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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amen +1000000

This would solve so many problems.

Yeah keep those poors IN THEIR PLACE. FOREVER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[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.

The life expectancy in America is falling. We have far more unchecked capitalism than other countries where they have a far better quality of life. You could also say that democracy is the reason. Capitalism as it works in America is killing the people, killing the environment, killing education, and killing democracy. That is undeniable. It’s not “a bit of social welfare”, we need major major socialist guardrails on capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen +1000000

This would solve so many problems.

Yeah keep those poors IN THEIR PLACE. FOREVER.

College should be free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen +1000000

This would solve so many problems.

Yeah keep those poors IN THEIR PLACE. FOREVER.

College should be free.

If you want an educated and prosperous society. Which billionaires do not because it’s a threat to their all consuming greed and thirst for power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen +1000000

This would solve so many problems.

Yeah keep those poors IN THEIR PLACE. FOREVER.

College should be free.

If you want an educated and prosperous society. Which billionaires do not because it’s a threat to their all consuming greed and thirst for power.

Yup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are confirming my points. 'Worthy' should be based on merits not based on whom your parent(s) is/are.
Options are available. There shouldn't be no discrimination in admissions and pricing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are confirming my points. 'Worthy' should be based on merits not based on whom your parent(s) is/are.
Options are available. There shouldn't be no discrimination in admissions and pricing.

You actually think you’re making “points”? ROFL
Try a little harder. You can do it!

You’ve yet to define “merit” by the way.

[Anonymous]

OP over and over and over wants to nationalize the universities. Not sure why you won’t just admit that.

If colleges charged the same, the elite 10 or 15 universities (which let’s face it…that’s all you care about) would all cost more than you can afford and your kid still couldn’t attend.

Of course you will now cry like a baby about something else….wait for it…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, silly. The point is: have a flat fee that is clearly communicated up front so nobody has to "run the paper work".

[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.

The only thing that low income kid is going to get is a Pell grant, and it ain’t much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP over and over and over wants to nationalize the universities. Not sure why you won’t just admit that.

If colleges charged the same, the elite 10 or 15 universities (which let’s face it…that’s all you care about) would all cost more than you can afford and your kid still couldn’t attend.

Of course you will now cry like a baby about something else….wait for it…

The government will then decide who gets to go to which school and government friends and family would be the key beneficiaries. Now who would want that system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Universities could do that. If they did, though, they would miss out on lots of brilliant, creative, highly motivated students — the kind who add to a school’s reputation. Some of them would rather be known as excellent schools — with grads who change the world, than a less than top tier school, whose reputation is known for taking in students whose parents can pay their bills for them. Eventually, the school’s reputation as a quality institution craters, and top tier students and faculty will no longer seek them out.

Actually in other countries, tuition rates do vary by the major/course of study. In the UK for example. Studying economics/management/medicine/computer science has higher tuition than studying history. I don’t see Oxford/cambridge/LSE having any hit to their reputation. It is a realistic way to acknowledge that different majors lead to different salaries, on average, and may create more willingness to study less financially lucrative majors the students are interested in, if at least they don’t have to pay as much as the economics major who is going to go into consulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP over and over and over wants to nationalize the universities. Not sure why you won’t just admit that.

If colleges charged the same, the elite 10 or 15 universities (which let’s face it…that’s all you care about) would all cost more than you can afford and your kid still couldn’t attend.

Of course you will now cry like a baby about something else….wait for it…

The government will then decide who gets to go to which school and government friends and family would be the key beneficiaries. Now who would want that system?

I don’t think it works that way for Oxford or Cambridge or Sorbonne or U Toronto or literally every top school outside the US (which are all public)…but maybe it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP over and over and over wants to nationalize the universities. Not sure why you won’t just admit that.

If colleges charged the same, the elite 10 or 15 universities (which let’s face it…that’s all you care about) would all cost more than you can afford and your kid still couldn’t attend.

Of course you will now cry like a baby about something else….wait for it…

The government will then decide who gets to go to which school and government friends and family would be the key beneficiaries. Now who would want that system?

I don’t think it works that way for Oxford or Cambridge or Sorbonne or U Toronto or literally every top school outside the US (which are all public)…but maybe it does.

Who but the government would run this program? Do you trust them to make these decisions?

[Anonymous]

We price education in this country frighteningly similar to how we price healthcare. We make it intentionally complex, with opaque pricing. Many people feel they're getting overcharged. They system benefits the bureaucrats -- not the consumer. Other countries seem to do it much simpler.