<p>Basically, the author is arguing that the 'college cost' inflation is a myth, in that while real rates of tuition have soared, that the actual cost to parents and students has not gone up that much........(they cite 12k a year average for private, 4k or so in state)....</p>
<p>Personally I think the article is a classic example of what Twain said about lies, d**n lies and statistics...it doesn't take into account there are a lot of 'colleges' in this country that are basically glorified trade schools that have called themselves a college, the online schools known for sucking federal dollars, and also leaves out that most colleges these days are pushing well over 40k a year, many well above that, and that outside the Ivies, who are known for generous aid, most schools to get aid you have to be pretty modest family income. Worse, it also leaves out that a lot of schools are reporting student loans as part of their aid package, which might make them seem affordable, but it isn't. Talking to peers, neighbors and acquaintances, what I see is that what they consider expected contribution also doesn't reflect real cost of living, that they seem to have the same expected contribution with a family income of X in a high cost area or a lower cost one...and people are footing the bill, or using loans to pay it. </p>
<p>Given that the cost of my college has gone up more than 10X over 40 years while costs of other like things have not, and this is typical of private colleges, I do believe the article is not correct. Because my father was a government service worker. it’s very easy to check what he was making 40 years ago and what someone in such a position would be making today. I guarantee you the college costs and salaries do not mesh. Also the area where we lived has not change much, and the rent for a 2 BR flat was about $240 a month. Today, about $600, not $2400+ a month which it should be to keep up with what the college now charges. The only thing that comes to mind that has gone down greatly in price from those days are those HP calculators. Those babies cost an arm and a leg when they first hit the market. I still remember being in awe about them. Once can get a computer today for the prices in the 70s for them.</p>
<p>I think the problem with article is that whether or not it’s accurate largely depends on your situation. For a high stat low income student the article’s premise is probably accurate. For an average stat upper middle to upper class student not so much. I think it’s impossible to speak of an average cost other than the listed tuition as it pertains to any individual student. Finances, grades (and all), and school financial aid policies make determining your cost all but impossible until you receive the financial aid package.</p>
<p>The article is correct in that my father’s expected contributions came to about half his income which is what the cost is these days too. But it’s just a lot easier to get ahold of few thousand dollars than when the amount is $30K Even back then, it was just not as difficult to get $3K as it is to get ahold of $$30K today. </p>
<p>The writer’s point that the government’s 107% rate may be overstated may be true, but a 60% increase (after adjusting for the change in the value of a dollar) is still significant and it’s still increasing at a rate far greater than health care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t argue against the value of a college education, but looking at tuition only is a bit misleading, especially at public universities. Room and Board (and books) can more than double your cost at public universities. Then again, $48,000+ for four years tuition at a private college isn’t cheap. :)</p>
<p>“The article is correct in that my father’s expected contributions came to about half his income which is what the cost is these days too.”</p>
<p>Well, another issue is that US income distribution is a wider bell curve than it was one and two generations ago. There are proportionally fewer families earning close to the median income and more families at the extremes. So the median income is a less informative guide to a typical family’s experience than it used to be.</p>
<p>The article misses the largest problem. Not only has college costs risen more rapidly than inflation, but the ROI has eroded drastically in the past decade. </p>
<p>Looking into the future is a lot different from looking at the past 30 years! </p>
<p>The life of a student graduating with 100,000 of debt will be quite different from one who graduated in 1980 with 10,000 of debt. Even the financial return of top MBA (that in theory lead to a world of riches) has come under scrutiny. Should make you shudder thinking about a degree in an obscure LAC subject that comes at a cost of well above 200,000 dollars. How do the economics work for a Sarah Lawrence graduate who spent such sum to land a job in New York that pays 45,000 per year a decade later? </p>
<p>While there are students who earn huge paychecks a few years out of school, those remain exceptions. On the other hand, the number of underemployed and underpaid recent graduates is staggering, and that does not even address the students who jumped into graduate studies to avoid embarrassing their parents’ circle of friends. </p>
<p>Take a closer look at the HYPS graduates who decided to join the Peace Corps or TFA! One might think they did it out of dedication to service, and others that it was meant to look good before rejoining a well-paid workforce. </p>
<p>Looking at the sole cost of education is a fools’ errand. One needs to look at the potential return on investing in a specific education. That return is extremely bleak for the overwhelming majority of students, and perhaps atrocious for the millions who borrowed their way through school. It is not hard to imagine that the next crisis will be one of students’ debt. </p>
<p>The other factor they don’t talk about is that at a lot of schools, even merit aid is based on financial need. I have seen kids from (barely) upper middle income families, who had the stats to drool for, all the AP’s, 2200+ SAT’s, gpa’s at 4.0, EC’s, etc, get into schools, only to be told they didn’t qualify for merit aid. I have heard people who talk about their S getting a full ride because of academics, but if you get them to talk about family income, it becomes kind of obvious that a needs test was applied there, too. Some schools are better at aid (the Ivies are known for a broader based aid formula), but the reality is that the ‘real’ rate of cost of college is higher than they say. The other factor is that against the backdrop of other costs people face, of housing, food, gasoline and so forth, family incomes during that period have declined in terms of money available to spend on tuition, so it has become more costly just by that factor. </p>