<p>Actually Mini, the paradox you've identified that more and more jobs require a college degree is an interesting one. Corporations require a college degree for many jobs which didn't require them in the past simply because in some parts of the country, HS grads just can't write a grammatical sentence or do basic math. There's no evil gremlin sitting in the HR department (except for me) determining that we're going to devalue a college degree... it's just simple pragmatism that when the HS grads we see write at a sixth grade level and can't comprehend a written document when it's longer than three paragraphs, we figure that we've got to ratchet up the requirements. Do you want your car fixed by a technician who can't read? Would you fly on an airplane that had been serviced by someone who couldn't read a graph or understand the difference between a percentage and an integer? Do you want your mom getting chemo from a technician who doesn't know what a miligram is??? We're talking about basic reading and numeracy skills.... and when droves of our HS graduates don't have them, corporate employers have to raise the bar in order to get them.</p>
<p>Does someone need to have read Tolstoy to become a police officer? Well-- no, but many municipalities have determined that without some screening mechanism, the applicant pool is so abysmal that it's a waste of time. college attendance (graduation preferred but not always required) is a good proxy and an efficient way to screen thousands of applicants.</p>
<p>If we all took the time we spend bemoaning the absence of middle class kids at HYP and devoted it to wondering why our HS's can't teach a kid the difference between a numerator and a denominator so s/he could get an entry level job, the world would be a better place. In the aggregate, how many kids enter HYP a year? A couple of thousand? How many kids graduate HS with no prospects for a decent job? Millions? </p>
<p>Princeton, go ahead and admit anyone you want- and I don't even care how many Pell grant recipients you snag. Our educational system is a national embarrasement, but if you're lucky enough to get to educate some of the cream of the crop, more power to you.</p>
<p>Barrons noted in response to Mini's statement about charging much for for instate tuition for those that can afford it, "You are advocating a large increase in instate tuition so there is no current comparison therefore you can't state that no students would be driven out of the system. However basic economics teaches us that as a price goes higher we will consume less of a good and/or seek cheaper substitutes. Add in the fact that middle-upper income people tend to be better informed about options--especially when it comes to education--they will most likely start looking at viable substitutes. It certainly happens when state schools increase the out of state tuition markedly--yield on OOS students goes down--a lot"</p>
<p>Response: Barrons you are quite right. If we dramatically raise state university tuition, many middle class folks will evaluate other options, which will leave the poorer kids in state universities. I certainly wouldn't send my kid to a state university if the tuition was almost equal to that of a good private school unless the state university was really top notch.</p>
<p>Personally, I would like to see the elimination of all state universities. I would like the states to give out vouchers based on need for kids to attend any university. This would benefit everyone by giving broader based options and probably be a lot cheaper in the long run for taxpayers. I think that, for the most part, private industry and a free market works much better than state or federal institutions. Having no state universities would encourse more free enterprise.</p>
<p>Yes we have seen how well private industry has done in Iraq. Right now private and public education at the college level is so intertwined from an econmic point of view given federal reserach grants, student loans, etc, that distinctions between the two are very blurry. State universities serve two masters--the needs of the student and the needs of the state for educational/reserach opportunities which benefit the entire state (e.g. agriculture schools in the midwest, maritime schools in the east). Will a college system based on a voucher system maintain an awareness of the needs of the entire state or will it become primarily devoted to making sure that it entices students with that voucher money to keep coming through those doors?</p>
<p>Not all that long ago when the University of Chicago decided to increase undergraduate enrollment it was faced with the dilemma of increasing tuition at the same time. Once it raised tuition to be on par with the other elite privates, its applications increased and was easily able to maintain student quality (perhaps improve it) while increasing enrollment. </p>
<p>Seems that "value" at least may be imparted by the published cost. It stands to reason that tuitions, at least for the privates, will keep rising to match one another's increases so as to minimize any differences in "perceived" value.</p>
<p>"Barrons you are quite right. If we dramatically raise state university tuition, many middle class folks will evaluate other options, which will leave the poorer kids in state universities. I certainly wouldn't send my kid to a state university if the tuition was almost equal to that of a good private school unless the state university was really top notch."</p>
<p>Not gonna happen - it won't leave just poorer kids in state universities, and for two reasons. Private school costs are rising faster than public ones. And, for better students, as private school costs rise, so does selectivity. Market system turned upside down. Wealthy students are flocking to state universities now in much larger numbers because they are finding a better value there, and because they can't buy their way into Yale. It would be wonderful if they could find "viable substitutes". But they are not, and are even less likely to do so in the future, until mid-level private institutions are perceived of as better (that's what happened to Georgetown and NYU) or cheaper.</p>
<p>Why do you fear the market system so much? The market is saying public school tuitions should be priced higher; the needs of business and the state says low- and middle-income students need college educations. Both can easily be served.</p>
<p>The universe of private schools that can attract more students while increasing the price is about 50-75 out of 2000. Also many top publics have had double digit % increases the last few years while no major privates have increased that much. It's the top publics that are increasing at a faster rate for a variety of reasons--but mostly poor state funding.</p>
