The article also switches back and forth talking about different timeframes. It starts off by talking about tuition trajectory since 2014. Usually when I hear people lamenting the increase in college costs, they're talking about a much longer timeframe, like since the 1970s. And indeed the article says:
> This pricing strategy took hold in the early 1980s. Since then, Levine has found, the sticker cost of attending a four-year public or private university—tuition plus fees and room and board—has almost tripled after adjusting for inflation.
But then in the next paragraph:
> Only students whose families make more than about $300,000 a year and who attend private institutions with very large endowments pay more than they did a decade ago, Levine said.
Those are two different timeframes. Either may be useful, but you can't support a statement like "well costs haven't really gone up" by just cherry-picking random numbers from decades apart.
The last two paragraphs of the article talk about colleges "advertising their value proposition" and how they "can’t afford to push students away". This smacks of a corporate viewpoint towards higher education that makes me suspicious of the whole piece.
Also, maybe less people go into prestigious and expensive unis and go into less expensive ones, which brings the average down?
I look into the colleges for my kids right now and honestly unclear how I can afford putting 2 kids through reasonably good schools. Govt tells me I should be able to afford to pay about $80K per year for 4 years, and I do not see how I can do that without getting HELOC/second mortgage and tapping into my retirement savings. I just do not see how these prices are reasonable or go down.
>Since 2014-15 school year the cost attending a public four-year university has fallen by 21 percent, before adjusting for inflation.
Not sure how the cost is calculated though. The cost will be tuition, room and board, fees, less scholarships/grants (effectively college lowering the price to get the customer in), less various loans. If the loans are excluded from the cost this is not accurate, this is still the money the school will be getting, and the student will be paying. Also notice 2014-2015 and ONLY public four year school qualifiers (cost at private colleges continued to go up, although, according to the author, less then inflation).
> Once tax benefits are factored in, according to a recent Brookings Institution analysis, the average American is paying the same amount for tuition as they were in the 1990s.
Yeah no, this doesn't read like an honest analysis but as an attempt to drag the facts, kicking and screaming, to align with the author's agenda.
Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Per wiki:
With assets of approximately $14 billion, Hewlett is one of the wealthiest grant makers in the United States.
Hmph. I guess the millions of successful college graduates are not providing enough positive PR mindshare, so they had to go buy some. Can't wait for their fine tuned LLM.
Colleges know that outside of a few suckers, few will pay the full price even if they have the money. So they offer massive discounts to get you to sign. To help seal the deal, they will market the discount as something special for you based on your "merit". "Normally we charge $75k, but since you're so awesome we can give you a $30k merit scholarship." Sounds like you're getting a great deal as long as you don't find out that the actual average charged tuition is $35k and you're actually the one getting milked.
Now all of a sudden the colleges are like, well technically we can get that down to 85,000 of student loan debt for an English degree. Don't you want to come to college and have a lot of fun!
I still think college is a net positive for most people, but you seriously need to evaluate where you're at and decide what you want to spend. Unless you get into a dream school, or something extremely specific for your major almost everyone should go to community college .
The reason why is if you have a bad year at community college and you just don't want to do it, you're only out a few thousand dollars versus 20 or 30.
Second, when you're ready to transfer you should have a good idea of what you actually want to do and then you can pick a college appropriately. Optimistically you'll graduate with half the student loan debt .
You can have just as much fun going to a cheap community college, and then a cheap state school. And outside of a small handful of outliers the net results are going to be the same. If you get in the Harvard, go ahead and go to Harvard. But if you get into Billy's weird expensive private school, that's not worth the money.
Between birth rates dropping and student loan reality, we're going to see an absolute tsunami of small school closures. Which isn't good or bad, it's just a sign of the times.
While I'm ranting, I absolutely resent this notion of college being necessary to obtain an upper middle-class lifestyle. It's just not, and I know this from personal experience despite finishing college years later. You end up putting a lot of people in a really nasty loop, you can't afford college unless you have money, and you can't earn money unless you go to college. That also justifies indefinite debt loads, so what you have to go $200,000 in student loan debt. The nice salesperson said you're practically guaranteed a six figure job when you graduate!
