Tuition in this timeframe has increased 168%.
3 Likes
I’d love to see public schools made more affordable- especially for poor kids. As for the Ivies et al, they are typically among the most generous with financial aid (often awarding it to families making up to $250k). If a student comes from a full pay family that doesn’t want to pay that type of tuition, their kids are out of luck. Not allowing them to borrow $300k is doing them a favor as that amount of debt is life limiting. Fortunately there are excellent schools at many levels of selectivity and top students can attend many of them very affordably.
5 Likes
There seems to be two very distinct discussions going on - affordability of public schools (more should absolutely be done) and affordability of “coveted” schools. I disagree with the OPs statement that most parents don’t want to pay COA-although agree that most can’t.
Coveted schools have few seats and have no issue finding parents willing to pay sticker price. They offer financial aid to bring in students that they feel enhance their overall mission/goals not because they can’t find enough full pay students. Look at the percentages at the top schools, lots and lots of parents are willing to pay.
4 Likes
Average gross tuition has increased greater than inflation, but not average net tuition. Average Net tuition has actually decreased the last few years.
Lots of sources, here are a few.
College prices aren’t skyrocketing—but they’re still too high for some | Brookings.
1 Like
And truth be told, it’s more about image than trying to genuinely help a larger group of students and families. The big increase in financial aid has come in response to criticism about their elitism and political/social pressure.
It’s not necessarily about wanting to pay. There are plenty of middle/upper-middle class families that live in high cost areas that simply cannot afford to shell out $320k per child.
5 Likes
Here’re a few things they can start with:
-
They can cut back or eliminate ancillary programs that don’t serve the school’s primary educational mission;
-
They can reduce administrative staff;
-
They can stop spending on fancy dorms and gourmet food in order to attract full pay students.
3 Likes
That would likely be a detriment to the overall economy and many of the college-bound participants, since a year of high school graduate labor would effectively replace a year of college graduate labor when their overall participation in the labor force over their lives is considered. It would also require the government or whatever public service entities to find enough work suitable for high school graduate labor to do.
4 Likes
That public service would seem a detriment to many college bound students is exactly why those same students need to perform public service.
2 Likes
As long as the US govt is lending unlimited money for college, prices will continue to rise, even above their current exorbitant rate. If the US govt refused to lend or guarantee loans for more than the cost of 4 yrs public tuition, the cost of tuition at most private colleges would drop rapidly.
5 Likes
Public service as a high school graduate would be less valuable to the economy as a whole than public service as a probably more skilled college graduate.
3 Likes
Federal direct loan limits for undergraduates are generally much lower than the cost of in-state public 4-year colleges ($5.5-7.5k per year).
Professional school (medical, law, dental, etc.) is where the big student loan debt is.
1 Like
Exactly….and
Net tuition costs (as linked above) are decreasing.
Why is it not applicable for ones who get aid, why they don’t have to wait. How are we supporting some and punishing others?
Obviously it has to br a collective effort of law makers, college boards and private sector to find solutions to make it student centered instead of parent centered so its not a class issue.
There should be more PSLF type public and private options.
Public service doesn’t necessarily require skilled labor, it just requires labor.
The value of public service shouldn’t be measured only in terms of its value to the country. It’s the value of the experience to the students that I’m most concerned with.
Additionally, we’d end up with an older, and more enlightened incoming freshman class if they spent a year out of their comfort zone serving others.
3 Likes
California has attempted a form of this service to help pay for college:
#CaliforniansForAll College Corps | California Volunteers.
2 Likes
Just tossing in a link to some interesting stats (older data (2018) at this point, but I think the patterns are pretty stable):
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country
At a high level–the US spends more than the OECD average on elementary and secondary education, but only about as much more as you would expect given its higher GDP per capita.
In contrast, we are way above expected when it comes to postsecondary expenditures per full-time-equivalent student. The UK is too (arguably even more so), and among our relatively close peers, next would be Canada and Australia.
And at least quite frequently, those four (US, UK, Australia, and Canada) are among the top-rated postsecondary systems in the world, and indeed those systems frequently attract a lot of the best students from other countries.
Which doesn’t mean there is nothing to learn. Germany, for example, also tends to rate very highly, and indeed arguably is the top international destination for non-English-speakers. See here:
https://studyabroad.shiksha.com/country-with-best-higher-education-system-articlepage-1423
And yet Germany is “only” spending as much on postsecondary education as their high GDP per capita would predict.
But still, I think there is good reason to believe it would be difficult to radically cut the overall cost of the US postsecondary system per student without undermining what makes the US postsecondary system so attractive.
Of course, it makes sense to subsidize these costs for students from lower-income households. That’s good economic and civic policy, as subsidies like that tend to pay off well for the public down the road.
But to me that is the most pressing question–how to get sufficient subsidies to those truly in need–versus trying to force colleges and universities to cut costs per student.
1 Like
I saw a roundtable of political figures at the national level on CNN a few weeks ago where the panel debated this very question.
One panelist, a Democrat, advocated for more online degrees as a way to reduce college costs for more people.
Another panelist, a Republican, suggested limiting federal borrowing limits per student for all federal borrowers rather than just the loans in the student’s name.
Either way, we are heading into a world of have-and-have-nots re: college education just like we are with housing. Receive subsidies (grants or loans), get housing and a traditional college degree. Don’t qualify for subsidies, rent or geoarbitrage and pay 500k/kid for private undergrad or go to school online if your child can’t get into public college in person.
Neither answer is exactly palatable, but that’s where we are heading, even if parents and students don’t like it.
As far as medical school costs go, well, that’s why most of the physicians I see attended medical school in Europe.
1 Like
Heck, why can’t everyone afford rhinoplasty or a tummy tuck? Or for that matter- insulin or a bone marrow transplant?
1 Like