Obama warns colleges: Rein in tuition or risk aid

Parent Cafe
61

<p>riverbirch,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You really have no clue what I know about. I’ve spent a few years of my life in the Bay Area and in San Francisco itself. I have many, many transgender friends and spent the better part of my undergrad years with them and the rest of the queer community. I’ve helped organize protests and events for trans causes, worked with trans organizations, and even fought the administrations at multiple top universities like Stanford and Harvard when they were welcoming ROTC back in spite of its discrimination against trans students. I’m not trans myself, but I understand transgender and the associated issues pretty well.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I know that’s BS. How do I know? Because no trans person would say that. I would bet my life on it. And I’ve never heard a trans person ever say that they weren’t born that way: they may not have realized it early on, but most often they’ve never felt comfortable in their “assigned gender.” </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s the same crap I hear from the nuts who think that homosexuality is wrong, that gays deserve no rights, that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, etc. They refuse to believe they’re homophobic - they just “don’t agree.”</p>

62

<p>As long as schools have the <em>ability</em> and the <em>incentive</em> to raise prices, they will.</p>

63

<p>bluebayou,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is my point though: these “if” scenarios are not even in the realm of possibility. Thus, they have no bearing on reality, and it’s pointless to ponder “what if.” In my view this makes any point regarding subsidization from other students moot.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I’d say if they were going to donate for a different purpose, they would have. Instead, they wanted to support scholarships.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good point - I was trying to remember the statistic on how much it’d cost to attend if everyone paid full price. I vaguely remembered something like $77k, so that makes sense, but that means the aggregate cost would be ~$530m, which seems small compared to the $4 billion budget.</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not necessarily arguing that the subsidies are BAD… just that they raise the price of attendance. If the school needs $10K per student, and most students can pay $10K, then that is what the school costs. If the government gives $5K, then the price goes up to $15K, because now the students can pay their $10K plus the government’s $5K.</p>

<p>There is no incentive for the school to only charge $10K if they can get $15K</p>

65

<p>phanta:</p>

<p>Well if it is a moot point, why bring it up in the first place (post 54)? But again, the University of California considers tuition cross-subsidization good public policy. The math can’t get any simpler.</p>

<p>From a Cal press release:

</p>

<p>(Heck, the Occupy crowd should be pleased.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Have you ever worked in a Development/fundraising office?</p>

66

<h1>64, not worth debating - however, I believe I thought I was responding to the subsidies to K-12.</h1>

<p>Pell Grant is a subsidy for higher ed, as is other financial aid.</p>

67

<p>bluebayou,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Because I was responding to a previous post re: people who feel cheated by the financial aid system. It’s because the point (of subsidization) is moot that it’s annoying to hear them complain “but but but, if only the university had fewer poor kids…”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve already said that you can view it from a budget-columns point of view. And I said it’s oversimplifying. In other words, you can view it either way, but it doesn’t give you the right to blame low-income students. The numbers are the numbers, and you can interpret them at will; but an accurate interpretation requires consideration of points that can’t be reduced to numbers, like the mission of the public university in educating large numbers of low-income students. IMO if your ultimate conclusion, based on those columns, is that the poor kids are the reason the paying kids have to pay more, you’re implicitly dreaming of some impossible alternative reality (wherein there are few or no low-income students), which is irrelevant. Akin to “if only the university didn’t have to hire professors, we wouldn’t have to pay so much!”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Have you? As far as I know, donations typically work in one of two ways: 1) the alum approaches the school and says, “I want to donate to create/support X” (or “I want to donate X amount and earmark it for this”), or 2) the school says “here’s a list of things we’re raising money for; does any of them interest you?” (in this case, either the alum or the school approaches the other). In either case, the alum ultimately decides to donate for a specific purpose, here to scholarships.</p>

<p>(“But if only we didn’t have so many poor kids, that alum would’ve given us a new rec center!” :rolleyes:)</p>

68

<p>Blame whomever you want, and colleges can spend their endowments however they like, but brilliant low-income kids have at least a CHANCE to attend a $50K+ Top 10 university, with their education costs being subsidized. Brilliant middle to upper-middle income kids will have to pay at least 80% of the COA. Not without exception, but that’s pretty much how it’s been running the past 5 years or so.</p>

69

<p>

$20 per what? per day?</p>

70

<p>Continue with dictatoship, what is new? Very predictable…</p>

71

<p>^I think that would have to be a daily amount to fund 4 years but it must assume no increase in costs for 18 years. Even a 5% annual cost increase would push the required contribution to at least $40/day with a 4% interest rate. I don’t know many young parents who have an extra $280 per week to dedicate to college savings!</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>Brilliant low-income students are often never afforded the chance to show their potential, so no, most don’t have the opportunity (there’s a reason that one study found that 75% of the students at the top 150 colleges come from the top economic quartile, while only 3% from the bottom quartile).</p>

<p>And the middle/upper-middle income students most definitely have a chance at attending top 10 schools. All these schools are very generous with financial aid and consider all family finances. But many of these families don’t want to pay even though they could do so without true difficulty. Your view of middle- and upper-middle income must be very skewed; consider that these top 10 universities judge a student to be low-income even if their family is making above the median household income in the US.</p>

