Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevencorona | Hacker News Reader

Hey guys, author here- this is an older post that someone reposted. I get alot of hate for this post, so let me sum it up here:

College was my biggest mistake. Not your biggest mistake. I'm not giving advice, just being honest about my experience. You have to "pay to play". Who knows if I would have been able to bootstrap myself without a year of college. All I know is I can't imagine the ridiculous amount of debt I'd be in if I finished.

It boils down to this: I wish that when I was 18 someone told me college wasn't the only option.

View on HN

What worked in (y)our field, would not work elsewhere.

I'm the product of a Western-European system. Yearly tuition was like $2k. Your 44k would have covered 4 years in college including housing, food and ample beer.

IMHO, the real problem lies in the acceptance of the status quo in the American educational system and the unwillingness to let government play a role (through taxation, grants, etc). It's baffling to me that a first-world country like the USA doesn't want to invest in education. If you don't pay for the education, you'll pay for the unemployment benefits and/or lack of innovation.

I make a good living, but still I worry greatly about my daughter's future. Avg college tuition supposedly will reach 90k/yr by the time she's ready to attend, unless something is done about this madness.

Bill Gates has the right idea with his 10K BA challenge and I like what I see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/opinion/my-valuable-cheap-... http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335522/10000-degree-k...

>>the unwillingness to let government play a role (through taxation, grants, etc)<<

This is not meant as a personal attack, but your claim that government doesn't play a role in American education is false. The U.S. government plays a massive role and is, arguably, the single biggest factor in the cost of American higher education. The federal government doles out many grants, but more importantly, it subsidizes student loans to cover tuition. This means just about anyone with a pulse can obtain a loan to cover tuition to whatever school they want to attend, regardless of what the student wants to study. Colleges large and small know this, and have dedicated staffs to help students obtain these loans.

which is why many colleges do not feel a need to hold back the costs of an education. With near unlimited borrowing ability available colleges have simply kept raising tuition to keep pace with available funding.

That and an incredible marketing push akin to how diamonds were marketed, as in you have to have a degree/diamond

That makes no sense. In Australia the government will happily hand you the best loan you can get for a University education. The loan is indexed at inflation and you don't need to pay it back until you earn a certain amount of money. It doesn't cost anywhere near $45k/year to study here and the cost of living in Australia is significantly higher than almost all places in the US.

How does it not make sense? If more people can afford college, the price will increase because college is a finite resource. It's basic supply and demand.

The government subsidizing college educations causes the price of education to increase.

Whether you pay it back in 2 years or 20 years, the price is higher.

You also pay for it later, when you become a working taxpayer.

Should education really be handled as an economical resource? I don't think so...

Why? Food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, all are, and they're more important than education. Furthermore, many people don't have them.

BTW government run healthcare is still an economic issue. The only difference is that there's one choice and it's compulsory.

There is a simple solution for this (even if your argument makes sense) and that is that the government also sets the legal maximum tuition fees.

In the Netherlands the government subsidizes universities per student they take on, provides a monthly stipend to students (from about $400 to $800 depending on whether your parents income, with the possibility to borrow more) and sets yearly home-student tuition-fees (at $2200). And still Dutch universities perform quite well in the world-rankings (all 14 roughly between spot 40 and 200).

Admittedly this is made easier by the fact that the Netherlands does not have any private universities (of any fame and influence), and the fact that things have been organized like this for a long time now...

After having spent 5 years in university, having a debt of even $40.000 is considered a lot here.

Precies! Weet je ook waar ik vandaan kom :-)

This is not a simple solution. This is yet another government solution to a government-created problem. The "solution" breeds more problems of its own, which will in turn require more "simple" government solutions. If you need an example of this, take a look at our federal tax code.

The simple solution is to stop subsidizing loans to any student for any degree.

Can you clarify your statement? Would you agree with subsidizing loans to good students, with impoverished backgrounds, choosing a degree which is in high demand in the marketplace(just an example)? I, for one, am apalled at the gov't subsidizing the huge number of art, fashion, music degrees that they do. I would be curious to see the default rates on these sorts of loans.

