6 ms·

The looming college-enrollment death spiral

118 points by JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

Dunsinagb 7mo ago
[dead]
kamikazeturtles 7mo ago
https://archive.ph/KpOsf https://archive.ph/KpOsf
ks2048 7mo ago
Right in the headline is a word choice I've notice lately that irks me, "democratization". "democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it. In voting, "more access" means "more governing power" (in principle), but in other things, it does not. If you want to use "democratized" applied to higher-ed, it would mean more people are involved in the decision-making, leadership, or ownership.
- FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
  Isn't more people attending college, and thus choosing where to go with their pocket book, the 'control'. The people control, through voting by choosing where to attend, based on what is offered. So if someplace is not offering much that anybody wants, they don't get students, and go out of business. The word 'democratize' is often used just for 'access' through purchasing power. Not that I agree that money should control learning. I'd like to go back to more hardcore reading/writing/arithmetic/Compiler Design. But nobody digs that.
  - ks2048 7mo ago
    > The word 'democratize' is often used just for 'access' through purchasing power. I guess I'm saying, yes, that is how it often used. I just don't like it and think it is relatively new usage and a change in the older meaning of the word. In the 90's when Linux was taking off, did people say Torvalds has "democratized Unix"? (honest question - I'm not sure.)
  - atq2119 7mo ago
    It's a fairly weak level of control, though. Compare with the governing structures of public universities in (most of?) Germany where there is a "senate" composed of elected representatives of professors, students, and administrative and academic staff. Now that is approaching democratic control.
- jasode 7mo ago
  >"democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it. > I just don't like it and think it is relatively new usage and a change in the older meaning of the word. People have been using "democratize" to describe "more accessible to the masses" for a long time. Here's an example from 106 years ago in 1920 : https://www.google.com/books/edition/Soviet_Russia/qflaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22democratize%22&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Soviet_Russia/qflaAAAAM... And 40 years ago a 1986 article of "microchip democratizing computing" : https://www.google.com/books/edition/Procom_s_1986_1987_Dental_Computer_Guide/DONpAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22democratized+computing%22&dq=%22democratized+computing%22&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Procom_s_1986_1987_Dent... The additional meanings of democratize to describe "more accessible" are also documented in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries: https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/democratize#:~:text=make%20(something)%20accessible%20to%20everyone https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesaur... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic#:~:text=relating%2C%20appealing%2C%20or%20available%20to%20the%20broad%20masses%20of%20the%20people%20%3A%20designed%20for%20or%20liked%20by%20most%20people https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic#:~:tex...
  - potsandpans 7mo ago
    Right. But it's not my favorite nerd snipe interpretation that allows me to post low effort comments on hackernews about the headline instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion about the article.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
    It could be that HN commnter replying to submission about education in the United States indicating that he is "irked" by the term "democratisation" is not located within the United States but rather in a non-English speaking country not initiallu founded upon "democratic" principles (cf. United States) and with a dissimilar history of "democracy". As such, his interpetation of this term could have different meaning to him than the journalist working for The Atlantic who resides within the United States and is employed by one of its academic institutions
- Amorymeltzer 7mo ago
  I basically agree, but I think at this point it's an accepted use; see e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_knowledge> and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_technology>. Indeed, wiktionary (<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratization https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratization>) uses your sense as the first, strict definition, but gives "The broadening of access to something, especially for the sake of egalitarianism." as the loose definition.
- caconym_ 7mo ago
  "Democratize"? I thought that was when you rent an AI tool built on stolen intellectual property to write, draw, code, etc. for you because you never bothered to learn those skills yourself and convinced yourself they were being gatekept.
- bananamogul 7mo ago
  Just wait until you realize that 99.999% of the time, when people say "methodology" they really mean "method". It'll drive you mad.
- pandaman 7mo ago
  >"democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it It literally does, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic 3: relating, appealing, or available to the broad masses of the people : designed for or liked by most people
  - PearlRiver 7mo ago
    I do not know how it worked in the US but in my country until the 1960s university was for the upper class. No son or daughter of a butcher could ever hope to study law.
    - pandaman 7mo ago
      It might have been the same until 1960s in the US. It doesn't matter in 2020s, when people who graduated before 1960s are in their 80s if still alive.
    - tracker1 7mo ago
      It really changed during the Clinton administration, where rules were established for student loans that pretty much ensured almost anyone who wanted to go to college could go to college. Since then tuition rates have dramatically exceeded inflation though. There's also the issue in that a lot of private/commercial colleges have optimized their pricing to where most people drop out to extract maximum value from the system, pretty much leaving people often unable to complete their programs the final year or half year. I think that the opportunity for funding should have higher ties to economic demand for certain degree programs over others. I'm not opposed to people that want to go to arts programs in college, but I'm not sure that they should be taxpayer funded necessarily. I have thought that areas where we bring in foreign workers should largely be offset with higher employer taxes and those taxes funding grants for domestic study into the fields in question. I also think we need a much broader set of trade schools for more industries than typical. Even with technology and programming. In terms of lower high school graduation rates, I think we've dumbed down and taken things to the lowest common denominator in an extreme fashion. Common-core has failed, along with "new math" and other more modern teaching methods. My great grandmother was a teacher, and I've seen some of the text books they used in the pre-1960s, the coverage was much more thorough and difficult even at a 5th grade level than what many kids today see through the end of high school. There should be plenty of room for vocational study as well as traditional study... but we need to stop just giving kids a pass because they're a certain age when they don't understand the core curriculem.
apparent 7mo ago
The author has written a famous book on college admissions, but this piece doesn't really seem to add much to the discussion. I came away thinking that his publicist recommended he get his name out there more to help his brand or sell some more books.
- yodon 7mo ago
  More people read the Atlantic than read books on college admissions. It is possible and often useful to increase the number of informed people even without adding net new information.
  - apparent 7mo ago
