Well, part of the "cost of attendance" is feeding/housing/being liable for 18-21 year olds and providing the things that made one institution more competitive for their applications than another (building new dorms, updated facilities etc.). Contemporary colleges/universities need to keep apace with ever-faster developments in so many fields of knowledge and the equipment to keep generating new knowledge. The cost of just keeping up with current journals in the library are huge costs for a school. Not to mention updated labs/classroom tech/software etc.
Also increased regulation and litigations has led to more college administrators than ever before. Metrics on student success are more important so those now have offices to support that did not use to exist. In addition, there was a college building boom in the 1960s and 70s and many of those buildings are now needing to be torn down and rebuilt because it would cost more to update to current reqs. There were decades that kind of coasted on prior building. So it's a number of factors--the college of the 1990s is different than colleges now.

On the positive side, we have found that cost of attendance is higher than reality--the estimated cost of attendance tends to be based on higher costing dorms, purchase of expensive textbooks and equipment, and full meal plan all the years. You can shave a few thousand off usually. Small change I know. Also, very few people pay full price on the most expensive schools. And there are many excellent schools that don't cost as much.

Anonymous wrote:

It's kinda ridiculous that we all have to scrimp and save and live in crappy houses to pay for college -- and then for our kids to do it all over again with their own kids. Scrimp and save and live in crappy houses (even with their great jobs from private educations) because costs are so high. It's just a cycle and it seems to be getting worse that we sacrifice so much to save for college since they are born.

I so agree with this. What surprises me is that parents aren't more organized. I know there's a "paying for college" Facebook group but I am not aware of an actual lobbying effort to change this. There are solutions, including talking to people like Sen. Patty Murray (appropriations subcommittee + authorizing committee chair), or Approps Chair Rosa DeLauro or Ed/Workforce Chair Bobby Scott about college costs. I personally would like Congress to make the financial aid formula more generous, including by making college more affordable for families with multiple kids now that Congress passed legislation to get rid of the two-kids-in-college discount.
I also just this week spoke directly to the president of my alma mater (a private top 25 school), urging him to freeze the costs of attendance and expand financial aid. One person saying this probably doesn't matter but if a group of alums were making donations contingent on improving affordability or parents were putting more pressure on schools or Congress was doing more, maybe we could at least return to the "good old days" of the '90s or '00s (haha) when college was simply too expensive and not exhorbitant and exploitative like it is now.

If you want to control college costs, this will have the opposite effect. Haven't we seen that already?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why there are constant articles and discussion about college costs. Most UMC folks are usually well aware of this.

OP here-- yes, as previously stated, we know college is expensive and will have enough for most (not all) schools if DS does his part to make good grades and be responsible. I was just surprised that there were so many expensive colleges and even the well regarded public schools are a lot (I think UMich was something like 69K per year once you factor living expenses). I don't know how people who aren't rich and don't qualify for financial aid afford anything except in-state-- even then, the cost has gone up a lot.

There is an expectation families save. I don't get those families living in expensive housing and comfortable lives complaining about college costs. We aren't high income and we managed to save. We live in a house most people here would not, very small and needs lots of work. It was the cheapest house we could find at the time. We drive our vehicles till they die and only take a vacation every few years at best. True middle class will qualify for financial aid. If you don't qualify, then except for some exceptions like health issues, special needs, having to care for family, etc. then you need to make an effort to save.

300k for undergrad is an insane expectation

I agree with both of you

Meh, I don't agree that people should be forced to live in a cheap, unmaintained home and give up some comforts, not in accordance with the salary that they work hard for, just to prop up salaries of college admins and the student loan industry. When the cost of school is outpacing incomes by as much as it is, there is a problem.

You don't think people should have to give up "comforts" that their salary would provide to pay for college? Excellent. I make $500k each year, and I do enjoy my comforts. I'd much rather take a couple extra ski trips than save for college. After all, they are the comforts my salary provides, and I work hard for it.

Idiotic.

It's kinda ridiculous that we all have to scrimp and save and live in crappy houses to pay for college -- and then for our kids to do it all over again with their own kids. Scrimp and save and live in crappy houses (even with their great jobs from private educations) because costs are so high. It's just a cycle and it seems to be getting worse that we sacrifice so much to save for college since they are born.

I so agree with this. What surprises me is that parents aren't more organized. I know there's a "paying for college" Facebook group but I am not aware of an actual lobbying effort to change this. There are solutions, including talking to people like Sen. Patty Murray (appropriations subcommittee + authorizing committee chair), or Approps Chair Rosa DeLauro or Ed/Workforce Chair Bobby Scott about college costs. I personally would like Congress to make the financial aid formula more generous, including by making college more affordable for families with multiple kids now that Congress passed legislation to get rid of the two-kids-in-college discount.
I also just this week spoke directly to the president of my alma mater (a private top 25 school), urging him to freeze the costs of attendance and expand financial aid. One person saying this probably doesn't matter but if a group of alums were making donations contingent on improving affordability or parents were putting more pressure on schools or Congress was doing more, maybe we could at least return to the "good old days" of the '90s or '00s (haha) when college was simply too expensive and not exhorbitant and exploitative like it is now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why there are constant articles and discussion about college costs. Most UMC folks are usually well aware of this.

