This huge state discrepancy is part of the reason that there is outrage over the fact that some unauthorized immigrant students may be eligible for in-state tuition, whereas an OOS student who is a US citizen from a state with high tuition will have to pay more. Yes, I realize that this doesn’t apply to every situation.
@howtogetfuturesendhelp - “Going by calculators online I still need to come up with at least $12,000 each year to go to Northeastern, and probably around $8,000 if I go to UMB”
Honestly, $8k - $12k is doable, granted with some hustle. You could easily make $1500 per semester working PT and at least $5k during the summer. Add in a Stafford loan ($5500-$7500) and you have it covered. My D does the above just like her parents did when they went to college and their parents did before them.
California’s version of that is the only reason I could afford college. I am a US citizen, but the way California wrote the law is “Those who are not California citizens but went to HS in California 3 or more years and graduated/GED’d in California pay in state tuition and can qualify for state financial aid”. This applies to many undocumented immigrants, but also to US citizens who aren’t California residents. I was born and raised in San Jose and graduated high school there, then my parents left for Colorado immediately after my graduation and I went with. Two and a half years later I went to Job Corps in Montana and graduated after 15 months. While I was there, I changed my legal address to the Job Corps Center and got a Montana ID, and applied to the University of Montana thinking I’d have in state tuition. Nope. OOS, 35K a year after room and board. If I went back to Colorado? OOS. California’s nonresident fee exemption for California HS graduates got me qualified for two years free at De Anza and cheap CSU tuition.
@Portercat You know, seeing as my American side is originally from California, I’ve long wondered if I should make the move over there, save up money during a gap year, and start school there, because the prices seemed pretty cheap (last time I checked). I’ve written it off as a pipe dream so far, but frustration will take you places, haha! Do you know anything further about financial aid in CA?
And to the rest of you guys offering ideas and help, thank you, really. It’s just a lot to quote all of you but I read through all of it and will look into the links you provided me with too. The snarky comments I will ignore…I don’t think I need to accept $50,000 per year - no human in a first world country should - and to those telling me to suck it up and go to state college - guess what I’m probably going to do. UMB is my most likely option right now.
I just think that obtaining a BA should not be such a financial life sentence for people, especially young people who are still figuring out the real world (half of us don’t even know what taxes really are). A BA is needed on average to get a good job, let’s be real here, so perhaps universities should turn into academic institutions without the frills so as to make tuition and fees drop again to a manageable level. Because honestly, I think most of us students could live without pools and events and fancy gyms if that meant we didn’t have to take out loans and work through our semesters.
I understand the dream of the “college life”, but I think young adults can have a fun experience and learn how to develop into adulthood in ways that don’t involve the culture college has become. As a European, I’ve frankly never understood why fraternities or university sports teams even existed…but that might sound weird to the average American, I don’t know. In guess it is ingrained in our culture here in the US.
Just to look at the “top” private colleges, it’s a supply and demand issue. I doubt that the size of the freshman class of HPYS has increased in decades but the applicant pool has increased dramatically in size and quality. I think you’ll continue to see selection rates go down at schools like Vandy, Duke, Hopkins, etc. That will increase prestige and seemingly justify the prices. If half of the freshman class pays full freight, then schools can subsidize the rest from endowments.
I think the equalizer is the advent of honors colleges that offer more personalized attention at state universities. The real loser is folks in states with high in-state tuition.
Maybe we didn’t come out and say it outright, but the reason America is “ok” with expensive private colleges is because there really are other, cheaper options.
And I don’t think this notion is true at all, unless you’re defining “many” as a small subset of wealthy teenagers, but you have to forgive them because they have so little life experience at this point. You said yourself you went the cc route. Don’t you think you received a solid education there?
Thank goodness for the HOPE scholarship…
@ordinarylives Yes, I did receive education that I’m pretty sure was just as good as any private school classes. In fact, my favorite teacher did not teach at the state school I attended early on, but at NSCC. However, I’ve had to explain this to far too many people who assumed that only low-life people with no ambition or horrible grades went to CCs. I’m serious…they genuinely thought CC was something to look down on. Needless to say I set them right…
Maybe you’re just surrounded by smarter people than I am?
Besides that, a tuition of $11,000 might sound cheap to you, but any German I’ve told about my situation looked at me like this country is crazy. They pay much, much less over there, and some other European nations do as well. It’s manageable, believe me.
(And yes, CCs are cheaper, but they don’t offer BAs, do they?)
