Top Colleges Are Cheaper Than You Think (Unless You’re Rich)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is no magic money that does not require trade offs or enough "waste" to eliminate that will cut tuition by more than half. Should colleges just give less financial aid to those who aren't in the top 10% of incomes. In the old days (before 1970) there might have been a couple dozen students in an Ivy class that were truly middle income or lower. Now, they get financial aid and are the majority of students.

I don't think that is true. In inflation adjusted dollars, a private education used to be about half what it is now. We need detailed budgets to help us understand why this has changed. The diversity of our education system is a plus. To move to big box education for everybody but the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and a few in the 0.01% of academic achievement will depress innovative thinking in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no magic money that does not require trade offs or enough "waste" to eliminate that will cut tuition by more than half. Should colleges just give less financial aid to those who aren't in the top 10% of incomes. In the old days (before 1970) there might have been a couple dozen students in an Ivy class that were truly middle income or lower. Now, they get financial aid and are the majority of students.

I don't think that is true. In inflation adjusted dollars, a private education used to be about half what it is now. We need detailed budgets to help us understand why this has changed. The diversity of our education system is a plus. To move to big box education for everybody but the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and a few in the 0.01% of academic achievement will depress innovative thinking in our country.

The information you seek is here:

https://deltacostproject.org

A summary of its findings from a book I am reading:

- Employee benefits costs (10% of every tuition dollar - single payer would eliminate this of course)
- Support staff costs - adminstration
- NOT faculty salaries and tenure
- Amenities and personalized attention - giving the people what they (at least think they) want
- High demand - They charge what they do because they can, because people are willing to pay. Econ101, no surprise there.
- Dramatic reduction of civic support
- In addition, college budgets are very complex, and it is hard to tell where much fo the money actually goes (such as marketing budgets spread across departments

It's a very difficult topic and there is no one answer. It's quite possible if you affected all but demand the cost would not change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no magic money that does not require trade offs or enough "waste" to eliminate that will cut tuition by more than half. Should colleges just give less financial aid to those who aren't in the top 10% of incomes. In the old days (before 1970) there might have been a couple dozen students in an Ivy class that were truly middle income or lower. Now, they get financial aid and are the majority of students.

I don't think that is true. In inflation adjusted dollars, a private education used to be about half what it is now. We need detailed budgets to help us understand why this has changed. The diversity of our education system is a plus. To move to big box education for everybody but the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and a few in the 0.01% of academic achievement will depress innovative thinking in our country.

Colleges do not teach you to think or to innovate. If you haven't learned that before you get there, you never will. Colleges exist to provide credentials to those that need or desire them. You can learn many things, but no one will believe that you know them until you show them a piece of paper that says that you know them. If the name on the certificate matters to you, you usually pay more. Sometimes there is value added by the name, sometimes there isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no magic money that does not require trade offs or enough "waste" to eliminate that will cut tuition by more than half. Should colleges just give less financial aid to those who aren't in the top 10% of incomes. In the old days (before 1970) there might have been a couple dozen students in an Ivy class that were truly middle income or lower. Now, they get financial aid and are the majority of students.

I don't think that is true. In inflation adjusted dollars, a private education used to be about half what it is now. We need detailed budgets to help us understand why this has changed. The diversity of our education system is a plus. To move to big box education for everybody but the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and a few in the 0.01% of academic achievement will depress innovative thinking in our country.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

So, send your kid to a good state school. Really how is that even close to a bad thing?

Agreed, that is what people are doing (and that is why the flagship schools are increasingly difficult to get into), but that's not the point of this thread.

Read the OP - the assertion is that elite schools are accessible to all. They are not.

They aren't and never have been accessible to everyone, hence the 'elite'. The whole thing has devolved into a bunch of rich people whining that they are expected to pay for their kids to attend college.

From a financial POV, actually, they used to be accessible to everyone.

These are the facts about the cost of college, including at elite schools, relative to median HHI:

https://college-education.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005532

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html

It used to be that a student could work his way through college relatively easily, and that a student at an elite school could pay for a significant portion of the cost. This is no longer the case.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Facts.

Nope, college in general used to be less expensive, no one disputes that, but there has never been a time when "everyone" could afford to go to whichever college they wanted to attend. You are just upset that you aren't quite as privileged as you thought you would be.

It was certainly a lot easier in the past so why are you seemingly justifying that it's no longer so easy? No one, rich or poor or middle class, has benefited from the astronomical rise in college tuition. So instead of complaints about privilege (a major red herring that says more about you than the reality), can't we just talk about the real issue, which is why colleges are so damn expensive now? And what do we get in exchange? {/B]

+1

You get a certification in exchange for your tuition. That is what you are paying for. Knowledge is pretty much free these days. [b]The certification allows you to earn higher wages in most cases, thus the expense. They charge what they feel the market will bear.

The absurdity of this, of course, is that many of the kids who will go on to earn higher wages compared to if they got a shittier (or no) college degree will just end up trapped in the same cycle that so many on here suggest is the norm: that they will spend much of that higher income on childcare and then saving almost all of it to send their own kids to college one day -- so that their own kids can enjoy the thankless benefits of a higher wage associated with a good college degree.

