The Demographic Cliff and UConn

[Chuck]

Do I need to provide a list of industries that were never going to change until they had to change all at once? The Demographic Cliff is here, and the cost of schools are already unsustainable. Several things are going to have to give for higher education to survive. Americans learn (sitting in a class, facing a teacher) in fundamentally the same way they did a century ago. It is not like there is not a lot of room for improvement.

I didn't say they shouldn't consider your idea. I said it won't happen before your cliff. Government is never proactive or efficient. This would take a monumental effort at every level of multiple state governments. That's not something I've seen states do. I could see them doing consortiums. Those already exist. But that wouldn't result in UConn being a flagship. The opposite. A school like WVU would drop its language majors (I still think this is strange and question whether you can be a major university without language classes), but allow students to go to a PA state school at WV costs if that's what they wanted to pursue. I remember New England had something like this in place. I know Minnesota and Wisconsin do, or did.

There are so many CT residents who have to leave the state for school because Storrs isn’t an option. And, QPex and SHU are too small imo.

Our daughter who was national honor society, 3.6 GPA couldn’t get sniff at UMass for nursing.

Going to JMU which I find to be amazing value. Beautiful campus, strong school spirit, 20K students. Schools is growing. Doesn’t have academic reputation of other VA schools.

That's why kids are going down south (or west other than UT(exas) or the Cals). They aren't (typically) going to Alabama because they are getting a better education. They're going because they couldn't get into the better State Us or privates and don't want to go to a directional school made up of a commuting student body with no school spirit. I live in NJ. If a kid couldn't get into Rutgers (or UConn, Penn State...) and wanted to go to Alabama instead of Montclair State, I'd understand it. We have a bunch of mediocre students from our middle-class school going to Alabama, LSU, Coastal Carolina, Tennessee. They won't get a better education than Montclair State, but they'll have more fun and probably make better contacts.

The number of private schools in our area, and tradition of leaving the area holds back the public schools. Look at states smaller or similar size to Connecticut (population). Alabama has 'Bama and Auburn, Oregon has Oregon and Oregon State, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi are all smaller and have a "State" option that is usually easier to get into, but allows for a decent education and school spirit.

Regarding nursing, that's one I don't fully understand because I don't know how the industry works. Is UMass on the whole a better academic school than JMU? Probably, but JMU is a popular option in the northeast because it's a solid school that's a bit easier to get into. Would you get into a better MBA/Law School out of UMass all things equal? Maybe. But the world needs nurses. Is there an academic hierarchy in getting jobs out of a nursing program? Will that UMass kid get into better hospital that pays better than the JMU kid? My daughter has a friend that wants to be a nurse. A student. Wanted to go somewhere with a bit of wow factor. Her parents said no way. You'll go to a good school that will cost the least.

 

[huskymedic]

UMass nursing is very difficult to get into with an acceptance rate of ~12%. I think UConn nursing acceptance rate is in the high teens.

I don't know why they wouldn't increase the number of spots in the programs given such high demand, especially when we have a nursing shortage.

One of the big bottlenecks in increasing the number of spots is the lack/shortage of clinical time opportunities in hospitals across the board (kinda a chicken/egg scenario).

 

[JohnFSilver]

One of the big bottlenecks in increasing the number of spots is the lack/shortage of clinical time opportunities in hospitals across the board (kinda a chicken/egg scenario)

Nursing doesn’t make sense to me.

What’s the difference as a RN from UConn vs. a 2 year program at Goodwin (which is a good option for many people). Are they different degrees?

Do I get a better job out of school, and advantage in the workplace?

I just don’t understand nursing economics.

 

[JohnFSilver]

I didn't say they shouldn't consider your idea. I said it won't happen before your cliff. Government is never proactive or efficient. This would take a monumental effort at every level of multiple state governments. That's not something I've seen states do. I could see them doing consortiums. Those already exist. But that wouldn't result in UConn being a flagship. The opposite. A school like WVU would drop its language majors (I still think this is strange and question whether you can be a major university without language classes), but allow students to go to a PA state school at WV costs if that's what they wanted to pursue. I remember New England had something like this in place. I know Minnesota and Wisconsin do, or did.




