7 ms·

Despite sticker prices, the real cost of getting a degree has been going down

75 points by linusg789 2y ago

linusg789 2y ago
Free link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-if-college-got-cheaper-and-no-one-noticed/ar-AA1zrcAV https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-if-college-got-cheape...
- abctx 2y ago
  https://archive.ph/kWAo5 https://archive.ph/kWAo5
tekla 2y ago
This is only secret to people who have money. 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.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I think the line has shifted though as have, perhaps, expectations of work-study. And more or less everyone at a lot of elite schools (OK, leave out legacies, athletes perhaps, etc.) had pretty top grades; they wouldn't have gotten in otherwise.
- smnrchrds 2y ago
  The article disagrees: > 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.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    The other not-so-secret is that small private liberal arts don't necessarily have stickers all that much lower than the top schools--and, as you suggest, they're much less able to provide financial aid than schools with multi-billion dollar endowments.
  - SnowflakeOnIce 2y ago
    Yes, this was my own experience! 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.
    - Paul-Craft 2y ago
      I have some regrets about my choice of undergrad school, but it isn't because I went someplace cheap. I could have gone to one of the multiple state schools that would have given me half off just for being born somewhere. Instead, I went to a school that was in my home town. I learned things when I went to college, but that school was objectively the wrong choice. Not only did it cost double what the state school would have cost[0], I missed out on the reason young people ought to go to college in the first place: a once in a lifetime chance to spend 4 years hanging out and making friends with high achieving people who would go on to shape the face of the world. Granted, one of my college friends ended up as a senior researcher studying cancer, and another went on to work for Mozilla, but I'm pretty sure in my class of ~300, there weren't too many CTOs, VPEs, star researchers, etc. Simply going to a bigger school would have been a better choice; going to a school that was both bigger and better than my undergrad institution would have been the best choice. I guess that's what you get when society expects a 17-year-old to make what may be the single most impactful life choice they'll ever have. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ That said, going to a small liberal arts college had its advantages. I learned a lot. Some of that stuff I learned, I've even gotten to use once or twice. But, looking back, if I could send my past self a message back in time, I'd tell me to go somewhere else. I may not have been much better off financially if I had met someone in college at 20 who talked me into partnering up on some insane business venture or something, but that experience would have been priceless. -- [0]: This was even after I got a scholarship that reduced my estimated family contribution to 2/3 of what the sticker price was, on top of being able to stay at home and save money that way.
  - diob 2y ago
    This is what I did. 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.
- drillsteps5 2y ago
  One of the most unpleasant surprises I had when researching colleges for my kids was how little merit aid is offered by not just "top tier" but good colleges in general. 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???
  - akomtu 2y ago
    4.0 GPA isn't what they are looking for. Rich kids have the money, but not talent. Poor kids have talent, but not money. MIT and the like is a place where the two can meet and work together. They don't need a high GPA, they need a seriously gifted student.
    - drillsteps5 2y ago
      Can you clarify what you mean by "gifted" student? How is the "giftedness" measured, aside from GPA, SAT/ACT? I mean there's also extracurriculars, but there's usually a strong correlation between high GPA/SAT and strong extracurriculars. Or maybe I misunderstood your point.
      - akomtu 2y ago
        GPA/SAT tell how good you are at following instructions: learning mildly complex material and applying it to a variant of a well known problem. It's a measure of fitness for white collar workers. What MIT is looking for is outstanding ability to create something new, something that those white collar workers with good GPAs cannot come up with. This kind of talent shows in various hobby projects that have a potential to become something big.
ghaff 2y ago
A lot of elite universities in particular have given financial aid for ages if you were at the lower half of the parental income scale or thereabouts. But my recollection from the 70s is that upper middle class at least pretty much paid sticker. Today, my understanding is that sticker (for undergrad at least) is largely a fiction that few people (at least non-international students) pay. Which
- cjpearson 2y ago
  Yes, it is largely a fiction. For private universities (the ones typically with the high sticker prices) 16% paid the full amount in 2019-2020. For public schools the number is 26%. [0] [0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-how-have-college-prices-really-changed/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-...
- grandempire 2y ago
  The international students are definitely whales for funding.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
OutOfHere 2y ago
I have always believed that the concept of a college should be abolished for bachelor's degrees - the concepts can and should be learned on one's own via learning materials, lots of practice, simulations, and an eventual certification. Education should truly become accessible to all. Currently it is nothing but a moneygrubbing racket. A college makes sense for doctorate level programs only.
