<p>The idea is just broad sweeping at this point and the details would have to be handled. It would make help out those UCs that are not developing the reps they could as they lose students to the ones better known. </p>
<p>Really, the infrastructure is already in place. PELL covers $5500. Basically, if someone gets a grant that pays all of the commutable expense, s/he either commutes or has to come up out of pocket or via loan to live at college. It may well be that the choice comes down to whether a kid commutes to a Cal State for free or lives at UCal and has to come up with the difference unless merit money from the school itself kicks in. There are certain kids that the schools will compete to get. </p>
<p>There are going to be drawbacks and unfair issues in any plan one puts together. What it would do is make an affordable college education available for more kids. It may well cut down on choice but join the very big club of those of us who have cost constraint choices.</p>
<p>The state of California has a lot in place already to do this which most states do not. THough NY has the schools, they have not developed the state schools into the world class institutions as the UCs are. I wish NY would work on doing this. If we could shore up the 4 universities to make them the caliber and desirability of schools like Penn State and MD, never mind the UC, UMich, UVA, UNC levels, it would be great start. It would also shore up some cities like Buffalo and Albany which would be wonderful. </p>
<p>There was a time in NYC that schools like City College were highly regarded colleges. I don’t know what happened that made the enrollment open and the quality downslide. I’d like to see the original quality resumed, and also for more funds to go to the other CUNYs and SUNYs to make the desirable schools. One of the problems we have with our state school is that so many of them are very bare bones and ugly in appearance. It would not cost that much to shore those things up more and to provide more amenities and school spirit options so that the schools become desirable centers.</p>
<p>Blueby I agree with your post but I see the issue differently. Right now the families composed of professional parents that are alums of these top school, are still able to find a way to pay the tuition. But when tuition hits 65-80k almost all of the families making 200-300( and maybe even more) simply will not be able to pay without signficant FA. Now I agree that HPYS can find students in the US and worldwide to fill the class but my guess is that such a situation will cause a huge backlash politically in the US. After all these “private” schools still receive huge benefits form the US tax payor. It suspect that once the alums of these top schools making 200-300k(the vast majority of the alums) realize that the low/middle class is welcome but that their children are to be excluded, a strong backlash will develop. I don’t think it’s a viable option for the elite classes to consist only of poor/middle class/truly wealthy and have the children of the professional class excluded.</p>
<p>Make colleges more affordable for more kids and then what? They can still only fit in so many. How to choose kids? Raise the standards? Isn’t that just what happened to UCLA, UCB (and UVA?) So, only the best pf the best can get in. That doesn’t serve a greater populace. Build more dorms and class space? That costs. Don’t forget, the more best of the best you get, the better the lab facilities, libraries, etc, have to be. And, those facilies have to be staffed, utilities must be paid, and on and on. </p>
<p>In a thread arguing costs, we’re starting to really “get” how complicated it is.</p>
<p>Make colleges more affordable for more kids and then what? They can still only fit in so many.</p>
<p>Well, it doesn’t necessarily add up to more kids IN college…it may just mean more kids that will graduate with less debt…more kids who will actually finish their degrees… Right now…too many kids graduate with $30k+ in debt (from Staffords and Perkins) .</p>
<p>And…instead of UC grants and Cal Grants going directly or indirectly to some of these R&B costs, a lesser amount could go towards growing the schools, growing UC Merced, growing CSU Monterrey Bay, etc.</p>
<p>NM DOES NOT give aid to undocumented students. They are NOT eligible for the state’s Lottery Scholarship (free tuition for 4 years). NM DOES allow undocumented students who have attended for at least 2 years and graduated from a NM high school to attend state public colleges at in-state tuition rates.</p>
<p>From what my brother has told me , the community college system really needs to be shored up. He reports many who are trying to get their basic two years of college done locally which is the most frugal way to do most of the time,… and they can’t. Classes filled or cancelled too many times. There is supposed to some guaranteed transfer assurances to some who do this, but if you can’t get the classes, it is a problem. Instead of offering room and board monies, or opening the funds to illegals, how about getting the community colleges in good shape. It would benefit many more students. More kids would not have to go away for college, those who undocumented but having graduated and/or been instate for a period fo time can have access to a college at affordable prices. And really every income bracket would benefit at the availability of low cost, good quality academics. I would start by working on this part of the system. </p>
<p>Going away for school is sometimes a necessity when a program is not available locally. But most programs have core requirements that can be met by a good 2 year college. I would have no problem with taxes going to the payment of those needy students who have successfully completed the requirements to such program locally and need to go elsewhere for the next two years. But if the degree can be obtained by a local UC or CS, just because the kid wants the out of home experience does not mean it should be provided.</p>
