UMC How Do I get a Good Deal Tuition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

Many in the UMC, myself included, did not bootstrap our way into the UMC. The majority of us were born on third base, but think we've hit a home run. There is a lot of research out there that shows a lot of entitlements - the mortgage interest tax deduction, subsidized tuition at state schools by and far benefits the UMC at the expense of lower classes. I'm actsullt all for charging tuition at schools on a sliding scale based on income and ability to pay, even at "state" schools.

I am curious how you would see a system like Canada's operating in the U.S. We have private schools, religious schools, state schools - over 3,700 institutions of higher ed in the U.S. alone. It simply dwarfs anything any other country has.

I think if the federal government would pay a fixed amount per student, but not allow the school to charge extra to the student above that amount, that a very large number of schools would discover they could survive and provide a strong education on the resulting income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

+1m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your only hope is state schools. State schools are lower cost, and therefore less affluent people do not need as much aid to go there. And that aid is partially spread out over the entire tax paying population, while at private schools, the cost for the less affluent is put all onto the small number of wealthier students, income from the endowment, and alumni donations.

I frankly do not understand why schools with huge endowments like Princeton still insist on punishing the wealthy by charging high tuition. They have plenty of money from endowment interest to subsidize the poorer students without this. I think it just makes them feel righteous to be able to punish people who have saved their entire lives.

Actually at my SLAC, the endowment subsidizes even wealthy people. When I was still in school, the true cost of educating per student was 2x the sticker price.

OP thinks that her family is subsidizing poor students, but I think she's wrong if she's looking at top schools.

With her DD's stats, she is not looking at top schools. Sure, if your kid has a 4.0 unweighted and 1600 SATs, it doesn't matter what your income is. But what if your kid is solidly in the 80th percentile and you are upper middle class? I guess you just bankrupt yourself and put your kid into a ton of debt. there is no choice.

3.8 and 1250 stats can still get you in a highly rated college with a large endowment. Sure, the kid is likely not to get into the most prestigious college, but you do not have to bankrupt yourself to get your kid a good education.

Can you name a school that would accept such a kid and cost less than $50k/year full pay? That totals 200k over 4 years, which is a typical home (and most even upper middle class people would need a 30 year mortgage plus the tax breaks that come with that mortgage)

Ohio Wesleyan
Allegheny
Ursinus
Juniata
Ohio University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

Many in the UMC, myself included, did not bootstrap our way into the UMC. The majority of us were born on third base, but think we've hit a home run. There is a lot of research out there that shows a lot of entitlements - the mortgage interest tax deduction, subsidized tuition at state schools by and far benefits the UMC at the expense of lower classes. I'm actsullt all for charging tuition at schools on a sliding scale based on income and ability to pay, even at "state" schools.

I am curious how you would see a system like Canada's operating in the U.S. We have private schools, religious schools, state schools - over 3,700 institutions of higher ed in the U.S. alone. It simply dwarfs anything any other country has.

None of this speaks to the outrageous cost of college relative to what it was e.g. 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

AMEN!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

OP here. What I think is absurd is that I could pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000. It seems insane to pay that amount to be in a large classroom- so I don't understand the math of how colleges manage their money but I'm thinking there's a big subsidy that full pay parents give.

[Anonymous]

Sorry meant a month not a week...200 dollars times 18 hours per month times 10 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. What I think is absurd is that I could pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000. It seems insane to pay that amount to be in a large classroom- so I don't understand the math of how colleges manage their money but I'm thinking there's a big subsidy that full pay parents give.

Schools have endowments which they use to fund expenses, as well.

If you pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000 - but you have no overhead, no facilities, no athletic program, no admissions office, no insurance coverage. The list goes on.

OP, you are wasting time and energy thinking about whether you've got yours. If you want a school that will offer small class sizes for your DD and you want to pay no more than $X per year, then you need to focus your efforts on finding such schools. RE small class sizes, focus on SLACs, and RE money, focus only on schools that offer merit aid. (Merit aid is finances-blind; you could be a billionaire and that is not part of the consideration for the award.)

The book The College Solution is an excellent place to start. Also look at Colleges That Change Lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. What I think is absurd is that I could pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000. It seems insane to pay that amount to be in a large classroom- so I don't understand the math of how colleges manage their money but I'm thinking there's a big subsidy that full pay parents give.

Schools have endowments which they use to fund expenses, as well.

If you pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000 - but you have no overhead, no facilities, no athletic program, no admissions office, no insurance coverage. The list goes on.

OP, you are wasting time and energy thinking about whether you've got yours. If you want a school that will offer small class sizes for your DD and you want to pay no more than $X per year, then you need to focus your efforts on finding such schools. RE small class sizes, focus on SLACs, and RE money, focus only on schools that offer merit aid. (Merit aid is finances-blind; you could be a billionaire and that is not part of the consideration for the award.)

The book The College Solution is an excellent place to start. Also look at Colleges That Change Lives.

Not to mention that the tutor won't have the expertise of a professor.

Sure if you're kid is attending Big U and being taught by grad students, it would be a more apt comparison. But real professors (especially at SLACs) actually teach students and are paid a hell of a lot more than $36K.

You're also not taking into account benefits, funding for the outside research, labs (they're led by a professor at my SLAC), office hours etc.

OP if you really think you'd get the same benefit from a tutor, then "homeschool" your kid.

[Anonymous]

OP, your kid has middling stats. so just pick a second tier small liberal arts school where he can get merit aid. Then you don't have to worry about subsidizing anyone else and your child would be among intellectual peers. If you want a school that devotes lots of resources above and beyond tuition costs to his education (the top tier schools), get a smarter kid.

