Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

Employers are allowed to test students to see what they can do, but not evaluate them based on whether they went to school or where.

For those who are unaware, these tests are considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act because they result in hiring blacks at a much lower rate than whites.

A big underlying cause of that is that schools with lots of blacks are underfunded relative to schools with lots of whites.

Make student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy.

I support this. I thought that the 2005 change to the law that made it not dischargeable was a bad idea then, and we are seeing the predictable consequences now.

View on HN

> For those who are unaware, these tests are considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act because they result in hiring blacks at a much lower rate than whites.

Work sample tests are legal; otherwise we wouldn't see tech companies giving whiteboard interviews.

More general tests are not legal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.) unless you can demonstrate that they "bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used". On the other hand, they held that "neither the high school completion requirement nor the general intelligence test is shown to bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used" so I think there's a decent chance that the widespread use of college degrees as a filter is also already illegal. (Not a lawyer)

IQ tests aren’t blanket-banned; they just have additional hurdles. For instance, the Wonderlic test is routinely used in hiring contexts and is even part of the NFL scouting combine.

Even the SATs and ACTs (and most definitely the ASVAB) have significant overlap with IQ tests.

While the Wonderlic published, is it even used as a factor? Does a coach say "no linebackers who scored less than 18?"

Often it is used as a red flag when a prospect scores particularly low on the test. NFL playbooks are complex and there is a lot to learn and then apply in real time on the field compared to in college. Players who cannot process all of this added complexity rapidly and then apply it are at risk of not being able to keep up on the field, even if they are incredible athletes. This holds the most weight with quarterbacks who have the most to juggle mentally throughout a game, so you most often hear conversations about the wonderlic when talking about the quarterback position.

There’s actually rumors of upper limits because smart guys are perceived as harder to coach. For playbook memorization and decision-making though, high Wonderlic scores are usually expected for offensive line and QB’s.

Most students graduate with no assets so what would stop someone from graduating and declaring bankruptcy before they begin working? Would that not reduce the ease in getting student loans since banks would be reluctant to loan to someone that doesn't have a wealthy cosigner, effectively eliminating poorer people from attending?

You don't declare bankruptcy like Michael Scott by just yelling into a hallway. If college loans could be discharged, your fresh grad example still has to convince a court to discharge the loan. That's not likely to happen unless they also managed to rack up many tens of thousands of dollars in unsecured debt. No one is going to give a 22 year old that much unsecured credit so it would be pretty obvious they're trying to game the system.

At best they could attempt loan restructuring but even that would probably not be worth it. Student loans really don't need the bankruptcy protection they have. It's created a huge problem for a whole generation of adults that have been fucked over by three separate recessions in a twenty year span.

Your argument doesn’t sound very convincing. People declare bankruptcy now all the time; it’s quite easy actually if you really have no assets and don’t mind your credit ruined for 7 years or less.

You haven’t actually stated under what conditions you would be allowed to discharge your debt, you’re just trying to convince me that it wouldn’t be abused and also that we really need this to happen. Again, not very convincing.

There’s a reason student debt was made undischargeable right around the same time that the government started guaranteeing loans.

Isn't the risk of default/bankruptcy part of what justifies charging interest? If there is no risk for lenders, how do they justify charging interest?

Not being able to discharge a debt in bankruptcy doesn't make the loan zero risk. Even if you can garnish someone's income there's no guarantee that they'll ever make enough money for that to repay the loan.

The risk also isn't the only thing that justifies interest. Why would they let you borrow some of their money if they weren't getting some benefit from doing so?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com