<p>Hmm, that’s an interesting statement, because part of my decision to go to a “top” school was because the financial aid they provided far exceeded any other offers I received (i.e. full-ride vs. many loans at other “lower level” schools). </p>
<hr>
<p>Anyhow, I do agree with others that the mentality that “everyone should go to college” shouldn’t really be enforced. I mean, the world needs its share of plumbers, electricians, mechanics, etc.</p>
<p>However, I disagree that college doesn’t bring anything more than an “online course” per se. College is really a time to grow and improve yourself for the world beyond schooling. You gain experiences from college (both academic and social skills) that simply cannot be gained at home and online. If four-year colleges are too expensive, look to community or junior college.</p>
<p>Anyhow, those who argue that college simply isn’t “affordable” probably aren’t using their money the right way. I come from a very impoverished background where my family has had to work from day-to-day and we’ve still managed to pay for college. Simply put, people should first learn how to spend their money correctly before blaming “high prices”.</p>
<p>Yet college costs have risen in extreme amounts over the past few decades. Somehow I don’t think “manage your money better” has anything to do with this phenomenon.</p>
<p>Apples and oranges. The most prestigious schools typically only offer need-based aid, so students who come from middle-class backgrounds don’t get substantial aid packages. In my own case, my finances dictated that I had to go with whatever school offered me the most merit aid (I didn’t get any substantial need-based aid from any school, even “top” schools).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or more accurately, their parents need to use their money the right way. I come from a middle-class background and my parents weren’t going to be able to pay more than about $25k of my college expenses. That somewhat limited my options, given that most private universities carry a $200k price tag.</p>
<p>My education is “affordable”, but that’s because I went on an academic scholarship from a mid-tier school rather than attending a “top” school.</p>
<p>America’s university system is based on tradition. Doesn’t this go back to the days of the Greeks? Thinkers, researchers, pioneers (i.e. professors at research universities) teach you. You learn the latest information from those who are actually discovering that information. The point is to obtain knowledge. Are we treating “college” like professional training? I think that’s the wrong mindset. It’s obvious that you don’t need a college degree to succeed in the working world.</p>
<p>So we should ignore all the benefits of the computer revolution and all of the negatives of the looming student debt crisis, all in the name of “tradition”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Time and time again, recent history has shown that innovation isn’t tied to some “creative lab” where all of the great ideas are thought. Look up the history of the mountain bike, for example.</p>
<p>And again – the internet. Try using it sometime. It has this neato ability to transfer information easily across physical boundaries.</p>
<p>Of course, if you’re talking about deep scientific research, that’s different. However, that goes on at the graduate level. Undergraduate education =/= researchers.</p>
<p>My earlier point was: Very few people can write well, or communicate well. (I’m sure this subgroup does not include me, btw.) If you attended college, chances are your communication is much improved, thanks to the experience. </p>
<p>At a tough liberal arts college, you either learn to communicate, or you perish. The people who can communicate well are the people who succeed in this world. In offices, factories, fast food joints, or anyplace else.</p>
<p>Does everybody need this experience to succeed? No. Are too many people herded into college for lack of better alternatives? At the moment, certainly. For those who thrive as undergraduates, what’s the ROI? Incalculably high.</p>
<p>If you live in a college town, you can almost receive all the education of a college student without paying a penny, as majority college of the classrooms and libraries are open for visitors. U can simply go to lectures you want and learn and make friends…
The only difference is that you wont get the degree and transcripts that will get you a job.</p>
<p>companies wont even interview you if all you can say is “I have been in following classes in MIT and I learnt fairly well…”</p>
<p>The title (and subsequent argument) of the article at the beginning of this post conflates a college education with real assets such as houses, precious metals like gold, or shares of companies. Unlike a real asset (in the economic sense,) a college education cannot be bought, sold, or securitized. There is not and never will be a college tuition bubble; it is not an asset. A college education is a service which students pay for. To lead the reader on that there is reason to hope the college tuition “bubble” will burst is misleading at best. </p>
<p>With annual costs at many universities exceeding $50,000/year, I think that the rate of growth of tuition costs will begin to stagnate, but such a phenomena would in no way resemble a burst of a bubble in which tuition costs are suddenly significantly lower than they were before.</p>
