Live data from Hacker News

Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

statecraft.beehiiv.com

611–620 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#611
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be fair, I was unfair to compare it to the lottery. That is clearly not paying out often. Such that, if you are comparing to that, you had best be favorable.

I'm assuming it pays out at 100x lottery numbers. But, again, that is still basically zero. Is why I don't regularly buy 100 lottery tickets.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#612

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…

Looked at this a bit ago and share the sentiment. Vancouver, BC was an excellent case study. House prices average: ~$1.1M. Loan rate average: ~5%. Month payment: $5900. Yearly: $71k. Avg Salary: $60k (before tax). After tax: Maybe $48k or less. Result: No normal worker can afford the loan, and the bank won't give you the loan. You pay everything you can each year, and you owe more. This isn't even with property taxes, utilities, other basic Maslow's heirarchy stuff taken out.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#613

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…

IDK that we _need_ to increase state funding, but it absolutely explains the tuition trend. I don't feel particularly bad about people graduating with student debt if they have high paying jobs on the other side. What does feel bad is turning qualified students away, like one school I know used to do.[1] Every year they would pick a GPA cutoff to admit more engineering students to the upper level classes you need to…

Its made worse by the fact that pure-teaching positions at public institutions are frequently filled by adjuncts, so there's next to no benefits or job security, and the pay is often atrocious.

It's really screwy that a great many universities have essentially said there can be no long-term work situation for teachers if they aren't also researchers.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#614
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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..

So true.

This is essentially how the US works. We're built on debt. Sometimes I think our society would collapse without all the debt we create.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#615
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to work for I love when someone says "seems to work". In the strict sense, that only ever means "does something". Not necessarily "does what someone wants"... and never "does what I want". When it works for those other countries, does it "do what you want"? Because it doesn't "do what I want" at all. > With the monetary savings of #2, it could even give every medical student a fully free ride. Won't someone t…

I suspect GP is referring to the fact that the US has the one of the worst health outcomes per dollar spent vs peer countries [1] [2]. If "better health outcomes per dollar" is not "what you want" -- how come? [1] https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare... [2] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/wh...

> If "better health outcomes per dollar" is not "what you want" -- how come?

Because I don't confuse "individual" with "group".

The fallacy here is to tally up every dollar spent on medical treatment in a given year, then saying "here we spent X on medical treatment, but it could only be 0.7X if the government were in charge".

But you never asked me how much I spent on medical treatment. What if I spent 0?

Well then, your plan has me spending more than I used to, to get me something I didn't want/need. It's not a good deal for me. And if it's a good deal for someone else, it's only because you shackled me up and made me work the fields for their benefit. No thanks.

Even if I was the sort to engage in that non-sense, the problem itself is insurance. And that holds true whether some private company (or many) is in charge of the insurance, or the government is in charge of it. You think BCBS rejects claims, but that the feds don't reject them? Wow, do I have a bridge to sell you.

When someone wants a good or a service, and they pay for it themselves, they are price-conscious. When they don't pay for it themselves (because the insurance company does, or the government), they aren't price conscious. But this encourages the goods-provider to raise their prices... even discourages them from keeping them low. Low prices signal low quality. This encourages the payers to reject claims, then once more the goods-providers to raise prices again to cover for all the rejected claims (bonus if they can go after the goods-buyers for the price too!).

And it all spirals out of control. There is nothing in this mechanism that makes it less ridiculous if the federal government owns the insurance company, and it is the only insurance company permitted by law.

I take that back, there is one thing different. Now you can introduce price caps, woohoo! That will certainly fix the problem. Some committee 2000 miles away and months-distance from the facts can magically determine a fair price for all physicians and surgeons nationwide for some procedure's medical code (not the procedure itself, these are always unique... but the little alphanumeric codes, nice and uniform so they fit in the database).

That definitely won't cause further meltdowns. Will it be blamed on nefarious capitalists hiding in the woodpile? Will it just be chalked up to disappointing reality "there can be no other way"? Probably will depend on just where we're at in the election cycle.

