Hacker News Reader

> We've seen a massive increase in tuition costs, far beyond inflation in recent years. Such is the result of artificially boosting demand for college on the backs of the taxpayer.

There's nothing recent about it. Tuition has been rising far beyond on inflation going back to at least the 1920s. Take Stanford. For each decade here is the factor tuition actually rose from that of 10 years earlier divided by the factor it would have risen by if it had only risen by the inflation rate:

I've only worked this out for Stanford because they were the only school I was able to find tuition information on going back that far. It would be interesting to see numbers for other schools.

That is interesting indeed. Thanks for finding that data.

How many state schools and private colleges could survive without government largess?

The reason we have seen tuition rates go up at public schools is precisely because their share of taxpayer funding has been cut, they have to make up for the missing funds somehow. You'd wish they would rely less on tuition because then we could do without useless taught masters degrees and with less shiny amenities designed to compete for the tuition income.

Nowadays you see community colleges building dormitories! Neither the student body nor the taxpayer needs that kind of expense so the place can attract students from three counties away.

>The reason we have seen tuition rates go up at public schools is precisely because their share of taxpayer funding has been cut

I think it's a bit much to claim this as the sole or even main reason. Tuition has gone up because it can. People are willing to pay it because, who cares, it's just a loan. Not money out of pocket.

Look at the financials from University of Texas for FY 2014-2015: https://utexas.app.box.com/v/annual-financial-reports/1/8167...

Federally sponsored programs UP $20 million from previous year. Local programs up more than $2 million. These more than offset state-level funding being down $6 million, and that $6 million is a drop in the bucket of $1.6 BILLION in operating revenues. Over $200 million increase in net worth in that year alone, and over $1 BILLION in net increase the year before.

Schools are not hurting for money. Tuition students pay is less than half of the money they make. Tuition does not go up because it needs to, it goes up because they want it to and because it can.

UT could make tuition and fees literally $0 for everyone and they'd still be profitable over the past two years.

> Neither the student body nor the taxpayer needs that kind of expense so the place can attract students from three counties away.

And if the county their from doesn't have a community college, or the community college in their county doesn't offer the programs they want?

Students can do as they always have done, rent a room somewhere nearby if they want to attend college X.

But if the local, not-famous C.C. just opened a set of dormitories while its offerings stay the same as in previous years it's clear that they are trying to cannibalize from the student body in the next few counties. And at the end of the day, it's only the building contractor that benefits.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with loan forgiveness, but to claim that going to college is a bad decision is really a poor choice of words.

Everyone you talk to everywhere says that "a college education is the path to a good job" and "college educated workers make - on average - n% more than their non-college-educated counterparts". When these people (kids really at 18) graduate from high school, they are making the best decision they can possibly make.

Yes, we know now that ITT was basically a diploma mill, but for a very long time ITT grads got good jobs in the tech industry.

> claim that going to college is a bad decision

Taking on the loans is the bad decision, in the case that the student is stuck with no career prospects and a mountain of debt.

> they are making the best decision they can possibly make

That is not true. Going to college is not the best decision for everyone. Many graduates are over-qualified for the jobs they end up taking. Many jobs that should not require a degree now can afford to filter applicants based on completing college, since so many more people are going.

Employers are basically using your years at school as a signal that you are a hard worker. Is that signal worth the time and cost?

I see that I may be straw-manning the argument here. You are focusing on the loan and I'm focusing on college attendance. Apologies.

I think that the decision to go to college should be more than "a college degree will get me a good job". It should take into account the degree, the amount of assumed debt, and the current job market for these degree holders. I'm not suggesting those be the only criteria, but they should be included. (Maybe they are - I don't know)

While I agree that I see no reason to forgive these loans as opposed to any other education loans, I just wanted to point out that the taxpayers would not be suffering twice in this case because the only "suffering" that the taxpayers endure is if loans are not paid back. If they are, the taxpayers get their money back plus interest (still in the hands of the government, but it's not "lost").

I absolutely think the government should forgive these students' loans. Arguably, it was the government's decision that rendered those loans useless. ITT Tech may have been a shoddy school, but it was still school.