As a lifelong New Yorker, I disagree with the statement that the SUNY schools have a “stigma”. On the contrary, as the price of a college education has risen, it has become more competitive than ever to get accepted into these schools, especially the University Centers at Binghamton, Stonybrook and Buffalo. Any one of those three can provide an excellent education in the sciences at a realistic price. Depending on one’s interests, several of the other SUNYs would be viable options as well IMHO. I myself am a graduate of the SUNY system as is my husband. We both went on to obtain Master’s Degrees right out of college at prestigious programs in our chosen fields and are fine with the prospect of our own son going there.
@gardenlvr I previously lived in NY and taught in the SUNY system as an adjunct. I have alot of respect for them. But having lived outside of NY a number of years, I have seen that they don’t command the sort of respect that they should (at least, not outside of academia). Another current thread on CC asks why this is, especially in relation to the UC system, which is far more known nationally. Berkeley vs. Albany? UCLA vs. Geneseo? I don’t know. Their marketing, the weather? It’s anyone’s guess. Maybe part of it is because SUNY tends to place their campuses outside the large cities (and NYC has its own CUNY system). Regardless, the SUNY schools are a great value, and provide an excellent education.
@gardenlvr I think what some mean is that some/all SUNYs haven’t been able to get the prestige that - say - the UCs have.
I have only seen a couple of SUNYs, so I only know what I’ve heard …that many don’t look very nice.
There are some schools (lower ranked) that would give her a full ride. And don’t worry, my parents didn’t save up for me.My grandfather donated money to our accounts when I was born but my mom had to use it on my medical bills for some of my health conditions, our house, etc. And none of us resent them for it (there’s four of us blood related to both my mom and dad, and a half brother who needed aid when he went). I’d sit down and talk to her about it. Tell her how much it is, maybe show her how much your food bill/electrical bill/water bill/etc. cost altogether and subtract it from your earnings. She’s old enough to understand that. I’m a senior, and neither myself, my brothers, nor my friends who have come into this situation would mind.
You can send her to community college as well, or one close by at a low cost and use the rest of her junior year, he senior year, and maybe two years in college to save up.
With all due respect mom2collegekids, I hope people are looking more closely at the academics offered at universities than merely what they look like.
One would hope… but there are plenty of posts from students looking for colleges and making lists that include colleges that do not have their intended majors or academic programs that they are interested in, or are likely to be far too expensive, while prioritizing other criteria like wanting to go to college in a specific location (or just wanting to get out of state) or other less important criteria.
College gross costs have gone up significantly, but the NET cost has not risen any differently than the cost of inflation
<<<
gardenlvr wrote:
With all due respect mom2collegekids, I hope people are looking more closely at the academics offered at universities than merely what they look like.
<<<
You only responded to half of my point. The SUNYs haven’t been able to get the prestige thing going like some of the UCs. The fact that some of the SUNY’s don’t look very nice wasn’t really the main point. That said, it isn’t unusual for students to prefer spending four years on an attractive campus.
Many schools are specifically spending money on sprucing up dorms, building nice rec centers etc because that is what attracts students and some of the higher stat students they want. If two schools are equal except one is a more beautiful campus, or one has a nicer rec center, etc. that influences students.
Intellectually, I know what you are trying to conveying. However, it misses the mark in terms of economic efficiencies and how a natural market contains costs without anyone doing anything except simply purchasing what he / she can afford.
Please allow me to explain.
Historically, while state schools were and still are subsidized, this is one of the few examples of market-driven subsidization.
- The subsidization of state schools were directly supported by state taxpayers. These taxpayers actually live in the state and paid taxes in that state. More importantly, businesses and same taxpayers saw (and still see) the benefits of providing universities and colleges to educate local (i.e., in-state) students, to fill jobs, and to attract more business to the state. It is no accident that major business hubs and technology incubators are located very close to state universities and community college systems.
This was (and is) exactly what the state taxpayers wanted for their education market because via their representatives and local referendums, these taxpayers have direct say in the taxes that support these universities. If the taxpayers do not want these universities subsidized, then they can vote to reduce funding. Therefore, the in-state marketplace is exactly what the state consumers wanted.
And like any natural marketplace, it used to be rather efficient (because money can be voted away - there is an incentive to waste less or else be held accountable). Additionally, the consumers of this marketplace bought a product, which because of market efficiency, did not leave them saddled with debt they could not pay. In-state students, historically, had very low debt upon graduation. And more importantly, because the market was non-subsidized, the debt held was in line with what was naturally manageable by the wages a student could receive in the workplace.
