4 ms·

> it feels nearly predatory what a good portion of private and out of state colleges are charging From an outsiders (AU) perspective, it sounds very depressing

> it feels nearly predatory what a good portion of private and out of state colleges are charging From an outsiders (AU) perspective, it sounds very depressing for youngsters - massive student loans and then you need to jump on the mortgage treadmill (unless you're lucky). It almost sounds to the point where individual students could pay for personal tutors with the amount of cash they're spending* (or borrowing then spending). Someone over there must be making bank on this... I guess the banks. Edit: As in, if you took 100 ComSci students each paying $30k a year (or whatever it is), $3,000,000 should get you some pretty good educators for the year i.e. can the game be taken back from the uni's, and education started afresh with a new organisation?

ericd 9y ago
iirc US and state government funding for public universities has decreased severely, which has caused tuition to spike up. That's probably at least one major factor in the hikes - what taxes used to pay for, now individuals pay for directly. Except that the top marginal tax rates also used to be much, much higher, so it was subsidized by the rich. But then, there are also many more people going to college now, and there aren't any new Ivy League schools being minted. If it gets bad enough, the pressure to find alternative ways to educate will build up until we find a good alternative route.
- mjn 9y ago
  In the case of the University of California system, it's almost 1:1 substitution, declines in per-student funding being matched by increases in tuition. Partly due to actual cuts to the UC budget since 2000, and partly due to funding not keeping up with increases in student numbers. The state government mandates these increases in student numbers, but in recent years has not been willing to fund accordingly. The mandate is that the UC system is required to offer spots for the top 12.5% of the current year's in-state graduating high school seniors, so this mandate obviously expands if university-age population increases. Which to be fair is sensible: it makes sense for the state university system's size to be roughly proportional to the size of the state's university-aged population. But then you should fund it proportionally too. Here are some numbers I put together a few years ago (not updated since 2012): http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt Which is not to say overpaid administrators aren't also sucking out more money than they should be. The UC Office of the President (UCOP) is currently being deservedly raked over the coals by the state auditor, and I would not shed a tear if UCOP's budget specifically were cut. But in terms of big-picture trends, the state's per-student funding declining from $30k/student in the '70s and '80s to less than half of that in 2012 is a pretty good first-order explanation.
  - mds 9y ago
    On the UCOP topic, I worked for a UC school for 10+ years and I have no idea what value UCOP actually provides to the campuses, if any. You'd think they would consolidate administrative services like payroll under UCOP, but UCOP doesn't even do their own (they outsource it to UCLA).
- dragonsky67 9y ago
  bariereefwozere's point still stands. A small group of people could get as good, if not better education by privately employing the lecturers. I'd say the lecturers would get a better deal as well. The only thing you would miss out on is the piece of paper from the hallowed institution. I suppose in the end that is the point. It's the piece of paper that has the value/door opening ability, not the actual knowledge imparted.
  - fwefwwfe 9y ago
    That doesn't seem true in a lot of programming jobs, and from what I heard also not in other engineering jobs.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Yeah, I agree with him that there is probably a better alternative, starting a new school could be the way. Part of the problem with that route is that a big part of university education is the signaling and brand value, and that's hard to replace via tutoring. Maybe that won't always be such a big factor, though.
- nnfy 9y ago
  The prices have spiked because loans are guaranteed by the government and unforgivable, which creates a situation where loans are given to more individuals, which leads to a greater demand for college, and a resulting price increase. This is a problem caused by government, not a lack of funding.
  - ericd 9y ago
    It's complicated, there are a lot of factors. I agree that the government loan programs haven't helped - they've decreased students' price sensitivity. But the decreased funding for research on the backend, and decreased direct funding for public schools, have made it so that schools need to seek out funding in other ways. For example, they actively recruit full-fare foreign students now for the tuition. It has also caused tuition to rise, relegating the ability for students to pay their own way via a part time job or two to the past. EDIT: And yeah, the increased demand for a fixed supply increasing the price is what I meant by "they're not minting new Ivys". I wouldn't agree that it's a bad thing that we're educating more people to a high level, though.
  - snappyTertle 9y ago
    Exactly...sounds eerily similar to the way housing was inflated by government. People then blame greedy capitalists and ask for even more government intervention :(
theparanoid 9y ago
University is about signalling not education (for the most part). University administrators are a large part of the cost increase.
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  We've had 30 (40?) years of educators looking down on blue collar jobs and gearing everything towards pushing everyone to university because it's a golden ticket to a successful life. What most people didn't realize is that university was an attribute of successful people, not a prerequisite to be successful.* People who might have been totally successful in vocational school or a variety of other things have been directed towards college they can't afford, they struggle in, and come out with exactly zero new opportunities open to them but now $100k+ in the hole. * In most fields.. some fields absolutely require a college education.. for now.
  - skewart 9y ago
    This. The idea that college somehow intrinsically causes you to earn more money is completely wrong and absurd. It completely conflates causation and correlation. Yet it's frequently trotted out as a justification for taking on student loan debt (as it was in this article). It's exactly the same as saying that people who own Ferraris make more money, so therefore the key to reducing poverty is increasing Ferrari ownership. And of course it's reasonable to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to buy that Ferrari because owning one will help you make more money. As absurd as the Ferrari ownership push is, at a certain point, once enough people own them it does start to make sense for any given individual. I mean, who's going to hire the one weirdo who doesn't own a Ferrari? Education arguably has a lot more intrinsic value than a luxury sports car. But a degree from an accredited institution is not the same as education.
    - Eiriksmal 9y ago
      This Ferrari point is especially apt because many of the commenters here are stating that no, their college professors and lecture experiences weren't better than YouTube offers, but look at all the great people I met and interacted with! This perfectly fits your Ferrari fallacy: When you own a Ferrari, you're part of a highly-exclusive social club. "Well... No, my Ferrari didn't actually earn me more money, per se, but it let me hobnob with so-and-so, and look at me now! Totally worth the crippling debt!"