<p>^^ Actually yes, the Lottery Success Scholarship currently requires that NM students be US residents. This is new as of this spring. New governor. New policies.</p>
<p>I think the real point is making the cost of college more or less equal to the true value of the degree. Currently the cost of a degree from a private college is close to 250k but most degrees do not lead to jobs that could realistically pay off the cost/loans. </p>
<p>The problem in America is not that too few students go to college but rather that far too many weak students are attending and paying big money for degrees of little to no value. I keep bringing up law school because it’s a good example that more clearly shows the problem. </p>
<p>Today it makes no sense to go to a second or third tier law school because very few of the graduates will ever get jobs as attorneys, but the schools keep the lies going just to feed the education beast. This is precisely what is also happening for college degrees. The education propaganda machine has convinced these somewhat poorly informed students that despite the fact they are modest or weak students that they should take on huge debt to obtain mostly meaningless degrees. </p>
<p>But the thing to keep in mind is that the top schools are really the godfathers of this system and the financier is the easy gov’t loans. The top schools have worked very hard to set up the system so that there is virtually no price competition between schools for students. Sure HYPS have tons of applicants but you can be sure that many full pay students would choose Wash U, Notre Dame or Emory if they were even 10-15k cheaper. The top schools have set the system precisely to avoid any hint of price competition and ensure the maximum generated revenue while maintaining a hammer lock on the top students.</p>
<p>The other colleges have gone along with this con job because it also allows them to keep raising tutition lock stop with the top schools. It’s a terrible system that is going to add to the bankruptcy of America. It does not make any economic sense for these degrees to cost so much money and the rapidly increasing costs are not sustainable.</p>
<p>***Going away for school is sometimes a necessity when a program is not available locally. **</p>
<p>But most programs have core requirements that can be met by a good 2 year college. </p>
<p>I would have no problem with taxes going to the payment of those needy students who have successfully completed the requirements to such program locally and need to go elsewhere for the next two years. </p>
<p>But if the degree can be obtained by a local UC or CS, just because the kid wants the out of home experience does not mean it should be provided. *</p>
<p>Exactly. The state should never be in the business of thinking that it’s supposed to be taking taxpayer money to provide an experience that is typically associated with upscale lifestyles and incomes. And, yes, “going away to school” is a luxury. </p>
<p>I completely agree with the idea that if the student is going to major in some odd major that isn’t available at their local CSU or UC, then s/he needs to do the pre-reqs at a local CC or CSU (get the prescribed GPA), and then transfer with need-based aid. This will curb the number of kids claiming that they’re going to major in some odd major just to get the extra funding. </p>
<p>This reminds me of my uncle’s family. He has 6 kids and he knew that he couldn’t afford to have them all go away for 4 years each. So, he made a deal with them…go locally for 2 years at a local UC, CSU or CC…then they could transfer to the UC that they wanted. They were all able to do this and complete their undergrads towards a variety of majors/careers: aeronautical engineering (currently a major airline pilot), CPA, Law, Forestry, Business, and Medicine. Frankly, they could have finished their degrees at the local CSU or UC - except for the Forestry major and possibly the Aeronautical engineering major…but “going away” was a luxury that my uncle was willing to pay for.</p>
<p>When you do the math over the next 10-15 years it won’t be possible for families in the 200-300k income range to afford to pay for more than one child.</p>
<p>Even today, it’s not really a financially responsible choice for a family in that position to pay for two kids at $250k apiece. People do it, but it’s not prudent.</p>
<p>Once a student who needs heavy financial aid to go away to a state school finishes core requirements successfully, many people, including myself would not object to federal/state funds paying for such student to go to a state school to finish up if s/he can transfer into a program there with some stipulations on the student taking on a greater portion of the cost in the way of loans than if s/he used local options. There’s a lot of waste in those federal funds with kids who go off to college and don’t make it through those first years.</p>
<p>Mister K when I posted that exact analysis on this thread I had numerous people arguing that such people are rich and the cost was easily affordable. I then linked an analysis done by the NYT for that precise income level showing that in many expensive coastal locations that the families could not afford the cost. Again posters claimed the analysis had egregious overspending like 5k for a house cleaner(100$/week) or extragavant vacations(4k= a car trip to Yellowstone).</p>
<p>I think what it comes down to is that many people see FA as an entitlement they deserve even though most of the recipients are well off. The result is the creation of another financial ponzi scheme that is unstainable. I mean where will it end? When 98.5% of the familes require FA. In a rational world wouldn’t that just mean it’s overpriced?</p>
