Anonymous wrote:I am not interested in judging how other people spend their money. Showing off wealth is a life style sure.

I am just really curious why college tuition keep increasing yoy, it is not even tied to any performance benchmark.

Are you saying choice of college is a wealth choice and not brand name purses and Range Rovers/Mercedes/Teslas/Giant McMansions/multi-International vacations?

Because a lot of the people I know that value education sacrifice the latter in order to save and pay for private college for their kids.

Anonymous wrote:My DC (home on break) is currently an undergrad at an Ivy, we are a full pay family that saved in a 529. Yesterday he told me that thinking back to the college process he now finds it funny that he worried about location, school spirit etc, while it has all of that and he loves it he said was he really loves is the academic environment. He said his professors, the labs, the libraries and all of the other students are inspiring and he feels like he learns and grows every day.
To me that is worth it. . .

That’s great that he is happy, but he could have that same level of satisfaction at countless schools. There is no way to know how he’d feel elsewhere - this isn’t a controlled experiment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

Sure function wise, helping the low SES is good thing but do you think the tuition increase justify that?

Take Stanford for example, and this does not factor in the room and board (which itself is inflated over the years as well), something has changed since pandemic

Stanford University Tuition Increase (Undergraduate Tuition Only)

From publicly compiled data on Stanford’s tuition & fees trends:

Academic Year Tuition & Fees YOY % Change
2015-16 $46,320 —
2016-17 $47,940 +3.5%
2017-18 $49,617 +3.5%
2018-19 $51,354 +3.5%
2019-20 $53,529 +4.24%
2020-21 $56,169 +4.93%
2021-22 $56,169 +0.0% (flat)
2022-23 $58,416 +4.0%
2023-24 $62,484 +6.96%
2024-25 $65,910 +5.48%

That is a different question. The OP asked whether parents paying 90k thought it was worth it (and generally those of us doing so, myself included, have answered yes). You are asking whether the tuition and fee increases that have brought us up to (and over in many cases including at my own kid's Ivy) are fair/justified.
My answer there is probably not, I think the increases have exceeded their cost increases. Some of it clearly is due to having full pay families fund the lower SES students which I am in okay with though I think it is having the unintended consequence of squeezing out the "donut hole" or middle class students (that is where most of the ire on this topic is coming from).

I am not interested in judging how other people spend their money. Showing off wealth is a life style sure.

I am just really curious why college tuition keep increasing yoy, it is not even tied to any performance benchmark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

Sure function wise, helping the low SES is good thing but do you think the tuition increase justify that?

Take Stanford for example, and this does not factor in the room and board (which itself is inflated over the years as well), something has changed since pandemic

Stanford University Tuition Increase (Undergraduate Tuition Only)

From publicly compiled data on Stanford’s tuition & fees trends:

Academic Year Tuition & Fees YOY % Change
2015-16 $46,320 —
2016-17 $47,940 +3.5%
2017-18 $49,617 +3.5%
2018-19 $51,354 +3.5%
2019-20 $53,529 +4.24%
2020-21 $56,169 +4.93%
2021-22 $56,169 +0.0% (flat)
2022-23 $58,416 +4.0%
2023-24 $62,484 +6.96%
2024-25 $65,910 +5.48%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

Do you also think all high schools are created equal since they teach the same classes?

Isn’t that supposed to be the goal—serving the public good? If not, what’s the point of schools? Honestly, most of what we learn here can be learned anywhere in other developed countries. I don’t see a real difference. Truly intelligent kids will take the lead and keep improving themselves, especially now with AI tools.

You could argue that peers matter—and sure, they do—but AI tools already replace a lot of shallow, unintellectual conversation. People with real critical-thinking ability will continue to thrive as technology advances. Knowledge just isn’t geographically or schools (ranking) exclusive anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

Do you also think all high schools are created equal since they teach the same classes?

Anonymous wrote:I draw a line after about top 15.

I specifically remember walking around BC and thinking, nope! Not just the campus, just the general "okay, fine" name, experience, outcomes.

BC saying it is worth 400k over four years is like a priest saying drinking with his 8 year old alter boy in his office is “innocent.” Don’t be a fool

Is it because of the investment in sports—since that actually makes money or whatever the hedge fund investments need —or is it about prioritizing things outside of academic or intellectual pursuits?

Are faculty paid better? Are facility better? or what

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

What’s it to you?
Do you think of people who are paying full freight are doing it to “guarantee” a better outcome?

My, your world looks small and dark.

For mc or umc families, that's the expectation.

You don't live in my world (thanks god!) but why don't you explain people pay full freight if you have better explanation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

What’s it to you?
Do you think of people who are paying full freight are doing it to “guarantee” a better outcome?

My, your world looks small and dark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag