Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The issue that education runs into as a business is that the people for whom it would add the most value don't have present resources to commit. We've seen three models:

1. Public financing. This is the most successful; even if there's a reputation of bureaucracy and mediocrity (largely because public schools have to contend with the full range of inputs) the system actually works extremely well. A lot of people (read: short-sighted conservatives) just don't want to pay for it, so they gripe about the public-school model itself, rather than (admittedly, serious) issues with execution.

2. After-the-fact donations. The problem here is that it converges on a Nash equilibrium where the rich get the resources anyway because they are most likely to be future donors. (Depressing news: in spite of the "economic miracle" that college is supposed to work, but hasn't for a long time, the #1 predictor of whether someone will be wealthy is having wealthy parents.)

3. Non-dischargeable debt. Student debt might have been a good idea (a) before it started having effects itself on pricing --making college again unaffordable and replacing minor debt loads with indentured servitude-- and (b) were the economy less volatile than it has been since 1990 or so. It's horrible now.

None of these solutions (of the three, public financing being the only one that works) admit themselves well to the startup business model.

(Depressing news: in spite of the "economic miracle" that college is supposed to work, but hasn't for a long time, the #1 predictor of whether someone will be wealthy is having wealthy parents.)

That might be "the #1 predictor," but out of how many predictors? What "percentage" is it, if that term is even meaningful here? How do we decide what counts as "wealthy?" Is it income or assets? If income, what happens to people making $300,000 a year but spending it all (I have met these people). What happens to the Millionaires Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/The-Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising/d... ; it has done more to shape my thinking about wealth than any other book. One surprising fact: most millionaires don't have extraordinary incomes but do consistently live below their means and save their extra money)?

If having "wealthy" parents is the #1 predictor and accounts for, say, 20% of the likelihood of the next generation's wealth, and, say, education accounts for another 10%, what happens if 40% is noise / randomness? Then noise accounts for twice as much as wealth! Most of the actual peer-reviewed studies I've read about this topic come to the conclusions they do through some dubious data decisions.

I'm not trying to pick a pointless, semantic fight here, but I see a lot of statements that try to compress a complex set of issues and questions into a single metric. As usually happens with this sort of thing, there's also an element of anecdote here: I have seen kids from wealthy families piss it all away and kids from poor families do the opposite. My own grandparents had virtually nothing and didn't speak English.

There are, in fact, metrics that show social mobility by comparing generational incomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_...

The repeated "citation needed" refrain is exhausting.

As though declining social mobility is news.

Your link is the third hit my quick search. https://www.google.com/search?q=declining+social+mobility+in...

Took less time to do a quick fact check than to comment.

It's ALMOST as if geeks would rather go full pedant on tangental points rather than face uncomfortable worldviews.

> It's ALMOST as if geeks would rather go full pedant on tangental points rather than face uncomfortable worldviews.

I hesitate to say this aloud, but I... I think geeks might be human. o.O

but I see a lot of statements that try to compress a complex set of issues and questions into a single metric

This needs to be posted over and over again under each posting pretending to know how "things" work. Social life is incredibly complex, and anyone pretending to have found the single, all explaining causality is flat out dishonest.

Sorry, down-voted by accident. Agree 100%.

Being able to capture some of the future earnings of recipients of education would work well, and work well within the startup model.

I predict the best startup opportunities in education are either international or involve teaching/training those in groups already receiving benefits. i.e. being paid by the military to train people leaving the military (via GI Bill, 9/11 GI Bill), those in the military still, or corporate training programs for their existing workers.

(corp training could be everything from MCSE/A+/CCNA to serious certification to use technology, or specific-to-jobsite ojt)

There might be a market training or teaching prisoners, current disability or welfare recipients (if there were a way to train them to do jobs which could then remove them from disability...), etc. too.

And probably also value in teaching people how to do things they themselves value, like "how to ski" or "DIY for dummies", etc.

The fact that many colleges are subsidized by the government prevents many other solutions from gaining traction.

When an 18 year old looks at the options he goes to a public school because all he has to do is sign on the dotted line. These students will not even feel the burden of the cost until they leave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com