E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA sophomore at UC Berkeley, June Ahn comes from a family whose income is just enough to put her past the reach of much financial aid. So, like many students, Ahn is using loans to underwrite her education.
To make matters worse, she comes from Washington, not California, so she pays two and a half times as much as in-state tuition. And she pays it even though, as an underclassman, she’s still taking large-enrollment classes that cost the university much less to provide than smaller, upperclass courses and seminars.
It gives Ahn little consolation to know that some of her money is likely being used to subsidize the educations of her lower-income, in-state and junior and senior classmates.
“I’m not in a better financial position than any of the students I would be helping to subsidize,” said Ahn, whose anticipated major — political science — also is cheaper for the university to provide than majors for science and engineering students who, at UC Berkeley, are charged the same as she is. “But I have an extra almost $10,000 that I still need to pay.”
More from The Hechinger Report
- What would happen to education under Obama or Romney administrations?
- Q&A with a new college student: ‘I was never taught to be ready for college’
- New way of testing rookie teachers could be a game changer
As a new academic year begins, growing scrutiny of record tuition and fees is drawing new attention to the longstanding cycle of subsidies like these on which American colleges and universities depend — but which they would rather not discuss.
Rich kids subsidize poor kids. Out-of-state students subsidize in-state ones. Humanities majors subsidize science majors. Freshmen and sophomores subsidize juniors and seniors. Undergraduates subsidize graduate students. And international students subsidize everyone.
Now activists and legislators are pushing back against the Robin Hood-style use of some students’ tuition revenues to pay for other students’ financial aid. They’re pressing for different prices for different subjects based on the actual cost of instruction, and, in some states, even proposing an end to a perk under which taxpayers subsidize tuition for faculty children.
Still, many families and students seem as much in the dark about these practices as airline passengers who pay different fares for similar seats on the same flight to the same place.
“If you combine general financial illiteracy with the opaque nature of college financing, it’s surprising that anybody really knows what’s going on,” said Andrew Gillen, senior researcher at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
For universities, there’s an advantage in this, Gillen said: “If somebody doesn’t know he’s paying more than the kid next to him, he doesn’t get upset.”
But if that student is paying full or nearly full tuition, higher-education experts said, it’s likely some of the money is going to lower-income classmates who aren’t.
“Schools have become more aggressive in this income-redistribution aspect of higher education,” said Richard Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in Washington, D.C. “There’s an economic-theory dimension to this, which is that there’s always a small class of students who have a lot of money, and the income-maximizing enrollment manager wants to zap it to these kids.”
At least 15 states have explicit policies under which some of the revenue from students who pay tuition at public universities goes to others who can’t cover the full cost, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers, or SHEEO. In Arizona, for example, public universities channel about a quarter of tuition revenue into discounts, grants and other forms of financial aid. In North Carolina, at least 25 percent of money generated by any increase in tuition goes to such subsidies, while in California it is one-third of each tuition increase.
Donna Rosato of Money magazine talks about how to cut costs on college tuition and the strategies parents can use to make their child's bachelor's degree more affordable for the family.
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
Critics say this penalizes not only full-tuition-paying, high-income parents and their students, but also middle-class families already being squeezed by escalating costs. In June, the Iowa Board of Regents ordered the practice to end in that state within five years. There, some $144 million a year in financial aid is redistributed to low-income students — as well as high-achievers who don’t qualify for federal aid — from the tuition their classmates pay. The regents called for the portion of tuition that now goes to truly needy students to be replaced by contributions from the universities’ fundraising arms.
Similar appeals have come from the governor of Virginia, Arizona legislators and members of the University of North Carolina Board of Governors.
Since universities are also offering more scholarships to students with high grade-point averages and SAT scores, which elevates them in the all-important U.S. News & World Report college rankings — and since many of those top students come from affluent families and don’t qualify for federal aid, Gillen said another trend is at work. “Rich, dumb kids,” he said, “are subsidizing rich, smart kids.”
Out-of-state students at public universities also are increasingly subsidizing in-state students. That’s because out-of-state tuition is almost always higher than in-state — two and a half times as much for out-of-state than in-state students in the University of California system, for example. At the University of Virginia, out-of-state students pay almost twice what it actually costs to educate them; the rest helps pay for educating everybody else.
Numbers like that are why public universities are aggressively recruiting out-of-state students. About a third of students at the universities of Illinois, Virginia and Washington now come from out of state, and nearly 40 percent at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At UC Berkeley, the proportion is nearly 30 percent, about six times what it was as recently as 2006. At UCLA and UCSD, almost one in every five students is from outside California.
So much in demand are out-of-state students that they’re more likely to be accepted for admission to both UC Berkeley and UCLA than in-state residents whose parents’ taxes subsidize the universities. The California State University system recently announced that it would not accept in-state graduate students next spring; only out-of-state students, who pay more, are welcome to apply to Cal State graduate-degree programs.
International students also subsidize domestic ones. Eighty-one percent pay universities the full price, a much higher proportion than students generally, bringing in around $20 billion a year in tuition and living expenses, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Institute for International Education.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
Freshmen and sophomores, meanwhile, whose introductory courses are often taught in large groups in giant lecture halls with help from low-paid teaching assistants, subsidize juniors and seniors, who pay the same tuition but cost from one and a half to two times more to educate, according to a SHEEO survey based on research conducted in Florida, Illinois, New York and Ohio. A member of the faculty at UCLA has separately calculated that the disparity is even greater: Classes averaging 200 students, he found, cost about $56 per student to teach at public universities, compared to $560 per student in classes averaging 20 students. Yet all are charged the same amount.
“The big introductory lectures with 400 students, there’s a lot of profit in that class,” said Gillen. “And that’s used to subsidize smaller seminars for the upperclass students.”
Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, talks with MSNBC's Alex Wagner and the NOW panel about the rising cost of tuition across America and the burden of student loans.
Some of the money also goes to graduate programs that are expensive to operate.
“At the large research universities, the subsidization of graduate students is monstrously large,” Vedder said. “A student in a Ph.D. program sits in seminars of six and eight students taught by a professor making $150,000 a year and gets an extremely costly education. At the same university, the freshman who’s taking Introduction to Psychology, Introduction to Economics, sitting in lectures of 400 people — these kids are paying the same tuition.”
Undergraduates in low-cost disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences also help to pay for students in subjects that cost more to teach, including fine arts, agriculture, law and engineering, the Delta Cost Project on Postsecondary Education reports, since they, too, all pay identical tuition.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
A few universities are starting to charge different prices for different fields. At least 143 public universities now levy so-called differential tuition that varies by major and, in some cases, by year of enrollment, the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute found. The University of Maine, for instance, adds a $75 fee for engineering courses, and the University of Kentucky charges an extra $460 per semester for nursing students.
“Most universities sell one product to everyone at the same price, and, in fact, people are doing all kinds of different things at universities,” said Vedder. “So some of them are starting to say, ‘Let’s charge the business students more. Let’s charge the engineering students more.”
Engineering, nursing and the other fields for which universities have started charging extra fees are, of course, precisely the ones into which policymakers are trying to attract more students, said Steven Hurlburt, deputy director of the Delta Cost Project, raising questions about whether these tuition surpluses might discourage students from enrolling in, sticking with or graduating from such programs.
