He just refuted that argument by denoting that 'price' as the sticker price. New Mexico for example gives all students attending a state school with a high school GPA over 2.5 a scholorship. The state could just directly give public schools the same money for in state students and avoid the 'scholorship' angle. But, this approach offers better publicity and if you have below a 2.5 GPA in a public high-school you might not be ready for collage.
Which argument are you talking about? If the cost doubled for him to pay out of pocket, it doubled for him. Talking about sticker price vs. adjusted metrics is really arguing semantics in this case if somebody is stuck paying what's charged up front.
If he can afford to pay twice as much and did so then the school was wise to raise it's sticker price. They can then take the 'surplus' that he paid and use it to reduce the price of a more desirable students who are less able to pay.
>reduce the price of a more desirable students who are less able to pay.
A very small percentage of the total financial aid comes directly from the school, so this is not what is happening. The vast majority of financial aid is from the state and federal government which is not financed by tuition.
They are using the extra money by and large to fund additional administration expenses, a new football team and other prestige projects in order to boost the perceived status of the school.
>If he can afford to pay twice as much and did so then the school was wise to raise it's sticker price.
I'm not saying that it raising tuition wasn't the rational choice for the school. However, it only works because federal loans allow them to do it. Almost no one can actually afford to pay the increased tuition out of pocket.
The more money the government makes available for student loans the higher tuition will go.
They are using the extra money by and large to fund additional administration expenses, a new football team and other prestige projects in order to boost the perceived status of the school.
The really fun thing being that all the students, faculty, alumni, and graduate-students hate this shit. If there's all that money floating around, why not pay TAs and RAs something above the poverty line? Why not hire more faculty?
It cost me a little less than 4.5k a year in tuition and fees in 2007, now its up to around 9k. Additionally tuition used to max out at 12 hours now it maxes out at 15.
It's still a great value compared to a lot of schools, but if the prices keep going up at anything near that rate it won't be for long.
Also I don't think its 1/4 of a private school. Total cost of attendance is around 20k, total cost of attendance at Harvard is around 50K (room board, tuition and fees).
Including room and board in the equation is generally misleading when discussing the cost of education (even if a required cost for first-year freshmen). It's a requirement for living regardless of whether you're in college.
Discounting room/board, GSU is $9k and Harvard $44k.
>It's a requirement for living regardless of whether you're in college.
No it's not. Most college students are young enough that they have the option of living with parents. If you're 19 and live with your parents your cost of living is close to 0, but you can't do that if you're forced to live on campus (even if just Freshmen year for most schools).
Additionally going to college full time is has opportunity costs. If you don't go to college you can work full time to pay your living expenses. If you go to college you can't (for most students).
Therefore attending college is forcing most people to look towards loans to support themselves. Loans for total cost of attendance at GSU are only a little less than half of loans for total cost of attendance at Harvard.
Here are the options for a student who got into GSU and Harvard. (actually sounds funny but I may have been able to get into Harvard, I did get into several other top tier schools, but I had no desire to live in boston. I went to GSU b/c they paid me so much money in scholarships that I was making a good deal of extra money)
1. Skip college work and pay expenses--no loan debt
2. Go to GSU take out loans --80K in loan debt
3. Go to Harvard take out loans -- 200k in loan debt
4. Go to GSU live on campus 1 year then with parents 3 years
50k in loan debt.
*Number 4 only works if you are with in driving distance to a good state school, and it's not an option if you're looking for the "college experience".
Transportation to and from a nearby state school plus food is not free even if your living with your parents. 5$ a day in food * 7 and 15$ a day in gas, maintenance, parking, etc * 5 days = 110$ a week * 16 weeks = 1760$ a semester. I went to a state school and adding a 45 minute commute each way was not worth the ~3-4k /year cost savings.
Reducing the money they give to state schools. The stated funding source is lottery sales, but money is fungible. It's actually becoming fairly common Tennessee, New Mexico, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, Missouri and West Virginia are among those sponsoring lottery-funded scholarship programs.http://www.scholarships.com/blog/financial-aid/lottery-schol...
In theory, since it's a state school, wouldn't that just imply less money coming into the state ... in other words, an anticipated revenue shortfall due to how their enrollment is setup - but not necessarily something where anybody is cutting a check to cover the cost of the scholarship.
