Reply to 200% increase in tuition

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "200% increase in tuition "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics