<p>As a private school, why has USC's overall cost of attendance jumped from 49k 2 years ago to now 55K? They are at least not cutting classes or enlarging class size am I right?</p>
<p>For a UCLA guy you like to visit our forum…</p>
<p>As you know USC is a private university. According to what I have read tuition at private universities does not cover all costs. Contributions must fill in the gaps.</p>
<p>SC has to pay utilities, salaries, retirement pensions, maintenance, insurance, educational equipment and ever higher health care expenditures. I am not aware that any of these have gone down.</p>
<p>Last year SC increased the student financial aid budget by 8%. About 60% of the student body is on financial aid. Roughly 20% of the students receive merit scholarships. This helps thousands of students pay the expense of a private college education.</p>
<p>I think your Cost of Attendance figures need to be revised. On the website it was stated:</p>
<p>CofA for 2008-2009 year</p>
<p>$51,968
This figure included tuition, fees, room, board, books, supplies, miscellaneous expenses and transportation. </p>
<p>CofA for 2009-2010 year</p>
<p>$53,618
There was a small rise in tuition, but the estimated costs of books, supplies and transportation went up quite a bit.</p>
<p>My understanding is that class size is not rising, in some cases becoming even smaller. There appear to be more majors added and some new Ph.D programs. One of the big changes is a great deal of new faculty hiring.</p>
<p>From articles I have seen USC is not the only private university finding it necessary to raise tuition. </p>
<p>According to the Princeton Review for the 2009-2010 year the average financial aid package at SC was $34,545.</p>
<p>LOL Georgia Girl, are you even a USC student?</p>
<p>I’m a prospective USC graduate student so of course an increase in USC’s tuition interests me.</p>
<p>Both SC and UCLA are located in Los Angeles.</p>
<p>From the UCLA site:</p>
<p>Room and board for 2009-2010</p>
<p>$13,310.</p>
<p>Books</p>
<p>$1598.</p>
<p>From the USC site:</p>
<p>Room and board for 2009-2010</p>
<p>$12,284</p>
<p>Books</p>
<p>$1500</p>
<p>guy,</p>
<p>Here is a comparison. NYU is a large private university in an urban area.</p>
<p>On their site this is an estimate of costs for the fall 2010 year, without transportation.</p>
<p>$55,539.</p>
<p>CoA was 49k two years ago? Really now? Because my sources tell me that is was $53,367 two years ago. And now it is about $55,578. Hardly an intolerable increase.</p>
<p>Anyways, USC is not affected by the rate hikes in the UC system, obviously. However, it is naive to think that the cost of attending USC will not increase. Even in the best of economic times, the cost increases.</p>
<p>Besides, grad students do not pay undergrad tuition. Grad tuition and fees are another thing altogether, what with research and TAing and all that stuff…</p>
<p>What hasn’t gone up in price in this economy?</p>
<p>^^^ That’s a good one - lets see what hasn’t gone up… Gas prices, home prices, car prices, phone contracts, virtually anything deemed a want rather than a need, etc.</p>
<p>If it’s whatevers for USC tuition and overall COA to go up a bit, why do people make such a big fuss about the UC schools having a small rise in tuition and overall COA? o.O sounds kinda hypocritical to me.</p>
<p>Small rise in tuition? How is a 32% increase small, by any standards?</p>
<p>
notaznguy, your COA figure was probably the estimate from 07-08, which is what applicants for 2008 looked at as they were applying. Had you decided to matriculate to USC in 2008, your financial aid page would have reflected the final 2008-2009 COA estimate of $52,118 for 2008, and then $53,618 for 2009, and $55,578 for 2010 (I would link you to these amounts, but they come directly from my d-a-u-g-h-t-e-r-'-s 
financial aid page).</p>
<p>You aswered your own question with your very first words *“As a private school…” *There are protests and complaints when the UC system, the CSU system and the California Community College system raise their fees because the mission of those systems is supposed to be to provide an affordable higher education to the children of the taxpayers of California. After decades of paying taxes with the expectation it actually *would *be affordable, many of those taxpayers are dismayed and frustrated to find the “affordable education” at a UC costs more than $30,000 per year. Protests follow.</p>
<p>USC, as a private university, does not share the mission to offer a low-cost education to the taxpayers of California - or any other state. Like any business offering something for sale (an education, in this case), they will offer it at the highest price they feel the market will support. As USC has once again managed to fill their entering class with well-qualified freshman willing to pay that price (more than half of them with financial aid, of course), it seems the price is not “too high,” at least not from USC’s perspective.</p>
<p>Another factor is that USC offers a pre-payment plan to lock in tuition. If you pay all four years up-front, you pay the first-year’s rate for all four years. So, for example, if you chose that plan this year you would pay the 2010 tuition of $40,384 X 4 = **$161,536 **this August and not have to worry about any tuition increases. You would probably agree that the families who choose that option are among USC’s “best customers.” In order for them to feel as though choosing that option was a good deal, USC would have to raise the tuition at least 2% to 3% each year to match what they might have earned on that money in an insured savings account.</p>
