Why can't universities have a flat tuition where everyone pays the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because capitalism, OP. The answer is capitalism.

No war but class war.

Capitalism is fine and private schools can do whatever they want as long as a dime of taxpayers money go there.

imagine thinking this at this point in America. lol wtf

DP.

Yeah! Capitalism has merely provided the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced.

Damn free enterprise to h*ll for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because capitalism, OP. The answer is capitalism.

No war but class war.

Capitalism is fine and private schools can do whatever they want as long as a dime of taxpayers money go there.

imagine thinking this at this point in America. lol wtf

DP.

Yeah! Capitalism has merely provided the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced.

Damn free enterprise to h*ll for that.

Hmm, I didn’t realize the worst health metrics by far of any developed country counted as “the highest standard of living”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College tuition has no transparency.

There's the insanely high "sticker price" that is very hard for all but the 1% to afford.
But then colleges tout a reasonable net cost, like $25k, as what most people really pay. Which makes them look less like societal bad guys.

But a lot of regular upper-middle class families in expensive regions like DC who make around $300k find out they don't qualify for aid -- but can't afford $100k a year (thanks to the usual life stuff like their own student loans, medical bills, caring for aging parents, etc, although folks here like to say its too much avocado toast)

But then they're told to apply anyway because they might get merit aid. And then things turn into comparing offers from what seems like used cars salesmen. Last year schools like Syracuse were throwing merit awards at families as late as the summer.

This is maddening and stressful.

And has many of these families are left wondering why they grind away in stressful jobs when they still can't afford private college at the end of their (very long) day.

Are you also concerned about the families that are grinding away in stressful jobs for very long days — but make, say, $30,000 instead of $300,000? Or are you only concerned about the ones who “can’t afford $100,000”? Here’s a thought: If education is really what they value, they can go downscale, and prioritize using their very high incomes to support education for their kids. It’s less the avocado toast and more the expensive upscale amenities that they’ve probably become used to. Of course the first hurdle is getting their kid in. Perhaps if they have to pay for private counselors and tutors, their kids should be casting wider nets to find good fits that suit their interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because capitalism, OP. The answer is capitalism.

No war but class war.

Capitalism is fine and private schools can do whatever they want as long as a dime of taxpayers money go there.

imagine thinking this at this point in America. lol wtf

DP.

Yeah! Capitalism has merely provided the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced.

Damn free enterprise to h*ll for that.

Really? Aren’t we the only country with medical-related bankruptcies? High infant and maternal death rates?

Maybe you should be more specific. The top 1% — probably even the top 20% do enjoy quite high standards of living — barring the occasional shooting incident and pesticides in even some of their food. I’m curious though. How would you, personally, know about “the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced “? You know about ALL of them? Do share.

[Anonymous]

Flat pay and only merit scholarships

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the current system, colleges say "Pay us $75 and pour your time and heart into an application and THEN we'll tell you how much it costs for you to go to our school."

I don't know of any other industry where you have to put up cash just to find out the cost of a product.

Well, people always know THE cost of the product. Anyone who wants to go full pay can just start there. Most will have the option of lower cost community colleges, and many have state schools if cost is the issue. People genuinely in need can ask to have application fees waived. So the people you’re advocating for are people who are expecting a break in the already subsidized costs — with whatever people-powers are needed to run the paperwork just for them, done free of charge? Who do you think should pay for that— multiplied by tens of thousands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flat pay and only merit scholarships

Define “merit”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College tuition has no transparency.

There's the insanely high "sticker price" that is very hard for all but the 1% to afford.
But then colleges tout a reasonable net cost, like $25k, as what most people really pay. Which makes them look less like societal bad guys.

But a lot of regular upper-middle class families in expensive regions like DC who make around $300k find out they don't qualify for aid -- but can't afford $100k a year (thanks to the usual life stuff like their own student loans, medical bills, caring for aging parents, etc, although folks here like to say its too much avocado toast)

But then they're told to apply anyway because they might get merit aid. And then things turn into comparing offers from what seems like used cars salesmen. Last year schools like Syracuse were throwing merit awards at families as late as the summer.

This is maddening and stressful.

And has many of these families are left wondering why they grind away in stressful jobs when they still can't afford private college at the end of their (very long) day.

