Tuition Increase!!

<p>It is true that the averages are not going to take into account the exceptional situation, and if your student is in that exceptional category, take a chance on it. Just make sure you have a good safety in place as sometimes all those chances don't work out. </p>

<p>I know two kids who were accepted to NYU with very, very generous financialaid/merit packages. They really hit the jackpot with that school. For both kids, NYU offered the best deal. BUt that is not usually the case for that school. NYU gaps a lot. You cannot count on getting that mother lode from them, and your other choices should reflect that fact by having better chances for aid. Yes, Michigan gives out some great packages to some OOSers and if you are one of the lucky ones, well and good. But given the high standards just to get into UMich, to get one of those to get one of those generous awards, you have to be truly desired by the school or danged lucky. No problem going for those options, just make sure you have more likely prospects so you are not posting after all is done, where you are going to get a huge non secured loan that does not require a co signer.</p>

<p>To my mind it is unethical to not have OOS students pay a very significantly higher tutition at land grant universities than in state. Why should a state's taxpayers subsidize the education of OOS students?</p>

<p>Iron Maiden, the reason is to improve the quality of the college.</p>

<p>^Exactly right. I find nothing inappropriate about a college using merit money to recruit exceptional OOS applicants for purposes of raising the school's academic profile and/or for increasing diversity.</p>

<p>I do understand that fact that taxpayers may not want to subsidize OOS students with their tax dollars. But from where I stand, that is paying almost 3x as much as instate students at W & M, I think we might be the ones doing subsidizing.</p>

<p>Agree with BlueJay</p>

<p>For many public schools I suspect they make money on OOS students. It is a delicate balancing act to keep them coming in but not get so high they begin to go elsewhere. The Univ of Colorado Comes to mind. It is the market system at work and I have no problem with it. When it gets to high people go elsewhere for equal opportunities for the most part.</p>

<p>One son saw an 8% increase in OOS but sub stafford student loan went up $1000 with sophomore status so it was almost a wash for me. His scholarships and grants were unchanged and that was expected.</p>

<p>The other son at a large private saw about a 4.5% increase and his grant increased to offset the increase.</p>

<p>Drizzit...In part the reason CU is currently doing better on the balancing act is that back (way back) in the 90's they did tend to emphasize out of state admissions because of the enhanced revenues involved. As a result a somewhat smaller percentage of Colorado students were actually admitted, and it did provoke a far amount of controversy and some threats of lawsuits. </p>

<p>Kansas certainly benefited from the situation as a whole collection of Colorado people ended up there, as did some other groups who'd been also limited by the 90's era CU admissions policies. At times however the Kansas Colleges didn't quite know how to handle these Colorado academic exiles...</p>

<p>Currently as faculty (and once long ago having been a student being subject to enhanced tuitions) I've always been personally uncomfortable with the idea of differential tuitions. Since the out of state students receive the same curriculum and cost the same as the locals to teach, enhanced tuition does seem to be unfair. </p>

<p>Now if states and the feds would properly back these institutions it could just come to having tuition at reasonable levels and not discussion of which populations are appropriately subject to enhanced tuitions nee' exploitation.</p>

<p>Why does america praise getting a higher level of education;but turns it around and makes it very expensive?</p>

<p>In-state is capped at my D. school. OOS is going up. There is also something that most kids totally overlook and feel that it is not worth their time. It is returning students academic scholarships. These are in addition to what they already have. If it is available at your school, IT IS WORTHWHILE to apply. Most my D's friends did not apply, but she did and she got substantial additional academic scholarship for sophmore year. She would have not got it if she did not apply. It is not renewable like her initial scholarships, so next year she will be applying again to whatever would be available to her. I am surprised of how few parents are aware of these type of scholarships (I was one of them).</p>

<p>I think it is hard to cap tuition because tuition is set by our state legislature.
However, Washington does have GET programs, which allow families to collect prepaid credits to guarantee that a years worth of tuition credits today, will pay for a years worth of tuition in the future.</p>

