How much should college tuition be?

[French G.]

Umm, a lot cheaper if you dump athletics? Insane costs going into athletic staff.

[KD5NRH]

Umm, a lot cheaper if you dump athletics? Insane costs going into athletic staff.

Always felt athletics should be a community activity disconnected from the schools entirely.  After all, the schools say that sports brings in enough money to cover its cost, so let them prove that.

[Brad Johnson]

Umm, a lot cheaper if you dump athletics? Insane costs going into athletic staff.

At most public universities the athletics dept is it's own independently funded entity. By "independently funded" I mean completely removed from state funding.

Brad

[sumpnz]

If there was anything remotely resembling rational pricing signals in university education, I'd say public university tuition should be whatever the market will bear (given other variables like quality of instruction, location, degrees offered, etc) less the local/state taxpayer tolerance to subsidize said tuition.  But even private schools are so disconnected from rational price signalling that determining the right base price for tuition is impossible.

The only way to get to something resembling such price signaling would be to get the fed.gov totally out of lending, accreditation, and regulation beyond what the COTUS permits.  And a large flock of monkeys are about as likely to fly out of my ass as for that to happen.

[Firethorn]

Education has also taken a back seat to having a degree. Rather than being something earned by application of intelligence, a college degree has become another meaningless symbol of the entitlement society. The liberals have succeeded in brainwashing the populace into believing that everyone needs a college degree

Hell, I'm reminded of the firm I read about that wanted to require a master's degree, while paying minimum wage, in a large city with elevated living expenses, to be a mail clerk with no expectation of elevation.  IE it was supposed to be a permanent position - not an internship, training, or vetting position.

While they were rightfully wondering why the hell they couldn't fill the position while being lambasted, I think we've subsidized our way into a serious problem.

College graduates are valuable when they're rare.  Hell, I'd go so far as to say that a college grad today is as rare, and therefore as valuable, as a high school graduate from my grandmother's time.  Yes, the education has some value.  But is it worth losing 4-6 years of practical job experience?

As a matter of fact, in order to reach a 90%+ high school graduation rate, and a (googles) 40% college graduation rate, as you say, we've had to water down the value of said degrees.  A High school diploma just isn't worth what it used to be - meanwhile we're sacrificing years of productivity.  What used to take a High school diploma now takes an Associate.  Associates have moved on to Bachelor's and even master's degrees.  That's another 2 years of education, right out of productive job work.  But, as an employer, I'd be a fool to NOT recognize that those with a degree, even a watered down one, are better on average than those that don't.  So the statistics still show - those with a degree earn more money on average, are unemployed less, etc...

And the crazy thing is?  They want the rate to be even higher!  They want 60% by 2025.  Why?  I mean, even they notice the problem: "With more Americans headed to college, the findings of a new Gallup poll may be unsurprising. Paying for college expenses is the most common financial challenge facing those between the ages of 18 and 49."

Now, this might sound crazy.  The GI bill and such are fine.  If private parties want to put money into scholarships, that's their thing.  But we need to get rid of the loans, especially the universal ones.  Without access to loan money, young adults won't be able to afford the high tuition rates modern colleges demand.  Without students, said colleges will collapse.  So what do I predict happening?  With far fewer students going to colleges, suddenly the Chancellors, Deans, professors, and such won't be able to justify their inflated salaries.  Yes, some colleges will outright collapse.  But without the press for new buildings, rec centers, pools, safe zones, protest zones, 'enrichment', etc...   They'll be forced to economize.  And I figure they can do it. 

Sure, we'll get fewer college grads.  But the jobs will still be there, people will be able to get into them younger, without loads of debt, and the remaining college grads will be a lot cheaper on everybody's pocket books.

[wmenorr67]

College graduates are valuable when they're rare.  Hell, I'd go so far as to say that a college grad today is as rare, and therefore as valuable, as a high school graduate from my grandmother's time.  Yes, the education has some value.  But is it worth losing 4-6 years of practical job experience?

This right here.  Just after coming out of the sandbox for the last time in 2012 I could have a job as an Intel Analyst making $60K plus with no degree, over 10 years of experience, downside was having to move to and/or commute to Dallas from Tulsa.  Wasn't moving because of the school we had just got my son into and really wasn't enough money to commute but is/was good money.  Fast forward just a year or so after everything more or less died down overseas, now the same companies want a 4 year degree plus with little to no experience.  Plus they have to take on the chance that the person could pass a TS/SCI background check.

[MechAg94]

IMO, the first step is to end all govt funded scholarships and grants for education.  They are artificially increasing demand allowing schools to increase costs with less affect on the student.  Beyond that, I am less certain.