That's why kids are going down south (or west other than UT(exas) or the Cals). They aren't (typically) going to Alabama because they are getting a better education. They're going because they couldn't get into the better State Us or privates and don't want to go to a directional school made up of a commuting student body with no school spirit. I live in NJ. If a kid couldn't get into Rutgers (or UConn, Penn State...) and wanted to go to Alabama instead of Montclair State, I'd understand it. We have a bunch of mediocre students from our middle-class school going to Alabama, LSU, Coastal Carolina, Tennessee. They won't get a better education than Montclair State, but they'll have more fun and probably make better contacts.

The number of private schools in our area, and tradition of leaving the area holds back the public schools. Look at states smaller or similar size to Connecticut (population). Alabama has 'Bama and Auburn, Oregon has Oregon and Oregon State, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi are all smaller and have a "State" option that is usually easier to get into, but allows for a decent education and school spirit.

Regarding nursing, that's one I don't fully understand because I don't know how the industry works. Is UMass on the whole a better academic school than JMU? Probably, but JMU is a popular option in the northeast because it's a solid school that's a bit easier to get into. Would you get into a better MBA/Law School out of UMass all things equal? Maybe. But the world needs nurses. Is there an academic hierarchy in getting jobs out of a nursing program? Will that UMass kid get into better hospital that pays better than the JMU kid? My daughter has a friend that wants to be a nurse. A student. Wanted to go somewhere with a bit of wow factor. Her parents said no way. You'll go to a good school that will cost the least.

Kind of nailed it here. I want her to have a network and be at a flagship college. CSU in CT, at least offers good education and value, but I just find the atmosphere geared towards commuters. It is a functional university. Also, they are always under pressure resource wise.

 

[SU1968]

Nursing doesn’t make sense to me.

What’s the difference as a RN from UConn vs. a 2 year program at Goodwin (which is a good option for many people). Are they different degrees?

Do I get a better job out of school, and advantage in the workplace?

I just don’t understand nursing economics.

I'm a retired health care administrator. Several of my nursing directors said that they prefer a new diploma school nurse over a BSN nurse. The diploma schools have more clinical training. As nurses advance "through the ranks", a BSN is more valuable because of the administrative and leadership responsibilities.

 

[businesslawyer]

There are a lot of small colleges shutting down or merging up that thought doing something would be impossible because of the politics.

Yes, there are but you know that's not responsive. What are the state colleges that have merged with state colleges FROM ANOTHER STATE?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Administration, administration, administration.

You want to find out where the fat is? Look there.

(Kudos to West Virginia for pretending professors were the issue while not touching a single dollar of admin.)

I get it, and agree with the shoutout to WVU for going full projection on the cost issues there. That said, the Demographic Cliff is here. There is no more waiting.

In early 1993, the DoD had a big dinner event in DC where the CEO's of like 50 or so defense contractors and subcontractors were invited, along with a few bankers. Then Deputy SecDef William Perry gave a speech where he warned them that the era of heavy defense spending was over, and it was time for consolidation. It was called "The Last Supper" (you can look it up online), and it set off a wave that transformed a government industry dramatically in just a few years. I met a banker who claimed he was at the dinner (who knows?). I do know he made so much money merging up the defense industry that he retired in the early 2000's in his late 40's.

The education industry is ready for a Last Supper. All it takes is one major consolidation, and the dominoes will start falling fast. Don't get hung up on who owns who or what structure they end up with. Some form of consolidation is going to happen.

 

[uconnyankee]

UMass nursing is very difficult to get into with an acceptance rate of ~12%. I think UConn nursing acceptance rate is in the high teens.

I don't know why they wouldn't increase the number of spots in the programs given such high demand, especially when we have a nursing shortage.