“It would be really interesting to look at the impact of these differential-tuition policies on things like graduation and retention rates,” Hurlburt said.
There are still other largely hidden subsidies in higher education.
At all but the small number of universities whose athletics programs make a profit, students — not broadcast networks or alumni — also subsidize athletics, mostly through mandatory fees, although they may not be aware of it.
More from The Hechinger Report
- What would happen to education under Obama or Romney administrations?
- Q&A with a new college student: ‘I was never taught to be ready for college’
- New way of testing rookie teachers could be a game changer
At Division 1 schools, athletic departments had an average subsidy from student fees of about $3.5 million to $4.2 million, the Center for College Affordability and Productivity found. Yet in a survey at the University of Toledo, only 25 percent of students knew that any of their fees went to athletics. By dividing the athletic fee per student at Ohio University by the number of varsity athletic events the average student reported attending, researchers there determined that each student was paying $130 per game attended.
There’s also pushback against a provision under which students and taxpayers subsidize the cost of tuition for faculty children, spouses and domestic partners — a contentious privilege for full professors who earn median salaries of about $120,000 a year at public universities and just under $140,000 at private ones, or nearly three times the U.S. median household income.
About a third of public and nearly 82 percent of private universities provide free or reduced tuition to employees and their dependents. Some private universities also have reciprocal arrangements under which employees’ dependents can get free or low tuition at other participating institutions.
A state representative in Pennsylvania has introduced a bill to abolish that benefit at public universities there, where it cost the state $10.1 million in 2010-2011. Lawmakers in Illinois, where it costs about $8 million a year, have also called for eliminating the perk. Defenders of it say it’s an important tool in recruiting top faculty.
Back at UC Berkeley, where he’s starting his freshman year, Howard Chiao, who is from Taiwan, already feels like the university takes advantage of international students.
“Sometimes I just feel a little bit like the school is trying to take too much money from us,” Chiao said. “It’s really a huge burden for us.”
Erica Perez of California Watch contributed to this story, "Student subsidies of classmates' tuition add to anger over rising college costs," which was produced by The Hechinger Report in collaboration with California Watch, part of the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Isaac's storms surge floods parts of Louisiana, Mississippi
- From darkness to gold: Blinded Navy swimmer set to race at Paralympics
- Video: Sinkhole stops traffic in San Francisco
- Texas tanning salon owner accused of trying to spy on teenage girls
- Veterans rely on patchwork safety net during hard financial times
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
$460 per SEMESTER for nursing students? SERIOUSLY? That's one way to deter potential students from entering a highly demanded field ...we don't need more poli-sci majors, we certainly don't need any more lawyers in this country, but our health care system will be in sad shape indeed without enough nurses, doctors, lab technicians, etc... to meet our every growing demand for qualified and talented health care professionals. I can understand $50 or $75 - but nearly $500 for EVERY nursing student for EVERY semester??? What - they don't like nurses???
Really? I have a daughter in an in state school and $460 is chump change compared to the rest of the cost. For a few extra thousand you get a career that pretty much guarantees you a well paying job doing something that helps everyone. You'll make that much more and then some just in the first year of work compared to other graduates stuggling to find a job/working at starbucks or something. (another whole can of worms about what you were thinking when you picked such a useless major but that's another discussion)
"Out-of-state students subsidize in-state ones."
"So much in demand are out-of-state students that they’re more likely to be accepted for admission to both UC Berkeley and UCLA than in-state residents whose parents’ taxes subsidize the universities."
WHICH IS IT, NBC? Do in-state students subsidize out-of-state or the other way around? There is a REASON that out-of-state students are charged more and it depends on the state and institution whether the out-of-state tuition is excessive or merely an off-set to the non-tax paying status of the student and her family.
The BIGGER issue is that states have continually reduced the contribution to higher education, putting more and more of the burden onto students who now come out of college financially weakened. There was a time when educating the populace was considered part of providing for the common good ... but that time appears to have passed.
There is a glut of unemployed nursing grads since 2007 and we still flood in lots of unnecessary H1B visas as well. Your degree is considered stale after one year. Local hospitals look at resumes on a lottery basis because there are stacks of them. There are 6 applicants for every opening in the military which would be in Afghanistan. We are all set for nursing.
As for non-residents taking advantage of the public universities that they did not support as taxpayers and then complaining about tuition: cry me a river then float yourself back to where you came from. You are a burden on our students. My landlords son had perfect SATs and very high grades and could not get into Berkeley (he is Chinese-American) so you are the burden really.
And from what I heard Monday on the news, 'they' think the illegals should only have to pay in state. Also saw some comments yesterday regarding the RNC. Someone was on there saying the repubs are lying, saying a certain someone didn't take away the requirement to look for work if you're on welfare. Funny, I heard about that one probably two weeks ago, again on the news. Far as I can see, it doesn't matter which side of the coin is speaking, it's still one coin, but the dem side has just decimated us in the last three plus years. But hey, if you're a fan, you do what you want... just remember what the word 'fan' is shortened from.
@Justanurse - really? You think $460 a semester is a lot???? I just paid $5600 for the past quarter of my MBA, and that is with no books or lab fees. My credits are more than $460 each.
@Robert Smith - the out-of-state students are subsidizing in-state students through higher tuition fees, the school itself, being it is a state school, is subsidized through in state taxes. The article is written perfectly clearly for anyone with rudimentary reading comprehension skills.
Robert Smith--funny how YOU and this ARTICLE (typical of a MSNBC product) glide right over the fact that CA is ALSO subsidizing ILLEGALS who attend school there, and NOT just in college.
And it is NOT an 'income producer' to let an illegal study "Mexican culture" or such other majors, anymore than getting a degree in Poly Sci, or in sociology is.
And the problem is NOT that states are not FUNDING colleges, the problem is that college tuition is and has been increasing exponentially compared to the State's total INCOME levels.
There was ALSO a time when TEACHERS taught 'for the good of the kids' rather than for the money.
Those days are ALSO long gone.
But once again, let me stress, STATES cannot keep increasing (or in many states) maintaining the levels they are funding schools while their INCOME is down.
If this is a high demand then the payoff should be worth the cost. There are ways to off-set the cost. Simply contract with some organization to help pay the tuition in return for predetermined time of pro bono work. Many organizations are in need.
People complain about how teachers don't make enough money. The price of edjucation goes up and people complain. Who said life was easy? Get the loans and pay your way.... If not, go to a community college. Complaining about it, isn't going to solve anything.
Is there even an Instructor with a classroom anymore..90% of most classes are done with a computer ! What a crock our colleges are and our Governments too.
This is a little off topic, but what about those of us who have saved for our kids college thru 529 Plans?
These investment vehicles were sold with the intention of saving and paying for college, but the investment returns (just like the investment returns in retirement accounts) have been dismal. How can someone save for college with a 2% return over the last 10 years?
Do college savings plans have any fiduciary responsibility in providing these investment vehicles (mine is the Virginia College American Funds), or do they simply walk away with their fees and leave the responsibility entirely to the participants?
I paid $1800.00 per semester....460.00 is nothing...