- jtmarl1n 2y ago
  Strongly disagree. Part of the value of college is new experiences and being exposed to people and things you wouldn't be otherwise. Removing these experiences only reinforces the idea that the only benefit to college and university is to churn out worker drones.
  - jaco6 2y ago
    [dead]
  - qudat 2y ago
    Meh, turn that aspect into smaller “camps” or apprenticeship programs without the insane price tag. People can get new experiences and meet people in much more efficient ways.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    I understand but it's not worth the price tag or even close. There ought to be 10x more price efficient ways of getting that experience if not for free altogether.
  - dworkr 2y ago
    Maslow's pyramid is a thing. Once you are financially secure, those other levels of good stuff open up. For most common folk, college is about financial security because that is what they don't have. If you are born into a financially secure family, you cannot understand that and may give really had advice to poorer folks.
- LVB 2y ago
cjpearson 2y ago
The sticker price arms race will continue until the incentives change. Having an absurdly high listed tuition price is simply effective advertising, even if almost nobody actually pays that price. Surely the most expensive colleges must be the best. 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.
- newsclues 2y ago
  How do you change incentives when the people in charge of the incentive system have a interest in maintaining the status quo?
  - whiplash451 2y ago
    This is typically where the government steps in.
    - atom-morgan 2y ago
      Isn't that exactly why we're in the position we're in? Near universal financial aid driving up prices?
      - soco 2y ago
        How do you explain other countries where education is basically free?
        CWuestefeld 2y ago
        This is consistent with the top-level response, about expense signaling quality. Consider the quantity of people coming from outside the USA to study. It may be that foreigners looking for prestigious schools are searching in the USA because their own system is middling (except maybe for a flagship school?). Thus, they're also doing the damage to the USA's education market while not affecting their own domestic one.
silexia 2y ago
[flagged]
- rbanffy 2y ago
  The incentives are more like eggs for a quarter a dozen if you are very smart, and a hundred dollars a dozen if a college degree is not really your thing.
grandempire 2y ago
I grew up in a different class than most of my peers. It’s interesting to see how many of them are willing to go all out for their kids when it comes to college. Touring many schools, application prep, savings accounts, meal plans, etc. 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.
- prododev 2y ago
  Where your kid goes to school is a status symbol. And like most status symbols, it is a foolish and conspicuous waste. 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.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    I’m gonna need a steel man here. Is this real status they are buying? If so it has real impact? These are otherwise shrewd people.
    - prododev 2y ago
      Bragging about where your kid goes to school is extremely common. It signals not only what can you afford (like a car), but also lets you buy and display a bunch of gear. (University name) Dad is like a super common apparel and bumper sticker item. And having, e.g., Stanford Dad is more prestigious than eg New Mexico State Dad apparel.
      - 2y ago
hnclimategroup 2y ago
[flagged]
lapcat 2y ago
The word "loan" doesn't appear even once in the article, which I find bizarre and confusing. It talks about "financial aid" multiple times but doesn't mention how much of that aid is in grants and how much in loans. If the loans have to be paid back later, that doesn't truly lower the cost of college attendance.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  This is nothing more than an advertisement for the loan organizations. The secret that colleges should stop keeping is that you are taking on indentured servitude by attending.
whydoineedthis 2y ago
Author states its lower "Once tax incentives are factored in". As she is not my CPA, I must call BS.
crazygringo 2y ago
One critical point the article doesn't clarify: 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.
underseacables 2y ago
It would help improve things if universities, not the government, was responsible for student loan debt. Schools have no incentive to lower costs when they have no liability
thelastgallon 2y ago
Americans have some of the best and cheapest colleges. First, most people don't have to pay tuition (low income) or a lot lower than tuition. Then, in-state tuition is ridiculously cheap. Citizens are eligible for a LOT of grants and scholarships. They can work on-campus as teaching/research assistants which offer fee waiver and get paid a decent wage! Their parents/grand-parents/etc fund tax advantaged college savings account, which has to be used for college! They can work off campus or any remote job. And finally, a range of federal/state grants, loans, etc are available. Student health insurance is also incredibly cheap. And health centers on campus. And there are no rules that say you must go to college and be done with it at this age (unlike other countries), US is incredibly flexible, you can defer, do part-time, do slowly (work one year, college next year), lots of options! 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!
- thelastgallon 2y ago
  I forgot to add Community colleges, which are incredibly cheap. For the final year, they can transfer to top college and get degree from there.
drillsteps5 2y ago
