TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What's Really 'Immoral' About Student Loans

72 点作者 lordgeek将近 12 年前

13 条评论

dajohnson89将近 12 年前
It is criminal that serious student-loan reform isn&#x27;t on the table. As a recent graduate making monthly payments towards a 5-figure principal, I say fuck capping the interest rates. Please cap tuition and fees.<p>Don&#x27;t give me that BS about how universities need the money.<p>During undergrad, I squatted in a 600 sq. ft. apartment shared with 3 other people. I seriously doubt my health is unaffected by the mold, mildew, vermin, etc. I had to live with every day. Across the street was the president&#x27;s mansion(!). He had a team of gardeners, fountains, a gilded mailbox, and some pretty nice carS in the driveway. His army of administrators never worked a minute after 5:00, as evidenced by the steady stream of Bimmers, Benzes, and Lexuses that poured out of the administrative building&#x27;s parking lot every day at 5:01 pm. Oh BTW, their building was the only one on campus with glass doors, bronze handles, oak furniture, marble floors, etc.<p>Trim the fat, and make the university answer to a more sane market force.
评论 #5956177 未加载
评论 #5956526 未加载
评论 #5956489 未加载
eightyone将近 12 年前
For an opposite view point, see the Salon article <i>Tuition is too damn high</i>. It argues for the vast majority of people tuition has increased because government has drastically cut funds to public education. Not because of Pell Grants or &quot;easy money&quot;. The author has some interesting data, as well.<p>Here&#x27;s a glimpse:<p>&quot;The first step in grappling with the rise in the cost of higher education requires understanding where students go to school. There are three main categories — public schools (which include both four-year public universities and two-year community colleges), private nonprofits (the Ivys, most liberal arts colleges, etc.), and the for-profits (Kaplan, University of Phoenix, Corinthian Colleges, aka “career schools”). Here’s the key statistic: Fully 70 percent of the 19 million undergraduates and 3 million graduate students enrolled in post-secondary education in 2010 attended schools considered to be in the public sector — by which it is meant that some portion of their funding comes directly from government.&quot;<p>&quot;The problem: The word “public” doesn’t mean as much as it used to. Direct state support for public colleges has cratered over the past 10 years, and really fell off the cliff after the financial crisis. Yes, tuitions have risen, but not by as much as state and local appropriations for higher education have fallen. Just between 2008 and 2009, for example, average tuition revenue at public research institutions increased by $369 per student, but the loss in state and local appropriations per student was $751. Similarly, at public community colleges, tuition revenue rose by $113 per student, while appropriations fell by $488. Since the recession of 2001, tuition hikes, as exorbitant as they have been, still haven’t kept pace with the fall in government support.&quot;<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/tuition_is_too_damn_high/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.salon.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;05&#x2F;11&#x2F;tuition_is_too_damn_high&#x2F;</a>
评论 #5956362 未加载
charlieflowers将近 12 年前
I have wondered for a long time now where all the college tuition money goes.<p>Consider that: (1) the cost of tuition has grown FAR faster than inflation, and is now sky high, (2) A huge percentage of students need and get student loans, (3) student loans are one of the few types of liabilities that bankruptcy can&#x27;t wipe out.<p>So &quot;everyone&quot; (speaking loosely) goes to college, and &quot;everyone&quot; gets a loan. The college gets its money up front, and bears no risk of having that money taken away. This represents a huge flow of money into universities. Where does it go from there?<p>How does college tuition revenue yearly compare to Apple&#x27;s revenue from iphones yearly? In the case of Apple, I can see where the money goes ... Apple employs a huge number of people working on expensive ongoing operations.<p>What are colleges doing with all this money? Surely all of it is not being soaked up by overpaid administrators?? A money stream that large ought to have a big, obvious wake behind it, but I don&#x27;t know where that money goes. Can anyone enlighten me?
评论 #5956254 未加载
评论 #5956350 未加载
评论 #5956644 未加载
kyllo将近 12 年前
<i>Colleges have responded to the availability of easy federal money by doing what subsidized industries generally do: Raising prices to capture the subsidy.</i><p>Exactly.<p>This is an American problem though, the Europeans figured out many years ago that making tuition free for the students is a win-win for society. Everyone wants to go to college, so just make everyone pay for it, progressively, over time.
评论 #5956162 未加载
hkmurakami将近 12 年前
<i>&gt;A 2010 study by the Goldwater Institute identified &quot;administrative bloat&quot; as a leading reason for higher costs. The study found that many American universities now have more salaried administrators than teaching faculty. </i><p>It&#x27;s not just the number of administrators but also the pay. They tend to make many times that of actual professors. And there&#x27;s no question which camp brings more value to students.
javert将近 12 年前
Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn&#x27;t owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I.<p>This may seem cruel, but it&#x27;s actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market industry: much better, much cheaper, much more widely available.<p>If you want to see what happens to an economic sector as the government becomes more invasive, look at the finance sector, which is the most controlled sector in the US, or look at the &quot;federal telecom bureaus&quot; (AT&amp;T, Time Warner and Verizon).
