Hacker News Reader

Comment by VikingCoder | Hacker News Reader

I assert the expense of college is an awful burden to put on someone who must finance most of it through debt. It's a gamble. You can improve your odds of a happy outcome in that gamble by looking at the Student Loan Default Rate for any given major at any given college, and picking the best program for you (with the lowest default rate possible.)

But if you are a child of parents who can finance your college? Absolutely. No question. This is essentially a way to enforce Aristocracy.

I believe college should be free, and that colleges should limit their number of students in any given program to some sustainable number, where the graduates can actually earn a living.

Not to pick on them, but do we really need this many Art History Majors?

Veterinarian programs specific limit how many students they accept, because if they didn't, their graduates wouldn't be able to afford a living wage. Other majors need to catch on.

And then what if you don't get accepted to a program?

All I've got is Universal Basic Income. And progressive taxes to pay for it all.

Any other thoughts? I welcome honest discussion, because I hope it will inform my views.

View on HN

> Veterinarian programs specific limit how many students they accept, because if they didn't, their graduates wouldn't be able to afford a living wage. Other majors need to catch on.

Medical schools do the same thing, but that's also what's causing a burden on the medical system. I truly blame most of the medical expense increases in the U.S. on them and medicare (which sets a base price and everyone else must make up for).

Basically there was a medical school student freeze[1][2] from early 90's through 2010. Now, it's finally starting to increase, still much less than population.

[1] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-medical-scho...

[2] http://aamcdiversityfactsandfigures2016.org/report-section/s...

The limiting factor is not the spots for medical students, but rather for residents and fellows, who are primarily funded through medicare/medicaid and the VA.

An interesting post on this is here, although it somewhat contradicts the popular notion that graduate medical education is limited by funding: https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/gme-federal-fun...

No, it isn't. There might be funding limitations, but if the demand to become a doctor is too high for the number of positions offered, then they can stretch the funding over more slots by passing more of the burden onto the resident in the form of lower pay.

To the extent that they can't legally lower pay, that is the factor, not the funding.

The argument that medicare funding slots is the limiting factor is like saying that Hamilton can't come to LA because the NEA won't cover airfare.

Vets can easily make 100k+ in rural areas where the median wage is in the 20s or 30s. You could double the number of vet grads and vets would still be able to make a comfortable living.

With the median wage being 20s or 30s, what's the median debt?

Do you know how much student loan debt vets have?

https://www.studentloanplanner.com/veterinarian/

Also, I have several veterinarian friends, and about half of them are absolutely struggling financially. Do you have personal contact with some, just out of curiosity?

And if you're curious, the suicide rate for vets is very high. We could argue the reasons, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that money contributes.

Yes, my sister is a vet outside of Raleigh.

Taking out a $400k loan for education seems like a bad idea unless you know you will be making 150-200+. My sister graudated with something like $150k debt, and it is fully repaid now(8 years after graduation) The mistake the lady in the article made is she picked basically the most expensive option and graduated with debt that is greater than 90% of her peers. She could have prevented her situation by, perhaps, going to a cheaper or in-state school.

And yes, vet suicide rate is high, but so is the suicide rate in rural areas where they frequently operate. If you aren't a canine/feline/companion vet, the suicide rate of their clients(farmers) is almost certainly higher than the suicide rate of vets.

There are only 30 vet schools in the United States. It is in many respects harder to get into than vet school.

Tuition is very expensive. I don't know how your sister graduated with $150k in debt. She was for sure in-state. Was her undergrad paid for entirely by parents or scholarship?

According to this one, vets are higher than farmers:

https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/01/06/top-11-professions-...

But yeah, I don't know how that's divided among the different kinds of vets.

> Vets can easily make 100k+ in rural areas where the median wage is in the 20s or 30s...

Eh... depends on the job. I don't think that most prospective veterinarians dream of working for the USDA ($$$) when they graduate.

The median vet pay is $89k[1]. You don't need to work for the USDA to make 6 figures.

[1] https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/veterinarian/sala...

But ~$89,000 isn't six figures, so...? Also, I suppose it depends on the source and relevant area covered by the statistic. I've heard other (lower) figures elsewhere.

If median vet pay is $89k, then by definition much less than half of vets are making 100k.

So, how is it "easy" to make 100k+?

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I find it easy to do slightly above average in most tasks that I have some semblance of control over.

Sure, but how often is that a task where you and your peers have all been exhaustively trained for about 8 years on specifically that specialty?

/shrug

If somebody is passionate about art history, then they should get a degree in art history regardless of job prospects. You are limiting their ability to get the education they want.

