> But this new test, known as "do no harm," raises some thorny questions about the purpose of college. Like: Is it just about making more money?
If this is a fair question to ask students, then it is a fair question to ask the schools as well. They are the ones charging enormous amounts of money to students for this.
This doesn’t prevent people from learning to paint or play the clarinet. It prevents students from taking out enormous loans for it.
I feel like I have not really heard a compelling reason why student debt should not be dischargeable thru bankruptcy like (afaik) all other forms of debt. I am curious what the ramifications would be if higher education institutions had to (in some form) co-sign the debt being issued.
I do get that not all education should be purely for economic reasons, but as an autodidact I feel that "learning for the sake of learning" does not need to come with the prices that people are paying for degrees.
> I feel like I have not really heard a compelling reason why student debt should not be dischargeable thru bankruptcy like (afaik) all other forms of debt.
According to Reddit [1] it was to discourage students from immediately declaring bankruptcy upon graduation.
I don't see why they couldn't have put a time limit on it though, if that was the reason. Say you can't declare bankruptcy for 7 years after you leave school.
If bankrupcy is allowed some reasonable number of years later (not sure if that is 7 or 10, but some reasonable time) then if your education worked out and you're in a good career path and maybe close to buying a home, etc, declaring bankrupcy would probably hurt more than help.
OTOH if you're still poor after those years and don't care about consequences of bankrupcy then maybe that's fair enough to wipe out the debt since the education clearly didn't provide value.
> declaring bankrupcy would probably hurt more than help.
It wouldn't help at all as you are typically forfeiting all but essential assets by declaring it. The only people who benefit are those with nothing to their name except perhaps the home they live in and the car they drive to work everyday.
What would stop graduates from declaring bankruptcy early in their careers to discharge their debt, before they use their education to build a lifetime of earnings and assets?
I'm all for "learning for the sake of learning", but the federal government doesn't need to subsidize it. Losing federal aid is not the same as not permitting colleges to run the programs at all. Supply/demand is still alive and well.
Because then the normal thing to do would be to graduate, declare bankruptcy when you have nothing to lose in life because you are just starting out, work for 7 years and you’re in the clear by your late 20s. Everyone would do it.
Gut feeling here is that this is going to result in significantly lower higher ed enrollment, and therefore a less educated populace.
Less federal aid means fewer students can afford our insanely expensive educational system. This will pull up the ladder on the younger generations.
We do not teach history or ethics, or much in general to our pipeline welders, but they make bank for their hard labor. Meanwhile our well educated school teachers are paid nearly nothing. Both are needed (although I would argue teachers more so). This is not fundamentally an issue of failing educational institutions (although they may well be lacking), but an issue of societal incentives. The welder is paid by the oil corporation; the teacher by a dwindling percentage of your tax dollars.
We are living in the information age yet we have a crisis of education. We desperately a solution that increases both educational access and quality for everyone regardless of their career path. We need more, better, cheaper education. We need more incentives for an educated populace. This does not achieve that: in fact it aggravates the issue.
> If a program cannot show that it leaves its graduates financially better off than if they had never enrolled, it should not be underwritten by federal taxpayers
Wouldn't this punish a huge number of students who struggle academically, by comparing them against better-achievers who simply skipped school?
The two populations being compared are entirely different for a lot of schools. Just because the average student skipping college does better than the average student attending a particular college, that doesn't mean the average one that attended college would've done as well as the average one that skipped.
>> If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college,
Lots of things affect earnings. Obviously education is one of them, but it's not the only one.
Location, economic environment, social status, personal network - all are factors. In other words comparing unequal things leads to unequal results.
For example, a first-generation college attendee gets a solid job working at a non-profit helping others. Someone else in the same town goes straight into Dad's profitable factory as a manager.
Of course those might be outliers. We can use statistics to smooth things. But equally we can use statistics to show anything we want.
Yes, there are lots of really crap colleges. There are colleges that specialize in nonsense degrees in useless subjects. (English Poetry you say? Hah. Poets never made any money...)
But equally there are lots of community colleges, taking in marginal students, giving them opportunities where others won't. Some, maybe most, of those students won't make it. But some will.
