<p>"The latest projections could give even the wealthiest parents pause. Experts and parents are looking for solutions."</p>
<p>What</a> college will cost in 18 years - education costs ? MSN Money</p>
<p>I doubt we’ll see 5%+ increases every year for 18 years at hardly any universities. How many schools have had that level of increase consistently for the past 18 years?</p>
<p><a href=“| | | Office of Institutional Research”>| | | Office of Institutional Research;
<p>well they sure have done it over the past 15 years so why would they stop now? </p>
<p>When you read these tables hold onto your cookies.</p>
<p>Undergraduate
• The average 15-year increase in tuition and fees for residents was 189%. The University
of Georgia’s increase was smaller than this average, at 131% (23rd of 29). UGA’s nonresident
increase of 217% (11th) was slightly higher than the SUG average of 200%.
• The largest 15-year increase occurred at the four institutions in Texas, with the University
of Texas posting a nearly 600% jump in resident tuition and fees and an almost 300%
increase in non-resident tuition and fees.
• The lowest increases for residents were at Mississippi, Mississippi State, and Virginia
Tech (approximately double), while tuition and fees for non-residents only increased 1.5
at times Louisiana State and Virginia Tech.
• Over the past five years, Clemson University had the highest increase for residents
(146%), whereas Louisiana State only raised tuition and fees by 30%.</p>
<p>Hmmm… Okay, fair enough. I didn’t realize it was that many.</p>
<p>For comparison, 5% annually for 15 years is 108% increase. 6% is 140%. 7% is 176%. UT’s 583% increase for resident tuition is about 13.7% a year annual increase. </p>
<p>However, the value of a college degree (measured as the increase in employability it confers) and the market base (those aged 18-26) are decreasing. The market base will continue to decrease in size until about 2030 or so based on this projection: [Age</a> distribution Tables - Statistics United States](<a href=“http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution]Age”>http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution) This will force colleges to control costs.</p>
<p>Well one would think that to be true, however, it didn’t work in our school district when the school age population downtrended, (older demographic houses too costly for young families). My district is spending on average 9,000 more per pupil at elementary level than it did when my now 22 year old attended. She graduated elementary school with 215 kids in her class, my youngest just finished and her class had only 165, but it is now doubled in cost for less students.</p>
<p>As long as the supply/demand situation is such that colleges are turning students away, there’s little incentive in cutting the escalating tuition costs. Making it worse is the ease with which financially uninformed youngsters can tap into credit. When the bubble bursts, there’ll be a write off of these unpayable loans at the tax payers’ expense.</p>
<p>samiamy - part of that increase in cost is Federally mandated but unfunded programs, colleges don’t have those same mandates. And it’s only going to get worse - especially if Paul Ryan has his way. But let’s stick to college costs.</p>
<p>amtc…your swipe at paul ryan is sad at best! nice scape goat you have to blame for the rapid rise in college tuition! thanks for injecting your political spin into a college board.</p>
<p>If trends at my public U continue, it’ll be about $938/credit hour.</p>
<p>Any analysis of the rising costs of public universities ought to include at the same time the decrease in state support for higher education. In terms of the question “why would they stop now?” I think that tuition has reached a level that is barely affordable or actually unaffordable for a lot of people. This ought to create pressure at the state level to return the state support for public universities to the level that it had 10-15 years ago. If that happened, tuition increases would be much smaller. </p>
<p>State support has dropped to the point that the University of Michigan, although technically a “state” school, receives less than 10% of its budget in funds from the state of Michigan.</p>
<p>It’ll probably go down or remain fairly stable–most classes will be via internet. MIT and some other prestigious colleges are now offering online classes for free. You don’t get college credit but a certificate of completion. However some Community colleges offer college credit for that certificate of completion. This is a trend that I think will become more widespread.</p>
<p>Agree gouf78. But might I take this further? All will be online/internet or whatever it will be called with most students working jobs at the same time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck. In Missouri, the governor is currently touting how he has balanced the budget without increasing taxes for 4 years. What he isn’t telling everybody is how much he has slashed higher education and made those schools raise tuition to make up the difference…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean a series of unpaid internships to gain work experience in such critical skills as fetching coffee?</p>
<p>I’m sure college tution won’t continue you to grow at its current rates. The college bubble will eventually collapse.</p>
<p>For a typical degree, whether you want it or not, there’s a lot of coursework that’s needed which is unrelated to the degree that is sought. If someone is undecided, wants a diverse education and not be slotted into one stream at the onset, or changes his mind mid-stream, I don’t see the problem in having them taking and paying for a lot of courses that are not related to the subject of the degree. However, if a student is very clear on what s/he wants and doesn’t want, it is a waste of his time and money, and merely serves to maintain bloated departments teaching courses that students don’t care for.
If you look at the curriculum for say, a radiology tech, post HS, you’ll have two years of learning what you need to do your job - that’s all you pay for; if you don’t like it or change your mind, you pay for doing so. If you want to become a radiologist, it takes you about 14 years starting with 4 years of college with French, Calculus, history, and any other thing you can think of. And colleges use their privilege as gatekeepers to milk students to pay for these in years and dollars, so that when they’re done, they’re out in the world with a vengeance to do the same to their customers.</p>
<p>If your kids are not in HS yet, my suggestion is to plan on taking a lot of AP and IB(if offered), and of course do well on the exams. You can save at least a year of college by doing this. My son just started at FSU with 45 hours already done. He basically only had 2 liberal arts classes left to take. He went to public high school.</p>
<p>On the one hand, I have to agree (sadly) with hops_scout’s comment “Good luck,” about my hope that people would create political pressure to increase state funding for public universities. It probably won’t happen.</p>
<p>It probably won’t happen because people don’t know about the reductions in state support for higher ed. The “balanced budgets” get touted, but the way the cuts were made is not spelled out. Journalists take the quick route to report the tuition increases, but don’t explain what fraction of the tuition increase is due to reduced state funding. People are generally unaware that there is even an issue until their children are about to start college, and they are surprised by the high tuition. Backlash is created against the universities, and the legislators and governor get a free pass on the budget reductions that caused the problem. Once a person’s own children are through college (if they went the public route), there is no incentive to argue for a return to the previous status quo, in terms of state support–in fact, there is a very strong counter-incentive, because it would probably mean increased taxes, which are hard to pay while paying off high tuition bills.</p>
<p>Still, I think that if the journalists traced the cause of the tuition increases, rather than just reporting the numbers, it would be a good thing. The tuition increases are not all due to high-res TV’s in the student lounges and elaborate athletic facilities.</p>
<p>Well and sticking with the Missouri example, let me provide a little more insight…</p>
<p>There was a law that said that tuition could only go up x% each year. I’m pretty sure every year since at least 2006 the Missouri government cut spending for higher education. AND if a school chose to raise tuition above y%, the governor threatened to cut spending even more. What that meant was that the schools had no choice but to raise housing costs, student fees for a,b,c, etc. AND the out-of-state student tuition was not regulated so at least my alma mater they stuck it to the out-of-state students. I believe that when I started college I was paying something around $325 per credit hour. When I graduated 3.5 years later, it was up to just under $400 per credit hour (out of state). And numerous classes required you to buy online software, clickers, etc along with printing everything yourself. </p>
<p>Expect for that to continue to increase over the next several years.</p>
<p>I think a similar scenario, with minor variations, is playing out in a lot of states.</p>