[Anonymous]

1250 on the SAT and you're worried about subsidizing someone else's tuition? What world are you living in that you think she "deserves" to go to a top school with that score AND get merit aid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

Many in the UMC, myself included, did not bootstrap our way into the UMC. The majority of us were born on third base, but think we've hit a home run. There is a lot of research out there that shows a lot of entitlements - the mortgage interest tax deduction, subsidized tuition at state schools by and far benefits the UMC at the expense of lower classes. I'm actsullt all for charging tuition at schools on a sliding scale based on income and ability to pay, even at "state" schools.

I am curious how you would see a system like Canada's operating in the U.S. We have private schools, religious schools, state schools - over 3,700 institutions of higher ed in the U.S. alone. It simply dwarfs anything any other country has.

I think if the federal government would pay a fixed amount per student, but not allow the school to charge extra to the student above that amount, that a very large number of schools would discover they could survive and provide a strong education on the resulting income.

Have you seen articles on medical care super users? It is similar with students education super users. Some students will require weekly counseling, a dedicated note taker, will do something that costs the university massive legal fees (like visa issues, an accident on school property, being accused of harassment), will have a sex change using school insurance, etc. some students will take six years to complete a degree etc. your tition never lines up with your child's actual expenses but the same was true with tax dollars and public elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. What I think is absurd is that I could pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000. It seems insane to pay that amount to be in a large classroom- so I don't understand the math of how colleges manage their money but I'm thinking there's a big subsidy that full pay parents give.

Schools have endowments which they use to fund expenses, as well.

If you pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000 - but you have no overhead, no facilities, no athletic program, no admissions office, no insurance coverage. The list goes on.

OP, you are wasting time and energy thinking about whether you've got yours. If you want a school that will offer small class sizes for your DD and you want to pay no more than $X per year, then you need to focus your efforts on finding such schools. RE small class sizes, focus on SLACs, and RE money, focus only on schools that offer merit aid. (Merit aid is finances-blind; you could be a billionaire and that is not part of the consideration for the award.)

The book The College Solution is an excellent place to start. Also look at Colleges That Change Lives.

Not to mention that the tutor won't have the expertise of a professor.

Sure if you're kid is attending Big U and being taught by grad students, it would be a more apt comparison. But real professors (especially at SLACs) actually teach students and are paid a hell of a lot more than $36K.

You're also not taking into account benefits, funding for the outside research, labs (they're led by a professor at my SLAC), office hours etc.

OP if you really think you'd get the same benefit from a tutor, then "homeschool" your kid.

That $416K per year if that's all the professors did 40*52*200
Doubt that most are making that much even with benefits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. What I think is absurd is that I could pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000. It seems insane to pay that amount to be in a large classroom- so I don't understand the math of how colleges manage their money but I'm thinking there's a big subsidy that full pay parents give.

Schools have endowments which they use to fund expenses, as well.

If you pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000 - but you have no overhead, no facilities, no athletic program, no admissions office, no insurance coverage. The list goes on.

OP, you are wasting time and energy thinking about whether you've got yours. If you want a school that will offer small class sizes for your DD and you want to pay no more than $X per year, then you need to focus your efforts on finding such schools. RE small class sizes, focus on SLACs, and RE money, focus only on schools that offer merit aid. (Merit aid is finances-blind; you could be a billionaire and that is not part of the consideration for the award.)

The book The College Solution is an excellent place to start. Also look at Colleges That Change Lives.

Not to mention that the tutor won't have the expertise of a professor.

Sure if you're kid is attending Big U and being taught by grad students, it would be a more apt comparison. But real professors (especially at SLACs) actually teach students and are paid a hell of a lot more than $36K.

You're also not taking into account benefits, funding for the outside research, labs (they're led by a professor at my SLAC), office hours etc.

OP if you really think you'd get the same benefit from a tutor, then "homeschool" your kid.

That $416K per year if that's all the professors did 40*52*200
Doubt that most are making that much even with benefits

It doesn't work that way, but whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. What I think is absurd is that I could pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000. It seems insane to pay that amount to be in a large classroom- so I don't understand the math of how colleges manage their money but I'm thinking there's a big subsidy that full pay parents give.

Schools have endowments which they use to fund expenses, as well.

If you pay a tutor 200 dollar per hour 18 hours a week/ 10 months a year and that would be only $36,000 - but you have no overhead, no facilities, no athletic program, no admissions office, no insurance coverage. The list goes on.

OP, you are wasting time and energy thinking about whether you've got yours. If you want a school that will offer small class sizes for your DD and you want to pay no more than $X per year, then you need to focus your efforts on finding such schools. RE small class sizes, focus on SLACs, and RE money, focus only on schools that offer merit aid. (Merit aid is finances-blind; you could be a billionaire and that is not part of the consideration for the award.)

The book The College Solution is an excellent place to start. Also look at Colleges That Change Lives.

Not to mention that the tutor won't have the expertise of a professor.

Sure if you're kid is attending Big U and being taught by grad students, it would be a more apt comparison. But real professors (especially at SLACs) actually teach students and are paid a hell of a lot more than $36K.

You're also not taking into account benefits, funding for the outside research, labs (they're led by a professor at my SLAC), office hours etc.

OP if you really think you'd get the same benefit from a tutor, then "homeschool" your kid.

That $416K per year if that's all the professors did 40*52*200
Doubt that most are making that much even with benefits

You need to add in the entire cost of your yearly household expenses (unless you are planning on your kid being a commuter). The kid needs to have a dorm room, the dorm has to be cleaned, the kid has to have food, the lawns need to be mowed, the snow needs to be removed. And a typical professor makes about $150,000/year.

if you look at "exhibit 9" at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2017fy-budget-docs-operating-R30B22-University-of-Maryland,-College-Park.pdf, you can see how the budget at UMD works.