Yeah, we didn’t even apply to UConn for my daughter. We live in MA so thinking in state might have a shot.

Denied…

Didn’t realize how hard nursing was to get into.

 

[uconnyankee]

I'm a retired health care administrator. Several of my nursing directors said that they prefer a new diploma school nurse over a BSN nurse. The diploma schools have more clinical training. As nurses advance "through the ranks", a BSN is more valuable because of the administrative and leadership responsibilities.

what’s a diploma school vs bsn nurse?

 

[Patman]

Yes, language skills are very valuable, but you don't need to major in a language to become proficient in speaking the language and you don't need professors to teach language skills. And, you only need a few universities to offer Master's and PhD's in some subjects.

Some departments are just going to be service departments, simple as. But this was always the case.

That being said, the real bloat is not in legacy departments like language but rather in administrators such as the ever expansive DEI brigade. If you want to lop off some useless offices that only need to exist because of the siren's call of the current political culture it would be them and they're far more expensive than any department that teaches spanish literature. Stop running political programs within the administrative processes and get down to the brass tacks of education.

edit: are you weirdoes really trying to suggest UConn should merge with a SUNY school to remain relevant? This is insanity. Should we suggest that Iowa merge with Kansas instead? The real issue is the state doesn't have the stones to build up the school to AAU status.

 

[Fishy]

I get it, and agree with the shoutout to WVU for going full projection on the cost issues there. That said, the Demographic Cliff is here. There is no more waiting.

In early 1993, the DoD had a big dinner event in DC where the CEO's of like 50 or so defense contractors and subcontractors were invited, along with a few bankers. Then Deputy SecDef William Perry gave a speech where he warned them that the era of heavy defense spending was over, and it was time for consolidation. It was called "The Last Supper" (you can look it up online), and it set off a wave that transformed a government industry dramatically in just a few years. I met a banker who claimed he was at the dinner (who knows?). I do know he made so much money merging up the defense industry that he retired in the early 2000's in his late 40's.

The education industry is ready for a Last Supper. All it takes is one major consolidation, and the dominoes will start falling fast. Don't get hung up on who owns who or what structure they end up with. Some form of consolidation is going to happen.

On this, we agree. On the solution, as it pertains to consolidation, we do not.

The administrative levels for these schools are so overloaded that it's just jaw-dropping. (e.g. Yale has 6,000 students and 5,000 administrators.)

Since 1976, the number of faculty at US universities has gone up around 100% - the number of students has gone up about 80%. The number of administrators? Nearly 500%.

We're running out of college aged kids and just importing more Chinese and Indian students isn't going to work forever - the efficiencies we seek are right there in front of us. Knock off some deans.

 

[Patman]

On this, we agree. On the solution, as it pertains to consolidation, we do not.

The administrative levels for these schools are so overloaded that it's just jaw-dropping. (e.g. Yale has 6,000 students and 5,000 administrators.)

Since 1976, the number of faculty at US universities has gone up around 100% - the number of students has gone up about 80%. The number of administrators? Nearly 500%.

We're running out of college aged kids and just importing more Chinese and Indian students isn't going to work forever - the efficiencies we seek are right there in front of us. Knock off some deans.

The reality is eventually some schools are going to stop the never ending arms race of buildings and tell the constituent departments that they can fund their own excess or take a hike and likewise to tell the students they aren't getting their glass-crystal bidets. Now I'm being sarcastic but huge overruns come in needless buildings and administrators.

Most of academia can be taught to most people in trailers. Do I recommend that? No. Were I ever to start a school to accommodate the lower income you bet your sweet ass that I'm looking into minimalistic buildings with just enough internet support to get along. I taught at UConn-Avery Point for two summers. I know what I'm thinking. Those old WWII buildings do phenomenally well for instruction where all you need is a good whiteboard, laptop, and projector. Once you make that realization at some point somebody's going to make a break for the obvious.

