And should we be spending money to send kids there or should we be spending mponey on a public school system?
I thought I did. What part did I fail to answer?
Its relevant because we spend many times more federal dollars funding a student at private a school than we spend funding a student at public school. Public schools are a better value for our taxpayer dollars and the notion of making them free at the expense of letting private schools sink or swim on their own merits rather than keep them afloat on the largesse of taxpayer funded debt programs is worthy of discussion.
No, I’m saying we should take away subsidies for attending private schools at the expense of eliminating subsidies at private schools.
I’m starting to suspect that you won’t “hear” an answer until you hear what you want to hear.
IOW, these colleges would become a lot more competitive. There is a mass shortage of seats in Princeton’s entering class.
So how does Princeton deal with all those people that want to get into their school?
I can’t tell you exactly what would happen but the reduction in price at state colleges is likely to increase the competition for those seats while the competition for private colleges that can no longer offer federal guaranteed loans in their financial aid packages would decrease. I suspect that this means that a lot of the less financially rewarding majors would largely be the domain of public schools but the competition for these limited seats probably means that these people would have a much easier time finding a job related to their major when they get out.
That is in fact what I am proposing. And in order to keep colleges available to kids without money, I would make state colleges free. That would make them very very competitive but I’m not sure that college is for everyone and the availability of financing is turning it into something that everything has to have.
Education, like most anything else we purchase, has a price elasticity of demand. I can link to some studies if you’d like to learn more. But yes, an increase in public school tuition affects the cost benefit analysis for alternatives, of which private school is one.
I agree it would be disingenuous to focus on the recession years, due to the circumstances you mention. But real public school tuition/fees (college board) increased 39% in the 90s and 50% between the 00/01 and 07/08 school years, vs 30% and 21%, respectively, for private schools. Inflation (BLS CPI) over the same periods was 27% and 22%, respectively. Some check is missing for public schools. Maybe that’s all due to state funding, like with the recession; I haven’t looked yet.
I should have truncated the earlier quote. No, I’d like to know about the mechanism for keeping the cost of college down. Because I haven’t seen that described. You mentioned “like Medicaid”. Do you envision a similar matching formula? A cap? I’m also wondering how differences in current state coverage will be reconciled, if at all.
Wait, so poor students can only go to private colleges and state colleges are mostly made up of rich students? How do you figure that? There is nothing chaining those poor students to those private colleges.
How is the student debt (among graduates of PRIVATE COLLEGES) crisis a myth?
There are a few problems that we are trying to solve. One is the runaway prices of college education. Lowering state college tuition to zero will have a depressing effect on all but the very best colleges and run most for-profit colleges out of business.
Another problem is that even state college tuition can be a challenge for families, even middle class families making less than $100,000. If your family makes more than $25,000, your family is expected to make a contribution. At 100,000, your family can’t expect very much grant aid from the federal government, leaving you with whatever your state and your school can provide, the rest is loans.
Here, let me help you. You are proposing reallocating federal money that is currently spent on tuition assistance for students attending private schools and using that for tuition assistance for students attending public schools. If I’m not getting that right, please correct me.
I don’t understand why this is a good idea, so I asked you:
Instead of answering my question, you dodged it by asking four questions. If your plan is a good idea, and maybe it is, it should be trivial to back it up with facts and logic.
That’s an obvious strawman; I never made the argument that poor students can only go to private colleges, or that state colleges are mostly made up of rich students. But there are poor students at private colleges receiving federal grants and loans. And there are rich students at public colleges who are paying tuition. And your plan takes the aid from the former and gives it to the later. Unless I’m misunderstanding it. If I am, please clarify.
I was wondering if the common media flailing of snowballing debt was the problem you’re trying to fix. I’m not clear from your response if it is or not.
Thank you for the clarification. While I’m a little confused about the distinction between “unchecked” and “runaway”, I agree that many families have difficulty paying for college, regardless of where they go. Many families do not.
The current system tests means. Yours does not. I’ll add a point you can use in your favor. Some in this thread and elsewhere have argued that financial aid just leads to tuition increases. If most students can get a $5k grant, the school can just increase tuition $5k. If your plan does include a way of limiting public school costs, and if these objections are correct, (I haven’t evaluated them yet), then it may be addressing both problems.