    I don't think the book that he's famous for talks about the demographic trends much at all. It's just something that parents are aware of, and that is talked about as one of the ways in which admissions numbers will change in the next decade or two.
ks2048 7mo ago
> The number of teenagers graduating from American high schools peaked last year. The article doesn't seem to mention foreigners - particularly Chinese. Are those numbers expected to grow or shrink?
- rtkwe 7mo ago
  Under the current admin's policies shrink. After that who knows.
  - HillRat 7mo ago
    That's really the key problem facing US universities, from land-grant colleges to the Ivies: everyone depends at least in part on closing budgetary gaps with global students who pay full freight. Current Administration policies, both specifically targeted at foreign students and more generally at higher education and immigration, are poisoning the seed corn colleges and universities rely on. The only good news, relatively speaking, is that Europe is evidently constitutionally incapable of taking advantage of what is a genuinely one-in-an-imperial-lifetime chance to drain intellectual capital from the United States, which means that America and our higher education system can recover from this, should we have the fortitude to do so in the future -- there just isn't much in the way of competition.
    - dmitrygr 7mo ago
      > with global students who pay full freight Some do, some pay nothing: https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/05/31/minnesota-free-college-tuition-undocumented-immigrants-eligible https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/05/31/minnesota...
      - cschmidt 7mo ago
        Those are not global students. Those are people who are already living in the state. Foreign students typically pay the most tuition possible with no financial aid, subsidizing everyone else.
brd529 7mo ago
Isn’t there a strong argument that we put too many students in debt with a partially completed or useless degree in a well meaning push for “college for all”? The triumph the author describes - an increase in colleges - came at the expense of a reduction in vocational schools and programs.
- convolvatron 7mo ago
  there was almost certainly a demand issue with graduates of technical schools. Also increased privatization leading to some really awful scammy institutions. I personally went to college and washed out, and would have been much better served by getting schooled in the trades, but I think this is really a pretty bad multi-dimensional corner we've backed ourselves into (primary, secondary, and post-graduate schooling, employment).
  - kakacik 7mo ago
    Discussions and concerns we simply dont have in Europe. There are costs, but nothing significant from public schools themselves, rather just accommodation, food, travel etc. Some folks still go to private ones, but those are mostly not for extra prestige but rather different focus, or those who are not that great students themselves. Unpopular here, but I judge degree of development / maturity of societies on 2 major factors : 1) how it can take care of the vulnerable members in need - mostly heathcare, with som basic social support to help you bridge between jobs, plus obviously (mostly self-earned but managed by state) retirement; and 2) how well it invests into its future via education on all levels. Education aint luxury but empowering basic need. The question then is, how much does given country wants to empower potentially all its citizens. It costs something, but doesnt have to be ridiculous. Apart from infrastructure and basic security & defense(since we have russia trying to conquer us all in Europe) the only really valuable investments.
    - lamasery 7mo ago
      > Unpopular here, but I judge degree of development / maturity of societies on 2 major factors : 1) how it can take care of the vulnerable members in need - mostly heathcare, with som basic social support to help you bridge between jobs, plus obviously (mostly self-earned but managed by state) retirement; and 2) how well it invests into its future via education on all levels. Education aint luxury but empowering basic need. The question then is, how much does given country wants to empower potentially all its citizens. The test of Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" is a pretty good way of cutting through the details and getting to what matters: if you had to be reborn as someone in any country (or, had to choose between two, if we wanted to e.g. rank them), and you couldn't control anything about the circumstances (race, social status, money, intelligence level, disabled or not, et c.) but were leaving it up to a die roll based on the demographics of the place—which would you choose? The ones you're more-inclined to choose are the better ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position And yeah, stuff like ensuring the worst-likely-case for a resident isn't that bad, and that you get a significant helping hand to improve your lot, helps a ton to make a country more appealing, in this sort of thought experiment. Far, far more than e.g. making sure the few very-best-off really run away with the prize (which improves the appeal of such a place basically not at all).
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
burningChrome 7mo ago
I honestly don't buy this for several reason. In the mid 90's, my affluent suburban high school was in panic mode, afraid that declining enrollment was an impending death spiral. My graduating class only had gasp 750+ students. Ten years after I graduated, entering the 2000's, enrollment had already surpassed 800 kids. The school had to build out an entire wing and completely remodel the athletic building to accomodate all the new students that were enrolling. Likewise, attending college in North Dakota saw the same thing in the late 90's. Sheer panic the entire North Dakota college system was about to enter an enrollment desert. They wondered how can the Universities recruit more out-state students. Again, by early to mid aughts? Enrollment was off the charts. They had to buy buildings in the downtown area and convert them to a new "downtown campus" for several emerging and expanding majors. The campus saw a constant upgrade of facilities and buildings. It was completely the opposite. The entire system saw a massive transformation that continues to this day: As of Fall 2025, the North Dakota University System (NDUS) reports a total headcount of 47,552 students, marking a 3.8% increase over 2024 and reaching its highest level since 2014. The University of North Dakota (UND) specifically achieved a record-breaking enrollment of 15,844 students in 2025, surpassing its previous 2012 record. Across the system, growth is driven by rising undergraduate numbers and an increase in high school students. Over the past five or so years, there's been a small fluctuation, but overall the system has been surging as of late and is on solid ground for the next decade or so. The North Dakota system is the very kind of system the article says is about to be greatly affected by the year 2040. That would require quite a drop off from where they currently are and the amount of growth they're having right now. Again, I don't buy this since many of the people who are from out-state, many of them will settle down in North Dakota cities, get married and start families there. The cost of living is super low and its a very tax friendly state compared to many of its neighbors like Minnesota. Fargo, where NDSU (and by proxy Moorehead University and Concordia College) is located is still one of the fastest growing cities in the state, growing steadily at about a 2% pace annually. Which means the supply side of the equation isn't likely to die out any time either.
- selimthegrim 7mo ago
  Tell that to WVU.
seniorThrowaway 7mo ago
