Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college tuition in the cheapest Republican states has grown even more than private school tuition. UT-Austin is a prime example. Cost ~$3K a year in 1989 for an in-state student (my sister went there).

College tuition in Red States tend to be cheaper than in Blue States. I think the cheapest flagship in the country is U-Montana.

I checked and UT-Austin is 11-12k a year in-state for undergrad, not including housing/room and board, based on two semesters in a year. Double that when adding room and board. Still pretty damn cheap.

https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Texas has always had an unusual commitment to educational opportunities for residents. The top x% from each high school are guaranateed admission.

UCLA is $13,225 instate without boarding. Not bad. Boarding and meals ads $16k. Plus books, incidentals.
Housing is a very very expensive component of college. Red states are much cheaper to live in and that keeps costs down. Plus, no one will go to these red state universities if they cost a fortune. They are bound by the market.

Shrugs. I think someone is trying to keep changing the parameters to somehow explain away why red state schools tend to be cheaper than blue state schools because they refuse to acknowledge that liberal America owns the high educational costs for the most part. All these shockingly expensive universities, public or private = democratic strongholds. Not just that, but landslide democratic strongholds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college tuition in the cheapest Republican states has grown even more than private school tuition. UT-Austin is a prime example. Cost ~$3K a year in 1989 for an in-state student (my sister went there).

College tuition in Red States tend to be cheaper than in Blue States. I think the cheapest flagship in the country is U-Montana.

I checked and UT-Austin is 11-12k a year in-state for undergrad, not including housing/room and board, based on two semesters in a year. Double that when adding room and board. Still pretty damn cheap.

https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Texas has always had an unusual commitment to educational opportunities for residents. The top x% from each high school are guaranateed admission.

UCLA is $13,225 instate without boarding. Not bad. Boarding and meals ads $16k. Plus books, incidentals.
Housing is a very very expensive component of college. Red states are much cheaper to live in and that keeps costs down. Plus, no one will go to these red state universities if they cost a fortune. They are bound by the market.

Anonymous wrote:More analysis on state budgets and tuition.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

From the article -- Of the 49 states (all except Wisconsin)[4] analyzed over the full 2008-2017 period, 44 spent less per student in the 2017 school year than in 2008.[5] The only states spending more than in 2008 were Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
Gotta love those notable blue states of *checks notes* Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin had a tuition freeze for years when REPUBLICAN Scott Walker was in office. Now the new Governor - Dem - is most likely reversing that.

Thanks, Dems!

Ever heard of an exception? This just confirms the association btwn budgets and tuition. Article says Walker was going for a re-election bid when he proposed cutting tuition--and increased funding to the state university system to do it. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/07/gov-scott-walker-announce-details-his-university-wisconsin-tuition-cut-tuesday/97586678/

More analysis on state budgets and tuition.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get Republican governors out of office and it will help. They keep cutting education budgets and this is what happens.

Is this satire?

Just someone who has no clue what they are talking about.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-college-costs-are-so-high-and-rising.html

https://hechingerreport.org/americans-think-state-funding-for-higher-ed-has-held-steady-or-risen-survey-finds/

Satire again?

Think what you want, but don't complain about tuition if you tend to vote for spending cuts.

You are off base.

Wisconsin had a tuition freeze for years when REPUBLICAN Scott Walker was in office. Now the new Governor - Dem - is most likely reversing that.

Thanks, Dems!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college tuition in the cheapest Republican states has grown even more than private school tuition. UT-Austin is a prime example. Cost ~$3K a year in 1989 for an in-state student (my sister went there).

College tuition in Red States tend to be cheaper than in Blue States. I think the cheapest flagship in the country is U-Montana.

I checked and UT-Austin is 11-12k a year in-state for undergrad, not including housing/room and board, based on two semesters in a year. Double that when adding room and board. Still pretty damn cheap.

https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Texas has always had an unusual commitment to educational opportunities for residents. The top x% from each high school are guaranateed admission.

No why would it.

Plenty of rich people. Or rich enough anyway.

Anonymous wrote:The college tuition in the cheapest Republican states has grown even more than private school tuition. UT-Austin is a prime example. Cost ~$3K a year in 1989 for an in-state student (my sister went there).

College tuition in Red States tend to be cheaper than in Blue States. I think the cheapest flagship in the country is U-Montana.

I checked and UT-Austin is 11-12k a year in-state for undergrad, not including housing/room and board, based on two semesters in a year. Double that when adding room and board. Still pretty damn cheap.

https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance

Anonymous wrote:No. Because:
1. College sticker prices are used to artificially convey false notions of relative value, and
2. The existence of third party subsidies allows the colleges to benefit from the inflated prices.

The pricing behavior is essentially identical to that of prescription drugs, which as we all known, no one has a problem bitching about.

This is why I do not donate to educational institutions. Free money for large passive investment pools to facilitate opaque and inflated pricing makes zero sense.

Exactly. If state schools have to raise tuition due to state budget cuts, there's no way a private is going to be seen with a comparable tuition because they need to communicate value, so they raise it. Harvard and other schools with massive endowments are a case in point. They don't need to charge anyone tuition, but they've raised their tuition in concert with the rest of the country's schools.

No. Because:
1. College sticker prices are used to artificially convey false notions of relative value, and
2. The existence of third party subsidies allows the colleges to benefit from the inflated prices.

The pricing behavior is essentially identical to that of prescription drugs, which as we all known, no one has a problem bitching about.

This is why I do not donate to educational institutions. Free money for large passive investment pools to facilitate opaque and inflated pricing makes zero sense.

Anonymous wrote:It's the fault of easy access to loans for domestic students and high demand from international students.
Colleges are more keen to serving international students like in China,Korea, and India that can do full pay. As crazy as it sounds, it's the high rising prices that attracts these type of international students. Colleges have to please their highest bidders which ends up twisting education into a piece of paper representing class status and for these internationals the pricier the better.

The interest in bringing in foreign students is to bring in more money.

When state schools raise tuition to cover state funding cuts, private schools can justify raising tuition to differentiate themselves. Another problem besides budget cuts is the corporatization of state and private universities involving CEO level pay for administrators operating a business model and pointless middle mgmt positions.

Demand is pushed up by a lack of vocational education opportunities in HS and as an alternative to college forcing young people to college whether or not they want to or should be there. Another result of state budget cuts to education. Don't complain if you support politicians who cut funding for education. Sadly Republican governors were elected in the majority of states, many by people who wanted to save a couple hundred dollars in taxes. Sorry to bring politics in but it is not a mysterious accident that tuition has mushroomed and we can all do something about it. Having a federal govt that is hostile to science is also problematic if funding for science gets cut. Grants from those funding sources fund universities--not just the science but also the overhead that keeps universities running. If that drops, tuition increases can make up the difference.

Taking a detour back from the politics forum......

I think your question is will they rise at a slower rate than they have been.

- Will student debt continue to be easy to obtain

- Will the size of the student population stay steady or even decline?

- Will there continue to be a sizeable segment of wealthy parents who can pay for a large chunk of their child's education - I believe the 'above $125/K' segment is the one they track the most.


I wouldn't hold my breath

The college tuition in the cheapest Republican states has grown even more than private school tuition. UT-Austin is a prime example. Cost ~$3K a year in 1989 for an in-state student (my sister went there).