sntax

I use to work in the flight search industry. It is really hard to compete because you simply make nothing off of flights (your big margins are on hotels). I also doubt google let them hang on to the ITA matrix engine API since they seem to be closing that off to everyone. It is sad to see the last option for airbnb search in the metasearch space die off, but there are still plenty of good flight search engines out there.

It is not the fact of choosing between UVA, Virginia Tech, and William and Mary. Anyone of those schools is highly likely to give you a return on investment even if you get a non-stem degree. Why is this? They all have strong brand recognition. They are very selective; even the least selective of those three (VT) has an average GPA acceptance of 3.92. [1] It gets confusing for people who are not the best and the brightest. if you have a 3.0 GPA and 1000 SAT (median scores for high school) you might think it is a good idea to go to a school like Radford University. [2] Both cost about the same but one will vastly decrease your chances of making a return on investment. Now it might not be a bad idea to attend Radford if you plan on staying in southwest VA and you got a marketable skill. However, there is a large number of people who go to Radford get a history degree and move back to Richmond Virginia. Now your six-figure investment is worth about the same as the paper it is printed on. My parents always told me "It doesn't really matter where you go to school or what degree you get, you just have to make sure you get a degree!". This might have been the case at one point, but it is nowhere near the case anymore.

[1]https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmp... [2]https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg01_tmp...

I really feel like the underlying problem is we expect people to be adverse to purchases that will be a net loss. Unfortunately, "shopping" for higher education is extremely confusing and to make matters worse your lender is guaranteed to be paid. So we have created an environment where people who are the most vulnerable are being taken advantage of. We need to find a way to better protect people from making terrible six-figure investments, whether that is through legislation or education something has to change. Even if there was a website that scraped data from LinkedIn to show where people from higher education institutions get hired and what positions they get would massively help consumers not make bad investments. I would have never paid the money for my degree knowing what I know now.

Location: Washington DC

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Maybe

Technologies:C++, Python, SQL, relational databases, APIs, Blockchain

Résumé/CV:https://www.linkedin.com/in/spencer-debenedetto/

Email:spencer.debenedetto@gmail.com

I am a senior product analyst who works more or less as a junior product manager. I tend to think of myself as a product person who can be the bridge between technology and business. My industry experience is travel technology and big data. I am responsible for defining the product strategy, roadmap, and key metrics for my product team; and I spend most of my time working on market/user research and communicating the what and why to different stakeholders internally. I'm looking to grow more as a corporate strategy manager or product manager, but I'm open to other ideas.

I don't understand your point here. If your degree has a return on investment it means that you can pay back your loans because you have a higher paying job that was a direct result of your degree. You will go into a ton of debt to become a nurse but you will make up your investment in salary eventually. If you spend 100k dollars on an art history degree from Univ. of South Carolina Aiken your job prospects have not changed from someone who never attended college at all.

I am aware that this is not what the NPR article is about but, can someone please change my mind on this? The vast majority of college degrees in the US do not have a return on investment. Many people are struggling because they studied information that is not a marketable skill from a university that accepts low-quality students. Why is the solution that the nation just foots the bill to make a bad investment instead of the individual?

Tell me again how charging by amount of data use and speed is not already solving this problem? I can go to comcast.com and buy an email only package right now. Also, why is this suddenly going to allow you to take market share from Comcast? Do you honestly think the reason we don't have competition in the ISP space is due to not being able to unbundle packages?