A truly cruel college squeeze

I earned my degree going to night school while working full time. It can be done - it isn't easy but it can be done.

How long ago was that Jim? Students in this part of Canada are getting squeezed out of getting an affordable post secondary education with the rapid increase in tuition and cuts in grants, etc. It was about 11 years ago when changes started to be made, (gee, right when Klein got in office, how about that?), but even then, getting a degree was still fairly affordable. Today it is appalling how much tuition rates have increased. There is a phrase, "power is knowledge", yet knowledge is being denied to those who cannot afford it. And this suggests a very bleak future if the current situation continues.

Lamar University, Beaumont Texas, '83.

I just did some checking on the Internet. Instate tuition plus room for the 2002-2003 school year at Lamar was $3,056. I have a hard time believing that anyone who really wants a university degree can't scrape up three thousand bucks a year for it.

If you work a minimum wage job, pay $600.00-900.00/month rent (avearage in the Denver metro area), that $3000.00 probably doesn't exist.
Lets not forget that you need to cough up about $1500.00 all at once, twice a year. In addition, you also need to have about $600.00 available for books, at the same time.
When I was doing my second BA at the University of Washington, I worked two jobs, and was receieving the GI Bill, and still had a really hard time coming up with tuition (about $1100.00) and books(at least anotehr 300-400.00) each quarter (3 times a year!). I ate Ramen for two months so I could afford to pay for a GRE prep course, and also for the GRE test fees, which of course, I had to pay at the same time I had to pay for another term.
I think one's philosophy of education matters too. Are you "goin'ta'school ta git a job," or are you getting an education? I was attempting to acquire an education. Employability was never my goal, acquiring knowledge was, and still is my motivating factor. Right now I accept that I will have a very difficult time finding any sort of tenure track position when I finish the program I'm in. If my motivation were "employability" I never would have left EMS. I have more sympathy for the undergrads I interact with who are chasing their dreams than I do with those who are just punching a ticket on their way to the land of polo shirts and khakis on Fridays.

Just out of curiosity I checked a few other university websites for their fee schedules:

Texas A&M: $3312/year (36 hours)
UT Austin: $5314/year
U of Arizona: $3604/year

Granted, these costs are for tuition and fees only. If money is tight you might have to live at home with your parents and commute. (I do not know what percentage of people in the U.S. live within commuting distance of a university, but I'd guess it's at least 90%+). You might not be able to go to the exact school you wanted to attend. You might not be able to afford four dollar cups of coffee at Starbucks. But I do not believe the "doom and gloom" about only the ultra rich being able to afford a university eductaion is justified.

What if your parents don't live anywhere near a university? What if you have to come up with rent as well as tuition, fees, etc...


I'm pretty sure you are far from correct. Especially if you are only talking about state schools. Private tution is simply not affordable.


If any.



Thank you Mr. Sensitivity. That is typical of the disconnect many have from the reality of life in these United States. I think for many working students, simply eating once a day is of more concern than "a four dollar cup of cofee at starbucks."


Nor is the disdain you present in your post justifiable. It presents the typical American "I got mine, F--k you!" attitutde.

Hobitbob:

I certainly don't want a university education to be beyond the finances of our citizens. Neither do I want it to be handed to people on a silver platter.
What is it about the concept of having to work and sacrifice for something that is worthwhile that caused you to go ballistic?

That concept has been long-gone for a while. This generation wants everything handed to them.

Costs for Pharmacy school are similar to the graduate rates. Law school is double the undergraduate rate, Med & Dental schools are double the graduate rate.

UWashington Tuition Rates

Spring 2004 RATE Schedule
typical resident undergraduate (10-18 credits)- quarterly tuition: $ 1,656

typical resident graduate (7-18 credits) quarterly tuition -- $ 2,240

Double those costs if you're not a state-resident and multiply quarterly tuition by three.

Add books and class fees, generally $100-150 for each five-credit class.

Room, board, transportation, etc. are extra, of course.

What casued me to "go ballistic," as you put it, was the underlying tone of your post that implied that there is no difficulty involved, and that people who are concerned about tution raises are just whiners. I posit that you are too far from the situation to be able to see it correctly.