Now I will agree that somebody getting an art history type degree shouldn't be taking loans to get it, they should be paying for it out of their pocket. However we should not limit somebody from pursuing their interests just because their interests are not valuable to society.

Fair enough. And I'm just talking out of my ass about my own theories, here. I still welcome conversation to try to inform myself.

Roughly, I think we should think in terms of Trade Schools and Liberal Arts programs.

I'm a huge fan of Liberal Arts programs, but I don't think they should be a pre-requisite for a STEM career. They also shouldn't be a pre-requisite for many jobs that people have today.

We should all be much more in favor of Mentoring. Maybe Corporations should receive tax benefits for being good Mentors.

I think Liberal Arts programs absolutely should be a prereq for STEM careers. One of the reasons tech is in the state it is, is due to the lack of ethics courses taught.

Sure, make it a huge contributing factor in promotion, moving to project management, etc.

But not a pre-req for day one, earning a salary.

Hell, let's make some Continuing Education demands on STEM.

Again, I strongly disagree. Make it a requirement before writing a single line of code. The impact this industry has on the world is such that ethics training is a must.

Anyone should be able to write code.

Accepting a pull request (code reviews) should require training.

Launching code requires even more training.

I've posted this before, but a year or so ago I was at a major medical research conference for my field (infectious diseases). I was struck when I realized that in every single plenary talk, given by people at the peak of their careers and having a huge impact on science, there was something that betrayed an underlying liberal arts education.

I think the argument is to not prevent people from getting art history degrees - just to make all art history courses in the US artificially limit the number of students they take in to match the actual demand.

So if someone's super passionate about art history and is also able to meet the (presumably) more stringent entry criteria, they will still be able to get that degree.

Or maybe let people pay for Art History degrees if they want to.

And the free program should be based on Merit, and career demand.

Thats what they do for high demand degrees like Engg and Medicine in Pakistan. In Govt. colleges education is virtually free if you are admitted on merit, else you can go for self finance

And then what do you when most of the female medical students drop out and get married because the degree was just a tool in rishta negotiations? Why should working poor subsidize a status game?

Scholarships. That's the concept you're grasping for.

Sure, Federal Scholarships. Lots of them.

"And the free program should be based on Merit, and career demand."

Who chooses what defines "Merit"?

The accredited colleges.

If you get accepted to their program, it's free for you.

Accreditation means auditing to standards and performance.

just to make all art history courses in the US artificially limit the number of students they take in to match the actual demand.

Why? Surely part of the 'charm' of University is to get chance to study thing you know nothing about just to see if that happens to be your thing, plus studying things just because you enjoy it.

Sure we probably shouldn't encourage too many people to get art history degrees, but why not let people take some art history courses just because they find the topic fascinating?

It seems like lending institutions should be taking these statistics into account when rejecting applications. I suspects there are federal regulations in place that prevent this. Maybe the government would rather cover the risk and promote a more educated population than let the education economy stabilize freely.

From my personal experience, an engineering degree is the fastest path from the underclass to solid middle-upper class. Dissuading those kids from going to college is not a good idea if you care about social mobility.

Sure, right now engineering should accept a ton of students. And be encouraging more. Say, for instance by being free, and then using Progressive taxation on the graduates to pay for it all.

Note that I'm essentially advocating a Loan, but without a Principal. And it's means adjusted what the interest is. And you never finish paying it off.

Disagree. There are too many STEM students already. It's just that plenty of web development shops are okay with hiring a physicist. It's a waste of money and time to encourage more STEM education unless the student is actually passionate about the subject in itself.

The downsides of the current trend are:

- pretentious web development job posts requiring master's degrees in CS "or related field" (as if physics prepares you for jQuery).

- debt-ridden, unfulfilled scientists relegated to the above

I have a STEM degree and I make more than twice as much as anyone in my family who does not have a STEM degree.

If there were "too many STEM students," wouldn't my salary drop?

> It's a waste of money and time to encourage more STEM education unless the student is actually passionate about the subject in itself.

I want people to not have to struggle financially so much. STEM is a pretty well documented way to get a stable job with a very competitive salary.

If you have other ideas, I'm open to them.

> debt-ridden, unfulfilled scientists relegated to the above

As though other careers are not debt-ridden, and are more fulfilling?

If you're getting "a job," you're already kind of screwed. If you're an entrepreneur, or happen to get extremely lucky to love what you're doing, or unless you've gone Amish, we all live with tons of debt and aren't very fulfilled by modern life. Am I wrong?