I think college's value proposition and entire model has been eroded. Major school's CS grads are finding jobs upon graduation at an 11% rate (I don't have the primary source on this, but it is published by a site I read that never fudges these kinds of things, going back many years). AI probably has a lot to do with that, but it's exposing something more fundamental. CS wasn't supposed to be a programming boot camp anyway, it is at its heart an academic degree much close to pure mathematics than programming. Maybe it should go back to that? Maybe college never should have been for everyone? That was the norm for the vast majority of the existence of higher education. Maybe we don't need gleaming campus' with huge facilities overhead costs? When storing knowledge required physical books it made sense to build learning facilities around large libraries, but that hasn't been the case for decades now. Should young people really be taking on life long non-dischargeable debt for a glorified high school diploma? I think the answer is no, they shouldn't, and that the entire college bubble needs to be popped.
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  > Major school's CS grads are finding jobs upon graduation at an 11% rate That number makes me very skeptical, even in 2026. Maybe what you are saying is that the unemployment figure is 11%? That would be pretty bad compared to two years ago, but within the realm of plausible if we were seeing a major upset in the employment market. E.g. 2024 data: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:...
  - mcmcmc 7mo ago
    I'd interpret that as 11% of CS grads are finding appropriate jobs (not underemployment) within a set amount of time after graduation. That data from the fed includes all people aged 22-27 with a bachelor's degree. Where that number is coming from, or what that time frame would be I'm not sure. But I do think it would be more interesting to see the amount of time recent grads spent unemployed or underemployed vs a presumptive snapshot of current employment state.
ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
If you are choosing to still attend college, my advice would be to get an A.B.E.T-accredited degree, to fall back upon (I have a non-BE science degree from a prestigious US institution == essentially worthless). Being an engineer vs. being an engineer tech is a substantially life-quality difference. But only if you choose to attend (I would not re-attend).
- layman51 7mo ago
  Is this related to the exam that some college graduates could take to become professional engineers?
  - coredog64 7mo ago
    Necessary but not sufficient: My aerospace engineering degree is from an ABET-certified school. However, I skipped the class (and test) that puts you onto the track of being able to call yourself a professional engineer. I would also suggest looking at the ABET certification interval for different campuses. It was a point of pride on our campus that we had a longer interval compared to the more established campus. We got the longer interval because ABET trusted our program to not need constant supervision.
  - ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
    Exactly. Most 4-year engineering programs are accredited (but definitely not all). Rougly speaking, it cuts the professional experience requirement in half, and makes the entire process of becoming a P.E. (professional engineer) much simpler (not easier). There are multiple field tests, including the Fundamentals & Engineering exam that allows you to 2x your eng.tech. experience.
semiquaver 7mo ago
It seems that the entire higher education space is in dire need of some creative destruction. College expenses have been subject to cost disease for years and a reckoning is long due. I’m not sure if demographic change will produce this reckoning but something has to.
- doctorpangloss 7mo ago
  There are only two businesses ChatGPT has really disrupted: Chegg and customer service. There's disruption but not the good kind. The reckoning is cheating not demographics.
  - colechristensen 7mo ago
    My most effective professors gave us the answers to the work we were expected to do. It was a much more effective way to learn than doing work and getting feedback to whether or not it was correct weeks later. Organizing academic work in such a way that "cheating" is even a concept is silly. You're there to learn, if you want to pretend that you learned I guess good for you but we need to just get over the fact that people can make it look like they did something when they didn't.
- colechristensen 7mo ago
  You just have to fire 80% of the administration, kill all of the "programs" which are trying to do this or that, and focus on A) providing the basic resources for academics to study and B) providing the basic resources for teaching. Universities need to do very much less that isn't directly related to research or teaching and stop pretending the lead administrator of a university is an important position. The president of a university should have the pay and prestige that goes along with administering the parking garage and cafeteria and have few responsibilities or accolades beyond that.
  - mrguyorama 7mo ago
    But then how will the NFL run it's free feeder and athlete development program? How will Disney get to profit off of selling college athletes as an entertainment product? If college is accessible to even the poorest Americans, how will we maintain the claim that they are bastions of liberal brainwashing against millions of conservative people getting reasonable educations in basic things like "Political Science" that don't actually force them to become communists at all? Who will ensure that only those who "Deserve" it can afford to get a degree through byzantine FAFSA workflows and departments? Who will ensure that being middle class means you have to pay out of pocket instead of getting a couple thousand dollars?!
colechristensen 7mo ago
University is too expensive, bloating administrative budgets and "prestige" architecture combined with professional sports teams have led everyone astray from the two goals: advancing the forefront of human knowledge and preparing young people with the education to be free in their world. Instead we're going to very expensive camp where most of the people flaunt laws for fun (there's no reason alcohol should be illegal for undergrads) and then grind to pass tests while not actually learning all that much OR becoming all that prepared for the world after university. Particularly with how poorly academics are paid, it would be pretty damn easy to build a better university. It's not at all surprising people are leaving, university degrees are becoming minimum quarter million dollar participation trophies.
- chromacity 7mo ago
  > It's not at all surprising people are leaving, university degrees are becoming minimum quarter million dollar participation trophies. The vast majority of college degrees are nowhere near that. Average in-state tuition in the US is something like $9,000. Now, some people want a trophy from Stanford, but that's a separate topic.
jimbokun 7mo ago
> On the flip side, perhaps no field has collapsed more dramatically than computer and information sciences: From 2014 to 2024, entry-level openings grew about 6%, while the number of graduates soared by 110%. That seems more relevant to new CS grad unemployment than AI.
munificent 7mo ago
As long as people are allowed to vote in the US, we have an incentive to ensure they are all well educated. Surely a large part of this problem that the article doesn't mention is that college is too fucking expensive. And an obvious solution to that is to tax rich people and use that to fund universities so that students don't have to go so far in debt in order to become productive members of society. It's crazy how many problems today boil down to "a tiny fraction of elites are hoarding all the wealth" and yet we seem to assume the solution of "tax them and use that money to benefit others" is simply impossible.
- mcmcmc 7mo ago
  Who's "we"? Parties in power have a huge incentive to keep voters uneducated and gullible.
  - blix 7mo ago
    You don't want the people to be uneducated, because you have no control over their thought processes, which could be dangerous an unpredictable. And it leaves space for someone else to educate them in way that conflicts with your interests. Ideally, you would want them to be intentionally educated to a specific type of manipulable gullibility, where they are receptive to your messages, but resistant to messages from other sources.
    - czl 7mo ago
      > specific type of manipulable gullibility A congregation trained to say “amen” on cue.
      - blix 7mo ago
        the denouncing of heresy may be even more important.
- GS523523 7mo ago