Colleges should not be a growth economy. They are a service to educate students first. Maybe as a think tank second. Universities probably should be thought of on the quasi-professional model. Education in tandem with research to lead and innovate... but I would still see universities to stack on top of a college education and not in place of one. Mostly because one does not know if they want to specialize (masters/doctor) all the time but they should be professional operations. That being said the lion's share of society should be in the college mode and not the university mode. It is this space that maybe should be expansive. Heck, I would even be in favor of putting harder separations between the college world and the university world. Sure they can exist in the same place.

I just have this difficulty seeing the education of undergraduates as this ever expansive remit onto infinity. It seems to spur this nonsense about being trying to use the college-age class as a means for their experiments in societal reformation and indoctrination. Bad enough as those ethos occurs already within their academic departments but people are using these college mandates as an ever expanding ethos to gain and wield power. I wouldn't want these people in charge of a toaster.

Who knows, more to think about.

 

[BigTenFan]

All I know as in Searching for a college for daughter, there really is a paucity of options relative to value .

Going to college in Northeast is very frustrating .

Have two kids at a Big10 school that hasn't raised tuition in 12 years- the price was just about the same as sending them in -state to UConn. Fixed costs in CT so much higher than Midwest and South

 

[UConnJim]

Have two kids at a Big10 school that hasn't raised tuition in 12 years- the price was just about the same as sending them in -state to UConn. Fixed costs in CT so much higher than Midwest and South

This is not correct. There really isn't any comparable state schools that has a list price of tuition, fees, room, and meal plan for out of state students that is close to UConn's in-state costs. Could financial aid be different? Yes. Here's the comparison:

UConn: $34.4k in state
Average Big 10 school for out of state: $55k
Average SEC schools for out of state: $51k
Average ACC school for out of state: $63k. (skewed by privates, but Clemson is $58k, Virginia is $72k).

The cheapest school for out of state was FSU at ~$36k/year.

 

[shizzle787]

I doubt UConn will be affected much by the demographic cliff. I would not want to be CCSU, Fairfield, or Sacred Heart though. Smaller state and private schools are going to feel the most pain. Division 3 schools close down regularly as well so I assume we will continue to see more of that.

 

[uconnyankee]

Have two kids at a Big10 school that hasn't raised tuition in 12 years- the price was just about the same as sending them in -state to UConn. Fixed costs in CT so much higher than Midwest and South

Daughter was accepted to IU. All in $63K/year. I’m thinking in state UConn is less than that.

 

[Travelman6]

very expensive, useless degrees.

Yes higher EDU is incredibly expensive but the second part really rubs me the wrong way. There is no such thing as a "useless" degree. It all depends on the effort made by the graduate in question and how they market themselves after graduation. For someone to speak about education at length as you do and then turn around and say something so defamatory is insane to me and just flat-out wrong.

 

[BigTenFan]

Daughter was accepted to IU. All in $63K/year. I’m thinking in state UConn is less than that.

Purdue all in is 40k- still a pile of $$ but compared to a lot of of schools a relative bargain. My wife and I will be eating Ramen for a few more years......

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yes higher EDU is incredibly expensive but the second part really rubs me the wrong way. There is no such thing as a "useless" degree. It all depends on the effort made by the graduate in question and how they market themselves after graduation. For someone to speak about education at length as you do and then turn around and say something so defamatory is insane to me and just flat-out wrong.

Ask some of the 20 and 30 somethings who are sitting on $100,000 or $200,000 of debt for degrees in the humanities that have little practical application in the real world. The higher education industry markets the need of a college degree to teenagers, essentially telling children that their dreams are not possible without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper. What the Higher Ed industry knows, as do many of us, is that those degrees are not remotely created equal. Rather than pivot their product to a modern society, many of the liberal arts schools in particular have doubled down on very expensive degrees in the humanities of questionable ROI.

