Some hard lessons about college costs

[SAY]

<p>mini do you know what income level equates to the top 20% or the top 10%? Your statement that college is now more affordable than any time in the last 30 years because of the increase in assets of the top 5% is an amazing statement. Would you please explain this in more detail.</p>

[mini]

<p>Yes, for every $50k over the first 50k in income (which represents the median household), average household assets double. Which means that a household with $250k in income will, on average, have 16X or more in assets than the $50k one. Granted, some of that will be tied up in houses (which, of course, can be borrowed against.) The assets of those in the top 5% of the population (roughly $180k and up) have increased more quickly than COA at prestige private colleges over the past 30 years. This is not particularly surprising, as a larger percentage of income goes into the creation of assets (it’s not 1% v. 99%, but more like 5% v. 95%). Top 10% is roughly $135k and up; top 20% is roughly $100k and up. </p>

<p>These numbers need to be adjusted somewhat (usually upward) for “families” as opposed to “households”, but the principle generally holds.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>[Do</a> Top Colleges Enroll Enough Pell Grant Students? - Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings (usnews.com)](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2008/02/22/do-top-colleges-enroll-enough-pell-grant-students]Do”>Do Top Colleges Enroll Enough Pell Grant Students?)</p>

<p>

The answer so far is a clear no, based on a December 2007 article in Postsecondary Education Opportunity titled “Pell Grant Enrollment at America’s ‘Best’ Universities and Colleges FY 2000 to FY 2008” by Thomas G. Mortenson. A higher-education policy analyst, Mortenson looked at universities and liberal arts colleges that ranked in the top half of the National Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges categories in the U.S. News 2008 America’s Best Colleges rankings to determine trends of enrollment of undergraduate students with Pell Grants (federally funded need-based aid to students from low- and middle-income families) at those schools. It found that between fiscal year 2000 and 2006, there was a 36.7 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients nationwide. But among the schools in the top half of the U.S. News National Universities ranking, the total number of Pell Grant recipients increased by just 9.2 percent in this time period. Even more startling is that among the schools in the top half of the U.S. News Liberal Arts Colleges’ ranking, the total number of students receiving Pell Grants declined by 1.9 percent.</p>

<p>This means that both groups of top-ranked U.S. News colleges fell far short of the national average increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients. Mortenson says that some of these top-ranked schools have made real efforts to enroll more of these students from the lower-income families. However, he believes that the fact that many more of them seem not to be trying to enroll Pell recipients “suggests their disengagement from the demographic realities facing the U.S.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Pell-Grant-Recipients-Are/126892/?otd=Y2xpY2t0aHJ1Ojo6c293aWRnZXQ6OjpjaGFubmVsOmdvdmVybm1lbnQsYXJ0aWNsZTpzZW5hdGUtYmlsbC13b3VsZC1jcmVhdGUtb25saW5lLWFjY291bnRzLXRvLXRyYWNrLXN0dWRlbnRzLXByb2dyZXNzaGVscC10aGVtLXNhdmUtZm9yLWNvbGxlZ2U6OjpjaGFubmVsOmFkbWlzc2lvbnMtc3R1ZGVudC1haWQsYXJ0aWNsZTpwZWxsLWdyYW50LXJlY2lwaWVudHMtYXJlLXVuZGVycmVwcmVzZW50ZWQtYXQtYW1lcmljYXMtd2VhbHRoaWVzdC1jb2xsZWdlcw==[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/article/Pell-Grant-Recipients-Are/126892/?otd=Y2xpY2t0aHJ1Ojo6c293aWRnZXQ6OjpjaGFubmVsOmdvdmVybm1lbnQsYXJ0aWNsZTpzZW5hdGUtYmlsbC13b3VsZC1jcmVhdGUtb25saW5lLWFjY291bnRzLXRvLXRyYWNrLXN0dWRlbnRzLXByb2dyZXNzaGVscC10aGVtLXNhdmUtZm9yLWNvbGxlZ2U6OjpjaGFubmVsOmFkbWlzc2lvbnMtc3R1ZGVudC1haWQsYXJ0aWNsZTpwZWxsLWdyYW50LXJlY2lwaWVudHMtYXJlLXVuZGVycmVwcmVzZW50ZWQtYXQtYW1lcmljYXMtd2VhbHRoaWVzdC1jb2xsZWdlcw==&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Just under 15 percent of the undergradu<em>ates at the country’s 50 wealthiest colleges received Pell Grants in 2008-9, the most recent year for which national data are available. That percentage hasn’t changed much from 2004-5, around the time that elite institutions focused their attention on the issue. And Pell Grant students are still signifi</em>cantly less represented at the wealthiest colleges than they are at public and nonprofit four-year colleges nation*wide, where grant recipients accounted for roughly 26 percent of students in 2008-9.

