When will the cost of college flatten out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think about this a lot. I have a 6 yr old and based on current trends, a single year at a good-not-great in-state university could cost over 50k by the time he's in college. Potentially more.

One thing we think about is that since we have only one child (a choice we made in part due to the cost of college), we can save pretty well for his college despite not having a huge income (HHI 140k). But it's hard to keep up with those costs, and while our income could go up some int he next few years, it's not going to go that much higher.

All of which is to say: it sometimes feels like saving for college at our income in futile, because no matter how much we save it won't be enough, but college will take every penny of it. So say we really scrimp and save and have 120k in the 529 by the time he goes to college. They'll take every bit of that and we'll still need more on top of that. All that sacrifice and then *poof* it's gone and the hand is still out for more. And this is for something our child will need to WORK for. We're not even buying a degree, just an opportunity. No guarantees.

It doesn't make sense.

It is already 50k. Decent colleges, NYU, Columbia, Fordham, Georgetown are already pushing 100k.

If you kid is 6 you need 100k per year for a crap school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, simple supply and demand. Until the demand goes down, nothing will change. Free market capitalism at work, folks.

Not really. The government is both underwriting some of the costs and altering the rules on loans for the rest

And how does that make the market any less free? No one's being forced to do anything.

OMG. Is this what conservatives understand the term “free market” to mean? That consumers aren’t being forced at gun point to spend money??? I’m absolutely dying of laughter over here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It might flatten out a little because no one wants to be the first school to charge $100K/year, but once they hit that number it will keep climbing.

Even if demand goes down, costs won't. Because where would schools cut -- faculty? Majors/programs? Facilities? Financial aid? Technology? Mental health services? These are all things that students and families demand, and there's not much incentive to cut these areas.

You didn’t list “administrators” which is the actual source of the bloat and could indeed be slashed by 90% with no noticeable impact on anything

[Anonymous]

$100k per year already happened. In NYS by law they are required to give incoming Freshman cost estimates all four years.

Incoming Freshman, NYU, Columbia and Fordham all are showing 100k cost for senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college income premium is shrinking and thanks the the enormous cost of college and the debt requires, the wealth premium is shrinking even faster.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2021/january/college-degrees-more-wealth

I think the "everyone needs to go to college" mantra goes away and more people start to focus on cost it will either come down or expensive schools will have even more exaggerated barbell distributions as the middle and upper middle class opt for more affordable options

we need to return to offering more VoTech options in HS---let the kids who would do better on a HVAC/Electrical/AutoMechanics/Etc explore those options for half their days in HS. Stop making them take thru Algebra 2 and let them take a more practical Statistics/math class that they might actually use (an intensive course in excel and stats perhaps). They kids would be happier, better self esteem and more importantly starting on a path to what they ultimately will do.
We need people in these areas and not everyone is college material. Many kids are frustrated in HS with the academics and would do much better with hands on courses like this. If they did this, then they might be 1 year of training away from a great job when they graduate HS

They offer it in most school systems but few kids the it. Did you have yours do that?

lol.. my DH said something similar, "Not all kids should or need to go to college". I replied, "Sure, are you gonna tell our kids that?". His response, "No". LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been flattening out for years now.[/quote]


No it hasn't. Some privates passed $90K a year last year. USC is $92K

If you look at adjustments for inflation, average tuition increases started flattening out in 2010, further flattened in 2015 and decreased since 2019.

As an aside--The worst decade for tuition inflation was the 1980s where student loans were relatively limited--but average tuition rates went up over 50%, beyond the overall inflation rate which was already high--schools needed to rapidly expand and hire lots of new faculty to adjust to demand and it was a very expensive time to do it.

https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college income premium is shrinking and thanks the the enormous cost of college and the debt requires, the wealth premium is shrinking even faster.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2021/january/college-degrees-more-wealth

I think the "everyone needs to go to college" mantra goes away and more people start to focus on cost it will either come down or expensive schools will have even more exaggerated barbell distributions as the middle and upper middle class opt for more affordable options

we need to return to offering more VoTech options in HS---let the kids who would do better on a HVAC/Electrical/AutoMechanics/Etc explore those options for half their days in HS. Stop making them take thru Algebra 2 and let them take a more practical Statistics/math class that they might actually use (an intensive course in excel and stats perhaps). They kids would be happier, better self esteem and more importantly starting on a path to what they ultimately will do.
We need people in these areas and not everyone is college material. Many kids are frustrated in HS with the academics and would do much better with hands on courses like this. If they did this, then they might be 1 year of training away from a great job when they graduate HS

In theory, this sounds like a great idea. However, if you read various articles about the rise of AI and tech, even these jobs are not as safe as you might imagine.