  I'm sure a lot of people assume it's immoral rather than impossible.
danny_codes 7mo ago
IMO we should pay adults to go back to school. Make all public universities free and pay a living stipend. Give additional stipends for dependents. Easy win for everyone.
- coredog64 7mo ago
  Insert "just need to subsidize demand" meme here.
  - downrightmike 7mo ago
    That's how we got here
- aorona 7mo ago
  but why
  - glial 7mo ago
    Well, for one thing, critical thinking and communication skills seem to be in short supply.
    - PearlRiver 7mo ago
      Students in America don't have jobs. You can be motherfucking Einstein but you will still have to be a waiter in a cafe to contribute to society and pay for your student room. When you are 20 you don't need sleep.
      - triceratops 7mo ago
        I hope you aren't hit by a sleep-deprived 20 year old driving from their night shift to an early morning class.
    - gottorf 7mo ago
      Have you observed a lot of critical thinking and good communication from recent college grads?
ecshafer 7mo ago
Universities got broken trying to make it for everyone, and also jacked up the price. Return to traditional degrees, get rid of the boutique majors and things that belong in job training centers.
- mschuster91 7mo ago
  > Return to traditional degrees, get rid of the boutique majors and things that belong in job training centers. But who is gonna pay for these? (half-/s) Reality is, employers don't want to pay the bill for job training centers or for German-style apprenticeship education. Universities aka degree mills are what keeps most large employers afloat - depending on the system, it's either the talent themselves (US via student loans), the government itself (Germany) or a mixture of both paying the bills, while employers get fresh trained talent without paying a dime.
- potsandpans 7mo ago
  What is a "boutique major"?
  - ecshafer 7mo ago
    I met someone who received a degree in "Happiness" from a reputable university and took a hodge podge of courses. There are also many inter-disciplinary degrees that make sense at a graduate degree level but not an undergraduate level.
rekabis 7mo ago
Unless the big universities “expand” by linking up with the regional colleges, giving them a branding cachet that will attract students, there is one group that will benefit enormously: Conservatives. They require an uneducated and ignorant electorate. It’s the only way they can hoodwink voters into voting against their own best interests.
ButlerianJihad 7mo ago
From my youth, I was infected with the desire to graduate college at all costs. I was adopted, and I was told that both of my birth-parents were college graduates (I later validated this as truth!) My adoptive parents were also both college graduates, though my mother chose against a career or employment in favor of motherhood, and active volunteering in church and civic spheres. My sister and I were both groomed to go to college. We attended the standard college prep high schools. The choices were laid before us. Mom told me definitely not to attend UC Berkeley (because of the hippies and anti-war protests.) So, I chose UCSD and my parents basically handled all the paperwork; I sat down to write an essay, and I was totally in. However, mental illness ruled my life and I dropped out of classes. An excuse by my therapist got me restarted but not for very long before the second dropout. I tried community college for a semester and earned one more good grade (in C programming). I started work, foolishly believing that would go better than college! My life fell apart around me and college remained unfinished for decades. Finally by 2017 I was stable enough to consider college again. Of course I should have understood that my career was not a thing, and at that point, college was the frivolous pipe-dream of an aging guy unable to really support himself. Nonetheless, I did the FAFSA, and Uncle Sam paid for the rest of my college bills. I again dropped out, for reasons of being less-than-stable, but I had managed to earn 3 CompTIA certifications and I also landed a very nice job, which I held for over 4 years. None of those would've been possible without the drive to finish college. Ultimately, the community college found a way to "graduate me" and award me a certificate of completion (instead of the Associate's in Applied Science which I was pursuing.) My "graduation ceremony" occurred in the US Postal Service station. Receiving that certificate was 100% a surprise, but a Pyrrhic victory. At this point, I achieved my "bucket list" of graduating college, but I have 0 career prospects, and the certificate means 0 to my former or prospective employers (the certifications also meant nothing to them!) So what did Uncle Sam really pay for? My personal satisfaction? Just to funnel more taxpayer money to the college system? I am fine with that, I suppose. But it just goes to show that far more families push their children to attend college, and the expectations are set too high, when many kids growing up really need some vocational skills and real-life street smarts to survive in this world. Tuition prices have been jacked-up absurdly by the proliferation of scholarships and grants. "Diversity" means any view except conservatives or Christians. We are in need of a reckoning, especially for land-grant and "Ivy League" institutions.
erelong 7mo ago
Deregulation is the simple fix: quality of education and cost has predictably gone up due to regulation, as well as costs of doing business
- gottorf 7mo ago
  I don't know if "regulation" is the right word. In the end, what happened was that the foremost power in the world, the US federal government, having observed that college grads earn more than non-college grads, flipped cause and effect on its head and decided that everyone must go to college for better life outcomes. A tremendous amount of time, money, and resources went into making that happen. Against this backdrop, there was no world in which the price of higher education wasn't going to go dramatically up.
  - secabeen 7mo ago
    Do you have data to support this claim? The data I have shows that expenditures have gone up, but no where near what the nameplate tuition has or what detractors claim: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_334.10.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_334.10.a... College Board data shows that Tuition and Fees net of financial aid has fallen by significant amounts over the past 20 years (see page 18). Room and board has gone up, but that is broadly true in college towns generally, and is not in the control of the Universities: https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/Trends-in-College-Pricing-and-Student-Aid-2025-final_1.pdf https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/Trends-in-Colleg...
    - gottorf 7mo ago
      My comment was on the price of higher ed, not its cost, which is what your ed.gov source shows. CPI component calculations done by the BLS shows "College tuition and fees", including adjustments for scholarships and grants, had a 63% increase from 2009 (to match the CB data baseline) to now, which outpaces overall inflation of 56% over the same timeframe. I'm not sure what methodology CB uses to show falling inflation-adjusted prices. Granted, it's not a massive difference in those percentages[0], but because college is a large single-ticket item, that difference is probably felt more acutely. > Room and board has gone up, but that is broadly true in college towns generally, and is not in the control of the Universities In many places the local university is the largest landowner in town, and is tax-exempt to boot. They might hold some of the blame in those costs. [0]: As an aside, it's incredible that everyone half of their purchasing power in ~15 years, and a quarter in just the past 5 years alone.
fallingfrog 7mo ago
Well this has been essentially the plan since the 70's. The 60's scared the bejeezus out of the ruling class and they began taking steps to bring the people to heel from the 70's onward. In the words of Ronald Reagan's education advisor, Roger Freeman: "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. … That’s dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”
Dunsinagb 7mo ago
[dead]

