Compare and contrast to the two “poster children” for jacking up the price and then discounting- GW and Northeastern. They are very proud of zooming up in the rankings by doing-- er-- nothing. Except handing out “merit awards” to make momma proud of little Suzie.
Thanks for posting- I have always admired Willamette but this is next level transparency!
Really, they didn’t lower the true cost. They just lowered the sticker price while simultaneously lowering discounts. So the final price is essentially the same. Even so, I applaud Colby-Sawyer (and other colleges that have done this.) Making the true price more transparent is important, especially for families who don’t spend time on CC learning about “merit” discounts. If my kid were interested in nursing, Colby Sawyer would be a serious contender.Their program does look very strong.
It is…and it is less costly than many instate options for many students.
This verbiage sounds a lot like HR 1311, the College Cost Transparency and Student Protection Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1311/text?s=1&r=2
But isn’t that a lower price if you paid sticker price and got no discount?
College Navigator - Willamette University indicates that Willamette University lowered list price tuition by about $9.6k from 2020-2021 to 2021-2022 ($53.8k to $44.2k).
Average net price after grants and scholarships dropped by about $4.4k (an actual net benefit to the students on average). Even at the new lower list price, 100% of students got some grants or scholarships (i.e. none are paying the full list price even after it was lowered), so it is unlikely that any were paying full list price before.
There are many schools where nobody pays sticker price. Colby-Sawyer was one of them. Everybody got at least an $X discount. So they lowered sticker price by $X.
There are parents who prioritize education for education sakes, and a residential experience right after high school and others who focus on ROI and just getting the piece of paper, with most finding a balance somewhere between. There are ways to reduce costs, like this “no-frills” college, but many wouldn’t be happy with the experience:
Regarding net costs, a quote from the linked USA Today article:
“At 2 out of 3 colleges and universities where the net price increased for both low- and high-income students over the past decade – that is, the amount paid after discounts and financial aid – it rose faster for the lowest-income students: about 70% versus 27%, on average, the federal data shows.”
As to the OP’s original question, “ Is there a way to lower college costs for every student, no matter what their parental income is?” … I think our society has accepted that modern parenting responsibilities extend beyond 18 years, so providing public financing for any child to go anywhere they are accepted isn’t ever going to happen. We can hope to see a return of public support for state universities and colleges to reduce tuition rates.
Well that was a deeply depressing article full of statements like the one below.
The federal data shows that Beloit College in Wisconsin increased the net price for its lowest-income students by 82% while reducing it by 19% for its highest-income students. The college said the information it had submitted to the federal government was incorrect but did not respond when asked to provide the correct figures.
The net price for the lowest-income students at Connecticut College rose 235% in the past decade, compared with 9% for the highest-income students. The lowest-income students at Oklahoma Wesleyan University saw their net price go up by 69% while it fell by 37% for their highest-income classmates. At Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, the net price rose by 45% for the lowest-income and down by 27% for the highest-income students.
I’ve read a number of posts in other threads that indicated colleges are cutting merit aid in favor of providing need-based aid, but the article seems to be saying something different at least for some colleges. However, it was talking about “the nearly 700 universities and colleges that have over the past decade raised the prices paid by their lowest-income students more than the prices paid by their highest-income ones,” so presumably that leaves about 3,000 colleges where that sort of lopsided change on net price did not happen. It is just unclear to me whether the remaining 3000 are mostly colleges where the net price increased for all students at all income levels OR colleges where the net price increased more for higher income students OR even if in some cases, the net price decreased for everyone by about the same rate (this last one sounds unlikely). It looks like Colby-Sawyer (mentioned on this thread) was able to decrease the net price for everyone and decrease it a bit more for lower income students (-6%) than for their highest income students (-1%).
Still, when I went to the tuition tracker linked in the article, I was a little shocked to discover that at many colleges, the second highest group (75K-110K household income) are projected to pay not much more this year in net price than the lowest income students (from families making under 30K).
For example, at Wheaton College, families making under 30K are projected to pay about 23K this year net while families making 75-110K are projected to pay about 29K (the tuition tracker estimates the net tuition to be about 37K for families with a household income above 110K ). Don’t get me wrong, I understand that $29,000 is an enormous amount for families with around the median household income in Massachusetts, but it still seems surprising that it is only $6,000 more than the net tuition for kids from families that are well below the median household income in that state. I am not picking on Wheaton; both my oldest kids both have friends there who are having a great experience. But the name jumped out at me becuase D24 is considering applying.
At Oklahoma Wesleyan University, which also mentioned in the article, the gap is even smaller, 25K is projected for families who make less than $30,000 and 29K for those in the 75,000-110,000 range. And then the really puzzling 14K for families making more than 110,000. How can that last number even be possible? Am I misreading the chart?
Maybe this could be a model for other states: Purdue’s decade-long tuition freeze, record enrollment levels help counter state’s trending drop in college-going rate - Purdue University News
Purdue is going on year 12 of their tuition and room and board freeze. If they can do it, I don’t know why other universities can’t.
And they aren’t skimping on the frills - facilities are beautiful; dorms are good (if not great depending on building); the rec center is fabulous; dining is solid with a combo of traditional dining halls, food trucks, partnerships with restaurants for meal swipes. Plus they haven’t increased class size, all my D’s courses were taught by professors, their salaries are supposed to be in line with the market, etc…
I did not realize that. Good for them!
This isn’t a coincidence. Purdue was run by Mitch Daniels, a former OMB Director known for his non-spendthrift ways. We don’t have people like him running universities (or Washington) anymore.
I think you mean he was NOT a spendthrift.
Yes, thanks. I corrected the post.
Yes, props to Purdue for holding the line on tuition, but note that the public land grant is ~70% full payors. Moreover, Purdue does not come close to meeting full financial need, but yet awards merit money to the non-needy.
(Perhaps raising tuition on the full payers could subside the low income students more…)
It is also not as hard to hold the line on tuition starting after the 2008 downturn havoc on state budgets and state funding for state universities passed (twelve years ago was 2011).
Between 2007 and 2011, Purdue in-state tuition increased from $7,416 to $9,992, a nearly 35% increase.
From educationdata.org:
The average cost of college tuition & fees at public 4-year institutions has risen 179.2% over the last 20 years for an average annual increase of 9.0% .
I applaud any school that tries to curtail the increases.
Would not be surprised if a large portion of the increases at many state universities were concentrated in the 2008-2011 time frame.
Which gets back to an issue I raised earlier in the thread: why should anyone care if tuition is increased on the one percenters, particularly at public Unis?
For example, nearly half of the recent University of California tuition increases was applied to financial aid for the lower income folks so they were not affected by the increase.
Note that UC in-state systemwide fees have increased only about 7.5% total since 2012, with six years of 0% increases, one year of -0.50%, two years of +0.40%, one year of +2.70%, and one year of +4.25% (see https://www.ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/fees/201415/documents/Historical_Fee_Levels.pdf ). Not an easy one-liner like “no [in-state] tuition increases for over a decade”, but shows what can be done when the state budget is not being stressed in an economic downturn that reduces tax revenue while increasing use of various state provided services. Note that the biggest bursts of historical in-state tuition increases occurred during economic downturns.