</p>

[annasdad]

<p>That article, in addition to being based on research that took place prior to the recession, nowhere presents data to support the assertion:</p>

<p>

@poetgrl

The number of kids at this level who gain admittance and attend is vanishingly low, single digits, at most top 50’s

</p>

<p>EDIT: The above is in reference to the USNWR; you added the CHE article after I posted my reply.</p>

<p>And that article does not support your assertion that the number is in the 50s. 15 percent of several thousand students is a lot more than 50.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p><a href=“http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/sspg/cirp/TFS_2011_PDF_PROFILE.pdf[/url]”>http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/sspg/cirp/TFS_2011_PDF_PROFILE.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>go to page 9 and 10 on this report, which is for Northwestern and peers, and note the low number of students with parental income below upper class and upper middle. By the time you are below middle class, we are in single digits.</p>

<p>If you can come up with some cites which show other, higher, numbers, feel free.</p>

[annasdad]

<p>Your own data shows that the number is not in the single digits, or even the 50s. I don’t think I need to come up with any counter examples.</p>

<p>As to the Northwestern numbers - so what. Family income correlates strongly negative with academic achievement. A selective college is not going to get a lot of qualified applicants from low income families.</p>

[kleibo]

<p>Percentage of students that receive the Pell Grant at the top 25</p>

<p>[Economic</a> Diversity Among the Top 25 Ranked Schools | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools]Economic”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools) </p>

<p>[Economic</a> Diversity Among the Top 25 Ranked Schools | Rankings | Top National Liberal Arts Colleges | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools]Economic”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools)</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>thank you kleibo.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>reading your post Ana’s dad, I just want to clarify, “At most top 50’s,” in MY post referred to most schools in the top 50’s, as in top 25 schools. But, I was going down to the top 50 schools, given this year’s acceptance situation.</p>

<p>At first I couldn’t figure out why you kept saying 50.</p>

[ellemenope]

<p>Interesting thought about the acceleration of assets, mini. I know that in our case, it was asset appreciation that made up the bulk of our college fund. I know that we couldn’t have done it with just saving wages.</p>

[SAY]

<p>mini your answer is just plain wrong and it’s hard to believe other posters would allow such statements to go unchallenged. The top 5% last I looked was a bit lower say 160k but either way to claim that the assets of typical families at this income level have accumulated faster than the cost of college is demonstrably incorrect. You are taking the rise in assets that have increased not in the top 5% but really the top two tenths of 1% and then divided it across the entire group as if it was split evenly. I’m sure you must be aware of the collapse of the housing bubble and that the stock market has been almost flat for over a decade so where exactly are most of these families getting this enormous asset appreciation? Today most families with multiple children struggle to pay for private colleges at incomes far above 160-180k. The bottom line is that the cost of college tuition has risen even faster than healthcare costs over the past 30 years and represents a massive looming fiscal crisis.</p>

[imokayman]

<p>College should be free. End of story.</p>

[SAY]

<p>Free no but the cost of private and public colleges should be 1/2 to 1/3 of the current cost. That would be the price if the costs had risen at the same rate as inflation. If anything the tremendous advance of technology should have lowered the cost since almost nothing has changed in the teaching of undergraduate classes during that time.</p>

[ellemenope]

<p>But the increase in amenities on campus has been noticeable.</p>

[MisterK]

<p>

@kayf

Saintfan, relatec to Item 3 is “hidden” increases in in-state tuition when state U’s raise admit standards for in-state kids above out of state to improve tuition flow. Its wrong, imho, and the state u’s will ultimately pay the price with even less taxpayer support and more demand of state control.