This reads like part of a PR campaign by some college-related interest group to try to influence public opinion. Prices have been and continue to rise. They say the prices stopped rising because inflation (meaning prices continue to rise but if you take inflation into account they do not), but I have not seen the numbers. There's like gazillion ways to measure inflation, if you use the one where it's 20% a year that might be true, but it's just a cop-out. 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.
- jalk 2y ago
  I guess you skimmed the article, as inflation is not the main argument, but rather that most people don't pay the "sticker" price, but get various "discounts"
  - paulpauper 2y ago
    yes, this 100% . the discounts , scholarships, etc. make a big difference. This is why a college college degree is a better deal then the doom and gloomer naysayer pundits insist. With federal student loans, you are borrowing at close to the prime rate, but for average people, not hedge funds. This is a great deal assuming you graduate. Even 'soft' subjects from middling schools confer a ROI.
    - eszed 2y ago
      > close to the prime rate Where do you get that? Federal loans are currently 6.5% for undergraduate, 8-something% for graduate. Private loans are higher than that.
      - leereeves 2y ago
Aeroi 2y ago
this is a wild take. we don't care about the cost of education 10 years ago. Look at a 50 year horizon and how on a generation basis how much more significantly expensive it is.
999900000999 2y ago
Gen z grew up hearing stories about their older cousins or even parents going $100,000 in student loan debt for nothing. 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.
- paulpauper 2y ago
  High school, in the past, prepared people for college, so those who were not cut out already had a clear indication during high school. But due to dumbing-down and grade inflation, they now learn the hard way during college. 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.
thayne 2y ago
> This means that there’s often a chasm between the published cost of attendance, or sticker price, and what people actually pay once financial aid is factored in, or the net price. 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.
- javagram 2y ago
  I came from a middle class family (both parents college educated with white collar jobs) and received significant financial aid offers from multiple colleges (2 decade ago). A mix of grants and subsidized federal loans. 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.
- drillsteps5 2y ago
  I (the parent) am in the same position as your parents were. Unfortunately the middle class families are the ones screwed by the system. The poor get financial help (deservedly so), the rich can pay the sticker price so they don't care, but the middle class do not qualify for much financial help AND the cost of attendance is very significant. I want what's best for my kids but I also want to have something saved when I'm unable to work anymore and need money to sustain myself.
parsimo2010 2y ago
Just in case people haven't heard this, here is my straightforward advice (for those in the US considering college): 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. 2. Don't go to a private school unless you get a full scholarship or your parents are so rich they will foot the bill for you without taking out any loans. Most private schools aren't worth it. Probably the only private schools that are really worth it are the ones with undeniable networking opportunties- Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford. Maybe a couple others but the list is very short (and if you're thinking about where to go to college you probably weren't admitted to these). 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.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  Great list. There is one useful sidebar that probably isn't on the radar for most high school students but is important to remember: * Never under any circumstances go to a for-profit college.
forrestthewoods 2y ago
I do not believe this article at all. The evidence they provided is not compelling. Who ya gonna believe, them or your own eyes? 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.
cytocync 2y ago
[dead]
but_whole 2y ago
Im certain this doesnt include the quality and value both real and perceived, lets assume that it is cheaper, so is the quality
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BrenBarn 2y ago
Like others mentioned in comments, the article entirely neglects to address the distinction between grants and loans, talking only about "financial aid". If you have to pay back a loan later, that's still part of the cost. 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.
Stealthisbook 2y ago
It's true that the top line tuition is generally discounted through financial aid, but that's been the case for decades. People aren't shocked at the absurd tuition, but at the rate of increase that vastly outstrips aid, making the normal discounted cost increasingly unaffordable. 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.
ngriffiths 2y ago
This is super unexpected to me. Sort of tangential but it reminds me of healthcare costs discussions, where orgs like National Nurses United will point to rising sticker prices and say that health systems are screwing us all over. But it's more important to understand actual spending trends and sticker price is just not a great metric to have that discussion.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  Well, we can instead have the discussion about why there isn't transparent pricing. . .
cudgy 2y ago
This article has turned itself into gas-lit pretzels, trying to make excuses for the current horrible state of college education. It reads like a propaganda piece directly written by the lobbyist organizations for private and public colleges.
miked85 2y ago
the value of them is much less however
black_13 2y ago
[dead]
LIzzyytujghf 2y ago
[dead]
hackburg 2y ago
[dead]

