<p>
</p>
<p>Why not–that’s the part I’m still not getting?</p>
<p>
Or, to put it another way, FA formulas generally don’t expect us to pay for college from current income; past and future income is expected to contribute, just as buying a house requires down payment savings and a mortgage.</p>
<p>*Quote:
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.</p>
<p>===================</p>
<p>Why not–that’s the part I’m still not getting? *</p>
<p>I think part of the problem is this: While children are growing up, parents are saying that it takes two incomes to run a household…which often means that it takes two incomes to live a rather nice and comfy lifestyle…nice home, decent cars (2-4 cars), nice clothes, ECs for the kids, etc. So, when the college years roll around, there’s not enough leftover in the budget to fund 2 kids in college at the same time at full cost.</p>
<p>At the $250K - $300K level, people are paying about 50% of their income in taxes - federal, state, property, sales, other. It is possible for them to pay $100K per year out of current income, if they can manage to live on $25K - $50K per year while doing it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if I accept your argument – which I do not – does your point also suggest that there is no bubble NOW, that there will be/may be one in 10-15 years?</p>
<p>The reason I don’t accept the premise is that it is based on a static analysis of education cost increases and your assumption that wealth will stagnate. While both maybe true, you will need to link to some prominent economists to sway my opinion. The reason that I am skeptical of static analysis is that it assumes zero change in delivery model, which doesn’t make sense to me. The Univ of California, for example, is going all-in for online courses. No physical plant needed. Or take, one of the most popular professors at Cornell, who lectures to 1300 students (Psych, I believe), with the spillover in another hall on video. Since the technology is already in place, Cornell could easily offer that same course worldwide and enroll thousands, today; one professor. If he went to scantron-type electronic tests, it wouldn’t even require any TA’s – just some IT programming.</p>
<p>he Univ of California, for example, is going all-in for online courses. No physical plant needed.</p>
<p>Wow…when? For frosh level courses? All courses? Is there a link about this?</p>
<p>Blue, some of this thread also presumes colleges won’t react, won’t cut their own costs to stabilze ours, that they are “extorting” now and will continue that philosophy, that higher ed isn’t worth it, that development funds will not increase, etc. Ie, not rational bases for drawing conclusions based on economic theory or standards…but, nonetheless, with a conclusion that most colleges will end up in the dumper, spurred by professional, legacy families that can’t afford them. Many variables have been left out of this discussion.</p>
<p>Mom2 wrote: * While children are growing up, parents are saying that it takes two incomes to run a household…which often means that it takes two incomes to live a rather nice and comfy lifestyle…nice home, decent cars (2-4 cars), nice clothes, ECs for the kids, etc. So, when the college years roll around, there’s not enough leftover in the budget to fund 2 kids in college at the same time at full cost.*</p>
<p>The concept of the necessary “nice and comfy” is shored up in the earlier posts, including a table proving how a 250k family ends up in the hole-- some of us disputed the budget shown. Some defended it.</p>
<p>UC won’t replace whole years’ worth of classes with online- they will be particular courses which work for the delivery. The Cornell psych survey class is a great example. UCLA had MBA lectures in an on-demand format decades ago- particularly suited to their exec MBA students who had schedule issues. The expectation still included class attendance and interactive projects.</p>
<p>As for links to prominent economists, ha. Mostly media rehashes, with many unanswered questions. One link did refer to a newspaper article that quoted a named economist, but to get to his work, one had to subscribe to the website.</p>
<p>mom2:</p>
<p>nah, the UC program is under development. It is a mandate from upon high. The campus faculty are kicking, screaming and trying to ignore, but it’s a-comin’…obviously, one cannot replace a lab, but the Chem lectures? No problem. They are taught in a class of ~2,000 at Cal today. It would be extremely simple to broadcast.</p>
<p>I must say with good humor that many of you are economically illiterate if you are claiming that a family making 250k can afford to pay 100k with after tax money for college. It is a silly statement that flies in the face of reality.</p>
<p>Blueby are you actually claiming that the colleges will voluntarily lower the price increases. Based on the last thirty years where precisely is your evidence of that? I agree that no physical plant is needed but how does that translate to lower costs in the real world of Cornell tuition?</p>
<p>I agree that that this is possible but to date not a single top school has proposed this as an option to get a degree. You are living in a fantasy land. The colleges are just like every other bureaucracy that is bankrupting the country. Curbing tuitition increases is every bit as challenging as lowering the cost of Medicare. I assume you are aware that the profs have tenure which gives the college presidents very little control.</p>
<p>[In</a> Academia, Who Works for Whom? - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/faculty-governance-in-idaho/]In”>In Academia, Who Works for Whom? - The New York Times)</p>
<p>[Richard</a> Vedder: Time to Make Professors Teach - WSJ.com](<a href=“Richard Vedder: Time to Make Professors Teach - WSJ”>Richard Vedder: Time to Make Professors Teach - WSJ)</p>
<p>[Administrative</a> Bloat at American Universities: The Real Reason for High Costs in Higher Education | Goldwater Institute](<a href=“http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4941]Administrative”>http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4941)</p>
<p>but the Chem lectures? No problem. They are taught in a class of ~2,000 at Cal today.</p>
<p>Oh my!! How do the kids see whatever the prof is showing on the Smart boards (or whatever)? Are the boards super huge like JumboTrons? lol</p>
<p>(and I thought one of my kid’s classes that has 150 students was super huge. )</p>
<p>Blueby yes the changes are coming but the prices at Cal are going up dramatically instead of going down. The school will make changes to save themselves money, but not ever to lower tuition for the students. Colleges today closely resemble the cost structure of the state union workers and with a very similar low productivity. How can anyone control a work force that it has no power over and are fully protected for life from being fired?</p>
<p>[News:</a> ‘The Faculty Lounges’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/08/new_book_takes_aim_at_tenure_and_its_impact_on_higher_education]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/08/new_book_takes_aim_at_tenure_and_its_impact_on_higher_education)</p>
<p>mom2:</p>
<p>the largest lecture hall for the science classes holds <800, so the same lecture is given multiple times.</p>
<p>Another really easy way to lower the delivery collegiate costs is to go to a full summer term. No additional physical plant required, and it would increase throughput by a third. (This is exactly what Dartmouth did when it went co-ed. D was able to add women without reducing the men, but at the same time not needing any new dorms.)</p>
<p>Say, I hear you. But again, I don’t buy into the idea that no change will take place over the next 10-15 years.</p>
<p>And I think I will drop off of this thread, since it is tending toward the political, and the mods may awaken. :)</p>
<p>I had a student stop by and say, “It’s really hard to learn from a professor that’s only 2 inches tall!” (She was so far away that the prof appeared to be 2 inches tall.)</p>
<p>And I think I will drop off of this thread, since it is tending toward the political, and the mods may awaken</p>
<p>Really? I don’t see the thread as approaching words like, “this dem (or this GOP) person (party) is the cause of fill-in-the-blank college problems.” I think people are just stating why or why not pricey colleges will continue to be affordable. </p>
<p>I agree that the UCs are not going to drop their prices…and they shouldn’t. And, it would be totally fine for the UC system to raise the fees on Cal, LA, and SD to encourage more high stats students to choose the other UCs…which will help improve those schools. And, by keeping the UC prices high, then those who are seeking degrees that can be had a CSU will consider those as well. Some CSUs can handle more students…and UCMerced can handle more students. </p>
<p>I also think that the Calif CCs should look into offering some “non-lab-intensive” bachelor degrees - like Elementary education…or sociology…or similar.</p>