<p>There’s a lot of waste in those federal funds with kids who go off to college and don’t make it through those first years.</p>
<p>Very true. And a lot of waste for states that give such aid, too.</p>
<p>And have you seen how many semesters a person can get Pell?? Unbelievable. It’s like 16 or something like that! Crazy!!!</p>
<p>Since a good number of students don’t make it past their first 2 years of college, spending tax payer dollars on sending them away to school is just silly. If they can prove themselves with good grades the first 2 years and they have an unusual major, then provide money for going away. </p>
<p>Part of the problem is that people can get full Pell by only taking 12 credits a semester. That delays graduation. Full Pell should be for 15 credits unless it’s the last graduating semester. Giving full Pell for 12 credits encourages students to delay graduation…and get more Pell.</p>
<p>Exactly my point. And these same folks would spend $100k for HYP if given the chance. Heck, how many pay full freight for NYU and others similar, which have poor finaid…all fine schools, but…and when NYU raises their fees to $60/70k, the full payers will still be in line.</p>
<p>But there is no ‘bubble’, bcos folks are taking this out of current income and/or non-dischargeable loans. Unlike a mortgage, they cannot walk away from educ debt.</p>
<p>But there is no ‘bubble’, bcos folks are taking this out of current income and/or non-dischargeable loans.</p>
<p>There is a bit of a bubble for folks who have more than one child. Many “beg, borrow, steal” to send Child #1 to Pricey U, but then can’t do it for Child #2 or 3 because the loan payments, etc, are still in effect. The same family that put car/home repairs on hold for 4 years, may not be able to do the same for 8 or 12 years. So, in those cases, the bubble bursts.</p>
<p>^^Exactly. After spending down assets on C1, the family pulls back for the other sibs, or considers merit schools or state schools. Voila, no bubble; nothing to “burst” unless there are no other families with C1 willing to take a spot.</p>
<p>The housing bubble was caused by millions of people buying houses with other people’s money – houses that they clearly could not afford, based on any standard credit/income validations. (It just so happened that most of the ‘other’ people’s money was federal mortgage guarantees, which are dischargeable in bk.)</p>
<p>There is no bubble in college financing per se, bcos the guarantees are small and not dischargeable. So even with the small loans today, folks are still spending their own money for payback. Sure, it decrements their future standard of living, but the total numbers of those assuming massive debt to attend NYU is only a handful.</p>
<p>After spending down assets on C1, the family pulls back for the other sibs, or considers merit schools or state schools. Voila, no bubble; nothing to “burst” unless there are no other families with C1 willing to take a spot.</p>
<p>while there will always be some with C1 who will take the spots…even those numbers will diminish as college prices rise and the economy continues in a bad way. </p>
<p>And…simply thru “word of mouth,” people begin to hear the sob stories of families who have had to pull back for C2, which serves as a warning for those selecting colleges for C1. Most families would like to avoid the “issues” that can come up when C1 gets to go to Dream U, while C2 & C3 must go to local U or merit U. </p>
<p>People are getting huge jumps in medical premiums and that cuts into what people can pay out of current income (brother just told me that his family’s rate just increased by almost $500 per month…ours went up as well, but not that much. He has a D that is starting college this fall, so he’s concerned that he now has $5k less per year to put towards college costs.)</p>
<p>However, if the ivies/elites decide to be need aware for int’ls and start taking more full pays, then they probably could charge as much as they want because there are enough wealthy high stats in’tls to fill all the elites every year.</p>
<p>If word of mouth were that effective in informing others of risks and liabilities, we wouldn’t have so many complaining on CC about not getting enough aid from dream schools. Even on CC, there is misinfo that spreads and sage advice that gets ignored. Kids talk about a 2250 not being “good enough,” about ECs not mattering unless you raise 15k for a charity you founded, about “passions,” etc. Human nature to cling to the scary.</p>
<p>In my area, you can’t even figure out who’s getting need-based aid- they just don’t reveal their financial positions. You can see it on this thread- some have revealed particulars and some reveal only opinions. I doubt most of us can even tell who’s a parent vs a hs or college kid, unless they mention it or you go back in their post history.</p>
<p>I am surprised this thread hasn’t mentioned a fuller picture of what kids get in college- beyond the academics, professional prep or future contacts: the amazing party life. If you want to rail about paying 50k for that- or even less, with good FA, I am there. But, that’s as much a family issue (how we raised 'em) as what colleges allow.</p>
<p>Blueby your analysis about many affluent paying from current income is mostly correct today. But that is exactly my point because 10-15 years from now when tutition is 75k that simply won’t be possible. The salaries from most professional jobs are not even close to keeping up with the tuition increases and when you do the math it will not be possible at 250-300k unless you only have one child. People making that income cannot pay 90-100k for college from current income. It is a different type of bubble and the students attending non-elite schools are drowning in debt. </p>