4 ms·

> As I interpret it, the subject is "One of the causes of rising college costs is very fancy dorms." The subject – which is really a question – asks why is hou

> As I interpret it, the subject is "One of the causes of rising college costs is very fancy dorms." The subject – which is really a question – asks why is housing considered a college cost when one has to incur a housing cost no matter what (at least for all practical purposes)? The closest thing we got as a response to that was a couple of people who felt it was a college cost because some institutions require freshmen to stay in campus-operated housing. There is certainly something to that on the surface, but we never managed to go deeper. Like, is the full rental cost a college cost, or only the cost difference between the student housing and an equivalent off-campus house? What about the colleges that have no such requirement? What about students who are not freshmen? While the food tangent was introduced in jest, it would have also been interesting to explore that as if housing is a college cost, then it stands to reason that food is also a college cost. Along with entertainment, car ownership (for those who own a car while in college), contraception, etc. We could have also discussed if that logic extends to other areas of life. Are housing costs a cost of running a business? That would be especially interesting as the tax man usually says no, except maybe allowing a small portion of the total cost to be reserved as an office cost. In that vein, perhaps only a small portion of one's student home – where they do their homework – should be considered a cost of college? But there was no interest. Which is fine. The jokes most everyone else brought instead were entertaining too.

at_a_remove 3y ago
I would count food as a college cost, certainly, due to meal plans. Many colleges, like the one I worked at, had an outside vendor working many of the eateries. They had such a stranglehold that they (anti-competitively) did not want the places they didn't run (usually little student-run things attached to a particular school, vending machines, foot carts) listed at all. First they got the contract and wowed us with some great food. Over the years, however, their prices went up, and both the portion size and the quality decreased. Additionally, many students with the mandatory meal plans had excess points at the end of the semester or year. No refunds. Even at the university I attended, way back when, what I got for my money when I moved out of campus was a lot better than what I got when I had to have a dorm room and eat in the cafeteria from what was provided. Better space, better food. Or you could save your money and live in the much-smaller rooms which were next to campus. I would start counting things as "college costs" when there was a some intersection of outside vendor, profit center, and mandatory subscription. You can see parallels with "textbooks" (freshly printed, spiral-bound, new-each-semester, written-by-the-prof) you must get at some incredible cost, often in excess of two hundred dollars. I'm not one of those people who bangs on about the free market all the time, but there's some serious quasi-regulatory capture going on there.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > I would count food as a college cost, certainly, due to meal plans. Total cost? If a meal plan burger works out to $11 and a burger at the restaurant next door is $10, is the cost of college $11 or $1? If the meal plan burger is, instead, $9, did your college costs drop by $1?
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    I think the most reasonable approach would be to use the differential price. Of course, that's kicking the can down the road a bit. Meal plan burger is $11, the burger next door is $10, but the burger back home in Podunk, Flyoversas is $6. Certainly the $1 differential price is immediately obvious and seems fair, but would I be eating even that ten buck burger if I hadn't moved to Cosmetropolis, New Coast? Could I argue a five dollar differential? Perhaps, but then you're getting into "the cost of college" versus "the cost of a specific college." It's a tough problem. You're left with this kind of Sliding Doors situation where you are left attempting to compare two different life-strands: one in which you went to college and had to buy decent Wellingtons and an overcoat and gloves because of the weather there and one where you stayed at home, because the weather in Podunk is at least pleasant.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > You're left with this kind of Sliding Doors situation where you are left attempting to compare two different life-strands That comes down to the individual, which we cannot speak to generally, but someone considering going to college will certainly consider the options in front of them. The article's insistence that the entire cost of housing is considered a cost of college may not be a useful framework for someone doing that decision making. While said jokingly, the bit about people going to college to learn how to determine if college is a good deal or not contains quite a lot of truth. The, typically young, people choosing whether or go to college or not generally don't have the life experience and knowledge to make an informed decision, relying on things like this article to help guide them. I am inclined to agree with your reasoning, and touched on that lightly in the first comment. But, as mentioned then, the data suggests that most people near live where colleges are also located anyway. An individual may have otherwise lived in Podunk, Flyoversas, but if we have to establish a general case, then it seems people generally live in the same place either way. Thus, given the broad strokes at play, is it useful to call housing a college cost?

at_a_remove 3y ago

I would count food as a college cost, certainly, due to meal plans. Many colleges, like the one I worked at, had an outside vendor working many of the eateries. They had such a stranglehold that they (anti-competitively) did not want the places they didn't run (usually little student-run things attached to a particular school, vending machines, foot carts) listed at all. First they got the contract and wowed us with some great food. Over the years, however, their prices went up, and both the portion size and the quality decreased. Additionally, many students with the mandatory meal plans had excess points at the end of the semester or year. No refunds. Even at the university I attended, way back when, what I got for my money when I moved out of campus was a lot better than what I got when I had to have a dorm room and eat in the cafeteria from what was provided. Better space, better food. Or you could save your money and live in the much-smaller rooms which were next to campus. I would start counting things as "college costs" when there was a some intersection of outside vendor, profit center, and mandatory subscription. You can see parallels with "textbooks" (freshly printed, spiral-bound, new-each-semester, written-by-the-prof) you must get at some incredible cost, often in excess of two hundred dollars. I'm not one of those people who bangs on about the free market all the time, but there's some serious quasi-regulatory capture going on there.

randomdata 3y ago
> I would count food as a college cost, certainly, due to meal plans. Total cost? If a meal plan burger works out to $11 and a burger at the restaurant next door is $10, is the cost of college $11 or $1? If the meal plan burger is, instead, $9, did your college costs drop by $1?
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  I think the most reasonable approach would be to use the differential price. Of course, that's kicking the can down the road a bit. Meal plan burger is $11, the burger next door is $10, but the burger back home in Podunk, Flyoversas is $6. Certainly the $1 differential price is immediately obvious and seems fair, but would I be eating even that ten buck burger if I hadn't moved to Cosmetropolis, New Coast? Could I argue a five dollar differential? Perhaps, but then you're getting into "the cost of college" versus "the cost of a specific college." It's a tough problem. You're left with this kind of Sliding Doors situation where you are left attempting to compare two different life-strands: one in which you went to college and had to buy decent Wellingtons and an overcoat and gloves because of the weather there and one where you stayed at home, because the weather in Podunk is at least pleasant.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > You're left with this kind of Sliding Doors situation where you are left attempting to compare two different life-strands That comes down to the individual, which we cannot speak to generally, but someone considering going to college will certainly consider the options in front of them. The article's insistence that the entire cost of housing is considered a cost of college may not be a useful framework for someone doing that decision making. While said jokingly, the bit about people going to college to learn how to determine if college is a good deal or not contains quite a lot of truth. The, typically young, people choosing whether or go to college or not generally don't have the life experience and knowledge to make an informed decision, relying on things like this article to help guide them. I am inclined to agree with your reasoning, and touched on that lightly in the first comment. But, as mentioned then, the data suggests that most people near live where colleges are also located anyway. An individual may have otherwise lived in Podunk, Flyoversas, but if we have to establish a general case, then it seems people generally live in the same place either way. Thus, given the broad strokes at play, is it useful to call housing a college cost?