Big Education is Price Gouging

D

drjekyllus

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_re_us/us_college_costs


"Average tuition prices rose sharply again this fall as colleges passed much of the burden of their own financial problems on to recession-battered students and parents.

Average tuition at four-year public colleges rose 6.5 percent, or $429, to $7,020 this fall, according to the College Board's annual "Trends in College Pricing" report, released Tuesday. At private colleges, the average list price for a year of coursework rose 4.4 percent to $26,273.

Those figures hide wide variations — public college students in California, Florida, New York and Washington have seen double-digit percentage increases, while the University of Maryland used federal stimulus funds to freeze tuition this year.

More importantly, the estimated net price — what the average student actually pays after accounting for financial aid — was much lower, at about $1,620 at public four-year colleges, and under $12,000 at private ones. Both figures are higher than last year but still lower than five years ago, thanks to recent increases in financial aid both from the government and from colleges themselves. The figures do not include room, board and other living expenses."




When are the dems going to take on Big Education and their profit driven, greed inspired price hikes?
 
Newsweek has an interesting article raising the suggestion that college should take three years, not four, saving an entire years tuition. They go on to site that the reason we have summer breaks in the first place is from a bygone era where farmers would go home to use this time to harvest their crops.

Imo, this is an interesting suggestion, and if you could save 25% of your tuition by going to school around the clock for three years, it could be a big saver for everyone. That 25% saving money could be used so that needy people can be given grants to go to school, since scholarships would be for three not four years.

On the other hand, teachers are going to want a raise to have a career that looks like everyone else's now with only two weeks payed vacation. No more three month vacations...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218183
 
Quote from nitro:

Newsweek has an interesting article raising the suggestion that college should take three years, not four, saving an entire years tuition. They go on to site that the reason we have summer breaks is from a bygone era where farmers would go home to use this time to harvest their crops.

Imo, this is an interesting suggestion, and if you could save 25% of your tuition by going to school around the clock for three years, it could be a big saver for everyone.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218183
More...

It might be possible to complete in 3 years but do you really think Big Education is going to let you shave off 25% of tuition costs. It is sort of like suggesting Big Government is going to allow people to only pay 75% of their taxes. Not a chance.

After all someone is going to have to pay for Big Education's investment screw ups.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHou7iMlBMN8

Harvard’s Bet on Interest Rate Rise Cost $500 Million to Exit


Not too smart Harvard. Now we know where Obama gets his economic sense from.
 
Three-year bachelor degrees are the norm in Commonwealth nations. I suppose that American professors feel that American high school graduates aren't well enough prepared for upper division coursework, since the HS curriculum is so easy these days.

However, most smart kids are graduating high school with 30-45 credits anyway when you consider all the AP and dual enrollment courses they might take.

Much student debt can be avoided if some of these colleges would do away with the ridiculously high out-of-state tuition rates.
 
I don't think you are thinking about it correctly.

Let's do some math (arithmetic). Say you have 10 students studying for four years, and the tuition is $1 per student per year. That means you make $40 after four years in tuition. Now, let's say you have 10 students for three years, each pays $1 per year. So you say you only make $30. But because you can now offer a years worth of scholarship to 10 more students, your total inflows are still $40. The number of students you accept remains the same since you always have a packed house on any year. In fact, more students get to go to a top university this way. Think about it.

The point is you get more students through the system faster, not that your revenue goes down. In fact, the demand for education is so great, that online Universities are springing up all over the place like weeds.


Quote from drjekyllus:

It might be possible to complete in 3 years but do you really think Big Education is going to let you shave off 25% of tuition costs. It is sort of like suggesting Big Government is going to allow people to only pay 75% of their taxes. Not a chance.

After all someone is going to have to pay for Big Education's investment screw ups.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHou7iMlBMN8

Harvard’s Bet on Interest Rate Rise Cost $500 Million to Exit


Not too smart Harvard. Now we know where Obama gets his economic sense from.
More...
 
Quote from nitro:

I don't think you are thinking about it correctly.

Let's do some math (arithmetic). Say you have 10 students studying for four years, and the tuition is $1 per student per year. That means you make $40 after four years in tuition. Now, let's say you have 10 students for three years, each pays $1 per year. So you say you only make $30. But because you can now offer a years worth of scholarship to 10 more students, your total inflows are still $40. The number of students you accept remains the same since you always have a packed house on any year. In fact, more students get to go to a top university this way. Think about it.

The point is you get more students through the system faster, not that your revenue goes down. In fact, the demand for education is so great, that online Universities are springing up all over the place like weeds.
More...

I understand what you are saying but the whole objective of the Uni is to shake each person down for the most amount of money. Even if they can cut it down to three years, they will just increase the price that much more.

Big Education has been increasing its pricing far faster than the rate of inflation for the past few decades but few from the liberal elite have complained.
 
So you have no problem with the oil companies shaking down hard working Americans, but find fault with the universities playing capitalism...

Your thinking is sub standard, uneducated, duplicitous, and obviously the product of too much Fox News which has fully addled your brain into mush...

Quote from drjekyllus:

I understand what you are saying but the whole objective of the Uni is to shake each person down for the most amount of money. Even if they can cut it down to three years, they will just increase the price that much more.

Big Education has been increasing its pricing far faster than the rate of inflation for the past few decades but few from the liberal elite have complained.
More...
 
Quote from drjekyllus:

I understand what you are saying but the whole objective of the Uni is to shake each person down for the most amount of money. ....
More...
You can't use circular reasoning. You are using as axiomatic that is what you are trying to prove.

It is as if I said to you, this is perfectly round, now I am going to proceed from this assumption to prove that it is a circle.

I still don't follow how you arrived at your conclusion that the role of universities is to seperate you from your money. In fact, places like Harvard etc try to beat the crap out of the market for returns so they can aid more and more students deserving to go there. The problem is everything costs more, not just education.

I agree with you that it costs a fortune. I just don't think there is a conspiracy.
 
Quote from nitro:

You can't use circular reasoning. You are using as axiomatic that is what you are trying to prove.

It is as if I said to you, this is perfectly round, now I am going to proceed from this assumption to prove that it is a circle.

I still don't follow how you arrived at your conclusion that the role of universities is to seperate you from your money. In fact, places like Harvard etc try to beat the crap out of the market for returns so they can aid more and more students deserving to go there. The problem is everything costs more, not just education.

I agree with you that it costs a fortune. I just don't think there is a conspiracy.
More...

Harvard lost $500 million in interest rate swaps so they aint too great at investment.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHou7iMlBMN8

Also, universitys and colleges raised their tuition on average 6.5% this year while the social security administration deemed that there was no increase in the cost of living so there was no increase in the social security pay off. How come the rest of the economy is not experiencing inflation but Big Education still feels the need to boost their prices by 6.5%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top