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

591–600 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#591

Post by frumper »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #499
jbverschoor wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We learned that people like to gamble and that it’s easy to push things forwards. Also, better jump on the loan band wagon, or you’ll be left out. Anyone without a mortgage + houw which appreciated has basically been robbed by people who do

This is why I’m 100% sure we’re headed towards another real estate meltdown sooner or later. Real estate prices and rates have skyrocketed. The number of people who could afford 500k mortgages at 3% is much higher than people who can afford 750k mortgages at 7%. But lenders aren’t going to suddenly go from approving 100 loans a month to just 10 a month. The incentive structures are designed to weasel and lie to pump…

It's crazy to see homes still selling with an increase in value of 10% from a year ago and interest rates more than doubled.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#592

Post by brightlancer »

adventured wrote: post #194
wdb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t they government issued loans? That’s how it worked over here

Yes. It's not the bankers doing it, it's the US Government - the Feds are the market, they own 93% of student debt. What a coincidence they dictate whether you can discharge the debt too, not too difficult to spot the gigantic conflict of interest. It's designed by the US Government to bring in massive, on-going funding to help fill in the red ink in the entitlement programs now that those are no longer funding sourc…

> It's designed by the US Government to bring in massive, on-going funding to help fill in the red ink in the entitlement programs

Massive? Even before COVID and the lockdowns (and the pause on repayment), the student loan program was operating at a _loss_.

The Dept. of Education has presumed (because they're incompetent AND corrupt) the program would be net positive but only to $114B over 25 years -- that's an average $4.5B per year. In 2019, the federal government spent $4.4T, so the _expected_ return from student loans would have only been 0.1% of the federal budget.

That money couldn't fill squat.

----

"From 1997 to 2021, the Education Department estimated that payments from federal direct student loans would generate $114 billion for the government. But the GAO found that, as of 2021, the program has actually cost the government an estimated $197 billion.

"A percentage of that shortfall, $102 billion, stems from the unprecedented federal student loan payment pause that began under the CARES Act in 2020."

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114560119/student-loan-progr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_States_federal_bud...

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#593

Post by grumple »

nsvd wrote: post #484
grumple wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pell grants are tiny though. Really, the current grant system doesn't work. We should tell the universities they must provide needs-based grants on their own and prohibit using ability to pay during admissions - or they don't receive federal grants. This way they aren't incentivized to continue to bloat costs (as happens now), since now the school is responsible for the costs.

The tuition for my university (state school) is about $7,000 per year which is coincidentally close to the maximum you can receive through the pell grant.

What university? In PA, Penn State's in state tuition and fees come to almost 20k and out of state is almost twice that: https://admissions.psu.edu/costs-aid/tuition/

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#594

Post by wing-_-nuts »

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.

Universities have long tried to argue that education isn't 'vocational' that their entire focus should be on producing a well rounded individual.

That dog don't hunt when that 'well rounded education' costs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and will burden the students for the rest of their lives. Once the student is on the hook for that debt, it becomes a strict return on investment calculation.

Want to study philosophy? By all means! It's among the most important subjects humanity can study, but you probably shouldn't be seeking a degree in it if you don't wish to teach it, and you damned sure shouldn't be condemned to serfdom because of it.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#595

Post by 8note »

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…

They are and they aren't. Student loans can also be forgiven once you've paid them for a long enough time

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#597

Post by grumple »

lolinder wrote: post #497
grumple wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pell grants are tiny though. Really, the current grant system doesn't work. We should tell the universities they must provide needs-based grants on their own and prohibit using ability to pay during admissions - or they don't receive federal grants. This way they aren't incentivized to continue to bloat costs (as happens now), since now the school is responsible for the costs.

> Pell grants are tiny though. No, tuition rates at some schools are absurd. Max Pell Grant is enough to cover tuition at the three universities closest to me.

Tuition rates are much higher near me and the other states I've lived in. PA and CA... and I went to a private university. Silly me.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#598

Post by yardie »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #431
yardie wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an unsecured student credit card, 20 years now. Its limit was $800, no deposit required; just enough to pay for books, lab supplies, and a few meals. I know because I kept it as my last resort emergency card all these years later. Or use it on sketchy kiosk/online shopping sites. Every few years BoA asks me to increase the limit, which I decline to do. I'm still FB friends with the girl that gave me a free t-sh…

Off topic: 20 years ago, FB didn't exist.

All my FB friends are friends I've made through physical contact. Most of us have been separated through location, time and obligations. Even though we haven't seen each other in over a decade we're still FB friends.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#599

Post by hibikir »

samtho wrote: post #568
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 ex…

True, although I expect that the US healthcare system is more than competitive if we consider its bad outcomes and overall inefficiency per dollar spent.

Systems where there is competition, but where efforts are made to make the service providers not really have big advantages for cutting costs, will get you bad outcomes. It's just unfortunate that avoiding needing healthcare, or going into many careers without paying for the very expensive college degree, is such a big gamble.

A fully public system would be very different. An unsubsidized market system would also be very different. Either one would be dramatically cheaper than what we have, which gives us the worst incentives of both worlds.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#600

Post by mcphage »

rorroe53 wrote: post #565
sudobash1 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> the world doesn't need that many liberal arts graduates

If I were to make a list of the problems with the world, having too many people with liberal arts degrees would not be anywhere near that list.

Too few, yes. Too many business school graduates, yeah. Too many law school graduates, probably. Too many STEM field graduates, maybe. Too many graduates who look at people as a resource to be extracted, or an abstraction to be ignored. But damnit, we need more people who care about the quality of human experience.

Post reply on HN