I graduated from Wellesley in the 1980's and none of my classmates have been able to afford to send their own kids there -- except for a couple of gold digger types who snagged guys out of Harvard Business School. But nobody ended up making so much money that they could actually afford sticker price. The only ones of my classmates who made big bucks didn't end up marrying so theoretically they could have afforded it except that they didn't have kids. My husband and I wonder if we are downwardly mobile since we have three kids and can't afford to send them to our alma maters, even working two full time professional, white collar jobs. But the data suggests that we are not alone in this. On our street there are people who graduated from Duke, Wellesley, Dartmouth and Princeton but all the kids go to Virginia state schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no magic money that does not require trade offs or enough "waste" to eliminate that will cut tuition by more than half. Should colleges just give less financial aid to those who aren't in the top 10% of incomes. In the old days (before 1970) there might have been a couple dozen students in an Ivy class that were truly middle income or lower. Now, they get financial aid and are the majority of students.

I don't think that is true. In inflation adjusted dollars, a private education used to be about half what it is now. We need detailed budgets to help us understand why this has changed. The diversity of our education system is a plus. To move to big box education for everybody but the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and a few in the 0.01% of academic achievement will depress innovative thinking in our country.

60% of Harvard students receive grant aid and pay an average of just $12k including room/board/fees. A family earning $150k will only be expected to pay 10% of income ($15k). One earning $200k will typically pay 15% of income ($30k). Its is the middle and upper middle class who get the lions share of financial aid at selective private colleges because there are very few "ultra poor" students -- just 18% receive Pell grants meaning their families have income below $50k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no magic money that does not require trade offs or enough "waste" to eliminate that will cut tuition by more than half. Should colleges just give less financial aid to those who aren't in the top 10% of incomes. In the old days (before 1970) there might have been a couple dozen students in an Ivy class that were truly middle income or lower. Now, they get financial aid and are the majority of students.

I don't think that is true. In inflation adjusted dollars, a private education used to be about half what it is now. We need detailed budgets to help us understand why this has changed. The diversity of our education system is a plus. To move to big box education for everybody but the ultra rich, the ultra poor, and a few in the 0.01% of academic achievement will depress innovative thinking in our country.

60% of Harvard students receive grant aid and pay an average of just $12k including room/board/fees. A family earning $150k will only be expected to pay 10% of income ($15k). One earning $200k will typically pay 15% of income ($30k). Its is the middle and upper middle class who get the lions share of financial aid at selective private colleges because there are very few "ultra poor" students -- just 18% receive Pell grants meaning their families have income below $50k.

I'd guess that the previous poster thinks that $ 200k is 'poor', and as such, the $200k income 'poor' are the majority.

[Anonymous]

^ Harvard's endowment is $37 billion. I guess they can be pretty generous. Of course only .4% of college students attend an Ivy so I don't know why you keep posting this as representative of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Harvard's endowment is $37 billion. I guess they can be pretty generous. Of course only .4% of college students attend an Ivy so I don't know why you keep posting this as representative of anything.

Exactly. There is a wide variety of choice for the 0.4% and for the ultra rich. For the rest, it is big box education. But diversity of thinking and backgrounds has always been a strength of the US. This will hurt our country in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Harvard's endowment is $37 billion. I guess they can be pretty generous. Of course only .4% of college students attend an Ivy so I don't know why you keep posting this as representative of anything.

Exactly. There is a wide variety of choice for the 0.4% and for the ultra rich. For the rest, it is big box education. But diversity of thinking and backgrounds has always been a strength of the US. This will hurt our country in the long run.

Got news for you, there is plenty of 'diverse thinking' at a large state university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Harvard's endowment is $37 billion. I guess they can be pretty generous. Of course only .4% of college students attend an Ivy so I don't know why you keep posting this as representative of anything.

Exactly. There is a wide variety of choice for the 0.4% and for the ultra rich. For the rest, it is big box education. But diversity of thinking and backgrounds has always been a strength of the US. This will hurt our country in the long run.

Got news for you, there is plenty of 'diverse thinking' at a large state university.

I agree with you, and must say I find the term "big box education" incredibly offensive.

State universities have genius teachers, are doing amazing research, and are great values. To compare them to Sam's club is ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not all doom and gloom for donut hole families.

We had HHI of 220k in 2016 (for current FAFSA form) w 2 kids in HS in VA. Senior D is receiving $11k in financial aid from UChicago plus $2k/yr for National Merit and another one time $2k from a local scholarship so our net cost this coming year is $60k. We have $90k saved in each kids 529 plan. So our out of pocket after withdrawing $25k will be $35k this coming year which is doable. I'm anticipating increased financial aid when both kids overlap in college for 2 years. We'll have to tighten our belts for the next few years (no new car purchases and less expensive vacations) but we anticipate being able to fund 2 private colleges without crippling our family finances. Granted it would be easier if 2nd D stayed in state but doable either way.

Is this supposed to be positive?

Seriously! That sounds nuts to me.

