Higher costs for higher education

Children, by law, must attend school until they are 16, so that they receive a basic education. So the government gives them a free education until they graduate high school, which is the absolute minimum eduaation that a person needs to make even a modest living.

Yes it IS true, that in order to succeed in this world, most people do need a higher education. I question though, whether it is up to the taxpayers to pay for that education. What about a young person who wants to learn a trade? Wants to go to technical school? By your logic, those kinds of education too need to be supported.

IMO, the majority of QUALIFIED young people, though a combination of scholorships, grants, parental gifts, loans and part time jobs, can get through college without forcing taxpayers to pay for someone else's kid's education.

How about a happy medium? Hmmm, trying to think of one.....

I have to say that the price increase JUMP in Ca and AZ is odd relative to the other schools. Maybe tuition hikes should be regulated. No more than a 15 or 20% hike per year?

littlek - It is a matter of supply and demand. If the prices of courses become out of line, students will go elsewhere.

A student always has the choice to go to a school where he can comfortably deal with the financial aspect of his education. For those who are strapped for money, there is always the option of attending a community college for the first two years.
If the education at a particular school is important enough to a person, he will make the requisite sacrifices to ensure that he can attend THAT school.

What I find objectionable, is the concept that society OWES, and should subsidize, a higher education for a student.

Phoenix32890
Children, by law, must attend school until they are 16, so that they receive a basic education. So the government gives them a free education until they graduate high school, which is the absolute minimum education that a person needs to make even a modest living.
IMO, the majority of QUALIFIED young people, though a combination of scholarships, grants, parental gifts, loans and part time jobs, can get through college without forcing taxpayers to pay for someone else's kid's education.
Using that logic why limit it to higher education why should the taxpayer pay for anyone else's childs education at any level? Should someone who has no children pay taxes to fund the education of those who have many?Should we be giving vouchers for children to attend private schools?
I should point out that public colleges in the past were tuition in the main free.

I digress but it's $87Billion for Iraq and a finger for the American people.

IMO public colleges should be tuition free. The only restriction should be availability[capacity] and ability. Ability measured by competitive testing and students record. No other criteria should be recognized or considered.

Chapel Hill Campus to Cover All Costs for Needy Students

By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

Published: October 2, 2003

[]ASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — In what is believed to be a first for a public college, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill announced on Wednesday that it would cover the full costs of an education for students from families of the working poor without forcing the students to take on loans.
[]The announcement comes as public universities, hit by historic shortfalls in state revenue, have raised tuition by 10 percent this year, outpacing private colleges and universities.
Recent studies have shown that the average student now graduates from college with more than $17,000 in loans, double the amount of a decade ago, with the debt scaring away many potential first-generation college students.
James Moeser, the chancellor at Chapel Hill, called the new policy "an expression of our values at this university."
The chancellor said it sought to counter the growing perception among high school graduates from poor families that higher education was out of reach for them. As the nation's oldest public university, he said, "This idea of access is deeply embedded in our genetic code, in our DNA."
Under the university's new approach, which will take effect with next year's entering class, the university is pledging to provide aid to cover the full cost of an education for students whose parents earn less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or $28,000 for a family of four. The students must agree to work on campus in state and federal work-study programs 10 to 12 hours a week, a level that is widely considered manageable.
The estimated cost of an education at the Chapel Hill campus runs $13,088 for North Carolina residents, of which $4,072 is for tuition and fees. The cost for out-of-state students runs $25,436, $15,920 of that for tuition and fees.
When fully operational, the policy is expected to cost $1.38 million a year, with a least half of that offset by work study and federal and state grants. University officials hope to raise the rest of the money through private donations.
Higher education experts and advocates for students hailed the university's new policy, and said they hoped that other public universities would follow suit.
Several years ago, Princeton became the first Ivy League university to offer full financial aid to needy students without recourse to student loans.
Brian K. Fitzgerald, staff director of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, called the move "an extremely important step," noting that for low-income students, "the barriers to higher education are very severe and, in fact, rising."
"It sends a clear unequivocal message to the citizens of North Carolina that you can attend the state's flagship university, arguably among the best in the country, regardless of your ability to pay," said Dr. Fitzgerald, whose committee advises Congress on higher education.
Over the last 30 years, that promise, once universal, has eroded, Dr. Fitzgerald said, as costs rose while government grants and private scholarships failed to keep pace.