评论 #5956535 未加载
评论 #5956414 未加载
评论 #5956594 未加载
dnautics将近 12 年前
I&#x27;m surprised the absolute nondischargeability of student loans is not brought up in the article. This is, ultimately immoral, because that is exactly (fractional, voluntary, nonchattel) slavery.<p>The US, to Obama and congress&#x27;s credit (those who know me know I&#x27;m not a huge fan) engaged in some credit reform in the wake of the 2008-2009 economic crisis. Credit cards firms were required to allow their customers to restructure their loans and became obligated to outline the loan payments afterward, and rotating credit became dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. One wonders why college credit hasn&#x27;t undergone such reforms. Does academia have that powerful of a lobby?
joshuaellinger将近 12 年前
Good grief, I always forget how misleading the WSJ is.<p>&quot;Gov&#x27;ment causes those poor helpless colleges to overcharge.&quot;<p>Bullshit.<p>The growth in the cost of college is tied to big fat administrator salaries. It is control fraud pure and simple. To paraphrase, the best way to rob a college is to run one.
评论 #5956033 未加载
评论 #5956031 未加载
评论 #5956092 未加载
评论 #5956101 未加载
评论 #5956252 未加载
ebiester将近 12 年前
So.. We make it so that only people likely to pay the loan back get student loans. Then, we watch as the actuaries figure out that students frompoor families are the ones who disproportionately pay their loans (since they don&#x27;t have the same familial support during and after college.)<p>So, poor students are disproportionately denied loans, and we continue to see generational wealth inequality expand.<p>There are no great solutions, and there are tradeoffs everywhere. However, leaving it to the market seems immoral too.
评论 #5956533 未加载
评论 #5959167 未加载
MartinCron将近 12 年前
You should only be able to use the &quot;principal&quot; pun once per article.
joshuaellinger将近 12 年前
I just realized my earlier comment on the WSJ being misleading did not really clear.<p>He has the facts right but, to get published in the WSJ, he can&#x27;t point at the real issue. It is same problems we have the with banks. These institutions have tons of hidden subsidies. They always will. Subsidized industries behave differently from non-subsidized ones in general but the WSJ approved solution is to pretend that it is possible to remove the subsidy.<p>For public goods (utilities, parts of finance, education), you have to have government intervention and deal with the side-effects. That means regulation and rules about what you do with the money.<p>I don&#x27;t think the author would disagree when I say that the administrator are stealing from the taxpayers. But what is &#x27;bullshit&#x27; is saying that we just have to accept it. When people are stealing from you, you deal with it head on. If they were employees, you would fire them.<p>I don&#x27;t have a great answer for colleges but you need to at least let the administrators know that they are acting immorally. It is not the loan process that is immoral -- it is the people who are running the colleges.
pnathan将近 12 年前
College is an interesting situation. It might be argued that collectively we all have an interest in seeing a more educated society, regardless of the earning power. It might also be argued that collectively we need to focus more on not &quot;going to college&quot; but instead focusing on things like &quot;learning a sustainable trade&quot;.<p>And, for an individual looking to maximize earnings &amp; employment, a bachelor&#x27;s in STEM&#x2F;business is still a really good buy, supposing you didn&#x27;t go to $$$ SLAC&#x2F;Ivy League. Whereas subjects that are less fiscally shiny lead their students into a dark hole of debt.<p>One solution is to simply collectivize the cost: everyone gets free college. That&#x27;s really expensive and without good cost controls, well, is susceptible to being taken advantage of.<p>Another solution is to go at colleges with the dieting plan. That&#x27;s the current one. IMHO, that&#x27;s exactly the wrong way to go about it.<p>Another solution is to aggressively force state schools to cut overhead; i.e. cut the administrator staff. Well, asking people to fire themselves is sort of utopian, doncha think? :)<p>---<p>I don&#x27;t really buy any of the solutions that I currently know about in the US. My thought is that there are far too many colleges in the US. Too many states trying to stretch too few dollars over too many campuses. I instead think that federal funding should go to a select few - perhaps three or four - in the US. These colleges would be fully free and fully funded by the feds. Professors would be encouraged to congregate there and focus on having <i>huge</i> departments where all sorts of research could go on. The overhead per college is so high; it&#x27;s considerably more scalable to focus on having a few large campuses than the small ones everywhere. Each campus requires a mini admin to be set up. Worse, the larger a department is, the more interesting collisions can happen: small departments work against this by not having that interesting person to run into(they are in the other state).<p>Anyway, that&#x27;s my undercooked idea to help college education.<p>Education in the US is, I think, a wreck, and it has a variety of causes. Among them, the historic anti-intellectualism of Americans, the loss of historic mission, the rank foolishness of levelling egalitarians, the shrinking dollars for defense research, etc. More causes could be added.
评论 #5956266 未加载
评论 #5956627 未加载
评论 #5956507 未加载
dale31将近 12 年前
Why not just cap the annual payout of federal loans to a reasonable level? This would surely put downward pressure on tuition.