Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#61

Post by brazzy »

Avshalom wrote: post #57
brazzy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this chart [2] UWashington lays out in 2013 dollars that total tuition per student has been around 17,000 for 25 years If true, that would make UWashington a shining beacon of frugality and equality (or a really low-end university). That tuition has been massively outpacing inflation is something I have heard from too many different sources to dobut, so the question is: Is UWashington lying in that paper, or is…

"Total tuition" and "tuition charged to student" are two different numbers in this formulation. "tuition charged to student" has jumped ~9k on top of inflation to compensate for a ~9k decrease in per student state funding. As to why students don't switch to cheaper universities? Because when it comes time to find that first job academic reputation and professional network matter at least as much and often way way mor…

> "tuition charged to student" has jumped ~9k on top of inflation to compensate for a ~9k decrease in per student state funding.

I got that, but that's a factor 4 increase, whereas the OP article's claim is that it has increased by a factor of 12.

> As to why students don't switch to cheaper universities? Because when it comes time to find that first job academic reputation and professional network matter at least as much and often way way more than having a particular degree.

But if it's a mainstream problem, wouldn't that imply that the majority of students are now visiting "reputable" universities with great professional networks, which would make it less valuable as a distinguishing characteristic?

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#62

Post by muzz »

krisdol wrote: post #54
forrestthewoods wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not a free market. It's a market artificially inflated by the government via Federal loans, guaranteed pay back to the banks, and debt that's non-dismissable via bankruptcy. Those may or may not better than the alternative, but they sure as hell mean it's not a free market.

Doesn't change the fact that you are always free to go to a cheaper college, or avoid it altogether. Even the college is free to set its own prices. I don't agree that the notion of a "free"-er market would fix this.

The entire OP argument is that predicated on students essentially being lemmings and willingly / unwittingly taking on student loans to spend on college tuition. If we believe that college students are rational economic actors-- as we expect adults to be elsewhere in the economy-- this argument breaks down very quickly.

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#63

Post by vilhelm_s »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #46
tehwebguy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if that $N cap must cover a minimum of near 100% of the salary could that even have an impact, IMO. Without minimum coverage it's just a subsidy that will drive the cost of college up even more since every student would be able to afford a minimum of $N. It's virtually identical to the current loan landscape. Example (broad strokes): Student Grant / yr Minimum Coverage $5,000 100% $10,000 98% ... $50,000 90% Cou…

> Without minimum coverage it's just a subsidy Sorry, I was unclear: the idea would be that a college that accepts the $N tuition would be prohibited from charging the students attending any additional tuition.

Note that this is how things work in many European countries (e.g. Sweden): universities cannot charge any tuition from students, but they get a certain amount of money per student from the government. This way the government can control the price exactly, so there are no risk of runaway tuition levels.

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#64

Post by Balgair »

Alex3917 wrote: post #28

The increase in tuition costs has actually been relatively small. The price for tuition, fees, room and board at public 4-year colleges for in-state residents increased from $7,400 in 1990-91 (2012 dollars) to $12,110 in 2012-13. At private non-profit institution the net price increased from $18,330 in 1990-91 to $23,840 in 2012-13.

Source?

UC Irvine is 2x that while not on campus ($24,693.97) and much more on campus ($31,667.97) for CA residents. Add $22,878.00 for out of state to get ~46k off campus and ~53k for on campus[0].

Granted, it is a UC in Orange County, but your numbers are 1/2 to 1/3rd of the true numbers. Is the rest of the country really that much cheaper than California?

[0]http://www.ofas.uci.edu/content/costs.aspx?nav=1

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#65

Post by Shivetya »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #32
withdavidli wrote: post #4

I'm very opinionated about colleges / tuition. Many people find value in it, or they justify it somehow like they couldn't get the education / experience some other, more affordable, way. My thoughts on the solution is the same for housing increases. Get rid of the government loans. In this situation also make student loans able to discharge by bankruptcy, that way banks will think twice about it as well. The easier…

> Get rid of the government loans. I'm going to make an argument I imagine many here will disagree with: perhaps the solution to the cost problem is to have publicly financed post-secondary education? Imagine this: the US government tells colleges it will pay $N per semester on behalf of any student who meets certain qualifications to attend that college. Colleges would be free to refuse to accept this, but with the…

No.

First off too many people who do not need a college education are pouring money into one. Second the United States, nor any country needs the numbers of college educated people they already have.

Come up with a standard program if you must. We have standards for public education so let us have them for a college education. It cannot be that hard to establish the minimum required for each degree and then determine the cost of that education. With a standard costs will come down.

Uneducated voters, it is not from a lack of college. Public schools are not there to create critical thinkers. They are told day in and day out how the government makes it all possible. Top it off with thousands of assistance programs and why would you expect people to better?

