Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

Agree. I'm a very liberal, progressive Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, and I'm a professor. Unfortunately, DEI offices often replicate what is already being done by deans' offices and multi-culture student centers. Universities have DEI offices in order to seem up-to-date with the latest liberal political demands, but the DEI staff I've worked with, although very nice, seem like window dressing. Students don't go to see them for anything, faculty rarely consult them. Because every university wants a DEI person, DEI people are in high demand so universities take whom they can get. Because they are typically not academics themselves, however, they don't understand the university as a faculty member (deans are, OTOH, usually professors who have agreed to take on administrative duties); at best, they understand the university through the lens of a student. Look at how the Hamline University DEI officer handled their fiasco.
To be sure, I'm not saying that some universities could use a great DEI office, but I have yet to come across one that is a true value-added.

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

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I strongly believe that market reform will happen when people who CAN affort 85K+ per year decide that that price tag is not actually worth it. Boston University vs University of Maryland - one might argue that it isn't worth 200K more to go to BU. As upper middle class truly start to embrace research that getting a degree from good public is just as predictive of good outcomes, the market will boost up the publics and cause a strain on the privates.

One of the ways good publics finance themselves is out of state students that they charge comparable tuition rates to top privates.

In California, many students with very strong GPAs/ test scores/ ECs cannot get into the UCs. I think they capped OOS students but it is still highly competitive to gain admission Even here in Maryland, I have heard many UM alumni say their own children did not get in.

It is really competitive to get in a UC school AND many of the CSU schools, which used to be easy to get into. A lot of kids go to CC and transfer in, in both systems.

My husband works for a CSU. They are planning for a drop in enrollment in the coming years and may be consolidating admin jobs, etc. I think the competition level will stay the same. During the 2008 recession era, they admitted more out of state and international students due to budget cuts.

The quality emerging from the UC and CSU systems has never been lower, though. I see UC and CSU grads from the 1990s and the 2010s all the time, and despite the fact that NONE of the 1990s group would be admitted to their respective schools today, they ALL run rings around the 2010 group, accounting for experience and post-grad educational endeavors.

These systems are just focused on the wrong applicant measurables right now, and churning out mediocre graduates as a direct consequence.

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.

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

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I strongly believe that market reform will happen when people who CAN affort 85K+ per year decide that that price tag is not actually worth it. Boston University vs University of Maryland - one might argue that it isn't worth 200K more to go to BU. As upper middle class truly start to embrace research that getting a degree from good public is just as predictive of good outcomes, the market will boost up the publics and cause a strain on the privates.

One of the ways good publics finance themselves is out of state students that they charge comparable tuition rates to top privates.

In California, many students with very strong GPAs/ test scores/ ECs cannot get into the UCs. I think they capped OOS students but it is still highly competitive to gain admission Even here in Maryland, I have heard many UM alumni say their own children did not get in.

It is really competitive to get in a UC school AND many of the CSU schools, which used to be easy to get into. A lot of kids go to CC and transfer in, in both systems.

My husband works for a CSU. They are planning for a drop in enrollment in the coming years and may be consolidating admin jobs, etc. I think the competition level will stay the same. During the 2008 recession era, they admitted more out of state and international students due to budget cuts.

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?

NP: the majority of under-resourced kids go to community colleges and directional colleges. A small percentage of under-resourced kids go to T20s because it's not even in their radar.

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 sure you intended it, but I cannot think of a better statement to embody the most critical reform that’s needed.

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

Let that sink in …

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?

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.

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.

OP - great tip thanks - will check out …

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I strongly believe that market reform will happen when people who CAN affort 85K+ per year decide that that price tag is not actually worth it. Boston University vs University of Maryland - one might argue that it isn't worth 200K more to go to BU. As upper middle class truly start to embrace research that getting a degree from good public is just as predictive of good outcomes, the market will boost up the publics and cause a strain on the privates.

One of the ways good publics finance themselves is out of state students that they charge comparable tuition rates to top privates.

In California, many students with very strong GPAs/ test scores/ ECs cannot get into the UCs. I think they capped OOS students but it is still highly competitive to gain admission Even here in Maryland, I have heard many UM alumni say their own children did not get in.