Oxford is very comparable in cost for a domestic UK student to UCLA for an in-state Californian student. The UK fees are GBP9250 ($11800) vs $13700 for UCLA. The estimated cost of food and accommodation at Oxford is GBP7500-10000 ($9500-$12700) vs $15800 for UCLA residence halls per the COA (though in fact the cheapest UCLA triple is $12900 including meal plan). However, the international premium for Oxford (varies by course but GBP18000 = $23000 is typical) is generally somewhat less than the OOS premium for UCLA ($29000). Also worth noting that the exchange rate is currently the most favorable it has been in the last several decades - for most of that time you would add 15%-25% (or more) to the dollar figures above when converting from pounds.
The main differences are that most UK degrees are three years instead of four, and the accommodation is mostly single rooms not triples. On the other hand aid for low income families is better in California. When you also take into account that graduate salaries are much higher in the US than the UK, UCLA is probably more affordable for most Californians than Oxford is for most Brits. “”
But another difference is that all UK students at a UK university are eligible for loans for tuition fees, which don’t need to be repaid until the student is earning a certain amount, and if they never make that salary, they never have to repay.
There are many student loans that will never be repaid. Just because a loan isn’t dischargeable doesn’t mean it’s repaid.
And those kids whose parents can pay off the $120,000 in loans for their kids will graduate without the immense burden of $1400/mo in loan payments for 10 yrs. Those kids whose parents can’t pay are going to be controlled by that debt, especially poor kids who have no familial backup support. Sounds like such a fair plan. Shift greater burden onto the poor. 8-|
There is a plan that works for families who don’t want to or cannot afford to pay $60,000. (And $60,000 isn’t enough for most elite schools.) It is called letting go of the “I am too good for attending the in-state public or accepting merit at some lowly school that has average kids attending.” The mentality of posters on CC who accept and believe that elite schools are the only path to whatever future they dream of is removed from the real outcomes of kids who attend lower ranked schools and rise to the top.
I wouldn’t ever let my kids take in $30,000/yr in debt when I know that for $0 in debt they can end up in the exact same place (and they have. This isn’t a hypothetical in our family.)
Sallie Mae loans used to be given to undergrads without parent cosigners for full cost of attendance. I think that policy helped drive up costs 10+ years ago…and along with EZ Parent Plus loans…started this tuition train. It also fed the frenzy that one’s instate schools weren’t desirable and with a signature one could spend 4 years in any state they wanted. It also fed the insane idea that it’s ok to borrow $100k+ for any major or any career goal, even ones where employment was scarce or salaries were known to be low.
Of course, disaster struck, and those new grads burdened with $100k+ loans couldn’t pay them back. (Gee, they couldn’t have figured that out ahead of time???) Now, a cosigner is needed for the larger loans. Smaller loans can sometimes still be had w/o a cosigner but at a higher rate.
It was just a generation ago, when most lower/middle class families just assumed that their child would go to a local state school or maybe an affordable private with some aid. Of course, at that time, one year at a private school was not the same as a high end luxury car purchase.