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

81–90 of 106 posts

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

#81

Post by larrys »

wooter wrote: post #7
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…

thank you! Every serious economist that has ever discussed college tuition in the US acknowledges that the issue of guaranteed loans and the ability to declare bankruptcy is a major factor (whether or not they think the status quo is acceptable). However, in this 3 page article it isn't even mentioned once. Instead, he jumps immediately into the trendy topic of inequality. He might as well have just tweeted #1% #weal…

"and the ability to declare bankruptcy is a major factor"

However you can't typically discharge student loans with bankruptcy, in the US at least:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/student-loan-debt-ban...

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

#82

Post by tzs »

Stanford tuition from 1920 through 1993 [1]:

    Year    Tuition    Annual Growth
    1920    120       
    1930    300        9.60%
    1940    345        1.41%
    1950    660        6.70%
    1960    1005       4.29%
    1970    2400       9.09%
    1980    6285       10.11%
    1990    14280      8.55%
    1991    15102      5.76%
    1992    16536      9.50%
    1993    17775      7.49%
    1994    18669      5.03%
    1995    19695      5.50%
    1996    20490      4.04%
    1997    21300      3.95%
    1998    22110      3.80%
    1999    23058      4.29%
    2000    24441      6.00%
    2001    25917      6.04%
    2002    27204      4.97%
    2003    28563      5.00%
    2004    29847      4.50%
    2005    31200      4.53%
    2006    32994      5.75%
    2007    34800      5.47%
    2008    36030      3.53%
    2009    37380      3.75%
    2010    38700      3.53%
    2011    40050      3.49%
    2012    41250      3.00%
    2013    42690      3.49%
Note: the growth column I added is annual growth. It is the annual rate tuition would have had to rise to get from one line of the table to the next.

I don't see much support in this data for the claim many are making in comments here that government backed student loans are responsible (or even a significant factor in...) tuition growth.

It would be interesting if someone with better internet research skills than me could dig up data for other schools (in particular, it would be nice to get data from some public schools) and see what that looks like.

[1] http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances

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

#84

Post by Chronic26 »

adminprof wrote: post #70
Balgair wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

I seriously doubt intangible student benefits are in the range of tens of thousands of dollars per year. Same thing with administrative staff.

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

#86

Post by ahomescu1 »

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…

How would an insider provide publicly-available sources for the things he/she reveals that are inside knowledge? The GP is the source.

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

#87

Post by Balgair »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #86
Balgair wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How would an insider provide publicly-available sources for the things he/she reveals that are inside knowledge? The GP is the source.

I doubt the veracity of the source to begin with. The account was created 2 hours ago as of this writing.

Still, point taken, thank you.

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

#88

Post by Balgair »

adminprof wrote: post #70
Balgair wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

I don't want to disparage a new user on HN, but your account was created 2 hours ago as of this writing. Please, do continue to use this site, but to make such broad claims about insider access and then claim that you cannot provide sources does stretch the veracity of your statements. Thomas Frank at Salon has his 'spit-bio' stating:

"Thomas Frank is a Salon politics and culture columnist. His many books include "What's The Matter With Kansas," "Pity the Billionaire" and "One Market Under God." He is the founding editor of The Baffler magazine."

You, however, disparage him as an 'online columnist' and say that I have already made up my mind. Well, with no proof provided to your examples, even after asking for it, I must make up my mind in Thomas Frank's favor. You cloak your data with the caveat that you can never provide sources for it. This forces me to not use you as a reliable source for information. At least tell us your university or job title.

Still, thank you for providing a different alternative to the OP. Please do not let my diatribe for sources distance you from commenting on other stories here in HN. I myself am guilty of doing just what you have done on here as well, ie. not posting sources outside of my own experience. Still, if you ever do find sources for your claims outside of your own experience, I would love to see them and be able to let others see them as well.

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

#89

Post by Balgair »

muzz wrote: post #69
Balgair wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unknown to me. Hopefully a source from the post I replied to may provide the data.

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

#90

Post by adminprof »

Balgair wrote: post #87
ahomescu1 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an insider provide publicly-available sources for the things he/she reveals that are inside knowledge? The GP is the source.

I doubt the veracity of the source to begin with. The account was created 2 hours ago as of this writing. Still, point taken, thank you.

Using my regular account would give away my identity which kind of defeats the purpose...
Post reply on HN