The question I have: What is the actual cost of having a student at a university in the US per year?
The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
41–50 of 149 posts
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#42The question I have: What is the actual cost of having a student at a university in the US per year?
I couldn't say. Honestly, I wouldn't think that it would be much. A lot of the courses haven't changed much year-over-year.
The question I have is with modern technology, why isn't there a startup that had figured out how to remedy this issue.
Surely there's a way to provide top notch education without having to break the bank doing so.
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Infinite supply of loans. Dept of Ed isn't even allowed to deny a loan to a person. 2. Culture since the Clinton era of "everyone should go to college". Massive cultural stigma for those who don't. 3. Colleges continue to justify costs based on lifetime earnings delta of people with degrees. Sadly, this data is backwards-looking and not indicative of what today's students should expect. The most heinous thing thou…
One argument I've encountered that holds water, at least with regards to being unable to discharge student debt: you can't repossess someone's mind. (Technically you can, but that'd be a messy affair.)
That's a terrible argument that I've never heard an actual policy-maker or politician make. Besides, unsecured debts are all around us, credit cards being the most common.
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#44It's quite likely that by the time my 11-year-old hits 18, private universities will cost over $100,000 per year (tuition plus fees, housing, and food plan), and public schools will be $25K [EDITED orig. $50K] (plus or minus, depending on state subsidies and other funding such as corporate donations). While the university experience is undoubtedly a valuable one for the 18-22 age range, with tremendous intellectual a…
What evidence do you have for your assertion that public schools would cost $50k a year?
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#45It's quite likely that by the time my 11-year-old hits 18, private universities will cost over $100,000 per year (tuition plus fees, housing, and food plan), and public schools will be $25K [EDITED orig. $50K] (plus or minus, depending on state subsidies and other funding such as corporate donations). While the university experience is undoubtedly a valuable one for the 18-22 age range, with tremendous intellectual a…
I think the MOOC thing is a game changer, but only for actually learning stuff (as opposed to prestige), and mostly for stuff where it can be proven that you've learned it.
What I mean is you now have a huge variety of ways to learn STEM type stuff. When I was an undergrad, you had some topic like transistors to learn about. You had maybe 3 or 4 books with explanations, not all good. You had a lecturer, and a tutor, and your fellow students. If combined they didn't lead you to understand the secret to transistors, you were buggered.
Nowadays, you have forums like stackexchange where you can get a well informed answer to some pretty obscure questions. You have a whole load of lectures from various universities as well, and you can also get a variety of books delivered wirelessly. So really if you're ignorant about something, it's not because you couldn't have found a good explanation.
The reason I mention provable stuff is that you have certain subjects where, let's face it, it's easy to BS. Sure, there's agreement that some people are better at discussing history or politics than others, but it's just not the same as a STEM subject. There's an xkcd about this.
For those subjects, I reckon no matter how smart you sound, people will give you more credit if you went to a big name school.
I'm still waiting for the MOOCs to have credible exams. I mean in the eyes of the public, of course. Once that happens, and I believe it can happen quickly, there will not be quite so much pressure to do a specific, old fashioned residential college education.
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good point. My university did not have this requirement, however I should point out, even if you lived at home, or moved out on your own - you will be spending this money anyway. As-in, it doesn't matter if the university requires you to take this package the first year, since you're spending it no matter what (on living somewhere). It's just a matter of who you give that money to. If you don't want to spend…
Well, no, not exactly. If you're living at home, your parents are paying for your housing. It's money that is already getting spent. If you have to live in the dorms, your parents don't get a break on their mortgage or rent because you moved out. If your parents are helping you out, they now have their own rent to pay, plus a new rent for you, where before they essentially got "your" rent "for free". Similarly, addin…
The main point I was making, is it's unreasonable to complain about high student debt when majority of it is living expenses.
People often complain about the high cost of attending university, but don't differentiate between tuition fees and living expenses, often lumping them together to reach a seemingly egregious yearly tab. It's not so egregious when you examine where the money is going...