You graduated into a bad economy and end up working at Vons. Sucks to be you, by the way Sallie Mae expects your first payment in 60 days. May the odds be in your favor.
Depends on the state. When I was in college, California community college was very affordable, but when I transferred to a Wisconsin school to get a 4-year degree, I learned there that WI community colleges charged the same price per credit hour as UW. Things may have changed since then, but at that time, if you lived in WI, you may as well go to a UW if you can get accepted, cause a community college wouldn't save you money.
Assuming wanting to work at big tech is a goal, I'm not aware of any of the big tech companies recruiting for entry level roles outside of colleges. The "boot camp"/"hire anyone with a pulse" period was a ZIRP era anomaly.
you can't afford college unless you have money, and you can't earn money unless you go to college.
not really. there are tons of scholarships and other assistance. hardly anyone who goes to college is writing $30-100k checks.
I believe it's this point of view that leads to the common perception of higher education among the actual working class - that the American college experience was once something great, but got so watered down in pursuit of ideals other than education that it has essentially turned into a big summer camp for the adolscent offspring of the rich to extend the "party" of youth for a little bit longer, hopefully increasing their social credit score in the process, with actual learning being a "nice to have" along the way.
What was all this student loan forgiveness talk about then? Scholarships apparently haven't been cutting it, otherwise there wouldn't be a trillion plus of outstanding student loan debt.
It sometimes seems as this support comes out of nowhere after years of not being involved in their child’s life.
So my question is what motivates this? Are they right? Is it really important for their kids future to go to a top 70 instead of 130? (I believe top 5 is worth almost any amount of money)
Is this based on college being a good time in their life and they are projecting that experience? Do they feel obligated to “finish strong” in regards to parenting?
The attitude of my parents is to make sure the degree will lead to a job, and then find a local and cheap school to get that credential. I believe there may be taboo class issues around this topic that are not vocalized.
Maybe
> Is it really important for their kids future to go to a top 70 instead of 130?
There are definitely rough cutoffs. Using your ballpark thresholds, yes, there can be a big difference in 70ish and 130ish in terms of opportunities. The big issue is whether the student will avail themselves of these opportunities.
> (I believe top 5 is worth almost any amount of money)
Oh, definitely not true unless the student avails themselves of the available opportunities.
At top 5, it’s only worth the money (assuming that you’re price sensitive) if the student does one or more things like uses the school alumni network, develops a robust network in school, works with top tier researchers, accesses unique learning opportunities, goes into fields that only pull from these schools (e.g., investment banking, consulting, etc.), tapping into the varsity athlete network, and other things like that.
If they just go and get a degree and then do whatever they were going to do if they had gone to State U, then it’s wasted money.
The classroom education at the top 5 universities is largely not that good. Smaller liberal arts colleges do a better job of classroom education, imho, if thats what someone is looking for.
> Is this based on college being a good time in their life and they are projecting that experience?
Maybe.
There’s probably a lot of intuitively knowing that it’s better to go to a good school without necessarily knowing what about going to a good school makes it matter.
> The attitude of my parents is to make sure the degree will lead to a job, and then find a local and cheap school to get that credential.
Smart, but very limiting if you have ambitions beyond being a middle manager.
> I believe there may be taboo class issues around this topic that are not vocalized.
Class issues, yes. Taboo… I’m not so sure.
I was imagining it in personal terms. I would have paid any amount of money for myself because I believe it would have worked for the reasons you mentioned.
> knowing that it’s better to go to a good school without…
That’s likely.
> but very limiting if you have ambitions beyond being a middle manager.
Say more. That kind of thing sounds worth paying for.
> Taboo
For example, someone might secretly think state school education was a waste of time, but not want to talk bad about their peer’s schooling. Or want their child to socialize with other well-to-do families.
