200% increase in tuition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So have salaries

Not true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/07/24/price-of-college-increasing-almost-8-times-faster-than-wages/

https://college-education.procon.org/median-incomes-v-average-college-tuition-rates/

https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-96-154

[Anonymous]

Anyone comparing to Europe are clueless. Most European university students are commuters who live with their parents, akin to going to a local community college or 2nd/3rd tier 4-year state school in the U.S.

The amenities at European universities are generally old and musty. No sports programs, aside from self-organized clubs. Old research labs.

Unlike the US, not everyone can even apply to university in European; you need to have attended an academic HS (ie, not a trade school) and qualified with minimum scores on national tests. And once you are in a European university, they are pretty brutal about "up or out." Weed-out classes exist to ensure students can competently handle their major. One of my ex's studied engineering in Austria and the policy was that about 50% of the first year students would leave the program - either voluntarily or would be forced out by not achieving the minimum threshold score to advance to the next year in the program.

Generally, European students are better prepared for university than U.S. peers. They have been constantly weeded out from a college track starting at around 12 years old. It's brutal. Most U.S. kids would breakdown from the rigor.

[Anonymous]

This is just one part of it but I think there was a demographic dip in the late nineties or early aughts and colleges were competing by making the facilities really swanky.
I went to Amherst in the early 90s and the food was inedible and the dorms were falling apart — I had a huge hole in my wall at the window and the wind just blew through. And it was all very bare bones. If you go back now, it looks like the a fancy resort. I agree with PP that the colleges seem to put money into making an attractive experience for the kids, but pay their professors less and less each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone comparing to Europe are clueless. Most European university students are commuters who live with their parents, akin to going to a local community college or 2nd/3rd tier 4-year state school in the U.S.

The amenities at European universities are generally old and musty. No sports programs, aside from self-organized clubs. Old research labs.

Unlike the US, not everyone can even apply to university in European; you need to have attended an academic HS (ie, not a trade school) and qualified with minimum scores on national tests. And once you are in a European university, they are pretty brutal about "up or out." Weed-out classes exist to ensure students can competently handle their major. One of my ex's studied engineering in Austria and the policy was that about 50% of the first year students would leave the program - either voluntarily or would be forced out by not achieving the minimum threshold score to advance to the next year in the program.

Generally, European students are better prepared for university than U.S. peers. They have been constantly weeded out from a college track starting at around 12 years old. It's brutal. Most U.S. kids would breakdown from the rigor.

And that’s a how they offer almost free university. It’s not available to all by any stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you say.....state flagship?

High stat boys are not getting into the Virginia flagships. The girls seem to be getting a high majority of acceptances at our NoVa high school. These are boys getting accepted into higher ranked programs, public out of state and provate schools. It is a test optional phenomenon.

In state flagships really aren't a good option for boys, at least in Virginia.

On a side note, any school that receives any sort of federal aide, including pell grants, should be required to keep their tuition increases below the inflation rate.

[Anonymous]

Not all big state universities are raising tuition. Purdue has frozen tuition for the last 12 years.

Instate is $9,982
OOS is $28,794

Whereas, Indiana University

Instate is $11,790
OOS is $40,480

Purdue brags about this every year. At some point, advertising that your university is working to keep costs down will catch on for other universities.

DS is ar Purdue this year. He said the dorms are not that bad and he has many food choices. Purdue accepted fewer students this year and is simultaneously building two new dorms.

Stabilizing cost can be done. I don’t know why IU costs so much more - especially OOS. Universities just need to be motivated to keep tuition down. If everyone keeps paying, then no need to worry about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between 1987 and 2017, the cost of attending a public four-year college rose more than 200%.

For the 2024-2025 school year, Tufts’ estimates of expenses for undergraduate programs reaches nearly $96,000, trumping Wellesley — which comes in at about $92,000.