When I attended Texas A&M in the early 90's, the most expensive semester I had was still around $2500 for books, fees, tuition.  Room and board not included.  It is a bit more now.  They were talking about raising tuition fees then and I think they kept doing it.  It is still cheaper than a lot of schools, but much more than when I went.  I went to school with people who were working their way through school without loans.  Soon after I graduated, we had an intern who went there.  She was from Wisconsin.  The out-of-state tuition (about 3 times in-state) was still cheaper than going to school in Wisconsin. 

I would also mention that I went to junior college for two years first.  It was close to home and much cheaper.  Got a lot of the basic classes out of the way. 

[MillCreek]

Umm, a lot cheaper if you dump athletics? Insane costs going into athletic staff.

At both of our state flagship universities, the UW and WSU, the football coach is the highest paid employee.

[Pb]

At both of our state flagship universities, the UW and WSU, the football coach is the highest paid employee.

While this sort of thing is true, some teams pull in huge amounts of money and fund themselves.

[brimic]

Hell, I'm reminded of the firm I read about that wanted to require a master's degree, while paying minimum wage, in a large city with elevated living expenses, to be a mail clerk with no expectation of elevation.  IE it was supposed to be a permanent position - not an internship, training, or vetting position.

While they were rightfully wondering why the hell they couldn't fill the position while being lambasted, I think we've subsidized our way into a serious problem.

College graduates are valuable when they're rare.  Hell, I'd go so far as to say that a college grad today is as rare, and therefore as valuable, as a high school graduate from my grandmother's time.  Yes, the education has some value.  But is it worth losing 4-6 years of practical job experience?

As a matter of fact, in order to reach a 90%+ high school graduation rate, and a (googles) 40% college graduation rate, as you say, we've had to water down the value of said degrees.  A High school diploma just isn't worth what it used to be - meanwhile we're sacrificing years of productivity.  What used to take a High school diploma now takes an Associate.  Associates have moved on to Bachelor's and even master's degrees.  That's another 2 years of education, right out of productive job work.  But, as an employer, I'd be a fool to NOT recognize that those with a degree, even a watered down one, are better on average than those that don't.  So the statistics still show - those with a degree earn more money on average, are unemployed less, etc...

And the crazy thing is?  They want the rate to be even higher!  They want 60% by 2025.  Why?  I mean, even they notice the problem: "With more Americans headed to college, the findings of a new Gallup poll may be unsurprising. Paying for college expenses is the most common financial challenge facing those between the ages of 18 and 49."

Now, this might sound crazy.  The GI bill and such are fine.  If private parties want to put money into scholarships, that's their thing.  But we need to get rid of the loans, especially the universal ones.  Without access to loan money, young adults won't be able to afford the high tuition rates modern colleges demand.  Without students, said colleges will collapse.  So what do I predict happening?  With far fewer students going to colleges, suddenly the Chancellors, Deans, professors, and such won't be able to justify their inflated salaries.  Yes, some colleges will outright collapse.  But without the press for new buildings, rec centers, pools, safe zones, protest zones, 'enrichment', etc...   They'll be forced to economize.  And I figure they can do it. 

Sure, we'll get fewer college grads.  But the jobs will still be there, people will be able to get into them younger, without loads of debt, and the remaining college grads will be a lot cheaper on everybody's pocket books.

Pretty much spot on.
I think a lot has to do with curriculum being watered down coupled with a vast expansion of social promotion.
A HS school degree isn't worth anything anymore because it no longer represents any ability to do critical thinking, let alone basics like math.
A BS/BA degree is about on par with what a HS degree might have been 30 years ago- it does weed out some of the people who don't have the capability to learn or who lack basic reading, writing, and math skills.

Anecdote- 20-some years ago, I did an internship at a company (since bought out by Monsanto) that created transgenic organisms. While interviewing the president of the company, I asked about what kind of degrees they were looking for, his reply was:
 "A degree shows the ability to reason and learn, not to mention the ability to prioritize one's life and manage their time well. While most of the people here have  degrees in chemistry or biochemistry, one lady you were working with had a BA degree in English, and another has a degree in psychology (referring to scientist associates in the genetics lab)."

[MechAg94]

My mother has said she remembered kids that were teenagers in 6th grade.  They never passed and stayed in school long enough to avoid truancy issues before quitting.  That was before they passed kids on who couldn't pass.  Now days they look at a high school degree like a right.  You can pass even if illiterate. 

