3 ms·

It's hard for me to tell if this article is being intentionally disingenuous, or if it's just missing the forest for the trees. Take a look at this graph of co

It's hard for me to tell if this article is being intentionally disingenuous, or if it's just missing the forest for the trees. Take a look at this graph of college costs vs salaries for young people over time: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106968880-1635799559954-College_costs_vs_Earnings.jpg?v=1635799656&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106968880-163579955995... . It's really hard to look at that graph and make the argument "No, no, expensive college costs are basically all in your head." The other thing I think is insane, which I see often, is to compare salaries of college grads vs. HS grads to make the argument that college is "worth it". But why is it a moral argument that colleges should have a right to "capture" as much of this increase in earnings as they can? After all, a huge reason for the discrepancy is that people who are inclined to go to college are more likely to get higher paying jobs in the first place. It's kinda like how I see some marketing departments that try to ascribe every single purchase to their efforts (and winning a larger budget in the process), when their "science of marketing attribution" is often a lot of hand wavy BS. This article does make some fair points: public colleges tend to much cheaper than private ones, and most colleges give substantial grants. But even then it's leaving out some vital details (e.g. I didn't hear it mention room and board or obscene textbook prices). I think the thing that is most frustrating to me about the general college cost debate is that the thing that is most out of whack is giving giant, non-dischargeable student loans to students in non-lucrative majors. The reason lenders are willing to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to someone who studies poetry is they know either the government has their back, or the student will be paying off their loan until they die - and colleges know this, too, which is why they feel so little downward pressure on pricing.

gruez 3y ago
>Take a look at this graph of college costs vs salaries for young people over time: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106968880-163579955995 https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106968880-163579955995... . Let me stop you right there. The fact that the graph doesn't show the dip in actual tuition costs that the article mentions, and the fact that other commenters have corroborated the dip does indeed exist, makes me think that the chart you linked is talking about the wrong metric. I suspect that the prices are "sticker prices", not actual costs, which the article specifically addresses: >Sticker prices are rising while net costs remain steady and, in some cases, drop. A report from the College Board, a non-profit, shows that whereas published tuition and fees for private non-profit colleges increased from $29,000 in 2006-07 to $38,000 in 2021-22 (in 2021 dollars), the net price actually decreased from $17,000 to $15,000.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  That's the trick. They need to stock these colleges with smart and interesting kids in order to attract the sheltered idiots with wealthy upper middle-class parents. A lot of very talented broke people I know got full rides to mediocre schools that normally cost twice as much to attend as actually good schools. The school was taking absolutely no risk with them, they were proven prodigies that didn't really need school (and didn't have great grades.) Anyway, the best schools are free to attend (at least until the loan payments start.) You get showered with grants and loans if they accept you. It's the worthless ones that benefit from signalling their cost. Those are the schools paying smart (and culturally interesting) kids to attend, as atmosphere for the real customers.
bagacrap 3y ago
Colleges are rent seeking. Ricardo's law of rent suggests the cost of a college education will rise without bound to offset its utility.

gruez 3y ago

>Take a look at this graph of college costs vs salaries for young people over time: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106968880-163579955995 https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106968880-163579955995... . Let me stop you right there. The fact that the graph doesn't show the dip in actual tuition costs that the article mentions, and the fact that other commenters have corroborated the dip does indeed exist, makes me think that the chart you linked is talking about the wrong metric. I suspect that the prices are "sticker prices", not actual costs, which the article specifically addresses: >Sticker prices are rising while net costs remain steady and, in some cases, drop. A report from the College Board, a non-profit, shows that whereas published tuition and fees for private non-profit colleges increased from $29,000 in 2006-07 to $38,000 in 2021-22 (in 2021 dollars), the net price actually decreased from $17,000 to $15,000.

pessimizer 3y ago
That's the trick. They need to stock these colleges with smart and interesting kids in order to attract the sheltered idiots with wealthy upper middle-class parents. A lot of very talented broke people I know got full rides to mediocre schools that normally cost twice as much to attend as actually good schools. The school was taking absolutely no risk with them, they were proven prodigies that didn't really need school (and didn't have great grades.) Anyway, the best schools are free to attend (at least until the loan payments start.) You get showered with grants and loans if they accept you. It's the worthless ones that benefit from signalling their cost. Those are the schools paying smart (and culturally interesting) kids to attend, as atmosphere for the real customers.

bagacrap 3y ago

Colleges are rent seeking. Ricardo's law of rent suggests the cost of a college education will rise without bound to offset its utility.