No. If the degree is in high demand, there’s no need to subsidize it. Either banks will lend based on the student’s projected ability to repay the loan or employers (who need people with the skill the student will be learning) will subsidize the student’s education.

People like to believe basic economic principles like supply and demand don't apply to things like education or healthcare, even when the evidence stares them in the face. (See millions of unemployable liberal arts graduates and the voracious demand for computer science majors.)

re student loan default data, this is very difficult to determine. First, many subsidized loans are being deferred, and thus not counted as "in default", even though they are not being repaid. The only data I can find quickly on the web only goes through 2009, which is obviously going to be dramatically lower than the default rate today.

This is very very true, and an oft-ignored side effect of the housing bubble if you ask me. "Expensive?!? Just take a second mortgage to get all that new equity in your house."

Don't even get me started on the diamond thing. "Two monthly salaries". Good job De Beers (and Harvard/Yale/Vassar).

I meant a bigger role. Think:

* extending loans directly instead of letting privatized banks make the money

* building new universities and work towards accredited alternatives (eg 10K BA)

* pushing people to existing universities via financial incentives

* establishing a max. tuition increase for private universities or risk losing any governmental funding (e.g. indirectly, no extend loans to people who attend private institutions)

* tax private uni endowments (often running in the hundreds of millions, or even billions, and mostly unused) to fund public education etc etc

Offering to take insane amouts of (bancrupcy-immune) debt is a bad incentive for someone wishful to get a college education.

The world's top universities are predominantly American. [1]

Please please please, don't let the government with its stinky paws turn them into some mediocre Western-European institutions.

Let people (students AND employers) realize the value of education, or lack thereof, on their own. Remove obstacles from competition (aka less government), don't add more through regulation.

[1] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki...

Of the top 10 universities in those rankings, 3 are in the UK. The population of the UK is only 1/5 of that of the US.

The implication that universities in Western-Europe are 'mediocre' seems misguided.

Those rankings give a 60% weighting towards research rather than teaching. It is unsurprising that the country with the only trillion-dollar GDP has the highest number of top universities, since research runs on money.

Half of that 60% is citations in research. Hardly surprising again that the Anglo universities get a guernsey there, given that English is the lingua franca these days, particularly in science. If a university only publishes in English, then it's going to get a wider citational audience as compared to splitting its output between French and English.

Ultimately, in the context of the discussion here, the concern is the quality of teaching, not the quality of research. While there is an interaction between the two, they are not synonymous.

The GDP and population of the EU is larger than that of the United States.

erm... right... but the EU doesn't collect taxes from all of that... they are individual countries.

Right, and individual universities that are supported by those countries.

What you should be argueing is that researchers are more densely distributed in top universities in the US, because in Europe researchers are less likely to jump to another country. Especially when they prefer to publish in their own language.

This may or may not be true.

Truth is, I at least and I think we in general are rather envious of the awesome top universities the US has.

But I think the US should be envious that we in Europe have our quality spread over the universities, and no matter what your parents' income or background is, or how much effort you put into highschool, you will always be able to attend a quality university.

I think that's worth not having the world's top universities.

These rankings are heavily weighted towards larger establishments, many metrics are based on volume! This artificially inflates mega-universities at the expense of the small elite establishments in France and Switzerland.

I'd rather say in the US the problem is too much market.

And especially too much of the naive belief - used to his advantage by many a shrewd businessman - that cost equates quality.

Also, as already mentioned in other posts, many UK/EU universities do very well. I am currently at Oxford, and I would choose it over practically any American university.

And virtually all Western-European universities do way better than the bottom 3/4th of the American ones, which after all is what most Americans will encounter when they go to a 4-year 'college'.

Interesting point on the "too much market", thank you.

