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

Parents Forum
61

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

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

<p>Private school tuition is running about $30k-40k per year. Taxpayers do not subsidize the difference for public colleges. </p>

<p>Yes, state taxpayers do contribute to their own public colleges, but they’re not giving an additional $25k-35k per student per year.</p>

<p>For instance, Penn State charges about $16k per year for an instate student, yet Penn State doesn’t get much from the state of PA for these kids. So, in that case, Penn State is educating for a lot less than a private.</p>

62

<p>Brooklyn, Did you notice how USNEWS&WR includes alumni participation in their ranking? Yes, it’s absolutely important for the long term life of the college that alumni donate money. That’s why there are whole offices for “development” and why wealthy kids from families who have notoriously donated money are the first to be accepted, and why legacy is preferred as well.</p>

<p>

I don’t know absolute cash distributions to say that a full fair covers tuition times 2, but I do know full freight students cover those who are awarded “scholarships”. The total operating cost per student is private information, but you can bet full freight students are covering some of those expenses not supported by the full-need student.</p>

<p>Which ones are you referring to here:

Those tippy-tops, like the ivies, get plenty of people who will take out loans if they don’t get enough need-based aid.</p>

63

<p>swdad: yes. they worked hard to get admitted, then the school made the decision to pay their costs. my point is that had they not earned the grades, the school wouldn’t have done either. i get the sense when reading some of these comments --on this thread and others–that people feel that low-income kids don’t ‘deserve’ to receive need-based financial aid. i disagree with that sentiment.</p>

64

<p>Who says anyone

I’m just explaining how it is that colleges got to be so expensive, which is the premise of this thread.</p>

65

<p>Though you can position it that a full pay kid is paying for self and at least part of another’ kid’s costs, it really is not the way it works. EVERYONE is getting a subsidy for college costs. The true cost of college for each student is much more than even the most expensive COA. What colleges charge for the students is what they hope to get in aggregate to balance their costs.</p>

<p>As to what I think will happen with college costs, well…I’ve been so wrong about this for 20 years, maybe longer. I did not believe it would ever reach this point. I was sure the market would change. But I guess the cost gurus know exactly what they are doing in setting the college costs at a level where they can still get kids to apply and scrape up the money somewhere, somehow from somebody.</p>

<p>So, I’ll predict again, thougj my track record is crud in this area. I think that there will be a big fall out with many folks defaulting on student loans. I simply cannot see how kids can pay the $80K+ some of them owe. Nor can I see how parents are going to repay the loans they took, with the economy the way it is. Many of our generation and a bit older are not going to get the windfalls from our homesales as the parents a few years ago did. Something is going to have to go, and you can’t eat school loans even when they are up to date.</p>

<p>I also predict that more families are going to become more cost conscious and set stricter guidelines as to where a kid can go to school with finances become the reason. So those schools that are not meeting need, not discounting tuition with merit awards are going to be in trouble. Not the HYP and company. They’ll do just fine since folks will be willing to pay for those schools. BUt Axel University, a private college pretty much only known in the immediate area and to those who went there, is going to take it on the chin. No more of those private loans that students and parents can take. Such schools may well close their doors. State schools, particularly the flagships will become even more competitive in terms of applications. Cost will become a more outstanding issue in the college picture.</p>

<p>I hope these things happen. I believe that schools that cannot afford to give most of their kids close to the need figures generated by standard financial aid calculators are not worth their cost. If Axel U has to gap half their students by about $15-20K a year, something is wrong. The cost of Axel U is too high. No one should go to Axel U because it is not worth the cost.</p>

<p>I hear a lot of community college advice. Well, that isn’t the only choice avallabe to many low income kids who don’t want to go to the Axel U’s of the world. They can go to local state schools as non degree students and get a record good enough to be accepted in the degree program there. Sometimes such schools have more serious kids there, and more academic resources since they do have to provide for junior and senior level students, unlike community colleges that are geared only for the first two years of courses. They can go part time. And “THEY” are going to be our kids, my kids, to get personal here. Cuz we can’t afford the current full freight price tags of most private colleges including the room, board and other expenses that come when you live at the school. Something has to give. We were burned once stretching ourselves, and let me tell you, by any financial guidelines what we paid is not supposed to be a stretch at our income level.</p>

