I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams

Re:I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams by kxyvr on Friday December 27, 2019 @12:46PM (#21892817)

I will contend that this is not the core problem, but an auxiliary one forced by the states themselves. The primary source of funding for universities is the state, which makes sense because universities rely on local infrastructure and respond to local needs. Depending on the size of the university, they can essentially be a small city within a city. At the same time, the amount of money invested in universities has dropped dramatically:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-de...

In order to stay solvent as institutions, the universities raise tuition, which is then enabled by student loans. My point isn't that student loans are blameless. They certainly are. In addition, there's a lot of blame that can be levied at the universities themselves for wasteful spending, but this itself is complicated due to donations being contingent on particular projects or buildings and competition between the universities to attract students who often choose a school based on how awesome the quad is. However, at its core, if a state like Arizona reduces its per student spending by over 50%, how is university supposed to stay solvent without dramatically raising tuition?

None of this helps the family in the article. I think they did the right thing. I wish more people would hold the states accountable rather than first blaming students loans.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams by mnm1 on Friday December 27, 2019 @01:04PM (#21892958)

State institutions are only part of the picture and not the worst part. This might explain why they've raised their tuitions but it doesn't explain why private institutions have done so even more aggressively. It's definitely the easy, guaranteed money from student loans.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I killed my teenager’s fancy college dreams by kxyvr on Friday December 27, 2019 @04:33PM (#21894875)

Yes and no. Higher public tuition costs allow private entities to raise their tuition as well. While it depends on the college, I contend that most private colleges are not competing on cost. Schools like Harvard and Duke use price as a way to convey prestige, so they need to remain higher priced than their public counterparts. Schools like University of Phoenix compete on convenience, but if everyone else is charging higher tuition, then they can justify even higher tuition costs as well since everyone else is doing it and this new price is the de facto standard.

Now, I agree that the Feds need to cut back on loans in order to put pressure on the states to reduce their tuition costs. Essentially, the student loan system allows the states to receive free federal money by using students as the vessel of that transaction. I find that morally wrong. At the same time, there are a huge number of students who need some kind of loan to pay for college. I believe it to also be morally wrong to create a system where only those of means can enjoy public education. If the states adequately funded their universities, the universities held their tuition costs down, and either the state or the feds provided loans, then this wouldn't be an issue. However, this requires all of these institutions to agree on the principles of access to education and this isn't happening.

I don't know how to fix this. If the Feds eliminated their loan and grant programs, I personally believe that tuition costs would go down or stabilize because a large-section of the population would not be able to afford the current prices, so the universities would be forced to reduce tuition. This would benefit middle class families who have saved for education. I also believe this would prevent low income families from attending college and I'm not fine with this prospect.

[ Parent | on HN ]