I don't believe college should be free, and I believe students should be able to choose whatever major they want to. I believe we should do away with gov't backed loans for college which artificially increase enrollment into soft majors.

Students should sooner than later learn to make informed decisions.

Sure, that's a good theory.

But in theory Risk Agencies will learn to assess risk. Credit Default Swaps getting AAA ratings shows they do not.

And Credit Agencies will theoretically learn that investing in a local community is good for everyone. But they haven't.

Make the college take a 10% stake in any loan taken out to attend that school. The colleges would be a lot more selective about who they let in (hint: not everyone) and what their students' majors were.

I like this idea; make it: "take last 10% stake in any loan", so they get their money back only after everything else is paid off.

Maybe that would work if colleges were publicly traded or something, but otherwise I think internal politics and ideological motivations are probably too strong for this to actually work.

It won't work regardless. They'll just raise tuition by the amount they expect to lose.

> I believe college should be free, and that colleges should limit their number of students in any given program to some sustainable number, where the graduates can actually earn a living.

So, who gets to choose how many? If you leave it to a professional association you end up in the situation we have with doctors in the US, where we definitely do not have enough.

And who gets to pursue their degree? Do colleges get to keep choosing whoever they want? Because that's probably just going to reinforce the Aristocracy you are complaining about. Do we do it on test scores? Besides the obvious bias issues, not your entire career is determined by some test scores, is that really what we want?

Maybe it's just me, but I really dislike the idea that some exams you take at the end of school basically control how the rest of your life will go, and I'm basically ok with the art history people only being the sons of daughters of aristocrats because there's no money in it.

I think educating people without putting them in debt is a great goal, I just don't think this is a good way to get there.

[EDIT]: In terms of counter-proposals, I think college is actually not the right place to be focussed. I think our housing, transportation and healthcare policies basically make lots of places close to unlivable for those doing low status jobs. I think we need to get very serious about density & public transit. We need to figure out how to do construction on both cheaply so that we can house everyone affordably. Basic income is great and all, but so much of that will go to rent that I basically see good housing/transit policies as a prerequisite for making that actually sustainable.

But if you are a child of parents who can finance your college? Absolutely. No question. This is essentially a way to enforce Aristocracy.

Are you sure? $100k in college vs. $100k in S&P 500 ..I think the it's about the same. The grad starts with a -100k deficit (i'm assuming graduate school is included). The Aristocracy perpetuates itself through inheritance. I don't think most college grads, even with the wage premium, feel like aristocrats.

I don't think most college grads know what it's like to be born to parents who aren't well off.

I'm leaning heavily on "most" here.

I don't think $100k in S&P 500 at 18 provides you with enough income at 22 and on. If you $100k in S&P 500 at birth or sooner, maybe.

Also, yes, if everyone in the country owned enough S&P 500 to get by, then... No, that wouldn't really work, would it? :)

> Veterinarian programs specific limit how many students they accept, because if they didn't, their graduates wouldn't be able to afford a living wage.

Are you sure that's the only reason? Are the reasons the same for medical school too?

I think people should be allowed to pursue any major they desire. The only way you can really enforce quotas on everything is probably through laws or policies set by the Dept of Education by forcing schools that want to take their loans to set quotas. My opinion is, then you're getting into the central planning problems of the government knows best.

I would like to see tuition at community colleges reduced so its affordable to all, which would include free for those at or near poverty lines. For regular universities, I don't think it's unfair for those taking loans to have to attend some type of in-person seminar that: * summarizes the work load and type of study their proposed majors require * outlines current and projected job prospects and income * financial planing that helps them figure out how many years it will take the pay back their loans based off of job prospects and income, and what that means for buying homes and cars, retirement planning, vacationing/recreation, and living expenses.

Perhaps then make them wait a short period of time before they can then "sign" that yes they do understand and that they still want to pursue a degree with loans. Kids that young (17-19) don't really have any good grasp on the finances and their parents might be blinded by hope.

Perhaps that "finance" seminar wouldn't help but it might at least get them to re-think their secondary education options.

>> Veterinarian programs specific limit how many students they accept, because if they didn't, their graduates wouldn't be able to afford a living wage.

> Are you sure that's the only reason?

I'd be surprised. I'm sure that, as always, budgets and class sizes are concerns as well. There are also other ethical concerns to be considered (e.g. lots of students implies lots of animal cadavers implies...?).

Limiting class sizes to keep wages inflated sounds a little conspiratorial to me, but I won't deny that it could be a factor.

> Not to pick on them, but do we really need this many Art History Majors?

You cannot calculate how many art history majors the world needs. You just need to trust people to act vaguely in their own interest, and society's interest, most of the time and to trust that things will work out.