66

<p>Brooklynborndad</p>

<p>In theory you may be right about dilution of the quality of the student population. However, when you see admission rates in the single or low double digits you would think that in dilution would be insignificant. I doubt that all of these schools would fall into a death spiral.</p>

<p>I didn’t mean to imply that full pay families are the group most affected by rising college costs. But $50,000 is no small amount even for those deemed to be “able to afford it.”</p>

<p>Do you really think $50k is significantly above the total operating cost per student?</p>

<p>In some cases it is probably less than the total cost per student. That’s not the point. Assume you have 10 students, 5 paying $50k and 5 paying nothing because of need based aid. Do away with the need based aid and you could probably find 10 qualified students who could each afford $25k. I’m paying more so that others can pay less for the exact same education.</p>

67

<p>cptofthehouse–I think you are right on many points. Already in the more populated states, the flagships are tough to gain admission to. </p>

<p>For our family, I am delighted that DD accepted a nice scholarship to a top fiifty school versus letting us be full pay at Georgetown ($60K) or Chicago ($58K). When DS, who is not the student his sister is, is ready to go to college, it will be much easier to set limits.</p>

68

<p>

</p>

<p>This was a quote by limabeans, responding rudely IMO, to applicannot. Applicannot is a Questbridge Match student to Stanford. Although Questbridge is need-based, it is open to ALL races, not just URM’s. To assume she or any other QB match recipient that is a URM had a little “help” is insulting! QB is a program for those that are financially with need, whether white, black, asian or native american. Applicannot would be an extremely competetive applicant without her URM “help” as you put it.</p>

69

<p>calimami</p>

<p>“if your kid can’t make it and they come from a priviledged household, then that’s on them.”</p>

<p>It cuts both ways, I can assure you the amount I am paying for my son’s education is not a function of his abilities, intellect or work ethic. It is a function of the size of my bank account.</p>

70

<p>okay swdad. so maybe u’d be perfectly comfortable returning to a society where only the privileged (those who can afford to go to college full-pay) went to college? and the poor (or less well off) just ate cake and worked at walmart until they could afford the price of the ticket?</p>

<p>as a nation, we should all want as many of our citizens to be college educated (and receive the opportunities college attendance provides) as possible. it lifts us all up. we all benefit. i fully recognize that college tuition is out of control. but it’s been out of control (and out of reach) for the poor for a loooooooong time. the good thing about the current crisis is that now that the privileged are mad about the costs, maybe something will finally get done to turn the situation around.</p>

71

<p>MDmom, yeah, that first one is the hardest to place limits. You learn from those mistakes. That we spaced our kids about 3-4 years apart made it possible to feel the consequences of the first college payments before committing to more with the other kids.</p>

72

<p>

It’s a misconception that universities fund all their costs from tuition. A lot of scholarship money comes from money made on their endowments (in the case of HYP - monster endowments). You can set up an endowment at a school and specify that a scholarship for $2000 shall be given to a graduate of Podunk High School who is majoring in nursing. For a research university, a large amount of their funding comes from research grants - a substantial amount of which comes from our taxes, BTW.</p>

73

<p>I agree with cptofthehouse that state schools across the country will become more competitive and more desirable as private school costs continue to go up. Our state flagship, UNC, is already competitive and it seems like it’s a little harder to get into every year. I work at a private school where parents have already put a lot of money towards their child’s education and many of these parents encourage their kids to go to our state schools. Quite a few of the top students in this years’ class are going to Chapel Hill and NC State. It just makes sense to get a good education without outrageous cost.</p>

74

<p>"I don’t think you can draw a comparison, because attending a school that isn’t the tippy-top isn’t “dangerous” or “bad” the way an unsafe car is. It’s not as optimal, but it’s not actually a bad thing. "</p>

<p>I know of one young woman who had issues of sorts, and was sent to an OOS flagship known for its economy, and as being a good place for b students.</p>