Robert Smith-
They're saying that the tuitions of the out-of-state students subsidize the tuitions of the in-state students, but the parents of the in-state students pay taxes to pay for the schools. So that creates a weird situation where in-state families pay taxes to keep these schools alive, but then the schools would rather accept out of state students since they have to pay more.
Some colleges are expensive, that 's a given. Why do some people think they're entitled to go to a certain school? Berkeley has a good rep so it costs more, and it should cost more if you're from out of state. It is the "University of California". Plus, supply and demand, right? Sorry, June, but state schools are available, and within your own state.
As far as subsidies, supply and demand apply as well. If one subject is competitive to get, it should cost more. If one subject costs more to run, it should cost more. If someone can afford to go to a top school, what's wrong with subsidizing scholarships? Don't we all do that with taxes, to some extent? Count your blessings people. I am grateful to God that I have enough to pay taxes. If it helps people, all the better
They don't have a university in the state of Washington?
I'm not sure why you would pay more than double to get a degree that leads to unemployment.
TEACHERS taught 'for the good of the kids' rather than for the money.
so are you going to quit your job to teach for free? good intentions don't feed the bulldog
To Oldnewgrad,RN, what state do you live in? In the Denver area there are 400 open RN positions alone. It's not like Denver is such an attraction, but still that's a whole lotta nursing positions open. And those positions cross the spectrum of entry level to graduate degree level. But that's not what we're talking about is it?
The notion of going to out-of-state schools is one reserved for the relatively wealthy, always has been and probably always will be. But the reason tuition's are so high is your own fault. The voter has been re-electing people to office that pass the kinds of legislation that provides grants to students. Colleges see that money and figure they can bump their prices by that much and more. It is an unintended consequence of trying do good and end up jacking the system out of whack. You can't really blame them for falling into that trap, we do it all the time, it's the reason people will pay a ton of money to buy that latest fad item; We want what we want. Universities should be better, but they aren't, so as the money rolls in, the more they want it. Hence, the more they charge. Just my humble opinion. And not that it matters but I just wanted to say these have been the most civil postings I've read in a long time. Thank You.
She chose to go to school out of state!
Out of state students pay more because their parents are not paying state taxes like the parents of in-state students. That simple - foolish article. If she is unhappy about paying out of state tuition then go to a college in Washington or move to California, work for a year to get residency, and then attend college as an in-state student.
I feel for Ann, etc. whom are in college today. Yes she gets to pay more as an out of state student, but it's her choice if she wants to go to Berkley. Is it wrong that she has to pay "fees" that offset many university costs of others- I do start to question there. If you have to pay a $500 athletics fee, even though you don't use the athletic facilities or go to the sporting events, then I think it's wrong. Universities are nickel and diming students for every cent they can get because they are competing for the big bucks in D1 sports, providing scholarships and financial aid to other students, building larger and larger campuses (and staffs) to compete academically. Unfortunately many universities don't understand that you really can't be the best at everything without a massive commitment that most can't do. What they really should do is consolidate state run schools into centers of excellence where the various schools are redeveloped for the sciences, arts, math and engineering, the liberal arts, etc. Each would do far better in providing the specific environment that best suits affiliated trades and let the others do what they do best.
BTW- There are a few ways to cut the costs of a college education: 1. Don't go until you know what you really want to do, 2. Go to a community college for a few years to figure out what you want to do then spend the bigger bucks somewhere else to complete the degree/s, 3. Go to work in the field you think you want to work in for a year or two, save some money, then go to school focused.
I think one of the biggest challenges in getting a college education is that there are so many kids going that are using college as the next high school rather than their jump point for a credible degree. They create the cash for the university, but they are the population bloat that keeps good students from getting into the classes they need and finishing their programs on time.
Lastly, I'm absolutely against the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants ideas that are floating about. If you can't get into a university with a criminal record, why is it that you should get extra special aid for breaking the law???
Welcome to the liberal/Obama world. You are paying for other kids and the illegals. There's no more making your own way through life. Everyone who finds a way must pay for those that don't or can't. Of course, those other poor kids could go to a community college and get an education must cheaper, but why should they?....You OWE them. Pay your fair share. They DESERVE to go to the same school as you. You're just greedy and selfish not to be HAPPY to be paying for someone else.
RTColorado- Believe it or not, your out-of-state comment is completely wrong in some parts of the country. In "expensive" states (those with a high cost of living, high taxes, etc.) it may actually cost more to send your kid to an in-state state school then to an out-of-state state school. I know this because I have heard the cost breakdown of some and it was startling. It costs less to send your kid to another state- live in the dorms, go on the food plan, tuition and books, etc. etc. then to stay at home.
So it may be inconvenient to move out of state to go to school, but it may be far less expensive then living in your own state to do so. I will certainly have this discussion and review with my own kids when they are ready to go.
If out of state students don't like paying more they always have the option of attending THEIR in state school.
And I don't get why underclassmen would be upset about all 4 years paying the same tuition rate. After all, don't they intend to get their degree? Or are they only "killing time" for a year or two, in which case they should be subsidizing the serious students.
As for dumb kids subsidizing smart kids, well you both will (presumably) graduate with a degree from UC Berkley so the dumb kids are benfitting from the reputation that the smart kids give the school. I'd much rather have a degree that is known for academic prowess than for having the best beer pong team. Believe me, you'll be happy the school attracted the cream of the crop when your dum azz is trying to get a job.
Neither the right wing of the government, (which is most in both major parties), and corporations have no interest in an educated citizenry. If people are dumb they will continue to volunteer to fight the wars that only benefit defense contractors and corporations.
James Madison stated that ordinary citizens are to ignorant to actually participate in governance---explaining why we're not a Democracy and the concept of a Representative Democracy died with the SCOTUS'S ruling on Citizens United. Kill "corporate personhood" and impeach the freaks on the Supreme Court.
Why is education cut while wars rage?
It's not just the tuition. The schools tack on annoying incidentals such as George Washington that charged us $350 to drop...that is...drop the on campus housing for our son. We have twin boys in college, one at GW and the other at Gettysburg. There is nothing cheap about either one and we pay the full cost. I hope someone else is greatful for the subsidy.
I am amazed by most people today. Everyone wants fairness, though fairness is whatever those people want for themselves. Which makes it, oh what is the word...narcissistic. Yep, that's it. Education costs continue to rise at a rapid rate not because there is too little governmental control, or governmental regulation. They are rising because almost no one seems to comprehend even the most basic concepts about economics. We DO NOT have a free market for education.
Beginning decades ago primary and secondary school teachers began to drill into everyone's mind that they needed to go to college. That was your ticket to happiness and prosperity. For some, sure. For others, it's a very bad deal. For instance, since a large proportion of college students fail to graduate, they are paying a very high price for a product they are unlikely to gain a benefit from, and so are subsidizing others as they do it. They end up with large debt and no piece of paper to explain how smart they really are.
Worse, the government, because it cares so much about you, concluded that the wise way to help people to afford college would be to offer low cost loans, or grants. Oops, as the economist might say. By artificially lowering the cost demand, all other things equal, increased. Now what happens when on a supply and demand curve when demand increases but supply remains relatively constant? By the second day of basic econ anyone should know the answer: Prices rise. And boy, have they risen!
