<p>We purchased the 4-year Florida Prepaid Tuition Plan for our son in 1993 at a cost of $5750. I was flabbergasted to learn that the cost of a 4-year tuition plan for a newborn in 2012 will be $49,293! That’s an increase of over 850% in 19 years :eek:</p>
<p>You think thats bad??? California is worse. In 1996 UC was around $2500 a year for tuition, its currently around $12,900 and most likely $15,000 by the time my son gets admitted based on what they’ve been suggesting the last couple years.</p>
<p>In fairness, while nobody likes to pay more money, I would say that $15,000 is still quite a bargain to be able to send your kid to a top university like Berkeley, UCLA, etc.</p>
<p>Out of state tuition, which is probably reflective of the true cost, is double that, so basically, the taxpayers are providing a $15,000-$20,000 subsidy to you. So you still have it pretty good </p>
<p>$15,000 a year tuition is less than what a private high school charges. So it’s not that you are being asked to pay such a high number now-----it is that the tuition they used to charge was unduly low for the services provided.</p>
<p>Not that $15,000 a year is not a lot of money, but relatively speaking, it is still a bargain.</p>
<p>floridadad, I agree it’s a bargain to varying degrees. But with room and board and etc. The cost of going to a UC ends up being around $28k a year. With the state offering zero break to middle class families. Homes in CA are not cheap in anyway unless you live in a farming community. I’ve been mulling over it, I’m sure I might have to stop contributing to retirement soon, or contribute the minimum and take out a decent chunk of loans if UC is the route he ends up taking.</p>
<p>*But with room and board and etc. The cost of going to a UC ends up being around $28k a year. With the state offering zero break to middle class families. *</p>
<p>I think the problem is this…</p>
<p>“Going away” to school should not be considered a given. It’s a luxury. Either you pay for it, your child gets a scholarship, or your child commutes to a local school. Other taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for other taxpayers’ kids’ room and board. Many middle class folks can afford to pay for their local CSU or even UC either out of family funds or with a student loan…if their child commuted. </p>
<p>Once California (and some other states) got it into their heads that kids should just skip past their local state schools and go elsewhere on the taxpayers’ dime, things went crazy. </p>
<p>Tax-payer funded grants for low income kids should cover state tuition and books only…they can take out loans and do work study for the rest and have a summer contribution for anything else.</p>
<p>The UCs and the CSUs would not have such wildly varying “tiers” if kids had strongly been encouraged to attend their local public.</p>
<p>You make a good point. In my father’s day, almost everyone would go to school near home. Now, kids go away to school, and ask that the taxpayers pay for it, and protest when they don’t. I have even seen a post on CC where kids were demanding that college should be totally free, as if it were some sort of constitutional right.</p>
<p>No wonder we are going the way of Greece.</p>
<p>New York State has a system similar to the one you advocate. A bunch of approximately equal regional universities (SUNY Albany, SUNY Binghampton, SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Stonybrook, for example)</p>
<p>For the super super top students, I would still want there to be a Berkeley and a UCLA, but you may be right that for average kids, giving them what amounts to free money so they can go away to school might not make sense. Why should taxpayers pay for some kid to go away to college to SUNY Buffalo if there is a SUNY right in Albany???</p>
<p>I never thought of it in that light. You raise unpleasant issues. But interesting ones.</p>
<p>*For the super super top students, I would still want there to be a Berkeley and a UCLA, but you may be right that for average kids, giving them what amounts to free money so they can go away to school might not make sense. *</p>
<p>The point is that Cal and UCLA (and possibly UCSD) would not have risen so significantly higher than the other UCs if students had been encouraged (financially) to stay local. Those 3 schools have culled the cream of the crop for years, leaving the other UCs as consolation prizes. That said, it’s not like Irvine and Davis or even SB are chopped liver.</p>
<p>Because staying local wasn’t strongly encouraged in recent years, Calif now has this situation. Yes, Cal and UCLA will always be on top - and probably should be as “kind of” flagships - but the disparities amongst the other UCs should be decreased thru various means so that attending the other UCs is not considered a let down or disappointment since Calif’s population is so huge.</p>
<p>In addition to charging OOS fees, maybe UCs (and CSUs) need to also charge “out of region” fees if the student’s major is at his local public, but he chooses to go to another UC. Additionally, an upcharge should be incurred for the top 3 schools (unless you went to high school in the area). </p>
<p>Or, perhaps another alternative…Cal and UCLA could charge $30k per year and UCSD somewhat less (instate fees). They’d still get plenty of apps. The mid-tiers could charge about $15k per year and the bottom tier should charge less…like $9k per year. </p>
<p>After a decade of “spreading out the brains” through less subsidization and appropriate pricing, the other UCs would soon rise in stature so that the disparities wouldn’t be so great. </p>
<p>When I went to college in Calif in the mid 70s, few kids went away to school. Most families couldn’t justify the cost of room and board. People still got educated and became successful.</p>
