<p>The issue here is one of access, especially at public universities. Some states do a great job of making it affordable for families of all means to attend a 4 year in-state school. Some states do not. </p>
<p>The University of Alabama expects a student from a family whose income is between 0-30K to pay about 13K to attend, while a student from a family whose income is over 110K is expected to pay about 20K, which is basically tuition, fees, room and board. And this in a state where those families in the lowest 20% in terms of income pay about 10% of their income in state and local taxes (Alabama has a full sales tax on food). </p>
<p>I don’t think we should be too worried about the ‘College Confidential’ middle class–those families making around 150K. Students from these families will have many excellent and affordable choices-- from their state school (U of A costs about 20K), to the elite national private university (Harvard, which according to their NPC costs also about 20K for the 150K family) to the small regional less selective LAC (Birmingham Southern, which according to IPEDS, nets about 22K for families making over 110K). </p>
<p>It’s families at the lowest incomes levels in some states that will struggle even to afford tuition at their own public flagships. That’s one of the points of the report. That should be a cause for concern.</p>
<p>“Do you think there would be room for all these kids at every public college? Do you want a world where poorer kids ONLY go to public colleges?”</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “all these kids”. The amount of money would be enough for all current students. Nor do I think the prestige privates (which really represent a very small percentage of all students) would stop taking poor kids. As already noted, the amount they receive in Pell Grants is a non-issue - they could replace their government subsidy without even touching endowment funds. They could use endowment funds to offer loans - subsidized or unsubsidized - as they choose. If they want to ensure their campuses are not filled only with “rich white clones” (NOT my characterization), they have the funds to do so.</p>
<p>" THEY have met the inflection point."</p>
<p>I would think that is GREAT news for those who wish to see lower COAs. But the massive number of prestige private college rejects are going somewhere, and if these colleges offer a value proposition, they’ll do fine. Otherwise they’ll disappear. </p>
<p>“What income level do you define as “rich”, i.e. the folk you believe should not be eligible for any type of discount no matter how brilliant they are.”</p>
<p>As noted, at my alma mater they are already receiving a massive discount so I don’t understand the question. I don’t have to set eligibility limits - the colleges are perfectly capable of figuring out who think can pay what. And obviously, many of them think their prime market can pay more, which is which is why COA bleeds upward. (As noted, they are right, as assets for this class have grown faster than COA.)</p>
<p>Were one college to raise its price by 50%, it would radically change its student body. The student body wouldn’t be more affluent, though. I know people who can afford vacations in exotic places, etc., who have chosen to spend less on their children’s college education than they “could.” Some of them have (already) sent their children to foreign universities, because the tuition is so much lower for those paying full tuition. </p>
<p>So, I do need to ask, who are these people who “could” pay more? As the author of <em>The Millionaire Next Door</em> points out, not everyone who seems to be rich is rich. Quite a few people become wealthy by living below their means. Sending one’s child to a less expensive college is right up there on the living below one’s means list. </p>
<p>“Merit aid” is a discount on tuition. It’s not “real money” in my estimation, unless the college could fill that spot at full tuition. So, if a certain segment of the student population receives merit aid of $10,000 on a list price of $50,000, one should only count that as “real money” if the college could have filled that portion of the enrollment at full price without the use of merit aid. If no one on that campus pays more than $40,000, the effective cost of tuition is not $50,000.</p>
<p>“It’s families at the lowest incomes levels in some states that will struggle even to afford tuition at their own public flagships. That’s one of the points of the report. That should be a cause for concern.”</p>
<p>Yes, this is what I worry about the most. In Illinois, our flagship is unthinkably expensive for both the poor and those around the median income. Even our directionals cost a good $20k/year in-state and do not meet need. It’s a crying shame.</p>
<p>I think HPY would not be hurt by the raising their prices drastically. The half that get full need met, would not be affected one bit by the increase as they would still be paying the same. The half that are paying full freight is where we have to look. Some will then be kicked into being eligible for financial aid and will still be paying about what the present cost is now. Some can afford it regardless, and I’ll bet that most of them will be happy to pay the extra. The whole point was to get the kid accepted regardless of cost. There will be some who will beg, borrow and work themselves to the bone to afford it for their kids. I seriously do not think those schools and a handful of others would suffer one bit in raising their prices to twice what it is now, and keeping finanical aid policies the same. The ones who have to leave the game are those upper middle class who can just barely afford it now and the increase truly prices them out of the situation. </p>
<p>But as you go down the desireability ladder, that is where we’ll see who the big boys are. Schools will be pressed to meet full need and/or be need blind for admissions, and there will be a lot of families who will fold when it’s comes to paying such an increase in cost. I’m seeing it now. Holy Cross, BC, Brandeis, BU vs Binghamton? At one time, it’s was take your pick, honey. Now, it’s, “well that’s an obvious choice with Bing being less than 1/3 the cost.” Throw Harvard in the mix, or P or Y, and the answer might be different.</p>