For the year strting this fall, Yale University comes in at almost $91,000, preceding Boston University with around $90,000 for the academic year.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/business/college-tuition-new-england-ninety-thousand/index.html

That is so effed up.

This is how they are affording to give so many kids financial aid. I am not against aid don’t get me wrong - I had it in college but this is what is allowing them to do this. Parents paying full tuition are paying for financial aid. It must be why. There is no other explanation or increase except they are admitting more kids that need more aid.

+1
Except I am against it. It should not be on other families to provide the FA but that is how it works right now and absolutely has driven costs way up.

On top of that, at least at my kid’s school, the FA kids are rude and aggressive to the full pay kids and treat them as if they should pay for everything (for example, voting to make laundry free and covered by a fee that only full pay kids pay).

Holy shit---what school is this? That is beyond ridiculous that students are even voting on that.
At many "expensive Universities", laundry is "free" as it's included in your fees. IMO it's much better as the machines break down less as there is not payment interface that can go to shit and prevent them from being used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between 1987 and 2017, the cost of attending a public four-year college rose more than 200%.

For the 2024-2025 school year, Tufts’ estimates of expenses for undergraduate programs reaches nearly $96,000, trumping Wellesley — which comes in at about $92,000.

For the year strting this fall, Yale University comes in at almost $91,000, preceding Boston University with around $90,000 for the academic year.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/business/college-tuition-new-england-ninety-thousand/index.html

That is so effed up.

This is how they are affording to give so many kids financial aid. I am not against aid don’t get me wrong - I had it in college but this is what is allowing them to do this. Parents paying full tuition are paying for financial aid. It must be why. There is no other explanation or increase except they are admitting more kids that need more aid.

Other reasons for rising costs:

- increased in non-academic amenities offered by schools, like state of the art wellness centers, improved campus housing, and nicer dining facilities
- a proliferation of majors, requiring more facilities, professors, and staff-- some brand new majors that didn't used to exist, but also greater specialization in majors that used to all be housed in one department
- inflation in administrator salaries (but notably, not in faculty salaries, as schools have actually fought faculty increases and also shifted more work to non-tenure-track teachers, include adjuncts and graduate students, who are dirt cheap)

Yes, some are f the money also pays for aid to students who cannot afford it. But this is only true at schools without large endowments.

One thing we can do to better understand college costs is look outside the US. In Germany, for instance, public colleges are all free to students, and still manage to offer a very good education. But in most cases, they do not offer a campus experience like in the US. They don't have dorms or dining halls, students generally live near school in privately procured housing. All of the school's funding goes to professors, classrooms, and administration of education. It's a more efficient model that does not romanticize "the college experience" as we do in the US.

I'm not saying we should adopt that model for all schools, but it might be worth it to think about what we spend money on in higher education and why. What is our goal? For MC, UMC, and wealthy families, often the goal an "experience" more that education or training for a profession, and the image people have for that experience seems to get more expensive every year.

But in Germany not everyone can go to college. Your teacher decides for you at age 12. Guess who they pick? Hint, not the poor, minority or non-native German speakers. My kid is studying German in college and they were just discussing this in class and she called me horrified that in Germany she would have been tracked out of college in 7th grade or so and put on a trade school track. She is an amazing student but had late diagnosed LDs so we not so amazing until high school.

Unfortunately, many who tout the European system (and India largely) fail to recognize this. Kids are tracked by a single day test at about age 11/12, into STEM/Premed college bound, LA/Social Sciences College bound, non-college bound education. If your kid has a bad day or is a late bloomer, they won't have the option to easily do what they want in life.

I much prefer our system where you can grow during MS/HS and find the path that best suits you. You can be a CS or engineering major or Premed major if you want, even if you sucked at academics in MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between 1987 and 2017, the cost of attending a public four-year college rose more than 200%.

For the 2024-2025 school year, Tufts’ estimates of expenses for undergraduate programs reaches nearly $96,000, trumping Wellesley — which comes in at about $92,000.

