Do you think all of the complaints kids have today about college expense are legitimate or just whiners? (Representatives, Harkin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it doesn’t cost money, but the issue is that back in the day, states generally subsidized college education more so than they currently do. The differences can be striking between states as well. Tuition and fees at UF now are under $7k. Tuition and fees at UIUC start from $17K. Just over the border in IN, tuition and fees at Purdue is under $10K. I think UNC Chapel Hill’s cost is similar to Purdue’s. UCONN is $18,500, UCLA is $13,800 (FWIW, UC-Davis and UC-Riverside are more expensive), etc.
Obviously community colleges don’t have the same physical plant issues as some other schools, but at the very high end you have schools that have ticket prices of over $80K a year now including living expenses. Something needs to change, especially in states like IL and CT where in-state tuition prices are very high already. One might argue that some people in those states do make a lot of money, but I don’t think you can argue that it’s affordable for all.
Yes, state subsidy is definitely something we could use more of in order to bring the up-front tuition cost down for students. My state is a little below average for what percentage they give.
But my point is.... if you think we can do something like get the price down to 5k per student per year or something.... we just can't. That 12k is your baseline & hopefully some kind of subsidy or funding source is covering part of it so you can get the up-front tuition cost down.
Every step up in the pecking order of universities you are getting more stuff, more services, more reputation etc... E.g. at university you are getting probably 3/4 of your instructors at PhD level. At community college it's more like 2/5 if that, the rest are Master-level instructors. So at university that is a premium you're paying for.
If you look at what higher ed delivery costs are worldwide in the G-20, Canada is the most efficient, and they clock in at about 10.5k per student per year (as of 2019... probably more now). They did that by consoliding and centralizing a lot of their system. In the U.S. are are on the higher end... we are less efficient than many of our peers and that has to do with the decentralized governance of education we have. Each college and university system is kind of a fiefdom with its own rulers & administration and that's driving the price up somewhat.
Yes, state subsidy is definitely something we could use more of in order to bring the up-front tuition cost down for students. My state is a little below average for what percentage they give.
But my point is.... if you think we can do something like get the price down to 5k per student per year or something.... we just can't. That 12k is your baseline & hopefully some kind of subsidy or funding source is covering part of it so you can get the up-front tuition cost down.
Every step up in the pecking order of universities you are getting more stuff, more services, more reputation etc... E.g. at university you are getting probably 3/4 of your instructors at PhD level. At community college it's more like 2/5 if that, the rest are Master-level instructors. So at university that is a premium you're paying for.
If you look at what higher ed delivery costs are worldwide in the G-20, Canada is the most efficient, and they clock in at about 10.5k per student per year (as of 2019... probably more now). They did that by consoliding and centralizing a lot of their system. In the U.S. are are on the higher end... we are less efficient than many of our peers and that has to do with the decentralized governance of education we have. Each college and university system is kind of a fiefdom with its own rulers & administration and that's driving the price up somewhat.
I understand its costly to run a university. I also understand inflation is an issue. What I cannot get past and will never get past is the fact that forty-five years ago my tuition was only $300 a semester. Even with inflation the prices students are paying today cannot be justified. All the arguments in the world aren't going to make me see $12,000 a year tuition as "reasonable". Steps need to be taken to limit tuition at public institutions. If it means eliminating less popular programs that works for me. If it means eliminating college athletics I'd be fine with that. I wonder if economies of scale could be obtained by centralizing administrative functions in states between all the state colleges and universities?
I never hear college administration say a word about economy or holding down expenses. Instead, they prefer to talk in terms of new buildings and new facilities. They seem to think if they hand out a few scholarships to students with extremely good credentials that that is sufficient. I do not find it so.
I don't think those who work at our institutions of higher education quite understand the high level of anger and frustration among parents like me have to pay most the expenses for their children. Its not a game to us. Its about their future and the shape it will take and how many are feeling priced out of the American dream.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it doesn’t cost money, but the issue is that back in the day, states generally subsidized college education more so than they currently do. The differences can be striking between states as well. Tuition and fees at UF now are under $7k. Tuition and fees at UIUC start from $17K. Just over the border in IN, tuition and fees at Purdue is under $10K. I think UNC Chapel Hill’s cost is similar to Purdue’s. UCONN is $18,500, UCLA is $13,800 (FWIW, UC-Davis and UC-Riverside are more expensive), etc.