That’s not where they are being driven. They, for the most part, being driven to take out more loans. Otherwise we would have seen matriculation drop at these state school and that hasn’t been happening. Higher costs are not reducing the number of takers.
Yes, I understand that there is elasticity (see the last part of the post you are responding to) but its not like any other good or service.
You see the thing is, education (UNLIKE anything else we purchase) is not distributed based SOLELY on ability to pay. You have to apply and get accepted. Supply and demand doesn’t work as neatly when a school rejects more than half of its applicants. Schools can clearly raise the price and still fill up all the slots in their freshman class and a lot of private schools do just that. They raise the cost of attendance to match pretty close to what they can get from various funding sources including the federal government. You think it is a coincidence that Stanford charges about the same amount of tuition as every other private school in the country?
If that funding source disappears, many of them will have to lower their prices to keep attracting the best students they can (some places might actually raise their tuition to fund grants to lower income students) or suffer diminished selectivity and prestige.
I don’t know if percentage increases are the best way to measure relative increases in how much the schools are spending per student. So what if public tuition doubles from $6500/year to 13,000/year at public schools over the last 50 years (and increase of $6500/year) when tuition at private school have gone up $18,000 in that same period from $13,000 to 31,000?
When a large portion of the funding at your school is from source other than tuition and fees, a 10% increase in tuition does not represent a 10% increase in spending. It might represent a decrease in that other funding source or a much smaller increase in spending.
I think that we can keep states honest by making them pay some portion like we do with medicaid. Perhaps there will be some runaway state schools somewhere that supplies their faculty with hookers and blow every weekend but the federal government has many tried and true methods of controlling rising costs in other areas (outside of defense).
I see, you are saying that if we make the state schools free, then they will become more competitive and THAT will mean that rich smart kids crowd out poorer lower achieving kids. So all of this will really only be benefitting kids that need help the least. Better to have a system with ever increasing tuition that will eventually crowd out the poor students anyway?
The Pell Grant maxes out at around $6000, right? How much do you think that helps poor students at private colleges?
And I thought I answered your question when I said that we spend more money on students at private colleges than students at public colleges.
We give more in grants per student at private colleges. We Guarantee more student loans per student at private colleges. If you would prefer to make the free tuition more need based at state school, I am cool with that too but we don’t really spend our money wisely when we use it to fund private schools over state schools. YMMV
Those poor students don’t HAVE to go to that private college. They can go to that public college if they can displace that rich student. We are only talking about tuition here, if you want to give the poor students free room and board or something, I have no objection but if your argument is that we should fund that poor student no matter where he wants to go, then I disagree.
I am trying to fix a middle class problem (not a rich kid problem) and I see how this might adversely impact some poor kid that is on a full ride at some private college that might not get that full ride if we take away the federal portion. I don’t know how many kids we are talking about but I do know that many kids in families making between 25k-75k/year, the cost of college (even state college) is burdensome and they take out loans to go and frequently have to choose whichever state school accepts them over private schools because they can’t afford the private school. So while I have sympathy for the poor kid being driven out at the margin I think that the needs of a larger number of less impoverished students is more pressing.
I generally think that we should have free state schools. I don’t know if we have to strip the private schools to do it but I wanted to point out how much money we were pouring into private schools relative to state schools.
I am fine with funding state schools with general tax revenue but I think that more access to federal funds at private schools (especially at for-profit school) leads to an inefficient allocation of our tax dollars.
If some wealthy kid goes to public school rather than the local private school, I don’t see why we should try to capture some of that ability to pay. If you want to capture some of that ability to pay then just raise the fucking tax rates. I think having a widely available avenue to free higher education is worth more than a few sacrifices in other areas. And I think that it would have a good effect on the cost of higher education.
This does not eliminate means tested funds. Just federal funds at private schools. How much of the private school tuition, fees, room and board can federal grants cover? $6000? The rest is a lot of loans. And these loans tend to balloon the most at high priced private schools. Private school students end up absorbing more federal aid than students at public schools (mostly because they need more).
If I’m reading NCES right, It looks like the OP’s plan takes away federal grants and loans from ~1.9MM students at private non-profit colleges who currently *can’t *afford the cost to attend, and gives that to ~1.7MM students at public colleges who currently can afford the cost to attend.