If you want to see prices drop (plummet really), outlaw all insurance. Make people pay cash, out of pocket, for everything. You starve if you can't sell your stuff to people who want it, and if those people only have 1/100th of what you used to ask, then you either learn to live with the 1/100th, or you starve. No one gives out bank loans for heart transplants.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#616
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to work for I love when someone says "seems to work". In the strict sense, that only ever means "does something". Not necessarily "does what someone wants"... and never "does what I want". When it works for those other countries, does it "do what you want"? Because it doesn't "do what I want" at all. > With the monetary savings of #2, it could even give every medical student a fully free ride. Won't someone t…

> Won't someone think of the millionaire heart surgeons in the 1%? They obviously needed free rides back when they started, it's why they're only single digit millionaires! > Starving the people you want to provide your medical treatment isn't the brightest strategy Gosh, it's almost like I pre-empted the latter complaint with the note that you've responded to above... Expanding the number of doctors, and lowering do…

> Expanding the number of doctors, and lowering doctor pay and workload, and lowering the cost of becoming a doctor will produce better health outcomes for everyone.

So go do it. No one's cockblocking you. Well, except the AMA. Or are you saying that you'll only do this if you get your socialized medicare-for-all quackery?

Wouldn't be shocked if it was held hostage like that, but no thanks.

> This exact criticism can be levied on the current US system.

I never said it worked. Wouldn't catch me saying that ever.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things you have to do to keep tuition costs down nowadays, by my estimation, unless you get a full ride scholarship or accepted by the an Ivy League: - Do your first two years at community college. A lot of states have zero tuition costs for community college credits. I think in all 50 states its the absolute cheapest way to do get your first two years done - Enterprising students may realize that if you're marri…

Agreed about community college. It’s unfortunate though that, like so many things, it’s essentially a lottery on where you’re born. Some community colleges are wonderful, others not. I’ve heard of other FAFSA games as well - last I heard the parents’ cars and primary residence were excluded from the FAFSA expected contribution calculation so middle class folks with a fat savings account might decide to buy new cars o…

That's not the worst part. Rich families had their kids legally emancipated prior to age 16 so that the kids could legally show zero income and zero family net worth on their FAFSA applications.

The FAFSA is such a load of horseshit I don't even know where to begin with it.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#618

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,…

I think the proper way to characterize the situation is as follows.

The university were founded largely for the sake of teaching the liberal arts, that is, the free arts (as opposed to the servile arts). I am using the traditional meaning of "liberal arts", and not the tragedy we have now. The university was supposed to educate the man, to mature him intellectually, to free him to be able to pursue the truth and to do so effectively which meant also the ability to draw from and participate in the tradition.

The feverish mission to push everyone through college is a fool's errand. It is not for everyone. The result is that universities had to change to make this possible, thus failing their founding mission. But at the same time, they aren't good at vocational training. So for most people, it's a waste of time and money.

We would be much better off with a system of vocational schools and apprenticeships. This would unburden universities and free them to pursue their original mission, and it would enable vocational schools/apprenticeships to provide excellent training for workers.

Primary education is, frankly, in an awful state as well, as it, too, is supposed to educate the man, and it is here where the vocational stuff is still not necessary to learn even for those who will eventually enter the vocations.

We're seeing some interesting developments in both primary education (with the spread of classical education) and the founding of small colleges that aim to avoid the failure of the university. Some try to combine intellectual formation with an apprenticeship program to try to reconcile the desire to form the man with the need to find a job. Apprenticeship is also used to cover at least part of the costs of the education.

Ballooning costs are a symptom of corruption and bloat. The mission is lost, so it's a numbers game now. There's no reason a university education should cost anywhere near what it costs today, especially given the mediocrity of the education. I don't really see much will to change the status quo among those in power, so we'll probably see a combination of hamfisted maneuvers like debt cancellation to maintain the status quo, but ultimately, probably a collapse of the system.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#619
The situation for students is pretty close to a double bind situation [1]:

- Get loans and go to school, or I (your family, society, the job market) will punish you.

- Do not get loans, or I (the economy, lenders, your credit score) will punish you.

- You must got to higher education and get a degree, but only if you want to. ("college isn't for everybody", except all we ever say is a HS education is a dead end).

- With a blaming tertiary of "You should have already know that and realized what an issue large student debt was before taking the loans. Why are you trying to act like such a victim?"

And I admit, I've fallen into this previously of "how did they borrow so much money?" Except its this same issue of "we put you in a bad situation, and then blame you for not escaping earlier."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

government investment so the professors get paid, the students don't pay through the nose, paid back in the form of taxes, not crippling student loans. some, just not crippling debt.
Post reply on HN