Came up in another thread, but this probably deserves its own thread:
http://www.chronicle.com/interactives/tuition-and-fees shows historical tuition for various colleges. You can optionally check boxes to show inflation-adjusted numbers and/or include room and board for 2008 and newer numbers.
We’re so screwed.
We were discussing Harvard on the other thread:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/10/25/tuition-increase-outpaces-inflation-tuition-hikes/
There was an article in Time Magazine in 1997 titled “How Colleges are Gouging U”. It stated that on average tuition has increased at most colleges at a rate of ~6% each year. It was a great read back then, and a lot of the themes suggested by the author still seem to apply (Common App, selectivity, association of cost with the quality of the university, access to loans, etc.).
Harvard families making near the median household income you listed pay less now than in 2006, 1970, or likely any other time in the school’s history. Harvard’s website says families making under $65k pay nothing, and families making $65k to $150k pay 0-10% of income. Their NPC suggests even families making $200k to $250k still get decent FA. Harvard has become more affordable for families with typical US incomes, even though the sticker price has increased faster than inflation. If instead of sticker price, you look at the average inflation adjusted price paid per student, then cost is relatively stable. A similar pattern occurs for many elites.
It would be really useful if they used net price rather than full price (or added that column), as only about half of the students pay full price at many of these.
It might be useful if they added the column, but not used it in place of the other data. Only a relative handful of colleges really meet full need. At places on the list like Abilene Christian University ($41,800) or Pacific Lutheran University ($46,780) or Gonzaga University ($50,888), a lot of students might actually be financing most of that through cash, loans, or other resources.
But it really would be cool to be able to compare the average net price across universities, as well having a column for what percent of students are actually paying full sticker price. I think it’d be illuminating.
http://time.com/money/4777909/private-college-scholarships-2017/
Private only, but still. While it’s only relevant for a family to know THEIR net price, in this kind of policy discussion about rising tuition I think it would be best to know what families actually pay, then and now.
Average net price would, however, include the effects of the college’s SES demographics as well as the college’s financial aid.
Perhaps more useful would be historical net prices for typical families with low, middle, and high incomes. But would such data be readily available?
@OHMomof2 that statistic is across all colleges. On this site, most are gunning for top 30 colleges where over half the students pay full sticker price. I really dislike when they just show average net price. It’s pretty meaningless in determining each family’s personal situation. Example, one family gets a $5k discount and another $55k discount. Average is 27.5k discount. How is that helpful to an individual family across the EFC spectrum?
One of the reason why the sticker price has increased so significantly is increased subsidies (scholarships, loans, etc). Just basis economics.
“Most” means more than half. This statement isn’t true on this site (though many here may want to believe its true). Just look at the parents threads for any given high school class. Majority of families are not looking at top 30 colleges. And there isn’t anything wrong with that.
While sticker price does matter for those of us who are full-pay, I recently added a COA column to my giant spreadsheet and observed surprisingly little difference in price among privates ranked in the top 50-ish for natl universities or natl LACs. To see any significant price difference, we’d need to look toward regional privates or in-state publics. There are some OOS publics that are cheaper than the top privates that may have particular high-quality programs, though they vary in desirability and other characteristics.
Agree - both should be shown. But the “sticker” rise over time is meaningless for the purposes of comparing the cost of college over time, was my point. Because of tuition discounting - need based and merit both - the net price is the “real” price for many. At some colleges almost everyone pays less than sticker, at the top 30 or so still about half pay less than sticker.
Exactly. Kinda like comparing the list price of say, a Chevy Impala over time. (No one pays sticker.)
Not to mention, that I would guess that at places like HYPSM et al with their increasingly generous need-based aid, the % paying sticker has declined precipitously over the several years.
While actual price varies considerably among individuals so that there’s no one way to compare costs and many do not pay sticker, 40% of undergrads at HYPM is not rare and outside of the handful of super elite colleges, most students do, in fact, pay sticker.
According to Harvard’s CDS 2014-15, about 56% of freshmen were receiving FA (lines d/a). For CDS 2007-08, the earliest year I could find, the percent was about 54%.
Princeton CDS 2016-17, about 59%. For CDS 2001-02, 39%.
Stanford CDS 2016-17, about 44%. For CDS 1999-2000, 38%.
Yale, CDS 2016-17, about 61%. For CDS 2003-04, 43%.
MIT CDS 2016-17, about 57%. For CDS 2003-04, 49%.
Even just barely beyond the tiny world of HYPSM, more than half pay sticker.
Penn CDS 2016-17, about 47% of freshmen received FA. For CDS 2009-10, 41%.
Brown CDS 2016-17, about 44%. For CDS 2004-05, 45%.
Cornell CDS 2016-17, about 45%. For CDS 1999-2001, 49.5%
Northwestern CDS 2016-17, about 45%. For CDS 2001-02, 43%.
Duke CDS 2016-17, about 45%.
WashU CDS 2016-17, 41%
USC CDS 2016-17, 33%
I did not look up every college. Here are two exceptions where (a little) less than half pay sticker besides HYPM:
Vanderbilt CDS 2016-17, 53% of freshmen received FA. For CDS 1999-2000, 42%.
Notre Dame CDS 2016-17, 52%. For CDS 1997-98, 40%.
In the even tinier world of elite LACs, there is also a high percent of freshmen receiving FA, similar to HYPM.
Amherst CDS 2016-17, 52%
Carleton CDS 2016-17, 55%
Swarthmore CDS 2016-17, 58%
Hamilton CDS 2016-17, 52%
But lower in ranking from the most elite group, percent of freshmen receiving FA falls off:
Skidmore CDS 2016-17, 39%
Lafayette CDS 2017-18, 36%
(Note, I am not complaining about having to pay sticker but merely pointing out that paying sticker is quite real for a significant portion of families.)
Of course it’s real. But if the point of the original article is to show historic trends in what families pay for college, sticker only tells half the story. Having both the sticker and the average net price would be ideal.
Some schools give a little merit aid to almost everyone. College of Wooster, for example, gives SOME aid to 99% of students. Colleges like that are a big part of the 12% pay sticker price figure quoted above.
The pricing model has changed to one of discounts, at most schools. A useful graph showing historical price changes would reflect that.
Purdue University put a price freeze on both tuition and room and board in 2012. Adjusted for inflation it’s cheaper to attend now than in 2012. You can see that on their graph in the article. They are now instituting a program that if you receive a Pell grant they will cover what all other grants and scholarships will not assuming you are an Indiana resident.
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_142e694e-ced5-11e7-85b4-ef743c545b5e.html
Posting #12 is referencing colleges that can no longer charge full tuition as the cost benefit analysis no longer makes sense given the collapse of the middle class and the inability/unwillingness of most to pay full tuition unless its a tippy top school IMHO. Schools that are providing merit or need based aid to 95+% of students fall into the bucket.
Attached is a great article regarding declining enrollment at many schools. Unfortunately a 10% drop isn’t sustainable given a school’s fixed operating expenses. http://hechingerreport.org/universities-colleges-struggle-stem-big-drops-enrollment/. At the same time, applications are up / acceptances rates are declining 10+% at other schools.
Yes - schools like OWU are discounting for most…which is why their sticker price is not relevant for most. Certainly in a historical comparison of prices.