But because we are unable to say we made an oopsie in education policy we decide, surprise surprise, to offer even MORE low cost loans, and even MORE grants. And we make the problem worse. We have traded the idea of performance for the facade of a degree in order to calculate the value of our labor. Like most aspects of modern liberal America we have eschewed market fundamentals in favor of politically correct outcomes. And now the bill has come due, and we don't have the money to pay it, or the collective spine to admit we went down a rabbit hole.
It's time to let economics and free markets loose in education. Desubsidize colleges. If colleges are going to produce a good product it will be bought. Quit trying to influence demand. If students are willing to trade time and money for the prospect of a good education and improved standard of living later they will. Quit trying to federally micro-manage (can you hear me Mr. Cordray?) college administrative decisions. If the smartest and most educated people on earth are incapable of properly administering the colleges they supervise, then the trustees can fire the management and hire those capable of getting the job done.
Lastly, if students are too stupid to make the best financial decisions for themselves in the context of the cost/benefit analysis that should be the most basic question asked before going to college, and they get fleeced as a result, then tough. STFU and pay the bill.
It is no secret that college and universities are playing the Robin Hood game. As the father of
three college- age children who saved hard for their education (we are not wealthyby any means), I REFUSE to pay for the education of families who did not work, or did not save, or did not themselves go to college and pursue a career where they could pay their own tuition bills. The answer: my children turned down acceptance to some very fine (including ivy) schools that did not offer merit aid (they were all three valedictorian with near perfect ACT scores and were accomplished in other areas as well) and they accepted admission to schools offering substantial merit aid. If those scholarships had not been available,
then they would have gone to local state or community colleges, but there is no way I would allow my family to be robbed to pay for other students. Oh, and merit scholarships only pay tuition –the other way colleges and universities pad their income is with mandatory and very expensive meal service plans, and additional exorbitant “fees” for everything under the sun, so we are still paying a substantial amount for a
college education, but an amount that is closer to being fair than it would be at “full tuition” which we all know is well beyond “actual tuition.” Angry? Yes, I am. The system stinks. It should be illegal. Better yet, people should refuse to pay "full tuition" and insist on "actual tuition."
So what else is new? I pay full fair for my oldest child to attend Berkeley. Tuition has doubled in recent years, while families with income below $70K get a free ride. All the while, class offerings are being reduced because of continuing budget cutbacks, partly because not everyone is paying for their tuition. My younger children will attend private colleges out of state and leave this broken mess of a system.
Speaking of fairness, we also support the other half of the population that don't pay any Federal taxes, and ALL of us subsidize the education of illegal aliens. At some point, this country will suffer a drain brain as those of us motivated, educated and driven to succeed will look for a fairer place to live.
lusitania, sometimes on line education is better, but not all of the time for everything. Labs, arts, and physical education obviously cannot be taught completely on line. But like you, I think that their potential is still ignored. I think also that on line courses are having a greater effect on the present education environment than what is recognized. I think this is a kind of a denial, because it means big changes and loss of jobs. An analogy was the effect of off-shoring of jobs, which was ignored for many years; now 25 years later, that has become a big issue.
On line courses have an economic effect of making traditional coursework more expensive. Also, a natural inertia against any change always exists. As with all changes, some things will be lost. But unlike in the confusion of off-shoring of jobs, maybe those things that should be saved will be saved.
Rich--I agree in part, but liberalization doesn't include have a defense that spends as much as the balance of the world, with 750 bases on foreign soil, tax revenues continue to decline, but wars rage on. Sucessful economies can't be so if they allow the jobs to be exported. Only 8-11% of the workforce has any part of collective bargaining. Bottom line--the youth of today do not have the access that I did to an affordable education, but they do inherit a $16T debt. Yes, I do expect fairness.
There is no such thing as a free lunch kiddies.
Pretty much everything covered in this article has been true of higher education in this country since the first colleges were founded before the revolution. The only thing that's different now is that we used to believe that education was a public benefit, and should be publicly funded. That was one thing that conservatives and liberals used to agree upon.
Now one party has decided it has no use for educated voters, and it's starving higher ed as a result. Now, apparently, we get to see phase two of this plan: in order to discourage students from getting mad at the legislators who are responsible for cutting state funding, set 'em against each other! If you can get the rich and poor, upper-class and lower-class, humanities and science students and faculties all fighting amongst themselves, then you won't need to worry about them realizing why the water hole has actually been shrinking.
The $460 is "EXTRA" - an add-on, not the actual tuition.
Actually Bruce you're 1oo% inaccurate. Governmental contribution to education is far, far higher than it was 30 years ago and yet the money does less. Of course as a Progressive you don't have the ability to think outside the tiny Democrat -good, Republican - bad box. Like everyone on the left you come out, guns blazing, pointing the finger at--- money. School is so expensive precisely because of people like you who don't have the intellect to understand that the more money the Government gives away, the more schools charge. When they gave away less, schools charged less. The fact is the Government is giving away their money, they're giving away our money so they have no stake in the outcome. The schools want a profit and profit comes from a guaranteed source of revenue, so anyone gets admitted if they have Government funds. Of course the students then fail out or don't get a 6 figure job the day they graduate and stop looking and the Government agencies farm out the collection and accept pennies on the dollar. Everyone wins except the taxpayer just so Progressives can call people names and whine about fairness. Just what America needs is more MBA's, more feminist studies majors, more african-American history majors etc.
This is a great example sticking actual people into neat little categories based government perceived socio-economic bias. If you don't fit the mold that they say you should fit into, well that's just too bad. It is these kind of Liberal policies that do and will continue to drive the wedge between citizens. The sad thing is this is done by design. A united America is not an America that bodes well for the Democrat Party. In their world you need to be pissed off at you fellow citizens so they can exploit your anger and hope they can make enough empty promised to get your vote.
evergrien- "But hey, if you're a fan, you do what you want... just remember what the word 'fan' is shortened from."
But hey, if you believe in repubs, you do what you want......just remember what the word "repubs" is shortened from........REPUBLICANT. Cant pass legislation, can't tell the truth, can't work for the majority of Americans, and can't win this election!
This is an interesting thought: "If you think education is expensive - try ignorance!"
As for Sean-691774 - the gentleman whose kids were valedictorians and had almost perfect ACTS, but turned down acceptance to high-end colleges, including Ivy's because there were no merit scholarships - do you realize the VAST MAJORITY of students at those colleges have the same credentials as your kids? THATS why there are no merit scholarships for those accomplishments - if that were the case, just about every student there would be on merit scholarships. (They also give very limited course credit for AP test scores, etc, and require the highest scores, for the same reason. Just about every student there would start off with almost a years worth of college credit if those high-end schools had the same practices as most other schools).
So, you sent your kids to schools providing merit scholarships - they worked hard, they deserve SOMETHING. Right? Because, you refuse to pay for other kids tuition you said. Yet you DO realize, don't you, that OTHER KIDS and other taxes are now doing that very thing for your children. Do you understand it's a give and take cycle? I do NOT agree with the entire system, at all, nonetheless, there are REASONS why it is the way it is for the time being.
