<p>Emerald, your post raises an intersting point though – If a particular perk is somehow very important or very therapeutic for a particular group (i.e. people with Asperger’s, etc.), does this still justify the need to raise tuition for everyone to cover it? I think a lot of what is going on with the tuition raises is the development of special interest constituencies all asking the university to cover various perks, add-ons, etc. that aren’t necessary for the whole university but just one group. A lot of the add ons that make college expensive might be things that your particular child may never make use of – a sex change operation covered by health services, intensive in-patient anorexia treatment, access to a particular piece of lab equipment that most students wouldn’t even recognize or know what to do with but which is essential for your child’s senior thesis, an academic exchange with another university so your child can study an obscure foreign language not available at his home school, a greenhouse which your child will never enter but which is important for a particular professor’s research and his students, the dues for an expensive extracurricular activity, sports fees, etc.<br>
When people start to talk about ‘a la carte’ education and the desire to be able to purchase some components of the university experience without having to buy things they don’t want, it’s not just about luxuries. It’s also about the degree to which the whole group should pay in to what are ostensibly public goods for all students, but which few students in actuality use. Having the whole thing instead funded and sponsored by the state, as in Britain, etc.is also a way of having the government pay for all the add-ons, which is surely more efficient but also more costly. THe problem that administrators grapple with, however, is whether they should build a climbing wall for the Asperger’s kids while simultaneously telling a physicist they can’t have another piece of equipment – the default is to say yes to everything, but that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. (Also, anything that’s federally mandated under ADA gets priority.)</p>
<p>I don’t know that the issue is as much accommodations for individual students – although that adds up as well – as it is the expectation that college is going to be, not a school where you also rent an apartment, essentially, but a full-service, self-contained community.The ADA is, mostly, a red-herring; colleges have to be accessible, but so do workplaces and public buildings, which is an expense, but I think a worthy one. The issue is services that we take for granted should be provide by universities even though we wouldn’t expect to find them in any other comparable setting. </p>
<p>Forget climbing walls, let’s talk about gyms. When you are a seventeen year old high school senior, there is no expectation that you will have free, nearly round the clock access to a gym. If you want more exercise than you get in phys ed class, either your family pays for membership to the YMCA, or you buy a couple of free weights and take up running. When you are a 23 year old living on your own, same concept. Residential college students are the only people who can assume that they will be able to make use of pretty extensive facilities without extra expense. Of course, they are being charged for it in the form of the cost of attending that college – but by including it in the list price, the schools removes the possibility discretion about how to spend your money. Yes, it is nice to use an elliptical, but plenty of people, left to their own judgment, might decide that there are better uses for their money than gym membership.</p>
<p>Extensive health services is another. I’m glad I was able to make use of free counseling while I was at college. But you know, if my anxiety disorder had asserted itself when I was in high school, I would have paid a copay and gone to a psychologist in my hometown. If it had happened post-college to my friends who didn’t go to grad school, they would have done the same. Again, it is only 18-22 year old residential college students who have the expectation that the place they live should also provide pretty comprehensive round the clock care – in the real world, if you get sick, you go see a doctor not employed by your workplace or place of residence. </p>
<p>And of course I understand that college students are at a transitional life stage where there does need to be more support than you would get elsewhere. It seems reasonable to me that college students often have an RA or dorm counselor to take problems to, even though we don’t get those things in regular apartment buildings. Having a dining hall also makes sense, as it builds a sense of community. But a combination of marketing and liability concerns have led to colleges becoming much, much more comprehensive in the services they offer. </p>
<p>The colleges I am familiar with ( except the high end privates,like older D’s) charge extra for gym/ outdoor center access. Not generally as much as if you were joining an outside gym, but if you know you werent going to be using it, you wouldnt pay.</p>
<p>So if you want to know what COA is and don’t mind paying for everything up front whether your student will be using it or not, go private.