You keep repeating the same arguments. Yes, Germans think it’s crazy to pay $11,000 – but their schools don’t have golf courses, winding rivers, climbing walls, intramural sports clubs, state-of-the-art science labs, professional-grade theaters, orchestras, piano rooms for non-majors, etc etc. – I could go on. To compare German universities to even the average state college campus is absurd. It’s apples and oranges. The quicker you accept that the quicker you will adjust to this American reality. And if you can’t adjust, perhaps it’s time to investigate options in Germany. They’re big on funding foreigners these days.
And no, CCs don’t offer BAs… but they get you halfway there. And the other half of your degree can be done at a less-expensive state college campus.
It’s an imperfect system. But it does have options.
[/quote]
Some do. Perhaps only in a limited number of fields, and only in a very few states, but still, some do.
What’s different between the US and the European model is not the cost but the way we choose to pay (individually vs. collectively). The upside to the American system is that more people can pursue higher ed at more institutions which have a variety of price points. The down side, of course, is the cost to the individual seeking the education.
two words: “Tempurpedic mattresses”
I’m kidding, mostly. Upgraded facilities are part of the added cost, and not all of these costs are associated with more luxurious living conditions.
I was curious so I ran some numbers on an inflation calculator. In 1983, total COA at my state flagship was 2,250 per year. That corresponds to 5,356 in today’s dollars, adjusted according to the consumer price index. If today’s higher education costs reflected the CPI overall, it would mean that today, just as it was in the 80s, a student could self-fund college at the state flagship by working part time and during summers at a semi-skilled job. In my case it was food service at maybe 1.5-2x the minimum wage.
However, that same state flagship now costs 26K per year for room/board/tuition. This would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the average 18-22 year old to self fund.
My second choice, a prestigious liberal arts college in MA, had a COA of about 11K in 1983, or about 26K in today’s dollars. It’s real price is between 65-70K per year.
As to why do Americans put up with it? We live in a consumer society that places a premium on status and hierarchical rankings. In order for colleges and universities to remain competitive, they need to upgrade facilities (both academic and leisure) and offer a marketable “product.” The former availability of easy and ample credit for students (now greatly reduced, a good thing IMO), drove up prices because people were willing to “pay” in the short term and think about the consequences later. Universities these days are increasingly corporate in their administrative structure and the upper-level bureaucrats earn hefty salaries, much as you’d see in higher management in the private sector. Money goes to funding sports programs - depending on the school, sports can be profitable or a drain on resources. Professors make reasonable but hardly luxurious salaries; particularly at public universities, pay increases often do not keep up with inflation. However, they do earn more than at CCs, where faculty are typically non-tenured, often paid by the course, and earn relatively low rates of pay. I have a cousin who works as an adjunct for not that much money
If you are willing to pay a premium for smaller classes, more individualized mentoring, etc., then you often end up paying for the lazy river and the climbing wall as part of the package, even if you couldn’t care less about those things.
There are still relative “bargains” to be had in the western states, where annual full-time tuition can run as low as 6-8K per year. Also, a willingness to go to a regional/directional campus of a public university can bring costs down. As has been mentioned earlier, and as you know yourself, 2 years of CC plus 2 years at a reputable state college or university can be a reasonable compromise.
Yes, it’s a part of it, but a small part—a very small part.
I repeat what I wrote upthread, which most of the analyses I’ve seen reported in publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education lead to: Most of the increase in COA can be laid at the feet of three things:
[ol][]decreased (in constant dollar terms) state appropriations (which only applies to public colleges, of course),
[]increases in health care costs, and
[li]increases in the administrative ranks.[/ol][/li]People like to focus on things like cushy mattresses and climbing walls and such, but that’s only because they’re highly visible. In actual fact, though, they’re tiny little expenditure increases/income reductions compared to the big three.
Agree with @dfbdfb that decreased state appropriations and administrative costs are probably the #1 and #2 reason for the spike in tuition costs. The only states that have been able to keep college costs relatively low for in-state students are states like Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota with oil revenues and a few other states with various tax incentives or higher tax rates to help pay for college grants. Other than that, almost all states have treated higher education as fully discretionary and first on the chopping block.