As for those high end schools you turned down, they are EXTREMELY generous with financial aid even for families making up to $200,000/year etc, it may have increased even more by now. So I have a feeling you aren't exactly "low income" or even "middle income", with 3 children in college, you would have received SOME significant need-based scholarships at a minimum. Your children are successful, come from a relatively affluent family, they will do fine. Count your blessings.
THe biggest issue are unchecked tuition increases. Out of staters SHOULD, for the most part, pay more than in-staters since obviously in-staters families pay taxes every year which support the schools in THEIR state. As for undergrads paying more than jrs & srs.,relatively speaking, well, when those undergrads arrive at the jr/sr status they will be in the same beneficial position, unless they quit or transfer of course. Trying to separate it all is a headache in the making, adding MORE administrative costs and debate into the picture. Perhaps it's TRANSFER students who should pay the most, since they avoid the first couple years of financial hits at the school that ulitmately becomes their alma mater. It's all relative, folks. Except for the tuition cost itself. THAT needs to be addressed.
Sean wrote "but there is no way I would allow my family to be robbed to pay for other students. Oh, and merit scholarships only pay tuition"
While I understand your motivation for avoiding tuition costs, it appears that you pursued the route of robbing other families to pay the tuition of your children.
Thanks, campaign donors, for paying for my Harvard tuition fees:
Corrupt politicans....ONE AND ALL.
How about those cost plus and no-bid contracts that defense contractors get? That's not a free lunch--that's a frigging free smorgasbord.
Obama rally every single college to promise lower the tuition if he got elected , they vote for him but they got instead free contraceptives. Obama fail his promises because he is focus in his ideology not to help students. Cost of living is higher for students, books are more expensive, transportation is more expensive, unemployment for college graduates is more than 20 % , more college graduated coming back to their parents home because they can afford to live by their own. What is Obama doing for those kids other than ask for their vote. In the top of that they have to pay 5 trillions in debt added for Obama, that is what college students got from him.
Wake up kid's, don't believe in more falsies promises.
The money that comes from the state to subsidize the school is based on the FTE--which is the full time enrollment figure. So the money doesn't just simply come from the state--it is tied to how many students are actually attending, and in the instance of state schools, it is also affected by which students are in-state and which are out-of-state--hence the difference in tuition amounts between in-state and out-of-state.
As far as different costs for different degrees--see how well that works out when pre-med students are paying thousands more per semester than sociology majors. That will be great for getting new recruits for in-demand career areas. "You want to work in this field that badly needs more workers. Great! Hope you have LOTS of cash though because the tuition is double the tuition for this other major you have no interest in."
People need to get over this @!$%#ing "me-me-me-me" @!$%#. Why is it structured the way it is? Because then everyone has an equal opportunity to access their education regardless of what field they want. Those who want an English degree who balk at paying more to subsidize someone else's pre-med degree are likely going to need to go see a doctor some day. Suck it up--it's called creating a functional society. If we want to really go to an "every man for himself" model, then accept that we WILL be a third world country within ten years.
This entire article is horse@!$%#.
RTColorado -- I don't want to speak for OldNewgrad RN, but in California, nursing jobs are nearly impossible to come by for new grads. Hospitals hire into new grad programs, but my niece has found 500 new grads lining up for every program, which accepts about 5-10 nurses. Since after a year, she wasn't eligible for new grad programs, but had no experience for regular nursing positions, she had to leave the state to find a job and get the experience she needs.
Even having her mother in a nursing position at a hospital for 30 years wasn't enough to get her an "in" there, and she graduated with stellar grades. I applaud her for doing what she needs to do to get the experience, but it sucks!
anyone arguing to "charge exactly what it costs" "no more subsidizing" has never ran a business.
at least in my experience, you have some work that is higher margin to offset the other work that you just cant make much on - but have to take on to maintain the business/client. some things you do - from a business perspective - is a cost to the company, because you'll know you'll make it up in the long run.
as for freshman and sophmores subsidizing juniors and seniors - last I knew, it was everyones goal to be all 4 at one point...so why would you want a lower cost up front, only to get smacked with a really high cost down the line? it all washes out in some ways.
The ONLY area's that I could see bringing the cost/value more in line is to look at the cost of educating someone for things that wont result in good salaries - like public works, teachers, stuff like that (things that are needed but wont earn you lots of money) and compare that to the cost to educate doctors, nurses, engineers, business majors - who will make lots of money in their chosen fields.
But you cant make it so expensive that people wont take on those majors because they cant afford them, and we find ourselves losing the advancement of our nation...and subsequently you cant make others so cheap that everyone suddenly wants to be a teacher (even though you know they dont really want to be)
Amy - that boils down to not looking at the reality of where you live and whats needed/available.
It would be like people in Michigan going to school to be auto engineers in large numbers, only to graduate and find out the auto industry isnt really hiring. You cant blame anyone but yourself for not thinking long and hard and doing your homework before picking your major.
Same goes for Art Students who magically cant find anything to do with that degree, what exactly were they thinking they'd do with it?
I know quite a few people who are going to school for social work, and havent bothered to consider what would happen if republicans take over the local govt and slash funding for stuff like that? it means there are no jobs...and even when there are jobs, they pay for crap.
im not saying it's not honorable work, im saying...dont get mired in college tuition debt if you havent a clue how it might pan out in the end.
Hey Sandtrich,
Well, dang, the fact that you even agreed with me in part must mean I am at least wrong in part! Just kidding, really.
I don't know why you want to bring defense spending into a conversation about why education costs are rising and what to do about it, but it would help if we simply remained focused on education. One disaster at a time. That said, I think the problem with education costs, and this might be where you partly agree with me, is that the government treats education as something we should all get, regardless of the cost and/or benefit. What a collossal error in thinking.
To get someone from Kindergarten through to a BS, from public primary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions, is now costing us, on average, more than $200,000, and far more than that amount when the time value of money is included in the calculation. Stupidity, or rather ignorance, is extremely costly too, but still we should be asking ourselves if this amount of money to produce what we are able to frankly produce is worth it to the larger society. The decision so far has been that, yes, it does make sense. But this is a political decision based more on how much free stuff one candidate or praty can give away to get votes in return than it is based upon sound and harsh financial calculation.
So if we just get out of it so that the government isn't picking who wins and who loses, then individual families and students will make the kinds of choices we should've been making all along. For instance, is it really a wise choice to spend 5 years and, say, $50,000 out of your own pocket (not to even begin to include the costs the government incurs) to become a social case worker? Social workers might right now be frothing at the mouth over my question, but if it isn't asked, and we just assume it makes sense, then why should anyone ever be surprised at how much education now costs, and how little society gets in return?
As far as fairness I think you missed my point, or I made it badly. You can be fair to others, and expect fairness be shown to you. My point was that in trying to get governmental policy fairness when everyone seems to want it delivered to them based upon what they want, rather than what society concludes is right, or best, then we have the kinds of posts that preceded mine. Where people drone on and on about how screwed over they are. They are getting something for free, and yet they are WHINING about how screwed over they are. What a fix we are in when getting free stuff is not even good enough.
If you attend a Public College and are not a resident of that State, you should pay a Higher Tuition than In-State students. You haven't paid the taxes that support that College. Some of these Colleges are giving Illegals financial breaks for which Legal U.S. Citizens pay. Some Colleges/Universities are giving free money or very low interest loans that are only available TO ILLEGALS. Look on the bright side, when this lady is a Junior if she makes the grade, (Illegals and minorities need only appear for the grade), the in-coming group of Freshmen will be paying to support her advancement.
