<p>My returning sophomore son's tuition will increase 9% this coming fall. I am shocked. He is an out of state student attending UD. In state UD tuition went up 7%. I am amazed that in state kids get such a break as opposed to out of state students. I wonder what the room and board increase will be. </p>
<p>I would be interested in hearing how much of an increase others' are experiencing. Thanks.</p>
<p>4 3/4% rise in tuition, 4% in room, 3% in meals. Wonder if FA will increase in similar increments? <em>Sigh</em></p>
<p>Yes kitty, in putting our kids into more debt! You may now take out more unsubsidized Safford Loans. If anyone has not seen this yet, have a look! Yikes!</p>
<p>Is 37,000 in Stafford loans going to be the new norm of college student debt (not including plus loans or private loans for those that take those out)?</p>
<p>Good friends of ours really got the financial shaft when their D's OOS public really lifted the rates for such students midway through her time there. What was pretty close to their in state rates, really went up at a time when their twins were going to also going to college. Even with triples in college, no aid, as none of the state schools made any guarantee to meet EFC, and they found themselves in the situation where it their EFC came to about what the cost of the schools for all three were. It meant more loans as Northeastmom says. It is always a problem when schools raise their costs while kid is in school.</p>
<p>Without recalling exact numbers, my D began at a UC with tuitioin changes:
freshman: $4000+
sophomore: $5000+
junior: $6000+
senior: $7000+</p>
<p>Ouch, Pell & CA grants certainly did not follow that trend, so I don't know what happened to those kids on full aid.</p>
<p>The worst is that the housing is so expensive and goes up like craxzy. I hear some dorms at Berkeley are over $15000 this year.</p>
<p>I think that OOS students are very vulnerable to such increases, especially if a school gets "hot" (happening at Indiana). There might be all kinds of caps or legislative issues for raising in-state tuition. If the market bears it and the school no longer has to "lure" OOS kids, the schools probably think why not tap into that much-needed revenue.</p>
<p>NYU's overall costs are going up 5.7 percent for 2008-09; tuition alone is being raised 5.9 percent.</p>
<p>Housing rates at NYU are between $6,200 (rare that you can get this, and it's not good quality at all--you wouldn't want it!) and $19,420 (the most expensive private room). Most dorms are around $12,000-13,000/year. That's without a meal plan.</p>
<p>I have no problem at all with OOS tuition hikes being way more than in state. The in state taxpayers are subsidising tuition for for their public land grant universities with their state tax dollars. OOS are not so they should pay substantially more.</p>
<p>Some in state unis could benefit from more OOS students. Our system could. The better OOS unis attract students from all over the place which does make them better schools. They can then raise the tuition for OOS students since their rep is comparable to many private schools. So it depends on what the unis are trying to do at tje time. If you look at Virginia's state schools, the surcharge for OOS student for UVA and W&M are very high, making their costs comparable to some private school tuitions for OOSers and a great deal for talented in staters who get a first rate school at low in state rates. However, their less selective schools do have that surcharge. That way they can get an influx of OOS kids to up the rep of those schools. In time, perhaps they too can get a premium from OOSers. RIght now, in my opinion, VaTech, JMU and Mary Washington are excellent deals for OOS kids as well as Virginians.</p>
<p>Iron Maiden, I understand that but I think the universities have a moral obligation to enrolled students to work with them toward graduation. It's one thing to raise tuition out-of-reach for some students who are considering the school, it's another to raise it out-of-reach for students who are enrolled and working toward graduation. I would support a reasonable tuition hike-- but 9% really is a lot. </p>
<p>I always try to look carefully at schools' graduations rates. One of the most typical reasons that I've found that students don't graduate is finances after the first year.</p>
<p>Good points, 2collegewego. I know that UIUC offers a frozen 4-year tuition to in-state students -- what you pay as a freshman, you pay as a senior. (Fees may still go up, and they sure do, but that's another story.) Not sure if they offer the same guarantee to OOS -- interesting thing to look up.</p>
<p>True, but I really think OOS parents need to budget around 7%+ per year for increases. State budgets are getting tighter and someone will have to pay. It is politically much easier to raise OOS tuition much more. </p>
<p>It may not be "fair" to OOS students already enrolled but not to raise them more is even less fair to the state taxpayers.</p>
<p>Doesn't help when a school changes policy when your kid is midway through it. Friends of ours got caught that way. They permitted D to go to an OOS school since the costs were comparable, historically and initially to their instates. But after her second year, a decision was made to jack them up and they did not give upper classmen any breaks. It was an ugly pill to swallow.</p>
<p>At some point public Us will not fill their seats with OOS dollars. We looked at public Us for our older son. Now that public Us have increased their rates so much for the OOS student, we are looking mostly if not totally at private schools, and our instate public Us.</p>
<p>Exactly my point. States raising OOS tuition to the point where OOS students only look at privates or in state is exactly where this is headed. Taxpayers do not want to in any way subsidize OOS students with their tax dollars.</p>
<p>Iron Maiden, I agree that is where this headed, if we are not there yet! We had exluded many states several years ago with my older son because of OOS tuition then (ie: UConn, UVM, MD public schools just to name a few). Now we are not looking at any OOS publics (with the exception of one perhaps, but they might have also priced themselves out of the picture). </p>