Consider the important exceptions to this approach, where we try to match the number of students to demand. You can sort of calculate how many doctors the world needs, since everything involved (cost of services, number of patients, number of doctors, demography, doctor salary, yadda yadda) is objectively measured. We still manage to get that wrong, and there's a shortage. (or is there?)

The notion that you're going to be able to somehow be able to determine the market demand for graduates of the kind of degree program where people will move into a wide variety of jobs, like art history for one, is pure fiction if we can't even get medicine right. Of course if you're going to form a dictatorship of some kind you're obligated to try, but it will be one of the many things about your dictatorship that does not work very well.

If the student loan default rate is high, they are accepting too many. That's a metric that would work today.

A metric that might work in the future is to look at employment and job satisfaction.

> You just need to trust people to act vaguely in their own interest, and society's interest, most of the time and to trust that things will work out.

Sure. And I want free college, and progressive taxation.

I also advise that we do a far better job of publishing and thinking about career opportunities and satisfaction. Maybe even to the extent that schools should seriously consider whether it's responsible to accept X majors.

> If the student loan default rate is high, they are accepting too many.

It's fun to think about how screwed up a society would become if it did simpleminded, authoritarian things like reduce the number of seats for education students because teachers defaulted on their student loans at a higher rate than business students, and opened up a corresponding number of spots for business students. There are so many factors affecting that default rate other than society's need for graduates of a degree program...

Here's an idea: make sure people who are intellectually capable of succeeding in a degree program can choose the major they want. Support them financially if they need it. Full stop.

> I also advise that we do a far better job of publishing and thinking about career opportunities and satisfaction. Maybe even to the extent that schools should seriously consider whether it's responsible to accept X majors.

So much of what you're talking about already exists.

> So much of what you're talking about already exists.

That's why I said "do a far better job of ... thinking about"

Schools don't necessarily know your major until your junior or senior year.

Are you proposing a system where a school would accept you, decide there were too many of your preferred major, and kick you out or choose another?

The other option would be to force 17/18 year olds to choose their future careers while in high school.

> a school would accept you, decide there were too many of your preferred major, and kick you out or choose another

That happens all the time.

So, yes.

I guess the difference is that the school was previously limiting you based on their resources, which is understandable. It would be a totally different thing if they said "You can't go nursing school because there are currently too many nurses and it might be hard for you to find a job, even though our classes are half full."

Presumably their class sizes would also be a responsive part of the system (so they wouldn't be half full).

Just in case you guys don't know, this is exactly how university works in a number of countries in Europe.

There are few problems, but they're minor compared to the American model imo.

As for people who don't get accepted, in a closed and healthy economy, there's literally never a shortage of jobs (at least pre-AI). There's always something that needs to be done and you can create training programs or job placements for it. Also there are many "technical schools" which offer sorter degrees or professional training.

With AI, jobs will eventually diminish, but UBI has many caveats, the most important being that it leaves (ex?)workers powerless. In order for them to maintain the right to basic income they need some kind of leverage to enforce it. My opinions is that if they don't own the machines that produce they won't manage to do it.

So far the only reason they weren't slaves (or dead) was that they could leverage the need for their labor. Now that it diminishes, they're left with nothing.

I've been contemplating that when a publicly traded company issues stock that they also have to issue some percentage to the government.

And then we set up tax structure to massively favor paying dividends to stock holders, thus including the government.

Thoughts?

The tax increases you would need to sustain a system like that would be absolutely devastating. Also, college degrees would mean a lot less if they're free- devaluing them for people who actually paid for them

Our current Student Loan Debts ARE absolutely devastating.

If you knew that an applicant had a Full Ride Merit Scholarship to a good degree program, it would "mean less" to you?

Can you explain that a little bit better?

They are devastating to the people who take them out, not to everyone around them. You are not required to take out a student loan, you are required to pay taxes no matter how high they are

One applicant getting a full ride merit scholarship (or a small group of them) based on their own achievements is not going to devalue a degree. Giving everyone in your society a full ride scholarship based on nothing but their existence absolutely will. Abundance is inversely related to value

When students default on their student loans, does money just magically appear?

When someone declares bankruptcy, does money just appear?

Those things do hurt all of us. Costs go up. Insurance costs more. Interest rates go up. Taxes go up (if the program was federally backed.)

I am advocating for merit scholarships. Full ride. For a huge swath of people who demonstrate a reasonable level of merit.

I'm not handing money to someone who flunks all their classes.

I don't believe that for a second. I don't believe we're anywhere near the wrong side of the Laffer curve.