118 points by JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

Dunsinagb 7mo ago

[dead]

kamikazeturtles 7mo ago

https://archive.ph/KpOsf https://archive.ph/KpOsf

ks2048 7mo ago

Right in the headline is a word choice I've notice lately that irks me, "democratization". "democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it. In voting, "more access" means "more governing power" (in principle), but in other things, it does not. If you want to use "democratized" applied to higher-ed, it would mean more people are involved in the decision-making, leadership, or ownership.

FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
Isn't more people attending college, and thus choosing where to go with their pocket book, the 'control'. The people control, through voting by choosing where to attend, based on what is offered. So if someplace is not offering much that anybody wants, they don't get students, and go out of business. The word 'democratize' is often used just for 'access' through purchasing power. Not that I agree that money should control learning. I'd like to go back to more hardcore reading/writing/arithmetic/Compiler Design. But nobody digs that.
- ks2048 7mo ago
  > The word 'democratize' is often used just for 'access' through purchasing power. I guess I'm saying, yes, that is how it often used. I just don't like it and think it is relatively new usage and a change in the older meaning of the word. In the 90's when Linux was taking off, did people say Torvalds has "democratized Unix"? (honest question - I'm not sure.)
- atq2119 7mo ago
  It's a fairly weak level of control, though. Compare with the governing structures of public universities in (most of?) Germany where there is a "senate" composed of elected representatives of professors, students, and administrative and academic staff. Now that is approaching democratic control.
jasode 7mo ago
>"democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it. > I just don't like it and think it is relatively new usage and a change in the older meaning of the word. People have been using "democratize" to describe "more accessible to the masses" for a long time. Here's an example from 106 years ago in 1920 : https://www.google.com/books/edition/Soviet_Russia/qflaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22democratize%22&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Soviet_Russia/qflaAAAAM... And 40 years ago a 1986 article of "microchip democratizing computing" : https://www.google.com/books/edition/Procom_s_1986_1987_Dental_Computer_Guide/DONpAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22democratized+computing%22&dq=%22democratized+computing%22&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Procom_s_1986_1987_Dent... The additional meanings of democratize to describe "more accessible" are also documented in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries: https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/democratize#:~:text=make%20(something)%20accessible%20to%20everyone https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesaur... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic#:~:text=relating%2C%20appealing%2C%20or%20available%20to%20the%20broad%20masses%20of%20the%20people%20%3A%20designed%20for%20or%20liked%20by%20most%20people https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic#:~:tex...
- potsandpans 7mo ago
  Right. But it's not my favorite nerd snipe interpretation that allows me to post low effort comments on hackernews about the headline instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion about the article.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
  It could be that HN commnter replying to submission about education in the United States indicating that he is "irked" by the term "democratisation" is not located within the United States but rather in a non-English speaking country not initiallu founded upon "democratic" principles (cf. United States) and with a dissimilar history of "democracy". As such, his interpetation of this term could have different meaning to him than the journalist working for The Atlantic who resides within the United States and is employed by one of its academic institutions
Amorymeltzer 7mo ago
I basically agree, but I think at this point it's an accepted use; see e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_knowledge> and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization_of_technology>. Indeed, wiktionary (<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratization https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratization>) uses your sense as the first, strict definition, but gives "The broadening of access to something, especially for the sake of egalitarianism." as the loose definition.
caconym_ 7mo ago
"Democratize"? I thought that was when you rent an AI tool built on stolen intellectual property to write, draw, code, etc. for you because you never bothered to learn those skills yourself and convinced yourself they were being gatekept.
bananamogul 7mo ago
Just wait until you realize that 99.999% of the time, when people say "methodology" they really mean "method". It'll drive you mad.
pandaman 7mo ago
>"democratization" doesn't mean more people have access to it It literally does, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democratic 3: relating, appealing, or available to the broad masses of the people : designed for or liked by most people
- PearlRiver 7mo ago
  I do not know how it worked in the US but in my country until the 1960s university was for the upper class. No son or daughter of a butcher could ever hope to study law.
  - pandaman 7mo ago
    It might have been the same until 1960s in the US. It doesn't matter in 2020s, when people who graduated before 1960s are in their 80s if still alive.
  - tracker1 7mo ago
    It really changed during the Clinton administration, where rules were established for student loans that pretty much ensured almost anyone who wanted to go to college could go to college. Since then tuition rates have dramatically exceeded inflation though. There's also the issue in that a lot of private/commercial colleges have optimized their pricing to where most people drop out to extract maximum value from the system, pretty much leaving people often unable to complete their programs the final year or half year. I think that the opportunity for funding should have higher ties to economic demand for certain degree programs over others. I'm not opposed to people that want to go to arts programs in college, but I'm not sure that they should be taxpayer funded necessarily. I have thought that areas where we bring in foreign workers should largely be offset with higher employer taxes and those taxes funding grants for domestic study into the fields in question. I also think we need a much broader set of trade schools for more industries than typical. Even with technology and programming. In terms of lower high school graduation rates, I think we've dumbed down and taken things to the lowest common denominator in an extreme fashion. Common-core has failed, along with "new math" and other more modern teaching methods. My great grandmother was a teacher, and I've seen some of the text books they used in the pre-1960s, the coverage was much more thorough and difficult even at a 5th grade level than what many kids today see through the end of high school. There should be plenty of room for vocational study as well as traditional study... but we need to stop just giving kids a pass because they're a certain age when they don't understand the core curriculem.

apparent 7mo ago

The author has written a famous book on college admissions, but this piece doesn't really seem to add much to the discussion. I came away thinking that his publicist recommended he get his name out there more to help his brand or sell some more books.

yodon 7mo ago
More people read the Atlantic than read books on college admissions. It is possible and often useful to increase the number of informed people even without adding net new information.
- apparent 7mo ago
  I don't think the book that he's famous for talks about the demographic trends much at all. It's just something that parents are aware of, and that is talked about as one of the ways in which admissions numbers will change in the next decade or two.

ks2048 7mo ago

> The number of teenagers graduating from American high schools peaked last year. The article doesn't seem to mention foreigners - particularly Chinese. Are those numbers expected to grow or shrink?