- All universities and even community colleges are equally good, except for maybe the Ivey league schools they’ve heard about, but no one actually goes to those.
- All majors are equally good, except whatever makes you a doctor, which is the best.
- Colleges on the east and west coast are very bad because they are purely for liberal indoctrination
- The highest earning career path from college is becoming a doctor, and if you become a doctor you are very upper class.
- what is majoring in finance? Is that like being a bank teller?
- what is studying computer science? Is that like working at Best Buy?
Once I got to college and met what I now think of as “the American urban professional class” I found a completely different set of beliefs, where college rankings were do-or-die, everyone wants their kid to go into finance, consulting, or tech, or get an MBA, and everyone seems to inherit large corporate networks from their parents.
I’m sure this has all sorts of culture war implications. I know the politics of the community I grew up in has more to do with distrusting/disliking the urban professional class than any wholistic political ideology. Probably both groups should learn something from each other.
I think academic prestige is best understood as a safety net. It won't guarantee success, because nothing can, but it can do a decent job preventing failure. In that respect the parents are right. Academic assistance is a way they can convert financial resources into something that can't be taken away from their children (and isn't subject to the gift tax limit).
That said it's easy to go overboard, and many do. Unless you want to work in a small number of careers that have target lists of schools they recruit from (which again is because the credential is a selling point to clients, not because the education is better), there is no difference between a public university and a prestigious one.
To the extent parents know that prestige is signalling all the way down, and does not imply being better at what you do or knowing more about your subject, they do have some inside perspective compared to the population at large.
I'm not sure which is the best for career success and it's incredibly difficult to quantify your parents network effect, but conscientiousness, intelligence and grit make for a very happy life. You'll naturally gravitate toward intellectually stimulating things, work hard at them, not care about meaningless things around you, and enjoy every minute of it.
This is a really good summary. The end result is a permanent, non-transferable, protection with strong resistance to “inflation”.
> they do have some inside perspective compared to the population at large.
Would that advantage manifest as playing into the system - looking for opportunities for signaling? Or discounting - finding good education with less signaling value.
Is it, though? Of course people who go to Harvard et al. do well afterwards, but many of them came from wealthy families and were bound to do well no matter what. If you’re poor, Harvard [1] is less likely to make you rich than UC Riverside [2].
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
There is the "overall mobility" metric that favors UC Riverside, but the way that's being measured would seem to skew in favor of whichever college has students in lower quintiles (a top quintile kid can't move up 2 quintiles).
I'm guessing a lot of people (especially those without an university education) look at how impressive the buildings and facilities are because those are the status signals they understand. I don't think many check how large percentage of lessons are run by assistants.
So too many US colleges end up being 80% overly expensive hotel and 20% education.
The push into college is kinda the last hurrah for parents to set their kids up. Taking it seriously helps the (soon to be adult) kids take it seriously, finding a good fit can have an outsized impact on what they do next.
I do wish we lived in a world where we could be both involved and supportive of future endeavors. I grew up in a lower middle class home. College involved atrocious debt while my parents were uninvolved as … they were still busy working.
Why can’t we have time for ourselves in society?
Americans love to root for teams and build their identities around what teams they are on. In sports, in politics, in college selection, even which state or city they are from. College selection is just an easy way to buy yourself into a team.
These are otherwise shrewd people.
Is the reduction in price entirely due to discounts, or is it also counting student loans that have to be paid back?
Because it keeps using the term "financial aid" throughout, but financial aid includes both grants/scholarships and loans.
And if the amount you have to pay immediately is going down but the part you have to pay after graduation is going up by the same amount, that's not necessarily good news.
It's bizarre that the article doesn't address this distinction at all. I want to believe the total price (including loans that need to be paid back) is going down -- but with student debt ever-increasing, I'm suspicious.
Which
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-...