For the year strting this fall, Yale University comes in at almost $91,000, preceding Boston University with around $90,000 for the academic year.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/business/college-tuition-new-england-ninety-thousand/index.html

That is so effed up.

This is how they are affording to give so many kids financial aid. I am not against aid don’t get me wrong - I had it in college but this is what is allowing them to do this. Parents paying full tuition are paying for financial aid. It must be why. There is no other explanation or increase except they are admitting more kids that need more aid.

Other reasons for rising costs:

- increased in non-academic amenities offered by schools, like state of the art wellness centers, improved campus housing, and nicer dining facilities
- a proliferation of majors, requiring more facilities, professors, and staff-- some brand new majors that didn't used to exist, but also greater specialization in majors that used to all be housed in one department
- inflation in administrator salaries (but notably, not in faculty salaries, as schools have actually fought faculty increases and also shifted more work to non-tenure-track teachers, include adjuncts and graduate students, who are dirt cheap)

Yes, some are f the money also pays for aid to students who cannot afford it. But this is only true at schools without large endowments.

One thing we can do to better understand college costs is look outside the US. In Germany, for instance, public colleges are all free to students, and still manage to offer a very good education. But in most cases, they do not offer a campus experience like in the US. They don't have dorms or dining halls, students generally live near school in privately procured housing. All of the school's funding goes to professors, classrooms, and administration of education. It's a more efficient model that does not romanticize "the college experience" as we do in the US.

I'm not saying we should adopt that model for all schools, but it might be worth it to think about what we spend money on in higher education and why. What is our goal? For MC, UMC, and wealthy families, often the goal an "experience" more that education or training for a profession, and the image people have for that experience seems to get more expensive every year.

But in Germany not everyone can go to college. Your teacher decides for you at age 12. Guess who they pick? Hint, not the poor, minority or non-native German speakers. My kid is studying German in college and they were just discussing this in class and she called me horrified that in Germany she would have been tracked out of college in 7th grade or so and put on a trade school track. She is an amazing student but had late diagnosed LDs so we not so amazing until high school.

Sort of, but you are missing all the many MANY differences with the German system. Here are a few details of nuance:

- It's true that students are tracked into college-eligible and vocational track during grade school. However, a student tracked to the vocational track can still go to college. They would need to do some additional schooling first, but it's possible.

- The "vocational" track includes A LOT of what we consider "college careers" in the US. Accountants, nurses, many office professionals. You can go into management and beyond from the vocational track. This is a huge difference between Germany and the US -- they do not require a college degree for anywhere near as many careers and industries. College is really mostly for people who, in the US, would require a post graduate degree to do their jobs -- doctors, lawyers, scientists, academics. It also includes primary school teachers. As a result, fewer people go to college overall, but also not going to college in Germany is not some black mark on you that you are not employable or intelligent. Vocational schools in Germany are VERY highly regarded.

- This is an interesting nuance: vocational track can sometimes be more lucrative than college track, because in Germany people get paid during training for a lot of jobs. Jobs like being an accountant or working in the medical field involve apprenticeships as part of the vocational trainings and you get paid during your apprenticeship. So you could be making a salary by the time you are 19 or 20 years old, in a legit job with a career track and plenty of promotional potential if you are interested and want to work your way up. So many families actually view vocational track education as more economically viable, because apprenticeship programs allow you to earn money more quickly, without heavily depressing your overall career earnings (unlike in the US, where the number of jobs you can do at 19 or 20 are very limited with a very low earning ceilings, stuff like retail or construction).

