7 ms·

I think it’s exactly correct that a post-secondary education is a reliable guarantee for an upper-middle-class way of life (depending on the degree, of course).

by bhupy 6y ago

I think it’s exactly correct that a post-secondary education is a reliable guarantee for an upper-middle-class way of life (depending on the degree, of course). That being said, it isn’t clear that those that go without a post-secondary education are necessarily less able to afford one today than they were in 1991. 1. The net tuition (not the sticker price, which only the rich really pay) is moderately higher, adjusted for inflation -> https://twitter.com/CPopeHC/status/1301975027147997189 https://twitter.com/CPopeHC/status/1301975027147997189 2. And while private tuition has always been expensive, the majority of Americans attend public universities (myself included) -> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enroll... 3. And while there has been a modest increase in the inflation-adjusted price, the ROI of college degrees has increased more than the price. The net result is that the median number of years to recoup the cost of a bachelors degree, adjusted for inflation, has gone down since the 1980’s, from about 22 years to about 10 years -> https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/the-value-of-a-college-degree.html https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/the-va...

intended 6y ago
If I remember my r/badeconomics crash course, the issue is that jobs are being replaced, and being replaced with jobs like burger flipping instead of manufacturing which would allow you to skill up.
notacoward 6y ago
> The net tuition (not the sticker price, which only the rich really pay) What exactly does "net tuition" exclude? Financial aid comes in many forms - grants, loans (multiple kinds), work study. Excluding some of these might be fair. Excluding others would be chicanery. > the majority of Americans attend public universities (myself included Also, the majority of students attend big universities. Want to guess how tuition has increased at Texas A&M or Ohio State vs. a legion of tiny schools that barely achieve accreditation? How many of the sources you found on Twitter are improperly taking an average across schools instead of across students?
- bhupy 6y ago
  > What exactly does "net tuition" exclude? Financial aid comes in many forms - grants, loans (multiple kinds), work study. Excluding some of these might be fair. Excluding others would be chicanery. The source explains it better than I can: The amount that students and their families have to pay for enrollment, “net price,” is generally much less than the published price (“sticker price”), for two primary reasons. First, students often receive grant aid from federal and state government programs. The Pell grant program allocates up to $6,345 per year to students enrolled fulltime in postsecondary education. Students from the poorest families receive that full amount, and the award size declines as family income and wealth increase. Second, private colleges and universities sometimes give discounts to students based on their perceived ability to pay. This practice has the benefit of allowing students to enroll who otherwise would not be able to afford to do so. But it can also be viewed more pessimistically as price discrimination, which is generally perceived as a predatory behavior when exercised by for-profit companies. Essentially, colleges charge students the highest price that they would individually be willing to pay, up to the sticker price, in order to maximize revenue. > Want to guess how tuition has increased at Texas A&M or Ohio State vs. a legion of tiny schools that barely achieve accreditation? The source includes that information as well: > students at public four-year colleges have seen their net costs go up significantly because of increases in tuition that were not offset to the same extent by aid and scholarships. The average annual net cost at a four-year public college has grown by almost 81% beyond inflation over the past decade, to $3,870. On its own, that looks really bad, but once you account for the change in ROI, the net outcome looks a little different. The upfront cost is higher today, but the long run benefit is even higher.
  - notacoward 6y ago
    > The source explains it better than I can That doesn't completely answer the question. It addresses discounts and grants, but there's more to it than that. > On its own, that looks really bad Yes, it does, and that's still no accounting for differences in size. Even state schools vary widely. Eastern Michigan University is not University of Michigan by a long shot. > once you account for the change in ROI That matters little to someone trying to figure out how they're going to afford a house while they're still paying off student loans. It mostly kicks in much later, and money later is not the same as money earlier. If you really want to consider that increased ROI, you also have to consider how it's offset by lost opportunities for saving and compounding interest because people are buried when they first get out of school. Also, if college is no less affordable, why are they so buried? Graduating with more student-loan debt than income was practically unthinkable when I went to school. It's commonplace now. Why? This whole empathy-lacking "it's no harder than it used to be" argument just doesn't pass the smell test.

by bhupy 6y ago

intended 6y ago

If I remember my r/badeconomics crash course, the issue is that jobs are being replaced, and being replaced with jobs like burger flipping instead of manufacturing which would allow you to skill up.

notacoward 6y ago

> The net tuition (not the sticker price, which only the rich really pay) What exactly does "net tuition" exclude? Financial aid comes in many forms - grants, loans (multiple kinds), work study. Excluding some of these might be fair. Excluding others would be chicanery. > the majority of Americans attend public universities (myself included Also, the majority of students attend big universities. Want to guess how tuition has increased at Texas A&M or Ohio State vs. a legion of tiny schools that barely achieve accreditation? How many of the sources you found on Twitter are improperly taking an average across schools instead of across students?

bhupy 6y ago
> What exactly does "net tuition" exclude? Financial aid comes in many forms - grants, loans (multiple kinds), work study. Excluding some of these might be fair. Excluding others would be chicanery. The source explains it better than I can: The amount that students and their families have to pay for enrollment, “net price,” is generally much less than the published price (“sticker price”), for two primary reasons. First, students often receive grant aid from federal and state government programs. The Pell grant program allocates up to $6,345 per year to students enrolled fulltime in postsecondary education. Students from the poorest families receive that full amount, and the award size declines as family income and wealth increase. Second, private colleges and universities sometimes give discounts to students based on their perceived ability to pay. This practice has the benefit of allowing students to enroll who otherwise would not be able to afford to do so. But it can also be viewed more pessimistically as price discrimination, which is generally perceived as a predatory behavior when exercised by for-profit companies. Essentially, colleges charge students the highest price that they would individually be willing to pay, up to the sticker price, in order to maximize revenue. > Want to guess how tuition has increased at Texas A&M or Ohio State vs. a legion of tiny schools that barely achieve accreditation? The source includes that information as well: > students at public four-year colleges have seen their net costs go up significantly because of increases in tuition that were not offset to the same extent by aid and scholarships. The average annual net cost at a four-year public college has grown by almost 81% beyond inflation over the past decade, to $3,870. On its own, that looks really bad, but once you account for the change in ROI, the net outcome looks a little different. The upfront cost is higher today, but the long run benefit is even higher.
- notacoward 6y ago
  > The source explains it better than I can That doesn't completely answer the question. It addresses discounts and grants, but there's more to it than that. > On its own, that looks really bad Yes, it does, and that's still no accounting for differences in size. Even state schools vary widely. Eastern Michigan University is not University of Michigan by a long shot. > once you account for the change in ROI That matters little to someone trying to figure out how they're going to afford a house while they're still paying off student loans. It mostly kicks in much later, and money later is not the same as money earlier. If you really want to consider that increased ROI, you also have to consider how it's offset by lost opportunities for saving and compounding interest because people are buried when they first get out of school. Also, if college is no less affordable, why are they so buried? Graduating with more student-loan debt than income was practically unthinkable when I went to school. It's commonplace now. Why? This whole empathy-lacking "it's no harder than it used to be" argument just doesn't pass the smell test.