Electric cars have way fewer moving parts and no oil changes, so there is no need for any routine maintenance. The demand for auto technicians will drop, however, the auto technicians needed will now need much higher skills. They will need to understand electric battery technology and chemistry, understand the computer systems driving the cars, etc. About the only "old" technology will be the tires...although even tires are being improved so that you almost never get a flat.

Supposedly, only like 10,000 new plumber jobs will be created over the next 10 years. I gather that is completely new jobs, but doesn't take into account that the average age of existing plumbers is high and all those folks will need to be replaced. Still, 10,000 over 10 years is really nothing considering the economy creates millions of jobs each year.

Supposedly new HVAC systems will have AI and IoT technology embedded. Many existing problems that you currently need an HVAC technician to fix will be diagnosed and sometimes self-corrected and / or the homeowner will be provided instructions on how to fix the systems themselves.

Not really. Electric motors are much simpler than internal combustion engines. There are no real transmissions which are complex and require skilled mechanics. Even batter packs aren't that complex, they are just very dangerous and will most likely be considered disposable for that reason. As far as computer knowledge, electric cars have the same OBD ports that ice cars have

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, simple supply and demand. Until the demand goes down, nothing will change. Free market capitalism at work, folks.

Not really. The government is both underwriting some of the costs and altering the rules on loans for the rest

And how does that make the market any less free? No one's being forced to do anything.

Government intervention distorts markets which is the opposite of a free market

+1, and in the market for college degrees, there are ripple on effects that further increase demand.

When government subsidizes college degrees via loans, several things happen. One, colleges charge more because that money is "free" to them so they are going to charge at least up to the max loan amount since that's what dictates "affordability" on the market. But additionally, demand for college increases because more people who previously might not have thought they could afford college now can, so more people want to go. This drives up costs at colleges with excess applications because they have more applications than seats and therefore can ask for more money.

But there's also a market impact outside colleges that is a huge factor -- employers begin demanding applicants with college degrees because college has become so commonplace that it has become a marker of employability, even in jobs where a degree should not be required (and never used to be). This creates a feedback loop that helps spiral college costs up because it further increases demand (when a college degree is required for nearly all jobs, that increases demand for college) and also puts a higher *value* on a college degree because the more jobs that require a degree, the bigger the difference income between someone with a degree and someone without.

IMO, we should have a class of FREE colleges that are government funded and available to pretty much all college graduates, and then a class of non-profit colleges that charge tuition and offer/accept merit-based scholarships. But no college loans. The free college would be extremely vocationally focused on job training to ensure people are prepared for the jobs that are actually out there, and would work closely with employers to help segue high school graduates into professions that do require some specialized training and knowledge, but will never pay well enough to justify loans. And the brightest, most ambitious students who are pursuing careers that require classical college degrees would go to tuition-based colleges, but those who have demonstrated aptitude would qualify for generous merit aid. And rich kids with money can go to these schools full pay provided they can get in, which is always going to be part of the system.

The problem with the current system is that we are pushing many students to college using loans as a lure, even though college isn't really preparing them for the right jobs, and the jobs they get are never going to pay enough to justify the cost of college, especially with interest via loans. It enriches college administrators and other parts of the college industrial complex, but doesn't really accomplish the goals of higher education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college income premium is shrinking and thanks the the enormous cost of college and the debt requires, the wealth premium is shrinking even faster.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2021/january/college-degrees-more-wealth

I think the "everyone needs to go to college" mantra goes away and more people start to focus on cost it will either come down or expensive schools will have even more exaggerated barbell distributions as the middle and upper middle class opt for more affordable options

we need to return to offering more VoTech options in HS---let the kids who would do better on a HVAC/Electrical/AutoMechanics/Etc explore those options for half their days in HS. Stop making them take thru Algebra 2 and let them take a more practical Statistics/math class that they might actually use (an intensive course in excel and stats perhaps). They kids would be happier, better self esteem and more importantly starting on a path to what they ultimately will do.
We need people in these areas and not everyone is college material. Many kids are frustrated in HS with the academics and would do much better with hands on courses like this. If they did this, then they might be 1 year of training away from a great job when they graduate HS

In theory, this sounds like a great idea. However, if you read various articles about the rise of AI and tech, even these jobs are not as safe as you might imagine.