Uh, for the parent comment about the $500+- for a semester...I pay like $9k for three classes in one semester. If I had to pay that little, I'd be taking a hell of a lot more classes and I would've graduated the first year AND tested out of 60% of the classes.
The problem is the governments of the states and the federal government. Schools are like hospitals, they cover the costs of the 'deprived' students by charging more for the 'affluent' students. Hospitals charge more to cover the illegals who pay squat. Obama and progressivism at it's finest. Flat fees are the only answer. Community colleges will take the 'deprived' student and get lots of their money via community taxes.
Universities will spend millions on football programs and a few paltry thousands on history. So sorry, but when a university can afford to pay coaches like Sandusky their incredible salaries and millions on sports over academics then you begin to see where a great deal of the problems lie. Priorities, priorities, priorities...
Then again, this is a way for students to learn the value of wealth redistribution first hand. Schools prepare them for life under progressivism. Don't strive or save your money, it will be taken from you and used to pay for those who never saved or came here illegally. Socialism in action, punish the producers to keep everyone 'equal' and why bother to work when whatever you have 'extra' will be taken from you and redistributed?
Well, Jessica, then perhaps you could have lent us your crystal ball 5 years ago to let us know what the state's economy and the health care industry would look like now. To know that hospitals would be in a holding pattern until they determine how Obamacare would affect them, and then would probably restructure to accommodate the changes. Then perhaps we could have known the number of jobs that would be available, find out how many people were in nursing schools already and done the math.
Then my niece, who has wanted to be a nurse since she was a small child undergoing medical treatment herself, could simply blow off that vocation and find something more reasonable. I suppose I also should have known 25 years ago that my career in the financial industry would come to an unfortunate end, then I could have avoided unemployment.
Not sure if you're just cold or totally clueless.
Both
Someone might suggest to the young lady that there are a few more factors involved. I am 65 years old with NO CHILDREN (have never had the pleasure) and NO DEPENDENTS. Yet I gladly subsidize through property taxes, my local public education system. One of many thoughts is that as I get older and God forbid need health care I sort of hope the people taking care of me can read. I also pay federal income taxes so at some level SUBSIDIZE the education of this young lady as well. METHINKS protestation on her part is more about the increasing INDIVIDUALIZED resentment of anything the OTHER gets than it is about a grand philosophy. AND, if finances are so tough...stay at home and go to a State School...there are plenty of good ones.
I coud not have said it better. Support your State Schools!
Original--I agree with you on even non-family folks can benefit from paying taxes for good schools.
However, many colleges now are more concerned with MAKING money (and paying their professors big bucks) than in making good education.
A college OUGHT to have to show incoming applicants what the AVERAGE starting salary is for a specific major. A recent article pointed out that of the 10 majors that will NOT result in an ability to pay off loans, 7 out of 10 were some form of SOCIOLOGY.
But would the schools discourage students from majoring in those studies? NOPE--and for many students, Sociology is a 'fall back major' just because it is one where there ARE no 'set rules' for learning it, and the ability to BS is an important factor. Result? A bunch of Soc. majors with NO real 'job skills'.
MOmaid-I agree with your assertion that a lot of majors offered are no longer going to lead to meaningful employment but it is not the job of the school to encourage or discourage any particular field of study. The universities offer the courses because people want to take them, if no one signs up the class will be cancelled. These students are supposed to be adults and as such responsible for making their own choices, if they've convinced themselves that being an English major or studying the social effects of video games is going to leave them in better stead than an Engineering or hard science degree then I say fleece them for all they have.
MOmaid. It is up to the student to research their major.
Very astute observation, Original. The "greater good" mentality seems to have gone the way of the pet rock in this country.
Mom: obviously, I cannot speak for all college students, but every college class (outside of core academics) I have attended has begun with a lecture on career possibilities with the given major, as well as what can be expected financially. The social science majors are advised from day one that their career paths are limited until they obtain PhD status. But many choose not to pursue the graduate work for a variety of reasons. I actually don't know anyone who graduated from college without knowing what was going on in their field. Those people who are showcased as "Graduated but can't find work" had a number of years to research where those industries were headed... and failed to do so. That does not speak well of their preparedness for the adult world.
Momaid - I agree that students should know what the starting salaries someone with their major could earn, but thfan is right that is the responsibility of the student. At some point kids need to begin taking responsibility, and one of the early life decisions a kid can make is forst college or no college - the pay differntial is well publicized (and is getting greater year by year). Once the kid decides on college the next adult type act is investigating what they wnat to study - not only what type of pay one could make but types of fial carreer paths that education would open up. Not all carreers lead to financial riches but many lead to moral and personal riches.
cknneley - I think you are sort of correct colleges offer courses because studets want them. But at the same time I strongly believe a college/university education should do more than just prepare a student for a specific carreer path. As the proud holder of a bachelors in Biology - a hard science - I was required to take many liberal arts classes in everything from history, literature, psych, etc. the theory as that we would be well rounded individuals. (Of course the so called liberal arts types never had to take any hard sciences - hmmmmm). COlleges are their for lots of reasons - prepare kids for a carreer path, make sure students have critical thinking skills, open young minds to the vast knowledge base available.
(Of course the so called liberal arts types never had to take any hard sciences - hmmmmm)
Not true. My middle daughter, an Art major, just finished her geology lecture and lab classes over the summer. In addition, she was required to take another "hard" science... as the biology classes were filled minutes after registration opened, she chose environmental science. My youngest daughter, a Theater major, is also required to take "hard" science classes. She has chosen to take astronomy - like my husband did; he was a Political Science major. My own major, History (with pre-law concentration), requires a number of "hard" sciences. So far, I have taken environmental science, geography and chemistry. It is only law school that has provided me with a respite from areas of study that do not interest me.
If you must prop your "pride" in your degree by denigrating other degrees, perhaps it isn't as lofty as you might think. Congratulations, by the way.
Hollykb-good to see I'm not the only biologist posting here. I completely agree with you about education versus job training, after all they wouldn't call it university if it were just a vocational school. That being said, the post I responded to was specifically talking about employment so my response was framed in that way, cheers.
Just My 2 Coppers-The science requirements you mentioned for non-science majors are usually introductory/cursory type courses that would be inappropriate for science majors/concentrators. That is not to say they aren't useful but they are more akin to the kind of prefunctory history classes that all students are required to take and like the non-science major science classes you wouldn't expect to gain any more than a cursory understanding of the particular historical period covered, cheers.
Agreed... much like the PSY101 and introductory history classes that Holly was "forced" to take to round out her education. I have only a glancing understanding of environmental science in the same way she has only an introduction to history. That certainly does not make my degree somehow "less than" hers... simply different. My degree was hard earned and I bristle at the condescending tone implied by "so called liberal arts type" language.
