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

731–740 of 771 posts

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#731

Post by imtringued »

captaincrisp wrote: post #676
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…

Some of the interest rates I've seen on federal student loans - 7+% - seem exorbitant in general but particularly because the lender takes no risk. 7% interest on a loan in a year with 3% inflation (the real cost of having money that year) that is guaranteed to be repaid seems like evidence of corruption to me. But maybe I think too simplistically.

8% is the usual rate for a "qualifiziertes Nachrangdarlehen" in Germany which is an equity based loan that is paid out only when the company is profitable. So you are right. The interest rate is too high.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#732

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

tekknik wrote: post #712
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering when and where you went to college and what other circumstances affected the size of your Pell grant. I went to community college in 2009. I filed my FAFSA and if I recall correctly, my Pell grant was $300/term. Meanwhile, tuition was $115/credit. My full-time class load was nearly $2,000/term once you included the books. When I transferred to the state University, tuition was double that and my Pell ba…

My Pell grant was around $1200/term. It was enough to cover tuition, supplies and still have enough for a refund at the end of the term of about $200. The amount you get is based on your financial need amongst other things, so likely your parent could afford some amount of tuition from the govs perspective. Max for a Pell grant is about $7k/yr atm

> so likely your parent could afford some amount of tuition from the govs perspective.

Oh, they absolutely could have, but they didn't. Pretty sure the FAFSA even had a line about money coming from others, and I put $0.

And so I get a little salty when my peers talk about being short on money because they're paying for their kids' college.

Whatever, though. I'm making good money now, and I can accurately say that I'm a self-made man.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#733

Post by imtringued »

kalleboo wrote: post #91
hospitalJail wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first I had heard about this was from libertarians complaining about the government backing causing the tuition increase. This was among a debate where people were asking for more federal and state funding. Its crazy to see this point become so mainstream. I suppose it was inevitable if it was the truth.

From an outside point of view, it looks like just another problem of the duality of the American self-image. "We want everyone to have a chance at school, but public schools are government indoctrination so we'll just make sure people are in un-releasable debt to private companies." "We don't want to see people dying in the streets, but universal health care is "socialist", so we're create these convoluted insurance…

Germany does this with their export policy. The country exports products to Greece which can only be financed by cheap loans from Germany and then when Greece can't pay they turn around and chastise it for buying German products.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#734

Post by imtringued »

roamerz wrote: post #253
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People hate Comcast for raising their rate $10/month but when the government prints trillions causing you to lose 20% of your income and assets to inflation it’s not a big deal.

It’s easy to miss the connection between printing money and the affect of printing money since there is always a time period between cause and affect. The example of comcast raising hour bill is immediate. Well comparatively. Eventually and hopefully people will wise up.

It is easy to miss because there is hardly any money printing going on. Physical cash is nowadays pretty insignificant.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#735

Post by runarberg »

tekknik wrote: post #714
runarberg wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another crazy thought than. How about government simply pays for education. Sort of like universal income, but with education. No grants, no loans, just free education.

Then how do you decide who gets a bachelors, masters or PhD? What if I want to have a PhD in computer science but work a normal job? Will the gov pay for it or force me into research? What if I want to be an MD? Will the government pay for that MD while denying others that want a PhD? What happens when someone fails out of school? How do you avoid people using school to avoid the selective service?

It doesn’t work like that. Lots of countries have free education, some even pay students in higher educations stipends (and some make you pay it back if you drop out without a degree, for better or for worse). Students are free to pursue whichever degree they want, and leave academia for whichever job they can get whenever they want.

Think about free education like you think about universal income, except free education is not an experiment with limited data to back up it’s value, but rather a tried and trusted policy with ample data to back up it’s success.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#737

Post by skrtskrt »

tekknik wrote: post #715
skrtskrt wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People from low or mid-income families have access to scholarships and funding It might be relatively common for low income to get full rides or near full rides, but anyone in mid-income is getting saddled with tons of debt. I applied to college in 2011 with a household income of like 95k, with an older sibling already in college, and most "financial aid" packages from state universities added up to between $60k-$1…

> It might be relatively common for low income to get full rides or near full rides, but anyone in mid-income is getting saddled with tons of debt. Because the government has determined that you or your parents make enough to pay for school on your own should you prioritize it financially. The low income people could not. For reference, my families household income was near $25k/yr and I got the first two years cover…

Edit: nevermind. Saw the rest of your comments it's all bad faith BS about how the affordable education = government coercion. But also, somehow you went to school for $5 a year.

No. For 95k a year for a four-person household you certainly could not afford to send two children to universities that were $50-70k/year - which was the price of standard state universities at the time. Not without going into significant debt.

My parents scrimped and saved for decades and commuted hours every day to teach in higher-paying school districts while living in a low-cost-of-living areas and I was awarded all kinds of academic scholarships and I still had to go into debt and work all the way through college. And they were lucky enough to be working when the school districts would still give yearly raises, which has all dried up now.

The financial aid calculations that determine "ability to pay" are just bullshit to make you take out loans.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#738

Post by skrtskrt »

itake wrote: post #552
skrtskrt wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People from low or mid-income families have access to scholarships and funding It might be relatively common for low income to get full rides or near full rides, but anyone in mid-income is getting saddled with tons of debt. I applied to college in 2011 with a household income of like 95k, with an older sibling already in college, and most "financial aid" packages from state universities added up to between $60k-$1…

I am still not understanding how offering blank checks to more people (mid-income) will fix the problem of sky rocketing tuition. Assuming this is a Supply vs Demand problem, blank checks to more people will increase the demand for the services, but does not modify supply or competition for the demand. Increasing demand with static supply will keep tuition increasing.

I didn't say to give blank checks. I'm just saying that the idea that there's nearly enough need-based aid to cover gaps is a load of BS.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#739

Post by kolbe »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #570
kolbe wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The fact that's being presumed is that "people" approve of corporate welfare.

Re: Tuition costs have risen 710% since 1983

#740

Post by zer8k »

leshow wrote: post #465
zer8k wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US's healthcare system is so bleak because we quite literally fund healthcare for the rest of the planet. Taxpayers in the US get access to the best treatment decades earlier if they're rich enough. Prices are increased on US citizens to account for the strong arming other governments do to get prices lower for their citizens. If the pharma companies couldn't do this, for example, they'd refuse to negotiate with…

Almost everything you have said here is untrue. Pharma companies still make profits in other countries, they just make much more profit in the US. Much of medical research is in fact funded by the government to begin with. By removing the for-profit system, you would actually be removing rampant rent-seeking on something that should be a human right. > Imagine if the price of insulin, almost completely funded by US c…

Sure bud. What is it about HN'ers talking with such confidence they legitimately have no idea what they're even talking about? I googled it for you, and gave you two sources are probably amicable towards - there are THOUSANDS more[0][1]. It's exhausting that everyone here talks like they are an expert at everything. I thought I left that when I came here from reddit.

[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-other-countries-pigg...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/29/us-health...

Post reply on HN