Here's a heavily subsidized school: http://www.cooper.edu/administration/admissions/faqs.html

My Dad recalls when Cooper Union was free (Dad went to City College, but knew some CU students because he was in engineering), and how heartbroken a friend of his was when the guy was so poor he couldn't even attend CU - his parents needed him to go out and work.

The GI bill (and cheap NY education) are what got my parents their degrees. Going into hock is what got my brother and me our degrees (we also went to more prestigious schools; my brother is Ivy League).

Anyway, college ain't free, of course, and even cheap schools are expensive, but the rewards back to society are great indeed when people go to college rather than off to work at a trade because they're forced to, due to bad economic circumstances. I'm not sure of what the solution is, but there's many benefits to be had when those who are qualified go to college. Two are: fewer people on the welfare rolls and fewer people collecting unemployment and/or collecting it for shorter amounts of time (this isn't always true, but a BA does tend to keep you working in a mild recession, or at least gets you back working when those without BAs are still struggling). Plus, the more $$ people make, the more taxes they pay back into the system.

Well, the first mistake is assuming that all college students are "kids". Some of us kids are pretty damned old and still struggling to stay in school.

It would be nice if higher education were free....and I would include vocational school and not just colleges/universities. Perhaps a happy medium would be to subsidize a student's first two years based on selective admissions and then wheel and deal for scholarships/grants after that.

Note: This Old Schoolgirl is NOT in classes this fall because the tuition money she had socked away went for repairs on her OtherHalf's truck. Sigh.
Damn, I wish he was a rich SugarDaddy.

Higher education cost is a mixed bag of tricks and abilities. Some people pay nothing, while others pay the max. Some attend on "scholarships" and athletic skills, while others from out of state/country pay less than resident students. There is no consistency from school to school. Americans also subsidize foreign students, while our own are unable to attend college because of cost. Too complex with too many variables that play into who qualifies to any college/university in the US.

jespah, I know of what you speak. When I volunteered into the US Air Force, it was because I had no money and no skills. After four years in the air force, I bummed around in Chicago for a couple of years, because a guy I met at my last base suggested I move to Chicago after my discharge. His family owned the Club Waikiki night club on Wilson Avenue, where I worked as a assistant matr'd, and worked at a rubber stamp company on Clark Street near the Cubs ball park. I returned to the west coast on vacation one summer, and saw my contemporaries going to college, so I decided that's what I needed to do. I quit my two jobs in Chicago, drove back to California, and started my 'college' education at Sacramento Junior College. Never was a good student, but by some miracle earned my degree in accounting. The rest, they say, is history.

The post-WWII and post-Korean War generation are very highly educated, and the GI Bill has much to do with that. It's really a good piece of social engineering - the US became more of a home of white collar and creative-type jobs rather than agriculture and mining in the years since WWII and Korea. Of course those other jobs still exist, but there are fewer of them and there would have been in any event because of the rise of technology and medicine. Imagine how bad unemployment would be if society hadn't changed, and if there were far fewer people qualified to work in accounting, engineering, medicine, law, IT, etc.

I am currently paying my way (with thanks to my parents for their help and support) to go to IT certification classes. They cost what it takes to pay tuition at a smaller college. According to BU (which offers the classes in conjunction with Oracle), there are some 50,000 people who take certification and continuing ed. classes in a given year. Yeah, 50,000! So there's big $$ flying out the door to BU and Oracle and other companies sponsoring other types of classes -- but the rewards to society are potentially even greater. A subsidy would be awfully nice right now; not only is the $$ a lot of fun to get together but it adds undue pressure (e. g. have to do unbelievably well, or else it's a huge amount of $$ down the drain). I'm not asking for a lot - even 5 - 10% off would be helpful and the kind of job I'll be able to get will more than pay for the difference.