1. Unless you have schools falling all over trying to recruit you, go to an in-state public university. By "trying to recruit you" I mean schools literally flying you out to visit and offering you full scholarship because you are an ungodly talent in whatever you do (sports, music, etc.). Schools mailing you letters and offering you $5k doesn't count, that can't offset the cost of private or out of state tuitions. For most middle class people, the jobs you'll be getting don't care about whether you went to UNC or VT, or K-State, or whatever- public state universities are kind of all judged the same and it's not worth the extra cost to go out of state.
a. If you want to really get a good deal, go to a community college for a year or two and live with your parents, then transfer to the state school when you have done your core classes and are ready to focus on your major.
b. Still apply for scholarships even if you're going to a state school with in state tuition. Pretty much anyone can swing a few grand in grants and scholarships, and if you get a job (or are lucky enough for your parents to pitch in) you can graduate debt free. Being debt-free from a state school is far better than having $40k or more in debt from a private school with moderate name recognition.
3. Definitely don't go to a small private liberal arts college. I have good friends that teach at these kinds of schools, and while they are a nice community to work in, they are a bad deal for students. People are starting to figure this out, smaller liberal arts colleges are at higher risk of shutting down. They unite the costs of a private school with the faculty the size of a community college, with the uncertainty of not knowing if your school will be open in four years to give you a degree.
If you do #1 above you'll have done the common sense thing and you'll really appreciate it as an adult when you hear your coworkers complaining about their mountain of debt from their college that sounded cool but turned out to be kinda crappy.
In my state our state college actually has agreements with number of community colleges where they guarantee transfer once you complete pre-defined number of classes with reasonably good GPA (3.5 I believe). Saves you a TON.
I'm curious to know how to find other scholarships not necessarily advertised by the school. I read the "1000 scholarships" book or whatever it's called, their points weren't very practical, or maybe I didn't look hard enough...
100% for liberal arts colleges. I do not hate liberal arts education, but if you charge so much for education knowing there's very limited number of jobs your graduates will be fighting for, and how low their wages will be, that borders on scam.
One of the biggest things to keep an eye out for is scholarship opportunities from local organizations (i.e., scholarships whose eligibility is "open to all students who graduated from high school in ABC County"). The key bonus here is that the local eligibility restrictions mean you're competing with a relatively limited pool of applicants. Of course this bonus is lessened if you come from a big city, although on the flip side bigger cities are more likely to have more foundations offering such scholarships. In my experience many people tend to look for scholarships at the school they're going to, and they look at ones you can find in the "1000 scholarships" type books which tend to be large national ones, but they're not so aware of scholarships that are based on where you're coming from, not where you're going to.
These scholarships often aren't huge dollar amounts, but if you combine it with the advice about picking affordable schools, it can have a meaningful impact.
The rest of the advice is excellent, as well. Unless the world is very, very different ~15 years from now (and God, I hope it is), this is what I'll be telling my kid.
* Never under any circumstances go to a for-profit college.
Maybe it's different now from when I applied to colleges, and it's anecdotal, but coming from a middle class family with a 4.0 GPA, I didn't qualify for financial aid at most of the colleges I looked at. I could get some merit based scholarship money, but not enough to make a significant dent in tuition, much less total cost (including food and housing). My parents' income was too high for me to qualify for financial aid, but they didn't have enough money to afford for me to go to the colleges I wanted either, and even if they could, they wanted me to pay for college myself. As a result, I ended up going to a much cheaper, less prestigious college, rather than the more prestigious ones I initially wanted, in order to avoid mountains of student debt.
I think it depends a lot on the family’s position within the middle class. Upper middle class families will not be eligible for financial aid, while members of the lower middle class have significant non-merit based aid available.
The only people who pay sticker price are international students. I don't know if we can say American higher education is subsidized mostly by people from third world, taking massive loans, usually half of or almost all of their family's net worth!
The actual shocking costs are buried well below the top line as services and facilities that you'd expect to be paid through tuition are separately charged but mandatory fees.
Its been well known for 50 years that poor students with good grades get pretty much full rides to top tier schools due to scholarships.