I went back to school in Florida in 2008 and based on my income from the previous year (a whooping $19,000 that wasn't even enough to allow me to afford an appartment of my own), I was told that I made too much money to qualify for any grants. After a year in school my GPA was nearly a 4.0 and my income was slightly lower, yet I still didn't qualify for any grants. I was 25 years old at the time and had been out from under my parents roof since I was 17, but was still asked by Federal Student Aid if my parents were college graduates. I meet so many people who, like me, barely make enough money to get by, but still cannot qualify for scholarships or grants because they made $1,000 over the established poverty level income. If I am barely getting by financially, I certainly can't pay for books and tuition! The other upsetting thing is when students who are in their late teens and early 20's and no longer supported by their parents are still denied grants based on their parents income. On the flipside, there was a girl who had recently moved to the U.S. from Haiti in one of my classes. She rarely came to class and was getting 30% on her tests. When asked why she even bothered coming to school she replied, "Because they pay me to come." Wonderful. The U.S. always stresses the importance of higher education; however, they make paying for it nearly impossible. This "one size fits all" approach to federal grants and scholarships has, and will continue to, keep a lot of smart, motivated and promissing individuals from obtaining a college education.
@TDS1205
Hate to break it to you but it is because of Federal grants, scholarships and loans that the cost of your education is so high. Since 1965 when the government decided they'd "help" us all get a college education the cost of that education has risen at better than 3 times the rate of inflation. Easy money for colleges means they can spend lavishly on amenities and perk to lure students away from other colleges. The typical college campus today puts even the best country clubs to shame and the students pay for every penny of those luxuries.
Sooner or later people are going to have to accept the fact that whenever government tries to "help" someone it is only going to make matters worse. Another fine example is when they decided to "help" the handicap get jobs. Before the ADA half of all handicapped were employed, after it dropped to one third.
Tell the government to do the things it's supposed to do, like defend OUR nation for example, and get the @!$%# out of the way in every other aspect of our lives. We don't need, and shouldn't want given their track record, any "help" from them.
another member of the whining, gimme, i am done in if you don't, crowd
You can't get grant or scholarship if your GPA is below certain level. I think it's below 2.0. She flunked how could she get it?
If I had money I would donate to school because that's how you build a strong nation. This political science student and foreign students should have known that they have choices.
@South Bay
And that school would likely spend it on a new tennis court or a Mongolian grill station in the cafeteria.
I received emails from my school telling us exactly how much extra tuition we were paying to subsidize others' education. Funny thing is, I was in the low income group on scholarship. My scholarship was paying to subsidize other students' education who's parents were in a higher income bracket than my own.
That makes sense, right?
Why people don't stick to state schools within their own state is mind boggling. Morons think that sending their kids across the country gives them a better education, NO IT DOESN'T!. Most of the time where you got your degree means nothing. If you get a Harvard degree you're not going to get any real additional benefit out of it except in extreme cases. The only way someone should go out-of-state is if they are going for some sort of specialized degree not available to them in their area. That happens almost never. Morons wasting money to spend more money paying for rent/lodging. Stay at home until you get a job morons.
Why not stay in your own state for cheaper schooling? Some have pointed this out in other replies: It doesn't exactly work like that. In-State v Out-of-State is cheaper, in that state. However, costs aren't fixed nationwide. I went to a state college in NY and paid the in-state rate. I also had classmates from CA. The out-of-state rate they paid was much HIGHER than what I paid, yes, but far LESS than CA's in-state cost. Even w/ the added cost of schlepping their crap (and themselves) across the country they were still getting their degrees at a huge savings over what the 'stay in your own state' crowd would have them pay. Which also means less debt after graduation.
Am I missing something? State universities are supposed to give preference to in-state students, as their name implies.
That's a perfectly good assumption unless you are living in California where they are recruiting and giving preference to out of state and foreign student applicants because they do pay higher tuition.
The vast majority of students are still in state residents so no preference is being given to out of staters.
... if you are going to GIVE someone lower cost you have to give another higher cost.
WHAT? The state of Washington doesn't have competent Universities, where she wouldn't have to pay Out-of-state tuition? This is hogwash! Of course they do!
If she doesn't want to pay so much, she should have stayed in her own state college system. No one forced her to attend that school.
That is right but we are raising kids today that feel they are entitled to what ever they want and should not have to work or pay for anything. My daughter is a soph at one of our state college and she will earn her degree in business in 4 years and will leave school with no debt. It can be done we began putting money into a fund when she was born about 76 a month till she graduated hs to pay for her tuition and fees. We budget for her room and board and she works over the summer for spending money she did get a grant for 2,500 this year 1,250 per semester. We are not wealthy by any means but with planning anyone can do it and not have college debt when they graduate. Don't like the big classes for your required classes got to junior college pay less than half for those classes then transfer to a 4 year school. But kids don't want that they want to go to a so called prestigious school for the name and rack up thousands of dollars in student loans. College is a privilege not a right.
She chose to attend UC Berkeley because of its academic reputation which will fatten her resume and wallet. So if she wants to dance to the tune she should pay the piper. She is taking up a spot of deserving California student whose family has supported that school through their taxes.
If her school has a small set aside for low income students to keep alive the myth of social mobility in the USA then hooray.
It will not fatten her resume or wallet. no one gives a crap anymore. We all know they barely attend classes and the professors just give decent grades now to get them out of their hair.
Now you know why the smartest people in CA are no longer going to UC schools. You can get a private education in a private university for a similar cost and obtain a much better education. My company is finding that our UC educated students just aren't as competitive or good as the kids coming out of the private schools where there are 30-10 kids per class. In Silicon Valley, the UC schools are losing their reputation.
My youngest graduated from Metro State; a large urban University in downtown Denver. The largest lecture hall they have is for 150 people. All of her classes had 30 or fewer students. They have very limited graduate school programs and all of the professors teach as opposed to spending the majority of their time procurring federal grant money.
Oh by the way, she was born and all of our family live in California.
I agree that the current system of college tuition and scholarships needs a major overhaul. However, I strongly feel that changing tuition based on major or year in school is a bad idea. We need more math and science majors, but if those majors cost more, that's going to drive away a lot of potential students. If the cost is different for freshmen/sophomores vs junior/seniors, I could certainly see the case where a student is able to afford his first two years, and then has to drop out of school because the last two are too expensive (depending upon how large the difference in tuition is). When in school, you have to take the lower level classes first, so in a sense you're paying in for yourself (not directly obviously), because at some point, you will be in the upper level classes.
Time to figure out how to apply market economics principles to college education to encourage price competition between colleges.
Universities are priced based on prestige and quality of education. They aren't Wal-Mart.
Prestige and quality of education (real or imagined) would determine which market tier they lie on, in terms of competition.
A Podunk Community College is not going to be competing with Harvard or Yale, but with other Community Colleges.
DollarStore does not usually compete with Target.
One part of the solution is simple -- state universities should charge international students about 3 or 4 times as much as they charge out-of-state students. The reality is that the VAST majority of these international students are either very rich OR they are sent to America PAID FOR by their nation to become doctors and learn how to build dams, bridges, electric power grids, nuclear power plants, or nuclear bombs. (I have traveled overseas dozens of times in the last 20+ years to all of the nations I will mention below, and many international business associates have told me this... so I do know this for a FACT!) These students are typically expensive science, math, and engineering students -- and because they also excell they also get a LARGE percentage of the paid grad-student teaching positions which also sucks money away from the American students.