Question: would this work (for undergrad only, let's say)?

Say college tuition is free. Books and room and board still cost something but tuition is gratis. But, the kicker is this: the student is required to pay a fee every year for the cost of tuition, say 1% of his or her salary every year for 40 years or until death or full retirement or full disability, whichever comes first. Exemptions for anyone making $10,000 or less who has no dependents, and exemptions for anyone making $20,000 or less for those with 1 dependent, $30,000 or less for those with 2 dependents, etc. (the figures aren't important; it's the concept). Of course anyone who's become disabled is exempt. Maybe also exempt people who go into active military service or some sort of social service (like Teach for America). The unemployed are of course exempt because they have no salary. Death immediately releases all financial obligations, even if the student drops dead at graduation.

Hence, a doctor pulling in $100,000 in a year hands over $1,000 to the school. A social worker (single) making $25,000 pays $250. A professional athlete with a degree who makes $5 million a year forks over $50,000. Most people would fall somewhere between the doctor and the social worker, most years. So payments could conceivably average about $500 a year for 40 years, for a total of $20,000. This is more than a small college costs but less than what a private school costs. People who make more because society values their work more - those people bear the brunt of more of the costs. Those who make less get a break but they still get their educations. The social worker will never make big money, but his or her education is affordable. The college is paid on a continual basis (say they can take the annual tuition in the form of a payroll deduction or monthly contributions) so they have regular income over time.

It's complicated and probably would require that every single school changed to the system for it to have a prayer of working, but ....?

Bill Would Penalize Colleges on High Tuition Rises

By GREG WINTER

Published: October 17, 2003

Putting educators on notice, one of the Republican lawmakers overseeing higher education legislation in the House introduced a bill yesterday that would withhold federal money from colleges that raised tuition much faster than inflation, a category that could include hundreds of universities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/education/17EDUC.html?th

Here's another take on higher education. One of the reasons our country became a eocnomic superpower is credited to the GI Bill after WWII, when many of the solders that came home went to college. It's important for a country to have a highly educated populace to compete in the world markets. So it's my humbe opinion that higher education should be subsidized to a 'certain' degree.

C.I.
I agree and in fact due to the changing technologies and economic base of this nation it is more important and indeed necessary than ever to have a well educated work force. Our economic future may well depend upon it.

I suggest that we all move abroad for a few years and get our college educations in other countries, thus paying a lot less and, at the same time, depriving all U.S. colleges of their bread and butter. Methinks they will have to rethink their exhorbitant college fees since they will only have the foreign students left in their colleges.
Then we come back to the U.S. and take all those nice high-paying jobs.
Sounds like a plan!

Heeven, Those of us that live in California doesn't need to move outside out state. We have 313 colleges and universities right here, and some of them are world reknowned, and we get students from all over the world.

Yeah but lets get the foreign students to come over here and pays these high fees and we'll go over to their countries and take advantage of their lower-priced colleges! Think there are any colleges in Tuscany? Coz I'd like to spend a couple of years there! Yeah, I'm liking this idea!

Several states suspending prepaid tuition

Friday, October 17, 2003 Posted: 3:44 PM EDT (1944 GMT)

(AP) -- A combination of rising costs and plummeting investments has forced several states to suspend enrollment in prepaid tuition plans designed to protect families against spiraling expenses at public colleges.
Ohio announced last week it was suspending its program for a year because the state was losing money. West Virginia, Kentucky and Texas also have temporarily cut off new enrollment, and earlier this year Colorado halted enrollments in its plan completely.
Prepaid tuition plans allow families to purchase tuition credits -- based on the current rates -- in lump sums or monthly payments. A state then pools the money in long-term investments, hoping that earnings will match or exceed the cost of tuition years later when a child is ready to attend college.
Now, the problem is tuition is rising faster than investment earnings.
Charles Bockway, a spokesman for the West Virginia Prepaid Tuition Plan, said the confluence of tuition increases topping 10 percent and the slow economy, which hurt schools' investments, caught many financial experts by surprise.

Complete article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10/17/prepaid.tuition.ap/index.html