Hacker News Reader

Comment by SixSigma | Hacker News Reader

Those numbers are horrific. My entire UK degree debt will be about $60k at 3% and I won't have to make any repayments until I earn about $30k pa.

For my degree it should be a net profit for me. For less well paid occupations one is insulated against low wages. I am happy that I contribute to the advancements in non vocational learning.

My fellow students and I are said to contribute $40m pa to the local economy which is much needed in this deindustrialised part of the country - all accommodation is provided by third parties.

But $45k per year is an outrage. It surely can't be based upon the cost of provision.

View on HN

You're right, it isn't. It's largely a for-profit industry, even the 'non profit' colleges. Most teachers, especially adjuncts, make very little in comparison to what the students are paying -- look at NYU, 50k/year per student in a class of 20 where the teacher is paid 5k/class. The math doesn't add up.

Would a self organised University be possible in the US system?

A group of teachers using cheap space and online communications to provide lectures/support/assessment with students then taking exams accredited by another institution? Possibly with sponsorship/organisational support from a voluntary sector organisation?

That is basically how most Universities outside Oxford/Cambridge/Edinburgh/Aberdeen started in UK in the Victorian period. The University of London was set up to validate degrees provided by various constituent colleges in the regions. There was a strong non-conformist (Baptist/Methodist) input on the funding and organisational side.

Faculty would love to disintermediate the ever growing administration. Accreditation is an issue, and overcoming the importance of brand. Competing with the for profit niche might work though.

I'd love that. I think a lot of teachers would be happy to get rid of the bloated administration in their university.

Of course the math adds up. You can't run a university without a home in Fire Island, and that shit's spendy.

I rofled

UK Background: Last government (the coalition) decided to move part of the financial burden of a University education from the state (in the form of a 'teaching grant' paid directly to the University) to the student (in the form of a low rate loan as described by SixSigma). This was entirely within the ideological position of one of the coalition partners, but was a bit of a u-turn for the other partner with rather drastic results in terms of support.

The Student Loan Company in the UK has to borrow money at commercial interest rates in the financial markets. The difference in costs between the interest rates paid by the company and the interest paid back by the students will be met by the government. It isn't clear to me if there will actually be any net saving to the taxpayer at all - I recollect seeing (but can't find a reference at present) an analysis that suggested that the policy will actually cost more money compared with the previous direct grant system for the next 20 years or so. I suspect the payback period will depend on the number of graduates who get stuck in low paying jobs.

I would love to see any more recent analysis.

Back on topic: good luck to these people!

It's based on supply and demand. Since anyone and their dog can get a student loan, and the federal government guarantees those loans, demand for college education is basically inelastic. You can keep raising prices without losing students: they're just going to borrow more money. It's basically the same mechanism as that of subprime loans, where anyone got to buy a house they couldn't afford, except that it's federally mandated.

That $45k / year is for private non-profit colleges, which are the most expensive kind (even worse than for-profit), and not the norm. For an in-state public University, the number is more like a quarter of that.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cua.asp

> non-profit colleges, which are the most expensive kind (even worse than for-profit)

This sounds strange. How does that work?

There are a lot of old, prestigious private non-profit colleges (Princeton, Harvard, MIT) who can charge a lot because of their reputation. For-profit colleges are mostly very new and tend to have bad reputations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com