<p>"To my thinking, ID has substantively demonstrated the subsidies are there. There is nothing in Swarthmore's accounting that would be different had similar accounting been done at a state u."</p>
<p>The fact that Swat's accounting isn't different than other schools is irrelevant.</p>
<p>The tuition the students pay is very close to the educational expenses.</p>
<p>Not even close. Of course, if you hired a bunch of Socrates' and had the students walk around in city streets and assumed that simply keeping the Socrates' in food and clothing was the only "educational expense", you might be close to being correct.</p>
<p>But again, if you like the Socrates' approach, you could try the University of Phoenix. Or better, I'll sell you a diploma (I'm having a sale!)</p>
<p>Do you believe that marketing costs, the admission office, debt service, costs of managing the endowment, fringe benefits, other administration costs, etc. are educational costs?</p>
<p>Absolutely. The admissions office ensures a community of peers - the best possible class and learning environment. The debt service makes possible the building of new science facilities. The management of the endowment is critical to providing a percentage of it for use in all educational activities, and its growth is critical to future educational quality. Fringe benefits are often the deal-breaker in bringing the best possible faculty to an institution and keeping them. "Other" administration costs - you have to tell me which ones. If you can purchase the quality of a Swarthmore education without 'em, I'd like to know how. </p>
<p>What their value-added is when divided among such a small number of students is a fair question. But I absolutely think they are "education-related" expenses. Is it worth $180k? I don't have $180k, so I'm not the one to ask.</p>
<p>(Not an economist and haven't done any research on this, only observation but...) </p>
<p>It seems that colleges continue to raise tuition and spend more money (whether tuition or endowment, it doesn't matter), because THEY CAN, and the apps keep coming! (22,000 and 44,000 at some schools, and growing every year)</p>
<p>People love to say things like "a college degree is the new high school diploma," and "Everyone goes now." At D's high school, a whopping 98% of grads in a class of 375 go on to some college.</p>
<p>Population has increased, international applications have skyrocketed, and to my knowledge there have been relatively few new colleges established in the last 30 years.</p>
<p>So tuition keeps going up, but at some point it reaches the "obscenity" point (where even the financially-savvy uber-rich will balk), and that is where endowments kick in.</p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>I thought people would balk already.</p>
<p>$180,000 income before taxes and college expenses over $40,000 a year, it looks to me like the top 3% are going to be out soon.</p>
<p>Well, there is always the top 1 and 2%.</p>
<p>Actually, the trends in applications suggest just the opposite. People are voting with their dollars, as seen in applications, and obviously more and more folks believe they can make it affordable. So both objectively and subjectively, the options are becoming more attractive to the top 3%ers.</p>
<p>"It seems that colleges continue to raise tuition and spend more money (whether tuition or endowment, it doesn't matter), because THEY CAN, and the apps keep coming! (22,000 and 44,000 at some schools, and growing every year).</p>
<p>Yup. They could raise it much more rapidly too.</p>
<p>"Actually, the trends in applications suggest just the opposite. People are voting with their dollars, as seen in applications, and obviously more and more folks believe they can make it affordable. So both objectively and subjectively, the options are becoming more attractive to the top 3%ers."</p>
<p>A little Veblen and people are scared that maybe futures are impacted by where you go to college.</p>
<p>Some people also prefer Mercedes and BMWs.</p>
<p>To be fair, some people do think the education is better at the more expensive places.</p>
<p>A LOT of Veblen. ;)</p>
<p>In 2004, households w/ income 200K-250K = 1.27%. Households w/ >250K = 1.62%.</p>
<p>So, as I said, the 3% point would be around $180k (probably a little higher today).</p>
<p>
[quote]
obviously more and more folks believe they can make it affordable
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not sure that conclusion naturally follows. People spend more and more on healthcare not because they "believe they can make it affordable," but rather because they feel it is a necessity. People may be spending more and more on college education for the same reason.</p>
<p>I can't imagine ANYONE believing a Swarthmore education (or a Smith education, where my d. is) is a necessity (but that's just me.) Nice, perhaps, but necessity?</p>
<p>Since, objectively, it is more affordable for top 3% families, it stands to reason that applications would go up.</p>
<p>dstark--You just hit it in your recent post. Those with an EFC of 40-45K would still be considered just upper-middle-class.</p>
<p>In my opinion, these are the people who are many times NOT going to schools (as fullpay students) that cost the same as their EFC.</p>
<p>A lower-income family sees a substantial discount
A middle-income family sees at least some reduction in rack rate.
A uber-high income family doesn't worry about the 45K per year.</p>
<p>But that middle-high income/asset family realizes that they are caught in between--everyone poorer is paying less, everyone richer is paying the same as they are!</p>
<p>I am grateful that I am in that category for many other reasons, but I'm really going to think twice about paying the same that Bill Gates does for his child's college. The "sliding scale" in college tuition EFC's as relates to the upper-middle-class through rich is really inconsequential when the top cost to attend any US school is $45,000.</p>
<p>Middle-high quintile in the U.S. population goes from $40k to $92k. Above that is top quintile. Only the top 3%ers in income and assets are paying the same as the top 1%ers (and that is indeed unfair, and if thet substantially raised the list-price, they wouldn't be. That's exactly the Pres. of Williams' point. Why subsidize those who least need it?)</p>
<p>Well Mini, what has been overlooked, because for some reason Swat always comes up :), is that college costs for all 4 year institutions (on average) are up 6% a year for 25 years.</p>
<p>Because the average college goer does not come from a family in the top 3% income earners, and does not have a lot of his money in stocks, he is getting squeezed.</p>
<p>Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. What has been happening at the state universities is a scandal! Of course, the first folks to be squeezed out are those at the bottom. The state u's can provide all the tuition breaks they want, but if the total costs of attendance soar, and aid is shifted from need-based to merit aid, fewer and fewer low-income students can attend. </p>
<p>What middle and upper middle class families are experiencing now are the same problems faced by poorer ones for a long time. Luckily, they have more flexibility in deailing with it (and manage somehow, unlike their poorer counterparts). But it doesn't take away the pain.</p>
<p>Right. </p>
<p>So why are we always talking about Swat?</p>
<p>Only 18,743 Californians have ever heard of the place.</p>
<p>How many people from the state of Washington have heard of the place?</p>
<p>Because the subject of this forum is "Colleges Face Challenge of the Class Divide", and it was supposed to be about Amherst.</p>
<p>
[quote]
... if the total costs of attendance soar, and aid is shifted from need-based to merit aid, fewer and fewer low-income students can attend.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>Where do you get that information (i.e., that need-based aid is being shifted to merit-based in public u's?)</p>