Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

Specifically, what staff? You have NO idea what these people do, so using your "knowledge" be specific, in terms of who should be cut.

Yes---most have no clue. Just think, during covid most administrators took on double/triple the work to make education happen, all while trying to figure out how to maintain employees who were not as "needed" for 6 months to a year (food service when dorms and campus were closed) all while working with millions less in budget (because most schools refunded R&B for the end of Spring 2020) and many schools with "2-4 years of living on campus requirements" allowed student stop remain at home fall of 2020. Those administrators worked their asses off to keep the schools functioning in a totally new environment, all while everyone around them complained no matter what they did.

OP - good point .. I am sure there are many admin staff who perform essential services to support teaching faculty and students but there are probably Some who do not add value.

I don’t know how universities should evaluate that but presumably teaching faculty should be on cost evaluation committees to weigh pros and cons for various positions that cost a lot of money - perhaps starting with athletic jobs since so many college sports programs cost more than revenues they bring in

Anonymous wrote:I agree with having trade schools and classes for students who want it. But I think people erroneously assume that all kids who are not college bound would have any more success in the trades. Being in a trade still requires commitment, a decent attitude, etc. I don’t want a lazy or dumb electrician or plumber. A lot of kids who bomb in college might not do much better in the trades.

Yes, this is true- you have to be both bright and determined to succeed st a skilled trade. It might be better than college for bright dyslexic, but would not be a fit for the lazy or dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with having trade schools and classes for students who want it. But I think people erroneously assume that all kids who are not college bound would have any more success in the trades. Being in a trade still requires commitment, a decent attitude, etc. I don’t want a lazy or dumb electrician or plumber. A lot of kids who bomb in college might not do much better in the trades.

A lot of kids who "bomb in college" have had 13 years of education system that doesn't suit their learning styles. Many need a more active and hands on experience. The kid who hates English and history often excels at hands on auto mechanics or plumbing. They are not Lazy---they just are sick of book learning/being forced to spend the day sitting at a desk. So let's engage them in a more hands on experience starting in MS/HS and see if they are "less lazy".

We DO have trade schools starting in high school. You still need to have a minimum level of "book leaning" too.

Where I live we do not have trade schools starting in HS, but we desperately need them. And yes, some minimum level of book learning is required. But those 3 hours of "book learning" will go over so much better if in the afternoon a kid gets to spend 3-4 hours of hands on learning/ something mechanical that interests them. And I'd argue those kids might do better with a basic finance/stats class rather than Algebra 2 as a grad requirement. Give them some useful "academic courses". Don't make a kid who struggles in English take Spanish 1&2 in order to graduate HS---let them focus on what they are good at and interested in. Forcing them to take courses they don't like/dont see the use for is not going to make them like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

There are plenty of seats available for "qualified students"---just look outside the T20 schools. The differences between a T20 and a T60 school are minimal. Plenty of really really really smart kids at schools ranked 30-60. Once you realize that, not much needs to change. Just you broadening your definition of acceptable schools.

The US two systems of higher education: government and private.

The government system is run by the state where you live, so in effect there are 50 separate public university systems. Each state may choose to admit students who don't live in the state, usually as a money maker since they charge those kids more to attend. Reforms, standards, admission and graduation requirements for these schools are up to each state. 73% of college students attend public universities.

If you choose not to use a state system of higher education, you may choose to apply to private and religiously-run private colleges. Reforms, standards, admission, and graduation requirements for these schools are up to the school.

There is not a huge difference in what is taught in a given major at any of the schools in the 4-year non-profit sector.

Yup! BME or MEchE is going to be virtually the exact same curriculum for a BS degree at any reputable university (in top 200), or accredited University. Same for all Engineering degrees. If your kid puts in the effort, they will learn the same things. It's the MS/PHD programs where "the quality" matters much more---the research opportunities and ability to specialize in area of interest matters then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with having trade schools and classes for students who want it. But I think people erroneously assume that all kids who are not college bound would have any more success in the trades. Being in a trade still requires commitment, a decent attitude, etc. I don’t want a lazy or dumb electrician or plumber. A lot of kids who bomb in college might not do much better in the trades.

A lot of kids who "bomb in college" have had 13 years of education system that doesn't suit their learning styles. Many need a more active and hands on experience. The kid who hates English and history often excels at hands on auto mechanics or plumbing. They are not Lazy---they just are sick of book learning/being forced to spend the day sitting at a desk. So let's engage them in a more hands on experience starting in MS/HS and see if they are "less lazy".

We DO have trade schools starting in high school. You still need to have a minimum level of "book leaning" too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

There are plenty of seats available for "qualified students"---just look outside the T20 schools. The differences between a T20 and a T60 school are minimal. Plenty of really really really smart kids at schools ranked 30-60. Once you realize that, not much needs to change. Just you broadening your definition of acceptable schools.

The US two systems of higher education: government and private.