IF the goal of a state university is to educate our own students, and since it is nearly impossible for an American student to TRULY attend and graduate from a university in China, Japan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Taiwan, India, or even England -- then international students should NOT be paying the same price as a kid from Iowa or Illinois since these states educate our students also, albeit at the higher out-of-state rate. (I said ATTEND and GRADUATE, not merely drink-away a summer "abroad" it Rome or London... which it almost exclusively just a waste of time and of money, SORRY but that is reality.) By charging international students MUCH more, most of them will still come here... as our schools are not only better, they are also cheaper than elsewhere around the world. But, this money can and should be used by the states to subsidize in-state students. Imagine that...
Rick--ironically, you neglected to mention ONE of the reasons why wealthy foreign students come to the US to study, which is to learn or perfect their ENGLISH. Because nearly everywhere ELSE in the world, ENGLISH is the language of MONEY.
In fact, the only place where it SEEMS to not be a 'valued' asset is among ILLEGALS in this country. I have known students from foreign countries since I was a Freshman in HS,(I even traded families with one in 1971) and they ALWAYS knew they needed to speak Enlish. Four years ago, after my son graduated from college with a useless degree in Poly Sci, he was hired by a company in CHINA to go there and teach GRADESCHOOLERS "American'' English. He had NO teaching creds, and when a member of the group of Americans he was with were going through orientation, one asked what they were supposed to do with 'discipline problems' and received a BLANK STARE. And was told, I don't think you understand--these kids WANT to learn, they WANT to work hard, because they KNOW that education, and learning English, is the path to a decent living in the future. They have had that drummed into them by their parents since infancy.
Too bad ILLEGAL imigrants to the US do not feel the same.
Knowledge, just like every other commodity in this country, is for sale! Students have to pay out the ass for higher learning while administrators rake in huge salaries for doing absolutely nothing!
Does anyone remember when the teacher would give a student a pencil and paper?
And do you remeber when you had to walk 10 miles each way uphill in the snow to go to public school? Seems to me we should be expecting and hoping that the future will be better than the past. In lieu of handing out paer and pencils do you want the teachers to hand out a Ipad, an Iphone and a PC?
Maybe, just maybe, the young lady should have considered a college in the state she is a resident. Maybe she should have enrolled in a community college to take her "large enrollment classes" instead of paying top dollar for them at UC Berkley. Political science? Come on....there aren't any decent colleges in the state of Washington that offer that major?
Exactly Karen, I attend school in Fl. and I get in-state tuition as well as a state grant. It helps make my expenses somewhat manageable. Then again, I also pay property taxes here in Florida as well. I wanted to go to an out of state college but common sense told me to weigh the cost vs the benefits. This lady clearly believed the value outweighed the cost when she signed up...
I guess getting accepted to a cal school isn't as big deal as my neighbor kid thought. He thought he had done something special. Kids today are pretty stupid for going out of state, running up a bunch of debt, and then wanting student loan forgiveness. What idiots. enjoy those 20 years of payments while you live in your parents basements.
This is such an irresponsible piece of writing. Out-of-state students at public schools pay a higher price for tuition for a very simple reason: they are not residents of the state of their chosen college, therefore their tuition is not subsidized by that state's government since they are not taxpayers of that state. The out-of-state student isn't paying more, rather the in-state student is paying less for their tuition because their taxes support that institution (and every other public institution in their home state). The simple solution is to go to school in your home state. Its ridiculous to suggest that students who CHOOSE to go out of state, when they have in-state options readily available, are somehow being penalized. They are making a choice and all choices have consequences. Don't bemoan the cost of your choice when you had plenty of other choices available (and please don't start the argument that some states don't offer X, Y or Z programs...that's where academic common market agreements come into play, allowing out-of-state students the in-state tuition benefit if they absolutely cannot find their program in their own home state).
Oh but in California, if you are an illegal alien, you get in-state tuition rates. Better to be an illegal than an American from another state if you want to go to school in California.
The real question is why is she going out of state for a poly sci (waste of money) degree?
If you think this is bad, Rahm "the weasel" Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, had millions of dollars left over from the G8/NATO conferences that were scheduled in May. The money was from the Federal government to cover the costs of keeping order and protecting the delegates. The G8 was moved to Camp David and the NATO dates were rescheduled. The number of protesters was a few hundred, rather than the 5k - 10k that were expected. Hundreds of police from Chicago suburbs were loaned to Chicago for free. The cost to Chicago turned out to be very low.
You would think that the unspent millions would be returned to the Federal government, but no, the weasel was allowed to keep the taxpayer's money.
The weasel has announced that he is going to use the money to pay college tuition for the illegal immigrates that sign up for Obama's unconstitutional dream act.
Nothing for American teens.
Both Obama and the weasel need to go.
Seems as the cost of healthcare has risen so has the education and abundance of nurses yet we still pay more than any industrialized nation for healthcare and rank low on healthcare quality. I think the system is setup to reward higer degreed nurses as a method to justify keeping wages lower on larger numbers of Rn's and others. I think nurses involved in direst care only need to know what treatments work in practice and how to deliver not the theory of why...I have witnessed first hand many times the over chatty, over caffeinated, Loud gatherings of nurses on the floor passing time on their shifts,, and passing this off as healthcare
Regardless of where you stand on the illegal immigration issues you should research the numbers to keep things on perspective and stop fear mongering. Since the K12 bill in 1982 about 65K illegals graduate from High School across the country each year. Of that number, 5-10% are estimated to attend college classes nationwide (most at community college). I can promise you that current problems with tuition prices in higher education is NOT caused by 6,500 illegals in a nation with a population over 300 million.
If we follow the logic here, then everybody is subsidizing everybody else. My sales tax pays for your medical care. My property tax lets you drive on a highway to the ski resorts. Your income tax gets me my mail delivery. [yawn]
You sound like one of the "you didn't build it" people.
Yea let's not forget the students subsidized the paper shuffling banks until our president thankfully put an end to it.
Couldn't agree with you more, S. Williams. My tax dollars pay for other people's children to attend school, but you don't hear me whine about it. Can you imagine the uproar if all parents had to pay $460 per child per semester to attend kindergarten? We do this for the common good of all of us, people.
This family can choose whatever university they want to send their child to, or to no university at all. You know the price up front, so either pay it or don't. No one is forcing you to attend.
Wah, wah, wah... if you don't like it, go to school in your homestate. Or do like many of us, join the military. Another option.... you can always move to the state you WANT to go to college in, establish residency, hold a "low-income" job, and you'll get the same subsidy. Spoiled little brat.
In this girl's case, she got into Berkeley. Whoop de doo. Now pay up. If her parent's think it is unfair that she is paying more than the locals, then they should move to California and suffer the crippling taxes and higher crime rate that California residents suffer. If they are willing to put up with the reduced income and lower quality of life, then their daughter can get the reduced fees. The California system (like every other state university system) was established to prepare citizens and leaders for that state. Though the mission has become an international one, the original intent of in-state tuition is the same: encourage local students to excel. If the system gave everyone a reduced rate, it would be flooded with out of staters looking to get the best deal. So if she doesn't get a reduced rate, will this whiner try to make all the in-staters pay the same higher rate as she? It seems that this generally how these "life is unfair" arguments go.