Obviously community colleges don’t have the same physical plant issues as some other schools, but at the very high end you have schools that have ticket prices of over $80K a year now including living expenses. Something needs to change, especially in states like IL and CT where in-state tuition prices are very high already. One might argue that some people in those states do make a lot of money, but I don’t think you can argue that it’s affordable for all.
College shouldn’t be affordable for all. High prices should serve as a screening mechanism to keep out the riff raff, while at the same time there needs to be a robust scholarship program to ensure that quality students will be admitted even if they can afford to pay full freight.
The silly notion that everyone should attend college needs to stop. It’s destroying higher Ed.
College shouldn’t be affordable for all. High prices should serve as a screening mechanism to keep out the riff raff, while at the same time there needs to be a robust scholarship program to ensure that quality students will be admitted even if they can afford to pay full freight.
The silly notion that everyone should attend college needs to stop. It’s destroying higher Ed.
I will agree with you that not everyone should attend college. However, those unable to afford the high prices of college does not mean that they are "riff raff."
I have known plenty of spoiled frat boys and sorority girls from wealthy families who probably shouldn't be attending college. I can certainly think of a better "screening mechanism" to keep out those well-heeled "riff raff."
I will agree with you that not everyone should attend college. However, those unable to afford the high prices of college does not mean that they are "riff raff."
I have known plenty of spoiled frat boys and sorority girls from wealthy families who probably shouldn't be attending college. I can certainly think of a better "screening mechanism" to keep out those well-heeled "riff raff."
There are plenty of people that have no business being in college. I’ll call them riff raff, [cut] The easy availability of money (loans, grants, etc.) means they will be in class, taking up space, and learning little to nothing.
I’ll take a frat boy or sorority girl whose parents are paying full freight over low class riff raff that’s there on the public dole, every time. Given that the outcomes will frequently be better, I’m very OK with it.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 04-02-2022 at 04:09 PM..
Reason: Personal snarks are not acceptable in Great Debates. Read the rules.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it doesn’t cost money, but the issue is that back in the day, states generally subsidized college education more so than they currently do. The differences can be striking between states as well. Tuition and fees at UF now are under $7k. Tuition and fees at UIUC start from $17K. Just over the border in IN, tuition and fees at Purdue is under $10K. I think UNC Chapel Hill’s cost is similar to Purdue’s. UCONN is $18,500, UCLA is $13,800 (FWIW, UC-Davis and UC-Riverside are more expensive), etc.
Obviously community colleges don’t have the same physical plant issues as some other schools, but at the very high end you have schools that have ticket prices of over $80K a year now including living expenses. Something needs to change, especially in states like IL and CT where in-state tuition prices are very high already. One might argue that some people in those states do make a lot of money, but I don’t think you can argue that it’s affordable for all.
Yes, it's become way too expensive and yes, college is not for everyone. College is for those who are talented enough to pursue their studies and prepare for certain careers.
CT is making community college free. (I'm pretty sure of that.) So two years of college are free and the person can either stop there, having completed a course of study with a two year degree or they can use the two years as a stepping stone to a four year college.
I worked at a state college way back in the late 1980s and it was getting crazy then. Costs kept rising, kids kept complaining, and the college would justify the increases by saying that they had to pay a lot to get good professors. But according to people who knew what was going on, there was a lot of waste. Another issue was that the kids weren't even college material and many of them needed remedial reading and remedial math. If you need remedial work, you shouldn't be in college.
Kids may have been brainwashed but there's no excuse now because the word has been out for quite a while that college isn't for everyone. It's not like health care, something that everyone needs. It's optional.
Kids may have been brainwashed but there's no excuse now because the word has been out for quite a while that college isn't for everyone. It's not like health care, something that everyone needs. It's optional.
For a kid who has been ensconced within the current American education industry for 12 years, the word is not effectively out there. That 18-year-old kid has been told for the last 12 years that it's college or death.
Even if he doesn't believe it, the education industry will not prepare him for anything else.
It reminds me of that line from the old movie Tron: "Give them the standard substandard training!"
I understand its costly to run a university. I also understand inflation is an issue. What I cannot get past and will never get past is the fact that forty-five years ago my tuition was only $300 a semester. Even with inflation the prices students are paying today cannot be justified. All the arguments in the world aren't going to make me see $12,000 a year tuition as "reasonable". Steps need to be taken to limit tuition at public institutions. If it means eliminating less popular programs that works for me. If it means eliminating college athletics I'd be fine with that. I wonder if economies of scale could be obtained by centralizing administrative functions in states between all the state colleges and universities?