<p>Mini is absolutely not “anti rich”. As one who has some fundamental disagreements with him, I don’t come running to his rescue, because we have so much in common. But I don’t think reviles the wealthy. </p>
<p>Drawing a line is not a defendable thing, as a penny above or below makes little difference. </p>
<p>I happen to agree with Mini and the OP’s points I, too, would pull federal funding from the private schools and use that money for the publics. If I could, i’d do it so fast, it would make heads spin. I absolutely support doing that.</p>
<p>“I seriously do not think those schools and a handful of others would suffer one bit in raising their prices to twice what it is now, and keeping finanical aid policies the same.”</p>
<p>I think it would hurt them a tiny bit, but I still support this sort of change in policy. Harvard’s yield would probably go down from the 80% range to the 70% range. Big whoop. It would be worth it.</p>
<p>Of course a penny makes no difference. But plus-or-minus a few 10’s of thousands will change what income bucket a family falls in. </p>
<p>Consider these approximate thresholds:
~$100k top 20%
~$160k top 10%
~$210k top 5%
~$500k top 1%</p>
<p>I also have no issue with pulling federal funding from private colleges. Federal money is partly to blame for fueling the out-of-control spending by college administrations.</p>
<p>What I find truly remarkable about this particular site is how much anxiety there is over higher education affordability for those who are ‘full pay’, and especially the quibbling over the definition of ‘wealthy/rich/middle class/upper middle class’ when all indications are that these families have no problems with access to higher education. What is equally remarkable is the blame for rising costs then being placed on those who have the least access, indirectly, of course, by placing the blame on programs designed to help lower income folks get some access. (and much less attention on lower state support of higher education since the 1980s).</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. I see no long term, widespread benefit to society to continue to put pell and sub loan money into the privates. Let them figure out how to subsidize their poorer students.</p>
<p>Take the money and put it into the publics. Make all publics the same cost as pell for those who are pell eligible. </p>
<p>As someone who grew up in a middle-income family and went to public school, I put myself through college with a merit scholarship + some parental contribution + summer earnings + student loans at 12% interest (that was considered a good deal in the 80’s). It took a long time to pay off the loans. </p>
<p>Now, I have to listen to kumbaya crap about how the noble poor shouldn’t have to take out loans.</p>
<p>So how do you suppose the family who makes 30K affords the 13K net price at U of Alabama? Of course they take out loan! And lots of it.</p>
<p>Again, show me that lower income folks, as a whole, are taking out less loan to send their sons and daughters to college than upper income folks. </p>
<p>The ‘no loan’ policy of a handful of institutions should not be mistaken as the policy of most or all institutions of higher education. Almost all institutions, even extremely wealthy ones, will expect lower income families to take out a significant amount of loan.</p>
<p>GMT, you really need to educate yourself more about financial aid and higher education affordability.</p>
<p>That’s putting an extra tax burden on the public, to subsidize the remaining cost of the Pell-eligible student’s education. It’s less burden on the taxpayer for that student to take his Pell grant to a private school.</p>
<p>GMT, I don’t think there’s any reason that the poor should not take out the amount of the subsidized loans for a college education.</p>
<p>I, too, put myself through college. I was stunned 8 or 9 years ago when I first started to look at college costs for my own kids. The rise in tuition has been completely out of line with the rise in anything else except health care. in the case of health care people are living longer and most expense is end of life care. In the case of college, people have figured out that they can have very high incomes by being in college administration.</p>
<p>this is not the fault of “poor” but the way the colleges are being run. It’s the usual class warfare red herring. The issue is not that the poor should have to borrow more, but that the colleges have become too expensive for the middle class. [here Mini and I disagree] Blaming the poor for that is just silly, imho.</p>
<p>I think no matter what our stance is on the issue of affordability, we can all agree that the system is incredibly messed up now. The college administrations have all over-expanded and over-spent on non education-related bells & whistles so that the costs are just plain ridiculous now. </p>
<p>Yes, we both can agree on that, especially the line about students as ‘customers’ and instructors as ‘service providers’, and the subsidizing scholarships for top students by raising overall prices.</p>
<p>The latter clause is one of the points of the original report that started the thread.</p>
<p>Any change made to the system as it now exists will involve a lot of fall out. I think it would be for the better, over all if the federal funds being spent now were put into state schools. I’d like to see community colleges revamped and made much more attractive and successful. I’d like a state school education available to all who satisfactorially finish community college. I think the base is in place to go forward this way. I’ve been saying that the private schools with the price increases they’ve been having wouldhit a crisis, but it’s taken way, way much longer than I thought to come to this, and it’s still not where I thought it was going to end up. I was thinking the prices would crash, and schools would close, A lot more than have yet happened.</p>