Cost of college has risen over 400 percent in 25 years. That is OUTRAGEOUS!

Parents Forum
41

<p>I think what gadad said raises an important point. Many things have at least quadrupled in cost in the last 25 years and it is not realistic to say that college costs should remain level. whether all institutions are using their endowments for the greater good is another issue, but costs and prices do go up. For example, while obviously the real estate market is not held in much esteem these days, its long-range shift is probably still valid, and I know that even in my very uninflated community the value of my home has multiplied at least sixfold in the years since we bought it. And the 2008 descendant of my first Subaru station wagon, which we purchased in the early 1980s, now costs at least five times what we paid for it–even the fancier Legacy I bought a few years later has tripled in price in the 20 or so years since I replaced the first Subaru.</p>

<p>So although 400 percent may sound like, it seems to me to be pretty much in line with many other things, or perhaps a little lower. Remember too that colleges are paying staff and faculty who require something approaching a living wage and that even the less extravagant among the institutions are faced with increased energy costs and other physical expenses.</p>

42

<p>^This is true. My students do take out loans (the ones who live in the dorms as tokenadult point outs out costs more) take out too many. And many, many do not graduate, for reasons too complicated to go into, but usually some combination of lack of readiness, family finances, and deeply complex social issues. Then they are left to pay off the loans w/o the education to hlep them.</p>

<p>The not-graduating is one issue and an important one. However, I still question these numbers as relating to a public college–the NJ/US grants should cover most expenses at a public college, and almost all students in NJ live close enoughto commute to one (possibly not in parts of S. Jersey). Additionally, the community college numbers make no sense, as we do not have residential cc’s in NJ as far as I know, so to call them unaffordable on that basis is cooking the numbers.</p>

<p>Let me make myself clear, though–going to college is not easy or necessarily paid for, for low income students. Their choices are clearly constrained by their situations. Many of mine work even if they have the grants because they are expected to be contributing to family finances. Many take on the family part of their EFC because the family can’t/won’t. Many are taking care of siblings, grandparents, and sometimes parents (not to mention their own kids).</p>

<p>But overall, the numbers in this study and its premises (living away from college, having college choices) are not based on reality, at least in my state.</p>

43

<p>I’m with Deidretours - I have been amazed at many of the campuses I’ve visted with S1 several years ago and now S2. More amenities and much nicer facilities. Something had to pay for the cost of the construction and running of those cafeterias and gym and sports facilities. We saw multiple colleges with around 2,000 or so students wtih multiple dining halls which has to be more expensive to build and maintain than one central dining facility. So yes, I think our colleges went from a year round version of our summer camp amenities to a place where many administrations talk about the “amenities”. But clearly, supply and demand will ultimately regulate pricing as it always has. Look at the number of people that actually want to “finance” a $40,000+ per year education for their children as opposed to sending them somewhere affordable with their current dollars. Once that mindset changes I believe pricing will stablize and sort itself out. Parents and students will start looking for value options and it will be interesting to see what they will be willing to give up - flashy gyms with climbing walls, multiple food stops and locations? Time will tell. That concept of “paying tomorrow for something today” was much, much less prevelent thirty years ago.</p>

44

<p>This was presented on ABC news yesterday. I started a discussion on it entitled:** Report Finds Tuition Costs Jump 439 Percent, Outpacing Family Income<a href=“from%20the%20published%20article”>/b</a> but it got moved/merged here: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/608641-college-affordability.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/608641-college-affordability.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

45

<p>bonanza – Not to be an apologist for the colleges, but they aren’t exactly making widgets. Not sure the “industry” analogy applies.</p>

46

<p>So I don’t see what’s so outrageous. In a market economy, if the price was too high, the number of applicants should have dropped radically. The market is in fact saying that the price is WAY too low.</p>

<p>The income and assets of the top 5% of the population (which makes up more than 50% of admissions to the prestige privates) has risen more quickly than tuition inflation, making these colleges cheaper than at any time in the past 28 years.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>Source and definition of “prestigeous privates,” please?</p>

48

<p>question_q:</p>

<p>check the common data sets of highly selective colleges…you’ll note that ~50% of their students (in come cases 60+%) do not qualify for need-based aid. Back calculate the numbers on CB’s finaid calculator…</p>