I never hear college administration say a word about economy or holding down expenses. Instead, they prefer to talk in terms of new buildings and new facilities. They seem to think if they hand out a few scholarships to students with extremely good credentials that that is sufficient. I do not find it so.
I don't think those who work at our institutions of higher education quite understand the high level of anger and frustration among parents like me have to pay most the expenses for their children. Its not a game to us. Its about their future and the shape it will take and how many are feeling priced out of the American dream.
We pay it for our own kids so we get it.
The states subsidized the colleges more back then, and the colleges had fewer operations, were generally smaller and less expansive, with fewer programs.
We have the calculations down to how much per student per each credit hour it costs to deliver instruction. 12k is what it adds up to for a full load, for us to break even. At the community college level we charge a lower percentage of that because we get local and state subsidy. Comes out to around 5k at our tuition rate, but that will go up probably 15%+ in the next 2 years because of inflation. If a student gets full Pell grant that is $6700 so they get money back.
Like I said, you are paying 14k per student for K-12, but that comes out of your property taxes. Education costs money; it has never been cheap. It has been more subsidized though. The state should help with this by subsidizing the colleges.
I wish I could make it cheaper but that's about as cheap as it gets. Administrators do add to the cost a bit, but I'm afraid cutting every administrator would only reduce your cost marginally. So would consolidating adninstration of systems (Canada did that, and I think Connecticut is looking into it). It's the core operation that is the bulk of the cost - the salary, health care, and benefits of the instructors and support staff. Particularly pension benefits.
I understand its costly to run a university. I also understand inflation is an issue. What I cannot get past and will never get past is the fact that forty-five years ago my tuition was only $300 a semester. Even with inflation the prices students are paying today cannot be justified. All the arguments in the world aren't going to make me see $12,000 a year tuition as "reasonable". Steps need to be taken to limit tuition at public institutions. If it means eliminating less popular programs that works for me. If it means eliminating college athletics I'd be fine with that. I wonder if economies of scale could be obtained by centralizing administrative functions in states between all the state colleges and universities?
I never hear college administration say a word about economy or holding down expenses. Instead, they prefer to talk in terms of new buildings and new facilities. They seem to think if they hand out a few scholarships to students with extremely good credentials that that is sufficient. I do not find it so.
I don't think those who work at our institutions of higher education quite understand the high level of anger and frustration among parents like me have to pay most the expenses for their children. Its not a game to us. Its about their future and the shape it will take and how many are feeling priced out of the American dream.
While I think the anger is valid, it's aimed at the wrong people. The first place you should look is your state legislatures that have cut the historical support to their public universities. No discussion about the cost of college today is honest without including that. All those cuts have been transferred ultimately to the backs of students and their parents. Without the historical public college system, college will once again be reserved for the children of the wealthy elite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
Kids may have been brainwashed but there's no excuse now because the word has been out for quite a while that college isn't for everyone. It's not like health care, something that everyone needs. It's optional.
Why would you think the word is out among students and their parents? It only seems to be out among those who either recently attended/had children that attended or among those who disparage college on general principles. It's certainly not out among the high schools where the next set of college kids are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
For a kid who has been ensconced within the current American education industry for 12 years, the word is not effectively out there. That 18-year-old kid has been told for the last 12 years that it's college or death.
Even if he doesn't believe it, the education industry will not prepare him for anything else.
It reminds me of that line from the old movie Tron: "Give them the standard substandard training!"
So much truth here. Everything in the school system has been focused on "everyone must go to college." Even back when I was a kid they gave out book covers that emphasized college over trades. For the last 20 or so years, until our current governor, this emphasis was even in our state policy. Fortunately the current governor is putting an emphasis back on the trades.
Speaking to the basic question, yes the complaints the current generation has about costs are legitimate. Our youngest will graduate in a few weeks so we've had kids in college for a decade now. People like to throw stones at building new buildings, but maintaining old buildings is expensive. My oldest attended the same college I did. Even lived in the same dorm. Even the furniture in that dorm is the same furniture that was installed when it was built in the early 60s.