Am I right that there is a hidden assumption in there, saying "you're too stupid, we know better, let us protect you from making voluntary deals with other parties"? That sounds like a horrible premise for any kind of governance, and possibly a self-fulfilling prophecy. (hah! are we there yet? people under so many well-meant regulations that we're becoming irresponsibly naive and stupid?)

Or maybe, coming from Eastern Europe, I am just too allergic to the we-know-better-than-you-what-you-need central planning.

Re. "Oxford! Cambridge!" etc. -- the fact there are excellent universities all over the world doesn't affect (much less invalidate) the claim that the top universities are predominantly American.

I agree that the distribution of quality when it comes to universities is uneven -- but so what? I find that natural. This idea that all universities should somehow be uniform and on the same level makes me, once again, shudder. What's next? All cities should be the same size, so everybody has the same opportunity to find a job? Think of the poor village children!

> It's baffling to me that a first-world country like the USA doesn't want to invest in education.

The US invests quite a lot of money in education. Some of it is hidden in grants. People often only look at Dept of Ed funding, but miss such funding sources as Dept of Energy grants and USDA (Land Grant Colleges). Even if the grant is for some specific research, a portion of the grant (called indirect) becomes part of the general fund of the college.

There are studies[1] that suggest that The Federal Government role in tuition relief (e.g. Pell Grant) has lead to the increase in tuitions.

This ignores the spending of local and state governments on education.

1) http://chronicle.com/article/Study-Backs-View-That-Colleges/...

When I was in school I paid $3,500 a year, nearly the highest rate at the time. Today I hear people paying $14,000 for the same thing, growing at a rate that's vastly outstripping inflation. Wages have maybe doubled in that time-frame, but costs have quintupled? Even $3,500 could be scraped together over the source of a summer job, but $14,000? It's basically impossible to go it alone, leaving you dependent on student aid and all the headache that comes with that.

$40+K is just unbelievably expensive. Why do people subject themselves to such abuse? Basically you're saying you could either A) get a university education or B) buy a house.

Not sure if $14K/year is for where you went, but that's on the low side. You can do 30K, 40K, 50K+/year at private schools without trying very hard.

Universities here are subsidized to a degree. Not as heavily as they used to be, which is where a large part of the cost increase comes from.

One thing to not is that 40k is just the sticker price. Only 3-10% of students pay that price at any given school. Why the sticker price? To make the school seem more valuable to the students and make the students seem overjoyed when they get a 15k grant/scholarship a year like I did. 25k is still a lot, but it's not 40k.

Really good NPR Planet Money podcast on this - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/11/152511771/the-real...

Also taps into cheap student labor - lots of students get an aid package that requires a certain number of hours of "work-study".

Your numbers sound exactly like mine. Are you in Canada?

Ontario specifically, yeah.

> I'm the product of a Western-European system. Yearly tuition was like $2k. Your 44k would have covered 4 years in college including housing, food and ample beer.

You still have to factor in housing and food and opportunity cost, cheaper tuition alone doesn't invalidate the argument. Also the way learning is done in College is often counter productive and not necessarily relevant to your future occupation.

Note that I mentioned that $44k, covered all costs for 4 years (not 1).

>> I'm the product of a Western-European system. Yearly tuition was like $2k.... IMHO, the real problem lies in the acceptance of the status quo in the American educational system and the unwillingness to let government play a role (through taxation, grants, etc).

So, just to point out, your education didn't only cost $2k per year. Moreover, it didn't only cost you 2k per year – your system just does a better job of disconnecting the costs from the education.

You will be taxed more throughout your life for that education (or, well, paying for the same thing for others, but essentially, it's equivalent to you having financed your education, except you have no choice in the matter) – admittedly, you're likely not going to be taxed as much as I'll pay outright in loans (my guess, only), but it's not as big of a spread as you're trying to claim here.

My point was not that it was cheaper in any way. I am well aware that the costs are slightly less or the same, but that's kinda my point... The government subsidizes education and raises money through taxation, reducing the requirement of big loans or wealth AT THE START OF YOUR CAREER. Even if you fail, your life isn't destined for serfdom, beholden for 30 years to whomever gave you a loan.

