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

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Then what’s with the whining about the insanely high sticker prices and the application fees? There are “flat fees”. The people that the OP (PP?) seems concerned about can just pay them. No paperwork needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do universities have to social engineers, giving free tuition to adults with low income parents and overcharging adults with higher incomes?

An adult with higher income parents more than likely has to finance the whole education with debt. Why does that adult deserve to be buried in debt when an adult who gets the same education, same career prospects, but parent make less, pays nothing?

Higher income folks CHOOSE to go in debt to finance education. No one is forcing them. Wide price range to obtain an education.

If a restaurant charges $200 for Blacks while charges $100 for Whites, is that OK because they are not forced to eat at the restaurant?
Blacks can just simply go to other restaurant?

There's discrimination in pricing.

The exact same hamburger that can be had for $5 can cost $50 somewhere else. You are also paying for the restaurants rent, etc. Surely you understand that??? Don't you???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The business term is "price discrimination" and extracting as much as possible from each tier of customer, based on their ability/willingness to pay.

For example, international students pay full fare (not eligible fro financial aid).

You see the same with airlines, and even movie theaters. Why does the same movie cost half the price when you see it during the weekday matinee compared to Friday night? It's the same movie after all.

And that helps in subsidizing American poor students and in-state students. NOW, because of Trump's racist policies the international students are going to other countries.

[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.

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.

I think the PP might be referring to the very small number of schools like Yale and maybe Harvard that offer free rides to kids from families with certain income levels. What they don’t seem to get is the extremely tiny number of kids that this applies to, who, of course have to get accepted first. They seem to want to stir up animosity towards the tiny number of low income kids who have overcome immeasurable odds to make it into a top tier school, while complaining about the cost of application fees for families who are quite wealthy by most standards.


Beyond that, yes: Pell grants are small, particularly in comparison with the costs of attending college.

[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.

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.

I think the PP might be referring to the very small number of schools like Yale and maybe Harvard that offer free rides to kids from families with certain income levels. What they don’t seem to get is the extremely tiny number of kids that this applies to, who, of course have to get accepted first. They seem to want to stir up animosity towards the tiny number of low income kids who have overcome immeasurable odds to make it into a top tier school, while complaining about the cost of application fees for families who are quite wealthy by most standards.


Beyond that, yes: Pell grants are small, particularly in comparison with the costs of attending college.

+1000

I can’t imagine these people would have the absolute gall to say this to a low income student’s face. You’re first in your family to go to college, coming from let’s say a rural area, working a job that interferes with your school work to help your family, and you beat the odds and do well and get an acceptance to a top school and your family doesn’t have to worry about the cost that would definitely put them into debt… and someone tells you don’t deserve it because with their $300,000 income they can’t afford a T20.

Laughable. Mind you there are plenty of schools that aren’t anywhere near the $100k a year sticker price. UMC people love to think they’re part of the upper crust because they live in nice neighborhoods and drive nice cars. Then they get hit with the newsflash that they are upper MIDDLE CLASS and can’t keep up with the Joneses when their DC gets to go to UPenn with no worries. Nevermind the plentiful state schools in Maryland, Virginia, or schools like Alabama, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, etc. that would throw money at their own supposedly bright kid.

Just admit you thought you would easily have a seat at the table with the “other” elites but you opened your pocketbook and saw you didn’t have enough. 3,000+ colleges and universities in the US. But it’s a crime if my kid has to go to UVA, VT, or God forbid… Towson or JMU, because I didn’t save enough for them to get a luxury college experience at Stanford.