<p>Hmm, costs for everything in general have risen over the past few decades – as have the median incomes for American families. That isn’t to say that I’m completely in contention of the fact that college costs have risen at an even greater rate, but the country in and of itself has grown as well.</p>
<hr>
<p>To reevaluate a point I previously made about college being affordable to all and nearly everything having to do with money management…</p>
<p>There’s certainly no urgent reason for those in the lower and upper income brackets to complain about the rising costs of education. I do agree, however, that middle to upper-middle class families suffer exorbitant costs under the current system. </p>
<p>I can’t really speak for private universities and their costs, but public/state universities are more likely than not accommodating for lack of state funds.</p>
<p>The article talks about a bubble bursting, and basically says that tuition simply can’t rise as fast as its been rising. This maybe true. Here is what I think will happen or is happening already.</p>
<ol>
<li> Far fewer students enrolling in four your colleges. Instead they choose technical colleges or go to a community college for two years and then transfer.</li>
</ol>
<p>-Because of this many liberal arts schools will simply close their doors. Especially, liberal arts that are high priced, offer no real world skills, and are not prestigious(one can certainly argue what prestigious means…perhaps use usnews(I have deep problems with usnews)…gradschool placement etc.) I think this is already starting to happen…a relevant article…[Jobs:</a> The Economy, Killing Liberal Arts Education? - Newsweek](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/04/the-death-of-liberal-arts.html]Jobs:”>Jobs: The Economy, Killing Liberal Arts Education?)</p>
<p>The cost of attending “top” private schools is, to put it gently, f-ing ridiculous. The hubris it takes to charge $8480.00/year (e.g. at Cornell) for a 9’x8’ un-airconditioned box to live in is incomprehensible. And $5000/year for 14 meals per week when the dining halls are only open like 4 hours a day?? $145 for a gym membership that should be free for students?? $750 for a parking permit? I don’t understand how these administrators sleep at night, the cognitive dissonance must be suffocating. </p>
<p>Anyway, much like the mortgage crisis, the consumers (myself included) are partly to blame for making finanical decisions based on the hype and astronomical BS that the schools disseminate. (The universities, however, and Collegeboard and Kaplan and unscrupulous former admissions officers who prey on stupid but wealthy suburban parents in the tristate area, CA, and Chicago suburbs are mostly to blame) And just like the mortgage lenders didn’t bother themselves to verify the financial suitability of their borrowers, the schools have zero impetus to care about whether the majority of their consumer base (middle class families) can afford $52K/year because they know everyone will end up taking dangerous amounts of federal/private/home equity loans to pay, blindly convinced that a $205K bachelors degrees makes fiscal sense due the aforementioned bulls**t that the colleges iniatially propegated.</p>
<p>The higher ed product is very diversified in offerings. You can stay home, commute, take classes on a computer or you can go to the local state u or even go across the country. There’s lots of choices and for the most part a price to fit every budget. The top colleges, the ones charging 50K or more aren’t having much trouble filling their seats, in fact they are turning away more people than ever. Same can be said for most state colleges. I suspect there will be a small group of colleges, liberal arts, technical, for profit that will not survive the current economic crisis without change, but that group will be relatively small. They will not have the endowment resources to survive a downswing in enrollment and will consolidate with other colleges or make other changes. I’ll bet very few colleges will actually go out of business. As for price at the top colleges we talk about here on CC, probably see increases under 5% a year for the next few years.</p>
<p>That said, I think we will continue to see the stratification of college access along income lines and increased competition for upper middle class and wealthy students.</p>
<p>I agree with a lot of your post. I think the government subsidies have played a big role in jacking up the price. Then the availability of easy credit. Then the general mania for a brand college experience, similar to the mania for the houses so many really didn’t need or could afford. </p>
<p>There are many corollaries to the housing bubble.</p>
<p>I’m one of the suburban crazies paying 200k to send a kid to an elite. Yeah, I guess the elite aspect may open some doors for him but honestly - I don’t know what we were thinking.</p>
<p>Government subsidies other than loans have very little effect on private colleges especially liberal arts colleges. At the undergrad level the federal gov provides very little aid to private colleges. At the state college level, these schools are usually partially or fully supported by the states and in most states per student subsidy levels have not risen much or in many cases actually declined. Blaming cost increases on gov subsidy outside of loans is not accurate.</p>
<p>Loans of course are a whole other story and very much like the housing industry bubble. But they’re very popular with the public, politicians and the banks.</p>