<p>marite - I don't know the figures, but I'll bet that if most students do commute, they don't necessarily commute from home.</p>
<p>^^So they need to figure the cost of room and board plus transportation in their COA, right?</p>
<p>EDIT: I was wrong about the COA at UMass-Amherst.
Tuition for MA residents last year was $9,6k. Room and board was $7k, for a total of approximately $16.6k per year, not $20k. I do not think that students could live more cheaply if they did not live at home; transportation, especially by car, would add another couple of thousand dollars at least.</p>
<p>U-U-Dad, I actually agree with you regarding the need for a public/private split, with private schools doing... whatever it is they want to do. But at the same time, I also basically agree with the principle that
[quote]
any student should have carte blanche to spare no expense on their education and then choose any career regardless of the expenses they've racked up and leave it to the taxpayers to make up the difference?
[/quote]
as long as we understand that that education should come at a publicly funded university, for which academic merit is the sole criteria for admission - and that the public universities are funded at the same level as privates. Because an investment in the best education that our kids generation can attain is an investment in our nation's future - not just the future of the affected students. Limiting many of them due to financial restraints is penny-wise and pound-foolish. So many of the decisions made by our generation have been for our short-term benefit and at the cost of future generations. The logic that our grandparent's generation saw in free public K-12 education is equally compelling at the collegiate level today. </p>
<p>We've neglected our national infrastructure while piling on unnecessary national debt, we've subordinated basic scientific research to short term political gain, and we've slowly starved public education at the post-secondary level in order for cheap politicians to be able to crow "I'm a tax cutter!!!". For what? Incomes for all but the most affluent have been stagnant for 30 years. For the first time the average 30 year old man earns less than his father did when he was 30. Is this something we should take pride in?</p>
<p>P.S. - I agree with you regarding SDSU - it's a tremendous bargain for the locals - one of my kids goes there, even though we're not local (although the fees have gone up by $400 per year since last year, so your data is a little out of date.). But for my next two kids, who are significantly more academically blessed than their older brother, it's really not a good "fit." And there's no UC within commute distance. So what do you do then?</p>
<p>"^^So they need to figure the cost of room and board plus transportation in their COA, right?"</p>
<p>Yes. That's where the 17,000+ ( and 19000+ in some areas) comes in.</p>
<p>Although that wouldn't cover the cost of a car or insurance.<br>
850.00 for transportation? Gas, maybe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do most students at SDSU commute? I know that most students at UMass-Amherst do not. Amherst is in a fairly isolated spot.
[/quote]
I'm not sure of the % but SDSU is in the heart of San Diego and has on-campus housing as well as plenty of adjacent off-campus apartments, etc. where lots of students live. It's really a mix of on-campus, just off-campus (not @home) and commuters. I mentioned the colleague with the 5 kids who all commute. I have another colleague whose D lived on campus the first year then moved to a nearby off-campus apartment after that. There's enough of a 'campus atmosphere' to earn SDSU rankings as one of the nation's top party schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Over $70,000 for the cheapest on-campus 4-yearcollege experience seems pretty steep to me.
[/quote]
But I'm saying that for many (perhaps not all), living on-campus or on their on off-campus isn't needed. It's nice to have, but not needed. In California there are Cal State Unis in most major metropolitan areas.</p>
<p>I didn't quote an even less expensive route - CC followed by State U while living at home. It can be even less expensive if one has many AP credits. My Ds both could have obtained a BA (if that's what they wanted) in probably less that 3 years due to many AP credits as I'm sure is true for many others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also basically agree with the principle that...any student should have carte blanche to spare no expense on their education and then choose any career regardless of the expenses they've racked up and leave it to the taxpayers to make up the difference...
[/quote]
If I read your post right, then I think you're basically saying that all public college education should be at no charge to the student. Is this right? If so, then it'd be interesting to determine the cost of such a program to the taxpayers and also how it'd affect the students given that they have less of an incentive (no financial incentive) in maximizing their returns - i.e. one could 'play at' taking whatever classes they want, multiple degrees even in relatively useless fields, advanced degrees without ever applying any, etc. I suppose this could be mitigated somewhat by rules. I see many downsides (cost, lack of incentive) but I see some upsides (perhaps a better educated public but maybe not) as well.</p>
<p>asap:</p>
<p>The cost of transportation will of course vary. For a significant percentage of San Diego county residents it should cost no more than I stated above - around $330 per year total for public transportation. This particular campus is quite well-served by public transport. Other state Unis might not be quite as well served. Of course they might not WANT to take public transport but now we're back into the difference between wants and needs.</p>
<p>SDSU is only one among many public university campuses. It is indeed lucky to be well served by public transport. I know quite a few others that are in the middle of vast cornfields.</p>
<p>Aren't most buses in the area park and ride systems? How realistic is it to be without a car if you live off campus? Not arguing, just wondering.</p>
<p>Someone has to be there for you at the end of the line, no?</p>
<p>SDSU has a San Diego Trolley light rail stop on-campus in addition to buses. Between the trolley and the buses that campus is particulary well-served. The other Cal State campus in the county, Cal State San Marcos, will shortly be served by another new light rail system that's being built and will open shortly. I know it's unusual in California and other places to have the state colleges served by light rail systems. </p>
<p>I'm not sure about the buses in the SDSU part of town but my D rode both the city bus and the campus shuttle (depending on the time and how crowded they are) to UCSD frequently from her off-campus apartment. The bus stopped throughout the neighborhood and actually stopped right outside her apartment complex and also on campus. She didn't need a car and even when she had access to one took the bus to campus anyway because it was more convenient and less expensive ($0) than parking a car on campus ($500). Most students at UCSD who don't live on campus and aren't commuting live in that area that's very well served by a campus shuttle as well as city buses. </p>
<p>The buses around my area in San Diego county also go through neighborhoods such that one generally doesn't have to walk all that far to a stop. There are also more 'express' buses that go between more major points.</p>
<p>
[quote]
True, colleges will be able to charge more. Do you see a better solution, apart from capping tuition at privates?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are lots of better solutions. For one thing, they could phase out all of the student loan and grant programs and use the money to provide the services directly to students at a low or no cost. That's how legal services for the poor are provided. If an indigent person needs a public defender, he doesn't receive a government loan to hire a lawyer. Instead, he gets a public defender assigned to him who is paid directly by the government. If the government funded legal services through a loan program, attorneys everywhere would be ecstatic. Because we could just raise our fees to capture most or all of the loan amounts.</p>
<p>Alternatively, one could look at the way the government funds medical services for the poor. A private doctor performs the services and then applies to the government for reimbursement, which is granted according to a schedule. This keeps costs under control. What do you suppose would happen if the government had a loan program so that people could purchase medical services and doctors were free to charge as much as they like? Obviously doctors would raise their fees to capture the full amount of the available loan.</p>
<p>I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that government loan and grant programs mainly benefit colleges and not students.</p>
<p>Why can't you be a senator?</p>
<p>Be careful what you wish for. I recently talked to a med student who had signed up for a government program that would pay her tuition in exchange for providing medical services for a period of a few years to a needed area. At the time she was interested in OB/GYN and it was a perfect fit for the program. Unfortunately after about a semester on the OB/GYN track at her med school, she decided that she HATED OB/GYN and wanted to become a emergency room doctor. Guess what? The government program didn't need/want emergency room doctors.</p>
<p>Simple solution - just repay the government the cost of the tuition advanced. No! The government contract required her to repay three times (3X) the amount advanced or comply with the agreement and do something she hated. It also meant that she would have to do her internship and residency in a field she had no interest in, serve her time commitment, and then begin her internship and residency in a field she was interested in.</p>