bariereefwozere's point still stands. A small group of people could get as good, if not better education by privately employing the lecturers. I'd say the lecturers would get a better deal as well. The only thing you would miss out on is the piece of paper from the hallowed institution.

I suppose in the end that is the point. It's the piece of paper that has the value/door opening ability, not the actual knowledge imparted.

Yeah, I agree with him that there is probably a better alternative, starting a new school could be the way.

Part of the problem with that route is that a big part of university education is the signaling and brand value, and that's hard to replace via tutoring. Maybe that won't always be such a big factor, though.

That doesn't seem true in a lot of programming jobs, and from what I heard also not in other engineering jobs.

In the case of the University of California system, it's almost 1:1 substitution, declines in per-student funding being matched by increases in tuition. Partly due to actual cuts to the UC budget since 2000, and partly due to funding not keeping up with increases in student numbers. The state government mandates these increases in student numbers, but in recent years has not been willing to fund accordingly.

The mandate is that the UC system is required to offer spots for the top 12.5% of the current year's in-state graduating high school seniors, so this mandate obviously expands if university-age population increases. Which to be fair is sensible: it makes sense for the state university system's size to be roughly proportional to the size of the state's university-aged population. But then you should fund it proportionally too.

Here are some numbers I put together a few years ago (not updated since 2012): http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt

Which is not to say overpaid administrators aren't also sucking out more money than they should be. The UC Office of the President (UCOP) is currently being deservedly raked over the coals by the state auditor, and I would not shed a tear if UCOP's budget specifically were cut. But in terms of big-picture trends, the state's per-student funding declining from $30k/student in the '70s and '80s to less than half of that in 2012 is a pretty good first-order explanation.

On the UCOP topic, I worked for a UC school for 10+ years and I have no idea what value UCOP actually provides to the campuses, if any.

You'd think they would consolidate administrative services like payroll under UCOP, but UCOP doesn't even do their own (they outsource it to UCLA).

The prices have spiked because loans are guaranteed by the government and unforgivable, which creates a situation where loans are given to more individuals, which leads to a greater demand for college, and a resulting price increase.

This is a problem caused by government, not a lack of funding.

It's complicated, there are a lot of factors. I agree that the government loan programs haven't helped - they've decreased students' price sensitivity.

But the decreased funding for research on the backend, and decreased direct funding for public schools, have made it so that schools need to seek out funding in other ways.

For example, they actively recruit full-fare foreign students now for the tuition. It has also caused tuition to rise, relegating the ability for students to pay their own way via a part time job or two to the past.

EDIT: And yeah, the increased demand for a fixed supply increasing the price is what I meant by "they're not minting new Ivys". I wouldn't agree that it's a bad thing that we're educating more people to a high level, though.

Exactly...sounds eerily similar to the way housing was inflated by government. People then blame greedy capitalists and ask for even more government intervention :(