<p>Now we can't afford to send our D out of state for college, unless it is to a WUE school but there are enough choices on that list that I think if she changes her mind, she still will have options.
[url=<a href="http://wue.wiche.edu/%5DWICHE"&gt;http://wue.wiche.edu/]WICHE&lt;/a> - Student Exchange Programs<a href="most%20other%20regions%20have%20similar%20exchange%20programs">/url</a></p>

<p>^ My D. limited herself to in-state for financial reason. She is happy where she is after freshman year and it is nice not to think about repaying student loans in a future.</p>

<p>"Why does america praise getting a higher level of education;but turns it around and makes it very expensive?" </p>

<p>CTC, in regards to public higher education the situation of it becoming expensive (sometimes ruinously expensive) is a fairly recent phenomenon. Those who went to college in the late 60's and into the 70's and mid 80's were not subjected to these conditions to the extent of those who have attended college in the recent past or are doing so today. </p>

<p>Largely what occurred was a redirection of emphasis away from grants and lower cost public loans to what are essentially privatized corporate loans. (which often ironically are backed by public money under federal guarantees).</p>

<p>How this change was achieved was partially by disinformation, and partially by redirection of funds or cutting of what had been stable funding. The disinformation first came in the form of a artificial hue and cry regarding loan defaults. As a response congress gave almost draconian powers to the emerging privatized loan companies who soon used those same powers to enhance the costs of education loans. And that situation developed into an unholy situation of increased costs, and since the colleges had become reliant on this new source of funds most looked away from the attendant problems for students and their families. Many state Universities and colleges still do.
Currently its the elite privates who are actually promoting alternatives out of this circular cost trap. </p>

<p>The hapless irony is that despite some high profile stories of doctors and lawyers walking away from loans, the actual default rate on federal loans was nominal. (And much lower than the actual default rates extant and projected today). So essentially what occurred was a misleading propaganda campaign, using a conceptual equivalent to the old urban legend of the Cadillac driving welfare mom, to redirect a working system into one which made massive profits for corporate interests.</p>

<p>Attendant to these developments was a concerted campaign to reduce non loan aid, and reduce programs which supported higher education operating costs. The former was largely a federal problem, the latter largely a consequence of state misapplications. </p>

<p>And the whole mess also correlates to a basic shift of emphasis in the structure of the American economy, to obtain a concise understanding of how that came to be read Dr. Elizabeth Warren's essays on debt and the American middle class.</p>

<p>And unfortunately this overall shift in funding emphasis and the attendant social costs will eventually be ruinous to American Higher Education, especially the state schools. Many who graduated in the 70's and early 80's don't know how bad its become; because what served them as useful and balanced aid has become very, very different. And much of that perception does arise from fairly successful PR campaigns within the collegiate system and the new entities controlling the funding. Problem is all the hoopla about increased earnings for college graduates and 'lifelong learners' is not going to be perceived as credible if these trends continue. For example in conversations with students its very clear that they are aware of an cost to benefit imbalance and are very concerned. </p>

<p>However many within higher education, especially faculty are becoming very concerned. Simply because (in the context of state schools) the costs will eventually escalate to the level that the populations traditionally served by state schools will begin to opt out. And within the teaching contingent itself, many are quite aware of the cost problems as they struggle to pay for the lingering debts from their own education. To the extent that conversations about leaving the US and teaching elsewhere are actually quite common.</p>

<p>"Why does america praise getting a higher level of education;but turns it around and makes it very expensive?" </p>

<p>Fundamental Market law: supply and demand. Total $$ collected from all attending are going to go up and up just like oil price. However, there is a way around it that is open to some very hard working students. Go in-state and have top grades that could potentially lower paying for college to the levels below private HS payments or even offer you a full ride.</p>

<p>MiamiDAP, your path of going in state only applys to super rich who do not want to pay private tuition. For average Joe like us, going to an elite proviate costs about the same or in some case less than going to a state U.</p>

<p>I forgot whom it was but there was one parent on CC whose child is going an expensive private at a cost less than in state even with all merit $$ is included. For our DD, going to OSU would be about 10K/year and going to Stanford would be about 12K/year.</p>

