The cost of college is out of control. What you suppose we do about it?

<p>I think it is getting out of control and nothing is stopping it. Are we just going to let this happen? Are we just going to sit here and watch things fall apart? </p>

<p>I bet the next thing will happen will be a bail out. Which will destroy our country for sure. Any politicians that will not go in the favor of the students will be voted out of office for sure. The students will be running in the arms of politicians that can guarantee them relief. </p>

<p>What do you guys think we should do about it?</p>

<p>Don’t go to college. If enough people don’t go, then the price will come down.</p>

<p>If you don’t have two million to send your kid to college and you don’t have a summer house in the Hamptons so he can meet the right kind of people then yeah, it’s entirely your fault … you failed your kid.</p>

<p>PS, I suppose a summer house on the Vineyard would be OK.</p>

<p>I think when more privates see that people are choosing either the CC route or the state school route, the prices of the non-elite privates will come down. </p>

<p>The elites can charge whatever since they’ll always find people to pay.</p>

<p>I agree that the sticker prices are out of control. All kinds of schools are charging close to $50,000, which is ridiculous. Schools with great financial aid do charge $50,000, but at the same time, they also charge less or significantly less than the sticker price to 94% of the population. I can understand why schools feel the need to charge $50,000, but I think they should try to charge less or continue implementing great financial aid programs. The schools that charge that much with little or no financial aid (think GW or NYU, and so on and so forth) are a matter of the market. If they can fill their classes with people that can pay, they will. I think they should stop, but I don’t have that power: you do.</p>

<p>I don’t see why they “should” stop. There are community colleges and lower cost state schools available everywhere at a low cost.</p>

<p>If a private college decides to charge $100,000/year and they can fill their classes (as I bet the top schools could), well, then, more power to them. No one is “entitled” to an education at a given school. I don’t think the privates are obligated to lower their prices any more than Mercedes or Prada are obligated to lower their prices.</p>

<p>The schools that are not elites should (and will) only stop when their enrollment drops because people are “voting with pocketbooks” and going elsewhere.</p>

<p>Go to a public school. I’m lucky to live in a state with the #1 “best value” university in the country.</p>

<p>

Education is a somewhat different commodity than Mercedes and Prada are.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re right, I should have been more clear. I don’t think theres any perogative to stop and I don’t think they should have to, but I do think it is becoming a sucky situation for students. In the interest of the students and their families, it would be great if the schools reconsidered. But I don’t thinkt hat they should have to do something as long as their are affordable options (which is potentially debatable and of course, circumstancial). There isn’t an obligation, but we can create an obligation by not attending or paying for those schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes and no. I agree that education and cars are very different. However, I think the analogy is fair. You may want a Mercedes, but you can afford a Honda. You might want Harvard, but you can afford College Park. Both cars will get you the same place, you just might not have all the perks. As long as there are affordable options, education and cars are comparable. The problem is when affordable options disappear (read: 32% increases in UC costs).</p>

<p>Ugh…tell me about it.</p>

<p>We’ll be paying $100,000 in tuition for the next 2 years without a dime of aid or help from anyone.</p>

<p>But we could have forced them to go to state schools, and we didn’t.</p>

<p>Nobody forced me to buy a little cape with three tiny bedrooms and one bathroom when I really wanted the brick tudor on the other side of town- I bought what I could afford and didn’t begrudge people who had more money (or were willing to take on more debt or had fewer other financial obligations) who could afford the nicer house.</p>

<p>Explaining your financial limitations to your kids is not “forcing them” into an affordable option. It’s called real life.</p>

<p>"The problem is when affordable options disappear (read: 32% increases in UC costs). "</p>

<p>Bingo.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Uhh, no. The Cal States are still available, as are community colleges.</p>

<p>Bluebayou, I realize that. But regardless, the number of affordable options is very, very quickly decreasing. You could say it’s free-falling. That’s a problem. Not all community colleges are cheap enough, and not everyone lives near one - and they don’t take into account the cost of commuting which - while nothing like room and board - is an added expense that needs to be considered.</p>

<p>*Nobody forced me to buy a little cape with three tiny bedrooms and one bathroom when I really wanted the brick tudor on the other side of town- I bought what I could afford and didn’t begrudge people who had more money (or were willing to take on more debt or had fewer other financial obligations) who could afford the nicer house.</p>

<p>Explaining your financial limitations to your kids is not “forcing them” into an affordable option. It’s called real life. *</p>

<p>Very true…but we’re in the age of entitlement - where kids (and some parents) only want to go to the best - even if it’s not affordable and even if it will cause life-changing, strangling debt during the new grad’s young adult years.</p>

<p>However, if the parents want to and can “pony up” then all is good. :)</p>

<p>age of entitlement, in a thread where people are complaining about budget cuts at state u’s.</p>

<p>"I bet the next thing will happen will be a bail out. Which will destroy our country for sure. Any politicians that will not go in the favor of the students will be voted out of office for sure. The students will be running in the arms of politicians that can guarantee them relief. "</p>

<p>relief for student loans will destroy our country. But not expenditures on state universities, including elite flagships, by states that are cutting back on essential social services.</p>

<p>The irony just can’t get much richer.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes; and there is quality education available in every single state through that state’s flagship and directional universities, as well as comm college.</p>

<p>so tell me, how do the state flagships manage to produce identical services, for a much lower expenditure of resources?</p>

<p>A. Buying PC’s and food in bulk REALLY saves a lot of money</p>

<p>B. Faculty will do the same work for less, cause they believe in public education</p>

<p>C. You can earn as much money after being in classes with 100 students, as classes with 20 students. Study by economist X, who teaches at PRINCETON, proves it</p>

<p>D. They don’t. The difference is coming out of taxpayers pockets.</p>

<p>You don’t send you students to a college or university they/you can’t afford. Period. The debt load parents and students are taking on will be the next “foreclosure” crisis. This needs to stop.</p>

<p>My two will graduate from state U’s with no loans. Could I have struggled and paid for 4 years of private college, probably. But I drive a VW bug, and we have always lived within our means. We paid into a state prepaid plan starting when they were toddlers, they have qualified for some state merit aid, and one completed her AA while in HS. The “stigma” of a community college education is crap. Dual enrollment led to a free first two years of college tuition, without even touching the prepaid; and her grades led to a CC Foundation tuition transfer scholarship to state U for the next two years. Money set aside for state U’s will now be avail for grad schools for both.</p>