Really? Then I supose the undergrads I know who work two and three jobs, as well as carrying 15 or so credits, don't exist? They are the majority, not the mythical "spoiled rich kid" many so love to hate.
Let's also not forget that financial aid has not kept up with rising tuition prices. Need based aid, like the Pell, and state grants, go very fast, and not all who are eligible receive them. Many do not take out student loans for fear of not being able to repay them. I finally broke down and took out loans my last year at UW, and have that concrete block hanging over my head.
If you make $10-15000.00/year, where do you find $5000.00 (which includes the price of books and supplies) to go to school? If you make $12-1400.00/month (as I did), pay $450.00/month rent, how do you cough up $1100.00 every three months (as I had to) and another $400.00 for books without sacrificing on food, clothing, and other neccesities? I barely got by. Many are not getting by.

I might add that the "part time schooling" option is rapidly dissapearing, due to cuts in state education budgets. U of Washington has pretty much dismantled their "evening degree" prgram in recent years. U of Maryland, Baltimore County got rid of theirs in 2001. CU Boulder still offers limited evening classes, but those will probably be gone by next fall. Metropolitan State college of Denver and CU Denevr are both committed to having evening classes for working students, but they are seeing major hits in course offereings due to budget difficulties as well.

My tuition fees during my last year were less than 1/2 of what they are now at the university I attended. (And that was 8 years ago.) I was a "mature" student, so through a previous employer I was able to get a pretty good summer job. However, I wouldn't have made it through school without a student loan. While I agree some students do get handed everything, (I had a few of those in my class), it's not the system that is handing it to them but their parents. Still, there were many who worked hard to get what they had and I knew of one student who was unable to continue her education because she couldn't afford to do so. I don't know what it's like in the U.S., but in Canada student loans for those under 21 years of age are based on the parents' income. And it's an unfair assessment where they look at the gross income. For some who may be small business owners, the gross income does not reflect their net income in the least. But I'm getting off topic here.

In my world (agreeably too idealistic in comparison to the real world) everyone would have access to higher education. But since this isn't the case, we should make it as available as possible. The current trend indicates higher education will be available only to the wealthy in the future. Those plus a comparitively smaller group with scholarships through their scholastic achievements in high school.

Jim listed a couple of schools with low tuitions. But what if you have a certain school in mind that fits your aspirations and goals? What if that school accepts you? It's a mighty bitter pill to swallow to think you can't go because you cannot afford it.

I don't know what schools in the U.S. are like, but I do know that in Canada tuition costs are rising and it isn't as easy to pay for it as it once was. Employers offering jobs for students really take advantage of these kids by offering incredibly low wages. They ask for several sets of skills which they do not compensate as well as they would for a non-student position. It makes it that much more difficult to pay for tuition and books when the wages offered are so low. Granted there are situations out there which do pay well, but it all depends on what education the student has attained thus far.

All in all, I think tuition rates need to be dealt with soon before it truly does become a world of haves and have nots.

Caprie, It is my impression that US and Canadian schools are more or less the same in terms of cost and financial aid.

I think there is a difference in some, as most schools here are publically funded. So in Canada you can go to a top university and not have to pay the same tuition rate as some of your ivy league schools stateside. But the costs are still increasing here.

Another sign that the US is happily marching toward Margaret Atwood's "Republic of Gilead?"
A force for repression

Help Students, Not Banks
Published: April 25, 2004
Faced with soaring tuition and dwindling aid, record numbers of students who would excel at college are no longer applying. If the trend persists, this country could easily return to the time when the poor were locked out of higher education and college was hardly a given for middle-class families.
To help prevent this, the aid programs contained in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965, which is due to be reauthorized this fall, need to be updated. The top priority should be increasing the amount of the Pell grant, which covered more than 80 percent of public-college tuition a quarter-century ago but covers only about 40 percent today. Congress also needs to revise the federal college loan program, so that more money flows into the program itself instead of into the coffers of banks.
The government offers two basic college loan programs. The direct loan system, developed under the Clinton administration, allows students to borrow from the government through their schools. It actually makes a small profit by cutting out the banking middlemen.
This program competes with the Federal Family Education Loan Program, under which private banks receive generous federal subsidies to make student loans that are guaranteed by the taxpayer. The cost of the program is hotly debated. But recent estimates place it at more than $3 billion a year.
The Clinton administration wanted to expand the direct loan program, phase out the F.F.E.L.P. and put the savings into Pell grants and other student aid programs. This would have been the wisest course. The banking industry blocked the move in Congress and declared all-out war on the direct loan program. The banks have benefited, as have politicians more interested in pleasing the banking lobby than in helping the largest number of students at the lowest possible cost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Make college part of
American dream again



By JUDITH SHAPIRO

In 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act, he said, "A high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or university in any one of the 50 states and not be turned away because their family is poor."
The act transformed educational opportunity for America's young people. Many millions of Americans earned college and graduate degrees and moved on to professions that were wholly inaccessible to their parents and grandparents.

