<p>
Have expenditures remained flat?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here you go:</p>
<p>[Myth:</a> Increases in Federal Student Aid Drive Increases in Tuition](<a href=“http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/Myth-Increases-in-Federal-Student-Aid-Drive-Increases-in-Tuition.aspx]Myth:”>American Council on Education)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/Delta-Subsidy-Trends-Production.pdf[/url]”>http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/Delta-Subsidy-Trends-Production.pdf</a></p>
<p>Now, I’d love to see the facts behind your position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In real dollar spending per student, yes, fairly flat.</p>
<p>See Figure 1 in the AIR report previously linked.</p>
<p>As you see from the figure, the big change is in the percentage funded by tuition.</p>
<p>Uh, their own graph refutes their point. LARGER tuition increases are seen when state support falls off, but if i take that at face value(with no data verification) I get a 232% increase in 4 year tuition and a 15% decrease in state contributions. </p>
<p>How can you possibly attribute that much of a delta to a loss of state funding? Tuition seems to be roughly 60% of public college budgets.</p>
<p>Using ratios like this is terrible time series analysis and can only imply correlation. I believe you tuition goes up more when budgets go down.</p>
<p>What you (and this think tank) have failed to refute is that the market wouldn’t be able to support these prices without cheap, easy, and dangerous credit extensions that are basically just handouts to the colleges. Don’t forget for profit colleges are also large beneficiaries to this system.</p>
<p>Accessibility is fine, but right now that ‘accessability’ is paying for 50,000 sq ft student health centers.</p>
<p>Figure 1 in the AIR report shows that spending per student is nearly flat in real dollars, and Figure 2 shows that the share of expenses paid by tuition has gone up by roughly 50%. That is clear from the data. Your mumbo jumbo math doesn’t change that.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think the market would shift over time and tuition would be generally equal to right now. However, I do think the # of graduates would decrease as college becomes a serious commitment versus get your parents to sign their name and hope for the best.</p>
<p>What you have now is wasteful spending at the colleges and a huge game around sticker and net price. The average tuition paid per student(gross tuition revenue) is the only real metric that matters at the top of the house, but the students are left running around trying to game the financial ‘aid’ packages in the name of equality and accessability, not realizing the tragedy of the commons going on around them.</p>
<p>I think without this credit there’d be a major, major reduction in average/subaverage students who attend some classes and don’t graduate and thus are unsaddled by pointless debt. People like to think all of this stuff happens in a vaccuum but it doesnt- the parallels to the housing crisis are scary.</p>
<p>Mumbo jumbo math? I took their y/y increases and multiplied them all out to get those results. I may be off by a few because I just eyeballed the plotted points. Why did tuition go up every year, even with state spending up?</p>
<p>Here is more data on a state-by-state basis:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/All%20States%20Wavechart%202011.pdf[/url]”>http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/All%20States%20Wavechart%202011.pdf</a></p>
<p>The general trend of largely flat per student spending and much larger share of expenses paid by tuition is illustrated nicely.</p>
<p><a href=“http://archive.sheeo.org/about/paulpres/AGB%202-2008.pdf[/url]”>http://archive.sheeo.org/about/paulpres/AGB%202-2008.pdf</a> (pdf pg 10)</p>
<p>Can anybody find data from before 1982?</p>
<p>It’s always nice to criticize spending as wasteful… but we live in a litigious society, and at many universities the explosive growth in non-instructional spending is a direct result of that. If you have an animal research lab (try having a psychology department without one) you need compliance people so you don’t have the PETA folks and the government on your back. You need a team of lawyers working on the slip and falls, the kids injured falling out a window while drunk who then sue the college, etc. You need a full complement of mental health professionals to deal with the kids who show up with eating disorders, substance abuse issues, depression, etc. You need a learning center for the kids who have had legally mandated accommodations K-12 but who won’t be able to pass Freshman English without support and tutoring.</p>
<p>And what 18 year old would move into a dorm without Wi-fi or air conditioning?</p>
<p>Of course it’s maddening to watch the expenditures on the things that aren’t moving the needle on instruction. But try to stop it.</p>
<p>What happened to the OP? Seems like he would want to participate in a discussion he started.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any sort of proof it’s the substandard student that’s taking out the greatest number of loans and not being able to complete college?</p>
<p>A big part of the reason there’s a “disconnect” between tuition price and the value of a college education is the stagnation of wages over the past 30 years. Yes, colleges have gone all-out competing on the basis of facilities and paying exorbitant salaries to rock-star faculty and administrators (not to mention coaches and athletic directors), but the disparity would be far less extreme if income for the middle class had continued to rise along with tuition costs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Private colleges have raised their tuitions, because the market will ALWAYS bear private college tuition being substantially higher than public tuition. As the proportion of per student expenditures (total cost) has been shifted to students in the past 10 years (i.e. higher tuition), private schools raise their prices in response. </p>
<p>More info discussing/detailing flat expenditures: </p>
<p>[Why</a> Does Tuition Go Up? Because Taxpayer Support Goes Down - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/131372]Why”>http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/131372) See figure 15A</p>
<p><a href=“Trends in Higher Education – College Board Research”>Trends in Higher Education – College Board Research;
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t have hard data but I’m sure its google-able, the for profit colleges have about a 25% default rate and a ~50% grad rate and they posted a list of 200 some odd colleges with default rates > graduation rates. In a specific college, it makes sense that those most likely to not complete are the poorest students academically who are also correlated with the poorest students financially.</p>
<p>You also have to remember that most kids aren’t that great academically with fully 40% of the population going to (some) college. This site lives in a space with primarily in the top 10% of college students which is not at all representative of most students.</p>
<p>Going back to OP’s post:</p>
<p>Princeton provides parent loans. Last year the fixed rate was 3.33 percent.
[Princeton</a> Parent Loan Program | PRINCETON UNIVERSITY - Office of Finance and Treasury](<a href=“http://finance.princeton.edu/how-to/tuition-student-billing-l/loan-options/princeton-parent-loan-pro/]Princeton”>http://finance.princeton.edu/how-to/tuition-student-billing-l/loan-options/princeton-parent-loan-pro/)</p>