The effect of a rule like this is that colleges are forced to game the system. To exclude those who might fail. To reduce social mobility.
A cynic might even suggest this is the real goal of the rule to begin with.
Also unclear how it works for the PhD pipeline. If you roll straight from bachelor's to a doctorate program - you have abysmal earnings for the next 5-6 years of your life.
Indeed. Equally the person who has 4 Years experience in the workplace probably does better than a first year grad.
In other words, when trying to measure value outcomes, what time period should one consider?
And does the rule apply at the college level or the program level? If I churn out 100 people in my law school, can I average their prospects with 50 from my Archaeology degree? Or with 50 from my "music in movies" degree?
> Wouldn't this punish a huge number of students who struggle academically, by comparing them against better-achievers who simply skipped school?
Why would it not just compare them to the average person who skips school, which can be a combination of better and worse achievers? Is there some part I'm missing where the academically struggling are selectively compared to elite school-skippers?
I read the parent comment as claiming that some colleges select student bodies that are on average worse than the average of people who don't go to college at all.
I'm all for informed consent - publish the data - but leave the choice to the individual. The goal of education is self-improvement, not necessarily/only money.
The way student debt is (mis)managed is a different issue.
> whats the goal of government education subsidies
a more educated populace is a public and civic good on its own terms. Public funding for education is maybe partially for economic returns, but is mostly because education is a necessary part of a functioning democracy and a necessary part of living a good fulfilling life
Shifting the goalposts. For most of american history a high school education was considered sufficient to be part of a functioning democracy. If a music education (or whatever) is required to be part of democracy, then everyone should have it.
imo this is pants on head backwards. The whole problem with the current university system is that it has become exclusively a credentialing system that everyone uses to justify higher salaries. We’ve completely left the education part of it by the wayside…except for the liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn! This rule is just encoding the existing tulip mania into federal law directly, by making it clear that the ONLY reason one goes to school is for future $$$
Hopefully this will revamp the educational system in such a way that the pejoratively named "trade schools" can confer bachelor's degrees on their graduates as well.
I don't really see why some no name university can confer a bachelor's in some bullshit field, but the respectable local trade school cannot confer a bachelor's in plumbing. They honestly have more of a right to do so.
Why should there be a difference in the degree being conferred at all? And if so, why not split off the departments that confer degrees with a low-earning potential and call them "entertainment schools" or something?
> Why should there be a difference in the degree being conferred at all?
You are asking why there "should" be a difference between a CCNA cert and a Computer Science degree. That difference isn't a "should" thing, it's an "is" thing. They are fundamentally different.
> why not split off the departments that confer degrees with a low-earning potential
Earning potential is unrelated to the distinction between trade certification vs academic degrees.
What’s pejorative about the term trade school? Also the difference is a bachelors degree is conferred to people that have had a well rounded education, not a 6 month course on a highly specific niche.
This is not great. The purpose of higher education is not to get you a job. That's certainly a nice side-effect and I hope that all my students will be able to support themselves through good employment. The university is there to educate you, not train you. It's to turn you into a better thinker, a better person, and someone more capable of living well.
Making art and humanities programs demonstrate some kind of pecuniary benefit is disgusting and myopic. My wife pursued English because she loves writing. She's earned about 0 dollars from that degree because she's home with our kids. And that's OK! Our lives are so much richer because of her degree—as well as the classes I took from the English department. So we should penalize the humanities because it merely makes people better thinkers and doesn't have as high of an ROI as an MBA? Yuck!
(EDIT: the article does mention that this bar is low—so not too bad—but the fact that this is a metric and criteria in the first place opens this up to abuse in the near future.)
I get that it's intended to cut down on ballooning tuition and fees, but *this is not the right way to do that.* (Actually, if we eliminated half the administration, I wonder how much we could cut costs…)
> The purpose of higher education is not to get you a job.
This is the line universities give, knowing full well that the only reason students pay exorbitant tuitions is because bachelor’s degrees are necessary for most salaried jobs in the US. Schools want to have their cake and eat it too. If education isn’t about the money they should have no problem charging lower tuition rather than paying their presidents million dollar salaries.