If you want to be able to just pay for what your student will use, even if that means 5 extra charges added to the bill every term, go public.</p>
<h1>321 It does seem to me that a lot of these residential colleges are accustoming students to a lifestyle they frankly will not be able to afford, specially not with the debt most of them are racking up.</h1>
<p>But it’s a chicken/egg problem. Back in the 1940’s, college dorms could be all doubles, triples, with a single bathroom down the hall- because that’s the way students lived at home. A small closet, shared. Dining halls which closed at 7 pm.</p>
<p>Kids show up at college now NEVER having shared a bedroom. Their own private bathroom. I see kids unloading U Haul trucks at college (not for apartments where they need a bed or a kitchen table- but for ordinary dorm rooms.) Who owns that much stuff or thinks they can store it at college that they need a truck?</p>
<p>So the colleges respond to changing habits (big wardrobes, lots of electronics, kids expecting food service 7 am-midnight) which of course the kids won’t be able to afford once they are on their own.</p>
<p>But where does the arms race end? I’ve read critiques here of Johns Hopkins- dorms are shabby- and Yale- not enough landscaping- and Brown- the student center is too small with only two snack bars in it. And the parents say, “For 60K per year, little Tommy shouldn’t be roughing it”.</p>
<p>What does it say about our society that we’re evaluating an educational institution on the basis of its snack bars?</p>
<p>Well @scholarme, it all depends on who the university is trying to attract.</p>
<p>Here’s a case study. My state flaghsip–the University of Alabama, is aggressively recruiting out-of-state students. And not just any out-of-state students, but they have excellent models where they specifically go after students in wealthy zip-codes in certain states, such as Texas. </p>
<p>This model has been wildly successful. Lots of tuition revenue coming in. In addition, it has recently built a brand new student athletic center and a brand new fountain area (the plaza cost 1.8 million dollars).</p>
<p>So if you are trying to draw the wealthiest students–and I doubt these students will be the ones burdened with student loans–then maybe all of these amenities is a good idea.</p>
<p>@emeraldkity4: Can you list some public universities where full-time students do not pay for gym membership as part of required student fees? Thanks.</p>
<p>Alabama has a range of housing, right? The nicer suite-style ones cost more than the traditional dorm room ones. I think tiered pricing on that stuff is good - the families that can afford it can avail, while the ones that can’t can pick the traditional option.
Ditto on making gym membership an extra charge.</p>
<p>It does, but tuition itself keeps going up. So even if you choose a lower cost dorm, that doesn’t help with tuition.</p>
<p>
I hope my question won’t offend anyone, but out of curiosity, do many people (or anyone at all from the north) send their kids to Alabama if they are not getting a full ride or at least significant financial aid? If so why?</p>
<p>Yes, @blossom</p>
<p>From two economists who wrote "Why Does College Cost So Much’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Benley,</p>
<p>There must be significant numbers, otherwise the amount of tuition revenue wouldn’t be increasing so dramatically. The number of in-state students is declining, and the number of out-of-state students is increasing.</p>
<p>Why would someone want to go to Bama, even without significant aid? It’s a decent flagship. The weather is nice, and the students are friendly. As mentioned in another thread by someone else, they are the Harvard of Greek life.</p>
<p>And, well, Nick Saban and the championship football program!</p>
<p>The community colleges I attended charge extra for gym membership if you are attending below certain number of credits.
Also the universities in Washington state charge extra to participate in intramural sports, outdoor activities and gym classes.
If you are an alum, or non student, it is about $300 to join for the year.
Since that is less than the price for a new biology book, it really doesn’t seem enough to make or break the deal, although if $300 *is *a big deal, you may want ( in my state) to consider attending TESC ( Evergreen), which is $7,833 for instate tuition compared to the University of Wa, which runs $11,305.</p>
<p>Some schools like older Ds require PE credits to graduate & take it very seriously. Even if you have successfully written and defended your thesis they wont let you graduate unless you have PE.
She did take PE, although you can’t smoke and drink anymore while doing so. ( bowling used to be one of the options) 
She took tango & salsa dancing, self defense, weightlifting and yoga.
I think schools recognize that physical health is a big part of mental & emotional health.
Having basic membership included may give kids more motivation to use the facilities, rather than worrying about the extra charges.
