Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdudek | Hacker News Reader

That problem will always exist. But this does elevate one issue, working full-time to support yourself AND pay for education at the same time. The other issue is a tough one. It really depends on their life circumstances. Maybe if people will start living minimalist lyfestyles and be more conservative with their spending, things can change.

View on HN

>>Maybe if people will start living minimalist lyfestyles and be more conservative with their spending, things can change.

I don't agree that a significant amount of low income people who can't afford college are having that financial problem because they live excessively beyond their means. I also suspect the reason a lot of lower income people are working full time jobs is just as much for health insurance as the actual paychecks.

What if University was free _AND_ health care & small apartments were supplied for those(and family) who qualify for excessive hardship and maintain high GPA?

Anything to raise the average education level of the population I think is a win, even if it has to come from the higher-income taxpayers... as long as data shows that indeed significantly more people end up with degrees.

Diminishing returns apply to education and the US government is spending 1 Trillion/year on education. The current excess of PHD's is harming the US economy by pushing back how far people start working.

That said, I think we would probably be well served by providing free high-school level education for anyone that needs it. AKA any-class available to high school students should have free adult equivalent.

I agree. But I would like the education (classes, materials, etc.) to be separate from the certification of knowledge and skills.

Both should be free (or heavily subsidized), but like in healthcare, we should be paying for outcomes, not services rendered. And we should open things up to allow economies of scale.

Those damn PhD's!!! Ruining this country?!!!!

> I don't agree that a significant amount of low income people who can't afford college are having that financial problem because they live excessively beyond their means.

At the risk of sounding callous, starting a family before you can afford it is living beyond your means.

> Anything to raise the average education level of the population I think is a win

I presume you don't support full-time college (and room and board and healthcare) for anyone on demand. Barring that, we're just discussing funding levels, criteria for eligibility, and metrics for success.

> At the risk of sounding callous, starting a family before you can afford it is living beyond your means. I don't live in the US so I don't know if this applies to some contexts within the US, but in other contexts a family (partnership with one or more people and raising children) is sometimes a neccessity for survival: you share food and lodging and save money, a shared income, shared tasks and responsibilities and, in the absence of a retirement plan, your children will help you when you get old or sick. Raising children is a tough job so you had better start young, when you still have the energy to juggle the big amount of work that requires.

I certainly support healthcare on-demand for anybody in this country.

The point was that the benefits, added together, would function more like free money and less like free school. If you don't apply some eligibility criteria, you would see a massive influx of "students" who want all the freebies.

So? Sometimes people get things they don't deserve, that's life. As a taxpayer, I can live with that tradeoff if it means more opportunities for those who need them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com