Are you also concerned about the families that are grinding away in stressful jobs for very long days — but make, say, $30,000 instead of $300,000? Or are you only concerned about the ones who “can’t afford $100,000”? Here’s a thought: If education is really what they value, they can go downscale, and prioritize using their very high incomes to support education for their kids. It’s less the avocado toast and more the expensive upscale amenities that they’ve probably become used to. Of course the first hurdle is getting their kid in. Perhaps if they have to pay for private counselors and tutors, their kids should be casting wider nets to find good fits that suit their interests.

But the $30k families can send their kids to college for free. My life would be some much easier if I took a 50% pay cut and sent my kids to college for free. Financially it would be a wash, but my quality of life would be so much better. I just realized this too late, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College tuition has no transparency.

There's the insanely high "sticker price" that is very hard for all but the 1% to afford.
But then colleges tout a reasonable net cost, like $25k, as what most people really pay. Which makes them look less like societal bad guys.

But a lot of regular upper-middle class families in expensive regions like DC who make around $300k find out they don't qualify for aid -- but can't afford $100k a year (thanks to the usual life stuff like their own student loans, medical bills, caring for aging parents, etc, although folks here like to say its too much avocado toast)

But then they're told to apply anyway because they might get merit aid. And then things turn into comparing offers from what seems like used cars salesmen. Last year schools like Syracuse were throwing merit awards at families as late as the summer.

This is maddening and stressful.

And has many of these families are left wondering why they grind away in stressful jobs when they still can't afford private college at the end of their (very long) day.

Are you also concerned about the families that are grinding away in stressful jobs for very long days — but make, say, $30,000 instead of $300,000? Or are you only concerned about the ones who “can’t afford $100,000”? Here’s a thought: If education is really what they value, they can go downscale, and prioritize using their very high incomes to support education for their kids. It’s less the avocado toast and more the expensive upscale amenities that they’ve probably become used to. Of course the first hurdle is getting their kid in. Perhaps if they have to pay for private counselors and tutors, their kids should be casting wider nets to find good fits that suit their interests.

$30,000 kid can go to a community college and if worthy of college education, can receive merit/scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College tuition has no transparency.

There's the insanely high "sticker price" that is very hard for all but the 1% to afford.
But then colleges tout a reasonable net cost, like $25k, as what most people really pay. Which makes them look less like societal bad guys.

But a lot of regular upper-middle class families in expensive regions like DC who make around $300k find out they don't qualify for aid -- but can't afford $100k a year (thanks to the usual life stuff like their own student loans, medical bills, caring for aging parents, etc, although folks here like to say its too much avocado toast)

But then they're told to apply anyway because they might get merit aid. And then things turn into comparing offers from what seems like used cars salesmen. Last year schools like Syracuse were throwing merit awards at families as late as the summer.

This is maddening and stressful.

And has many of these families are left wondering why they grind away in stressful jobs when they still can't afford private college at the end of their (very long) day.

Are you also concerned about the families that are grinding away in stressful jobs for very long days — but make, say, $30,000 instead of $300,000? Or are you only concerned about the ones who “can’t afford $100,000”? Here’s a thought: If education is really what they value, they can go downscale, and prioritize using their very high incomes to support education for their kids. It’s less the avocado toast and more the expensive upscale amenities that they’ve probably become used to. Of course the first hurdle is getting their kid in. Perhaps if they have to pay for private counselors and tutors, their kids should be casting wider nets to find good fits that suit their interests.

But the $30k families can send their kids to college for free. My life would be some much easier if I took a 50% pay cut and sent my kids to college for free. Financially it would be a wash, but my quality of life would be so much better. I just realized this too late, unfortunately.

Nope. The $30,000 families can send an extremely tiny number of kids to a very small number of schools “for free”.
Bummer that it’s too late for you to give up your current lifestyle for the struggles that come with raising kids and supporting a family on a $30,000 income. Sucks to be you, I guess. Maybe you should do that pay cut — and let us know how your quality of life improves. I’m sure many of us can learn from that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because capitalism, OP. The answer is capitalism.

No war but class war.

Capitalism is fine and private schools can do whatever they want as long as a dime of taxpayers money go there.

imagine thinking this at this point in America. lol wtf

DP.

Yeah! Capitalism has merely provided the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced.

Damn free enterprise to h*ll for that.

Hmm, I didn’t realize the worst health metrics by far of any developed country counted as “the highest standard of living”.

Gee, what economic system is at the core of those other nations’ economies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College tuition has no transparency.