[makattak]

Many of you are missing further government meddling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. also held that the employer had the burden of producing and proving the business necessity of a test. However, in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio,[8] the Court reduced the employer's (Wards Cove Packing Company) burden to producing only evidence of business justification. In 1991, the Civil Rights Act was amended to overturn that portion of the Wards Cove decision.

David Frum asserts that before Griggs, employers did not have to separate intentional wrongs from unintentional wrongs if they treated all applicants equally by appearances.[9]

Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano suggests that the Griggs conclusion (that Congress aimed beyond “disparate treatment”; it targeted “disparate impact” as well and proscribed not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation) has been effectively overturned by the Ricci decision.

Businesses can no longer use their own assessments of the skills of prospective employees. (Ok, they CAN, but they will be forced to prove the "necessity" of using such an assessment.)

Therefore, they outsourced that work- hence the increasing requirements of a college degree. (It is "proof of aptitude" of at least some level.)

So, government meddling to fix one problem (racial discrimination) created more problems than it solved. And, of course, now that the vast majority of such racism has been eradicated... we still can't assess individuals on their own merits because it might cause "disparate impact." Because we're still treating the world like it's 1960.

Thanks, Uncle Sam!

[KD5NRH]

Anecdote- 20-some years ago, I did an internship at a company (since bought out by Monsanto) that created transgenic organisms. While interviewing the president of the company, I asked about what kind of degrees they were looking for, his reply was:
 "A degree shows the ability to reason and learn, not to mention the ability to prioritize one's life and manage their time well. While most of the people here have  degrees in chemistry or biochemistry, one lady you were working with had a BA degree in English, and another has a degree in psychology (referring to scientist associates in the genetics lab)."

Did you ask him how he figured that spending four years and thousands of dollars getting educated in a field they wouldn't be using demonstrated good prioritization and time management skills?

[Pb]

Did you ask him how he figured that spending four years and thousands of dollars getting educated in a field they wouldn't be using demonstrated good prioritization and time management skills?

 

[brimic]

Did you ask him how he figured that spending four years and thousands of dollars getting educated in a field they wouldn't be using demonstrated good prioritization and time management skills?

Who says they didn't use those  degrees and changed careers? These weren't millennials with McDegrees, they were in their 40s and 50s, and this was in the early 1990s..

[KD5NRH]

Who says they didn't use those  degrees and changed careers? These weren't millennials with McDegrees, they were in their 40s and 50s, and this was in the early 1990s..

Neither English nor psych is going to get you much of a career at the Bachelor's level, and for the most part, folks with advanced degrees don't go looking for total career changes, nor does either of those have any significant relevance to biochem.  (Not in the way that, for example, a math, horticulture or even engineering major could bring handy specialized skills to the table.)

[brimic]

Neither English nor psych is going to get you much of a career at the Bachelor's level, and for the most part, folks with advanced degrees don't go looking for total career changes, nor does either of those have any significant relevance to biochem.  (Not in the way that, for example, a math, horticulture or even engineering major could bring handy specialized skills to the table.)

Erm, you missed the whole point on how degrees, especially liberal arts degrees used to be considered proof that a person is able to think and learn, not simply a narrow set of skills to be plugged into a temp agency's recruitment website.

Even 'just' an English degree used to mean something. My college GF got a technical writing job right out of college making around $40K (not shabby at all in 1995 FRNs) with 'just' an English degree.


When you have Obama saying things like 'everyone should go to college' it simply translates to 'college degree today is what  a HS degree was 30 years ago to what an 8th grade education was 60 years ago.'

[charby]

Umm, a lot cheaper if you dump athletics? Insane costs going into athletic staff.

At the Iowa regent institutions the athletic programs are supposed to be 100% self funding. I worked for a public university for just shy of 13 years, it is crazy how much upper administration they have and all the support staff to support them. Need to trim from the top, except they always grow the top and trim the bottom.

[Firethorn]

IMO, the first step is to end all govt funded scholarships and grants for education.  They are artificially increasing demand allowing schools to increase costs with less affect on the student.  Beyond that, I am less certain.

Actually, I'd argue that it's not the scholarships and grants that are the problem.  Relatively few people qualify for them.  The problem is the unlimited loans that are handed out.  I could borrow like $30k of federal money each year for my program, and I'm covered by the GI Bill!

As for the increased costs, I'm going to say this:  Inevitable.  Because back in the day we could select only the best 10%-20% or so to go to college.  40% or so went to high school with intent to graduate and go on to college.  That means that the kids that are having trouble in school?  Dropped.  They get a technical education and go to work in the economy as whatever.  You don't waste 4 years training a retail clerk.  Those that graduated high school are, after a few years of experience, trusted to be floor leads, low level supervisors, and such.

