Cost of education

Why the price for units at universities is so high?

I look at fees 5, 10 years ego and have hard time to justify
Such increases in tuition of US universities.

What was in hundreds went to thousands and 10's thousands.
I understand that technology and pay for the instructors went up.
But this looks to me as monopoly or unregulated business practices and PRICE GAOUCHING; to be honest it's almost criminal (like electricity price crisis in CA).

State universities in my view became too expansive.

Who regulates such a thing?

Something is not kosher here, this is not an acusation but more of my personal feeling.

There are few that are still affordable but for how long?

Learner

 

"Budget reductions and tuition increases in California's public universities and escalating tuition at private universities mean that many deserving students may not realize their dream of attaining a college degree," said Dr. Yoram Neumann, the Chief Executive Officer of Touro University International. "Others may give up on pursuing a master degree. According to the latest Census Bureau, over an adult's working life, high school graduates earn an average of $1.2 million and bachelor's degree holders earn $2.1 million. Thus, obtaining a college degree is one of the most significant factors in increasing the economic livelihood of Californians."

NY is not cheap at all.

Is there a site that compares education cost between the states in USA?

Learner

 

I can't believe it. Lerner and I agree.

Has there been some kind of temporal rift or something? Am I in a parallel universe?



See, Lerner... isn't this more fun than all the fighting we used to do?

 

Learner,you will find that in general the south is far cheaper than the north and west,when it comes to education. It is cheaper for me to pay out of state tuition to a college down south then it is for me to pay in-state tuition in my home state of Massachusetts. Well in Massachusetts it's not the tuition that is expensive it's all the added fees that the colleges charge(that are unregulated by the state).

 

As I asked in another thread, why are the course fees, even online and distance learning programs, in USA much more expensive than that of other countries?

 

Supply and demand. Policies that encourage demand and restrict supply.

We've devolved a system of education to a system of schooling. Our politicos first gave us twelve years of mandatory child-detention, education optional. That done, they've given us endless options for vocational training in the guise of higher education. People love it because they get these pieces of paper with their names on them.

 

Thank you for your reply. However, online course programs are from global demands without boundary limitation. A master degree earned from UK universities by distance learning is around £5,000 - £6,000, whilst a online master degree from USA universities is much more expensive, around US$350 - US$400 per credit. (40 credits on average)

 

Let's see here. Policies that encourage demand would tend to increase price assuming that supply either remains constant, decreases, or does not increase as much as demand.

Let's see here. Policies that restrict supply would tend to increase price so long as demand either remains constant, increases, or does not decrease as much as supply.

Let's see here. When the government passes out guaranteed student loans to financially needy students, it allows the people without rich daddies or rich uncles to go to college (encourages demand). When the government passes laws against unaccredited schools, it does indeed restrict the supply of education. (But I would think that those two examples are generally good things, regardless of consequences.) Can you cite any other policies that either stimulate demand for, or restrict the supply of, education?

 

For the state universities, it is an attitudinal shift on the part of the legislators. Education used to be viewd as a good thing worthy of public funding. This was because having an educated populace was considered a social good. After all, people who are citizens and have the right to vote ought to be educated enough to know our history and how our system of government works. Also, since the more education a person has, the more likely it is that their lifetime earnings will be greater (and hence their contribution to economic productivity should be greater). Nowadays, the fact that education generally tends to lead to greater lifetime earnings is seen more as a private good. So legislators are getting greedier about funding education. I am reminded of a Civil War history book I was once reading. One of the state legislators was chiding his fellow legislators about higher education funding (I forget whether this was in reference to the University of Virginia or the University of South Carolina) and basically reminded his fellows that they owe this to the young men of the state because other men saw to it that the university received funding when they were young men. The declining willingness on the part of state legislators to fund higher education looks like, "I've got mine, now screw everybody else behind me!"

 

Good points Ted, I agree 100%


Abner

 

In Dr. Bear's book, he devotes a chunk of one chapter to the rising cost of a traditional degree and compares that with the much lower cost of a good D/L program. His conclusion is that B&M education is becoming hard to justify on ROI terms but that the nontraditional route still makes economic sense.

We're definitely seeing this in law schools. A private school law degree, even at today's very low interest rates, costs so much that new graduates are precluded from entering public sector employment because they cannot simultaneously pay their student loans and live on the average starting salary.

Even the freer spending federal government is having trouble filling entry level DOJ positions in higher cost areas.

As long as state schools remained cheap, this wasn't so much of a problem. But state tuition is rising steeply; California, for example, now charges J.D. students (and others) a "professional degree fee" that results in three year total tuition and fees exceeding $60,000. This doesn't include books or living expenses.

IHMO, this is short sighted because the largest single legal employers out there are state and local governments. Starting salaries for lawyers have HAD to rise at taxpayer expense but they haven't risen enough to make it possible to attract these new grads.

It is also short sighted because a heavily burdened young lawyer is foreclosed on economic grounds from doing very much pro bono work. Thus, the load on government and charity supported legal services programs increases.

BTW, if you haven't read the book, I urge you to find a copy. 75% of the information posted here in response to D/L questions can be found in that one useful volume.

 

One would be the expansion of State universities/CCs into trade school territory. What used to be taught in high school is now taught in college level schools. That has all but eliminated private competition.