4 ms·

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 ac

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
        You're cherry picking years again. Funding in 2010 was far lower than 2008. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_580_high_dpi/public/atoms/files/10-24-19sfp-f5.png?itok=Ef0K2opM https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_580_h... Market forces do apply to colleges. Their customers simply are not price-sensitive. Universities are not businesses. Tuition is frequently less than the cost of teaching students. The cost of an education has risen independently of how that education is paid for. Removing loans from the equation wouldn't lower prices because prices are set by costs, not by profits. There is a ton of administrative bloat, but universities will always prefer to not fire employees over reducing costs for transient members of their school. Even if it was true, it would not prove your theory that it has anything to do with student loans not being subject to bankruptcy. Universities do not issue loans. Bankruptcy leaves lenders holding the bag, not universities. You have not given any explanation for your theory of undichargable student loans causing higher prices, you've only attempted to refute my explanation as proof that your theory is the only alternative.

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
        You're cherry picking years again. Funding in 2010 was far lower than 2008. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_580_high_dpi/public/atoms/files/10-24-19sfp-f5.png?itok=Ef0K2opM https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/styles/report_580_h... Market forces do apply to colleges. Their customers simply are not price-sensitive. Universities are not businesses. Tuition is frequently less than the cost of teaching students. The cost of an education has risen independently of how that education is paid for. Removing loans from the equation wouldn't lower prices because prices are set by costs, not by profits. There is a ton of administrative bloat, but universities will always prefer to not fire employees over reducing costs for transient members of their school. Even if it was true, it would not prove your theory that it has anything to do with student loans not being subject to bankruptcy. Universities do not issue loans. Bankruptcy leaves lenders holding the bag, not universities. You have not given any explanation for your theory of undichargable student loans causing higher prices, you've only attempted to refute my explanation as proof that your theory is the only alternative.