This is "marketing cigarettes to kids" level evil. Actually, it is worse, because a kid that starts smoking can quit smoking. A kid that borrowed $200,000 for a degree in the Classics will have every aspect of their life negatively impacted. They will have a lower standard of living, often have credit problems their whole life which can impact their career, and will even have their choice of mates impacted because love is love, but taking on $200,000 of debt for a degree they didn't get is asking a lot of any future spouse. Getting some of these degrees literally ruin many people's lives.

A big difference between young people today and when Gen X got out of college in the 90's and early 2000's is that when we were in college, everyone just kind of got a degree and then got a job. Employers would be willing to train recent college graduates, and kids with a humanities degree may have a bit more trouble getting that first job, but once they got started, they would still be able to head off into their careers. But back then, there was an endless discussion in the media about how America was turning out too many lawyers.

As a result, starting in the 90's, more and more kids went into STEM majors. I can't find the data right now, but I believe colleges are turning out twice the STEM graduates today compared to 2000. I believe that other type of "trade degrees" like business are up significantly, albeit not at the same growth rate. That is a lot of kids graduating college every year with skills that are immediately applicable in the workplace. This has the effect of making the humanities degrees less valuable, because companies do not need to hire someone with a generic degree when they can hire someone with a STEM or business degree.

The state schools went hard into STEM and business in the 1990's while the prestige privates would actually have Presidents who derisively referred to those majors as "vocational degrees". Weird how most of the Ivies now offer "vocational degrees" too now. Many of the smaller liberal arts colleges will never get there. But the STEM and business degrees presented other challenges. Professors in those fields are expensive compared to a history or English professor, because a CS or engineering professor has a lot of opportunities in the private sector. As a result, a lot of universities have marketed STEM and business majors without the capacity to bring everyone through to a degree. My information is anecdotal, but Maryland is developing a reputation for doing this. Pulling a kid into a program, having the kid spend two years and $100,000 (for an out of state kid), and then telling the kid and his family that either they have to take a lesser degree or transfer, is unethical, or worse.

Kids can get any degree they want and can afford. But it is certainly not "defamatory" of me to point out that the universities have been selling degrees that have a negative or very poor ROI.

 

[WrenchFan69]

I doubt UConn will be affected much by the demographic cliff. I would not want to be CCSU, Fairfield, or Sacred Heart though. Smaller state and private schools are going to feel the most pain. Division 3 schools close down regularly as well so I assume we will continue to see more of that.

UHart is in a death spiral. Mediocre private schools would be the first to go I'd imagine

 

[Travelman6]

Kids can get any degree they want and can afford. But it is certainly not "defamatory" of me to point out that the universities have been selling degrees that have a negative or very poor ROI.

I see what you are saying and I won't deny UNI, regardless of degree is super expensive. Something drastic needs to be done to fix this. But in the previous post, you flat-out say "useless degree" which is still incorrect and that is my issue. A degree can be as "useless" or "useful" as you make it but it is not solely because of the major, there are many other variables and factors.

Going into debt, regardless of degree can be a huge handicap regardless of major. That is why I have seen Ivy grads struggle, even STEM Ivy grads (I knew one from Harvard), and also why I've seen people with humanities degrees, even from average or not well-known schools succeed. But to look at someone's degree and point blank make the claim "useless" is not okay. Why further handicap a young person with that kind of stigma? They went to school, studied, and worked hard, and it is safe to say the large majority of grads want to be contributing members of society. Plus if they learned something valuable, hard to argue how "useless" that is. I won't **** on some kid because they got an anthropology degree. They put a lot of effort in too. It is more the fault of society that doesn't see value in a wide variety of different disciplines (outside of just STEM) and inability to see how that variety contributes to a high-functioning society.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I see what you are saying and I won't deny UNI, regardless of degree is super expensive. Something drastic needs to be done to fix this. But in the previous post, you flat-out say "useless degree" which is still incorrect and that is my issue. A degree can be as "useless" or "useful" as you make it but it is not solely because of the major, there are many other variables and factors.