rtkwe 7mo ago
Under the current admin's policies shrink. After that who knows.
- HillRat 7mo ago
  That's really the key problem facing US universities, from land-grant colleges to the Ivies: everyone depends at least in part on closing budgetary gaps with global students who pay full freight. Current Administration policies, both specifically targeted at foreign students and more generally at higher education and immigration, are poisoning the seed corn colleges and universities rely on. The only good news, relatively speaking, is that Europe is evidently constitutionally incapable of taking advantage of what is a genuinely one-in-an-imperial-lifetime chance to drain intellectual capital from the United States, which means that America and our higher education system can recover from this, should we have the fortitude to do so in the future -- there just isn't much in the way of competition.
  - dmitrygr 7mo ago
    > with global students who pay full freight Some do, some pay nothing: https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/05/31/minnesota-free-college-tuition-undocumented-immigrants-eligible https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2023/05/31/minnesota...
    - cschmidt 7mo ago
      Those are not global students. Those are people who are already living in the state. Foreign students typically pay the most tuition possible with no financial aid, subsidizing everyone else.

brd529 7mo ago

Isn’t there a strong argument that we put too many students in debt with a partially completed or useless degree in a well meaning push for “college for all”? The triumph the author describes - an increase in colleges - came at the expense of a reduction in vocational schools and programs.

convolvatron 7mo ago
there was almost certainly a demand issue with graduates of technical schools. Also increased privatization leading to some really awful scammy institutions. I personally went to college and washed out, and would have been much better served by getting schooled in the trades, but I think this is really a pretty bad multi-dimensional corner we've backed ourselves into (primary, secondary, and post-graduate schooling, employment).
- kakacik 7mo ago
  Discussions and concerns we simply dont have in Europe. There are costs, but nothing significant from public schools themselves, rather just accommodation, food, travel etc. Some folks still go to private ones, but those are mostly not for extra prestige but rather different focus, or those who are not that great students themselves. Unpopular here, but I judge degree of development / maturity of societies on 2 major factors : 1) how it can take care of the vulnerable members in need - mostly heathcare, with som basic social support to help you bridge between jobs, plus obviously (mostly self-earned but managed by state) retirement; and 2) how well it invests into its future via education on all levels. Education aint luxury but empowering basic need. The question then is, how much does given country wants to empower potentially all its citizens. It costs something, but doesnt have to be ridiculous. Apart from infrastructure and basic security & defense(since we have russia trying to conquer us all in Europe) the only really valuable investments.
  - lamasery 7mo ago
    > Unpopular here, but I judge degree of development / maturity of societies on 2 major factors : 1) how it can take care of the vulnerable members in need - mostly heathcare, with som basic social support to help you bridge between jobs, plus obviously (mostly self-earned but managed by state) retirement; and 2) how well it invests into its future via education on all levels. Education aint luxury but empowering basic need. The question then is, how much does given country wants to empower potentially all its citizens. The test of Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" is a pretty good way of cutting through the details and getting to what matters: if you had to be reborn as someone in any country (or, had to choose between two, if we wanted to e.g. rank them), and you couldn't control anything about the circumstances (race, social status, money, intelligence level, disabled or not, et c.) but were leaving it up to a die roll based on the demographics of the place—which would you choose? The ones you're more-inclined to choose are the better ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position And yeah, stuff like ensuring the worst-likely-case for a resident isn't that bad, and that you get a significant helping hand to improve your lot, helps a ton to make a country more appealing, in this sort of thought experiment. Far, far more than e.g. making sure the few very-best-off really run away with the prize (which improves the appeal of such a place basically not at all).

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

burningChrome 7mo ago

I honestly don't buy this for several reason. In the mid 90's, my affluent suburban high school was in panic mode, afraid that declining enrollment was an impending death spiral. My graduating class only had gasp 750+ students. Ten years after I graduated, entering the 2000's, enrollment had already surpassed 800 kids. The school had to build out an entire wing and completely remodel the athletic building to accomodate all the new students that were enrolling. Likewise, attending college in North Dakota saw the same thing in the late 90's. Sheer panic the entire North Dakota college system was about to enter an enrollment desert. They wondered how can the Universities recruit more out-state students. Again, by early to mid aughts? Enrollment was off the charts. They had to buy buildings in the downtown area and convert them to a new "downtown campus" for several emerging and expanding majors. The campus saw a constant upgrade of facilities and buildings. It was completely the opposite. The entire system saw a massive transformation that continues to this day: As of Fall 2025, the North Dakota University System (NDUS) reports a total headcount of 47,552 students, marking a 3.8% increase over 2024 and reaching its highest level since 2014. The University of North Dakota (UND) specifically achieved a record-breaking enrollment of 15,844 students in 2025, surpassing its previous 2012 record. Across the system, growth is driven by rising undergraduate numbers and an increase in high school students. Over the past five or so years, there's been a small fluctuation, but overall the system has been surging as of late and is on solid ground for the next decade or so. The North Dakota system is the very kind of system the article says is about to be greatly affected by the year 2040. That would require quite a drop off from where they currently are and the amount of growth they're having right now. Again, I don't buy this since many of the people who are from out-state, many of them will settle down in North Dakota cities, get married and start families there. The cost of living is super low and its a very tax friendly state compared to many of its neighbors like Minnesota. Fargo, where NDSU (and by proxy Moorehead University and Concordia College) is located is still one of the fastest growing cities in the state, growing steadily at about a 2% pace annually. Which means the supply side of the equation isn't likely to die out any time either.

selimthegrim 7mo ago
Tell that to WVU.

seniorThrowaway 7mo ago

I think college's value proposition and entire model has been eroded. Major school's CS grads are finding jobs upon graduation at an 11% rate (I don't have the primary source on this, but it is published by a site I read that never fudges these kinds of things, going back many years). AI probably has a lot to do with that, but it's exposing something more fundamental. CS wasn't supposed to be a programming boot camp anyway, it is at its heart an academic degree much close to pure mathematics than programming. Maybe it should go back to that? Maybe college never should have been for everyone? That was the norm for the vast majority of the existence of higher education. Maybe we don't need gleaming campus' with huge facilities overhead costs? When storing knowledge required physical books it made sense to build learning facilities around large libraries, but that hasn't been the case for decades now. Should young people really be taking on life long non-dischargeable debt for a glorified high school diploma? I think the answer is no, they shouldn't, and that the entire college bubble needs to be popped.

rootusrootus 7mo ago
> Major school's CS grads are finding jobs upon graduation at an 11% rate That number makes me very skeptical, even in 2026. Maybe what you are saying is that the unemployment figure is 11%? That would be pretty bad compared to two years ago, but within the realm of plausible if we were seeing a major upset in the employment market. E.g. 2024 data: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:outcomes-by-major https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:...
- mcmcmc 7mo ago
  I'd interpret that as 11% of CS grads are finding appropriate jobs (not underemployment) within a set amount of time after graduation. That data from the fed includes all people aged 22-27 with a bachelor's degree. Where that number is coming from, or what that time frame would be I'm not sure. But I do think it would be more interesting to see the amount of time recent grads spent unemployed or underemployed vs a presumptive snapshot of current employment state.

