<p>..and do you know why tuition has been rising so fast?</p>
<p>All the top schools are feeling the need to pay for the complete education of higher and higher income classes as the years go on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh . . . are you paying any attention at all to what is transpiring in the world of higher education finances??</p>
<p>If you are low-income, then all doors are wide open - you go virtually free if you have the academic qualifications.</p>
<p>If you are slightly across the line in income, Mom and Dad scarf up their life saving for you - if they really, really love you and believe fervently in pedigrees.</p>
<p>If you are super-rich . . . well, who cares anyway - chump change and even if your kid is a dolt your ability to contribute to the endowment is noted.</p>
<p>It’s really only the ones who can pay but feel the pain of it who are hurt in this situation.</p>
<p>Sorry. Stupid. Dumb. Not economically sound. And assuredly not fair.</p>
<p>And don’t forget “ladies night” at the local pub, bluebayou. 
There are plenty of ways to get around the Robinson Patman Act.</p>
<p>To prevent price competition, for years elite schools actually compared notes on individual applicants and equalized their aid offers. That practice finally got dropped. Admission is so competitive at these schools, though, that price competition is unlikely to break out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m so sorry. IMO, that ain’t economically sound. With the exception of Wall Street and the government, pedigree don’t mean a whole lot. I know a couple of graduates from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo who are attending med school.</p>
<p>mammall – you are not saying it to an empty house and you are so, so right. Why should people making $180,000 be expected to pay the same as a millionaire or someone making $500,000 for that matter?</p>
<p>Frankly, I see the recommendations as further eroding the ability of the middle class to afford school. The poorest will receive the grant money. The richest can afford the costs. The middle class will lose out on FSEOG and loan subsidies - that’s basically all that the middle class gets as it is. The top will remain out of the financial aid loop, the bottom will get more, the middle won’t even get the paltry work study and subsidies on (part of) their loans. Aid for the middle already stinks; this will make it worse.</p>
<p>
this “vast swathe” you refer to is among the richest 4% of household incomes in America. ([HINC-06–Part</a> 1](<a href=“http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm]HINC-06--Part”>http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm) ) Hardly large compared to other income ranges, and certainly doing better than 96% of American familiies.</p>
<p>I understand that this report was designed to examine one part of the education system, the federal aid, but I think when you look at the whole context, the proposed reforms won’t change much. With many colleges ‘gapping’ aid, more transparency in federal funding still won’t give most families a realistic idea of what their contribution will be. Also, as Roger Dooley pointed out, access to more aid has only resulted in unchecked tuition increases. I think the real discussion should be what colleges can do to contain costs and reduce tuition across the board.</p>
<p>Roger’s other point in #19 requires further reflection. There are economists who have published articles (studies?) which suggest federal and state aid have the unintended effect of encouraging colleges to raise the sticker price, (which is not dissimilar to health care?). If there is some connection to federal/state aid and list price, then mammall’s suggestion would only exacerbate the problem of affordability.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with you mammall, unfortunately as you’ve found, it’s taboo to lament this position as being above $180K makes us technically “rich,” so apparently we can afford it. We’ve saved and can afford what we need to, but realistically, many or most in this position (slightly over the line financially), got here by chosing our purchases wisely and living below means for years. If I hear how “lucky” we are to be in this position once more I’ll scream. Luck to move for the company, uproot the family yet again, it has worked for us but has been anything but easy. For us to contemplate using 1/3 of our income on tuition is absurd. The fact that our only financial aid possiblity is merit-based due to our hard work and saving all these years makes no sense at all.</p>