Also, as you point out, everyone pays en there is no choice in the matter. This is a good thing. This is also what's terribly wrong about America... the MEconomy.

People only want to pay for things they benefit from directly and refuse to contribute to the collective, for the benefit of the greater good. Education, healthcare, etc etc

I think you make a decent point about the self-centered nature of the American economy and mindset – to some extent it does hinder the upper-bound of what we can achieve, as a society... however, the way it benefits us (or is supposed to benefit us) is through the action of a market economy – if we're all forced to pay for college, even if we don't attend, there's little incentive for colleges to produce a better value for the money paid... unfortunately, IMHO, with loans as they are, we effectively break the market economy by decoupling the payment from the experience so significantly.

Further, we have plenty of experience here with government run systems that are so highly inefficient that there's a (very warranted) mistrust in the ability of any government run system to deliver a superior product for a lower cost.

We temper some of those two extremes by allowing for nonprofit corporations – and that is where I believe healthcare should primarily be handled, rather than for-profit industries like we see now... but of course, educational institutions are nonprofits, in most cases and they are acting more and more like for-profit ones, so it's clearly not sufficient on its own.

> I'm the product of a Western-European system.

> [...]

> I worry greatly about my daughter's future.

I guess she has the same European citizenship as you? The smartest thing to do (although ethically debatable) is to go back to your native country for her college years, and get it fully subsidized by European taxpayers.

Moreover, there's an important side-effect to USA's outrageous prices: except for some niches such as the Ivy League, if you're paying you'll be treated as a customer and they'll try very hard to deliver the goods (the diploma); this objective goes against being academically demanding, failing sub-par students etc. It's bound to have a dramatic impact on quality.

Something that baffles me in the USA, by the way: I can understand making a 6 figures investment in one's training, but it sounds like many if not most people choose personal development majors rather than employable ones: history, gender or African-American studies, arts, literature... I could see myself investing a year of my life and a couple K€ in a subject that fascinates me, but come on, a house's worth?!

Anyway, If I were to move out of Western Europe, I'd probably go back for my kids' studies, be it for the price or for the quality.

FYI the reason that they don't fail sub-par students is that graduation rate is part of how they are ranked by the magazines. Flunk more students and your raking gets worse.

As far as personal development majors ... an 18 year old who has never even paid rent really doesn't have the concept of how much money the debt is and "everyone else is doing it" furthermore high-school guidance counselors are the ones who most often are turned to for advice on schools and majors, and AFAICT they don't have a clue about what they are talking about.

On the bright side, now you know definitively that it wasn't the right option for you. You won't spend the rest of your life wondering, "what if I had gone to college instead...?"

I am of the opinion that some mistakes are worth making.

I think a lot of your distaste came from choosing SE as a major. RIT is one of those schools where you have to be especially proactive in extracting value from your education. The bureaucracy there has no compunction about useless majors, irrelevant classes, shallow professors -- things one may encounter if they just go with the flow. It's a sort of roulette wheel. I would've advised you to switch to CS, and start taking liberal arts classes with notable well-reviewed professors. A good professor can turn you on to the most inane subject; they exist but it's improbable you'll land in their class by just throwing the dice. The first floor of GCCIS is a vocational degree mill that feeds into the local donor corporations and those liberal arts requirements you took are literally filter classes. I sympathize with you not sticking it out, considering the costs involved.

I don't think college was your biggest mistake. College is just an experience, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't work out for some, you in particular. Your biggest mistake was not to quit when it was very clear that it didn't work out for you. Instead of quitting, you let that bad experience chew you up and spit you out.

You hit bottom.

The better story to tell here, IMO, is that when you hit bottom somehow you found inspirations to bounce back and became successful. This is really the story you are telling, and it's a good story.

I don't think hitting bottom is all bad. Within my own life story to date, at least, the bottom(s) were part of the learning - the part where daily reality collides with plans and expectations.