35k on a 220k income and assuming decent liquid savings doesn't seem to be "nuts".

I'm the poster w/220k HHI. Exactly. We are budgeting taking about $15k out of long term savings and paying $10k this summer and another $10k early next year. We will likely be able lower the out of pocket by keeping our D on our health insurance rather than paying for UChicago's and spending less than the budgeted $2k on books and $5.5k on personal expenses and travel. So our out of pocket may be closer to $30k.

NP. we have a 220hhi and we are paying $33k right now between preschool costs and tutoring for elementary schooler with dyslexia. This doesn't include what we are also putting into 529s for 3 kids. Of course we have some tax relief through maxing HCFSA (tutoring for LD is an allowed expense) and DCFSA. It's tight but doable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

So, send your kid to a good state school. Really how is that even close to a bad thing?

Agreed, that is what people are doing (and that is why the flagship schools are increasingly difficult to get into), but that's not the point of this thread.

Read the OP - the assertion is that elite schools are accessible to all. They are not.

They aren't and never have been accessible to everyone, hence the 'elite'. The whole thing has devolved into a bunch of rich people whining that they are expected to pay for their kids to attend college.

From a financial POV, actually, they used to be accessible to everyone.

These are the facts about the cost of college, including at elite schools, relative to median HHI:

https://college-education.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005532

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html

It used to be that a student could work his way through college relatively easily, and that a student at an elite school could pay for a significant portion of the cost. This is no longer the case.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Facts.

Nope, college in general used to be less expensive, no one disputes that, but there has never been a time when "everyone" could afford to go to whichever college they wanted to attend. You are just upset that you aren't quite as privileged as you thought you would be.

It was certainly a lot easier in the past so why are you seemingly justifying that it's no longer so easy? No one, rich or poor or middle class, has benefited from the astronomical rise in college tuition. So instead of complaints about privilege (a major red herring that says more about you than the reality), can't we just talk about the real issue, which is why colleges are so damn expensive now? And what do we get in exchange? {/B]

+1

You get a certification in exchange for your tuition. That is what you are paying for. Knowledge is pretty much free these days. [b]The certification allows you to earn higher wages in most cases, thus the expense. They charge what they feel the market will bear.

The absurdity of this, of course, is that many of the kids who will go on to earn higher wages compared to if they got a shittier (or no) college degree will just end up trapped in the same cycle that so many on here suggest is the norm: that they will spend much of that higher income on childcare and then saving almost all of it to send their own kids to college one day -- so that their own kids can enjoy the thankless benefits of a higher wage associated with a good college degree.

I graduated from Wellesley in the 1980's and none of my classmates have been able to afford to send their own kids there -- except for a couple of gold digger types who snagged guys out of Harvard Business School. But nobody ended up making so much money that they could actually afford sticker price. The only ones of my classmates who made big bucks didn't end up marrying so theoretically they could have afforded it except that they didn't have kids. My husband and I wonder if we are downwardly mobile since we have three kids and can't afford to send them to our alma maters, even working two full time professional, white collar jobs. But the data suggests that we are not alone in this. On our street there are people who graduated from Duke, Wellesley, Dartmouth and Princeton but all the kids go to Virginia state schools.

That's because Virginia has some really great state schools which provide a decent value for the money spent. Perhaps your neighbors know something you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Harvard's endowment is $37 billion. I guess they can be pretty generous. Of course only .4% of college students attend an Ivy so I don't know why you keep posting this as representative of anything.

Exactly. There is a wide variety of choice for the 0.4% and for the ultra rich. For the rest, it is big box education. But diversity of thinking and backgrounds has always been a strength of the US. This will hurt our country in the long run.

Got news for you, there is plenty of 'diverse thinking' at a large state university.

I agree with you, and must say I find the term "big box education" incredibly offensive.

State universities have genius teachers, are doing amazing research, and are great values. To compare them to Sam's club is ignorant.

most them them, for undergrad, have survey courses with 500-700 students and then sections taught by foreign TAs, often with a poor command of English. That's their business model.. The profs of course prefer to work with the grad students and pursue their own research. True, some are better than others, but this description is quite common. Also Princeton Review's Top Party Schools are almost always public flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Harvard's endowment is $37 billion. I guess they can be pretty generous. Of course only .4% of college students attend an Ivy so I don't know why you keep posting this as representative of anything.

Exactly. There is a wide variety of choice for the 0.4% and for the ultra rich. For the rest, it is big box education. But diversity of thinking and backgrounds has always been a strength of the US. This will hurt our country in the long run.

Got news for you, there is plenty of 'diverse thinking' at a large state university.

I agree with you, and must say I find the term "big box education" incredibly offensive.

State universities have genius teachers, are doing amazing research, and are great values. To compare them to Sam's club is ignorant.

most them them, for undergrad, have survey courses with 500-700 students and then sections taught by foreign TAs, often with a poor command of English. That's their business model.. The profs of course prefer to work with the grad students and pursue their own research. True, some are better than others, but this description is quite common. Also Princeton Review's Top Party Schools are almost always public flagships.

.. says someone who has never set foot on a university campus.