PP here. There is a _lot_ to unpack here, so I will just offer a partial list: 1. The actual costs of higher education have definitely risen, in real life and without malfeasance. This has a good deal to do with what proportion of a person's income it takes nowadays to purchase certain tangible and intangible commodities, in contrast with (for example) a century and a half ago, when many small collegiate institutions were founded. It also has to do with institutions pressuring themselves (or the industry pressuring its participants) to do *everything,* rather than just sticking to what they can reasonably do best. It saves a good deal of money to reduce reduplication, even if it means that students must make harder choices about what they do and where they go. The SUNY system went through this kind of change some years ago, making certain majors available on certain campuses. 2. Tuition cannot cover the rising expenses associated with higher education any more than ticket prices alone can support an opera company. The expenses associated with producing the product are only partially made up by the access charges, and less so with every passing year. The rest of the funding has to come from someplace else. Universities can expect in this regard to draw on appropriations and other governmental support (though not in all cases), philanthropy, investments (which are often the results of stewarding philanthropy), grants, licensing (including of patented research products, not just sweatshirts!), leased resources (including land, property, and other assets), and other things. The more diverse and robust this portfolio of other complicated things is, the less an institution has to rely on / hope for tuition dollars. And it is not just all about the size of the endowment, contrary to many people's impressions. 3. University marketing professionals know the psychology of sticker prices, and it goes way beyond the perception of luxury branding. If they set the tuition at 80K, a few people will pay that. Others will pay diminishing amounts below that. Then there are algorithms about how much 'merit' aid needs to be given in order to push a given applicant with a given profile over the top to attend. If giving an admissible student who needs some financial aid a $2500 'merit' scholarship makes them attend, then the university is still collecting the balance of the tuition, maybe 40K or 60K. Worth it? Absolutely. And more money coming in than if the school were to lower its per capita sticker price to something closer to the amount it actually collects. There is a formula for this: (total tuition dollars foregone in financial aid) divided by (# of students attending x sticker price)] = discount rate, as a percentage The lower the discount rate, the more students at the institution paying sticker price. This might mean you are maximizing your dollar yield from your student demographic--or it might mean your sticker price is lower than the market might bear. Because tuition is only one item in the revenue mix (#2 above), and indeed an item whose weight in the revenue mix is continually shrinking (#1 above), skyrocketing student costs are not necessarily a sign of institutional health, except insofar as they may be pushing the envelope on a perception of exclusivity (#3). Raising tuition is a way to bring in a limited amount of unrestricted funds for annual budget operations, but it is not a way to bring in enough (for example) for a new football stadium, or a supercollider for the physicists, or a new library. And because you can't "save up" this kind of money in the nonprofit world, you can't use an increase over time to fund something years from now. All of which is to say that going to college doesn't actually cost 80K per year. It costs more like the total of your school's sticker price x your school's discount rate, which gives yuo the amount the school expects to collect per student. But even once they collect that, they have to make up a LOT more just to keep the lights on. Now, 80K might represent something else to a given family, especially in terms of intangibles (including life after college). But the very schools that are notionally collecting 80K are often the ones that are most proficient at maximizing those other revenue streams I outlined above. They don't need that 80K, which is fortunate, because most of the time they're not getting it, either. |
Not true. I just went through this process with a "full pay" kid. The majority of kids at most private colleges are not paying sticker price. The kids with good qualifications are getting merit aid, even if they don't qualify for financial aid. There are a subset of rich kids who barely squeaked by for admission and are truly full pay, but they're generally a minority at any national university. There are a small handful of private colleges that seem to cater to the rich kid with lower stats, and that's fine, that's their niche, but its definitely not true of the vast majority of private universities. |
|
Not many T20 have any merit scholarships at all, ones who do are few and smaller and hard to get.
Yes, T20 tend to be good at aid but it doesn’t help UUMC donut hole families who are too poor to pay and too rich to qualify for aid. |
| It depends, I would ask my kid to take any T20 over HYPSM if merit or aid knocks of 20k or more but I wouldn’t ask them to take free ride at JMU or U Alabama. I’m sure everyone has a different pain threshold even with similar level of finances. Priorities differ, circumstances differ. |
This is such a classic DCUM point. You realize that the vast majority of private colleges are NOT in the Top 20, right? |
Great. I can afford the Audi and the $80k per year for all my kids. Also great. |
| Can’t think of anything more worthy of my money than educating my child. I’m not planning to die on the largest pile of money possible. I’d rather make sure my kid is fully equipped than have another car or house. |
| No college is worth this. College should not cost this much and it is offensive that it does. Ask yourself why. Why?! This is insanity, it does not even come close to matching inflation, and it far outstrips the rise in income. It is grotesque. |
| I’ll pay so you don’t have to. |
| I don’t think any school should be priced that high. I can’t afford those prices, so I am grateful that my DCs school meets 100% of need without loans and makes the generous FA makes the school affordable. |
College does not cost this much. At all. The only people who happen to be in the situation where a college costs $80k are families who make between ~$170-370,000 and are looking at elite private universities and liberal arts colleges. That is a small sliver of the population, believe it or not. And those families still have way more options than an LMC or poor family, because LMC or poor kids have only recently started getting into tippy-top schools that meet full needs. Most poor kids aren't getting into Ivies; they are taking out loans for the local community college. I care more about academically qualified kids who can't even afford UVa. Get a grip. |
We have always had FA and now merit aid. I am extremely grateful to people like you, PP, and those who gift the schools. You are essential. |
I went to Harvard. It was never “free”. |
It is indeed free at the point of matriculation for some students. |
Both get you to the same place, one will have more money when they arrive. |