Electric cars have way fewer moving parts and no oil changes, so there is no need for any routine maintenance. The demand for auto technicians will drop, however, the auto technicians needed will now need much higher skills. They will need to understand electric battery technology and chemistry, understand the computer systems driving the cars, etc. About the only "old" technology will be the tires...although even tires are being improved so that you almost never get a flat.

Supposedly, only like 10,000 new plumber jobs will be created over the next 10 years. I gather that is completely new jobs, but doesn't take into account that the average age of existing plumbers is high and all those folks will need to be replaced. Still, 10,000 over 10 years is really nothing considering the economy creates millions of jobs each year.

Supposedly new HVAC systems will have AI and IoT technology embedded. Many existing problems that you currently need an HVAC technician to fix will be diagnosed and sometimes self-corrected and / or the homeowner will be provided instructions on how to fix the systems themselves.

Not really. Electric motors are much simpler than internal combustion engines. There are no real transmissions which are complex and require skilled mechanics. Even batter packs aren't that complex, they are just very dangerous and will most likely be considered disposable for that reason. As far as computer knowledge, electric cars have the same OBD ports that ice cars have

Electric car technicians need to understand the OS systems operating the cars. Electric cars are really nothing more than computers on wheels.

There really are no independent electric car repair shops...assume that will change if millions of cars are on the road, but no idea how that will play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$100k per year already happened. In NYS by law they are required to give incoming Freshman cost estimates all four years.

Incoming Freshman, NYU, Columbia and Fordham all are showing 100k cost for senior year.

I believe you - could you please point me to a source? I want to show DH. I’ve been saying this but he hasn’t believed me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might flatten out a little because no one wants to be the first school to charge $100K/year, but once they hit that number it will keep climbing.

Even if demand goes down, costs won't. Because where would schools cut -- faculty? Majors/programs? Facilities? Financial aid? Technology? Mental health services? These are all things that students and families demand, and there's not much incentive to cut these areas.

You didn’t list “administrators” which is the actual source of the bloat and could indeed be slashed by 90% with no noticeable impact on anything

+1, and I actually do think we could make cuts to facilities at colleges. Many colleges build lots of shiny new facilities to attract new students, but then not only the construction but the upkeep of these spaces get built into tuition and pushes costs up. Dorms, students centers, fitness centers, etc. are necessary but do not need to luxurious, and there are way to construct them so they are functional and comfortable but not expensive.

We also probably need more commuter colleges with much more bare bones facilities for students. When kids don't live on campus, you don't have to provide nearly as many amenities. Especially if the campus is located in or near a city, near public transportation and commercial areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might flatten out a little because no one wants to be the first school to charge $100K/year, but once they hit that number it will keep climbing.

Even if demand goes down, costs won't. Because where would schools cut -- faculty? Majors/programs? Facilities? Financial aid? Technology? Mental health services? These are all things that students and families demand, and there's not much incentive to cut these areas.

You didn’t list “administrators” which is the actual source of the bloat and could indeed be slashed by 90% with no noticeable impact on anything

+1, and I actually do think we could make cuts to facilities at colleges. Many colleges build lots of shiny new facilities to attract new students, but then not only the construction but the upkeep of these spaces get built into tuition and pushes costs up. Dorms, students centers, fitness centers, etc. are necessary but do not need to luxurious, and there are way to construct them so they are functional and comfortable but not expensive.

We also probably need more commuter colleges with much more bare bones facilities for students. When kids don't live on campus, you don't have to provide nearly as many amenities. Especially if the campus is located in or near a city, near public transportation and commercial areas.

These more streamlined, less expensive schools already exist. They just lack prestige. The problem is us: people who could comfortably afford in-state costs at GMU, JMU, VCU, UMBC or Towson stretching to pay OOS or private tuition because we want more prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts? Will they ever? How is this system sustainable? I worry for our grandchildren.

When there are not enough students as a result of tuition rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, simple supply and demand. Until the demand goes down, nothing will change. Free market capitalism at work, folks.

Not really. The government is both underwriting some of the costs and altering the rules on loans for the rest

And how does that make the market any less free? No one's being forced to do anything.

Government intervention distorts markets which is the opposite of a free market

That's like saying the real estate isn't a free market because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might flatten out a little because no one wants to be the first school to charge $100K/year, but once they hit that number it will keep climbing.

Even if demand goes down, costs won't. Because where would schools cut -- faculty? Majors/programs? Facilities? Financial aid? Technology? Mental health services? These are all things that students and families demand, and there's not much incentive to cut these areas.

You didn’t list “administrators” which is the actual source of the bloat and could indeed be slashed by 90% with no noticeable impact on anything

Could it be cut? Of course. Will it be cut? Nope.