Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

And who is going to decide what's a "degree in bullshit" and what's a "gussied up diploma mill?" What metrics would they use?

Libertarians tend to like the idea. But short of that, it's difficult to vote for reform that lands between perpetuate-the-problem and screw-an-entire-generation.

We can fix the problem of paying for education, but that solution isn't going to be found anywhere near the student loan debate.

View on HN

The market. Right now, the government loan programs treat all degrees interchangeably. If you introduce market forces into the equation, the lenders will run some basic stat calculations and you'll quickly end up with the following scenario:

1. Useful degrees from good universities will be easy and cheap for good students to fund.

2. Everything else will get harder/more expensive to fund, in proportion to its statistical returns.

That's all you really need to fix the system.

As I understand it, the problem with this approach is that even the pre-2010 system put the risk of default more or less completely on the Feds, as it is now. If you leave that risk there, then market players have no incentive to set rates themselves: It's up to the Feds to decide which loans at which rates they're willing to backstop or acquire. Not really a "market".

But if you move the risk of default onto the "market" via private lenders, then, the theory goes, the rates a student can expect will be swamped by other factors than the value of their prospective education, notably whether they have a sufficiently credit-worthy parent to cosign.

Maybe the best bet is to have market rates that are "cushioned" by the Feds in a need-based scheme.

Do they? If government loan programs treat all degrees interchangeably, why do you have differential pricing for STEM degrees and Liberal arts, with the latter being cheaper and STEM, law and medicine degrees being the most expensive.

They are more expensive because the programs cost more to run. The professors have more job prospects outside of academia, so that drives up their wages. They also need more expensive resources (labs, legal libraries, etc.).

>And who is going to decide what's a "degree in bullshit" and what's a "gussied up diploma mill?" What metrics would they use?

If you're a responsible lender, you sure as hell should look at the risk profile of the borrower. If the borrower is asking $200,000 to go to a private college for a liberal arts degree, you may want to assign a higher risk to him, then if he was going to Med school. In other words, you may want to go through the same exercise you go through to approve small business or real-estate loans. The problem is that you don't need to be a responsible student loan lender since the federal government will just guarantee you the loan anyway.

If lenders had any significant risk, then lenders would evaluate the value of a school/degree combination (value being determined by the likelihood that they could be paid back).

High-tier school with a degree that has great employment potential? Throw a loan at that kid, that is a good investment.

High-tier school with a degree that has great employment potential... but the program has a 99% dropout rate? Think twice about throwing a loan at that kid, if he is in that 99% then you will have a hard time getting your money.

Shit school with a vanity degree? Tell that kid to get lost. If he wants a vanity degree, he can pay for it himself.

The schools are in the best position to underwrite loans. They should be the ones loaning out educations. That also has the advantage of giving the schools a stake in the marketability of their graduates.

How do you avoid the problem of schools only/mostly handing out loans to students with rich parents to cosign? That's the underlying cause of all this conflict: We want the best colleges and universities to be accessible to everyone, and not have existing class distinctions weigh too heavily on the scale.

I can see why we worried about it, but most schools are so leftist they would never come close to only letting in rich kids.

I don't think the choice is "lend the kids a whole bunch of money to let them in" vs "don't let them in at all."

It's "lend the kids a whole bunch of money" vs "don't lend them a bunch of money, and still let them in."

It's possible I'm wrong about this, but we've definitely went too far in the other direction.

Sure, the problem is not the Ivies and top tech schools, most of which have basically committed to paying full tuition for any admitted student who demonstrates they couldn't attend without it.

But for the many excellent schools without massive endowments, the risk of letting in more qualified "Caa3" applicants over "Aaa" applicants could make a substantial difference on the margins.

It's an important consideration and so a good question.

A couple of points:

First I don't think such a school would remain the best very long. There was a time when CCNY and the CUNY system in general had a fantastic reputation largely because it served an immigrant population that the Harvards of the world refused to take on as students or faculty. CCNY's fortunes turned around for many reasons, but one of them was that the traditional top schools dropped their racial/ethnic quota systems and introduced aggressive need based scholarships.

Second, I think we a society need to move away from the idea that 18-22+ year olds are still members of their parents' economic unit. In Sweden college tuition is free, yet the percentage of students taking out loans is higher than the US because there is no expectation that parents will pay living costs. Perhaps banning co-signers for such student loans is going too far, but perhaps not.

>The schools are in the best position to underwrite loans. They should be the ones loaning out educations.

But the schools are profiting immensely from the difference between the perceived value of a degree and the actual value. They'll never get into the loan business without being forced.

But I agree they should have some skin in the game. My favorite idea on that end is students should be able to partially default on loans, and the schools should be required to share the loss with taxpayers.

And who is going to decide what's a "degree in bullshit" and what's a "gussied up diploma mill?" What metrics would they use?

Surely this isn't that difficult a problem to solve. President Obama thinks his administration could start to address it:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/13/obama-calls-mo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com