<p>patsmom…at least you still have an intact pact plan. Alabama has one…to pay for 4 yers of undergrad…the initial contracts had “guarantee” language, which they later dropped. Last year it was decided that the program was basically out of money (lost in the stock market) and it was up to the legislature to salvage it…they tried to do it by placing a cap (an increase of about 3.8% per year) on the tuition that pact students would be charged and agreeing to infuse money. UA and Auburn refused to cap alabama pact holders , so again it would not meet the projected costs and was in danger… a class action lawsuit was filed…and now the resolution (unless applealed) is that pact will only pay 2010 rates of tuition to any school a pact holder attends in alabama… I feel incredibly sorry for those who bought their pact plans in the last 5 to 10 years for young children… they will be lucky if it meets even 1/2 the tuition cost.</p>
<p>Some states try to get around the fact that parents bought prepaid tuition plans by tacking on various fees, that don’t count as tuition, such as recreation fee, environmental fee, and similar duplicity.</p>
<p>floridadad… we have that too… the pact plan was supposed to cover mandatory fees but i have heard they are not consistent on that…and the universities also increase those fees.</p>
<p>*
Some states try to get around the fact that parents bought prepaid tuition plans by tacking on various fees, that don’t count as tuition, such as recreation fee, environmental fee, and similar duplicity*</p>
<p>Absolutely. There was a post awhile back where someone posted all the “fees” their schools charged…they added up to a few thousand per year! And, the MA publics that cheap tuition and massive fees (I think around $10k per year!) </p>
<p>*I feel incredibly sorry for those who bought their pact plans in the last 5 to 10 years for young children… they will be lucky if it meets even 1/2 the tuition cost. *</p>
<p>If even half of the (future) tuition is still a good return on their initial investment, then they will still be better than if they hadn’t participated at all. The 2010 rate for Bama (I think) was about 8000 per year. If these families paid about 8000 total for the prepaid, the payout would still be about $32k…right?</p>
<p>the more recent plans were quite expensive… back in 1991 they were 6K. however the point was that the plan was “guaranteed” to cover full tuition and that is what people bought… they didnt buy a pact that froze at a certain level.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a huge swath of the state is not remotely within commuting distance to any of these, or even within commuting distance of any 4-year SUNY. Also, as you may know, the SUNY colleges do not overlap in many majors and, while the universities are more comprehensive, many students don’t have a lot of choices if they’re looking for a particular major. For example, they may only have the choice between Buffalo and SB because those are the only SUNYs where their major is offered. While it’s possible that one could take the gen-eds at a CC or SUNY tech college and transfer to a university, it can be very difficult to get the right pre-requisites done locally and be accepted into a major right away. So, if it’s a choice between having to take an extra year at university, it’s probably better to just start there anyway.</p>
<p>off topic but response to my prior post. I would say the bay area is actually quite large. Even attending UCB for most people unless you live in adjacent cities or physically in Berkeley is a stretch. If you are spending a decent amount of time a 1.5-3 hour commute for most people is out of the question, and would be prohibitive in cost. Berkeley has very limited parking. So lets tack on another 30-45 minutes figuring out where to park. Or lets take the train and wake up an extra 30 minutes early to take a commute that takes an additional 30-60 minutes over driving commutes.</p>
<p>Not to say it should be a right that a child go away for college. But I think the price of tuition and benefit for CA residents has degraded. I understand that Berkeley is quote a world class institution. I went to my local school and worked full time, while my wife raised our child and went part time. It’s the limited scope of opportunity, my almamater which is our local school is a commuter school. It would not offer and research, internships, etc. The degree to me was actually just a piece of paper. To me it was like a ticket of admission for applying to jobs. Carried no prestige etc. I got a job completely unrelated to my degree, which I probably could have got based on experience alone.</p>
<p>I think a UC would have helped a bit, not Berkeley any of them. But even at that time for me with tuition at a super low $5k and housing at $5-7k it was out of reach for me. The recent article CC posted said the current UC average is $31k COA. Which in the grand scheme of things is a bargain, but still impossible for most middle income families to pay out of pocket. fyi I graduated about 9 years ago. In the meantime tuition locally has skyrocketed compared to all states in CA. In addition I’m almost 100% sure CA is up there in the top for property tax collected with NY. The tax gets higher, price of going to school locally higher.</p>
<p>I know its a rant, I’m truly sorry in advance. It’s not a given right, I’ve learned that my wife teaches elementary school with inclusion. Certain people get the short end of the stick.</p>
<p>Isn’t it a bit ridiculous that the taxpaying parents on CC are financially unable to send their kids to the colleges of their choice, but kids with no money often get a free ride.</p>
<p>At the least, I think someone who gets a grant must pay the grant back if they wind up making a lot of money in life.</p>
<p>My friend got a grant. He wound up graduating Stanford Law School.</p>
<p>^ And maybe your friend is donating $ to Stanford for the great education he received. That’s what schools that meet need hope for - donations from graduates.</p>