75 points by linusg789 2y ago

Free link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-if-college-got-cheaper-and-no-one-noticed/ar-AA1zrcAV https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-if-college-got-cheape...

abctx 2y ago
https://archive.ph/kWAo5 https://archive.ph/kWAo5

tekla 2y ago

This is only secret to people who have money. 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.

ghaff 2y ago
I think the line has shifted though as have, perhaps, expectations of work-study. And more or less everyone at a lot of elite schools (OK, leave out legacies, athletes perhaps, etc.) had pretty top grades; they wouldn't have gotten in otherwise.
smnrchrds 2y ago
The article disagrees: > 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.
- ghaff 2y ago
  The other not-so-secret is that small private liberal arts don't necessarily have stickers all that much lower than the top schools--and, as you suggest, they're much less able to provide financial aid than schools with multi-billion dollar endowments.
- SnowflakeOnIce 2y ago
  Yes, this was my own experience! 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.
  - Paul-Craft 2y ago
    I have some regrets about my choice of undergrad school, but it isn't because I went someplace cheap. I could have gone to one of the multiple state schools that would have given me half off just for being born somewhere. Instead, I went to a school that was in my home town. I learned things when I went to college, but that school was objectively the wrong choice. Not only did it cost double what the state school would have cost[0], I missed out on the reason young people ought to go to college in the first place: a once in a lifetime chance to spend 4 years hanging out and making friends with high achieving people who would go on to shape the face of the world. Granted, one of my college friends ended up as a senior researcher studying cancer, and another went on to work for Mozilla, but I'm pretty sure in my class of ~300, there weren't too many CTOs, VPEs, star researchers, etc. Simply going to a bigger school would have been a better choice; going to a school that was both bigger and better than my undergrad institution would have been the best choice. I guess that's what you get when society expects a 17-year-old to make what may be the single most impactful life choice they'll ever have. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ That said, going to a small liberal arts college had its advantages. I learned a lot. Some of that stuff I learned, I've even gotten to use once or twice. But, looking back, if I could send my past self a message back in time, I'd tell me to go somewhere else. I may not have been much better off financially if I had met someone in college at 20 who talked me into partnering up on some insane business venture or something, but that experience would have been priceless. -- [0]: This was even after I got a scholarship that reduced my estimated family contribution to 2/3 of what the sticker price was, on top of being able to stay at home and save money that way.
- diob 2y ago
  This is what I did. 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.
drillsteps5 2y ago
One of the most unpleasant surprises I had when researching colleges for my kids was how little merit aid is offered by not just "top tier" but good colleges in general. 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???
- akomtu 2y ago
  4.0 GPA isn't what they are looking for. Rich kids have the money, but not talent. Poor kids have talent, but not money. MIT and the like is a place where the two can meet and work together. They don't need a high GPA, they need a seriously gifted student.
  - drillsteps5 2y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean by "gifted" student? How is the "giftedness" measured, aside from GPA, SAT/ACT? I mean there's also extracurriculars, but there's usually a strong correlation between high GPA/SAT and strong extracurriculars. Or maybe I misunderstood your point.
    - akomtu 2y ago
      GPA/SAT tell how good you are at following instructions: learning mildly complex material and applying it to a variant of a well known problem. It's a measure of fitness for white collar workers. What MIT is looking for is outstanding ability to create something new, something that those white collar workers with good GPAs cannot come up with. This kind of talent shows in various hobby projects that have a potential to become something big.

ghaff 2y ago

A lot of elite universities in particular have given financial aid for ages if you were at the lower half of the parental income scale or thereabouts. But my recollection from the 70s is that upper middle class at least pretty much paid sticker. Today, my understanding is that sticker (for undergrad at least) is largely a fiction that few people (at least non-international students) pay. Which

cjpearson 2y ago
Yes, it is largely a fiction. For private universities (the ones typically with the high sticker prices) 16% paid the full amount in 2019-2020. For public schools the number is 26%. [0] [0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-how-have-college-prices-really-changed/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-...
grandempire 2y ago
The international students are definitely whales for funding.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

OutOfHere 2y ago

I have always believed that the concept of a college should be abolished for bachelor's degrees - the concepts can and should be learned on one's own via learning materials, lots of practice, simulations, and an eventual certification. Education should truly become accessible to all. Currently it is nothing but a moneygrubbing racket. A college makes sense for doctorate level programs only.