Anyway, it's a totally different system. I'm not suggesting we adopt the German system. But the more you learn about how other countries approach education and career training, the more you tend to see real inefficiencies and problems with the American system. For me, one the biggest is that we require students to get 4-year college degrees to do things like marketing, business accounting, human resources, event stuff like event planning. It's genuinely hard to get jobs in those fields without a college degree, but... why? These jobs are not deeply academic. You don't need to learn theory to do them. Unlike something like medicine, you don't need this basis of deep knowledge in something like chemistry or biology before you learn there technical aspects of the job. This isn't me putting down these jobs. It's just questioning whether we are approaching the training for them in a way that makes sense either for employers OR students. Could we do this differently to create a workforce ready for the jobs we need them to do, without saddling like 70-80% of high school graduates with a 4 year education that costs an increasingly ridiculous amount of money, delays their entry into the job market, and may have very little, ultimately, to do with what they actually do for a living later?

In reality, the kid tracked to non-college won't be headed to college unless parents are rich.

Fact is, the kids are "college/major tracked" at age 12. Way before most kids are at their full potential. They don't send as many kids to college and don't properly educate everyone to attend if they want. That is not right.
College isn't for everyone, but let a kid decide that themselves, in HS not at age 11/12.
Fact is, I prefer our system where everyone gets the HS education that then allows them to choose what they want to do. I think that's a choice better made at age 18 than age 12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's affecting the choices people make. When my kids were little I'd have told you we'd pay for an Ivy/top school, make it a priority. I just don't feel that way anymore. Public colleges offer a great education at a much lower price. I can see around me people are also just doing in-state for their kids, even other umc people with strong students. It has stopped being justifiable unless you get a lot of aid/help or are actually wealthy to the point 1 mil in college education is no big deal to your financial picture.

+100 $200-500k HHI are doing publics more and more now and forgoing T10s for them.

We are a $475k HHI and my kid hit into 6 schools in T1-T20 and will be headed to UVA.

It’s not worth $400k for undergrad.

That is your choice to make. I agree, many would make that choice. We saved so our kids would have the option to chose the best fit for them. But I get that for many in-state is the best financial choice, and spending $400K is ridiculous if it's not an easy spend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realize few people on this board have sympathy for those of us who live in DC (despite the name of the site), but it is really hard to figure out a plan for high-stat kids if you live in the district and aren't extremely wealthy.

Top OOS flagships are really hard to get into (even for top students), and they are almost as costly as top private schools. UVa is almost $80k.

We moved here 20 years ago when the gap between in state and out-of-state wasn't that great, and DC TAG covered a sizable amount of it.

It’s not much but even UMC earning up to $500k get that $10k annual DCTAG “scholarship” to help with OOS. It won’t go far at UVA, but will help at a lot of other flagships across the US. Virginia residents have great schools but the good ones are hard to get into. If you have lived in DC for 20 years then you should have a house/condo that has shot up in value, which means you easily have sold and moved to MD or VA and still had an easy commute. So, you probably won’t get too much sympathy here…

Yup--choices. You knew when you had kids that DC had no Instate schools. Easy to pick MD or VA and have many excellent choices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is heading to a two tier society. Vote Biden or it gets worse

I agree America is heading to a two tier society but it's worsened under Biden, not getting better. Why else do you think all the working classes are flocking to the Republicans and the rich flocking to Biden? Think about that carefully.

Higher education is also a purely Democratic fiefdom. They own the higher education cost mess. But they won't lift a finger to reform it.

How exactly has trump helped the MC? Or plans to help the MC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between 1987 and 2017, the cost of attending a public four-year college rose more than 200%.

For the 2024-2025 school year, Tufts’ estimates of expenses for undergraduate programs reaches nearly $96,000, trumping Wellesley — which comes in at about $92,000.

For the year strting this fall, Yale University comes in at almost $91,000, preceding Boston University with around $90,000 for the academic year.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/business/college-tuition-new-england-ninety-thousand/index.html

That is so effed up.

This is how they are affording to give so many kids financial aid. I am not against aid don’t get me wrong - I had it in college but this is what is allowing them to do this. Parents paying full tuition are paying for financial aid. It must be why. There is no other explanation or increase except they are admitting more kids that need more aid.