I tend to shy away from UBI in favor of something like a guaranteed federal jobs program.

My fear is that UBI will tempt policy makers to cut social programs. "We gave you money, buy your own medical insurance". With guaranteed jobs we can put more work into our infrastructure while eliminating unemployment, which helps keep fair labor practices in the forefront of employer's minds.

Many social programs should get cut if we get UBI.

I also think many more programs should be socialized. Notably college and healthcare.

I'm not sure if I have reasonable arguments for which things should and should not be socialized.

Guaranteed jobs force people to work. That forces people to have latch-key kids, or daycare. Family bonding is ridiculously important.

Early childhood development is the most important thing in your life, basically. UBI encourages family bonding.

Also, if we get UBI, I think we have to get rid of protections for Unions (union-only shops), tenure, and minimum wage. Make the labor market much, much more of a Free Market. People will ACTUALLY QUIT shitty jobs. Which is good for everyone. Wages will have to go up if the job is shitty, or the job will need to be reworked to be less shitty.

I'm not so sure about college. It seems some of it is economically valuable and a wise investment, and some of it is just a waste of time and money that the state shouldn't be subsidizing directly. If the output of an education isn't contributing significant value back to society, then it shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

The idea of UBI originated specifically to cut social programs and their associated administrative overhead. The idea being that it's more efficient to just write everyone a check that will cover necessities than it is to have various departments providing different parts of what people need on a means-tested basis. The problem with that is if the UBI doesn't actually pay out enough for someone to be able to afford everything they need. Healthcare seems like the biggest variable here though, and if we had a sufficient UBI + universal health coverage, I don't think there would be many, if any, remaining social programs that couldn't be eliminated.

I was thinking about UBI and does anyone have a good explanation why the price of housing across the board wouldn't increase accordingly making it just an accelerated wealth transfer? The same way housing prices in military heavy towns are basically tired directly to the millitary housing allowance or how tuition goes up when you give everyone loans?

There aren’t that many art majors. There are a lot of business majors though, probably too many.

In my country (belgium) the universities are mostly funded through taxation. The government negotiates per-student reimbursement rates with the universities, different rates for different degrees. The average all-in cost of a student is around 12K euro per year, with the student paying 1K of that and the government providing the rest. The resulting education is of a quality matching good colleges in the U.S. at a fraction of the cost, while still paying faculty a decent wage. The catch is the heavy government involvement and price controls, this is counter to the U.S. philosophy of the role of government, which is why this system could never work there. Additionally, all-in tax rates are double those of the U.S. (also is used to provide universal healthcare), effectively nationalizing huge chunks of the economy.

The focus should be on bringing down tuition fees. Whether you pay for tuition in debt repayment or taxes, the result is the same. Arguably debt is fairer than taxes because every individual gets to choose whether they want to carry that burden.

No thanks to the gate keeping.

Let's do the opposite instead, and make it as easy as possible for people to get into tech at least.

The moment a tech Union or professional organaizion like this appears, and starts to try and implement policies like this is the moment I fight as hard as I can to destroy said institution.

If you want to argue that less useful majors that have worse jobs prospects, should be harder to get in whatever way, I could maybe agree with that. (IE loans are harder to get or whatever).

What I cannot agree with is the philosophy of some private org given out a limited supply of certifications, to protect it's own members. IE, the American medical association as applied to tech, or whatever.

Student loan interest rates should be tied to the major. Engineering major? $0 down, 3.5% interest rate. Art History major? 25% down, 15% interest rate.

Sounds like a recipe for an astronomical default rate.

It would theoretically lead to a lower default rate, as it would dissuade "art history" majors from pursuing that low-paying profession. As it stands now, the people who pursue higher paying majors are subsidizing those who pursue the lower paying majors. You can't seriously say that an engineering major is the same risk as an art history major. Then why should they pay the same interest rate? You aren't going to claim that everyone should pay the same mortgage rate, right?

Why not just progressive taxation?

Don't predicate the rate on a hypothetical earning... Base it on actual earnings.

The interest rate is acting as a market signal to pursue majors/professions that would lead to higher actual earnings.

It seems like it might be a good business to offer to refinance loans for, say, CS students at top-tier schools at a lower rate than the government loans.

Ideally that would raise the default rate of the government loans and push up the interest rates of the arts students. Right now the STEM majors are subsidizing everyone else if the interest rates are the same.

I thought that was a pretty good idea so I looked to see if it was legal and lo and behold: https://www.upstart.com/

A startup exists which refinances loans based on college major and SAT scores

Reply on news.ycombinator.com