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

[Anonymous]

And I remember direct mail campaigns where coupons were sent to certain zip codes, neighborhoods, desired demographics to encourage people to shop at certain stores. You want more women from a certain neighborhood? Easy. Mass mail coupons to that neighborhood.

Same base price but for select people the coupons make the actual price very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public universities should be free because we have a vital public interested in educating and training people to become productive members of society and perform important roles for our economy and society.

Private universities may discount tuition costs in order to induce desirable students into attending. What makes a student desirable to a university can vary, but most schools will value qualities that don't correlate with ability to pay sticker price. As long as the schools are not discriminating on the basis of a protected class, I don't really care. Presumably discounts will be awarded based on how rare that student's qualities are in the applicant class, so it's really just a supply and demand issue.

You're the second poster to say so (just in this thread). As a country we already spend well over $100K per student in their free, public education journey. Some localities are two or even three times that amount. If you really think college is needed to, as you say, "make them productive," blame the public school/academia complex for not properly preparing our kids for their adult future. Do you really think we should be investing another $400-500K per student for even more education? Why not fix what we're doing for the time and money we're already investing in our youth?

"Free" is such a misnomer. Somebody has to actually pay for it. Those professors need a salary, the buildings need roofs and HVAC. And, if you say only those "qualified" should get the benefit, well just who determines that? Would you be in favor of the Germany's "decide at an early age which track you're on" or an Asian-style high-stakes, one-time national test?

/sorry OP, thread derail over -- but when two say the same and don't answer the question....

So I will: I generally agree with OP's premise: that a flat tuition would be more manageable by more families. Having to game the application process, finagle "aid" (be it need- or merit-based) just introduces more to that higher-ed "business" machine that includes the educational institutions themselves.

The real key would be to find the pricing sweet spot to attract the kind of student and student body they're looking for. Completely private can make their own palette; public colleges need to reflect the values of the public (which ebb and flow over time). Is it demographic, geographic, degree-interest, or something else? But they all should "pay" the institution the same. I think the concept of ability-to-pay is what's gotten us collectively in many of the policy pickles we find ourselves.

Oooh: Ebb and flow! So, while all of us pay taxes, the white christian nationalists would get to see their values reflected in “something else”. It will be quite the policy pickle when at least some locales give their MAGA public exactly what they want.

[Anonymous]

The fact that nobody here can even agree who pays what, how discounts are allocated, and who covers those discounts, IS the problem. Nobody really understands why college costs have ballooned since our kids were born. Financial aid and merit offers are so complicated. Some people seem intent on pitting people against each other based on income levels. But the whole system is intentionally complex and opaque, which always hurts all consumer. (Unless money is no object, which is a very small minority of families)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they’re liberals and enjoy using other people’s money to “change” lives.

+1

[Anonymous]

At schools with lower endowments - full pay kids are absolutely subsidizing other kids. At the Amhersts and Harvards of the world, the schools likely spending more per student than the posted tuition.

But take a school like BU with ~37,000 students and an endowment of $3.5 billion. Assuming they spend 5% of the endowment a year, that’s $175,000,000. Divide that by 37,000 and they’re spending less than $5,000 a year from the endowment per student and the rest is coming from tuition.

I’m encouraging my kid to apply to schools that offer merit AND have strong endowments, schools like Denison, Tulsa, and Macalester. I don’t want to be a sucker even if I do think diversity is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public universities should be free because we have a vital public interested in educating and training people to become productive members of society and perform important roles for our economy and society.

Private universities may discount tuition costs in order to induce desirable students into attending. What makes a student desirable to a university can vary, but most schools will value qualities that don't correlate with ability to pay sticker price. As long as the schools are not discriminating on the basis of a protected class, I don't really care. Presumably discounts will be awarded based on how rare that student's qualities are in the applicant class, so it's really just a supply and demand issue.

You're the second poster to say so (just in this thread). As a country we already spend well over $100K per student in their free, public education journey. Some localities are two or even three times that amount. If you really think college is needed to, as you say, "make them productive," blame the public school/academia complex for not properly preparing our kids for their adult future. Do you really think we should be investing another $400-500K per student for even more education? Why not fix what we're doing for the time and money we're already investing in our youth?

"Free" is such a misnomer. Somebody has to actually pay for it. Those professors need a salary, the buildings need roofs and HVAC. And, if you say only those "qualified" should get the benefit, well just who determines that? Would you be in favor of the Germany's "decide at an early age which track you're on" or an Asian-style high-stakes, one-time national test?

/sorry OP, thread derail over -- but when two say the same and don't answer the question....

So I will: I generally agree with OP's premise: that a flat tuition would be more manageable by more families. Having to game the application process, finagle "aid" (be it need- or merit-based) just introduces more to that higher-ed "business" machine that includes the educational institutions themselves.

The real key would be to find the pricing sweet spot to attract the kind of student and student body they're looking for. Completely private can make their own palette; public colleges need to reflect the values of the public (which ebb and flow over time). Is it demographic, geographic, degree-interest, or something else? But they all should "pay" the institution the same. I think the concept of ability-to-pay is what's gotten us collectively in many of the policy pickles we find ourselves.

Oooh: Ebb and flow! So, while all of us pay taxes, the white christian nationalists would get to see their values reflected in “something else”. It will be quite the policy pickle when at least some locales give their MAGA public exactly what they want.

How would public "values" for higher education be any different than for any other policy we have? Or what locales with ultra-progressives "might" do? Being far left or far right isn't inherently correct. As with most things, I continue to believe the true path lies somewhere in the middle. It's not always easy getting there and we sometimes over-correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are wealthy your kids should not be taking loans. You should have saved for them. This is 100% on you if your kids have loans.

Poor families cannot save enough so they get a break on the parent contribution part.

I grew up poor and had a full merit scholarship. but started college savings for my kids when pregnant. Make better life choices and your kids won’t be burdened. The burden in YOUR choice.

The parents already pay a lot more taxes for the society.

They shouldn't be liable for adult kid's higher education.

Something is working with the system in this country.

What does a parent paying more for taxes have to do with private colleges?

Seems like you really want the US to become like the rest of the world and effectively nationalize private colleges.

All the top international universities are public. However, even schools like Toronto or Cambridge or Oxford provide FA…it’s just that rack rate is much lower for citizens.

Where have you been??
Private colleges became crybabies when Trump took away funding from them.
The private colleges are utilizing my tax money.

I don't care what other countries do.
In this country, if you are rich, you are careless and if you are poor, they get free pass.
Hardworking taxpaying middle class is severely getting punished and fukced.

Believe funds were primarily used to finance research with and behalf of the federal government. Guess we don't need to worry about that anymore. You can forget you kid's research opportunity.