<p>speedo notes,It’s certainly a steal for higher income families, essentially taxpayer subsidized education for the wealthy. U. of Maryland currently lists first year total cost at well over $21,000. A 15% raise would bring it close to $25,000. Without a huge increase in both federal and state aid for lower and middle class families this kind of increase will result in a much less economically diverse student body. For wealthy folks it’s obviously a good deal compared to the privates but for poorer families this trend is pretty much a disaster."</p>
<p>Response: Personally, I would like to see all public universities become privatized with the states offering vouchers;however, even with a 15% raise in tuition, it is a good deal for everyone. Note that this is only in tuition and fees and NOT in room and board which can represent almost half or more of the costs. Thus, in your Maryland example, it wouldn’t result in a 15% increase on the whole $21,000 in total costs.</p>
<p>Also, if you think that this is only good for the rich, try going to a decent private school where average total costs probably are around $45,000 ( without scholarships) or more. CMU for example has tuition of $40,300 alone! In fact, they estimate that total costs will exceed $53,000. University of Michigan upper division courses cost over $37,000 in tuition alone! Thus, even at $21,000 in total costs for Maryland, it doesn’t sound too bad regardless of financial circumstances.</p>
<p>Yes, if you are from an economically disadvantaged family, any tuition, especially higher tuition, is tough. However, that is the nature of being economically disadvantaged. Hopefully, the states will provide more scholarship aid for needy kids.</p>
<p>For high achieving lower income student privates still offer the best option. In my state, Pa, PSU, the flagship, only offers limited access to lower income kids while many privates with need based aid are still accessible, including CMU. At the privates aid generally increases with cost - at the Publics, cost increases without corresponding increases in aid or worse, less aid resulting in increased gapping. That’;s what’s happened in Pa and apparently is being repeated across the country. Currently the gap, not covered by fed, state grants, loans and work study for a low income student attending PSU main campus is about $12,000. Each rise in price, no matter how small, simply adds to that gap. An increase of 15% even if just in tuition is pretty major for low income kids. Of course, from the wealthy kid perspective, PSU’s total cost around $25,000 is still a “good deal” compared to many privates and that’s why that particular flag and others around the country are filling up with wealthy students. It’s a matter of economics.</p>
<p>This is a sad story. Affordable public education has been a huge opportunity-maker for generations of Americans trying to build a productive middle class life.</p>
<p>It was not too long ago that the country was running budget surpluses. This was due not just to the alignment of economic stars in the sky but to sensible policies such as pay-as-you-go government financing. We need to get back to those policies while addressing systemic issues such as health insurance costs.</p>
<p>The public honors college in my state now costs over $25K/year. We recently chose a private college out of state in part because, after scholarships, the extra cost was not too great. We have the savings to make this possible. Many middle class families don’t. Especially if their kids are not A students, they’ll be be squeezed out. They won’t be admitted to the well-endowed private schools with generous merit scholarships or need-based aid even for families making well over $100K. They won’t be able to afford the $25K and up that more and more public universities will charge.</p>
<p>I don’t believe privatization is the answer. School costs, like health insurance costs, can be managed and financed by the whole people under a single-payer system. Other countries do this. It is not “socialism”. A mix of private and public entities can still deliver the education and the health care. But you pool the risks and the costs.</p>
<p>I think what’s going to happen is that less kids will be able to “go away” to school. Instead of leapfrogging past the local state school, kids will have to go there.</p>
<p>Frankly, that’s how it was for many kids 30+ years ago. In the 70s, usually only the more affluent “went away” to college. Most middle-class kids went to the local state and commuted from home. It is a luxury of sorts to be able to pay for your child to live elsewhere while going to college.</p>
<p>When I’m in my hometown (southern cal) this subject comes up a lot. My generation didn’t go on numerous campus visits and have long lists of schools. Dream schools were just that…no real expectation to ever go. Most of us just applied to our local UCs and/or Cal States. I did get to live on campus, but I had to pay for it. My siblings commuted for undergrad.</p>
<p>“Frankly, that’s how it was for many kids 30+ years ago. In the 70s, usually only the more affluent “went away” to college. Most middle-class kids went to the local state and commuted from home. It is a luxury of sorts to be able to pay for your child to live elsewhere while going to college.”</p>
<p>This was my experience also. As a first generation college student I went to a City University that was a very good value and I didn’t know a thing about privates. I commuted by bus & subway for 2 years and then was able to dorm the 3rd and 4th years. Even state U tuition seemed out of reach at the time & I had no knowledge of merit & fin aid then. Now I marvel at the opportunities my children have thanks to the benefits their parent’s education has afforded them. Although we can not foot full pay at privates we can handle full pay at states or privates with merit. It is indeed a luxury to visit & have a choice of multiple colleges and to have the option of dorm life.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids notes,Frankly, that’s how it was for many kids 30+ years ago. In the 70s, usually only the more affluent “went away” to college. Most middle-class kids went to the local state and commuted from home. It is a luxury of sorts to be able to pay for your child to live elsewhere while going to college."</p>
<p>Response: Yes, it was that way in NY as well. VERY few kids applied to more than a couple of schools and almost all attended a New York State University. NO one I know did any campus visits unless there was a school near their home. In fact, if someone attended NYU as an undergrad over CUNY or SUNY, they were considered to probably be inferior students. The City Universities and State Universities use to pay faculty among the highest in the country even rivaling that of IVY schools. Thus, most kids knew that they could get a top notch education there for a fraction of the cost of the privates. Today I understand that the pay scales of CUNY and SUNY has not kept up.</p>
