What is the actual breakdown of costs for a university? In my experience at mostly public schools, it seems like a majority of the costs are in administration and buildings. Actual undergraduate education is an afterthought. So there likely is a lot of fat to cut at most schools.
Not that schools would cut cost even with competition from a $10,000 total cost university. The cost of college has risen so much because you need a degree to get a decent job today. It is supply and demand. And students will always choose to take on debt for the big name school rather than save money with the cheaper school.
What is interesting is that most big name schools don't seem to be putting all of that extra money into bettering undergraduate education.
What is the actual breakdown of costs for a university?
The College Results site is a database from which you can look up what spending there is for student instruction (according to United States federal government reporting definitions) for a variety of colleges from the student's point of view:
What is interesting is that most big name schools don't seem to be putting all of that extra money into bettering undergraduate education.
A few of the biggest-name schools pay more for student instruction (by the federal definition) than those same schools charge ANY student for full-list-price tuition (and offer generous need-based financial aid besides). That is perhaps part of what makes those schools so big-name and so hard to gain admission to.
Cool resource. Some of those figures are impressively high. Do they include things like room and board and fitness centers or just money for instruction?
It's true that demand for college degrees has risen, but something needs to be said of government intervention in higher education costs.
The labor market in Western Europe is very similar to the one in the United States. As you would expect, you need a college degree and technical skills to get a good job here.
Yet, here in Belgium, I am paying less than 1,000 USD per year (tuition + books) to get a full degree at Ghent University, which is the largest university in Belgium. Foreign students from the US/UK pay more in some cases, but it's still a maximum of about 2500 EUR per year for them.
We have no one else but our government to thank for our cheap college education (even though Belgium technically does not have a government).
It's simply unthinkable here for someone to take out huge student loans and start their life indebted heavily.
Technically, you are paying for your college your entire tax paying life. It just means college is in the same bucket as K-12 is in the US. There is no free or cheap with government, just a different distribution of payers.
When I went through college in Canada a few years ago, the majority of degrees were between $2500-4000 a year. Not quite as affordable as Belgium, but far more affordable than most places in the USA.
And then I moved to WA state, where there is no state income tax, only federal, and I figured that this was simply a matter of taxation vs. subsidization.
And then I moved to California, where I find that my overall tax rate is as high as it would be for the same income in Canada. So... for the same amount of tax paid, in Canada I'd get health care and heavily subsidized college education for all people, and in CA nobody gets nothing.
What's up with that? Where's all this money going?
Governments sometimes have some very strange priorities. California is spending a lot of cash on salary and pension. It looks like it is going to get a lot worse in CA (lots of unfunded commitments). Its all tax money, it just where the reps vote to spend it.
That is true, but only partly so. Assuming the people from the us don't end up in Belgium (and therefore won't pay taxes in Belgium) it will literally cost €10000 for the entire 4 year degree (although if it is like in Denmark, a bachlors degree will only take 3).
>There is no free or cheap with government, just a different distribution of payers.
Government can most certainly be cheap: If it runs all the schools, they don't spend money competing. It has economy of scale for things that matter that way, etc.
It's not always the right OR wrong way. Just sometimes.
Costs about this in New Zealand for everyone. State subsidised. Perhaps a touch more. And longer degrees are obviously more. Living costs excluded, although there is a small student allowance to help out.
Sure, someone always has to pay the bill. Taxes in New Zealand aren't massive or crippling, they are only moderately higher than the US. Think of how much more it costs to not have a skilled labour force. South Korea also has subsidized education, I live in South Korea and I pay 3.5% tax (that's everything, I have nothing to pay but 3.5% income tax). The education system here is not great and there are issues with it but over 97% attain a high school certificate and almost everyone under 30 has done at least one year post-secondary education.
Here is a question: how much does it cost the US, as a democracy, to not help everyone with the capacity to learn get an education? At the moment education levels in the US are often offset by immigration (immigrants with degrees and immigrants forcing their kids to study hard for at least the first generation). Accessible education is important to ensure an advanced society, innovation and healthy governance.
I pay 33% tax. Ill confess to being jealous of your 3.5%! However I support state subsidised education and the various other state funded systems we have (health for one) but yes, they do cost. It isn't someone else's money though, it's mine.