Going into debt, regardless of degree can be a huge handicap regardless of major. That is why I have seen Ivy grads struggle, even STEM Ivy grads (I knew one from Harvard), and also why I've seen people with humanities degrees, even from average or not well-known schools succeed. But to look at someone's degree and point blank make the claim "useless" is not okay. Why further handicap a young person with that kind of stigma? They went to school, studied, and worked hard, and it is safe to say the large majority of grads want to be contributing members of society. Plus if they learned something valuable, hard to argue how "useless" that is. I won't **** on some kid because they got an anthropology degree. They put a lot of effort in too. It is more the fault of society that doesn't see value in a wide variety of different disciplines (outside of just STEM) and inability to see how that variety contributes to a high-functioning society.

You are using anecdotal examples, and I am pointing to a systematic problem that the universities are in a large part responsible for. Kids are welcome to study anything they want, no matter what their major. But given the cost, going to school is an economic decision, and there are severe economic consequences for making a bad one. To paraphrase Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, don't be the person who "dropped $150,000 on a fudging education that you could have gotten for $1.50 in late charges at the public library." No one is stopping a CS major from reading literature. I am just suggesting that spending $80,000 a year on the Classics is a bad economic investment, and will result in a degree that, for many of those graduates, is economically useless.

Colleges put kids in these degrees because they are cheap and therefore very profitable for the school. The colleges have to know they are not preparing many of their graduates for a post-college world, yet they sell these $300,000 degrees anyway.

 

[BigTenFan]

We can clearly put much of the debt blame on Universities, predatory lending and government. However, parents of young people need to be more financially involved in decision making for their kids. The adults are the ones who should be guiding the education process for their children - not society or guidance councilors.

I have seen so many kids get into deep debt because they had to go to their 'dream school' with no understanding of the ramifications of borrowing so much money.
Parents need to be the gatekeeper so their kids get a quality education at a fair price.
If the parents don't do this- they are setting their kids up for years of financial struggle.
There are many ways to get a quality education without a 100k ball and chain wrapped around your ankle.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

UHart is in a death spiral. Mediocre private schools would be the first to go I'd imagine

There will be some merging up, but there is still a market for a nimble, lower tier city school like Hartford that is near employers. Connecticut has 3.5 million people, so there is still a big market for education in the state.

The schools I really question, for different reasons, are ones like Mississippi State and Connecticut College. Why does a state like Mississippi need two major state schools? That is a complete waste of money for the state. I do not get the appeal of schools like Connecticut College at all. The target market for a school like Connecticut College is wealthy kids that didn't get into the Ivies, because it is horrendously expensive, and sells degrees that belong in a museum. Really, schools like Connecticut College are selling exclusivity and the appearance of special access, because unless you or your friends have rich, connected parents, there is not much you can do with a history degree from Connecticut College. The problem with this approach is that rich kids are increasingly going to the better state schools for STEM, or going to private schools that were early to the STEM game, and that trend will just continue.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

We can clearly put much of the debt blame on Universities, predatory lending and government. However, parents of young people need to be more financially involved in decision making for their kids. The adults are the ones who should be guiding the education process for their children - not society or guidance councilors.

I have seen so many kids get into deep debt because they had to go to their 'dream school' with no understanding of the ramifications of borrowing so much money.
Parents need to be the gatekeeper so their kids get a quality education at a fair price.
If the parents don't do this- they are setting their kids up for years of financial struggle.
Their are many ways to get a quality education without a 100k ball and chain wrapped around your ankle.

+1000

I spend a lot of time around tech companies. 20 years ago, many of the programmers didn't have degrees and were either self-taught or had just taken a few classes at a local community college or regional college. I have come across more than one senior CS engineer from CCSU or WestConn. There is still some self-taught, but with colleges going all in on STEM, that will change because there are a lot more kids getting CS degrees. Interestingly, most employers don't care that much about pedigree in the STEM fields. They have computers at Hartford and St. Johns and [pick random city school of your choice], and tech employers will hire smart kids from any school if they know their stuff. I have had a senior tech executive with as good a pedigree as is possible to have tell me that he would have to look up where most of his staff came from because he does not care.

