4 ms·

(All non-inflation adjusted): 2008 to 2021, 4 year public school tuition $7280 to $9375 = +28.8% 2008 to 2021, state support per full time equivalent student:

(All non-inflation adjusted): 2008 to 2021, 4 year public school tuition $7280 to $9375 = +28.8% 2008 to 2021, state support per full time equivalent student: $6552 to $7896 = +20.5% It looks like cbpp "debunked" it by picking a year that was particularly favorable to that point of view (2018). Looks to me like the two variables have been trending together just fine as per recent data.

ZoomerCretin 3y ago
Looks like you debunked it by picking a year particularly favorable to your point of view. There was a temporary influx of funding from the massive COVID relief/stimulus packages. The article was written in 2019. There was no cherry picking. That was the most recent data available to them.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  And yet tuition didn't go down as cbpp would've predicted. We at least agree that we ought to use the most recent data when determining whether something has actually been debunked, correct? They used the most recent data at the time, but it's no longer 2018.
  - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
    That's not what they predicted. Why would you expect it to go down? It was a one year boost in funding and the states didn't condition the funding on tuition prices. Universities _will not_ reduce tuition without being forced to do so. Universities _cannot_ reduce tuition without more funding.
    - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
      Because part of the article's premise is that the high sticker price is dissuading people from enrolling. The cost of running a university net public funding was significantly reduced from 2018 to 2021. When your margin goes up and your demand goes down below capacity, then prices go down due to price equilibrium, since the marginal benefit from enrolling one more student is positive, assuming a student can pick from more than one university. But this didn't happen, which means the prices are being driven by some other force (maybe student loans that can never be discharged through bankruptcy?)
      - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
        Maximizing revenue frequently involves demand being below capacity. If reducing tuition by 20% increases enrollment by less than 20%, it's revenue-negative. My university was the most expensive public school in my state and still enrolled more students every year while increasing (nominal?) tuition despite not being the flagship or a party school. There is a lot more demand for spots in good schools than there are spots available. Universities aren't socks. Students don't pick one because it's 5% cheaper. They're not nearly as price-sensitive as you'd think.
        bitshiftfaced 3y ago
        > They're not nearly as price-sensitive as you'd think. Not me, no I agree with you here. It's the authors of the article you posted that think that students are price sensitive.
        ZoomerCretin 3y ago
        You're completely derailing the conversation. Are you looking at the discussion as a whole and trying to stay on topic or just responding to my last comment and looking for a gotcha?
        bitshiftfaced 3y ago
        I believe this report may clear things up. It compares per fte inflation adjusted dollars. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud/postsecondary-institution-revenue https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud/postsecondary... 2010 6310 tuition 5790 federal 10420 state 22520 total (16210 from public funding) 2020 8160 tuition 6010 federal 12020 state 26190 (18030 from public funding) Now if public funding went down $2000 and tuition went up $2000, that would lend evidence to the idea that collapsed public funding resulted in higher tuition. Yet public funding went up $2000 and tuition went up $2000. And you say this is because market forces don't apply and that the state isn't tying funding to tuition. That may be what you believe, but I don't see how any of this refutes the alternative explanation (that it has to do with student loans not being subject to bankruptcy).

ZoomerCretin 3y ago

Looks like you debunked it by picking a year particularly favorable to your point of view. There was a temporary influx of funding from the massive COVID relief/stimulus packages. The article was written in 2019. There was no cherry picking. That was the most recent data available to them.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago
And yet tuition didn't go down as cbpp would've predicted. We at least agree that we ought to use the most recent data when determining whether something has actually been debunked, correct? They used the most recent data at the time, but it's no longer 2018.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  That's not what they predicted. Why would you expect it to go down? It was a one year boost in funding and the states didn't condition the funding on tuition prices. Universities _will not_ reduce tuition without being forced to do so. Universities _cannot_ reduce tuition without more funding.
  - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
    Because part of the article's premise is that the high sticker price is dissuading people from enrolling. The cost of running a university net public funding was significantly reduced from 2018 to 2021. When your margin goes up and your demand goes down below capacity, then prices go down due to price equilibrium, since the marginal benefit from enrolling one more student is positive, assuming a student can pick from more than one university. But this didn't happen, which means the prices are being driven by some other force (maybe student loans that can never be discharged through bankruptcy?)
    - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
      Maximizing revenue frequently involves demand being below capacity. If reducing tuition by 20% increases enrollment by less than 20%, it's revenue-negative. My university was the most expensive public school in my state and still enrolled more students every year while increasing (nominal?) tuition despite not being the flagship or a party school. There is a lot more demand for spots in good schools than there are spots available. Universities aren't socks. Students don't pick one because it's 5% cheaper. They're not nearly as price-sensitive as you'd think.
      - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
        > They're not nearly as price-sensitive as you'd think. Not me, no I agree with you here. It's the authors of the article you posted that think that students are price sensitive.
        ZoomerCretin 3y ago
        You're completely derailing the conversation. Are you looking at the discussion as a whole and trying to stay on topic or just responding to my last comment and looking for a gotcha?
        bitshiftfaced 3y ago
        I believe this report may clear things up. It compares per fte inflation adjusted dollars. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud/postsecondary-institution-revenue https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cud/postsecondary... 2010 6310 tuition 5790 federal 10420 state 22520 total (16210 from public funding) 2020 8160 tuition 6010 federal 12020 state 26190 (18030 from public funding) Now if public funding went down $2000 and tuition went up $2000, that would lend evidence to the idea that collapsed public funding resulted in higher tuition. Yet public funding went up $2000 and tuition went up $2000. And you say this is because market forces don't apply and that the state isn't tying funding to tuition. That may be what you believe, but I don't see how any of this refutes the alternative explanation (that it has to do with student loans not being subject to bankruptcy).