<p>And state schools? Nice thought - we have a great flagship school here, but really only one. It’s certainly not a guarantee that a B+/A- student with high scores will get in. Many do not.</p>
<p>But there I go again, just whining, guess we’re supposed to suck it up with grace and let the spoils go to those who haven’t been as “lucky.”</p>
<p>I don’t know the solution, but the system as it is now is broken.</p>
<p>Jude,</p>
<p>Part of the problem lies with the students and parents themselves. They are constantly wanting bigger and better things on campus…wireless internet connections, luxuries dorm rooms, etc. I see this type of behavior with my students all the time. They don’t like their classrooms…they want the best computer technology, the best seats and desks, the best student centers with top notch everything, exceptional food (professional chef who offers 3 star meals). These things can be costly, which forces schools to increase tuition.</p>
<p>My campus has multiple satelite locations and our students demanded plus seats with wheels, laptop connections to power supply at every seat (which required special desks) and plus carpeting. Our on-campus students demanded plus chairs and executive style desks as well. Our classroom computers are currently running Windows XP with Office 2003 but they are constantly complaining because we don’t have Vista and Office 2007. The on-campus clubs wanted a high-tech meeting area, so we (stupidly) gave them one…that they don’t use because it isn’t high-tech enough. They want freshly painted rooms each semester (understandable at the beginning of each year, but why do we need to repaint the rooms during Christmas break when the same student is moving back into the same room??)</p>
<p>Just to satisfy our students, we had to build a $7 million student center and install wireless network and internet access in every classroom and dorm room…and the signal needed to be strong enough that they could sit in the quad and use their laptops.</p>
<p>It is ubsurd what students and their parents expect from a small university, let alone a larger university. Maybe if the demands weren’t so great, schools wouldn’t have to keep raising tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a huge issue and one that you would think higher education could figure out and be honest about - after all, isn’t that where all our PhDs in economics generally reside?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the issue - within that 4 percent there is a VAST range of income distribution. Actually, far vaster than the range of income distribution in the entier 96 percent below. Do you not see a difference between an income of $200k and and income of $500k or a $2million ? </p>
<p>We differentiate between incomes of $50k and $45k, for goodness sake, when determing taxes and financial aid. Why no differentiation between $200k and $5million ? I think partly because the current model benefits those at the extreme ends very, very nicely - they are getting a real bargain from these colleges.</p>
<p>And one more point regarding that lucky dog top 4 percent of income - have you ever noted what percentage of total taxes are paid by that group? Vast, indeed.</p>
<p>I feel the government should get out of higher education altogether. If some feel a strong desire to fund it, do so by requiring those students to stay instate, attending state funded colleges, with a residency requirement until loans are paid off. That way, talent will stay with the people who paid for it. Those who don’t finish their educations can pay back the full amount.</p>
<p>Some things don’t change: I am still a tough taskmaster.</p>
<p>If Hillsdale and Grove City can provide excellent educations to their students using no federal monies at all, I can’t see why other, especially, the elite, colleges can’t do the same. Get off the government teat, and make your own way.</p>
<p>LOL at mammall and Nikkiil.</p>
<p>mammall,
Financing a college education is hard for everyone. The list of institutions able and willing to meet the needs of families with incomes below $60K is very short. Many families are in the same position as you, paying a 1/3 or more of their income.</p>
<p>Nikkiil,
The students want it? Really? What about the administrators? What of these comfy administrative buildings that are sprouting up? Or all the buildings that look nice and win awards and recognition for the college (and its administrators) but don’t necessarily improve academic enrichment?