Although I was really disappointed that older D ( to my knowledge) never used her schools ski cabin, which was built in 1949. ( family members at the time could make arrangements to stay for $1)
At this point, I have to point out that when we received a DVD tour of Reed college as part of the info packet, there were several links showing off the Portland area.
I clicked on the link to the Timberline lodge, ( which was built in 1937), and for a long time, thought it was the ski cabin! Doesn’t every ski cabin have a three story stone fireplace?</p>
<p>If you aren’t going to be using any of the physical health offerings on campus, you might want to consider schools which have a large amount of online class offerings.</p>
<p>“Do you think that tuition should be kept at a low affordable price for everyone OR should tuition continue to rise with increasing support from the federal government?”
-This question is not realistic. The realistic question is this:
“Do you think that profs’ salaries should be cut to meet a low affordable price for everyone OR should tuition continue to rise with increasing support from the taxpayer?”
There is no such thing as affordable price without cutting the balance out of something else. If you want to pay $10k less for college, then $10k has to be cut from something (profs’ salaries?)
There is no such thing as support of the federal government. Federal government does not posses any money, it collects it from the taxpayer.
I just wanted to be clear in regard to the question which was stated in ambigious way…<br>
But then, the real question is if we want to continue lowering the quality of college education or we want to further burden the middle class with more taxes. That seems to be no win situation. So, the answer is neither. </p>
<p>@MiamiDAP The question was rather straight forward. Lower tuition v. Higher government aid to help those in the middle class who are excluded from a lot of private and OOS public schools. </p>
<p>Also, rather than going straight to professors receiving pay cuts, they could get the money that would otherwise be going to subsidize the high tuition. And the presidents could choose to cut back on their million dollar bonuses. </p>
<p>@skrlvr I’m sure the poor diversity and continuous discrimination against minority students outweighs the sunshine and Greek Life (minority students would be excluded anyway so that probably wouldnt make them want to go). The aid is really the driving force. If every college in America was the exact same price, even as someone who is Caucasian, I can say that Bama would be far down on my list, if not very last. I can’t stand racism. BUT I don’t want to make this thread about Alabama, so I’ll just stop here.</p>
<p>The aid can’t be the driving force, or at least significant amounts of aid. If that were true, then we wouldn’t expect increasing tuition revenues. The whole point of attracting out of state students was to find ways to increase revenue.</p>
<p>And I don’t think you realize what a draw the football program is.</p>
<p>And I want to add one more thing. There is discrimination at UA, but I think you’d find discrimination at many places in the country. UA gets a lot of attention in this regard because of its history. However, I think that there are many places which are problematic in this respect which don’t get the kind of attention that UA does, even places you would find to be desirable.</p>
<p>@skrlvr Lol, as a Vandy alum, you can be sure that I dislike both Nick Saban and the Alabama football program. But in my opinion, I can’t really see why someone OOS would want to go there if it weren’t for aid, legacy, or for someone more objective, football. BUT I will stop there.</p>
<p>@AnnieBeats Funny—SEC football is the best. BUT I will stop as well.</p>
<p>EK, re: post 332: I’m not arguing that gym privileges isn’t a nice perk. Of course it is. So is having more dorm space, cable, and a dining hall open with lots of options open until all hours of the night. The question is whether or not these amenities, as a whole, are worth the cost, given the reality of out of control college prices. </p>
<p>When I talk about a sense of entitlement, I am referring to precisely our tendency to assume that we “need” things that are really optional. To use your gym example, it is perfectly possible to stay fit and healthy without belonging to a gym. It may be EASIER to motivate yourself if you do have access to the gym, but that is practically the definition of a luxury. Believing that maybe it would be more rational if gyms and similar amenities were not part of the expectation for a standard residential college experience is a far cry from thinking that one should just be a commuter if one doesn’t like the price.</p>
<p>Obviously, the residential college experience is itself a luxury. But once we’ve decided to value it, to me, it comes down to what is and isn’t essential to that experience. Having dorms, a dining hall, and some student events seems that it would be pretty standard. Having such extensive infrastructure that a student need never leave campus to fill any of his or her needs and desire seems excessive. I think a generation ago, schools were closer to the former model, and now, they are closer to the latter. </p>