Even today one can get the cost of a BA from certain State Universities down to under $5,000. It is just about being able to understand the system and figure out a personal path towards the degree. Sites like http://www.bain4weeks.com/ have been explaining the basics of these strategies for many years, but this stuff requires personal initiative. Most people are probably just to lazy/skeptical to give it a try or prefer walking down the same road as everybody else.
In the US, go to a lower cost, accredited community college for your first two years then transfer to a 4 year. Some community colleges have extension programs / video links that allow taking of higher level courses often at the cc price.
My brother got his 2 year at a cc and did the rest of his degree in a working adults program. Worked as a tech at Best Buy throughout the working adults program. Pretty sure his total cost was less than 10k and he got the same degree as people who went full time to the college.
The part of the infographic showing the average cost of private college by state seems mostly meaningless to me. The top private schools compete nationally and are around the same cost regardless of where they are, so for smaller states that don't have a lot of regional private schools, all it takes is having one top private school and they'll be near the top. Massachusetts gets particularly nailed, as it is a small state and it has both Harvard and MIT.
The most interesting thing I see on the infographic is the section where it shows the schools that give the best value. Note they are all top private schools. They are the most expensive schools, but they have very good aid packages. Out of curiosity, I've went to the cost calculators that some of these schools provide and worked out what it would cost if I had kids and they wanted to go to these schools.
It was somewhat surprising--it turns out that if I had a kid and sent him to Harvard, for instance, our total cost (parental contribution, contribution from kid's summer work, and some combination of kid's work during school or loans) would come out to about $5-7k/year. The rest would be covered by need-based grants and scholarships. Results are similar at other top private schools.
Doing the same at top public schools gives a much larger total cost.
It's not clear to me why the top private schools are able to offer so much better aid packages.
Harvard has an endowment of $32 billion, on which they claim to have earned an investment return of 21.4% for the fiscal year 2011. (Source: http://www.hmc.harvard.edu) That $6.8 billion in income can fund a whole lot of financial aid.
* Top private schools generally have smaller undergraduate enrollments than many state schools.
* Top private schools have, in the past at least, used aid in interesting ways. For example, they have given aid to students who don't really need it to secure their enrollment. This can get them a top student for, say $10,000. Where as admitting a less well off student would run them $40-50k/year.
* State schools generally end up giving their best deals to residents.
* State schools have been dependent on tax revenues which have been ideological assault for the last few decades. Tax revenues have also been hurt by a bad economy. Meanwhile private endowments, which often have large investments in the private sector have been holding up, or even improving.
The University of Washington is screwing over it's youth in the name of money. They've been actively reducing the number of 2-year community college transfers they accept because they'd rather have 4-year students. More money that way. Even worse they've reduced the number of in-state students they accept because out-of-state tuition is substantially higher. The focus needs to be on having an educated population and that no longer appears to be the goal.
Is not rising costs it is instead decoupled buyers/consumers. What do I mean?
Look at the board of trustees of any public college or university. Now remember these trustees are suppose to
be acting in a financial responsibility to two parties or
participants in buying and consuming public college education, the State and the State's citizens.
Right now its skewed towards acting for the benefit of lobbyists those lobbyists being the College or University Administration. Remember folks that public college/university budgets a formed by state money and what fees can be raised by to support Administrator's contention that what the State proposed as budget is too low for the college/university due to wanting to cover costs of sports, unfunded liabilities added as a perk to keep professors,etc.
On top of that decoupling we have our own Congress deciding that Banks or the government should loan money to students.
What should be done is put the coupling back into the system:
1. No more independence state runs the college or university and accepts all liabilities. This forces for the first time colleges and universities accepting the level of state funding as there budget to follow rather than always raising tuition. Yes, things will get cut. Hopefully, its unfunded retirement perks and under-funded sports programs.
2. US Congress grants a grant program called lifetime college fund. You get a tax break for attending public college or university and the company that hires you after graduation gets a tax grant. Now here is the kicker. We fund it by buying a life-insurance on the student when they are born. State kicks in half and the Federal government kicks in half. It is far cheaper to pay for $40,000 in future dollars value by investing at year 1 to year 18 in life insurance policy value of $40,0000.. we are talking of paying only a $1000 to $1200 per year per student..