The reason lecture halls are packed at 7:50am on a Monday is not because students are thrilled to learn how to take the derivative of a polynomial function, but because Calc 1 is a prerequisite to their engineering degree, which is a prerequisite to their job.
I agree with the value of studying arts, social sciences, etc. But why should taxpayers cover that? There are lots of online courses which could provide the same education for free. Community colleges also show that it's possible to provide a decent in-person education at a fraction of the cost of major universities. If we could get tuition under control, then federal tuition assistance would be fine, but also hardly necessary. Federal tuition assistance creates a perverse incentive.
Holy shit this is a great idea. I get the complaints about the arts, but colleges have enjoyed essentially unlimited patience for larding up their programs with extra fees, bullshit credit requirements, and more, for decades.
I don't personally think that efficiency should be the primary concern of colleges, but it should be a concern, and it just plain hasn't been for ages. And that indulgence has been cloaked in specious, ivory-tower claims about producing well-rounded students. "You can't complain about being require to take a 100-level history course because our job is to turn out renaissance scholars who can debate philosophy at cocktail parties before going to work doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with that."
All the while, those additional credit hours cost students a shitload of money and debt and take focus away from their actual fields of study.
Colleges and universities need a kick up the ass to make them actually give a shit about outcomes for their students. I'm not going to cry that they're getting one.
> "You can't complain about being require to take a 100-level history course because our job is to turn out renaissance scholars who can debate philosophy at cocktail parties before going to work doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with that."
> All the while, those additional credit hours cost students a shitload of money and debt and take focus away from their actual fields of study.
This is a straw-man. The purpose is not to turn people into renaissance scholars. It's to inculcate appreciation for what makes life worth living. An educated populace is also a requirement for a healthy democracy. Everyone ought to know some history at a minimum.
This is also a straw-man. You don't just need to establish that students should learn history, literature, etc -- you need to establish that 12 years of that is not enough, and they need to take an additional 4 years at a much higher cost. But why stop at 16 years? Why not 20 or 30 years? Clearly there are diminishing marginal returns. At some point you should trust students who are motivated to learn to continue their studies independently, rather than tacking it on as a massively expensive additional requirement to a vocational degree.
Clock hour schools have been held to this standard forever. It’s called gainful employment. It was always bullshit that credit hour schools didn’t have this standard, as if it was 1930 and colleges were here to help us think thoughts rather than as part of the jobs pipeline.
This is great. Those bullshit degrees are example of externalising costs and capturing profits.
Although, unfortunately, I suspect that this will be gamed by things like “this is super unique diploma” and there are no pros on market yet. Rotate that every 5 years and voila. I’m sure that every smart people are already thinking about schemes much more elaborate
This is wonderful. Hopefully this is an extinction level event for all of the toxic degree factories that were created just to take advantage of the non-dischargeable student loans. US tuition almost tripled in the last 15 years but the quality of education didn’t triple.
Trump himself took advantage of this by creating Trump university which was a for-profit degree mill.
All of those “schools” needs to be wiped off the map and hopefully get replaced by schools that show real value.
It was not a degree mill, it was a stupid real estate seminar scam like dozens of others. It's even exaggerating to call it a scam - it preyed on people who thought that Trump knew something about real estate that he could teach, and they pretty much got what they paid for (the wisdom of a known real estate failure who instead decided to become a brand.)
> But this new test, known as "do no harm," raises some thorny questions about the purpose of college. Like: Is it just about making more money?
If this is a fair question to ask students, then it is a fair question to ask the schools as well. They are the ones charging enormous amounts of money to students for this.
This doesn’t prevent people from learning to paint or play the clarinet. It prevents students from taking out enormous loans for it.
I feel like I have not really heard a compelling reason why student debt should not be dischargeable thru bankruptcy like (afaik) all other forms of debt. I am curious what the ramifications would be if higher education institutions had to (in some form) co-sign the debt being issued.
I do get that not all education should be purely for economic reasons, but as an autodidact I feel that "learning for the sake of learning" does not need to come with the prices that people are paying for degrees.
> I feel like I have not really heard a compelling reason why student debt should not be dischargeable thru bankruptcy like (afaik) all other forms of debt.
According to Reddit [1] it was to discourage students from immediately declaring bankruptcy upon graduation.