> One study found that most high-achieving, low-income students chose not to apply to highly selective colleges with steep sticker prices. They opted instead for schools with lower sticker prices that ended up offering much less financial aid and thus costing more.
When looking at universities, when I saw a high sticker price, I ignored that university, even if in hindsight I had a good chance of being accepted.
I wish I had had someone when I was young who encouraged me to have broader horizons.
My parents also told me college doesn't matter, just the degree (which was their way of saving money). Not that they paid a dime anyways, they just always felt comfortable lying to me if it saved them any amount of trouble.
Our state school does not have much merit scholarships (and I'm not talking about $500 per year for 4.0 GPA/1500+ SAT, which is not even available to all applicants, that's just insulting). There are colleges which are definitely in the bottom of the rankings where you can get in with 0 tuition or even full ride (no tuition+free room and board) AND you can get some stipend thrown on top. I now have a choice: pay $45K (tuition with room and board) per year for my very academically strong kids at my (reasonably good) state school or $0 at the likes of Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Florida, and to a smaller extent Arizona and Texas (well the last ones would not be free, but at least less than half of the state uni). What do you think I will encourage my kids to do???
Behold Simpsons Paradox. The question isn’t “are people paying more or less out of pocket”. The question is “how much is the school I want to go to going to cost me”. Perhaps costs are “down” because people can’t attend the good schools they got into and they’re choosing to go to lesser schools. The author would have you believe this is a good thing!
The school I went to and the degree I earned in 2007 costs more than 3x today what it cost me then. But yeah sure go ahead and tell me the real price is going down.
What an imbecile.
But we need to start recognizing that most college degrees aren't required to do most jobs, and it's basically rent-seeking behavior.
I've helped interview and hire three additional software engineers for my teams over the past 2.5 years. None of the applicants with a B.S. in SWE could hold a candle to the self-taught applicants. Those are my anecdotes, but we interviewed multiple applicants with B.S SWE degrees from Auburn, the University of Alabama, and the University of Tennessee. None of them were close to being as prepared as the applicants, who were a little older and had no college degrees but decided to pursue SWE independently.
I had a very successful career in construction when I was a young man. First, I wore a tool belt, and then I got into commercial construction management. I work for one of the Top 5 builders in the world. I decided to move back to the states and put down some roots. I expected to land a construction management job in Auburn easily. However, none of the companies would even give me a chance to interview because I didn't have a B.S. in Building Science from Auburn.
As it turns out, everyone and their mother has a Building Science degree from Auburn. So, I also decided to pursue one until I learned how much the people were earning. They were spending ~$100k on a degree only to graduate and earn far less than I earned while wearing a tool belt.
So, I put my tool belt back on and went to work.
I pivoted into SWE a few years ago without a degree. However, to get to the executive level, the head of our company suggested that I obtain a degree. So, I completed an SWE degree at WGU. I didn't learn anything while pursuing the degree, but at least I have that piece of paper hanging in my office now.
I have many more anecdotes I could share to show why I think most college degrees are rent-seeking behavior, but I guess anecdotes don't account for much at the end of the day.
Me, I have a degree in math, but 97% of what I know is stuff I picked up either on the job, or because I found it interesting. Besides those that picked up CS as a major when it was a hot field, I'm betting that some of them get the love of tech beaten out of them by their college experience. I certainly know more than one science major who felt that way after graduating. (Not me, though. I'm weird, and I still love math just as much as I always did. Maybe even more.)
People can get new experiences and meet people in much more efficient ways.
This happens with mortgages too. People with a mortgage tend to religiously pay it off as required so they don't lose their house while people without, somehow don't manage to build equivalent wealth even though they could be scrupulously investing their spare money just as much. And once you have a house, it's easier to keep it than to keep a pile of money. Often when people die, almost their only wealth is their house. Where did all the rest of what they earned their entire life go?
The current system grades people as failures if they fail to complete the whole course.