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#66

Post by muzz »

ivystudent wrote: post #39
adminprof wrote: post #19

I'm a professor at an ivy league university who has gotten some insight into the budgets. There's a few things that are often not reported in the media: 1) The tuition sticker price is going up, but the actual price paid remains about the same due to increasing financial aid given to students. 2) The largest cost driven in the past decade is partially due to a successful increase in recruiting+admitting underrepresen…

Thanks for your comment - it's great to get some real insight here. #1 and #2 raise a lot of questions and I'd love to hammer it out a bit more. Total financial aid is increasing (#1), but that makes sense given that the number of low-income students is also increasing (#2). The better metric is financial aid per low-income student (not just per student, since that is also expected to increase given that low-income i…

#1 is essentially third-degree price discrimination. College tuition is effectively "sliding scale" with wealthiest students pay full sticker price and poor students paying little or nothing

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#67

Post by Balgair »

adminprof wrote: post #19

I'm a professor at an ivy league university who has gotten some insight into the budgets. There's a few things that are often not reported in the media: 1) The tuition sticker price is going up, but the actual price paid remains about the same due to increasing financial aid given to students. 2) The largest cost driven in the past decade is partially due to a successful increase in recruiting+admitting underrepresen…

1) Source? I can't believe that the sticker price has gone up this much and that financial aid went up in essentially the same amount. Let's see data on this.

2) Again, source? What I get from this is that minorities are financial leeches, then. Is that a correct reading? (No of course not, but that seems to be a correct interpretation of this insane premise the OP stated; one I do not agree with at all)

3)Again, source? So, get rid of the student's needs and you get rid of the costs? Really, this says that needy students are the reason costs have gone up. Did you even read the original article at ALL? Over 30 years of needy students have pushed the costs up this much? That is blatantly false.

Sources for ANY of these points are needed.

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#68

Post by muzz »

hga wrote: post #37
forrestthewoods wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not a free market. It's a market artificially inflated by the government via Federal loans, guaranteed pay back to the banks, and debt that's non-dismissable via bankruptcy. Those may or may not better than the alternative, but they sure as hell mean it's not a free market.

" guaranteed pay back to the banks " Not as of June 30, 2010: part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare was using the profits from those student loans to fund it, the government is originating all "guaranteed" loans after that date.

The taxpayer savings don't fund Obamacare but rather go back into higher education:

"The Congressional Budget Office said the direct-lending approach would save taxpayers about $61 billion over 10 years. Roughly $40 billion of the savings will be redirected to higher education. Education programs will get an additional $10 billion from the health care package."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26loans.html

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#69

Post by muzz »

Balgair wrote: post #64
Alex3917 wrote: post #28

The increase in tuition costs has actually been relatively small. The price for tuition, fees, room and board at public 4-year colleges for in-state residents increased from $7,400 in 1990-91 (2012 dollars) to $12,110 in 2012-13. At private non-profit institution the net price increased from $18,330 in 1990-91 to $23,840 in 2012-13.

Source? UC Irvine is 2x that while not on campus ($24,693.97) and much more on campus ($31,667.97) for CA residents. Add $22,878.00 for out of state to get ~46k off campus and ~53k for on campus[0]. Granted, it is a UC in Orange County, but your numbers are 1/2 to 1/3rd of the true numbers. Is the rest of the country really that much cheaper than California? [0] http://www.ofas.uci.edu/content/costs.aspx?nav=1

What percentage of students pay full sticker price?

Re: Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition

#70

Post by adminprof »

Balgair wrote: post #67
adminprof wrote: post #19

I'm a professor at an ivy league university who has gotten some insight into the budgets. There's a few things that are often not reported in the media: 1) The tuition sticker price is going up, but the actual price paid remains about the same due to increasing financial aid given to students. 2) The largest cost driven in the past decade is partially due to a successful increase in recruiting+admitting underrepresen…

1) Source? I can't believe that the sticker price has gone up this much and that financial aid went up in essentially the same amount. Let's see data on this. 2) Again, source? What I get from this is that minorities are financial leeches, then. Is that a correct reading? (No of course not, but that seems to be a correct interpretation of this insane premise the OP stated; one I do not agree with at all) 3)Again, sou…

The source is me attending university budget meetings, discussions with the provost, etc. University administrators are obviously not going to be saying this in public (exactly because of how it looks, as you note). If you think you're going to see the accounting books of a private university on such a sensitive topic, you may be waiting a while. But feel free to continue believing online columnists in the meantime; it seems like you've already made up your mind.

For 3), I think you misread my statement. I just said that there are useful programs to students that cost money, and not just the usual useless examples provided by journals. The other stuff is your creative interpretation :-)

Post reply on HN