I don't see why they couldn't have put a time limit on it though, if that was the reason. Say you can't declare bankruptcy for 7 years after you leave school.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/ufejjg/why_ca...
> There is no evidence that students were actually doing this in any significant numbers.
premature optimization is the root of all evil. Seems like we shouldve actually shown that kids would do that before putting it into law
I feel the interests would rise to accommodate for all the bankruptcies that inevitably happen exactly 7 years after
If bankrupcy is allowed some reasonable number of years later (not sure if that is 7 or 10, but some reasonable time) then if your education worked out and you're in a good career path and maybe close to buying a home, etc, declaring bankrupcy would probably hurt more than help.
OTOH if you're still poor after those years and don't care about consequences of bankrupcy then maybe that's fair enough to wipe out the debt since the education clearly didn't provide value.
> declaring bankrupcy would probably hurt more than help.
It wouldn't help at all as you are typically forfeiting all but essential assets by declaring it. The only people who benefit are those with nothing to their name except perhaps the home they live in and the car they drive to work everyday.
I would think that in this case, credit would mostly go to people expected to not have negative net worth after that 7 year limit.
What would stop graduates from declaring bankruptcy early in their careers to discharge their debt, before they use their education to build a lifetime of earnings and assets?
I'm all for "learning for the sake of learning", but the federal government doesn't need to subsidize it. Losing federal aid is not the same as not permitting colleges to run the programs at all. Supply/demand is still alive and well.
Because then the normal thing to do would be to graduate, declare bankruptcy when you have nothing to lose in life because you are just starting out, work for 7 years and you’re in the clear by your late 20s. Everyone would do it.
Gut feeling here is that this is going to result in significantly lower higher ed enrollment, and therefore a less educated populace.
Less federal aid means fewer students can afford our insanely expensive educational system. This will pull up the ladder on the younger generations.
We do not teach history or ethics, or much in general to our pipeline welders, but they make bank for their hard labor. Meanwhile our well educated school teachers are paid nearly nothing. Both are needed (although I would argue teachers more so). This is not fundamentally an issue of failing educational institutions (although they may well be lacking), but an issue of societal incentives. The welder is paid by the oil corporation; the teacher by a dwindling percentage of your tax dollars.
We are living in the information age yet we have a crisis of education. We desperately a solution that increases both educational access and quality for everyone regardless of their career path. We need more, better, cheaper education. We need more incentives for an educated populace. This does not achieve that: in fact it aggravates the issue.
> Less federal aid means fewer students can afford our insanely expensive educational system
Are we sure about this or is federal aid one of the reasons education is so expensive?
From the article this mainly affects for profit colleges.
Also, if history and philosophy are so important maybe we can come up with a more affordable way to teach them to people those things than university.
> If a program cannot show that it leaves its graduates financially better off than if they had never enrolled, it should not be underwritten by federal taxpayers
Wouldn't this punish a huge number of students who struggle academically, by comparing them against better-achievers who simply skipped school?
The two populations being compared are entirely different for a lot of schools. Just because the average student skipping college does better than the average student attending a particular college, that doesn't mean the average one that attended college would've done as well as the average one that skipped.
It's much more complicated than that.
>> If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college,
Lots of things affect earnings. Obviously education is one of them, but it's not the only one.
Location, economic environment, social status, personal network - all are factors. In other words comparing unequal things leads to unequal results.
For example, a first-generation college attendee gets a solid job working at a non-profit helping others. Someone else in the same town goes straight into Dad's profitable factory as a manager.
Of course those might be outliers. We can use statistics to smooth things. But equally we can use statistics to show anything we want.
Yes, there are lots of really crap colleges. There are colleges that specialize in nonsense degrees in useless subjects. (English Poetry you say? Hah. Poets never made any money...)
But equally there are lots of community colleges, taking in marginal students, giving them opportunities where others won't. Some, maybe most, of those students won't make it. But some will.
The effect of a rule like this is that colleges are forced to game the system. To exclude those who might fail. To reduce social mobility.
A cynic might even suggest this is the real goal of the rule to begin with.
Also unclear how it works for the PhD pipeline. If you roll straight from bachelor's to a doctorate program - you have abysmal earnings for the next 5-6 years of your life.