For example, there are 20 million k12 aged children in the US.. $20 million times $1200 a year is..
$2 billion.. compared to $1 trillion outstanding college debt.. you hedge rising college costs by starting a life insurance policy investment at birth..that is the only way to handle it.
Cost wise per child the government would spend $1200 times 18 years or $21600 to get the future value of $45000 n college or university tuition paid for.
That is cost savings of 50%..
Beat me folks can you come up with a plan to save 80%? I do not think so.
Best part of plan if we only enact the life insurance policy to pay for college costs we save $1 trillion-$22billion or 90% or more per year when its fully enacted as far as having program fully in force for 20 years ..ie at year 20 we will be paying $22 billlion instead of interest in $1trillion in college debt as the government is now paying that interest directly while students are in school and indirectly in collections costs.
Am I the only one who doesn't think the education is expensive in the US?
Good education with the skills that are in demand pays back for itself in 2-3 years.
Of course, if you pick some ridiculous major like arts or history, it's your own fault. I always thought it was stupid to pay for something that you can learn for free in a library with maybe some tutoring.
I majored in math (undergrad and grad), and I'm having a hell of a time finding a job. At this point, I'd seriously consider selling back the right to say I attended my grad school in exchange for a payoff on the student loans I took out there, if it were a real option.
Math is a useless major on its own, unless you apply it to something, like finance or computer programming. Do a minor in Comp Sci. There are tons of high paying IT jobs out there.
35 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 83.1 ms ] threadNot that schools would cut cost even with competition from a $10,000 total cost university. The cost of college has risen so much because you need a degree to get a decent job today. It is supply and demand. And students will always choose to take on debt for the big name school rather than save money with the cheaper school.
What is interesting is that most big name schools don't seem to be putting all of that extra money into bettering undergraduate education.
The College Results site is a database from which you can look up what spending there is for student instruction (according to United States federal government reporting definitions) for a variety of colleges from the student's point of view:
http://www.collegeresults.org/search1b.aspx?institutionid=11...
The underlying database is the federal IPEDS database.
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
IPEDS has its own database search interface.
After edit:
What is interesting is that most big name schools don't seem to be putting all of that extra money into bettering undergraduate education.
A few of the biggest-name schools pay more for student instruction (by the federal definition) than those same schools charge ANY student for full-list-price tuition (and offer generous need-based financial aid besides). That is perhaps part of what makes those schools so big-name and so hard to gain admission to.
http://www.collegeresults.org/search1b.aspx?institutionid=16...
It includes a few high spending schools your list misses.
The labor market in Western Europe is very similar to the one in the United States. As you would expect, you need a college degree and technical skills to get a good job here.
Yet, here in Belgium, I am paying less than 1,000 USD per year (tuition + books) to get a full degree at Ghent University, which is the largest university in Belgium. Foreign students from the US/UK pay more in some cases, but it's still a maximum of about 2500 EUR per year for them.
We have no one else but our government to thank for our cheap college education (even though Belgium technically does not have a government).
It's simply unthinkable here for someone to take out huge student loans and start their life indebted heavily.
When I went through college in Canada a few years ago, the majority of degrees were between $2500-4000 a year. Not quite as affordable as Belgium, but far more affordable than most places in the USA.
And then I moved to WA state, where there is no state income tax, only federal, and I figured that this was simply a matter of taxation vs. subsidization.
And then I moved to California, where I find that my overall tax rate is as high as it would be for the same income in Canada. So... for the same amount of tax paid, in Canada I'd get health care and heavily subsidized college education for all people, and in CA nobody gets nothing.
What's up with that? Where's all this money going?
[edit fix autocorrect]
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-...
The article talks about legal difficulties in raising property rates, huge pension costs, a culture of entitlement and endemic political obstruction.
Government can most certainly be cheap: If it runs all the schools, they don't spend money competing. It has economy of scale for things that matter that way, etc.
It's not always the right OR wrong way. Just sometimes.