As you train a larger percentage of the population, you see more and more need for remedial classes, because they're coming in not ready for the work.

When I attended Texas A&M in the early 90's, the most expensive semester I had was still around $2500 for books, fees, tuition.

Well yes, economizing on how much you pay for your education is always good, but the cost of a college education over the last decade or so has been rising at 2-4 times inflation.

[KD5NRH]

Actually, I'd argue that it's not the scholarships and grants that are the problem.  Relatively few people qualify for them.  The problem is the unlimited loans that are handed out.

I would go even farther and say it's not so much the loans themselves, but the lack of customization and monitoring thereof; want to borrow $10k/semester, you should have to show good performance in a program with actual potential.  If you can do well at 16-18 hours in the engineering, business or IT program, then fine; the lender should take that into account when deciding if (and at what interest rate) they want to lend enough for all your living expenses so you don't have to work 2-3 part time jobs on the side.  (After all, in theory, you'll be starting to pay them back a lot sooner than the guy taking 6 hours, and you'll be able to pay back a lot more/faster than the one taking minority studies with a sociology minor.)

Obviously, first semester, or first semester back for nontrads, they would be better off to use some other metric to predict performance, (I know my last semester as a 19 year old wasn't at all representative of my first semester as a 33 year old.) which would have to be tailored by program, but it's not much of a stretch to do that.

[birdman]

As with medical treatment, by this time we have absolutely no idea what a free market price for college would be.

http://surgerycenterok.com/

[Firethorn]

I would go even farther and say it's not so much the loans themselves, but the lack of customization and monitoring thereof; want to borrow $10k/semester,

That's what I was trying to get at with 'unlimited'.  'unrestricted' would be a better term to use.  They don't care what your GPA is, they don't care whether you're full time or not, whether you're in a 'useful' degree program, etc...

[agricola]

Actually, I'd argue that it's not the scholarships and grants that are the problem.  Relatively few people qualify for them.  The problem is the unlimited loans that are handed out.  I could borrow like $30k of federal money each year for my program, and I'm covered by the GI Bill!

As for the increased costs, I'm going to say this:  Inevitable.  Because back in the day we could select only the best 10%-20% or so to go to college.  40% or so went to high school with intent to graduate and go on to college.  That means that the kids that are having trouble in school?  Dropped.  They get a technical education and go to work in the economy as whatever.  You don't waste 4 years training a retail clerk.  Those that graduated high school are, after a few years of experience, trusted to be floor leads, low level supervisors, and such.

As you train a larger percentage of the population, you see more and more need for remedial classes, because they're coming in not ready for the work.

There is a lot of truth in this.  

Over here, we used to have free tuition and a grant to support living costs, albeit the grant was means-tested and so miserly that you had to achieve what the university asked in grade terms before they would fund you (ie: you had to get a certain set of grades before they would let you in), and you had to cope with some very spartan conditions because universities had no money and you had only a pittance to live on (I think it was about 25% - 30% of what people on the dole got).   There was only ever enough money in the county education budget for a certain number of students to go, so they only paid for realistic degrees at decent universities for students who had demonstrated some academic potential up until that point.  People who didn't qualify could still go, providing that their parents had the money, but costs for them were kept low because conditions were so bad.      

Since they brought the loan system in, the living conditions in universities have massively improved (in my old college they have decent heating, internet connections and a phone line in every room now, whereas in my day we had one phone, that didn't dial out, between 18), anyone can go if they can get the required grades, pay for university staff has increased massively (some Vice-Chancellors are on quite a bit more than £200,000 a year now) but all the students between £27,000 and £40,000 in debt (and thats for a three year Arts degree) when they leave, its questionable if the academic quality is any better and the actual importance of having a degree in terms of getting a job has declined massively; loads of them are now working as unpaid interns trying desperately to get on the career ladder.

[MechAg94]

I guess I should have said something along the lines of "all government subsidy of student expenses" not just scholarships and grants. That is what I was getting at in the first place.

I say that with the knowledge that in the 60's, oil revenues from some public lands in Texas was earmarked for public universities.  I really don't care of states fund public universities, I mainly just want to keep the Feds out. 

[MechAg94]

Texas A&M is up on the high end of athletic program funding.  Yes, they seem to spend more money the more they get, but the university itself isn't funding athletics.  Football attendance averaged over 100,000 last year and the SEC TV contract is bringing in truck loads of money.