The government system is run by the state where you live, so in effect there are 50 separate public university systems. Each state may choose to admit students who don't live in the state, usually as a money maker since they charge those kids more to attend. Reforms, standards, admission and graduation requirements for these schools are up to each state. 73% of college students attend public universities.

If you choose not to use a state system of higher education, you may choose to apply to private and religiously-run private colleges. Reforms, standards, admission, and graduation requirements for these schools are up to the school.

There is not a huge difference in what is taught in a given major at any of the schools in the 4-year non-profit sector.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with having trade schools and classes for students who want it. But I think people erroneously assume that all kids who are not college bound would have any more success in the trades. Being in a trade still requires commitment, a decent attitude, etc. I don’t want a lazy or dumb electrician or plumber. A lot of kids who bomb in college might not do much better in the trades.

A lot of kids who "bomb in college" have had 13 years of education system that doesn't suit their learning styles. Many need a more active and hands on experience. The kid who hates English and history often excels at hands on auto mechanics or plumbing. They are not Lazy---they just are sick of book learning/being forced to spend the day sitting at a desk. So let's engage them in a more hands on experience starting in MS/HS and see if they are "less lazy".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

OP - isn’t that more of a thing for privates such as a Harvard who want to make sure alumni keep on donating?

My understanding is that athletic recruits usually have strict rules for maintaining a decent GPA. Is that not the case?

I have never heard of doctor’s children getting preferential treatment - just that many people no longer want to practice medicine due to all the political and insurance company interfering in their work.

Agree that donors’ children should not get preferential admissions but that will probably never go away for privates …

No, there are no strict rules for GPA for college athletes. At most schools, the football team are at the very low end of the admitted student stats (Not at Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, and the likes but at most schools). DO you really think at Clemson the majority of the football team had a 1310+ SAT (that's Clemson average)? At most schools the only reqs to keep playing is maintaining a 2.0---and that is made easier if you major in a very simple major. Communications is a popular major---very easy relatively speaking

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

This is not remotely true and hard to even discuss. Athletes tend to be disciplined in everything including school work. They also tend to keep it together when under pressure. An athlete is a good bet on graduating.

OP - I agree that many college athletes are excellent students - our older DC was scholar athlete and unbelievably disciplined and hard working. I think you are right that many college athletes have their acts together in both the classroom and on the fields.

However, when I looked into it more, it seems PPs have a point about the commercialized nature of college sports needing reform. There is something wrong when adjuncts who are often the ones educating our undergrads live below the poverty level, and many professors are paid a barely livable wage, while many sports coaches are earning millions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

There are plenty of seats available for "qualified students"---just look outside the T20 schools. The differences between a T20 and a T60 school are minimal. Plenty of really really really smart kids at schools ranked 30-60. Once you realize that, not much needs to change. Just you broadening your definition of acceptable schools.

The Fiske guide covers about 320 schools that the authors have determined to be the best and most interesting colleges in the United States. That only about 10% of colleges but includes a number of worthy, really underrated institutions.

Yup---totally agree. Any of those schools will get you an excellent education. More importantly, many of them will be very affordable.

I really wish people would focus on the Princeton Review or Fiske guide rather than USNWR. They are all reputable strong schools--they help you avoid problematic ones and offer enough of a range of choices of types of schools.
The USNWR rankings are composed of often miniscule differences --hundredths of a point difference on qualities that may or may not matter to you and it ends up pushing people into a lot of unneeded stress about admissions and finances. Going to a very top school will give advantages, sure, so if you can get in and it's affordable, kudos to you. But as you move even a little down the list, the distinctions between the schools are really minor and fluid--often depending on how a school has gamed the rankings. A school ranked 100 just sounds so much worse than one ranked 40--but it literally may just mean tenths of a point difference on some metrics. A state school or an LAC ranked 40 is just not that materially different than one ranked 70 but it may cost you a lot more and be a worse fit. Stretching academically and financially to be in a school that is so impressive that everyone knows how good it is (e.g., HYPSM) might be worth it, but anywhere "below" that often just means that you don't stand out to faculty enough to get the richest opportunities and you have more debt or less assets to use for other purposes than if you weren't as 'rankings conscious.'

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

Specifically, what staff? You have NO idea what these people do, so using your "knowledge" be specific, in terms of who should be cut.

Yes---most have no clue. Just think, during covid most administrators took on double/triple the work to make education happen, all while trying to figure out how to maintain employees who were not as "needed" for 6 months to a year (food service when dorms and campus were closed) all while working with millions less in budget (because most schools refunded R&B for the end of Spring 2020) and many schools with "2-4 years of living on campus requirements" allowed student stop remain at home fall of 2020. Those administrators worked their asses off to keep the schools functioning in a totally new environment, all while everyone around them complained no matter what they did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the next 400 schools after the T20 are so great, why are they not good enough for applicants who require full subsidy?

