The statistics show the premise of the OP is false.

Very false.

I’ll not join in on the lifestyle shaming that is about to follow, but nor will I argue against it.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the "cost" of education has drastically outpaced the cost of living and inflation.

At the same time, most "comfortable" UMC in the 'baby boom" and "gen x" eras were heavily subsidized - suburbs, public schools, highways, auto ownership etc at the expense of poor and particularly minorities.

Educators are trying to address some of those wrongs.

Low-income people do not have more access to elite schools than they did decades ago.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6103778/

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the "cost" of education has drastically outpaced the cost of living and inflation.

At the same time, most "comfortable" UMC in the 'baby boom" and "gen x" eras were heavily subsidized - suburbs, public schools, highways, auto ownership etc at the expense of poor and particularly minorities.

Educators are trying to address some of those wrongs.

So raising tuition at double the rate of inflation will right these wrongs?

Yes, the "cost" of education has drastically outpaced the cost of living and inflation.

At the same time, most "comfortable" UMC in the 'baby boom" and "gen x" eras were heavily subsidized - suburbs, public schools, highways, auto ownership etc at the expense of poor and particularly minorities.

Educators are trying to address some of those wrongs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

Yes. And no. Not arguing that one can't get a wonderful education at a lesser private (with merit aid) or a public. Elites are different in status and theoretically offer entrance into the ruling class. In the post WWII period they were open to this demographic. Had many high school friends at IVY's and Stanford. None of their families could be described as rich, just reasonably comfortable.

What I am describing is a structural shift in American higher education which seems at this point to be permanent.

Did you really have "many" high school friends at those nine schools?

Not PP, but a substantial number of my HS friends, in the mixed-SES town I grew up, in attended top-20 schools: Harvard, Yale, Brown, Williams, Amherst, Dartmouth - those are the names I recall off the top of my head.

In our generation (I'm 58yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer and school-year work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute almost $25,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $29,687.80 in 2019. But that school now costs almost $75,000/year.

Anonymous wrote:

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

Yes. And no. Not arguing that one can't get a wonderful education at a lesser private (with merit aid) or a public. Elites are different in status and theoretically offer entrance into the ruling class. In the post WWII period they were open to this demographic. Had many high school friends at IVY's and Stanford. None of their families could be described as rich, just reasonably comfortable.

What I am describing is a structural shift in American higher education which seems at this point to be permanent.

Did you really have "many" high school friends at those nine schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

??? Do you actually know any poor people or minorities? If you did you would know in low income communities the focus is on affordable educational opportunities of all stripes (cosmetology school, community college).

100k gets fin aid at Harvard what are you talking about

There is no scenario where going to Harvard is a "right."

In fact, going to college isn't a right, though many schools make it as attainable as possible.

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

Yes. And no. Not arguing that one can't get a wonderful education at a lesser private (with merit aid) or a public. Elites are different in status and theoretically offer entrance into the ruling class. In the post WWII period they were open to this demographic. Had many high school friends at IVY's and Stanford. None of their families could be described as rich, just reasonably comfortable.

What I am describing is a structural shift in American higher education which seems at this point to be permanent.

Anonymous wrote:I think you mean private schools, in general. Elite or non-elite, they are all out-of-reach for UMC.

No, because the non-elite schools will offer merit aid more widely. I think though that quite a few elite privates often have a more generous view on 'financial need' than you think--they are alert to the fact that a 150k HHI in a HCOL is a lot different than a 250k HHI. They also factor in your age and the amount of income producing years you have left etc. We felt the process was fair--it accurately reflected what we could afford with some sacrifice.

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

I think you mean private schools, in general. Elite or non-elite, they are all out-of-reach for UMC.

Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

I know it depends on how you define UMC. Let's say donut hole families which are so common in high COL areas. Above 100k income approx, but not enough to shell out 300K cash for a bachelor's degree. Not eligible for need based aid at IVY's and other elite privates. Guess these schools don't care that there is a segment of the population which can no longer afford their services. It's too small a demographic perhaps? The 80th to 90th income percentiles, again approx. Not sure what would be the threshold HHI in a high COL area to be able to spend 75K comfortably out of pocket or savings while affording a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools (forget private). Especially for multiple children. In other words a basic middle class life as it used to be defined.

I'm older and I would say that this started being an issue around 2000. The younger UMC demographic seems to be a key segment of Bernie's support. Is it any wonder? Not that any bachelor's degree is worth 300K.

One aspect of the new American inequality: the proletarianization of the everyone under the plutocracy.