<p>She had “stresses” and will be home next year, attending our local comm college. </p>

<p>Attending the wrong school for the person (I said nothing about tippy top - if you like my metaphor, a Volvo isn’t a Mercedes) can be quite serious. Whether its a school thats too pressured, too big, too party focused, whatever. </p>

<p>Yes, of course plenty of kids do find at all kinds of schools (and BTW, I live in virginia) But thats if the school is right for them, and determining that has to be done by the student and their family. Not folks on the internet with axes to grind about how education should be financed.</p>

75

<p>"Private school tuition is running about $30k-40k per year. Taxpayers do not subsidize the difference for public colleges. </p>

<p>Yes, state taxpayers do contribute to their own public colleges, but they’re not giving an additional $25k-35k per student per year"</p>

<p>I am confused - whats the difference between state taxpayers, and generic tax payers. Did you mean federal taxpayers? No where did I say state u’s were subsidized by the federal budget.</p>

76

<p>“For instance, Penn State charges about $16k per year for an instate student, yet Penn State doesn’t get much from the state of PA for these kids. So, in that case, Penn State is educating for a lot less than a private”</p>

<p>its 11k a year more for out of state students. Is that profit?</p>

77

<p>calimami</p>

<p>You are reading words that I didn’t write. Nowhere did I suggest that only the so called rich should have an education. I reacted to your comment implying that a kid whose family has the ability to pay full cost is somehow deficit when compared to those deserving poor kids otherwise they too would be receiving financial aid. Financial aid awards are in many cases made AFTER admission decisions. So if you have 2 admitted students, one with a zero EFC and the other full pay, they both made the cut and deserve to be there. </p>

<p>I have seen variations of these topic on here many times. For whatever reason, those who share opinions similar to yours seem to have a big chip on their shoulders about full pay kids and won’t acknowledge that at least, in part, the cost of providing need based aid is borne by these same full pay families.</p>

78

<p>*“For instance, Penn State charges about $16k per year for an instate student, yet Penn State doesn’t get much from the state of PA for these kids. So, in that case, Penn State is educating for a lot less than a private”</p>

<p>its 11k a year more for out of state students. Is that profit?*</p>

<p>I doubt it’s profit, but the point is that the state’s taxpayers aren’t giving $11k per kid to make up the difference for instate kids. It has been said many times that the state of PA doesn’t give much to Penn St.</p>

79

<p>[Video</a> - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com](<a href=“Video News - CNN”>Video News - CNN)
^students choosing price over prestige.</p>

<p>Too many students (or should I say, parents) are obsessed with prestige. They would rather take on substantial debt for the brand name/prestige factor rather than choose a more affordable option. It’s time for people to get over the belief that attending a $50,000 elite college implies that the student is somehow smarter than the student who chose their college based on finances. </p>

<p>There will always be people who feel that the higher the cost, the better the quality–whether talking about colleges or consumer products. Heck, a cheap pair of sneakers will get you around the track the same as a pair of $125 brand name sneakers. It’s the talent/drive of the individual person wearing the sneakers that matters. </p>

<p>IMO–The same idea can be applied to colleges. It’s not the price or prestige of the college that predicts success, but the ability, drive, and initiative of the student.</p>

80

<p>" agree, it’s money that allows me to attend college. I have no reason to believe it “helped” because I had very strong application long before any supposed URM boost kicked in, and I would have qualified for just as much need-based aid if I had been white. " </p>

<p>Truly at “lottery schools” nobody knows what reason ensured acceptance or rejection. You were accepted at an excellent school that happens to cover full need. That’s a great thing, and it is not easy to do with so much competition. It may very well have happened even if you were not URM. Or not. </p>

<p>I’m not debating the wisdom of the system, just your assumption that all students with very stong applications get into Stanford etc. I think that all the students who get in are highly qualified and have the potential excel, but not vice versa. </p>

<p>(My son did not apply to Stanford. This is just a general comment after surviving a year of college research and being floored by the caliber of students I know and read about who get rejected from HYPS and other top schools. Tis a crap shoot for all, URM or not.)</p>