<p>I agree with DadII. It cost much less to send my son to Kenyon, OWU, Denison or Wooster than OSU. It's all about the merit money at liberal art colleges.</p>

<p>Well that's the catch 22 aire to the whole situation, the elite schools are addressing the problem. Even to the extent that at some schools, if a student is below a certain income level, tuition is either waived or made reasonable. </p>

<p>And as far as the whole situation being free market driven, not really. Educational funding has become so skewed by special interest lobbying and attendant to that our government has put itself into the business of protecting and coddling the edudebt industry. And that industry is at the core of the escalating college cost problems. </p>

<p>A little research demonstrates a clear correlation between escalating college costs and the shift to the model wherein students had to fund their education by borrowing. </p>

<p>And its gotten so bad that those who were involved in creating or managing this system are commenting on the drastic need for reform. In the July 3rd edition of the Chronicle, investigative reporter Paul Baskin notes that the outgoing inspector general for the USDOE, John Higgins has clearly stated the situation is well overdue for reform. Higgins has noted one especially clear and consistent area of excessive cost overruns and 'waste and abuse' which is the situation regarding loans and educational funding... And that problem area is the result of the sweetheart relations between the department of education and the loan cabal. </p>

<p>And the billions wasted there is money which could have gone to direct support of higher education or students. But hey, a quarter billion (which is what one company alone recently over billed the government) could perhaps be considered market law, or free market only if ethics are abandoned. And that appears to be what's happened, no doubt the people in charge had studied market ethics under Al Capone or Boss Tweed.</p>

<p>I am sorry but the average B student rarely gets a wiff of merit money from the privates or LACS and state U is cheaper. It may not be the flagship but some state U will be cheaper. That is an "average Joe"</p>

<p>The purpose of State U is to provide for the majority of Students not just the high GPA students who get merit money. The 3.0 GPA kid is really having his/her options limited due to costs.</p>

<p>For our DD, going to OSU would be about 10K/year and going to Stanford would be about 12K/year</p>

<p>Does this cost include Room and Board? We are paying $6000= tuition +Room + Board meaning that merit scholarships and being in-state covering her tuition and some Room & Board. There are also full ride scholarships that D applied but did not get. So, there are people who do not pay anything at all. I have hardest time believing that we would pay that little at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford etc. I have hard time believing that we would get anything at all, because it is not only income, they add your assets and consider other dependents, which are none in our two-income family. In fact I know comparable family that paid full price of over $45,000/year for their super talented academically D. at Duke. Well, our D. is happy any way, she did not care to go to Ivy's, lucky for us.</p>

<p>MiamiDAP. Your DD is happy and I agree that is the most important thing. However, I think you are pushing your way too hard. There are other options for the new comers to consider.</p>

<p>12K a year for our DD includes everything, Tiution, room, board, books, travel and personal expenses. The total COA is over $53,000. Lucky us in the bottom part of income and net worth group, we got all grant to cover the rest. Our 12K contribution were based on over $5K of none school billed expenses. If DD could get by with only $3K a year, our cost would be even less. What is more, Stanford promised us that our contribution will be halfed when our son attends a college, even if he got a 100% full ride. So, over the whole 4 year, we would be looking at less than $40K for a degree from Stanford.</p>

<p>To drizzi's point, our DD was lucky to have a "a dime a dozen" stat to get in Stanford.</p>

<p>My kid is also at MiamiU, as an OOS. Several headlines during the year screamed "no tuition increase" with tiny print beneath saying "for Ohio residents." The rest of us got hit with 6%. My D did apply for returning student scholarships. She got $260. I agree with the poster who mentioned feeling like he was subsidizing the instaters. If the state gov freezes tuition for residents, then the college has to get the funding elsewhere. We're elsewhere. Miami has about 30% out of state students, so that's a pretty nice slush fund.</p>

<p>I've said often that I wish colleges would move to a guaranteed sticker price. Once you start, the price stays the same for the next 4 years. At least at Miami, they freeze the dorm prices after sophomore year (I think.)</p>