students. It's now down below 40%. Tuition has gone up to close the gap. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m...

> Long-term, controlling the underlying cost of higher ed itself is an imperative.

Nothing in the OPs analysis supports any increase in the underlying cost of higher ed. While there may be some, it's well well below the nameplate tuition increases. Here's the best data I have on expenditures by college on a per Full-Student basis, and they are nowhere near what the OP is claming: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.a...

Lastly, while the argument for some student debt relief is a good one, and his points are well made, the correct policy is Biden's, a universal reduction in debt in the $20-30k range. This gives all students some relief, but doesn't give a regressive windfall relief to doctors, lawyers and other professional students with good career prospects and six-figure debt.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#563

Post by 0xParlay »

kristopolous wrote: post #487
0xParlay wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not economics, analysis, reason or anything like that - it's pure orthodoxy and blind dogmatism. It would be rich if the data in the article in no way supported your rant.

It doesn't. Just like the evangelicals see God in every leaf and water drop, the neoclassicalists will read any evidence and always see the same conclusion. The article doesn't blame government at all. It's way more nuanced but ideologues will only see what they want to see.

I was talking about the "average cost of private school" data. Which part is a slam dunk on "neoclassical" econ? Or even the original article. I'm not disagreeing just curious how you came to that conclusion.

The data linked above suggests Catholic schools are the most affordable. Priors confirmed - theocracy is the only way forward.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#564

Post by taeric »

speakfreely wrote: post #467
taeric wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Government debt has been discharged before. Look into the number of cities that have declared bankruptcy. (That is, you don't even have to look at failed nation states. Plenty of places in the US have done this.) That is, no amount of lending is ever risk free. To pretend that you can hedge all risk out of a loan is the problem. It doesn't matter who issues it. I…

It's not about getting the risk to zero. It's about managing it. Right now anyone can take on massive debt to go to college programs they almost certainly will not finish. There's no risk evaluation for individual students, no qualification process that decides to only give loans to those with a history of performance that indicates they will finish. And almost 40% of student loan defaults are people that didn't fini…

If I loaned out a ton of money to people that couldn't repay it, the system would rightfully tell me that I took on too much risk in lending the money out and that I earned the losses. To that end, the system works as designed and desired. People, by and large, are not capable of putting others in absurd debts that they are unable to get out of.

The way these loans are done, the "risk" is supposedly managed down to zero by some byzantine limits on how much people can take out. This is silly, at face value, as the limits on how much a family can take out are basically non-existent. Yes, we have limits on individuals, but those seem to be little more than token talking points.

That said, reading your post again, feels like we are in agreement?

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#565

Post by rorroe53 »

sudobash1 wrote: post #551
hoosieree wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a tuition capped at the median salaries of its graduates?

There goes philosophy, music, and many other liberal arts degrees.

Good, the world doesn't need that many liberal arts graduates. Quality over quantity should be the focus in fields where there aren't that many employment opportunities and potential for successful entrepreneurship.

Besides, nothing prevents one from pursuing a career in most liberal arts without a degree, assuming you don't want to be a researcher. You can always be a nurse or an engineer with arts related side-job, but doing it the other way around is hard.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#566

Post by erickhill »

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.

Reminds me of our healthcare system. And military contractors. And..

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#567

Post by frumper »

l33t233372 wrote: post #491
frumper wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those don't include private loans which can be co-signed by parents if needed, nor do they include PLUS loans where parents also take out loans. Colleges are also quite helpful in what you need to do to be declared independent for financial aide purposes, which almost doubles that limit. Graduate students are where it gets wild though.

Private loans aren’t backed by the government though.

They do have protections in bankruptcy as student loans though so it isn't a normal unsecured risk for lenders. They're also not hard to get, which goes back to the point of easy money inflates tuition.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#568

Post by samtho »

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…

I cannot imagine a more sinister, callus, and destructive way to punch down on some of the most vulnerable people. 18 year olds did not elect any of the people making these laws, every adult before them parrots “go to college”, financial aid offices don’t care what people do as long as they pay tuition, etc.

But grants, you say! We can avoid loans. Not so fast. If your parents made a certain amount, they are fully expected to pay a certain amount for their now adult children to go to college. To qualify for any aid, you need your parents’ income, demanding that A middle class family may still be fully expected to pay multi-thousands of dollars. The student must then take out loans to pay for the rest, which might be the full amount.

This is certified, nonsensical, bullshit. No credit system in history has been given the grace to royally fuck over generations of students, saddling them with loans that cannot be discharged, whose amount is effectively dictated by the institution that is charging tuition. This is a scam at the highest level, sanctioned by the federal government, and perpetuated by every adult figure in the students’ life.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#569

Post by mtalantikite »

nielsbot wrote: post #550
drewg123 wrote: post #173

One thing that was mentioned in the article, but which seems to be missing from the discussion is the decrease in state funding for higher education. When I was looking for colleges in the 80s, the most expensive private schools were on the order of $20K all in. Those same schools are on the order of $85K all in, which is an increase of "only" (hah) 450%. However, my alma mater (SUNY Buffalo) has increased in-state t…

This seems relevant: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-weighs... Apparently University of California used to be free.

They didn't want an educated, unemployed proletariat (their words, not mine): https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reaga...

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#570

Post by pixelatedindex »

kolbe wrote: post #416
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?

> 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…

I 100% agree that universities are not incentivized to keep their costs low, and there are so many that could run on a much leaner funding.

> You're presuming a fact that's not in evidence. I’m not so sure about that. How many executives get paid remarkably well, even though they fail miserably? Sometimes even with tax payer money.

Post reply on HN