6 ms·

As with medicine, college is now an industry with third-party payment and no third-party control. In other words, the student (patient) and the university (doc

As with medicine, college is now an industry with third-party payment and no third-party control. In other words, the student (patient) and the university (doctor/hospital/pharmacy) agree to do business, and the government (insurance company) pays regardless of the price. That obviously creates major price distortions. Expect college to get a lot more expensive before it gets cheaper.

api 11y ago
This happens to any good or service that everyone needs but that we stubbornly refuse to fund publically.
- nickff 11y ago
  No, most items which people want or need are provided through private exchange, and the prices do not spiral out of control. Examples of this include computers, televisions, food, and clothing.
  - iofj 11y ago
    How does housing fit into this view ?
    - travisby 11y ago
      Housing that is artificially controlled by government loan interest rates, or by local government ensuring new housing doesn't get built?
- bmj 11y ago
  I'm not sure that everyone needs to go to college. Does a plumber, or electrician, or some other craftsperson that can learn via mentoring really need to spend fours at university? I don't really think so. That's always been my beef with the "college for everyone" movements. That instantly de-values jobs that don't require a college education.
  - maaku 11y ago
    Craft/vocational schools are a different type of college that should also be funded.
  - xg15 11y ago
    I'd wager to say though that jobs without college education are much more likely to be outsourced/automated than jobs with one. (The opposite is not true - a lot of jobs with college education might be automated as well) But anyway, your statement may be true but how do you determine who "needs" to go to college and who doesn't? If I (as a European) remember correctly, one of the US core values is the pursuit of happiness. That would imply to me that everyone should at least be given the chance to go to college - whether or not they decide to go (and graduate) is a different question.
    - bmj 11y ago
      How do you outsource an electrician, or a carpenter? If I (as a European) remember correctly, one of the US core values is the pursuit of happiness. That would imply to me that everyone should at least be given the chance to go to college - whether or not they decide to go (and graduate) is a different question. I don't disagree with this, necessarily. I disagree with rhetoric that implies if you don't go to college, you are a second class citizen.
      - the_gastropod 11y ago
        I think this problem comes from something a little deeper. The U.S. is still very classist, giving prestige to "white collar" jobs, and considering "blue collar" work to be inferior. I think college education is often thought of as a means to "white collar" work. Anecdotally, I think these tides may be slowly changing. I feel like a lot of people are beginning to see the value in craft (bakers, mechanics, carpenters, beer brewers, etc.)
      - xg15 11y ago
        How do you outsource an electrician, or a carpenter? I have no idea. But a few years ago, you could have said the same about truck or taxi drivers - and now it seems feasible that those jobs will be automated away in ten years. For electricians, you could imagine that IoT/home automation tech will change a lot: Home electrics could become more complex and more locked-down, requiring additional qualifications. In the worst case, independent electricians could find themselves in a similar situation that independent car repair shops are today. Or a company like TaskRabbit could employ their own electricians/plumbers/carpenters/etc... (at worse conditions) and decide to roll up the market. Those are wild guesses. But my point is that jobs may change quickly in the future. having a broad education and additional qualifications gives you a better chance to deal with "disruption" in your area. I disagree with rhetoric that implies if you don't go to college, you are a second class citizen. That's not what I wanted to tell. But I don't think we are in a position to decide that. And I don't think it's correct to simply assume that college education plays no role and to conclude from that assumption that it's OK if certain people never get the choice to go to college.
- dsfyu404ed 11y ago
  Like transportation?
  - maaku 11y ago
    Surely you have heard of public transit?
    - tomp 11y ago
      Public transit is actually a very good example. The government is funding a service, which then has to compete with other providers. What the government does not do is pay for all transport, regardless of price. An analogy in education would be, government funds a certain jumber of public, free or low-cost universities, but you can also pay more to go to a better, private school (without the government paying/guaranteeing for it).
      - morgante 11y ago