<p>In fact almost all kids who did attend private schools did so in NY. However, like today, if you were a kid from a disadvantaged economic background, you almost always attended either a community college or a state university. I rarely heard of anyone going to a private school and getting full or almost full tuition. It just wasn’t that common. Moreover, merit aid was also quite rare at that time too.</p>
<p>Interesting observation. I have a different sense, perhaps from growing up in the NY suburbs. Most everyone I knew went “away” to school. Many stayed in the NE, but some went south and some went west. We had the NY State regents scholarship $ (I dont recall it being much, but it was something) , but I really didn’t know many kids who went to local ccs (if there were any in the area- I dont recall). I did know kids who went to NY State schools or to the local college, but not to 2 yr or cc schools.</p>
<p>jym, your experience is the same as mine. I did not know anyone at that time who went to the local cc. I did know some that went our state flagship.</p>
<p>Oh please - it is socialism. All this does is shift the cost to others. Thats what has caused this mess - some folks wanting government to do more, wanting their next free handout without paying for it. And state gov’t’s and the feds were happy to oblige running up massive debt until it became unsustainable. Now someone has to pay the piper.</p>
<p>A better solution - abolish all federal gov’t programs except defense. Return power to the states. Slash tax rates and let people decide how to spend THEIR hard earned income - not some fools in DC</p>
<p>I completely agree. My mother was given an excellent FREE college education for 4 years. She came from a very poor family that immigrated to America. She commuted from her home, but her 4 years were completely free and it was a very good education. She went on for a master’s degree at a private university and had a wonderful professional career.</p>
<p>Thanks, NEmom. I was feeling like ours was an oddity. Our HS was HUGE (my HS graduating class was bigger than my college class) so we were “tracked”. I am sure there were many who went to local schools and many who didnt go on to college at all. I just didnt know them. I recall sitting in a class one day in spring senior year, and the teacher asked us all where we were going to college. It sounded like an ad for the top 20 U’s and LACs as he went around the room asking us each, one at a time. Really interesting experience.</p>
<p>jym, I came from a middle class family living in an upper middle class and wealthy community. In other words, we were very much on the lower end of the income scale in our area, but we were solidly middle class. My parents did NOT experience the angst about how to pay for college that families of similar means do today. A private school education for 2 children was still affordable for them and they did not even apply for financial aid. I am not saying that it was easy, but I believe that in those days it was far easier than it is today.</p>
<p>I attended the public HS. It was the only HS for the entire city, so students ran the gamut from lower to upper income. I think we were like you-- middle class. Both my parents worked, which wasnt that common back then, and they took out loans to send us to college.</p>
<p>A reminder- the wealthier parents will have been paying more in state taxes over the years, subsidizing those with lesser incomes. They added a surcharge at UW so lower income instate students’ parents wouldn’t have to pay as much- hits those just above the cutoff hardest, and they are using the extra funds to increase class sections of courses entering students often take, hoping to make it easier to finish in four years.</p>
<p>Back in my day there were no need blind admissions. Now that we, through hard work including much education, can afford it they have it. Sigh.</p>
<p>jym, my mother did work full time while we growing up so we were really raised by our grandparents. We never needed to borrow for our undergraduate degrees. I had student loans for graduate school. In fact, my mother stopped working when I went into my freshman year of college and they managed.</p>
<p>JVM626, the New York Regent’s scholarship did encourage many kids to attend schools in NY. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Regent’s scholarship covered the full tuition for either a state university in NY or a City University. Thus, if college were free, why go anywhere else? Obviously , we did have high quality kids go to some top schools especially Cornell and Columbia. However, the VAST majority from our public high school attended a New York State University or CUNY. Again, I didn’t go to a magnet school or attend a private school, where their might have been a different demographic. Also, while our high school, which was considered very good, was probably not one of the best high schools in the US. maybe that affected admission. I know of only one kid, as an example, who got into MIT over a four year period. In fact, this fact was mentioned by the high school.</p>
<p>I really don’t think it should come down to the money at the end of the day. You only have one shot at your undergraduates degree in your early years and why not pick a great school to accommodate that? I am dumbfounded when people give up a top private university over something to a lesser tier strictly for financial purposes. There are all sorts of loans and scholarships that make it possible for any student to attend any college so long as they are accepted. I think the students who pick cheaper schools are those who will probably regret not going to a more expensive and prestigious university and in turn, end up paying much more for graduate school. It is almost as though the void left by not attending their dream school is fulfilled by a more expensive graduate school.</p>
<p>“there are all sorts of loans and scholarships that make it possible for any student to attend any college so long as they are accepted.”</p>
<p>That’s simply not true, most students especially lower income kids and indeed many wealthier kids are forced to make hard financial choices and many have to turn down, not only the dream school, but even other pretty good schools because of finances. That’s life!</p>
<p>As for some of the other posts, when I left high school in 1970, most kids I knew went away to school, I was one of the few who stayed home, worked and commuted. It was a very different experience for those of us who stayed home. In my situation, my father lost his job, shortly before graduation but otherwise it would have been possible for me and most all of my friends to go away to college, the local states were all accessible. What troubles me about the current trend of limited access to state schools is the ongoing nature of that trend. At this point even a small rise in tuition forces well qualified kids out.</p>
<p>Florida public colleges are now on a bumpy financial road approaching an uncertain crossroad. Florida’s popular Bright Futures merit scholarship program could have major changes this year per attached article from the St. Petersburg Times newspaper.</p>