While college sticker prices have risen dramatically, the net cost of attending college has actually been decreasing for most students. This is due to the significant increase in grant aid and tax benefits, which offset the rising tuition costs. For lower-income students, the net price is often dramatically lower than the advertised sticker price. Although concerns about student loan debt are valid, the article argues that the real cost of a college degree, when considering financial aid, is more affordable than perceived, and continues to decline.
The Atlantic article, "Despite sticker prices, the real cost of getting a degree has been going down," posits a counterintuitive argument: while the published tuition costs of higher education in the United States have indeed skyrocketed over recent decades, the actual net price that students and their families pay for a college degree has, in many instances, been declining. This seemingly paradoxical situation arises from the significant, and often overlooked, role of financial aid, specifically grants and tax benefits targeted at defraying college expenses.
The author meticulously elaborates on this phenomenon, explaining that the highly publicized "sticker price" of college represents the total cost of attendance before factoring in any financial assistance. This figure, often dramatically high, can be misleading and contribute to the prevalent narrative of college affordability becoming increasingly out of reach. However, the author contends that a more accurate metric for evaluating the financial burden of higher education is the "net price," which represents the cost remaining after grants, scholarships, and tax credits are applied. This net price, the article argues, has been trending downwards for many students, especially those from lower and middle-income families.
The author supports this claim by referencing data demonstrating the substantial growth of grant aid and tax benefits aimed at college affordability. These programs, including the Pell Grant and various state-level initiatives, have effectively offset the escalating sticker prices for a significant portion of the student population. Furthermore, the article points out that the increasing availability of these financial aid options has broadened access to higher education for students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
The article also delves into the complex interplay between federal and institutional aid, highlighting how colleges and universities themselves often contribute substantial resources to financial aid packages. This institutional aid, combined with federal grants and tax benefits, creates a more nuanced and often more affordable reality than the sticker price might suggest.
However, the article acknowledges that this positive trend is not universal. It concedes that students from high-income families, who are less likely to qualify for need-based aid, may indeed be experiencing the full brunt of rising sticker prices. Additionally, the article acknowledges that even with increased grant aid, the cost of college can still represent a significant financial hurdle for many families, particularly those grappling with other economic challenges.
In conclusion, the article presents a compelling argument that the narrative of perpetually escalating college costs requires a more nuanced understanding. While sticker prices have undeniably risen, the expansion of grant aid and tax benefits has mitigated this increase for many students, resulting in a declining net price and making higher education more accessible than the headline-grabbing tuition figures might suggest. This does not negate the challenges that still exist regarding college affordability, but it does offer a more complete and arguably more optimistic perspective on the financial landscape of higher education.
Summary of Comments ( 177 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43769482
Hacker News commenters generally expressed support for NLnet's funding of open-source internet infrastructure projects. Several highlighted the importance of decentralization and moving away from reliance on large corporations. Some questioned the viability or impact of certain projects, particularly Matrix, while others championed its potential. A few commenters discussed the challenges of funding and sustaining open-source projects long-term, suggesting alternative funding mechanisms and emphasizing the need for community involvement. There was also a thread discussing the definition of "public internet" and whether these projects genuinely contribute to it.
The Hacker News post "Open Source Projects Receive Funding to Reclaim the Public Internet" (linking to an NLnet foundation grants announcement) generated several comments discussing the funded projects and the overall initiative.
Several commenters expressed enthusiasm for specific projects. One commenter highlighted the "Public money, public code" approach being taken by the Guix project, praising its commitment to software freedom and transparency. They further emphasized the importance of reproducible builds in ensuring the integrity and verifiability of software. Another user expressed excitement about the funding awarded to Qubes OS, citing its unique security model based on virtualization. They saw this as a crucial step towards strengthening online privacy and security. Another commenter, seemingly familiar with Qubes, added that the funding is particularly relevant given the recent surge in sophisticated malware attacks.
There was a discussion around the significance of funding open-source infrastructure projects. A commenter emphasized the crucial, yet often overlooked, role of such projects in underpinning the internet. They pointed out how these projects often operate with limited resources and how such funding can significantly impact their sustainability and development. This sentiment was echoed by another user who lamented the historical underfunding of public infrastructure in the digital realm, expressing hope that initiatives like NLnet's would pave the way for a more robust and publicly owned internet infrastructure.
One commenter focused on the legal aspects of open source, drawing attention to the importance of licenses and emphasizing their role in guaranteeing software freedoms. They expressed concern that without proper licensing, the positive impact of such funding could be diminished.
Several users engaged in a discussion about the technical merits of different projects. One thread discussed the complexities of decentralized systems and their potential to address issues of censorship and control. Another thread debated the advantages and disadvantages of particular software development methodologies.
Finally, some commenters broadened the discussion to the larger philosophical implications of a "public internet." They discussed the ongoing tension between centralized platforms and decentralized alternatives, and the importance of initiatives like this in promoting a more open and democratic internet. They viewed funding for open-source projects as a crucial step towards reclaiming the internet as a public good, rather than a space dominated by corporate interests.