Combined with the growth in enrollments that breed bureaucracy in these colleges and it’s not hard to realize that students are increasingly getting the shaft while administrators are lining their pockets. The huge push for oos and international students allows these colleges to become a buyer’s markets with superficial rankings that try to substitute rich kids for the demise of state subsidies. It infuriates me when Colorado universities are going to be mainly oos students majority in the next few years because they drove costs so high that only rich students from oos can afford them…
I wish public colleges would be legislated to have a required ratio of in-state student to oos/international (something like 75%/25%) so that these colleges focus on becoming smaller and more centralized on helping their in-state students first. Instead of colleges growing at unsustainable rates due to the rise of federal subsides (loans and grants) and a readily available population of rich oos students to pay massive marked up prices, state universities need to be put on a leash and redirected towards their original missions in the first place: helping their state economies with a place to train state citizens with higher human capital.
But alas we rather focus on that nice looking rock wall and lazy river when there is a bigger picture not being addressed enough.
@dfbdfb Yes, of course, you are absolutely correct regarding the main institutional factors. As a worker in public education, those factors are so obvious to me that I forget they aren’t obvious to everyone.
I would be curious to know what % of increased tuition costs, on average, goes to cover capital improvements (labs, libraries, and stadiums, not lazy rivers!)
Not to mention that in Germany, you have to bust it and make your education happen with no assistance except that you can find on your own. if you need it. Advisors are not keeping track of you. No one cares if you never, ever come to class (and many did not). If you are unwilling to do the work because you’d rather party, or if you are simply unable to do the work then you drop out and try again later, or you fail. One of mine began with 70 students in classes. Only twenty students remained at the end of the first semester and undertook the first round of exams. One dropped out on the day of exams. Mine did great, especially for a foreigner, but reported to us that it was much more difficult than any AP or than the eight finals this one had taken up to the 400 college level while still in high school. It was like comparing middle school to college.
They expect you to do it or get out of the way. No handholding. No caring about hurting your feelings if you become offended. If you are ill, you have to find medical care. It really is a Suck it up mentality, though people have been kind along the way.
The Universities exist to host classes only. There are some campus gatherings and community events but you have to find them. You live in your own apartment that you have to find yourself.
They grow up faster because they are treated as men and women, I think, and they have to act like it.
Our system really needs to change.
Much of the money from kids and families paying(or borrowing!) 30 -65 k/year is used to subsidize kids and families that pay relatively little. For example, the average cost for the 60% of students receiving need-based grants at Princeton in 2014 was $16,868.
Many state schools do have either laws or agreements on the ratio of instate/OOS students they admit. I don’t think that it is a goal to stay small and focus on in-state students. North Carolina, Georgia Tech are majority instate students.
You can also argue that limiting the number of OOS students weakens the intellectual pool. We encourage students to study abroad, but don’t want too many from Idaho at Ohio State or traveling from Iowa to Alabama? Bringing in OOS students not only brings in $$$ but different ideas, different viewpoints. I’ve lived in 9 states from coast to coast. There really is a difference in Portland Oregon and Portland Maine.
@twoinanddone fair argument. OOS and international students definitely bring in bright people from all over, but in some places even with a law or agreement there is preference and lobbying for oos students simply because they can pay more. That comes off as state schools not doing enough for their citizens or that middle class families get the shaft while low income families get supplemental institutional grants for “diversity” and the rich can afford what they want. I know this situation is awful first hand because my state flagship (CU-Boulder) has an image problem to Colorado citizens for being a luxury hotel in the mountains that is flooded with rich white kids from California that can afford the outrageous $50,000 price tag for a basic state education. All while they try to boost minority enrollment to change that image but even with a 90% acceptance rate for all students, they can’t find enough disadvantaged students to go because they can’t afford the cost of living and education at Boulder! My point is that lax ratio rules between in-state and oos students does not help when the middle class is getting pushed out and that ratio continues to be skewed in favor of oos students. State schools used to be for state citizens primarily. Now it’s a cutthroat buyer’s market that only the very wealthy can afford it and in some cases lower income students with state and institutional grants, while the middle class is SOL without scholarships and savings.
Whether it be with stricter ratio laws, smaller/static enrollment targets, lottery funded academic scholarships for state citizens, or something else, there needs to be an address of how to make public colleges affordable as a first resort for students who do well in school, regardless of income.
Then there’s the arguments of simply raising income taxes to restore subsides for public colleges…easier said than done. With states racing to the bottom with cutting budgets, it’s going to be interesting to see what schemes are come up with in the next few years to save public college institutions. Most of them I hear are not good though…
If states want to impose regulations regarding the % of instate students, etc., they will have to pony up more money.
But the trend right now - nationwide and for a couple of decades now – is for states to cut their funding. Many, in fact, give “entrepreneurial status” to schools to encourage them to wean themselves off the public dollar. In other words, what you’re proposing has a snowball’s chance in heck of becoming reality.