jtmarl1n 2y ago
Strongly disagree. Part of the value of college is new experiences and being exposed to people and things you wouldn't be otherwise. Removing these experiences only reinforces the idea that the only benefit to college and university is to churn out worker drones.
- jaco6 2y ago
  [dead]
- qudat 2y ago
  Meh, turn that aspect into smaller “camps” or apprenticeship programs without the insane price tag. People can get new experiences and meet people in much more efficient ways.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  I understand but it's not worth the price tag or even close. There ought to be 10x more price efficient ways of getting that experience if not for free altogether.
- dworkr 2y ago
  Maslow's pyramid is a thing. Once you are financially secure, those other levels of good stuff open up. For most common folk, college is about financial security because that is what they don't have. If you are born into a financially secure family, you cannot understand that and may give really had advice to poorer folks.
LVB 2y ago

cjpearson 2y ago

The sticker price arms race will continue until the incentives change. Having an absurdly high listed tuition price is simply effective advertising, even if almost nobody actually pays that price. Surely the most expensive colleges must be the best. 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.

newsclues 2y ago
How do you change incentives when the people in charge of the incentive system have a interest in maintaining the status quo?
- whiplash451 2y ago
  This is typically where the government steps in.
  - atom-morgan 2y ago
    Isn't that exactly why we're in the position we're in? Near universal financial aid driving up prices?
    - soco 2y ago
      How do you explain other countries where education is basically free?
      - CWuestefeld 2y ago
        This is consistent with the top-level response, about expense signaling quality. Consider the quantity of people coming from outside the USA to study. It may be that foreigners looking for prestigious schools are searching in the USA because their own system is middling (except maybe for a flagship school?). Thus, they're also doing the damage to the USA's education market while not affecting their own domestic one.

silexia 2y ago

[flagged]

rbanffy 2y ago
The incentives are more like eggs for a quarter a dozen if you are very smart, and a hundred dollars a dozen if a college degree is not really your thing.

grandempire 2y ago

I grew up in a different class than most of my peers. It’s interesting to see how many of them are willing to go all out for their kids when it comes to college. Touring many schools, application prep, savings accounts, meal plans, etc. 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.

prododev 2y ago
Where your kid goes to school is a status symbol. And like most status symbols, it is a foolish and conspicuous waste. 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.
- grandempire 2y ago
  I’m gonna need a steel man here. Is this real status they are buying? If so it has real impact? These are otherwise shrewd people.
  - prododev 2y ago
    Bragging about where your kid goes to school is extremely common. It signals not only what can you afford (like a car), but also lets you buy and display a bunch of gear. (University name) Dad is like a super common apparel and bumper sticker item. And having, e.g., Stanford Dad is more prestigious than eg New Mexico State Dad apparel.
    - 2y ago

hnclimategroup 2y ago

[flagged]

lapcat 2y ago

The word "loan" doesn't appear even once in the article, which I find bizarre and confusing. It talks about "financial aid" multiple times but doesn't mention how much of that aid is in grants and how much in loans. If the loans have to be paid back later, that doesn't truly lower the cost of college attendance.

readthenotes1 2y ago
This is nothing more than an advertisement for the loan organizations. The secret that colleges should stop keeping is that you are taking on indentured servitude by attending.

whydoineedthis 2y ago

Author states its lower "Once tax incentives are factored in". As she is not my CPA, I must call BS.

crazygringo 2y ago

One critical point the article doesn't clarify: 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.

underseacables 2y ago

It would help improve things if universities, not the government, was responsible for student loan debt. Schools have no incentive to lower costs when they have no liability

thelastgallon 2y ago

Americans have some of the best and cheapest colleges. First, most people don't have to pay tuition (low income) or a lot lower than tuition. Then, in-state tuition is ridiculously cheap. Citizens are eligible for a LOT of grants and scholarships. They can work on-campus as teaching/research assistants which offer fee waiver and get paid a decent wage! Their parents/grand-parents/etc fund tax advantaged college savings account, which has to be used for college! They can work off campus or any remote job. And finally, a range of federal/state grants, loans, etc are available. Student health insurance is also incredibly cheap. And health centers on campus. And there are no rules that say you must go to college and be done with it at this age (unlike other countries), US is incredibly flexible, you can defer, do part-time, do slowly (work one year, college next year), lots of options! 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!

thelastgallon 2y ago
I forgot to add Community colleges, which are incredibly cheap. For the final year, they can transfer to top college and get degree from there.