ericd 9y ago

iirc US and state government funding for public universities has decreased severely, which has caused tuition to spike up. That's probably at least one major factor in the hikes - what taxes used to pay for, now individuals pay for directly. Except that the top marginal tax rates also used to be much, much higher, so it was subsidized by the rich. But then, there are also many more people going to college now, and there aren't any new Ivy League schools being minted. If it gets bad enough, the pressure to find alternative ways to educate will build up until we find a good alternative route.

mjn 9y ago
In the case of the University of California system, it's almost 1:1 substitution, declines in per-student funding being matched by increases in tuition. Partly due to actual cuts to the UC budget since 2000, and partly due to funding not keeping up with increases in student numbers. The state government mandates these increases in student numbers, but in recent years has not been willing to fund accordingly. The mandate is that the UC system is required to offer spots for the top 12.5% of the current year's in-state graduating high school seniors, so this mandate obviously expands if university-age population increases. Which to be fair is sensible: it makes sense for the state university system's size to be roughly proportional to the size of the state's university-aged population. But then you should fund it proportionally too. Here are some numbers I put together a few years ago (not updated since 2012): http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt Which is not to say overpaid administrators aren't also sucking out more money than they should be. The UC Office of the President (UCOP) is currently being deservedly raked over the coals by the state auditor, and I would not shed a tear if UCOP's budget specifically were cut. But in terms of big-picture trends, the state's per-student funding declining from $30k/student in the '70s and '80s to less than half of that in 2012 is a pretty good first-order explanation.
- mds 9y ago
  On the UCOP topic, I worked for a UC school for 10+ years and I have no idea what value UCOP actually provides to the campuses, if any. You'd think they would consolidate administrative services like payroll under UCOP, but UCOP doesn't even do their own (they outsource it to UCLA).
dragonsky67 9y ago
bariereefwozere's point still stands. A small group of people could get as good, if not better education by privately employing the lecturers. I'd say the lecturers would get a better deal as well. The only thing you would miss out on is the piece of paper from the hallowed institution. I suppose in the end that is the point. It's the piece of paper that has the value/door opening ability, not the actual knowledge imparted.
- fwefwwfe 9y ago
  That doesn't seem true in a lot of programming jobs, and from what I heard also not in other engineering jobs.
- ericd 9y ago
  Yeah, I agree with him that there is probably a better alternative, starting a new school could be the way. Part of the problem with that route is that a big part of university education is the signaling and brand value, and that's hard to replace via tutoring. Maybe that won't always be such a big factor, though.
nnfy 9y ago
The prices have spiked because loans are guaranteed by the government and unforgivable, which creates a situation where loans are given to more individuals, which leads to a greater demand for college, and a resulting price increase. This is a problem caused by government, not a lack of funding.
- ericd 9y ago
  It's complicated, there are a lot of factors. I agree that the government loan programs haven't helped - they've decreased students' price sensitivity. But the decreased funding for research on the backend, and decreased direct funding for public schools, have made it so that schools need to seek out funding in other ways. For example, they actively recruit full-fare foreign students now for the tuition. It has also caused tuition to rise, relegating the ability for students to pay their own way via a part time job or two to the past. EDIT: And yeah, the increased demand for a fixed supply increasing the price is what I meant by "they're not minting new Ivys". I wouldn't agree that it's a bad thing that we're educating more people to a high level, though.
- snappyTertle 9y ago
  Exactly...sounds eerily similar to the way housing was inflated by government. People then blame greedy capitalists and ask for even more government intervention :(

theparanoid 9y ago

University is about signalling not education (for the most part). University administrators are a large part of the cost increase.

caseysoftware 9y ago
We've had 30 (40?) years of educators looking down on blue collar jobs and gearing everything towards pushing everyone to university because it's a golden ticket to a successful life. What most people didn't realize is that university was an attribute of successful people, not a prerequisite to be successful.* People who might have been totally successful in vocational school or a variety of other things have been directed towards college they can't afford, they struggle in, and come out with exactly zero new opportunities open to them but now $100k+ in the hole. * In most fields.. some fields absolutely require a college education.. for now.
- skewart 9y ago
  This. The idea that college somehow intrinsically causes you to earn more money is completely wrong and absurd. It completely conflates causation and correlation. Yet it's frequently trotted out as a justification for taking on student loan debt (as it was in this article). It's exactly the same as saying that people who own Ferraris make more money, so therefore the key to reducing poverty is increasing Ferrari ownership. And of course it's reasonable to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to buy that Ferrari because owning one will help you make more money. As absurd as the Ferrari ownership push is, at a certain point, once enough people own them it does start to make sense for any given individual. I mean, who's going to hire the one weirdo who doesn't own a Ferrari? Education arguably has a lot more intrinsic value than a luxury sports car. But a degree from an accredited institution is not the same as education.
  - Eiriksmal 9y ago
    This Ferrari point is especially apt because many of the commenters here are stating that no, their college professors and lecture experiences weren't better than YouTube offers, but look at all the great people I met and interacted with! This perfectly fits your Ferrari fallacy: When you own a Ferrari, you're part of a highly-exclusive social club. "Well... No, my Ferrari didn't actually earn me more money, per se, but it let me hobnob with so-and-so, and look at me now! Totally worth the crippling debt!"