8 ms·

Thanks very much for digging that up, that's a good find and very relevant. That is the source he uses to claim it's $2000, and the interview it's from claims

by bugsy 15y ago

Thanks very much for digging that up, that's a good find and very relevant. That is the source he uses to claim it's $2000, and the interview it's from claims the actual cost has gone down from $2000 to $1600, but then near the end admits that loan debt is not considered part of college cost using the reasoning that "it's the students contribution". So it's not a cost, it's a contribution. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/q-a-the-real-cost-of-college/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/q-a-the-real-co...

kenjackson 15y ago
but then near the end admits that loan debt is not considered part of college cost using the reasoning that "it's the students contribution". Actually she said the opposite. :-) She says, "The net prices I mentioned don’t take loans into account. We consider loans to be part of the students’ contribution. The students have to pay them back eventually." Net price is the price the student pays. It is reduced by financial aid, but she says that they do NOT take loans into account (whereas they do take Pell Grants into account). That is because students have to pay the loan eventually. So if you have a college tution that is $10,000/year. The sticker price is $10,000. If you have $2,000 in grants and $4,000 in loans then your net price is $8,000. They don't take loans into account when computing the net price.