It's okay, as long as you can find your way out of it, of course.

Glad you're here; I'd like to ask you a question.

It wasn't the right choice then, but (putting aside all issues of debt) do you think you'd get more out of it now? Or in a decade? I really enjoyed university, got a lot out of it, but I'm getting even more pleasure out of taking another degree part-time now around my job and the thought of taking three or four years off now purely to study and learn and mentally play is much more enticing than the first time round.

Maybe it's just because I'm older, maybe it's because I've been working for a decade, maybe some other set of reasons, but I think I'd get a great deal more out of it now than I did then (which is not to say I didn't get a lot out of it; I did, but I'd get more now).

I would take a class if it was interesting to me, but I doubt I would become a matriculated student or pursue a degree.

I left college at 20 and then went back at 26. Both are on my "top 5 best decisions in life" list.

Having some time to get older and know myself (or, perhaps, reflect on the nature of selfness) led me to make great use of the incredible resources and space a university offers.

Everyone's path is different, so yours might vary, but you never know! I don't know if you still carry any fear or shame about the college experience (I did), but you're clearly driven and capable of great success. Don't let any of that other stuff get in the way should you ever find yourself with a passion and the desire for university as a space to focus and invest in yourself. In any case, congrats on success!

"It boils down to this: I wish that when I was 18 someone told me college wasn't the only option."

Yes, but even still, that's a decision that no one but you ever could have made for yourself. There's no shame in dropping out of college (or even being forced out) and going on to have a kick-ass career. The stories of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, et al., can attest to that. But even those guys went to college at first, before realizing that it was slowing them down or sidetracking them. It's hard to say if they would have had that self-knowledge without trying out college first.

Even if someone had told your 18 year old self that college wasn't your only option, you probably wouldn't have believed him. The idea of college-as-necessity is so firmly ingrained in our national culture that only an unusually self-actualized 18 year old would know, right off the bat, no experience required, that it wasn't for him.

You might want to reconsider the Bill Gates example, given that he says:

“I didn’t leave college because it wasn’t suited to me. I left college because I thought I had to move quickly on the Microsoft opportunity. I had already finished three years and if I had used my AP credits properly I would have graduated. [...] I am as fake a dropout as you can get.”

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/01/31/bill-gates...

There really is fine line between dropping out to go "towards" something and dropping out to "get away"

I really feel like times have changed drastically over the past ten years. There are so many lower-cost alternatives to a four year colleges now. Technology is moving so fast, I'm not sure university curriculums can keep up so a student graduates, their knowledge isn't already obsolete.

In that sense, I think you may have been seeing the future and simply opted out instead of weighing yourself down with debt and a bunch of stuff you even said yourself you could learn faster anyways.

Looks like it was a calculated move and its paid off quite well.

I went to RIT and have a similarly negative feeling about it, so maybe that speaks about RIT and Rochester more than about college in general. They wouldn’t give me my degree after I couldn’t complete one class due to illness, so I rage quit and got a job in California. :)

And actually I’m not in nearly as much debt as I could be. Plus I met a bunch of good people while there, and even though the classes were useless, I took the opportunity to learn a lot on my own. College, like any investment, is what you make of it.

You'd be amazed how much you'd learn going to college now, if you so desired. You know what you don't know and will be focused on learning it. BUT - college is a learning experience. As you've discovered you can get jobs without it.

Agreed. I ended up going to college as my only option for higher education, played in a field that I only moderately enjoy, and have a bunch of debt that will follow me for many years.

You obviously are a brilliant man. You could have done it if you wanted to. What made you choose to pursue your own interest than to suck it up and finish your degree?

I only finished college because against all reasonable expectations, I was allowed to attend two different schools without paying tuition. I guess that was lucky.

nice summary -- it's not necessarily what your degree makes of you, but what you make of your education and degree, especially remaining a self-directed learner.

Too many graduates stop learning, thinking they're done.

What happened to the debt you had already acquired when you dropped off?

Nicely put.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com