Here is a question: how much does it cost the US, as a democracy, to not help everyone with the capacity to learn get an education? At the moment education levels in the US are often offset by immigration (immigrants with degrees and immigrants forcing their kids to study hard for at least the first generation). Accessible education is important to ensure an advanced society, innovation and healthy governance.
My brother got his 2 year at a cc and did the rest of his degree in a working adults program. Worked as a tech at Best Buy throughout the working adults program. Pretty sure his total cost was less than 10k and he got the same degree as people who went full time to the college.
The most interesting thing I see on the infographic is the section where it shows the schools that give the best value. Note they are all top private schools. They are the most expensive schools, but they have very good aid packages. Out of curiosity, I've went to the cost calculators that some of these schools provide and worked out what it would cost if I had kids and they wanted to go to these schools.
It was somewhat surprising--it turns out that if I had a kid and sent him to Harvard, for instance, our total cost (parental contribution, contribution from kid's summer work, and some combination of kid's work during school or loans) would come out to about $5-7k/year. The rest would be covered by need-based grants and scholarships. Results are similar at other top private schools.
Doing the same at top public schools gives a much larger total cost.
It's not clear to me why the top private schools are able to offer so much better aid packages.
Willingness to compete with each other and huge endowments?
* Top private schools generally have smaller undergraduate enrollments than many state schools. * Top private schools have, in the past at least, used aid in interesting ways. For example, they have given aid to students who don't really need it to secure their enrollment. This can get them a top student for, say $10,000. Where as admitting a less well off student would run them $40-50k/year. * State schools generally end up giving their best deals to residents. * State schools have been dependent on tax revenues which have been ideological assault for the last few decades. Tax revenues have also been hurt by a bad economy. Meanwhile private endowments, which often have large investments in the private sector have been holding up, or even improving.
Is not rising costs it is instead decoupled buyers/consumers. What do I mean?
Look at the board of trustees of any public college or university. Now remember these trustees are suppose to be acting in a financial responsibility to two parties or participants in buying and consuming public college education, the State and the State's citizens.
Right now its skewed towards acting for the benefit of lobbyists those lobbyists being the College or University Administration. Remember folks that public college/university budgets a formed by state money and what fees can be raised by to support Administrator's contention that what the State proposed as budget is too low for the college/university due to wanting to cover costs of sports, unfunded liabilities added as a perk to keep professors,etc.
On top of that decoupling we have our own Congress deciding that Banks or the government should loan money to students.
What should be done is put the coupling back into the system:
1. No more independence state runs the college or university and accepts all liabilities. This forces for the first time colleges and universities accepting the level of state funding as there budget to follow rather than always raising tuition. Yes, things will get cut. Hopefully, its unfunded retirement perks and under-funded sports programs.
2. US Congress grants a grant program called lifetime college fund. You get a tax break for attending public college or university and the company that hires you after graduation gets a tax grant. Now here is the kicker. We fund it by buying a life-insurance on the student when they are born. State kicks in half and the Federal government kicks in half. It is far cheaper to pay for $40,000 in future dollars value by investing at year 1 to year 18 in life insurance policy value of $40,0000.. we are talking of paying only a $1000 to $1200 per year per student..
For example, there are 20 million k12 aged children in the US.. $20 million times $1200 a year is..
$2 billion.. compared to $1 trillion outstanding college debt.. you hedge rising college costs by starting a life insurance policy investment at birth..that is the only way to handle it.
Cost wise per child the government would spend $1200 times 18 years or $21600 to get the future value of $45000 n college or university tuition paid for.
That is cost savings of 50%..
Beat me folks can you come up with a plan to save 80%? I do not think so.
Best part of plan if we only enact the life insurance policy to pay for college costs we save $1 trillion-$22billion or 90% or more per year when its fully enacted as far as having program fully in force for 20 years ..ie at year 20 we will be paying $22 billlion instead of interest in $1trillion in college debt as the government is now paying that interest directly while students are in school and indirectly in collections costs.
That is at year 20 savings of 90%..
Come up with a better plan folks..
Good education with the skills that are in demand pays back for itself in 2-3 years.
Of course, if you pick some ridiculous major like arts or history, it's your own fault. I always thought it was stupid to pay for something that you can learn for free in a library with maybe some tutoring.
You could always become a math teacher.