Indeed. Equally the person who has 4 Years experience in the workplace probably does better than a first year grad.
In other words, when trying to measure value outcomes, what time period should one consider?
And does the rule apply at the college level or the program level? If I churn out 100 people in my law school, can I average their prospects with 50 from my Archaeology degree? Or with 50 from my "music in movies" degree?
> Wouldn't this punish a huge number of students who struggle academically, by comparing them against better-achievers who simply skipped school?
Why would it not just compare them to the average person who skips school, which can be a combination of better and worse achievers? Is there some part I'm missing where the academically struggling are selectively compared to elite school-skippers?
I read the parent comment as claiming that some colleges select student bodies that are on average worse than the average of people who don't go to college at all.
It would definitely punish hosting degree programs that have poor career prospects and outcomes.
Do those students deserve lifelong debt they cannot discharge?
I'm all for informed consent - publish the data - but leave the choice to the individual. The goal of education is self-improvement, not necessarily/only money.
The way student debt is (mis)managed is a different issue.
I agree with you on the goal of education. But whats the goal of government education subsidies?
> whats the goal of government education subsidies
a more educated populace is a public and civic good on its own terms. Public funding for education is maybe partially for economic returns, but is mostly because education is a necessary part of a functioning democracy and a necessary part of living a good fulfilling life
So have community things where people give free lectures at the local library or whatever.
Shifting the goalposts. For most of american history a high school education was considered sufficient to be part of a functioning democracy. If a music education (or whatever) is required to be part of democracy, then everyone should have it.
To help people get the education that they want. Not pick winners/losers.
They're not picking. They're rewarding.
imo this is pants on head backwards. The whole problem with the current university system is that it has become exclusively a credentialing system that everyone uses to justify higher salaries. We’ve completely left the education part of it by the wayside…except for the liberal arts majors who are actually there just to learn! This rule is just encoding the existing tulip mania into federal law directly, by making it clear that the ONLY reason one goes to school is for future $$$
Hopefully this will revamp the educational system in such a way that the pejoratively named "trade schools" can confer bachelor's degrees on their graduates as well.
I don't really see why some no name university can confer a bachelor's in some bullshit field, but the respectable local trade school cannot confer a bachelor's in plumbing. They honestly have more of a right to do so.
> pejoratively named "trade schools"
That's an accurate name, and only seems pejorative if you see learning a trade as lesser than studying academics.
> name university can confer a bachelor's in some bullshit field, but the respectable local trade school cannot confer a bachelor's in plumbing
This misunderstands what the different kinds of credentials are.
You're hiding behind semantics.
Why should there be a difference in the degree being conferred at all? And if so, why not split off the departments that confer degrees with a low-earning potential and call them "entertainment schools" or something?
> Why should there be a difference in the degree being conferred at all?
You are asking why there "should" be a difference between a CCNA cert and a Computer Science degree. That difference isn't a "should" thing, it's an "is" thing. They are fundamentally different.
> why not split off the departments that confer degrees with a low-earning potential
Earning potential is unrelated to the distinction between trade certification vs academic degrees.
A baccalaureate is an academic degree, which is not what trade employers are looking for. They want certifications and licenses.
Licensing and degrees are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of engineers take licensing exams (CS degree holders are a large exception).
They usually need their employees to have certifications and licenses, by law.
What’s pejorative about the term trade school? Also the difference is a bachelors degree is conferred to people that have had a well rounded education, not a 6 month course on a highly specific niche.
This is not great. The purpose of higher education is not to get you a job. That's certainly a nice side-effect and I hope that all my students will be able to support themselves through good employment. The university is there to educate you, not train you. It's to turn you into a better thinker, a better person, and someone more capable of living well.
Making art and humanities programs demonstrate some kind of pecuniary benefit is disgusting and myopic. My wife pursued English because she loves writing. She's earned about 0 dollars from that degree because she's home with our kids. And that's OK! Our lives are so much richer because of her degree—as well as the classes I took from the English department. So we should penalize the humanities because it merely makes people better thinkers and doesn't have as high of an ROI as an MBA? Yuck!