You would have spent near the same, or the same amount on just existing (living expenses)... had you not gone to university.
Sure, if you live with your parents, they'd be picking up the tab for you, but once you've joined the "real world" and moved out, you're having to cover your own living expenses.
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably forgot taxes in that cost (that you will pay for the rest of your life as a high earner) but, that said, that is a great model: the country makes an investment in you, you prove you are serious about it (the $3000 a year), and in return, the country gets a higher wage earner (and more taxes) to pay for the next generation.
In France the very elite students get paid during their studies (equivalent to Msc, not PhD). In exchange they are supposed to work as civil servants for some time (not sure all are supposed to do that), but some go work abroad right after their studies so that investment is mostly lost by the French government.
You're probably referring to the Ecole Polytechnique. Indeed newly graduates are supposed to work as a civil servant or pay the "pantoufle", which according to [1] is roughly 45000€, and as of last May when the article was written, it says only 10% of the graduates were paying it, but the government was starting to go after them.
[1]In French: http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/polytechnique-le-gouvernement-...
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#48Another, lesser known side effect of the unlimited access to student loans has been the rise of "degree factory" for-profit universities and their super aggressive and deceptive recruitment tactics. It is yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-for-profit-college-set...
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#49This article hints at schools inability to justify their ever increasing prices. Why is tuition continuing to rise so much faster than inflation? Is this simple supply and demand? Government backed loans create infinite supply to anyone who wants them? How can not for profit schools justify gauging their students?
1. Infinite supply of loans. Dept of Ed isn't even allowed to deny a loan to a person. 2. Culture since the Clinton era of "everyone should go to college". Massive cultural stigma for those who don't. 3. Colleges continue to justify costs based on lifetime earnings delta of people with degrees. Sadly, this data is backwards-looking and not indicative of what today's students should expect. The most heinous thing thou…
Hear, hear. Agreed on point 2. I believe we are seeing this stigma evolve right before our eyes.
College has been improperly marketed. I've mentioned this on other threads, but my view is that college should be used as a forum to learn, not a means to get a job. The reality though is the opposite.
The pressure against this reality is mounting. I feel we're nearing the point where one is better off going straight into the workforce to receive on-the-job training instead of pursuing a college degree. In other words, the market forces are starting to take effect.
But do we need to fast track this shift in mentality? If so, how? How much do we leave up to the invisible hand to flesh this issue out and how much should the onus lie on third parties (e.g. the end of federal government loan subsidies, corporations, etc)?
Re: The $10,000-a-year college education has arrived (1981)
#50This article hints at schools inability to justify their ever increasing prices. Why is tuition continuing to rise so much faster than inflation? Is this simple supply and demand? Government backed loans create infinite supply to anyone who wants them? How can not for profit schools justify gauging their students?
Administrative bloat is the culprit on the spending end. You'd think that the increased spending would go to hiring professors and improving academic life. But instead, the administrative bureaucracies are sucking up all of the money and wasting it on pet projects and excess labor.
Basically, all of the mismanagement that people associate with government applies to colleges as well. They have guaranteed revenue, so they have no incentive to control costs. Project planning and approval are more about politics than about cost and value. Leadership is weak and more interested in covering their own asses than in making the right decisions. There's constant mission creep, with colleges strangely obsessed with running all aspects of students' lives. Adding new spending is easy, but eliminating existing programs is near-impossible. The workers are unionized, and are often able to recruit naive students to their protests against any cost-control measures.
At my college, there was an administrative department for every kind of minority, each with its own budget and staff. What goes in inside of these departments is its own scandal. Some were far-left outfits that spread the toxic identity politics that's been in the news lately. That's not the kind of instruction that parents think they're paying for.
The government needs to stop its irresponsible loan and grant programs. Colleges need to refocus on academics and basic services for students. The only way they will do that is if they are forced to justify their costs on the market.