Hacker News Reader

Comment by drewg123 | Hacker News Reader

I was also lucky enough to graduate with no debt in the early 90s. It has made all the difference in my financial life, and has allowed me to avoid other kinds of debt.

In my case, graduating without debt was mostly due to the low tuition of New York state (SUNY) schools in the 80s. My tuition was $675/semester, and the minimum wage at the time was $3.35. That means in roughly 10 40 hour weeks over the summer, I could save enough for the year's tuition. Combine that with a 12hr/week job working in the computer labs and sysadmin'ing, and I could pay for my share of the rent & my car.

People talk about free tuition. But maybe we just need to get back to the middle ground of affordable tuition as measured by the minimum wage. Eg, put a cap on tuition so that it can't be more than X hours of work at a state's minimum wage.

View on HN

Not to mention that maybe we should get away from the idea that everyone needs to go to college. The vast majority of jobs only require college because high school is nearly worthless, so even people who _did_ learn plenty in HS have to find a way to distinguish themselves.

It's also good for laundering privilege ("we can't make my buddy's kid partner unless he went to a good school - otherwise it looks like nepotism!")

The market worked before the student loan bubble.

Remove the endless supply of money for relatively useless degrees and you’ll end the issue.

>put a cap on tuition so that it can't be more than X hours of work at a state's minimum wage

This is the best idea I've heard when it comes to the debate on education costs.

$675 per semester in 1985 is $1580 now, or $3200 for the year.

By comparison, New York state spend $21,000 per pupil in public school (new york city this was $27k). This is higher than the national average of $11,000.

The cheapest state, Utah, still spent $6500 per pupil.

Your $3200 isn't going to touch it, so who picks up the rest of the bill?

The state paid a portion of the cost in the 1980s, so the $675 was only part of the cost. I would expect the cost for education hasn’t increased over time; rather the share has been shifted more greatly to the student.

To your last point, Society is going to pay in one way or another. We can subsidize tuition and benefit from an educated population, with greater innovation and culture that results; or we can have less growth, innovation, and poverty.

Cost has increased. Health care is a huge part. Housing another. Higher pay to compete with industry another in select fields.

In a lot of cases, professorial pay has NOT kept up at state schools. My wife is a tenured stats prof at a mid-ranked state university like the one I attended. She makes far less than she did when she worked in a research position for the Fed. gov't, and less than 1/2 as much as she could make (and has made) in private industry as a data scientist.

There are three views

1) Students pay the full cost 2) The taxpayer pays the full cost 3) The cost is shared

You're arguing for the latter. The trouble is the latter goes from everything from 1 cent a semester to $full_tutition - 1cent per semester, it's an option that can appeal to everyone.

How much should the taxpayer pay? How much should the student?

Personally I like the UK system, where the student pays if they make it big (get a job for netflix earning $500k a year you repay your entire loan), but you don't repay if you get a job in the local nursing home wiping someone's arse.

It's not a popular position, with both the right wing and left wing parties arguing against it (the left wing parties saying that taxes should rise to pay for stockbrokers' tuition, the right wing parties saying that taxes should rise to pay for stockbrokers' tuition)

The problem is not that his bill is too low. It's that the others are way too high.

You think university education is worth 1/5th that of high school education?

I think its worth goes beyond a mere interchange between the student and the education center. And I think the long-term benefits it brings to the places where it is heavily or completely provided by the state should trump the short-term benefits brought to those who speculate with it.

I’m not saying the bill shouldn’t be paid by the tax payer, but you were arguing about the total bill, not who pays it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com