The major point is taxpayers in a state had (and still have, but not as much) direct control of the resources used by the universities.
One of the criteria of a natural, free marketplace is the consumer can decide where and how his money is allocated and state taxpayers do have that control.
- This is a non-sequitur trying to rationalize the national subsidization of student loans and grants.
Not meaning to be rude, the proper response really is, “So what.”
In a non-subsidized marketplace, many things are always out of reach of particular segments of the population for one reason or another, but that is the market speaking. The reason the privates were out of reach for the non-wealthy was because the debt required to attend those schools for that segment of the market was out of line with the wages a graduate could expect to receive after attending such a school. This was the market naturally protecting students from unnecessary debt that could not be paid back given the wages in the job market.
One could use cars as an analogy. There is, and always will be, segments of the population, which cannot afford a Mercedes. And that is good thing because they would have to acquire too much debt and long-term maintenance costs to own the car, essentially wrecking their financial foundation.
What do you think would happen if the government decided to subsidize buying Mercedes and BMWs? Yep, people who aspire for those cars, but who really cannot afford them, would get them and be negatively impacted financially in both the short and long-term. They are damaged in the short-term by spending precious resources (time and money) on something that can never give a return, and they are damaged in the long-term by having to pay off debt, which reduces what they could be spending capital on to get a positive return. In summary, pretty much it is a hole most would never get out of.
This is another non-sequitur.
- In order to justify education subsidies, you are using the noble idea of thinking it is government's goal to enrich society, which really can never be done - socialism tried this government-backed, societal-enriching concept and all it has ever done is lower economic standards across the board, not raise them.
Only work, which the marketplace values as productive, can enrich society, and that is accomplished by each individual maximizing his position in the existing marketplace, not in the marketplace that the government hopes to have. Any resources spent elsewhere by the individual, such as on a useless college degree, is dead-weight loss, which results in higher individual debt, relatively lower wages for individual vis a vis the debt he has, and a negative return on investment (in this case, education investment). After there are enough failed individuals, the result is not an enriched society, but a depressed one.
If the state universities did not have the capacity to educate all potential students in their state (I disagree with this by the way - I believe they did), there must have been a reason. And that reason is the taxpayers of said state did not approve increased funding for the universities. The size of state universities is directly representative of the money the consumer (taxpayer) paying for the good has deduced the product is worth investment-wise. Clearly, taxpayers in several, if not many states, limited the growth of in-state universities because they assessed the jobs marketplace had no need for these additional degreed students. And guess what? Given the debt of current degreed students who are waiting tables, the taxpayers were correct in their assessment.
Putting points 1, 2, and 3 above together from Post #49, here are the real world results of a false, subsidized market:
- When the federal government liberalized loans and grants policies, in-state tuition and costs went up accordingly, not down or, at least, static. All the Feds did was artificially raise the floor costs of an in-state education by handing students money; to be accurate, they really only handed the students debt, as the states took the money. The state governments saw (and still see) it as a free budgetary lunch and raised rates accordingly to get the money from the Feds via the duped students.
It may seem as if more students are given access to a college education. Initially, that is true. However, the real result is delayed and disastrous. There is a reason only about 50% of college students graduate with a degree - the reason is that, economically, they should not have been there in the first place AND would never have been if they were not given “easy” money to attend. They were sold a bill of goods.
The long-term effect is some 50% of former students have debt without receiving a college degree. Debt that they would not have acquired on their own because they did not have the borrowing power to get the money to attend. That actually was a good thing for them. These students would have been much better off going directly to work, acquiring skills that the marketplace values, and saving 20% of whatever they earn. Unfortunately, that 20% saving is now vaporized in paying debt on a bad good. That is a lifetime of economic damage, which can never be reversed, as money spent not getting a useful degree is a sunk cost that can never be recouped, not to mention the opportunity cost.
Sure, the other some 50% of the students get a real economic return on their college education and degrees. However, that is the exact same number who would have decided to go, would have found a way to pay and would have been successful at that venture anyway, all without subsidization.
However, even these “successful” students are economically harmed by the unnecessary higher costs of attendance that is the effect of liberalized loans to the non-graduating students.
No matter how the argument is sliced, there is no free lunch, and the student education loan market is no different, no matter the good intentions behind it. As they say, the road to…
I read a very well researched article that explained the whole private school tuition charges and discounts, how the loan situation developed, etc. It was something recent.
