<p>Students ponder the issue:</p>
<p>(excerpt)</p>
<p>"The reality of the situation, unfortunately, is different. Tuition, room and board runs about $45,000 a year, roughly the equivalent of purchasing a new Mercedes every year for four years.</p>
<p>Does it have to be this way?"</p>
<p>If they don't want it somebody else will--supply-demand. Call it a wealth tax.</p>
<p>As a parent who will be paying full price at a high prestige private school next year, not without considerable pain, my reaction to this and similar threads remains the same. If you think it is too much, send your child somewhere else forless money. If you pay it, don't complain about the unfairness of the cost.</p>
<p>
[quote]
who will be paying full price at a high prestige private school next year
[/quote]
Well, thank goodness it is high prestige!</p>
<p>I've noticed more shoppers than ever in Bloomingdale's.I've noticed more higher priced cars than ever on the roads. Stands to reason education should follow this trend as well.</p>
<p>I've noticed more people with huge debt, and trying to declare bankruptcy...</p>
<p>It's not the fault of the schools, the car dealers or Bloomingdale's if people overspend.</p>
<p>^ Indeed. (10 cha)</p>
<p>List price is WAY too low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should we feel the same about other well marketed indulgences? gambling? credit cards? McDonald's supersize ? super caffeinated and worse energy drinks? alchohol? pharmaceuticals? meth? I'm just musing here and I'm not waving a red flag but isn't it appropriate to challenge or criticize the marketeers on what they are selling to our society? Just asking.</p>
<p>I would disagree to some point with that Marite
I feel that it is predatory- to bombard college students & those right out of high school, people whose credit info indicates they are already living beyond their means, with credit cards- offers of consolidation loans at "interest only payments!", targeting those who will unlikely ever be able to reverse their debt without intervention.</p>
<p>backhand and Winnie are both correct, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.</p>
<p>All of the top schools could charge double and fill itself with great, but wealthy, students.</p>
<p>As Mini alluded to, they are not charging the full cost of what they provide (endowment helps) and many would pay far more for the chance.</p>
<p>It seems to me that people who are concerned about the high cost of private college education should be putting effort into improving the quality of their in-state publics. Public universities ought to be affordable to all the residents of the state. Private colleges should be free to charge whatever they want. </p>
<p>Maybe if the public universities were more formidable competition for the private colleges, the private colleges would have to offer more competitive pricing.</p>
<p>The list of things I would not be buying is very long. Like a Mercedes. $45k? I'd rather pay my kid's tuition. That does not mean I disapprove of people buying a Mercedes if they want to. But if they do and then moan about the cost of sending their kids to top colleges, I do have a problem with that.</p>
<p>I agree with Calmom's post #14.</p>
<p>The term 'Should' implies some sort of obligation and I don't think there is one.</p>
<p>If it's a private school they should be able to charge whatever they choose to that the market will bear. They'll need to determine their target market. Since most of the top privates seem to have defined their target market as a mix of people from a variety of backgrounds they can use their assets to mold their clientele but they're not obliged to. Since several of the top privates could probably fill their classes at $500K per year if they really wanted to their goal is obviously more than just obtaining the greatest tuition income. </p>
<p>State universities OTOH, are accountable to the citizens of the state and therefore have different obligations. </p>
<p>There are plenty of people who've chosen a public over a private and vice versa and I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis enters the equation for those who could afford either.</p>
<p>EK:</p>
<p>The colleges are bombarding the kids, but it's the parents who fork out. Parents ought to have some spine and resist appeals for expenditures they cannot afford, whether it's a shiny new Mercedes or $200k college. You'd be surprised how easily my kids can resist the lure of brand names even when they know we could afford to pay a whole lot more on shoes and clothing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The list of things I would not be buying is very long. Like a Mercedes. $45k?
[/quote]
Ditto here. I have a much easier time spending my money on my kids rather than myself. I value their education much more highly than a car.</p>
<p>A colleague of mine purchased a new roughly $95K Mercedes SL500. I checked it out and admired it but couldn't help thinking "that car is equal to 4 years at a UC" and think about how much better spent my money was than his. He doesn't have kids though so he may as well enjoy his car - I'll just keep happily driving my old one and be happy about my choices in where I spend my money.</p>
<p>The better publics ARE very stiff competition for many privates--especially below the Top 20 or so privates. Also in their home states they will beat many of the top privates for the best students.</p>
<p>Not often discussed here, but does anyone here paying full freight (or not) get tired how have often you are hit up for donations above what you're already sweating to pay?</p>