ProllyInfamous 7mo ago

If you are choosing to still attend college, my advice would be to get an A.B.E.T-accredited degree, to fall back upon (I have a non-BE science degree from a prestigious US institution == essentially worthless). Being an engineer vs. being an engineer tech is a substantially life-quality difference. But only if you choose to attend (I would not re-attend).

layman51 7mo ago
Is this related to the exam that some college graduates could take to become professional engineers?
- coredog64 7mo ago
  Necessary but not sufficient: My aerospace engineering degree is from an ABET-certified school. However, I skipped the class (and test) that puts you onto the track of being able to call yourself a professional engineer. I would also suggest looking at the ABET certification interval for different campuses. It was a point of pride on our campus that we had a longer interval compared to the more established campus. We got the longer interval because ABET trusted our program to not need constant supervision.
- ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
  Exactly. Most 4-year engineering programs are accredited (but definitely not all). Rougly speaking, it cuts the professional experience requirement in half, and makes the entire process of becoming a P.E. (professional engineer) much simpler (not easier). There are multiple field tests, including the Fundamentals & Engineering exam that allows you to 2x your eng.tech. experience.

semiquaver 7mo ago

It seems that the entire higher education space is in dire need of some creative destruction. College expenses have been subject to cost disease for years and a reckoning is long due. I’m not sure if demographic change will produce this reckoning but something has to.

doctorpangloss 7mo ago
There are only two businesses ChatGPT has really disrupted: Chegg and customer service. There's disruption but not the good kind. The reckoning is cheating not demographics.
- colechristensen 7mo ago
  My most effective professors gave us the answers to the work we were expected to do. It was a much more effective way to learn than doing work and getting feedback to whether or not it was correct weeks later. Organizing academic work in such a way that "cheating" is even a concept is silly. You're there to learn, if you want to pretend that you learned I guess good for you but we need to just get over the fact that people can make it look like they did something when they didn't.
colechristensen 7mo ago
You just have to fire 80% of the administration, kill all of the "programs" which are trying to do this or that, and focus on A) providing the basic resources for academics to study and B) providing the basic resources for teaching. Universities need to do very much less that isn't directly related to research or teaching and stop pretending the lead administrator of a university is an important position. The president of a university should have the pay and prestige that goes along with administering the parking garage and cafeteria and have few responsibilities or accolades beyond that.
- mrguyorama 7mo ago
  But then how will the NFL run it's free feeder and athlete development program? How will Disney get to profit off of selling college athletes as an entertainment product? If college is accessible to even the poorest Americans, how will we maintain the claim that they are bastions of liberal brainwashing against millions of conservative people getting reasonable educations in basic things like "Political Science" that don't actually force them to become communists at all? Who will ensure that only those who "Deserve" it can afford to get a degree through byzantine FAFSA workflows and departments? Who will ensure that being middle class means you have to pay out of pocket instead of getting a couple thousand dollars?!

colechristensen 7mo ago

University is too expensive, bloating administrative budgets and "prestige" architecture combined with professional sports teams have led everyone astray from the two goals: advancing the forefront of human knowledge and preparing young people with the education to be free in their world. Instead we're going to very expensive camp where most of the people flaunt laws for fun (there's no reason alcohol should be illegal for undergrads) and then grind to pass tests while not actually learning all that much OR becoming all that prepared for the world after university. Particularly with how poorly academics are paid, it would be pretty damn easy to build a better university. It's not at all surprising people are leaving, university degrees are becoming minimum quarter million dollar participation trophies.

chromacity 7mo ago
> It's not at all surprising people are leaving, university degrees are becoming minimum quarter million dollar participation trophies. The vast majority of college degrees are nowhere near that. Average in-state tuition in the US is something like $9,000. Now, some people want a trophy from Stanford, but that's a separate topic.

jimbokun 7mo ago

> On the flip side, perhaps no field has collapsed more dramatically than computer and information sciences: From 2014 to 2024, entry-level openings grew about 6%, while the number of graduates soared by 110%. That seems more relevant to new CS grad unemployment than AI.

munificent 7mo ago

As long as people are allowed to vote in the US, we have an incentive to ensure they are all well educated. Surely a large part of this problem that the article doesn't mention is that college is too fucking expensive. And an obvious solution to that is to tax rich people and use that to fund universities so that students don't have to go so far in debt in order to become productive members of society. It's crazy how many problems today boil down to "a tiny fraction of elites are hoarding all the wealth" and yet we seem to assume the solution of "tax them and use that money to benefit others" is simply impossible.

mcmcmc 7mo ago
Who's "we"? Parties in power have a huge incentive to keep voters uneducated and gullible.
- blix 7mo ago
  You don't want the people to be uneducated, because you have no control over their thought processes, which could be dangerous an unpredictable. And it leaves space for someone else to educate them in way that conflicts with your interests. Ideally, you would want them to be intentionally educated to a specific type of manipulable gullibility, where they are receptive to your messages, but resistant to messages from other sources.
  - czl 7mo ago
    > specific type of manipulable gullibility A congregation trained to say “amen” on cue.
    - blix 7mo ago
      the denouncing of heresy may be even more important.
GS523523 7mo ago
I'm sure a lot of people assume it's immoral rather than impossible.

danny_codes 7mo ago

IMO we should pay adults to go back to school. Make all public universities free and pay a living stipend. Give additional stipends for dependents. Easy win for everyone.