49

<p>“Source and definition of “prestigeous privates,” please?”</p>

<p>Oh, just take the top 30 private unis and top 30 private LACs - that will be more than do the job.</p>

<p>They are a terrrific bargain for those who are in the top 5%. Cheaper than at any time in almost 30 years. No wonder they are swimming in applicants. You’ll know when the price is too high by when the number of applicants declines.</p>

50

<p>

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?_r=1&em[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?_r=1&em&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

51

<p>This is the saddest news I’ve seen in a long time, but I knew it was coming. The costs are just obscene. I know states schools are getting less money from their states, but it’s just ridiculous. Do we really want to be a country where college degrees are only for the rich? Let’s face it. There’s no way a kid can work 20 hours a week and all summer and even make a dent in paying tuitions of almost all state schools. And private school? You have to be very rich or very poor. The middle class is being shut out.</p>

52

<p>(Actually parts of the following is a recycled response…I used it in the financial aid fora, but it is finals week…so all due apologies) </p>

<p>One of the reasons that students cannot afford college is because our leadership has elected to make very poor decisions regarding resources. In today’s “Chronicle” there is yet another article/expose about massive over billings of the USDOE by corporate lending institutions. This time to an amount estimated to be beyond 1 billion dollars.</p>

<p>Looking at that amount of 1 billion dollars; if we assume a semester tuition of 4,000 per term (for example at a CC, and that would be a higher estimate at some smaller schools) that over billing alone would have fully paid the tuition for about 62,500 students. And since the actual numbers of the over billings are likely to be much, much higher how many families or students did lose a priceless chance for education as a result of such rampant corruption?</p>

<p>Student loans, as they currently exist are mainly beneficial to corporate lenders (the same people who’ve over billed that little matter of 1,000,000,000) and certainly not students. And definitely not the students from lower classes who rarely make enough to pay back the inflated costs of tuition, compounded interests, fees and etc levied by our current morally and financially implausible system.</p>

<p>To state that students cannot afford college because of parental lack of savings, or other allusions of irresponsibility is a bit of a red herring. College costs as noted have increased well beyond average incomes. For example per year since before the turn of the century college costs have increased 6%+ yearly, whilst non debt based student aid has not increased in any notable matter for almost a generation.</p>

<p>As so many have noted, including the esteemed Elizabeth Warren, what has happened is the middle classes have lost earning power, but have been exposed to an increased debt load (including education)…so its not a matter of excesses or irresponsibility insofar as rabid acquisition of DVD’s, latte’s or whatever but a very real condition of a whole class losing economic ground.</p>

<p>M. Callan is quite correct in his assessment that rising educational costs, inadequate aid and rising debt could have a major detrimental influence on our countries future. The NEA has published assessments where they expect teacher shortages resultant from the costs of education being exorbitant compared to teacher incomes. And at the institution wherein I teach I am seeing an increasing number of students who are dropping out due to economic strains or electing to limit their education in order to play it safe. </p>

<p>And its a dangerous harbinger of things yet to come when we see these types of trends.</p>

53

<p>If I see another post/article about college becoming too costly because of the economic situation…</p>

<p>jesus people- yes the economy’s bad, yes college is expensive, yes it’s tough times</p>

<p>we KNOW this already…thanks</p>

54

<p>It’s looking like college is bound to be, yet again, something for the wealthy and the wealthy only.</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>So many schools are seriously slashing tuition for families making less than say 50k or 60k a year. Even state schools like Georgia Tech are doing this. In reality, unless you really mess up the FAFSA or you had some strange circumstances like very high outside debt, practically nobody pays the full sticker price that can’t afford it. As I see it, college is trending toward a tax on the non-poor.</p>

56

<p>It already is a tax on the non-poor. If you have saved all of your child’s life to rightfully pay the tuition for your child, that savings is penalizing you from obtaining any type of financial aid. Don’t get me wrong–not looking for financial aid! Just looking at what we thought was the right thing to do for our child, saving, doing without new cars, new large home, etc. Because we saved, no financial aid money available. There are many families that are just above the threshold for assistance that are now barely making those tuition payments. I am not accusing anyone else of doing less for their child–don’t get me wrong! The financial aid system in our country for colleges and universities needs a serious overhaul!!! Or better yet, the tuition system needs an overhaul…</p>