Other reasons for rising costs:

- increased in non-academic amenities offered by schools, like state of the art wellness centers, improved campus housing, and nicer dining facilities
- a proliferation of majors, requiring more facilities, professors, and staff-- some brand new majors that didn't used to exist, but also greater specialization in majors that used to all be housed in one department
- inflation in administrator salaries (but notably, not in faculty salaries, as schools have actually fought faculty increases and also shifted more work to non-tenure-track teachers, include adjuncts and graduate students, who are dirt cheap)

Yes, some are f the money also pays for aid to students who cannot afford it. But this is only true at schools without large endowments.

One thing we can do to better understand college costs is look outside the US. In Germany, for instance, public colleges are all free to students, and still manage to offer a very good education. But in most cases, they do not offer a campus experience like in the US. They don't have dorms or dining halls, students generally live near school in privately procured housing. All of the school's funding goes to professors, classrooms, and administration of education. It's a more efficient model that does not romanticize "the college experience" as we do in the US.

I'm not saying we should adopt that model for all schools, but it might be worth it to think about what we spend money on in higher education and why. What is our goal? For MC, UMC, and wealthy families, often the goal an "experience" more that education or training for a profession, and the image people have for that experience seems to get more expensive every year.

But in Germany not everyone can go to college. Your teacher decides for you at age 12. Guess who they pick? Hint, not the poor, minority or non-native German speakers. My kid is studying German in college and they were just discussing this in class and she called me horrified that in Germany she would have been tracked out of college in 7th grade or so and put on a trade school track. She is an amazing student but had late diagnosed LDs so we not so amazing until high school.

We wouldn’t have that problem here because our woke high school teachers would send ONLY minorities, poor, and immigrants to college. All the white boys would be sent to welding school or the army.

Go put on your MAGA hat and relax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone comparing to Europe are clueless. Most European university students are commuters who live with their parents, akin to going to a local community college or 2nd/3rd tier 4-year state school in the U.S.

The amenities at European universities are generally old and musty. No sports programs, aside from self-organized clubs. Old research labs.

Unlike the US, not everyone can even apply to university in European; you need to have attended an academic HS (ie, not a trade school) and qualified with minimum scores on national tests. And once you are in a European university, they are pretty brutal about "up or out." Weed-out classes exist to ensure students can competently handle their major. One of my ex's studied engineering in Austria and the policy was that about 50% of the first year students would leave the program - either voluntarily or would be forced out by not achieving the minimum threshold score to advance to the next year in the program.

Generally, European students are better prepared for university than U.S. peers. They have been constantly weeded out from a college track starting at around 12 years old. It's brutal. Most U.S. kids would breakdown from the rigor.

It's simply not a better program. Deciding kids future at age 12 is ridiculous. Plenty of kids don't mature/figure shit out until HS/College. Yet most of Europe dismisses those kids and sets them on a much different path in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone comparing to Europe are clueless. Most European university students are commuters who live with their parents, akin to going to a local community college or 2nd/3rd tier 4-year state school in the U.S.

The amenities at European universities are generally old and musty. No sports programs, aside from self-organized clubs. Old research labs.

Unlike the US, not everyone can even apply to university in European; you need to have attended an academic HS (ie, not a trade school) and qualified with minimum scores on national tests. And once you are in a European university, they are pretty brutal about "up or out." Weed-out classes exist to ensure students can competently handle their major. One of my ex's studied engineering in Austria and the policy was that about 50% of the first year students would leave the program - either voluntarily or would be forced out by not achieving the minimum threshold score to advance to the next year in the program.

Generally, European students are better prepared for university than U.S. peers. They have been constantly weeded out from a college track starting at around 12 years old. It's brutal. Most U.S. kids would breakdown from the rigor.

And that’s a how they offer almost free university. It’s not available to all by any stretch.

Just like why CC should not be "free" for everyone. By the end of HS we need to reconginze not everyone is destined to be college bound. Some kids would be better reserved in the trades. But better to decide that at age 18 not age 11/12