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

What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

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

#61

Post by dnautics »

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…

"I instead think that federal funding should go to a select few - perhaps three or four - in the US. These colleges would be fully free and fully funded by the feds. "

We have those. West Point, Annapolis, USAFA, USCGA, and the Merchant Marine academies.

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

#62

Post by javert »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #29
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…

I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.

I'm calling you out. Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is a logical fallacy.

What you're actually implying, which wouldn't be a logical fallacy, is that my view is subjective, because of the circumstances of my (middle class) upbringing.

I don't think that argument holds water. The subjectivity or not of things is probably too big of a discussion to really tackle on hacker news, though.

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

#63

Post by nazgulnarsil »

charlieflowers wrote: post #18

I have wondered for a long time now where all the college tuition money goes. Consider that: (1) the cost of tuition has grown FAR faster than inflation, and is now sky high, (2) A huge percentage of students need and get student loans, (3) student loans are one of the few types of liabilities that bankruptcy can't wipe out. So "everyone" (speaking loosely) goes to college, and "everyone" gets a loan. The college get…

Many universities now have 1 administrator for every professor or more.

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

#64

Post by pnathan »

dnautics wrote: post #61
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…

"I instead think that federal funding should go to a select few - perhaps three or four - in the US. These colleges would be fully free and fully funded by the feds. " We have those. West Point, Annapolis, USAFA, USCGA, and the Merchant Marine academies.

Not everyone cares to go to a military academy...

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

#65

Post by javert »

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.

It's wrong to think that without publicly-subsidized education, most people would not get any education.

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

#66

Post by gems »

maxharris wrote: post #32
chrisrhoden wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.

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…

"Where you start in life doesn't matter"

How can you possibly say that?

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

#67

Post by jacques_chester »

saraid216 wrote: post #46
greghinch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being facetious? All of those things have been dramatically changed by the internet. Or are you saying because they are older, universities are impervious to change?

He's saying that universities have not been significantly changed by the numerous communication technologies that came after them, and implying that the Internet does not have a property distinct from those previous technologies.

Right. And I thought I said it pretty clearly:

> To be quite honest I don't see the internet usurping them either.

I mean, OK. The internet is a big damn deal. But it's not a quantum leap as the printing press, steam or telegraphs were. It has antecedents in all those three technological revolutions.

The printing press was the first time knowledge could be cheaply conveyed to masses of people without needing someone to manually sit there with the learner and communicate with voice. It totally upended the concept of how individuals could receive their education. It didn't replace the university.

Steam was the first time that production and transportation could happen faster than muscle power or wind could move objects. It didn't cause a meaningful change to the university model.

Telegraphs did to thought and knowledge what steam had wrought in the physical world. One could be anywhere on earth and communicate to anywhere else on Earth within the hour. Minutes in some cases. You could use it to form communities of like-minded learners, and people did exactly that. It didn't unseat the universities.

For some reason, the concept of a vertically-integrated, physically co-located community of scholars and students seems really, really hard to shift. Technologies come along and modify this or that part of it, but students plucked from Bologna in 1088, from Oxford in 1167, Harvard 1636, Sydney 1850 and so on and so forth would find that the modern experience is broadly the same beneath all the pizazz.

Students relocate to be near a community of scholars. They pay for access. The scholars read aloud. The students take notes. The scholars test the students and write letters of introduction that verify that the student knows the subject.

What has changed throughout that long string of technological revolutions -- technological revolutions that destroyed the universality of the Catholic Church in Europe, revolutions that destroyed feudalism and absolute monarchy, revolutions that totally upended the whole model of the entire world -- is almost nothing. Hardly any damn thing.

Given that the internet is new only in degree and not in kind, forgive me for being skeptical that it will do away with such resilient institutions.

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

#68

Post by javert »

maxharris wrote: post #32
chrisrhoden wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.

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…

Since you look like you could use some support, I just wanted to drop in and say, that was a really, really good comment.

What I like is the focus on looking at empirical evidence and then forming the right abstractions based upon that evidence.

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

#69

Post by maxharris »

javert wrote: post #68
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…

Since you look like you could use some support, I just wanted to drop in and say, that was a really, really good comment. What I like is the focus on looking at empirical evidence and then forming the right abstractions based upon that evidence.

Thanks!

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

#70

Post by javert »

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…

He's actually doing it the right way: looking at lots of empirical evidence and forming the right abstractions from it. That's how science is done, and it's how philosophy should be done.

You are free to present contradictory evidence and conclusions if you think he's made a mistake.

He's not talking about evidence limited to his personal, one-on-one interactions. He's talking about all the evidence available to us, about people in society.

Post reply on HN