OP here-- yes, as previously stated, we know college is expensive and will have enough for most (not all) schools if DS does his part to make good grades and be responsible. I was just surprised that there were so many expensive colleges and even the well regarded public schools are a lot (I think UMich was something like 69K per year once you factor living expenses). I don't know how people who aren't rich and don't qualify for financial aid afford anything except in-state-- even then, the cost has gone up a lot.

There is an expectation families save. I don't get those families living in expensive housing and comfortable lives complaining about college costs. We aren't high income and we managed to save. We live in a house most people here would not, very small and needs lots of work. It was the cheapest house we could find at the time. We drive our vehicles till they die and only take a vacation every few years at best. True middle class will qualify for financial aid. If you don't qualify, then except for some exceptions like health issues, special needs, having to care for family, etc. then you need to make an effort to save.

300k for undergrad is an insane expectation

I agree with both of you

Meh, I don't agree that people should be forced to live in a cheap, unmaintained home and give up some comforts, not in accordance with the salary that they work hard for, just to prop up salaries of college admins and the student loan industry. When the cost of school is outpacing incomes by as much as it is, there is a problem.

And before the insults start, we both grew up poor. We have saved aggressively for our kid. So, our ability to pay is not the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why there are constant articles and discussion about college costs. Most UMC folks are usually well aware of this.

OP here-- yes, as previously stated, we know college is expensive and will have enough for most (not all) schools if DS does his part to make good grades and be responsible. I was just surprised that there were so many expensive colleges and even the well regarded public schools are a lot (I think UMich was something like 69K per year once you factor living expenses). I don't know how people who aren't rich and don't qualify for financial aid afford anything except in-state-- even then, the cost has gone up a lot.

There is an expectation families save. I don't get those families living in expensive housing and comfortable lives complaining about college costs. We aren't high income and we managed to save. We live in a house most people here would not, very small and needs lots of work. It was the cheapest house we could find at the time. We drive our vehicles till they die and only take a vacation every few years at best. True middle class will qualify for financial aid. If you don't qualify, then except for some exceptions like health issues, special needs, having to care for family, etc. then you need to make an effort to save.

300k for undergrad is an insane expectation

I agree with both of you

Meh, I don't agree that people should be forced to live in a cheap, unmaintained home and give up some comforts, not in accordance with the salary that they work hard for, just to prop up salaries of college admins and the student loan industry. When the cost of school is outpacing incomes by as much as it is, there is a problem.

In the late 90s (slightly more than 20 years ago), UNC annual tuition for residents was under $1500. ANNUAL. You could pay tuition with your summer job or working part time during the year.

In the mid-90s, in-state tuition at UVA was between $3000 and $4000. George Mason charged a fraction of that.

Yes, these are state schools and this was forever ago, but when I attended college in the 90s, Wake Forest was around $12,000 per year. Tuition alone is now $55,000. This increase has far outpaced inflation or salary growth during the same time frame.

There is no way a middle class family can save this much for college. I don't want my kids to carry student loan debt into their 40s like some of my colleagues, so the options are not great for doughnut hole families.

Lots of posters are suggesting merit aid at the T 50-100 schools. Sounds like a plan if you have a top student, but be prepared for a merit offer that still has you paying MUCH more that your state flagship.

OP - it’s one of those dynamics where the SLACs have become more a situation of “if you have to ask him much it costs, you probably can’t afford it,” or you don’t value independent education to be willing to pay the bill. Either you buy into the value of elite education or you don’t. For those who don’t, there are many exceptional public schools, although even some of those are priced out of the range for many out of state residents.

Anonymous wrote:^^^Oh yeah, the problem is with the data, right, in what it "assumes".

The data doesn't assume anything. It speaks for itself.

You are the one assuming, as you have no data.

College gradates earn around double what non-grads do. End period. Present evidence to the contrary or the discussion is meaningless.

What several of us are saying is that the data is more nuanced than “every college grad makes double” what every non-grad makes. Even the source of your chart has a more nuanced view.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/08/major-decisions-what-graduates-earn-over-their-lifetimes/

At the median, career earnings for a bachelor’s degree graduate are more than twice as high as for someone with only a high school diploma or GED, roughly 70 percent higher than for someone with some college but no degree, and more than 45 percent higher than for someone with an associate degree. These relationships do not hold for all workers: some workers without a bachelor’s degree have higher career earnings than some workers with a bachelor’s degree, including some workers with bachelor’s degrees in the highest-earning majors.
Second, lifetime earnings vary significantly by major.
For the median bachelor’s degree graduate, cumulative lifetime earnings for workers across majors range from $770,000 (early childhood education) to $2.28 million (aerospace engineering). This is a slightly larger range than in the original analysis, driven by gains in aerospace engineering.