Because the majority of schools that meet full financial need are typically in the T25-50 schools. So the really smart kids who require full subsidy smartly search for admission to a school that will meet their full need. Not many schools ranked above 50 (and certainly above 100) that are meeting full needs.

The least resourced students can only afford to go to the most elite colleges.

Lower tier schools don’t provide merit aid? Something doesn’t seem to add up here. If the only thing standing between an under-resourced kid and exceptional performance is mere opportunity, why isn’t the community college pathway to progressively build resources the logical next step? Are we seriously saying that it’s only the Harvards and Dukes of academia that can unlock their potential?

Obviously no. And yes, lower tier schools do provide merit aid. But most schools give very few 100% merit for Tuition and R&B scholarships. And most schools ranked 100-200 do not "meet full financial NEED".

Fact is majority of kids from underprivileged backgrounds do NOT go to elite schools. They take the local State U while living at home and working 20+ hours/week to pay the bills, or CC then transfer all while living at home. And if they are lucky, they might graduate in 5-6 years with all the working they are doing, or the breaks they might have to take to help out with family issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the next 400 schools after the T20 are so great, why are they not good enough for applicants who require full subsidy?

Because the majority of schools that meet full financial need are typically in the T25-50 schools. So the really smart kids who require full subsidy smartly search for admission to a school that will meet their full need. Not many schools ranked above 50 (and certainly above 100) that are meeting full needs.

The least resourced students can only afford to go to the most elite colleges.

Not exactly what was stated. But if they don't get full financial aide somewhere, they will likely end up at CC while working PT and then transfer to a 4 year state school if lucky.

For the life of me, I don't understand why MC/UMC people are so jealous/upset that some underprivileged kid who has grown up in rough circumstances might get to attend a good college and have their financial needs met. This could completely change their (and their family's ) trajectory in life. Ultimately that means it will cost you less in taxes than the alternative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

No, that does not reflect my opinion at all. My response is that people need to stop being prestige whores and shift their focus away from the T50 or so schools and apply to the roughly 4,000 colleges that accept the majority of their applicants.

+1000

And realizing that if you kid has the "resume" for a T20 school, they will get into many in the 40-100 range, many times with excellent merit (if it's a private uni). So broaden your horizon and search for a great fit in that range. Basically have a true list of targets and safeties and your kid will be successful.

OP - the original question is about what reforms are most important for helping more bright and hard working students from disadvantaged communities/ backgrounds gain admission and graduate from well resourced universities.

So are you saying more students need to apply to lower ranked universities? I personally think that many already do apply to much lower ranked colleges due to the madness with common application induced mass rejections.

Also, many black students fail to graduate from low ranked universities and are still lumbered with life long student debt. I wonder whether part of it is they are not given the extra help they need to adjust to the rigors of four year programs.

Well 50-100 ranked schools are not the low ranked universities where black students are failing to graduate. Those are not Low ranked universities. Key is to attend a uni where they care and make an effort to help first gen and low income students graduate. Key is also a program that helps mentor those kids so they are not majoring in Psychology and taking on $100K+ in student loans. I have 3 kids at T100 Uni---ranging from ~30 to ~80s. All 3 make concerted efforts to support those kids with special programs and extra involvement to assist them

OP - I agree that T50-100 are not the colleges I was referring to.

Wonderful that your 3 DC are flourishing.

I agree that applying to colleges with adequate student mentoring is key.

FYI--my kids did not use those programs (mine are beyond privileged and are appreciative for that). But I can tell from the Parent FB groups and the information the U provides that they are all 3 working hard to ensure those kids get the assurances they need to succeed. 2 are Jesuit universities who always do an excellent job with this.

OP - Yes the Jesuits do education incredibly well. I attended a Jesuit for post grad and learned so much. No assumption left unexamined .

They were also very caring about not only their own students but vulnerable students in the city where we lived.

Yes, definately concerned with the vulnerable students in the city surrounding the schools as well. It's one of the pluses and minuses of a jesuit school---Minuses being the constant safety alerts and waiting for your kid to text and let you know they are okay. The alerts that a gunshot 5 blocks from campus apparently ricocheted off a car and hit a dorm on the 9th floor 5 blocks away---and your kid lives in that dorm and often studies in the area that was hit (and that thankfully the kids who were in that area were unharmed physically but might need therapy to deal with it).

We are not catholic, not even religious, but my kids loved the Jesuit universities. They take excellent care of their students---you are much more than just a number at these schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

There are plenty of seats available for "qualified students"---just look outside the T20 schools. The differences between a T20 and a T60 school are minimal. Plenty of really really really smart kids at schools ranked 30-60. Once you realize that, not much needs to change. Just you broadening your definition of acceptable schools.

The Fiske guide covers about 320 schools that the authors have determined to be the best and most interesting colleges in the United States. That only about 10% of colleges but includes a number of worthy, really underrated institutions.

Yup---totally agree. Any of those schools will get you an excellent education. More importantly, many of them will be very affordable.