<p>
[quote]
Wealthier families now pay more than ever to send their children to college. But for much of the middle class, the real net cost of college has not changed significantly; for much of the poor, the expansion of aid has increased the accessibility and affordability of a college education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Misconceptions</a> 101: Why College Costs Aren?t Soaring - Bloomberg</p>
<p>This is a poorly written and unsupported “article”. Moving on.</p>
<p>Interesting to read another perspective. The crux of the matter lies elsewhere, however. Until student loans are once again dischargeable in bankruptcy, tuition will continue to rise because lenders have no significant risk. And, just like with the housing & real estate market, easy money means higher prices.</p>
<p>That is interesting. I’m paying for S about the same amount that my parents paid for me and his loans will be about the same as mine were as well.</p>
<p>Yes, any article that challenges CC dogma is going to be called “poorly written and unsupported” without bothering with specific criticisms. THAT is what you call unsupported.</p>
<p>According to the article, full-payers subsidize financial aid so that for the bottom 2/5ths, the cost of college has remained unchanged. If that’s true, then i guess those bragging status hounds (as Annasdad has characterized them) serve some useful purpose.</p>
<p>It is an interesting article and an interesting premise, but although the author cites “sources,” the sources do not provide any data that supports his premise. Has financial aid really kept up with rising college costs to the point that the net cost for the lower half (income) has not gone up much? He also makes no mention of how much of the net cost is achieved by loans. His theory that net costs have not really gone up much is likely true in the need blind/ meets 100% of need Ivy League. </p>
<p>I like to see more data in an article like that. Still, pretty good for a 19 year old Princeton freshman. :)</p>
<p>why not price everything based on how much money you have?</p>
<p>college should cost everyone X% of their income… fine, so should a loaf of bread.</p>
<p>I wonder how much of his own education this princeton kid is paying.</p>
<p>NJres, I guess that was my problem with this article. While he “links” to things, they do nothing to help him and he just throws things out there without any kind of evidence to back it up. To me, that’s a poorly written and unsupported article. </p>
<p>And puh-leeze, AD. I could give a rat’s tail about CC dogma or prestige. I chose a lower ranked U on fit. Gave up one of them high and mighty schools, too ;)</p>
<p>This would support the original article.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/education/report-says-college-prices-once-stable-are-up-again.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/education/report-says-college-prices-once-stable-are-up-again.html</a></p>
<p>This one was similar, no new info for a regular CCer but…[College</a> Tuition Inflation: Net Out-of-Pocket vs. Published Sticker Prices My Money Blog](<a href=“http://www.mymoneyblog.com/college-tuition-inflation-net-out-of-pocket-vs-published-sticker-prices.html]College”>College Tuition Inflation: Net Out-of-Pocket vs. Published Sticker Prices — My Money Blog)</p>
<p>The original article is based on this year’s college board study, as is the Times article. I’m not sure how that is lacking in source?</p>
<p>it appears the author missed two big points:</p>
<p>1) the data used to determine net price increases assumed that all new educational subsidies applied to tuition and fees only, not room and board;</p>
<p>2) a great deal of the increase educational subsidies do not take the form of institutional price discrimination but rather governmental grant and tax break programs. </p>
<p>so what we really have is something like a 59% increase in net cost for a residential student at a four year public… as best as we can tell from the data. it doesnt appear proper allowances were made in the public data tables to differentiate residential and commuter students.</p>
<p>i do like the ‘rich kids picking up the tab’ line, though. he could have been more accurate and gone with ‘taxpayers picking up the tab,’ but that would have required the realization that growth in government programs, the pell grant especially, are the real story here.</p>
<p>Well speaking as one of the members of the non lower-two income quartiles that the author terms “wealthier” I am sooooo excited by this ‘affordability’.</p>
<p>I mean I had stacks of cash piling up around the place on every free horizontal surface and frankly we were at wits end with what to do with the filthy stuff. Its isnt safe to open a closet without jumping back to avoid a rain of cash bundles, and with some of my elderly relations not as spry as they used to be it’s becoming a health hazard. And I havent been able to get inside of the garden shed for over a year. </p>