        Yes, that seems like a great idea! The government should fund local universities throughout the country to ensure that cheap education is available for anyone who wants it. These low-cost universities should be in communities everywhere. Jokes aside, what we really should do is get government out of the business of paying for private education. In theory, joint public and private efforts sound good. In practice, they have all the flaws of both the private and public sectors and end up being inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. (cf. housing, military contractors, etc.)
        tomp 11y ago
        > In practice, they have all the flaws of both the private and public sectors and end up being inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. (cf. housing, military contractors, etc.) Depends in which practice. In Europe (e.g. Slovenia), public universities are reasonably good, cheap (free), and serve the majority of the population. In the UK, I think council housing was a great idea - until they started selling it off (i.e. privatizing it).
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  You are confused about the word "need". People need food. But that doesn't mean caviar and champagne. People need education. They don't need an expensive social club that happens to teach. A need would be something more like a community college and less like Harvard. Or maybe if you are going into research, community college + graduate school at university. And that's a very generous definition of need.
  - corin_ 11y ago
    At the risk of being a pedant, people don't need education either, it's just a very effective way of improving their quality of life. In particular, further education (after high school) - including community college - definitely isn't needed by any one individual (maybe it's needed by society, but that's different). (Personal experience tells me that champagne improves my quality of life, though I don't have a further education experience to compare it to.)
- zeveb 11y ago
  > This happens to any good or service that everyone needs but that we stubbornly refuse to fund publically. It also happens to any good or service we decide to fund publicly: the civil servants' unions which provide it insure that their members capture as much money as they can. Providing it publicly doesn't at all mean that it will be provided cheaply.
bko 11y ago
The obvious solution would be a private lending market. Such a market exists for credit-worthy students that go to prestigious universities in majors that are economical. SoFi runs such a program and can often undercut the government which doesn't care too much about the credit quality of the students. The problem is that private companies such as SoFi will never be competitive for higher risk borrowers as long as the government is giving them fairly generous terms. Also, the nice thing is that bankruptcy is a possibility for those that lend through private institutions rather than the government.
- xg15 11y ago
  As you say, such a market today is restricted to certain classes of students and certain majors which are economical. But without government intervention, why would this suddenly also work for majors which are not economical (but relevant for society) or for students which have a less good probability of success? My fear is that an exclusively private program could in the end kill those majors and/or keep a lot of people from studying that are still able to do so today.
  - bko 11y ago
    It's not that it doesn't work for less economical majors in less competitive schools. It's just that the market is crowded out by the availability of credit from government loans. If there were no government loans or were less restricted, banks would offer credit to those less credit worthy, however the interest rates would be higher (higher than those the government now offers). So incoming freshmen might see options like this: State school, engineering 5% interest State school, lib arts 8% interest Private school, engineering 7% Private school, lib arts 12% This would also be a huge signal in terms of assessing the value of a degree from a school. I'm not saying that those with higher interest rates are less desirable, but in terms of an investment, they are a riskier. The interest rates would be mostly determined by historical loan performance of those that went to those schools and majored in those fields.
    - xg15 11y ago
      That would certainly make economic sense for the lenders. But in effect it would impose a penalty for certain "bad-performing" majors. The criteria by which loans are granted, rejected or are given a higher interest rate would also be intransparent and not subject to public discussion. More importantly, it would demand the highest interest rates from the group of students that will presumably have the most trouble paying them. You say yourself that the interest rates would probably be higher than they are today. That sounds to me as if it would make crippling student debt more likely, not less.