It’s not merely kitchenettes and power outlets that are increasing tuition 5% every year. It’s the inability of colleges to say no to their own excesses. College loan, endowments, governments (less now) alll have been throwing money at colleges with few conditions. College administrators have engaged in a weapons war for students, faculty and recognition. The end result is that it leaves more and more strapped to afford a college education.</p>
<p>Ferry,</p>
<p>I wish that was the reason tuition kept increasing…then I wouldn’t have an office that was falling apart around my ears, leaks every time it rains and is growing mold for some scientific experiment to see how long college administrators can handle exposure without getting sick. Maybe I would have a nice desk and chair that didn’t fall apart once a week. Heck, while I’m wishing big, maybe I could get a decent raise so I could afford to purchase health insurance for my husband and children.</p>
<p>The student areas are sooo much nicer than 95% of the administration buildings or individual offices.</p>
<p>All the endowments we receive are specifically earmarked towards certain projects…and it has been a LONG LONG time since any were earmarked towards administration or its buildings. These endowments are funded by alum who typically designate the funds be used to improve the student areas. Endowments given towards scholarships are typically so type specific that it is difficult to disburse all available funds every year. We have two scholarship endowments that we haven’t been able to disburse for the last 4 years…because NO ONE has meet the rigid qualifications set forth by the giver of the funds.</p>
<p>Many schools are trying hard to keep the rising cost of a college education down…without depriving the students of the things students think they need. We even started recycling used printer paper to make “notepads” to keep from having to spend “unnecessary” money. My office (FA) has been BEGGING for software for 3 years…and it looks like we will be waiting another 3 years. Good thing I am good at manually calculating student award packages.</p>
<p>Yep, tuition is increasing just so administrators like myself can work in the lap of luxury.</p>
<p>The truth is, those making $180k and up CAN (with a very few exceptions) afford a state university. Why on earth should the government <em>give</em> money to people who have an acceptable option for college??? I don’t get it. It will NOT cost a family earning upwards of $180k 1/3 of their family income to go to a public state school. That family has an affordable option. The poor family does not have that option, and the true middle class family IS spending 1/3 or more of their income to pay for a public state school. So I just don’t see what the federal government’s role should be for the top income earning families. In a way, rich kids do have a state-funded option for financing … if they are able to get merit scholarships to the public U. </p>
<p>I absolutely believe that private colleges should be able to do whatever they want to do in terms of financial aid. That will differ by the mission of the school, the desires of the administration, and the influence of the alumni. No outside, unaffiliated group has the right to dictate what a private institution does with its money. To be perfectly honest, the folks who earn >$180k (just using this figure because that’s the one used by other posters) are really asking for private institutions to give them more aid. Some schools have responded, but they are extremely difficult to get into. I guess people want more schools to follow suit … but those schools have limited funds to distribute among their students & feel obligated to assist those who need them the most. While there might be a national debate on this subject, it is the individual school that will ultimately decide its own policies.</p>
<p>I detest spending so much money for college, but I cannot deny that I at least am <em>able</em> to do so. It is not easy. I would love to take a decent vacation, to have a new car, to replace my windows, to live in a nicer home, to have cable internet instead of DSL, to replace my 21 year old carpeting, to repave my driveway … etc. … etc. The choices we make in life are our own. There truly are people who CANNOT afford college. The limited federal funding available <em>should</em> go to them. </p>
<p>Only the truly rich can legitimately expect the government to subsidize them … you know, like banks & insurance companies.</p>
<p>BTW, I DO agree that the best idea would be to keep college costs down in the first place.</p>
<p>^ I’m not talking about federal support - I 'm talking about endowment support.</p>
<p>I actually agree with a poster earlier - the feds should stay out of this whole mess - they only drive up costs for all.</p>
<p>Nikkiil,
I guess I must have luck in the colleges I choose to attend. Because at each of the last 3 institutions I attended (comm college, private, flagship), construction plans call for “concentration of administrative offices”. In other words, renovating administrative offices.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that unnecessary amenities are being thrown at students. (Free laundry? What happened to Mom sending $20 roll of quarters?) However, I doubt students demanded any of it. If the students and parents ever had a vote - few projects would pass if excessive tuition increases were necessary to fund them. Rather, it’s administrators (and alumni) that are building like crazy, likely to pad their own and the college’s reputation. They’re flush with cash and not accountable to anyone.</p>
<p>ferryboat, many students I know have chosen to go to a particular college BECAUSE of those amenities some of us consider over the top. The marketing aspect is what drives it. Kids - and their parents - want all the comforts of home & more. If one school has it, that’s where many will flock. It’s a vicious cycle.</p>