<p>I’m sick of hearing middle-income students complain that they’re the ones being cheated at the top universities. I could see that point at private universities that are stingy with financial aid, but even then, to portray them as the worst off is just ludicrous. The poor students are the ones who are deprived of most opportunities considered “basic” to middle- and upper-income families, the ones who didn’t have health insurance growing up, who often come from broken homes and crime-ridden neighborhoods, who most often don’t even know that they could get a scholarship or even that higher education is in the realm of possibility for them, who usually have no one to help guide them through the admissions process if they’re aware they can go to college. No matter how you spin it, these poor kids are the losers, so it’s hard to feel real sympathy for middle- and upper-middle income students who have been offered very generous financial aid at top-10 universities. To imply they don’t have a chance is laughable.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>You can pretty much count on the fact that the ones deemed high “value” would be the ones doing the better job of serving the partisan Kool-Aid. Scary.</p>

74

<p>This has obviously been a hot topic. . I am a parent and step-parent to 6 college grads, with another student due to go on next year. My youngsters have attended Ivy Leagues and small elites, as well as state schools, and all but one have gone on to grad schools. As a result, and with hard work, all of those youngsters are working at good paying jobs. Those who have attended grad schools have loans – but have also achieved the ability to pay them off. </p>

<p>However, I am shocked by the differences in funding from school to school at the undergraduate level. We were fortunate to have been one of the early recipients of the no-loan policy from Davidson College. Only grants are given to meet aid. I am proud that Davidson folks will be testifying before a US Senate panel regarding their practices to show how this can be done.</p>

<p>In comparison, I have also seen my daughter in law strapped with a loan from a school that was ‘cheaper’, but in a situation where she will probably never be able to pay off the loan due to the availability of jobs in her field…or will have to choose to change careers.</p>

<p>I believe EVERY heavily endowed school should be creating an all grant environment…and maybe even not so heavily endowed schools. If the graduates are successful, the graduates will fund endowments. If not, the school may cease to exist…and maybe that would be for the best. </p>

<p>I think it’s time to make the schools accountable – for accepting the students that they do, to study in the fields that they are studying. If the degrees are not financially sustainable, then only those who have ‘discretionary income’ for ‘fun topics’ should attend, well warned that what they are getting is not preparation for the future – but esoterics.</p>

<p>I am not saying that there isn’t a place in our world for art-history majors – but how many of them should we be graduating? And shouldn’t they know, upfront, that chances are they may not get anything for work in their area of study?</p>

<p>Let’s face it. Most kids don’t go to college thinking they’re going to come out slinging burgers or doing menial secretarial chores… And while some may simply not have had the skills or talents to go for big time jobs shouldn’t the colleges that accepted and graduated them, and kept them on board with hope for something that proved unattainable share in that responsibility? </p>

<p>Shackling kids to college loans is going to do nothing to help us get out of the current economic crisis – but making the colleges be part of the solution – the people getting the tax breaks and the tuition money in – might just help</p>

75

<p>Conservative Republican Florida Governor Scott is now following President Obama’s advice?</p>

<p>[Gov</a>. Rick Scott says he will reject a tuition hike - Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/gov-rick-scott-says-he-will-reject-a-tuition-hike/1213182]Gov”>http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/gov-rick-scott-says-he-will-reject-a-tuition-hike/1213182)</p>

76

<p>Sorry, but no one is shackling kids to loans … no one but the kids themselves. It is not necessary to attend Davidson or similar schools. I’m not saying it’s not wonderful to attend them, just that it is not necessary. I feel like a broken record sometimes, but it is a choice to go to a school one cannot afford. For most students, there are alternatives that do not require so much borrowing.</p>

<p>No offense to your lawyer child, but it was a choice that someone clearly intelligent enough to get into law school should have understood. My own D considered law school but opted not to due to the high cost and very poor job outlook for lawyers. Following your line of logic (re: art majors), law school should not graduate so many students, right?</p>

77

<p>^Seriously. </p>

<p>Livesinashoe,
So you are a parent to 7, count 'em 7, college students, and you feel no personal responsibility for the choices your kids made with regard to taking out loans to fund certain majors? Nanny-state mentality at its finest.</p>

78

<p>Somebody who is promoting the idea that school endowments should replace loans should google “school endowment” and post the amounts here. Aside from a few of the best schools, schools have little endowment.</p>

<p>It is amazing how the amount drops drastically from the top few to all the rest.</p>

<p>State schools are underfunded, soliciting foreigners, or taking more out of state kids.</p>

79

<p>re 77
should re-read #74. carefully.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I manage a Development office.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let 'em whine and wallow in their self-pity (and ignorance). Don’t make yourself “sick” over it. Yes, I understand that you were using a figure of speech but my response to whiners, is ‘so what?’ Don’t let it bother you and it won’t.) Use your education and help change the world. Don’t waste time (or cycles) on the small stuff. A buddy of mine called it ‘negative energy.’ Don’t let it suck you into its vortex!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>With all due respect, your D was an adult at the time she signed up for the loans. She could have taken a lower cost option at a lower ranked law school. </p>

<p>Should law schools provide greater transparency on career placement? Absolutely, but that is not what the Prez is talking about.</p>