<p>So if you are like me, “rest of us”, be excited by the prospect of the “still affordability” that will allow you to do something with that pesky $20-45K a year that was cluttering up the dinning room table.</p>
<p>Currently cleaning spewed coffee off computer screen…</p>
<p>We aren’t getting any help, nor do we have those pesky, nasty piles of cash sitting around ready to knock out random elders (although MIL deserves it - oh, that thread’s in the cafe) but I found ^this^ terribly amusing.</p>
<p>Regardless of what the article says or doesn’t say…</p>
<p>The concept of “going away” to college is and always has been a luxury. It will probably always be the norm for many/most kids to commute to their local CC/state school to avoid paying $10k -15k per year for R&B - since most families can’t afford that. With a fed student loan, a summer job, and a part-time school year job, most can afford to “go local”.</p>
<p>If the goal is a “college education,” then in many states, that can be had by most students by attending their local CC and then transferring to their local state school…for a total cost of well under $50k for the entire degree.</p>
<p>Agreed, blueiguana. Statistics can be cooked any which way, but my parents paid approximately $4000 per year for my OOS public back in the mid-'70’s. I paid $28000 per year for my D to attend the same OOS public 30 years later, and we both had the exact prorated scholarship to boot. I’m making 25% more now than my dad did then. That’s only one example, but I would guess it’s fairly representative.</p>
<p>Who is subsidizing whom is a whole other kettle of fish, a discussion that immediately gets emotionally political, which is a shame.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in some cities like Seattle, community colleges dont participate in the Stafford loan program, making it much more difficult for students who dont qualify for Pell Grants to save money by attending CC & commuting.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in some cities like Seattle, community colleges dont participate in the Stafford loan program, making it much more difficult for students who dont qualify for Pell Grants to save money by attending CC & commuting.</p>
<p>That is odd…why is that?</p>
<p>But…the state of Washington has a couple of other bennies. </p>
<p>1) The Running Start Program that allows high school kids to get their AAs for FREE while in high school. I’ve had 3 nieces graduate from HS with their AAs in hand and then being able to get their BS’s in 2 years…a HUGE savings. </p>
<p>2) the state of Washington offers pretty good “state aid” for low income kids which supplements Pell Grants.</p>
<p>Comparing me to our son: BC was $3,500 when I went full-time (not including R&B) and our son’s OOS was about $13K not including R&B or about 3.7 times. My salary compared to my mother’s (dad wasn’t around) was probably around 5 to 6 times. One big difference though has been stock market performance. It was a lot harder to wring money out of the stock market back then because commissions were so high back then.</p>
<p>As an example, I had a transaction in the 1990s that would have cost over $1,000 for a trade (I had an ESPP discount). That same transaction costs me $8 today.</p>
<p>jnm123-</p>
<p>Your experience is not typical.
[Median</a> Household Income History in the United States](<a href=“http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php]Median”>Dave Manuel - Economy, Stock Market and Real Estate News)</p>
<p>I am guessing that the reason why they don’t participate in loans any more, is that the default rate may have been high.
Some of the classes/instructors are good, even very good. But not always the case.
My personal experience in Seattle was about 12 years ago, when I had been a college transfer advisor at one Seattle community college and so mainly dealt with students who wanted to attend a 4 yr school,but needed to bring their grades/skills up from high school, however I also talked to students who were in computer classes, either changing fields or recent high school grads, and they were beyond frustrated.
Local businesses wanted computer skills but what they were teaching at the community college, wasn’t what was wanted & classes promised were not the ones which were eventually offered.
The classes were really behind the times, but students didn’t realize that till the end of their program/when they tried to find work.
At the time, they did participate in student loans, but if they didn’t change what they offered, I could see many students not being able to pay back the loans.</p>