57

<p>The state schools were established to serve the middle and working class population. The problem is why did they wait so long to reduce tuition reasonable levels, and what agendas had precluded these changes for so long? </p>

<p>And much of the money which is spent on education, isn’t. A fair amount goes to such as trophy buildings and other non essentials. And yet more ends up washed into the pockets of such as the cabal mentioned in the billion plus dollar over billing. That came out of our taxes and as such was sucked from both the affluent and the working classes. So that little bit of pocket change went to people for whom a billion, isn’t a billion.</p>

<p>One of the disturbing harbingers of polarization of education is that class resentments will be easier to manipulate to the disadvantage of those affected, or to the detriment of those who’d be distracted from the base causes of such issues. If this reduction of access to credible education continues we’d lose our future equivalents of such as Joshua Chamberlain or WEB DuBois. </p>

<p>And all the progress made since John Ruskin will be buried under a pointless ledger…</p>

58

<p>“Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers”
“For example per year since before the turn of the century college costs have increased 6%+ yearly, whilst non debt based student aid has not increased in any notable matter for almost a generation.”</p>

<p>From these words, the current economic situation is just an alibi of US. Gov and Us, since the trend has presented for nearly a decade. There must be some flaws in their policy.</p>

59

<p>The current economic debacle is definitely a result of policies which are essentially caused by an deliberate blind spot as to the social and economic dangers of marginalizing the American working and middle classes. </p>

<p>In education for example, the incredible escalations in college costs have closely coincided with the shift from grant based funding and direct support for schools to the corporate based lender model. Which of course does reach a point where both the middle and working classes eventually find themselves in the unenviable position of education intended to preserve their status or to enhance it, becoming a means to reduce it. And its been the very large, profitable, and systemically unnecessary corporate lenders who’ve benefited from the conditions (and government policies) at the root of this phenomenon. After all although we have become accustomed to binding our futures, and economic souls to these people for the sake of obtaining an education, they are a condition which largely began to arise in the 70’s. And only were really able to control American education beginning in the 80’s and escalating into the 00’s due to sweetheart regulations brought about by massive lobbying, disinformation and what often (as is evident from the billion+ dollar boondoggle) is outright corruption. </p>

<p>The danger is something which our current systems leaders are unable or unwilling to perceive. But troubles which leaders in our past (and not too recent past) were able to understand. For example the GI bill is often considered the first program in which large amounts of public money were used to support higher education opportunity for the common man. Yes, it was intended to aid returning soldiers from ww-2 to help them succeed and readjust and deservedly so. But the leaders who instituted this program were also quite aware of the loss of hope and social resentments that had built up in the 1930’s and knew it could be socially destabilizing for these same soldiers to have no chance in finding a niche within the system they had fought to preserve.
Arguably the a related point could be made about 60’s program such as Pell grants and etc, these functioned as a social tension reducer by allowing people who’d never otherwise be able to obtain higher education to do so. And it was largely of great benefit to the economy and social stability that such programs did succeed. </p>

<p>However due to massive lobbying by the edudebt corporations, our leadership seems to have forgotten both the benefits of providing access to affordable higher education and the dangers attendant to not doing so. And in our current economic debacle it will be all that more critical that they finally understand these conditions, even if it means getting their hands out of the pockets of the lobbyists.</p>

<p>Otherwise it will be very clear the US will lose an substantial asset for economic recovery and one result could be the permanent loss of status for an entire class who have expected that with hard work and education they could become better. And at that point the social resentments could take unexpected and potentially destabilizing forms…</p>

60

<p>I don’t really see how this is going to happen. Are we going to have classrooms sitting there empty? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>This discussion reminds me of a line from the movie “Good Will Hunting” where Will, a self-educated working class kids has a run-in with a Harvard student in a bar and says,
“You think you’re so smart? You’re paying $150,000 for something I can get with a library card and a buck fifty in late fees.” The point is - a lot of what we are paying so much for is the credential and not the education.</p>