(EDIT: the article does mention that this bar is low—so not too bad—but the fact that this is a metric and criteria in the first place opens this up to abuse in the near future.)
I get that it's intended to cut down on ballooning tuition and fees, but *this is not the right way to do that.* (Actually, if we eliminated half the administration, I wonder how much we could cut costs…)
> The purpose of higher education is not to get you a job.
This is the line universities give, knowing full well that the only reason students pay exorbitant tuitions is because bachelor’s degrees are necessary for most salaried jobs in the US. Schools want to have their cake and eat it too. If education isn’t about the money they should have no problem charging lower tuition rather than paying their presidents million dollar salaries.
The reason lecture halls are packed at 7:50am on a Monday is not because students are thrilled to learn how to take the derivative of a polynomial function, but because Calc 1 is a prerequisite to their engineering degree, which is a prerequisite to their job.
I agree with the value of studying arts, social sciences, etc. But why should taxpayers cover that? There are lots of online courses which could provide the same education for free. Community colleges also show that it's possible to provide a decent in-person education at a fraction of the cost of major universities. If we could get tuition under control, then federal tuition assistance would be fine, but also hardly necessary. Federal tuition assistance creates a perverse incentive.
Holy shit this is a great idea. I get the complaints about the arts, but colleges have enjoyed essentially unlimited patience for larding up their programs with extra fees, bullshit credit requirements, and more, for decades.
I don't personally think that efficiency should be the primary concern of colleges, but it should be a concern, and it just plain hasn't been for ages. And that indulgence has been cloaked in specious, ivory-tower claims about producing well-rounded students. "You can't complain about being require to take a 100-level history course because our job is to turn out renaissance scholars who can debate philosophy at cocktail parties before going to work doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with that."
All the while, those additional credit hours cost students a shitload of money and debt and take focus away from their actual fields of study.
Colleges and universities need a kick up the ass to make them actually give a shit about outcomes for their students. I'm not going to cry that they're getting one.
> "You can't complain about being require to take a 100-level history course because our job is to turn out renaissance scholars who can debate philosophy at cocktail parties before going to work doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with that."
> All the while, those additional credit hours cost students a shitload of money and debt and take focus away from their actual fields of study.
This is a straw-man. The purpose is not to turn people into renaissance scholars. It's to inculcate appreciation for what makes life worth living. An educated populace is also a requirement for a healthy democracy. Everyone ought to know some history at a minimum.
This is also a straw-man. You don't just need to establish that students should learn history, literature, etc -- you need to establish that 12 years of that is not enough, and they need to take an additional 4 years at a much higher cost. But why stop at 16 years? Why not 20 or 30 years? Clearly there are diminishing marginal returns. At some point you should trust students who are motivated to learn to continue their studies independently, rather than tacking it on as a massively expensive additional requirement to a vocational degree.
Engineers are part of the petite bourgeoisie so they need to speak appropriately to the monied class.
With all the layoffs I wonder how that will turn out
Easy, make non college folks worse off.
Clock hour schools have been held to this standard forever. It’s called gainful employment. It was always bullshit that credit hour schools didn’t have this standard, as if it was 1930 and colleges were here to help us think thoughts rather than as part of the jobs pipeline.
This is great. Those bullshit degrees are example of externalising costs and capturing profits.
Although, unfortunately, I suspect that this will be gamed by things like “this is super unique diploma” and there are no pros on market yet. Rotate that every 5 years and voila. I’m sure that every smart people are already thinking about schemes much more elaborate
This is wonderful. Hopefully this is an extinction level event for all of the toxic degree factories that were created just to take advantage of the non-dischargeable student loans. US tuition almost tripled in the last 15 years but the quality of education didn’t triple.
Trump himself took advantage of this by creating Trump university which was a for-profit degree mill.
All of those “schools” needs to be wiped off the map and hopefully get replaced by schools that show real value.
TrumpU was never eligible for federal funds of any kind, including students loans, as it never sought accreditation.
It was not a degree mill, it was a stupid real estate seminar scam like dozens of others. It's even exaggerating to call it a scam - it preyed on people who thought that Trump knew something about real estate that he could teach, and they pretty much got what they paid for (the wisdom of a known real estate failure who instead decided to become a brand.)