drillsteps5 2y ago

This reads like part of a PR campaign by some college-related interest group to try to influence public opinion. Prices have been and continue to rise. They say the prices stopped rising because inflation (meaning prices continue to rise but if you take inflation into account they do not), but I have not seen the numbers. There's like gazillion ways to measure inflation, if you use the one where it's 20% a year that might be true, but it's just a cop-out. 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.

jalk 2y ago
I guess you skimmed the article, as inflation is not the main argument, but rather that most people don't pay the "sticker" price, but get various "discounts"
- paulpauper 2y ago
  yes, this 100% . the discounts , scholarships, etc. make a big difference. This is why a college college degree is a better deal then the doom and gloomer naysayer pundits insist. With federal student loans, you are borrowing at close to the prime rate, but for average people, not hedge funds. This is a great deal assuming you graduate. Even 'soft' subjects from middling schools confer a ROI.
  - eszed 2y ago
    > close to the prime rate Where do you get that? Federal loans are currently 6.5% for undergraduate, 8-something% for graduate. Private loans are higher than that.
    - leereeves 2y ago

Aeroi 2y ago

this is a wild take. we don't care about the cost of education 10 years ago. Look at a 50 year horizon and how on a generation basis how much more significantly expensive it is.

999900000999 2y ago

Gen z grew up hearing stories about their older cousins or even parents going $100,000 in student loan debt for nothing. 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.

paulpauper 2y ago
High school, in the past, prepared people for college, so those who were not cut out already had a clear indication during high school. But due to dumbing-down and grade inflation, they now learn the hard way during college. 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.

thayne 2y ago

> This means that there’s often a chasm between the published cost of attendance, or sticker price, and what people actually pay once financial aid is factored in, or the net price. 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.

javagram 2y ago
I came from a middle class family (both parents college educated with white collar jobs) and received significant financial aid offers from multiple colleges (2 decade ago). A mix of grants and subsidized federal loans. 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.
drillsteps5 2y ago
I (the parent) am in the same position as your parents were. Unfortunately the middle class families are the ones screwed by the system. The poor get financial help (deservedly so), the rich can pay the sticker price so they don't care, but the middle class do not qualify for much financial help AND the cost of attendance is very significant. I want what's best for my kids but I also want to have something saved when I'm unable to work anymore and need money to sustain myself.

parsimo2010 2y ago

Just in case people haven't heard this, here is my straightforward advice (for those in the US considering college): 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. 2. Don't go to a private school unless you get a full scholarship or your parents are so rich they will foot the bill for you without taking out any loans. Most private schools aren't worth it. Probably the only private schools that are really worth it are the ones with undeniable networking opportunties- Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford. Maybe a couple others but the list is very short (and if you're thinking about where to go to college you probably weren't admitted to these). 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.

BrenBarn 2y ago
Great list. There is one useful sidebar that probably isn't on the radar for most high school students but is important to remember: * Never under any circumstances go to a for-profit college.

forrestthewoods 2y ago

I do not believe this article at all. The evidence they provided is not compelling. Who ya gonna believe, them or your own eyes? 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.

cytocync 2y ago

[dead]

but_whole 2y ago

Im certain this doesnt include the quality and value both real and perceived, lets assume that it is cheaper, so is the quality

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BrenBarn 2y ago

Like others mentioned in comments, the article entirely neglects to address the distinction between grants and loans, talking only about "financial aid". If you have to pay back a loan later, that's still part of the cost. 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.

Stealthisbook 2y ago

It's true that the top line tuition is generally discounted through financial aid, but that's been the case for decades. People aren't shocked at the absurd tuition, but at the rate of increase that vastly outstrips aid, making the normal discounted cost increasingly unaffordable. 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.

ngriffiths 2y ago

This is super unexpected to me. Sort of tangential but it reminds me of healthcare costs discussions, where orgs like National Nurses United will point to rising sticker prices and say that health systems are screwing us all over. But it's more important to understand actual spending trends and sticker price is just not a great metric to have that discussion.

BrenBarn 2y ago
Well, we can instead have the discussion about why there isn't transparent pricing. . .

cudgy 2y ago

This article has turned itself into gas-lit pretzels, trying to make excuses for the current horrible state of college education. It reads like a propaganda piece directly written by the lobbyist organizations for private and public colleges.

miked85 2y ago

the value of them is much less however

black_13 2y ago

[dead]

LIzzyytujghf 2y ago

[dead]

hackburg 2y ago

[dead]