Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP my daughter applied NYU this year. Per NYS law you have to disclose projected tuition years 2-4. So parents know true cost. NYU is in high 80s by senior year. Even at 3 percent increases it will hit 100k by 2027.

Fordham, Columbia, Cornell and Syracuse in NY also have to disclose projected 2024 tuition it is clearly showing all four will hit 100k this decade

I can't seem to find this disclosure of projected increases. Where is this located? Could you link one of them?

I got them when Daughter got acceptance letter. I lived in NYS at time.

Syracuse and Fordham very expensive considering location and ratings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict the college bubble to about to burst.

Only for the middle class. The poor and the rich are not effected and that is the primary consumer for top universities that might be able to command 100k.

Do you mean "affected" ?

I was thinking about this. It is inevitable that the expensive colleges will break the 100k mark. It'll be a psychological effect as well. The higher education bubble is well known and few people can genuinely explain or justify it, which does suggest it is a bubble to a degree as it's seemingly beyond the point of logic.

My parents put their two kids through expensive private colleges in the period from 1996-2002. When my sister went off in 1996 the tuition was just about hitting 28k, and when I graduated in 2002 from a comparable school, the tuition was just about hitting 35k. During this period my parents' income rose from 140k to 150k. For the time it was a very solid UMC income, especially for the mid tier city where we lived. They were able to put their children through expensive private schools and save for good colleges and live in a nice house and take European vacations and still saving substantially for retirement. That is the reference point.

The inflation calculator suggests my parents' 150k income would be the equivalent of 215k today, although I suspect based on their jobs and years of experience, today's equivalent probably is around 250k. The ratio of tuition to income has gone from approximately 23% to 32%. And, of course, keep in mind this is pre-tax income.

But I was thinking that the equivalent of my parents' income in a place like DC or NYC or Boston or California would be a lot higher, probably closer to the 350k mark. And then suddenly it started to make sense - the high tuition increases has paralleled the inflationary growth in both housing and salaries in the coastal cities, that have pulled them further away from the mid tier / flyover cities. It's mirroring a tale of two Americas, a divide that has likely worsened in the last 20 years. It makes sense when you consider that the elite colleges are in many ways much more closely tied to the expensive coastal cities than the mid tier cities, not just geographically but also culturally.

I would not be surprised if a study of the geographical distribution of students at the expensive colleges, especially the LACs and universities that rely more on full freight, are showing a shift to more students from the high cost cities and fewer from the mid tier cities. Just a speculation, and it's based on that the economies of the high cost cities puts UMC families in a better position to pay for the expensive colleges as their inflated salaries can match the inflated tuition. This theory is also based off another observation I had, that it's often better to move to a high cost city on the coasts early in your career because despite the higher cost of living you are in a position to "mature" in a higher cost economy, you reap the benefits of higher salary growth and higher housing appreciation, for example. Physically, it may not be a nicer experience with smaller/lesser housing being the key differentiator, but in the long run you're often financially better off than a comparable professional who opted for a cheaper mid tier city. And it gives you more options, including paying these high tuition.

Anonymous wrote:Google says Chicago university is 50K a year.

Yes, tuition. Add room and board.

Google says Chicago university is 50K a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict the college bubble to about to burst.

Only for the middle class. The poor and the rich are not effected and that is the primary consumer for top universities that might be able to command 100k.

IA, just like everything else, it really only hits the middle class.

Anonymous wrote:People don't pay cash for houses because there are tax laws let the government help you pay for a loan.

People don't pay cash for houses because the house is collateral for a loan.

Neither the government nor the bank wants to help pay for college.

The tax laws doesn't help you to the extent your are implying. You pay the interest in full and you get a deduction that gives you a tax break of about 1/4 or a 1/3 of the interest. You are still paying back the principal plus 3/4 or 2/3 of the interest.

Anonymous wrote:We always knew it would.

My oldest is graduating in 2026 and we 100% expected to be paying 100k a year by the time he started. We've been saving right along with this exact goal in mind.

I don't see what is so surprising about this.

You could follow it mathematically years ago.

You’re so smart. We know because you told us.

We always knew it would.

My oldest is graduating in 2026 and we 100% expected to be paying 100k a year by the time he started. We've been saving right along with this exact goal in mind.

I don't see what is so surprising about this.

You could follow it mathematically years ago.

Anonymous wrote:We all should be pushing for some sort of action to rein this in. We could write to our federal lawmakers who are considering a renewal of the higher education act.
We could talk to state legislators about doing more to support state schools and offer merit aid for in-state private schools (like the GA Hope scholarship, which gave me $ because I had above a 1300 SAT and an A average).
We can communicate directly and persistently to colleges that the prices are too high.
My personal feeling is that no college should charge more than the average starting salary of new graduates.
Why should a college charge than a graduate could earn in a year, given that it's only 9-10 months of classes that meet 12-20 hours per week + room/board where they're sharing rooms?
We should be communicating our concerns to people who can change this.

The last thing these schools need is more money. They need to figure out how to provide a degree without these insane increases in tuition and fees. If student loans hadn’t been given out like candy then we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.

Most likely the answer is significantly changing the current business model. Most four year degrees can easily be done in three. College campuses which are expensive to maintain should be used during the summer. Four summers of school = one year or more. Core classes should be started the summer before freshman year. They should be done online.

We all should be pushing for some sort of action to rein this in. We could write to our federal lawmakers who are considering a renewal of the higher education act.
We could talk to state legislators about doing more to support state schools and offer merit aid for in-state private schools (like the GA Hope scholarship, which gave me $ because I had above a 1300 SAT and an A average).
We can communicate directly and persistently to colleges that the prices are too high.
My personal feeling is that no college should charge more than the average starting salary of new graduates.
Why should a college charge than a graduate could earn in a year, given that it's only 9-10 months of classes that meet 12-20 hours per week + room/board where they're sharing rooms?
We should be communicating our concerns to people who can change this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is presumably the article https://hechingerreport.org/university-of-chicago-projected-to-be-the-first-u-s-university-to-charge-100000-a-year/

I do not buy the projection that cost of attendance will be over 100k at U Chicago in only five years. They are assuming - their guess - that costs will rise at the same rate they have, and I don't think that will prove correct.

article says ten years

Article says by 2025

But in less than a decade, by 2025, students like Badalamente could expect to pay more than $100,000 per year, based on projections by The Hechinger Report using annual college cost growth rates from 2008 to 2018. That would likely make the University of Chicago the first college or university in the United States to break the six-figure mark.

Ten years would make more sense, but I must have missed where the article says that cost of attendance would increase to 100k in ten years. (The projection was based on a ten year period.)

Anonymous wrote:This is presumably the article https://hechingerreport.org/university-of-chicago-projected-to-be-the-first-u-s-university-to-charge-100000-a-year/

I do not buy the projection that cost of attendance will be over 100k at U Chicago in only five years. They are assuming - their guess - that costs will rise at the same rate they have, and I don't think that will prove correct.

article says ten years

Anonymous wrote:People don't pay cash for houses because there are tax laws let the government help you pay for a loan.

That is *not* the reason most people don't pay cash for houses!

We don't pay cash for houses because it would take most of us 30 years to save up the cash to buy the house (while also paying daycare and rent...)