api 11y ago

This happens to any good or service that everyone needs but that we stubbornly refuse to fund publically.

nickff 11y ago
No, most items which people want or need are provided through private exchange, and the prices do not spiral out of control. Examples of this include computers, televisions, food, and clothing.
- iofj 11y ago
  How does housing fit into this view ?
  - travisby 11y ago
    Housing that is artificially controlled by government loan interest rates, or by local government ensuring new housing doesn't get built?
bmj 11y ago
I'm not sure that everyone needs to go to college. Does a plumber, or electrician, or some other craftsperson that can learn via mentoring really need to spend fours at university? I don't really think so. That's always been my beef with the "college for everyone" movements. That instantly de-values jobs that don't require a college education.
- maaku 11y ago
  Craft/vocational schools are a different type of college that should also be funded.
- xg15 11y ago
  I'd wager to say though that jobs without college education are much more likely to be outsourced/automated than jobs with one. (The opposite is not true - a lot of jobs with college education might be automated as well) But anyway, your statement may be true but how do you determine who "needs" to go to college and who doesn't? If I (as a European) remember correctly, one of the US core values is the pursuit of happiness. That would imply to me that everyone should at least be given the chance to go to college - whether or not they decide to go (and graduate) is a different question.
  - bmj 11y ago
    How do you outsource an electrician, or a carpenter? If I (as a European) remember correctly, one of the US core values is the pursuit of happiness. That would imply to me that everyone should at least be given the chance to go to college - whether or not they decide to go (and graduate) is a different question. I don't disagree with this, necessarily. I disagree with rhetoric that implies if you don't go to college, you are a second class citizen.
    - the_gastropod 11y ago
      I think this problem comes from something a little deeper. The U.S. is still very classist, giving prestige to "white collar" jobs, and considering "blue collar" work to be inferior. I think college education is often thought of as a means to "white collar" work. Anecdotally, I think these tides may be slowly changing. I feel like a lot of people are beginning to see the value in craft (bakers, mechanics, carpenters, beer brewers, etc.)
    - xg15 11y ago
      How do you outsource an electrician, or a carpenter? I have no idea. But a few years ago, you could have said the same about truck or taxi drivers - and now it seems feasible that those jobs will be automated away in ten years. For electricians, you could imagine that IoT/home automation tech will change a lot: Home electrics could become more complex and more locked-down, requiring additional qualifications. In the worst case, independent electricians could find themselves in a similar situation that independent car repair shops are today. Or a company like TaskRabbit could employ their own electricians/plumbers/carpenters/etc... (at worse conditions) and decide to roll up the market. Those are wild guesses. But my point is that jobs may change quickly in the future. having a broad education and additional qualifications gives you a better chance to deal with "disruption" in your area. I disagree with rhetoric that implies if you don't go to college, you are a second class citizen. That's not what I wanted to tell. But I don't think we are in a position to decide that. And I don't think it's correct to simply assume that college education plays no role and to conclude from that assumption that it's OK if certain people never get the choice to go to college.
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
Like transportation?
- maaku 11y ago
  Surely you have heard of public transit?
  - tomp 11y ago
    Public transit is actually a very good example. The government is funding a service, which then has to compete with other providers. What the government does not do is pay for all transport, regardless of price. An analogy in education would be, government funds a certain jumber of public, free or low-cost universities, but you can also pay more to go to a better, private school (without the government paying/guaranteeing for it).
    - morgante 11y ago
      Yes, that seems like a great idea! The government should fund local universities throughout the country to ensure that cheap education is available for anyone who wants it. These low-cost universities should be in communities everywhere. Jokes aside, what we really should do is get government out of the business of paying for private education. In theory, joint public and private efforts sound good. In practice, they have all the flaws of both the private and public sectors and end up being inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. (cf. housing, military contractors, etc.)
      - tomp 11y ago
        > In practice, they have all the flaws of both the private and public sectors and end up being inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. (cf. housing, military contractors, etc.) Depends in which practice. In Europe (e.g. Slovenia), public universities are reasonably good, cheap (free), and serve the majority of the population. In the UK, I think council housing was a great idea - until they started selling it off (i.e. privatizing it).
jeffdavis 11y ago
You are confused about the word "need". People need food. But that doesn't mean caviar and champagne. People need education. They don't need an expensive social club that happens to teach. A need would be something more like a community college and less like Harvard. Or maybe if you are going into research, community college + graduate school at university. And that's a very generous definition of need.
- corin_ 11y ago
  At the risk of being a pedant, people don't need education either, it's just a very effective way of improving their quality of life. In particular, further education (after high school) - including community college - definitely isn't needed by any one individual (maybe it's needed by society, but that's different). (Personal experience tells me that champagne improves my quality of life, though I don't have a further education experience to compare it to.)
zeveb 11y ago
> This happens to any good or service that everyone needs but that we stubbornly refuse to fund publically. It also happens to any good or service we decide to fund publicly: the civil servants' unions which provide it insure that their members capture as much money as they can. Providing it publicly doesn't at all mean that it will be provided cheaply.

bko 11y ago

The obvious solution would be a private lending market. Such a market exists for credit-worthy students that go to prestigious universities in majors that are economical. SoFi runs such a program and can often undercut the government which doesn't care too much about the credit quality of the students. The problem is that private companies such as SoFi will never be competitive for higher risk borrowers as long as the government is giving them fairly generous terms. Also, the nice thing is that bankruptcy is a possibility for those that lend through private institutions rather than the government.

xg15 11y ago
As you say, such a market today is restricted to certain classes of students and certain majors which are economical. But without government intervention, why would this suddenly also work for majors which are not economical (but relevant for society) or for students which have a less good probability of success? My fear is that an exclusively private program could in the end kill those majors and/or keep a lot of people from studying that are still able to do so today.
- bko 11y ago
  It's not that it doesn't work for less economical majors in less competitive schools. It's just that the market is crowded out by the availability of credit from government loans. If there were no government loans or were less restricted, banks would offer credit to those less credit worthy, however the interest rates would be higher (higher than those the government now offers). So incoming freshmen might see options like this: State school, engineering 5% interest State school, lib arts 8% interest Private school, engineering 7% Private school, lib arts 12% This would also be a huge signal in terms of assessing the value of a degree from a school. I'm not saying that those with higher interest rates are less desirable, but in terms of an investment, they are a riskier. The interest rates would be mostly determined by historical loan performance of those that went to those schools and majored in those fields.
  - xg15 11y ago
    That would certainly make economic sense for the lenders. But in effect it would impose a penalty for certain "bad-performing" majors. The criteria by which loans are granted, rejected or are given a higher interest rate would also be intransparent and not subject to public discussion. More importantly, it would demand the highest interest rates from the group of students that will presumably have the most trouble paying them. You say yourself that the interest rates would probably be higher than they are today. That sounds to me as if it would make crippling student debt more likely, not less.