I think our current system is on an unsustainable path (and yes, is horribly unfair as well), but we need to address the root cause of why college has gotten so expensive, which [I believe] is that colleges can charge whatever they want because demand has dramatically outpaced supply. Build more colleges with more degree options and costs will fall on their own. Then those Pell Grants will go further, and if you really want to make it free at that point, we can talk about it.
Not in other words. There will be massive shortages in available college seats. How then will schools discriminate to choose the best candidates?
Unless admission is a lottery, as a whole the folks with means will always outcompete the folks without means. And since tuition would be free, the demand will destroy the supply and there would be massive shortages. “very very competitive” means rejecting a shit ton of kids, moreso than they do already.
The market usually sorts out shortages by providing more of the item in short supply. What do you propose we do to goose then market? I don’t think you can fund a lot of private colleges with Pell grants.
Or are you saying that we should build more state colleges? For most states, building another state college means a higher budget line item for higher education. Are you suggesting a federal grant to help states do this?
I think the problem is that we have convinced ourselves that everyone needs a college degree, THAT is what is causing this spike in demand. Who gives a shit what the major is, just get them college degrees because they can’t compete otherwise. Now college degrees have become so ubiquitous that it provides little advantage to have one and only a disadvantage NOT to have one.
So should we use a lottery for Harvard and Stanford? Berkeley or U. Va.?
All we are doing is shifting the relative desirability to public schools by making them free.
Its not like every public school would become inaccessible to all but the top performers in each state. EVERY state has public schools that have very low selectivity. Perhaps they would get a bit more selective but some of the state schools in Virginia are ranked 1000th out of 1100 schools. Their acceptance rate is 95%. Are you sure that these schools (and almost every state has a school like this) will become bastions of middle class privilege?
Do you think we would see massive closures of private schools? Or do you think we will see their prices drop? Higher education is not immune to market forces. They may not be slaves to them but they are not immune.
Why would increases in demand cause private school tuitions to skyrocket but decreases in demand not cause them to plummet?
The market has given us Phoenix Online and a bunch of other shitty degree mills. I wouldn’t be opposed to federal grants to build or expand state schools, but as you say…
This is also part of the problem, and I’d like to see more degree options available for pragmatic careers (sigh, wouldn’t we all?) and/or less of a need for 18 year olds to commit to a 4/5 year program. “Free Community College or Vocational Schools” for everyone is a lot more agreeable to me for several reasons. Maybe then we wouldn’t need to build more state schools. Even if kids want a liberal arts education, if we can financially encourage them to do 2 years at a quality community college before attending a state school, that might just help out with high tuition rates on its own.
Why is it relevant how Princeton discriminates? I have no idea where you’re going with this. You don’t think college is for everybody - but you want it to be free for everyone.
Without cheap financing, college is less accessible - people need to make real choices if the opportunity cost and actual cost is worth going. As financing became easier, the choice became easier, and you have people going into massive debt to get stupid useless degrees. The problem isn’t that it costs so much, it’s that we’ve made it cheaper by allowing folks to defer the cost without respect to what the return on those degrees will yield. Now the proposal is to make it free to the student, so even more people will go. Except this time, instead of them shouldering that burden mostly themselves, now the rest of us will have to fund that useless bloat.
And why is this? Is it because the high schools have lowered their standards, so that a high school diploma no longer means what it used to and “college is the new high school”? Is it because we no longer have nearly as many manufacturing and service jobs from which a person can earn a decent living without a college degree? Is it because there’s just more that a person needs to know nowadays?
But why should college be free to those who could afford to pay for it?
And why is “shifting the relative desirability to public schools” a good thing?
Earlier in the thread, I believe you claimed that it was because they educate students more efficiently than private institutions do, but you never backed up that claim. And if they are indeed more efficient, what makes it so? Is it the kind of efficiency that sacrifices quality (e.g. by having several hundred students per class or by having classes taught by overworked, inexperienced teaching assistants)? If efficiency’s what matters, who needs bricks-and-mortar universities at all? Weren’t MOOCs touted as the future of higher education, largely because of their great efficiency? but it turns out they’re not the best way for most people to learn most things.