<p>Mol10e notes,"Yes we have seen how well private industry has done in Iraq"</p>
<p>Response: I don't see how anything we do could have succeeded in Iraq.</p>
<p>Mini notes,"Not gonna happen - it won't leave just poorer kids in state universities, and for two reasons. Private school costs are rising faster than public ones. And, for better students, as private school costs rise, so does selectivity. Market system turned upside down. Wealthy students are flocking to state universities now in much larger numbers because they are finding a better value there, and because they can't buy their way into Yale"</p>
<p>Response: Yes, however if they raise the tuition for public schools substantially, as you have suggested, wealthy or middle class won't be flocking to the public schools as they are now. Again, this is in response to your suggestion to dramatically raise the tuition of public schools.</p>
<p>idad notes,"Not all that long ago when the University of Chicago decided to increase undergraduate enrollment it was faced with the dilemma of increasing tuition at the same time. Once it raised tuition to be on par with the other elite privates, its applications increased and was easily able to maintain student quality (perhaps improve it) while increasing enrollment. "</p>
<p>Response: University of Chicago is an elite school. Their demand is semi-inelastic. Thus, they and other ivy schools can raise tuition dramatically and still get lots of applicants. State schools are different.Unless the state school is a Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA etc, people won't go there over a top private school if the tuition is almost the same! I certainly wouldn't go to a state school that has the same tuition as Chicago not would a lot of other kids.</p>
<p>Here in Illinois our top state school is now over 18k/year. Quite a lot for a family with several kids. I have always thought that the way to address the issue of affordability for the middle class is through tax relief. If we were able to deduct more of what we spend on our children's education we could handle the higher costs. The impact on the lower class would be directly correlated with their taxes as well so they would be served though to a lesser extent. For the very wealthy the numbers are probably irrelevant but the exemption or whatever could be capped at incomes of 200k or some other line to limit it to those that are impacted. With this system the feds have a motive to try to keep college costs in line to reduce the impact on tax revenues while colleges are free to set costs at the level they need.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The impact on the lower class would be directly correlated with their taxes as well so they would be served though to a lesser extent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ordinarily, tax relief is commensurate with the amount of tax paid; so a middle-class family, having paid more in taxes, would get more relief than a lower-income family. To get to the desired aim of providing more relief to the families who can least afford to pay for college would need a very different way of handling taxes and tax relief.</p>
<p>Another factor for the states--brain drain. It is generally in the interest of the state to keep as many of the best students from that state at home as people tend to work in the state they attend college. If the state makes it equally attractive to go away to school--especially for the highly qualified, it tends to lose that intellectual capital. Therefore it is in the state's best longterm interest to keep the best and brightest home. The many graduates of Harvard and MIT and Stanford and Berkeley that stayed in those areas to create new ventures have made those two areas very rich.</p>
<p>A few months ago, WSJ or similar, wrote something on problems US Auto industry. </p>
<p>US auto companies complain that they can't make money on the cars that they make. and reasons listed are all well known.</p>
<p>Toyxxx replies and says that your problems are of your own making- you need to change. We recognize the need for a strong domestic auto industry which also means that we continue to sell cars. We will help you out by Raising our prices so that you can make more profit, and with this profit you can improve your product and be more competitive. </p>
<p>Will Toyxxx price themselves out of a market? Did they become more selective?
Will they sell less cars? Will they make more $? -- Doesn't matter. Real question is whether the domestic industry will offer a better value and use the new found money to make a future great car? If this strategy works, doesn't everyone involved come out ahead? </p>
<p>I think economics is working in the higher education system. Students are better prepared, research is up, buildings are build, qualified teachers hired are competitive wages, industry is contributing to schools in terms of $, internships, institutes, advisory capacities.</p>
<p>I'd like to think that we have more schools moving up the ladder with the number of top schools increasing in quality and quantity.</p>
<p>Marite,
I didn't intend to imply that the lower class would get the same relief but that they would get some relief. The point of much of this thread is that there are less avenues available for the middle class. This would of course affect everyone but have the greatest impact on the middle class.</p>
<p>I understand your point, Still, if the idea is to make education affordable for all, then it seems to me that the greatest amount of aid in whatever form should go to the neediest, i.e, low income families. Granted that middle-class families are being squeezed, but low income families are even more so. If it's a matter of public policy to provide affordable education to all, low-income families should not have to depend on the largesse of HYPS and other elite colleges.
A $15k education (UMAss-Amherst) is within reach of middle class families, but not of poorer ones.</p>
<p>"Response: Yes, however if they raise the tuition for public schools substantially, as you have suggested, wealthy or middle class won't be flocking to the public schools as they are now. Again, this is in response to your suggestion to dramatically raise the tuition of public schools."</p>
<p>Private school tuitions, already double or triple those of the publics, will continue to rise faster than the publics in any case. There won't be any loss in wealthy students. As for middle class students, they will be able to access increased subsidies, so that, if tuitions rise, the publics will be an even better bargain than they are now. But if some of them choose to attend mid-level privates as a result, I see that as a GOOD thing, not a bad one - it's just the market doing it's thing.</p>