What state U has higher admission standards for its own in-state students? </p>

<p>That’s a fairly extraordinary statement. If it’s not just hyperbole, lets see some evidence.</p>

[snipersas]

<p>I dispute the stats presented on Pell grantees provided by US news. While the numbers may be literally correct, they don’t tell the whole story - all three of the Pell grant recipients I know that currently attend Princeton are legacies, for instance. While their parents work in relatively low-paying professions, one would be hard pressed to label them economically disadvantaged (mostly due to creative tax strategies).</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@mini

Over the past 30 years, the number of places in state schools has rocketed up. I’m sure that is true in California (though may not be true currently). But they did grow more slowly (generally speaking) in the state flagships, which is as it should be.

</p>

<p>CSU enrollment has grown about 33% from 1981 to 2011. That time period included the opening of three new campuses (San Marcos, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands).</p>

<p>But California’s population has grown over 50% during that time period.</p>

<p>UC enrollment also grew during that time, with the addition of one new campus (Merced). But UC is significantly smaller than CSU.</p>

[Vladenschlutte]

<p>

What state U has higher admission standards for its own in-state students?

</p>

<p>Based on people I know, I suspect that if Michigan doesn’t it’s very close. I don’t have any data to back it up or contradict it though. Reputation on these boards is that it is indeed harder to be admitted as an OOS student than IS student, but that doesn’t match with reputation on campus or my experience. </p>

<p>What I suspect MAY be the case is that the admissions criteria are very close for each IS and OOS, with the best of the IS and the worst of the OOS enrolling. </p>

<p>

Family income correlates strongly negative with academic achievement.

</p>

<p>Can I ask where you found this?</p>

[MisterK]

<p>

@SAY

mini your answer is just plain wrong and it’s hard to believe other posters would allow such statements to go unchallenged. The top 5% last I looked was a bit lower say 160k but either way to claim that the assets of typical families at this income level have accumulated faster than the cost of college is demonstrably incorrect. You are taking the rise in assets that have increased not in the top 5% but really the top two tenths of 1% and then divided it across the entire group as if it was split evenly. I’m sure you must be aware of the collapse of the housing bubble and that the stock market has been almost flat for over a decade so where exactly are most of these families getting this enormous asset appreciation? Today most families with multiple children struggle to pay for private colleges at incomes far above 160-180k. The bottom line is that the cost of college tuition has risen even faster than healthcare costs over the past 30 years and represents a massive looming fiscal crisis.

</p>

<p>LOL, give mini a break, he is making progress - you’re seeing the new and improved mini. A month or two ago, I corrected a few of his misconceptions in this area - you can search for the thread. Basically, he thought that only the top 1% are full-pays at the most expensive schools, that the top 1% are all independently wealthy, and he drew the income line for the top 1% at what was actually the top 5% line. I demonstrated that the top 5% are full-pays, and that at least those from the 98-95 percentile (the next 4% after the top 1%) are largely workers/earners/small business folks, not just the independently wealthy. </p>

<p>It really opened his eyes, because now he’s using “top 5%” fairly reliably in his posts, whereas he would regularly toss off a quick “top 1%” line before my intervention. So there’s actually been progress. I didn’t have the energy to push much harder on the asset question, although I did give enough info so that he really should be aware that his statements above aren’t exactly well-founded (as you correctly point out).</p>

<p>So mini has improved, but history shows that he “wings it” on this topic - and he continues to do so.</p>

[glido]

<p>I see a lot of our neighbours sending their kids to two years of CC and then to the State U. just to keep the costs down. Fewer and fewer are headed to out-of-state publics or privates.</p>