Anonymous wrote:boost up the education quality at k-12, instead of watering it down as we do now.

How would you do that? I found article below by American Progressive org but doubt many of the proposals are currently realistic …

7 Great Education Policy Ideas for Progressives in 2018
A progressive education policy agenda should focus on putting economic mobility and opportunity within reach for all.

Education in the United States must be improved to support greater economic mobility. Those without postsecondary training have experienced stagnant wages, were hit the hardest by the Great Recession, and have barely benefitted from the subsequent economic recovery. All signs point to these trends continuing, so it is imperative that today’s students are prepared for jobs that will position them to support their families and participate fully in America’s economic growth.

1. Provide a tutor for every child performing below grade level

2. Offer free breakfast and lunch for all students, regardless of income

3. Ensure opportunities to combine college preparatory academics with technical training and workplace experience

4. Transition to a 9-to-5 school day to better fit parents’ needs

5. Support, train, and pay teachers like professionals

6. Create a safe and healthy environment in every school

7. Eliminate crumbling school buildings

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/7-great-education-policy-ideas-progressives-2018/

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 ?

boost up the education quality at k-12, instead of watering it down as we do now.

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.

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.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

You can get an adequate education that will get you almost anywhere even at the colleges down to at least #200 in US News national universities & comparable liberal arts colleges. At that level level the tuition is cheaper, the merit aid is easier to get, and they often admit over 80% of applicants. So there really isn’t a cost problem; there is a prestige problem.

OP - fair point. However, I do think the quality of education at some low ranked universities is actually inferior.

Studies show that a majority of black students fail to graduate and still retain life long debt - and often from lower ranked universities that accept with very low GPAs but probably do not do enough to help catch them up to the demands of four year programs .

However, is the problem that they accept so many students with very low GPAs who are not ready for college or because they do not support struggling students enough with students resources and help?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

OP - thanks! I was hoping to hear from college professors and thank you for your work.

So is it accurate to say you believe that the biggest reforms needed are:
(A) reducing cost of tuition (i expanded above on whether this also connected to student loans)
(B) much more competitive compensation of professors while slashing marketing and admin costs; and
(C) restricting accommodations for learning disabilities (that would violate existing disability laws and I in the camp that the pros outweigh the cons for educating those with LDs to the fullness of their potential. But you are right - there are hidden costs).

Thanks again!

Not quite.
1) At this point, the huge amount of student loan debt is sending a clear signal that the cost of attending college has risen too high. The easy availability of student loans might have been a factor 20 years ago, but not now.
2) Not the slashing of "marketing," but the actual building of fancy dorms with singles is very high. And colleges, by the way, subsidize the cost of the nicest dorms by passing on the cost to the students who can afford only the cheapest dorms. It's shameful. Colleges that are invested in DEI should not be providing housing with tiers--the wealthiest students end up in the fancy dorms while the poorest students end up in the cheapest dorms or off campus (further isolated from campus life).
3) The percentage of students coming to campus with LDs has tripled in the last decade. The majority of students I've encountered with LDs do fine, but some of them need a gap year.

OP
Re:
1. cost of attending college has risen too high. The easy availability of student loans might have been a factor 20 years ago, but not now.

I agree but how would you advocate for de escalating tuition costs? Should government cap them or subsidize loans until they could be repaid interest free? Is capping tuition costs even possible for private colleges?

2) Not the slashing of "marketing," but the actual building of fancy dorms with singles is very high.

I personally think the marketing is insane. For our older DC, we received truckloads of solicitations from colleges all over the country after their PSAT results came in. Many of them touted fancy dorms and gourmet food but that was often from
T50 schools. Maybe marketing is mostly electronic now? The costs spent on marketing used to be astronomical.

Anyway dorms - I agree that it is not fair that low income students should subsidize grandiose living accommodations for IMC students. How would you advocate for policies that universities adopt policies of only building basic style dorms with multiple occupants?


3) The percentage of students coming to campus with LDs has tripled in the last decade. The majority of students I've encountered with LDs do fine, but some of them need a gap year.

Well it is the law and rightfully so IMO. As you said the majority did fine and they will likely be much less of a burden on society as well educated citizens than not. Many students need gap years Due to immaturity and mental health issues.

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.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

You can get an adequate education that will get you almost anywhere even at the colleges down to at least #200 in US News national universities & comparable liberal arts colleges. At that level level the tuition is cheaper, the merit aid is easier to get, and they often admit over 80% of applicants. So there really isn’t a cost problem; there is a prestige problem.

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

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.

Do most URMs pay for college?? Why would they (in the U.S.)??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reduce advantage that athletes and legacy get, and then continue to review URM student apps holistically. I would require SATs.

Because no athletes are URM?

LOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

OP - thanks! I was hoping to hear from college professors and thank you for your work.

So is it accurate to say you believe that the biggest reforms needed are:
(A) reducing cost of tuition (i expanded above on whether this also connected to student loans)
(B) much more competitive compensation of professors while slashing marketing and admin costs; and
(C) restricting accommodations for learning disabilities (that would violate existing disability laws and I in the camp that the pros outweigh the cons for educating those with LDs to the fullness of their potential. But you are right - there are hidden costs).

Thanks again!

Not quite.
1) At this point, the huge amount of student loan debt is sending a clear signal that the cost of attending college has risen too high. The easy availability of student loans might have been a factor 20 years ago, but not now.
2) Not the slashing of "marketing," but the actual building of fancy dorms with singles is very high. And colleges, by the way, subsidize the cost of the nicest dorms by passing on the cost to the students who can afford only the cheapest dorms. It's shameful. Colleges that are invested in DEI should not be providing housing with tiers--the wealthiest students end up in the fancy dorms while the poorest students end up in the cheapest dorms or off campus (further isolated from campus life).
3) The percentage of students coming to campus with LDs has tripled in the last decade. The majority of students I've encountered with LDs do fine, but some of them need a gap year.

Wait, who is it that wants free tuition and posh accommodations? Who is paying for this??

Anonymous wrote:Reduce advantage that athletes and legacy get, and then continue to review URM student apps holistically. I would require SATs.

Because no athletes are URM?

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.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

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.

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.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.