Consider just power. Back then the only power was for a desk lamp and maybe a stereo for those who had time. Just a couple outlets in the room. Today? Each student has a computer, perhaps a second monitor, printer, etc. There literally were not enough outlets in the room for both students to run their equipment. Eventually that building infrastructure needs expensive work. Everything from HVAC to water, sewer, power, you name it. It simply becomes more cost effective to build new than to refurb the old.
Which leads to things like computer support infrastructure that didn't exist back then. You cannot attend college today without a computer and peripherals because huge chunks of the lessons are online. Software licenses alone are expensive. Just like in industry the IT and support infrastructure are a cost that just didn't exist back then.
What about the idea of "oh, they can just work during the summer like I did" that gets tossed around so often. Back when we went to school, costs were reasonable. And while wages for students were minimal, you could work during the summer and earn enough to pay most of your costs. Why would you think kids today aren't working too? They are. But today they can't earn enough over the summer to pay the costs like we could back then. The total cost for our oldest was around $200K. Even with scholarships, working both during the summer and part time during the school year, the college funds we'd saved since birth, and what we could help with, still had about $60K in debt.
Speaking of scholarships, there are many who claim "just get good grades and get a free ride." The reality is far different. The number of full ride scholarships is insignificant compared to the total college population. The average student has just about the same chance of a football scholarship as an academic one. There so few it's just a distraction to pretend they are a legitimate option.
While I think the anger is valid, it's aimed at the wrong people. The first place you should look is your state legislatures that have cut the historical support to their public universities. No discussion about the cost of college today is honest without including that. All those cuts have been transferred ultimately to the backs of students and their parents. Without the historical public college system, college will once again be reserved for the children of the wealthy elite.
Why would you think the word is out among students and their parents? It only seems to be out among those who either recently attended/had children that attended or among those who disparage college on general principles. It's certainly not out among the high schools where the next set of college kids are.
So much truth here. Everything in the school system has been focused on "everyone must go to college." Even back when I was a kid they gave out book covers that emphasized college over trades. For the last 20 or so years, until our current governor, this emphasis was even in our state policy. Fortunately the current governor is putting an emphasis back on the trades.
Speaking to the basic question, yes the complaints the current generation has about costs are legitimate. Our youngest will graduate in a few weeks so we've had kids in college for a decade now. People like to throw stones at building new buildings, but maintaining old buildings is expensive. My oldest attended the same college I did. Even lived in the same dorm. Even the furniture in that dorm is the same furniture that was installed when it was built in the early 60s.
Consider just power. Back then the only power was for a desk lamp and maybe a stereo for those who had time. Just a couple outlets in the room. Today? Each student has a computer, perhaps a second monitor, printer, etc. There literally were not enough outlets in the room for both students to run their equipment. Eventually that building infrastructure needs expensive work. Everything from HVAC to water, sewer, power, you name it. It simply becomes more cost effective to build new than to refurb the old.
Which leads to things like computer support infrastructure that didn't exist back then. You cannot attend college today without a computer and peripherals because huge chunks of the lessons are online. Software licenses alone are expensive. Just like in industry the IT and support infrastructure are a cost that just didn't exist back then.
What about the idea of "oh, they can just work during the summer like I did" that gets tossed around so often. Back when we went to school, costs were reasonable. And while wages for students were minimal, you could work during the summer and earn enough to pay most of your costs. Why would you think kids today aren't working too? They are. But today they can't earn enough over the summer to pay the costs like we could back then. The total cost for our oldest was around $200K. Even with scholarships, working both during the summer and part time during the school year, the college funds we'd saved since birth, and what we could help with, still had about $60K in debt.
Speaking of scholarships, there are many who claim "just get good grades and get a free ride." The reality is far different. The number of full ride scholarships is insignificant compared to the total college population. The average student has just about the same chance of a football scholarship as an academic one. There so few it's just a distraction to pretend they are a legitimate option.
I can illustrate the fallacy of paying for college with a scholarship based on the examples of three friends. Each of these friends achieved a 3.7 (A-) GPA in high school and won a scholarship that paid for tuition to my alma mater. I note the scholarship did not pay for books or housing costs.
What none of my friends really understood was that maintaining even the tuition scholarship would require they maintain the same grade point average (3.7) in college that they did in high school. Courses at the U of U were far more difficult than high school material was. So, none of my friends were able to maintain their scholarship after one year. I suspect this was pretty common among most students.
I suspect most students are able to get exactly one out of four years of college paid for through scholarships. So, it doesn't really solve the problem even for good students.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