coredog64 7mo ago
Insert "just need to subsidize demand" meme here.
- downrightmike 7mo ago
  That's how we got here
aorona 7mo ago
but why
- glial 7mo ago
  Well, for one thing, critical thinking and communication skills seem to be in short supply.
  - PearlRiver 7mo ago
    Students in America don't have jobs. You can be motherfucking Einstein but you will still have to be a waiter in a cafe to contribute to society and pay for your student room. When you are 20 you don't need sleep.
    - triceratops 7mo ago
      I hope you aren't hit by a sleep-deprived 20 year old driving from their night shift to an early morning class.
  - gottorf 7mo ago
    Have you observed a lot of critical thinking and good communication from recent college grads?

ecshafer 7mo ago

Universities got broken trying to make it for everyone, and also jacked up the price. Return to traditional degrees, get rid of the boutique majors and things that belong in job training centers.

mschuster91 7mo ago
> Return to traditional degrees, get rid of the boutique majors and things that belong in job training centers. But who is gonna pay for these? (half-/s) Reality is, employers don't want to pay the bill for job training centers or for German-style apprenticeship education. Universities aka degree mills are what keeps most large employers afloat - depending on the system, it's either the talent themselves (US via student loans), the government itself (Germany) or a mixture of both paying the bills, while employers get fresh trained talent without paying a dime.
potsandpans 7mo ago
What is a "boutique major"?
- ecshafer 7mo ago
  I met someone who received a degree in "Happiness" from a reputable university and took a hodge podge of courses. There are also many inter-disciplinary degrees that make sense at a graduate degree level but not an undergraduate level.

rekabis 7mo ago

Unless the big universities “expand” by linking up with the regional colleges, giving them a branding cachet that will attract students, there is one group that will benefit enormously: Conservatives. They require an uneducated and ignorant electorate. It’s the only way they can hoodwink voters into voting against their own best interests.

ButlerianJihad 7mo ago

From my youth, I was infected with the desire to graduate college at all costs. I was adopted, and I was told that both of my birth-parents were college graduates (I later validated this as truth!) My adoptive parents were also both college graduates, though my mother chose against a career or employment in favor of motherhood, and active volunteering in church and civic spheres. My sister and I were both groomed to go to college. We attended the standard college prep high schools. The choices were laid before us. Mom told me definitely not to attend UC Berkeley (because of the hippies and anti-war protests.) So, I chose UCSD and my parents basically handled all the paperwork; I sat down to write an essay, and I was totally in. However, mental illness ruled my life and I dropped out of classes. An excuse by my therapist got me restarted but not for very long before the second dropout. I tried community college for a semester and earned one more good grade (in C programming). I started work, foolishly believing that would go better than college! My life fell apart around me and college remained unfinished for decades. Finally by 2017 I was stable enough to consider college again. Of course I should have understood that my career was not a thing, and at that point, college was the frivolous pipe-dream of an aging guy unable to really support himself. Nonetheless, I did the FAFSA, and Uncle Sam paid for the rest of my college bills. I again dropped out, for reasons of being less-than-stable, but I had managed to earn 3 CompTIA certifications and I also landed a very nice job, which I held for over 4 years. None of those would've been possible without the drive to finish college. Ultimately, the community college found a way to "graduate me" and award me a certificate of completion (instead of the Associate's in Applied Science which I was pursuing.) My "graduation ceremony" occurred in the US Postal Service station. Receiving that certificate was 100% a surprise, but a Pyrrhic victory. At this point, I achieved my "bucket list" of graduating college, but I have 0 career prospects, and the certificate means 0 to my former or prospective employers (the certifications also meant nothing to them!) So what did Uncle Sam really pay for? My personal satisfaction? Just to funnel more taxpayer money to the college system? I am fine with that, I suppose. But it just goes to show that far more families push their children to attend college, and the expectations are set too high, when many kids growing up really need some vocational skills and real-life street smarts to survive in this world. Tuition prices have been jacked-up absurdly by the proliferation of scholarships and grants. "Diversity" means any view except conservatives or Christians. We are in need of a reckoning, especially for land-grant and "Ivy League" institutions.

erelong 7mo ago

Deregulation is the simple fix: quality of education and cost has predictably gone up due to regulation, as well as costs of doing business

gottorf 7mo ago
I don't know if "regulation" is the right word. In the end, what happened was that the foremost power in the world, the US federal government, having observed that college grads earn more than non-college grads, flipped cause and effect on its head and decided that everyone must go to college for better life outcomes. A tremendous amount of time, money, and resources went into making that happen. Against this backdrop, there was no world in which the price of higher education wasn't going to go dramatically up.
- secabeen 7mo ago
  Do you have data to support this claim? The data I have shows that expenditures have gone up, but no where near what the nameplate tuition has or what detractors claim: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_334.10.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_334.10.a... College Board data shows that Tuition and Fees net of financial aid has fallen by significant amounts over the past 20 years (see page 18). Room and board has gone up, but that is broadly true in college towns generally, and is not in the control of the Universities: https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/Trends-in-College-Pricing-and-Student-Aid-2025-final_1.pdf https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/Trends-in-Colleg...
  - gottorf 7mo ago
    My comment was on the price of higher ed, not its cost, which is what your ed.gov source shows. CPI component calculations done by the BLS shows "College tuition and fees", including adjustments for scholarships and grants, had a 63% increase from 2009 (to match the CB data baseline) to now, which outpaces overall inflation of 56% over the same timeframe. I'm not sure what methodology CB uses to show falling inflation-adjusted prices. Granted, it's not a massive difference in those percentages[0], but because college is a large single-ticket item, that difference is probably felt more acutely. > Room and board has gone up, but that is broadly true in college towns generally, and is not in the control of the Universities In many places the local university is the largest landowner in town, and is tax-exempt to boot. They might hold some of the blame in those costs. [0]: As an aside, it's incredible that everyone half of their purchasing power in ~15 years, and a quarter in just the past 5 years alone.

fallingfrog 7mo ago

Well this has been essentially the plan since the 70's. The 60's scared the bejeezus out of the ruling class and they began taking steps to bring the people to heel from the 70's onward. In the words of Ronald Reagan's education advisor, Roger Freeman: "We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. … That’s dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”

Dunsinagb 7mo ago

[dead]