When the history is written on the Higher Education industry of the 20's in 10 or 20 years, the emergence of "vocational degrees" will have been the most important seismic shift that ultimately revolutionized the entire industry. It broke the appeal of the prestige privates, and forced the education system to modernize.

 

[DFW HOYA]

The schools I really question, for different reasons, are ones like Mississippi State and Connecticut College. Why does a state like Mississippi need two major state schools? That is a complete waste of money for the state.

Mississippi State, once known as as Mississippi A&M, was part of the Morrill Act, which expanded study of agricultural and applied sciences nationwide. Every state had one major school funded under this act and in the case of HBCU's, more than one.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Mississippi State, once known as as Mississippi A&M, was part of the Morrill Act, which expanded study of agricultural and applied sciences nationwide. Every state had one major school funded under this act and in the case of HBCU's, more than one.

And people used to get around on horseback. It is 2023, and Mississippi has two very similar universities that are basically duplicative of each other in a state that does not send a ton of kids to college.

 

[Chuck]

So, I'm reading about this cliff everywhere. Some of you seem very educated (or opinionated) on the topic. So, with two kids that will be looking at schools over the next 48 months, here are some things I'm curious about:

• I have a son that is good with math and science, but very talented in (and prefers) writing and other non-STEM topics. Only interested in smaller (not tiny) liberal arts schools (the 3k enrollment D1-type schools (he wouldn't play a sport there)), but understands that he has to consider majors that will lead to jobs. These are schools with billion dollar endowments and less than 30% acceptance rates. Are these the type of schools that people think will struggle? Maybe they'll get a bit easier to get into, but will these schools still survive/thrive?
• What do you guys think will happen with the Big 10 schools? Very strong academic reputations and many (not all) have competitive enrollments. They have strong endowments, but not Ivy-like. But may are in shrinking states that will have budget issues. Are these schools still going thrive because of their tradition, resources, and athletic departments? Is Indiana University (high acceptance rate outside business school) going to struggle, or are they golden?

This one is more of an observance for the son looking at the liberal arts schools. I'd thing there will be a donut hole in the schools' economic demographics. Rich people can afford a $500k education. Middle class and below are getting pretty strong merit aid to make the school competitive (or cheaper) with public universities. But the mass affluent have a tough decision to make. The $500k can be afforded, but it's a legit hit on mom and dad's lifestyle and retirement plans. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those next level schools that give merit aid move up in rankings and reputation. It's something I struggle with.

 

[noeynox]

Ask some of the 20 and 30 somethings who are sitting on $100,000 or $200,000 of debt for degrees in the humanities that have little practical application in the real world. The higher education industry markets the need of a college degree to teenagers, essentially telling children that their dreams are not possible without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of paper. What the Higher Ed industry knows, as do many of us, is that those degrees are not remotely created equal. Rather than pivot their product to a modern society, many of the liberal arts schools in particular have doubled down on very expensive degrees in the humanities of questionable ROI.

This is "marketing cigarettes to kids" level evil. Actually, it is worse, because a kid that starts smoking can quit smoking. A kid that borrowed $200,000 for a degree in the Classics will have every aspect of their life negatively impacted. They will have a lower standard of living, often have credit problems their whole life which can impact their career, and will even have their choice of mates impacted because love is love, but taking on $200,000 of debt for a degree they didn't get is asking a lot of any future spouse. Getting some of these degrees literally ruin many people's lives.

A big difference between young people today and when Gen X got out of college in the 90's and early 2000's is that when we were in college, everyone just kind of got a degree and then got a job. Employers would be willing to train recent college graduates, and kids with a humanities degree may have a bit more trouble getting that first job, but once they got started, they would still be able to head off into their careers. But back then, there was an endless discussion in the media about how America was turning out too many lawyers.