There's the insanely high "sticker price" that is very hard for all but the 1% to afford.
But then colleges tout a reasonable net cost, like $25k, as what most people really pay. Which makes them look less like societal bad guys.

But a lot of regular upper-middle class families in expensive regions like DC who make around $300k find out they don't qualify for aid -- but can't afford $100k a year (thanks to the usual life stuff like their own student loans, medical bills, caring for aging parents, etc, although folks here like to say its too much avocado toast)

But then they're told to apply anyway because they might get merit aid. And then things turn into comparing offers from what seems like used cars salesmen. Last year schools like Syracuse were throwing merit awards at families as late as the summer.

This is maddening and stressful.

And has many of these families are left wondering why they grind away in stressful jobs when they still can't afford private college at the end of their (very long) day.

Are you also concerned about the families that are grinding away in stressful jobs for very long days — but make, say, $30,000 instead of $300,000? Or are you only concerned about the ones who “can’t afford $100,000”? Here’s a thought: If education is really what they value, they can go downscale, and prioritize using their very high incomes to support education for their kids. It’s less the avocado toast and more the expensive upscale amenities that they’ve probably become used to. Of course the first hurdle is getting their kid in. Perhaps if they have to pay for private counselors and tutors, their kids should be casting wider nets to find good fits that suit their interests.

$30,000 kid can go to a community college and if worthy of college education, can receive merit/scholarship.

So can the kid with the parents who make $300,000. It’s an option available for them as well. The kid doesn’t become any more or less “worthy “ because of their parent’s income.

And “$30,000 kid” is an interesting way of apparently valuing a human being — based solely on their parent’s income”. Perhaps this reflects your own values and experiences?

[Anonymous]

[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because capitalism, OP. The answer is capitalism.

No war but class war.

Capitalism is fine and private schools can do whatever they want as long as a dime of taxpayers money go there.

imagine thinking this at this point in America. lol wtf

DP.

Yeah! Capitalism has merely provided the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced.

Damn free enterprise to h*ll for that.

Really? Aren’t we the only country with medical-related bankruptcies? High infant and maternal death rates?

Maybe you should be more specific. The top 1% — probably even the top 20% do enjoy quite high standards of living — barring the occasional shooting incident and pesticides in even some of their food. I’m curious though. How would you, personally, know about “the highest standard of living that anyone in the history of the world has experienced “? You know about ALL of them? Do share.

Easy metric: Check life expectancy now vs. historical by century.

Check the rate of technological, scientific and medical innovation by century and note the explosive growth during periods of capitalism relative to all other systems.

There’s literally no serious argument to be made that we’re not better off collectively than at any other point in human history.

And WRT the present? Those other countries you’re alluding to—they’re fundamentally capitalistic systems with a bit of social welfare to blunt the sharp edges. (Which, btw, I generally agree with).

Plenty of room to criticize and improve how capitalism works. But throwing the baby out with the bath water is idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another example is hair salons. Men's haircuts cost a lot less than women's cuts, partly because of willingness to pay. Most men simply won't pay as much as women do for a cut.

Women don't have that option! Also, I know a male salon where they do pay $$$$ just like women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College tuition has no transparency.

There's the insanely high "sticker price" that is very hard for all but the 1% to afford.
But then colleges tout a reasonable net cost, like $25k, as what most people really pay. Which makes them look less like societal bad guys.

But a lot of regular upper-middle class families in expensive regions like DC who make around $300k find out they don't qualify for aid -- but can't afford $100k a year (thanks to the usual life stuff like their own student loans, medical bills, caring for aging parents, etc, although folks here like to say its too much avocado toast)

But then they're told to apply anyway because they might get merit aid. And then things turn into comparing offers from what seems like used cars salesmen. Last year schools like Syracuse were throwing merit awards at families as late as the summer.

This is maddening and stressful.

And has many of these families are left wondering why they grind away in stressful jobs when they still can't afford private college at the end of their (very long) day.

Are you also concerned about the families that are grinding away in stressful jobs for very long days — but make, say, $30,000 instead of $300,000? Or are you only concerned about the ones who “can’t afford $100,000”? Here’s a thought: If education is really what they value, they can go downscale, and prioritize using their very high incomes to support education for their kids. It’s less the avocado toast and more the expensive upscale amenities that they’ve probably become used to. Of course the first hurdle is getting their kid in. Perhaps if they have to pay for private counselors and tutors, their kids should be casting wider nets to find good fits that suit their interestsr.

Maybe a home in a more affordable neighborhood.