<p>And no, USC is not cutting classes or increasing class size. They are not experiencing the cuts in funding coming from the state of California because, as you point out, USC is a private university not dependent on public funding.</p>
<p>“Small rise in tuition? How is a 32% increase small, by any standards?”</p>
<p>32% rise from what was originally ~$7,500, which would be an increase of ~$2,400. Nice logic. I hope you aren’t a USC student, I know their standards are way higher than that. I suppose a 100% increase would be significant if the original price of something was $1.00 too am I right?</p>
<p>So basically what you all are saying is, “It’s evil for public schools to raise tuition prices. So what if the economy is bad and if public schools are dependent on the economy? Don’t go to public schools, because their tuition will increase! Go to private schools because they don’t have tuition increases. However the tuition will increase because we’re a business. And no we are not dependent on the economy, we just rely on it to market our prices.” That’s what it sounds like o.O It all seems hypocritical to bash other schools for having tuition increases when USC’s tuition has increased over the years as well, in spite of whatever reason. For the UC’s, it may be because of lack of state funding. For USC or other private schools, it may be because they need to replace the toilets.</p>
<p>
??? Who said that? The only “bashing” that has been done has been by you, coming on the USC forum to say that USC students are “hypocrites” because they are not protesting increases in tuition.</p>
<p>notaznguy,</p>
<p>USC is a private university. They are not supported by taxpayer funds. As the costs of tuition has risen, so has the financial aid budget. If you read the listing of continuing student scholarships in another thread you will note friends or alumni of USC have provided hundreds and hundreds of scholarships to assist students financially.</p>
<p>It is not the fault of the university that costs have risen, particularly for employee health policies. As stated in my previous post other costs have risen and have to be covered. USC is not the only private university that has found it necessary to raise tuition.</p>
<p>Where in this thread did a responder state? </p>
<pre><code>It’s evil for public schools to raise tuition prices.
Don’t go to public schools, because their tuition will increase.
Go to private schools because they don’t have tuition increases.
</code></pre>
<p>Please find us a list of private research universities in urban areas that have not had a tuition increase in the last two years.</p>
<p>@notaznguy -I don’t think you meant to sound so insensitive(or did you?) but a 32% increase in tuition is a lot of money for some people. Many students have to work multiple jobs, to cover school and feed their family or rely on financial aid that may or may not increase to cover the sudden drastic increase in tuition. It is one thing for a school system to stagger tuition/fee increases over a period of semesters so students can react accordingly but it is an entirely different thing to hit students with it all at once.</p>
<p>This is a huge issue for many community college students and students at the other state universities and I am guessing many UCLA students as well. Try to look at the situation from a perspective other than your own or speak to students who are going to be adversely affected by the tuition hike and it might make more sense.</p>
<p>Kulakai, I don’t think you are as knowledgeable as you think you are. You are obviously not aware of the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan, which sets a price ceiling of $70,000 where students whose family income is below that receive free gift aid (meaning grants, not loans) to all of the increased fees in tuition. In addition, families receiving financial aid receive more financial aid (again, grants, not loans) to cover the increased tuition. In addition, the 32% fee increase was meant to give more funding to financial aid. 1/3 of the income received from the 32% tuition hike was given toward financial aid.</p>
<p>As you can see, the only people that do have the pay the 32% fee increase is not struggling families, but upper middle class to wealthy families. The only exclusion to this and the only students that “may” be drastically affected are illegal students. That, however, is a different story and I will not discuss.</p>
<p>Btw, there have not been any reports of ANY non-illegal UC student struggling to survive or withdrawing from the university because of the UC increases.</p>
<p>notaznguy, im having trouble figuring out your logic for this statement:</p>
<p>“If it’s whatevers for USC tuition and overall COA to go up a bit, why do people make such a big fuss about the UC schools having a small rise in tuition and overall COA? o.O sounds kinda hypocritical to me.”</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t see how usc students can be considered hypocritical, it’s just people’s different situations. USC has a good majority of students who do not have to worry about paying for tuition, so they are less likely to complain, whereas a large amount of people go to UCs because it is easier to afford.
So this is MY logic:
USC: most students can/will pay their tuition, no problem, so no complaints.
UCs: most students go for a more affordable education, so of course they will be like what the heck when the price keeps going up haha</p>
<p>The two populations just can’t be compared.</p>