As a result, starting in the 90's, more and more kids went into STEM majors. I can't find the data right now, but I believe colleges are turning out twice the STEM graduates today compared to 2000. I believe that other type of "trade degrees" like business are up significantly, albeit not at the same growth rate. That is a lot of kids graduating college every year with skills that are immediately applicable in the workplace. This has the effect of making the humanities degrees less valuable, because companies do not need to hire someone with a generic degree when they can hire someone with a STEM or business degree.

The state schools went hard into STEM and business in the 1990's while the prestige privates would actually have Presidents who derisively referred to those majors as "vocational degrees". Weird how most of the Ivies now offer "vocational degrees" too now. Many of the smaller liberal arts colleges will never get there. But the STEM and business degrees presented other challenges. Professors in those fields are expensive compared to a history or English professor, because a CS or engineering professor has a lot of opportunities in the private sector. As a result, a lot of universities have marketed STEM and business majors without the capacity to bring everyone through to a degree. My information is anecdotal, but Maryland is developing a reputation for doing this. Pulling a kid into a program, having the kid spend two years and $100,000 (for an out of state kid), and then telling the kid and his family that either they have to take a lesser degree or transfer, is unethical, or worse.

Kids can get any degree they want and can afford. But it is certainly not "defamatory" of me to point out that the universities have been selling degrees that have a negative or very poor ROI.

Only remotely related to your point, but a few years back i attended one of those being able to afford college webinars with a local guy and one of the examples he had was of a recent graduate from QU who graduated with a teaching degree. 231k debt and a job making 38k a year. (He helps people like that navigate their debt as a service also.) For the life of me i could not wrap my mind around letting my kid go to a school like that for a teaching degree when you can get the same job with a degree out of CCSU. I didn't factor what @johnsilver said though, about the commuter feel. I too would want my kids to get a better experience as i was a commuter student.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So, I'm reading about this cliff everywhere. Some of you seem very educated (or opinionated) on the topic. So, with two kids that will be looking at schools over the next 48 months, here are some things I'm curious about:

• I have a son that is good with math and science, but very talented in (and prefers) writing and other non-STEM topics. Only interested in smaller (not tiny) liberal arts schools (the 3k enrollment D1-type schools (he wouldn't play a sport there)), but understands that he has to consider majors that will lead to jobs. These are schools with billion dollar endowments and less than 30% acceptance rates. Are these the type of schools that people think will struggle? Maybe they'll get a bit easier to get into, but will these schools still survive/thrive?
• What do you guys think will happen with the Big 10 schools? Very strong academic reputations and many (not all) have competitive enrollments. They have strong endowments, but not Ivy-like. But may are in shrinking states that will have budget issues. Are these schools still going thrive because of their tradition, resources, and athletic departments? Is Indiana University (high acceptance rate outside business school) going to struggle, or are they golden?

This one is more of an observance for the son looking at the liberal arts schools. I'd thing there will be a donut hole in the schools' economic demographics. Rich people can afford a $500k education. Middle class and below are getting pretty strong merit aid to make the school competitive (or cheaper) with public universities. But the mass affluent have a tough decision to make. The $500k can be afforded, but it's a legit hit on mom and dad's lifestyle and retirement plans. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those next level schools that give merit aid move up in rankings and reputation. It's something I struggle with.

It sounds like you have a good approach. There is a balance between what the kid likes and what he/she needs to get a job, and there are ways to do both.

A billion dollar endowment will enable a school to make some mistakes, but whether it survives long term or not really comes down to the school itself.

The northern state schools have generally been smarter about their curriculum and student services than many of the prestige privates, at least in my opinion. Some of this is out of necessity, since the Demographic Cliff is already being felt in the Rust Belt and Northeast. There are ways to downsize the overhead while still providing a quality education. I think that WVU is indicative of the fact that many of the southern schools aren't even trying to manage their growth. It is also worth noting that these southern states get a huge percentage of their operating budget from the federal government, which does not seem sustainable long-term.