Further, would someone who went to college likely make more than similarly situated person that did not? Yes. However, “double” is a “statistic” ignores that everyone isn’t similarly situated. This has been studied:

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/05/18/first-generation-college-graduates-lag-behind-their-peers-on-key-economic-outcomes/

But the economic benefits are not equally felt among college graduates. A new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve Board finds that first-generation college graduates are not on equal footing with their peers who have college-educated parents. Among household heads who have at least a bachelor’s degree, those who have a parent with a bachelor’s degree or more education have substantially higher incomes and more wealth than those who are the first generation in their family to graduate from college.

*****

For adults who do complete a bachelor’s degree, financial outcomes are strongly linked to parental educational attainment. The median household income for households headed by a first-generation college graduate ($99,600) is substantially lower than the income for households headed by a second-generation graduate ($135,800).

The median wealth of households headed by a first-generation college graduate ($152,000) also substantially trails that of households headed by a second-generation college graduate ($244,500). The higher household income of the latter facilitates saving and wealth accumulation. The gap also reflects differences in how individuals finance their education. Second-generation college graduates tend to come from more affluent families. First-generation college graduates are more likely to incur education debt than those with a college-educated parent. They also have greater amounts of outstanding education debt.

^^^Oh yeah, the problem is with the data, right, in what it "assumes".

The data doesn't assume anything. It speaks for itself.

You are the one assuming, as you have no data.

College gradates earn around double what non-grads do. End period. Present evidence to the contrary or the discussion is meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual skills are more important in today’s job market than a college degree. There are ways to get valuable industry certifications and credentials without paying for an expensive diploma.

You are gonna have to back that BS claim up with some facts, please.

Because ALL the data says otherwise:

Your graph shows looks at a 30-year career. Sure, college degrees were financially lucrative for someone who graduated 30 years ago when college costs were much lower. I’m not so sure college means a great payoff for today’s grads.

You're "not sure"? So then let's go with what the data says, and I mean all the data, and not some armchair nostrada-musing.

FYI the data shown has NOTHING to do with college costs, so that is a strawman argument. College grads earn more. LOTS more. Around double. End period.

Yes, and likely because above a certain aptitude threshold just about everyone has a college degree, or at least some college credits.

The relevant argument is whether going to a fancy private college over going to a state college, even a regional state school, and getting required certificates, is worth it? There are some sectors where the answer is soundly no.

And some people without college degrees can do better than most people with college degrees by becoming successful skilled machinists or in the trades.

Exactly. None of this data compares apples to apples. It assumes that everyone starts on equal footing prior to obtaining the college degree, and that isn’t so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post is very judgmental. College is our top priority for our family and we don’t want cost to prevent our kids from attending any particular school. We have made choices that align with that value. Other people have different values and that is fine too.

Even if I started saving when my kid was born, I still couldn’t afford even 4 years of a public college. I’m a teacher. Great benefits but they won’t pay for college.

If you are married, and your spouse makes equal, yes you can. We did on that kind of income but it was our priority. We started with a prepaid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual skills are more important in today’s job market than a college degree. There are ways to get valuable industry certifications and credentials without paying for an expensive diploma.

You are gonna have to back that BS claim up with some facts, please.

Because ALL the data says otherwise:

Your graph shows looks at a 30-year career. Sure, college degrees were financially lucrative for someone who graduated 30 years ago when college costs were much lower. I’m not so sure college means a great payoff for today’s grads.

You're "not sure"? So then let's go with what the data says, and I mean all the data, and not some armchair nostrada-musing.

FYI the data shown has NOTHING to do with college costs, so that is a strawman argument. College grads earn more. LOTS more. Around double. End period.

Yes, and likely because above a certain aptitude threshold just about everyone has a college degree, or at least some college credits.

The relevant argument is whether going to a fancy private college over going to a state college, even a regional state school, and getting required certificates, is worth it? There are some sectors where the answer is soundly no.

And some people without college degrees can do better than most people with college degrees by becoming successful skilled machinists or in the trades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post is very judgmental. College is our top priority for our family and we don’t want cost to prevent our kids from attending any particular school. We have made choices that align with that value. Other people have different values and that is fine too.

Even if I started saving when my kid was born, I still couldn’t afford even 4 years of a public college. I’m a teacher. Great benefits but they won’t pay for college.

I can see how my own post is judgmental and I apologize. I guess my point was that the OP is judging how other people choose to spend money and how much they are able and willing to spend on college. It’s fine if the OP chooses not to do so (and from her posts it seems that she makes more money than you do) but she doesn’t need to judge others.

OP here-- I'm sorry if I came across as judgmental-- it wasn't my intention. I'm not judging how people choose to spend their money- I'm judging that college is so expensive that a lot of great students are being shut out, or being told that they need to pursue alternate routes to an education, or getting the message that "college isn't for you, how about trade school?" (and I'm not judging trade schools for people who actually *want* to do that). I think that state schools should be more affordable, more accessible/prioritized for in state residents, and frankly, better funded and higher quality than they are.