Some parents and students do not understand the whole college paradigm until late. Giving enough time to have better standardized test scores. What schools are an academic or financial reach. Making sure grades are good from the start of HS.
However Money’s Aug 2014 issue has a 11 page report “Best Colleges for your Money”. They make a point ‘it is not what or where you study - it’s both’.
For those who have some time before sending one off to college, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Oct 2014 ‘Best College Savings Plans’.
Another good tip is to try to sort our career path early, or go to a school where you can continue there even with changing majors (flexibility) - so merit can continue for 4 years and you have greater continuity of education.
Many parents learn the ropes with their oldest child and adjust.
Good luck with doing the best you can at this moment in time and moving forward.
Your whole writing forgets one characteristic of the market for education – what most students can afford is really what their parents can afford. So a purely private market for education will end up wasting many students’ intellectual and economic potential simply because they grew up in a poor family. But such limitations may well be in the interest of aristocratic elites who prefer to have higher barriers to entry to challenge such aristocratic elites, even if the overall society and economy is made poorer.
You’d hope so, but I think the fact that Brandeis looked like an office park was one of the main reasons my kid took it off his list. He had plenty of good choices and sometimes - looks is as good a reason as any to get rid of something.
^^^
Agree…when kids are comparing relatively “equal peer schools” and one is more attractive, which one do you think they’re going to choose?
I have a kid who thought that Princeton looked like a (fake) theme park and that MIT was gorgeous with stunning and provocative architecture. I have another kid who thought that Cornell (IMHO one of the most attractive colleges in America) was ugly and depressing and thought that U Chicago was magical (go figure).
Attractive is in the eye of the beholder.
And I LOVE the Brandeis campus!!!
Share your guilt with D. Is she up to a great Merit award? Is she going to choose UG that would offer her a great Merit award? Parents have no obligation to pay for UG, unless they want to… So, I am not sure what has created a feel of guilt? I bet, you have provided for your D. up to this point and will still support her as much as you could.
If you really really feel guilty and want to make yourself feel better, then deep into your saving / retirement funds / take equity loan. If you do not want to do that, there are no other options. Might as well forget about feeling guilty and start feeling very well l about a great job that you have done with your kid(s), be proud of yourself, pet yourself on a back!!!
My full-time tuition in the late 80s was about $4000 a year for the state directional - I lived at home, so it would have cost more with room & board. That same school is now around $11,000, almost triple what I paid. They have much better/nicer facilities now, better dorms, better programs, though.
At my house college choice was primarily about affordability as I described in detail in my first post. Prestige and attractiveness of the campus were ALWAYS trumped by price tag. We were/are looking for the best value and believe that the greatest gift we can give our children as young adults is to help direct them to make realistic choices so that they graduate debt-free.
To each his own, certainly.
You are really caught up in this rich vs. poor ideology and government as some sort of cure by creating fake markets, so we do fundamentally differ there.
Even the current student debt scenario belies that this government approach works. Anyone who views $1,000,000,000,000+ in student debt that is difficult for students and their families to pay back as a societal advancement is economically ignoring the results of this debt.
No poor person’s potential is improved by giving them debt, as it is doing things in reverse. It is like telling me that to get out of a hole, I dig deeper first before trying to climb out. No poor person ever got better by adding debt. He got better by acquiring skills that the marketplace sees and pays for as productive, and as he increases his skills, his lot increases - assuming, of course, the person takes full advantage of all work opportunities. And that means any skills really.
And the major flaw in your thinking is this - a college degree is not a skill, and giving debt to get a degree does not improve a poor person’s financial position because skills have not been improved. In fact, the degree often makes it worse because in many areas the marketplace does not value that degree, and will not offer pay commensurate with paying off the debt acquired to get it.
I know you are probably saying that people with money do get an advantage by getting a college degree, so why not poor people? Well, sure moneyed people do get an advantage because they have two vastly different things in the mix: 1) they incur little to no debt in the process and 2) they use other family collateral to offset the more frugal financial period between getting the college degree and the time required after graduating to acquire real skills in the marketplace. Poor people get shellacked by immediately getting meager earnings siphoned by debt, even when they have a degree.
Yes, there are poor people who get better off by going to college, but those are the same people who would have found a way there without the relative mountain of debt, such as working while in college or taking 6 years, instead of 4 etc.
The main thing missing from your utopian view that college is always better for the poor approach is the 50% of students economically harmed by going to college, when they were better off not to. Society is not better off by that dead weight because someone has to pay for that debt, as it does not just disappear.