<p>This only means that the public Us will have OOS wealthy students left to fill seats with. When they no longer fill enough seats, then instate costs will go up more, and programs will need to be cut.</p>
<p>Wow, where have you all be in the last 10 or so years? Shouldn't we all have known that the COA will increase every year? </p>
<p>In April when we were deciding between schools, I got some very good advices on CC about looking beyond the COA of the first year. Since we have another one going to college in two years, we have to tell "no" to DD for her first dream school. </p>
<p>COA of State flagship is not cheap for even the in state students if thry did not get any merit aid. For example, the COA is about $23K for an in state at OSU.</p>
<p>Solution: push, push and then push some more for your kid to get that GPA and standard test scores to as close to perfect as possible. Everyone is eyeing that limited amount of merit $$. If you are one of those "a dime a dozen" kids, you better start looking for a loan now.</p>
<p>I did this OOS public vs. private analysis when my D was making her college choices. The newspapers with their love for sensationalism and twisted facts were describing her final choice as the "most expensive college" in the U.S. They never mentioned how generous the school was with merit aid for high achievers or the fact that tuition is fixed for all four years. We spent $20,000 less on tuition over 3 years than we would have at a comparable OOS school, plus due to ease of registering for courses,etc she was able to accelerate her program to finish in 3 years, saving us a total of at least $50,000 over on OOS public. Parents must do a very careful analysis and not be seduced by stereotypes and rumors, when helping their kids make college decisions.</p>
<p>Our daughter's OOS tuition and fees increased 5.85% (same increase as for residents) and her room/board increased about 6.5%. All in all, though, we really can't complain. D's school has been very generous with merit aid (the merit $ actually went up from freshman year to sophomore year), so her "net" annual cost of attendance for 32 hours tuition, fees, single room and 20 meals/week is about $15,600 -- that's significantly less expensive than our in-state public flagship university, which has a reputation for not being very generous with merit aid for residents.</p>
<p>Unfortunately several long term trends have come back to haunt the higher education system. By insider policy and lobbying within the education department, there has been an increased emphasis on private or private subsidized loans. There was even a directive within the USDOE to minimize the profile of the federal direct loan program. And funds have been accordingly cut from other programs such as Pells and direct federal loans. </p>
<p>And with such general cutbacks in federal and state monies to higher education, it's inevitable the colleges started to make some unethical accommodations.<br>
And since out of state students are an enhanced revenue its almost assured their tuition rates will go to extreme levels. Given current financial constraints within higher education funding hammering the out of state student is politically the most expedient tactic. </p>
<p>There's a certain less than coincidental aire to it all. Since the turn of the century college costs have risen an average of 6% yearly. This same period was when the USDOE really began to emphasize corporate loans as the predominate means of funding education, with a correlating reduction in non loan programs (Pells have been essentially flat for years) and programs with more forgiving loan parameters such those intended for teachers, medical people and etc have also been effectively curtailed. The AMA has begged the USDOE to restore these, as has the NEA but apparently no one in the USDOE is listening. </p>
<p>And pushing the kids GPA is admirable, however there are places such as certain schools here in Colorado higher education wherein scholarship applications are first vetted through by private companies well before any academic divisions even see the papers. And under those parameters it's perhaps unlikely that a students GPA is really going to be all that beneficial-especially since the numbers can be shifted, and likely will be shifted to ensure some debt is inevitable. </p>
<p>The whole situation is going to have substantial detrimental effect on higher education. For example at some gateway schools the 07-08 initially rosy attendance figures are being substantially downscaled as these trends become more evident. Due to inflationary living costs, foreclosures and such, increasing numbers of parents and families seem to have become much more reluctant to make the commitment to college studies. And when the reduced aid and increased loan debts come into play that will scare off even more potential students, either because they can't get in for monetary reasons or chose not to do so because of future monetary concerns. So it could come down to two models; one wherein only the affluent dare attend college or the second wherein the costs and debt incurred make higher education an even more imbalanced gamble. </p>
<p>The CC's will really get whacked in this situation because the population they work with is so economically vulnerable. So if these trends continue the large enrollments which might be expected because of the economic downturn will be considerably less, or won't remain consistent through out their expected matriculation.</p>
<p>"I understand that but I think the universities have a moral obligation to enrolled students to work with them toward graduation." 2collegewego</p>
<p>Well it seems you have a moral standard which is often lacking in higher education. But perhaps that's a mistaken trust. Equating higher education with higher morals is often problematic as it tends to blindfold people to the unfortunate fact that academia does tend to chase the dollar. As has done so in a much more blatant manner since the substantive changes in support and funding.</p>