Now, we are witnessing an attempt in Congress to reverse these gains. Those in the greatest jeopardy are students. Tuition at money-starved public colleges and universities - including community colleges - has increased substantially in recent years, shutting out many of the young people these institutions were meant to serve.

Tuition increases at private colleges and universities have slowed, but the costs for students and their families are already very high. At both public and private institutions, most students depend on financial aid, and many graduate with substantial debt.

Only recently has the Bush administration considered even a minimum increase in the Pell Grant in the form of a small merit-based feature to be included. The program currently has a budget shortfall of $3.7 billion.

Further aggravating the situation for students is the 14-year-old freeze on the maximum amount an individual can borrow under the Stafford and Perkins Loan Programs.

If Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act - as it must every five years - without any changes to this provision, there will be no increases in the maximum until 2010.

To date, untold numbers of young people nationwide have been forced to borrow staggering amounts - collectively totaling more than $7 billion - from alternative loan programs with high interest rates and no grace periods.

At Barnard, we have prided ourselves on keeping the debt burden of our students low. But recently, because of the government's failure to increase the maximum student loan, we have seen a marked increase in the number of alternative higher-interest loans taken out by our students.

Instead of strengthening the student loan programs that are at the heart of the Higher Education Act, the focus in Congress has turned to legislation that would give the federal government exceptional control over the internal workings and policies of colleges and universities, both public and private.

If these bills pass and are incorporated into the HEA, decisions on curriculum development and faculty hiring at both public and private colleges will be subject to federal interference and control.

It is a chilling prospect.

As it reauthorizes the HEA, Congress should focus its attention not on exerting more control, but on expanding student loans to make higher education accessible to all Americans.


Shapiro is president of Barnard College.



Originally published on April 26, 2004

I think it starts at the junior high and highschool level. Teachers/school administrators/parents should be showing kids the value of a college education and grilling it into them to stay in school, stay off drugs, don't get pregnant, take hard courses and study hard, and teach them how to prepare for college, how to apply, how to go after the student loans and compete for grants and scholarships. If the kid holds a part time job, as much as s/he can put back should be going into his/her college fund. From Day #1, personal responsibility and long range goal setting should be the norm.

If a person needs to work full time and go to night school, it can still be done. "But at that rate I'll be 30 by the time I graduate" they wail. Well, if they don't do it, they'll still be 30 but without that degree. And with a grant or scholarship and some student loans, most who are determined can do it in far less time, but either way it is worth doing. In other words, take as many hours as you can handle and/or afford. Start with junior college if necessary.

It's nice if endowments and the local/state/federal governments can help out. But there is no right to a college education paid for by somebody else. It would be nice if everybody could go to school where they want to go under their own terms. But sometimes we just have to do what we have to do.

--Google Search
Fastest Growing Occupations, USA
1992-2005 - many of these do not require a
college degree but could provide an income
to help fund one.
Occupation & percent change
Home health aides 138%
Human service workers 136%
Personal and home care aids 130%
Computer engineers and scientists 112%
Systems analysts 110%
Physical and corrective therapy assistants and aides 93%
Physical therapists 88%
Paralegals 86%
Teachers, special education 74%
Medical assistants 71%
Detectives, except public 70%
Correction officers 70%
Child care workers 66%
Travel agents 66%
Radiologic technologists and technicians 63%
Nursery workers 62%
Medical records technicians 61%
Operations research analysts 61%
Occupational therapists 60%
Legal secretaries 57%
Teachers, kindergarten and preschool 54%
Manicurists 54%
Producers directors, actors and entertainers 54%
Speech-language pathologists and audiologists 51%
Flight attendants 51%
Guards 51%
Insurance adjusters, examiners, and investigators 49%
Respiratory therapists 48%
Psychologists 48%
Paving, surfacing, and tamping equipment operators 48%
Only about half require a degree but
these all can pay a living wage.

Highest paid professions continue to be:
Engineers (all kinds)
Scientists
Computer programmers
Doctors
Lawyers
Brokers/financial analyists
High profile sales
Corporate executives
College Professors
almost all of which require college and
usually advanced degrees

Top 10 Majors by Starting Salary in 2002
Chemical Engineering $51,254
Electrical Engineering $50,387
Computer Science $50,352
Mechanical Engineering $48,654
Management Information Systems $43,732
Civil Engineering $40,848
Accounting $40,293
Economics/Finance $40,047
Marketing $35,374
Business Administration $35,209
Add a masters degree to these and the
value goes up considerably.