OT--UConn considering 25.5 percent tuition increase over four years

[upstater]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/...ket-grants-decline-as-college-tuition-spikes/

That article links to this at the Atlantic:

Obviously the number of students didn't grow by 511%. So why are education loans growing so rapidly? One reason could be availability. The government's backing lets credit to students flow very freely. And as the article from yesterday noted, universities are raising tuition aggressively since students are willing to pay more through those loans.

The government has always guaranteed student loans, so this is not new. Why would a factor that has ALWAYS been in place create a new paradigm? It hasn't. Beyond that, the government only guarantees federally subbed loans, and those are capped at 5.5k. So, again, the government's backing of loans does not account for the rise in tuition since the amount of gov't backed loans one can take has not risen at a fast rate in the last 25 years. In other words, this doesn't explain anything.

Tuition does not equal cost. People need to remember that.

 

[Prezidint]

Consider, if Cal had tuition of $1,000 a decade ago, and is now charging $10,000, that a 1,000% increase, far far outpacing tuition.

This makes zero sense. You either need more words or fewer words.

Further, you are attempting to draw a distinction between "tuition" and "costs." First, who cares? All that matters is what the kid pays in total.

If they add "activity fees" and "technology fees" and "environmental fees" and so on onto your cost of attending, what does it matter that it's not under the column "tuition"?

It's a scam, just like the rest of the system.

I get what you're going for now. Very clever.

The University wants more money. So they raise room and board and fees 25%. They don't raise tuition. So the title in the local paper reads, "Tuition rates will not be increased, but costs for students rise." Is that it? Is that the game? Is that the contorted logic the lifers are using now?

If the buildings are paid for, how do they justify raising room rates every year? Higher taxes at UConn? Are the bricks getting more expensive.

How about college text books? It costs what for a calculus book now? 200 bucks? It was 50 when I went to school.

You figuring that into your "costs" category? Unrelated to federal loans and the demand to go to school? Unrelated to the fact that University Profs directly profit from books?

That newer editions are required every year, despite the fact that Calculus hasn't changed much recently? They still teach derivation and integration, right? Limits and areas and curves and what not. Right?

It's a scam that depends on the artificial distinction between costs and tuition.

 

[Prezidint]

So, again, the government's backing of loans does not account for the rise in tuition since the amount of gov't backed loans one can take has not risen at a fast rate in the last 25 years. In other words, this doesn't explain anything.

You're completely missing the fact that this is a cultural phenomenon that has taken 50 years to develop. In 1960, about 4 million attended college. Culturally, it wasn't considered necessary to go to college unless you wanted a particular specialty, or unless you were rich and just wanted the college degree.
Today, 20 million go to college. But the population at large has only doubled. So, by the 1960 culture, we've got 5 fold greater college attendance. Why?
Simple - 1. Federal loan money. 2. Cultural shift and the delaying of growing up.
[EDIT - just one more example of how bankers control the world - Student loans are big business - the Federal Govt, translate the tax money of all Americans, guarantees the loans. Guar - en - freekin - teed. And you can't dismiss the debt in bankruptcy, so the banks have, almost, zero risk. Nice deal if you can get it.]

If you want to understand why the cost of college is so high, just look at this graph. It's very obvious. Greater demand results in greater price. Colleges raise fees, costs, tuition, whatever, because they can because the demand is there. If you want to control the price of college actively, simply remove the subsidized funding AND make all student loan debt dischargable in bankruptcy. You'd cut enrollment in half in a few years. Prices would collapse. If you want to do it passively, just wait - the U.S. govt. won't be able to afford all the subsidization welfare much longer.

 

[Wolferowski]

That article links to this at the Atlantic:

The government has always guaranteed student loans, so this is not new. Why would a factor that has ALWAYS been in place create a new paradigm? It hasn't. Beyond that, the government only guarantees federally subbed loans, and those are capped at 5.5k. So, again, the government's backing of loans does not account for the rise in tuition since the amount of gov't backed loans one can take has not risen at a fast rate in the last 25 years. In other words, this doesn't explain anything.

Tuition does not equal cost. People need to remember that.

as I stated earlier, you can't discharge student loans (public or private) in bankruptcy and this law changed in 1998.

For those who have to repay a student loan and are considering filing for bankruptcy, the question on their mind would be: does filing for bankruptcy discharge my student load? Unfortunately, student loans are usually not discharged in the case of bankruptcy. According to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy law the only time a student loan might be discharged is if it would cause the debtor “undue hardships”. The same basic rule also applies to Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases.
Discharging student loans became popular during the 1970s, when students would file for bankruptcy soon after they finished their pricey education. They would do so before they started earning so that they could get the loan out of the way. However, the requirements for discharging student loans were changed in 1998.

if they reverted back to laws prior to the 1990's, fewer loans would be given out from private lenders with advantageous rates. This would force all institutions to curb costs, which would curb tuition.

 

[upstater]

This makes zero sense. You either need more words or fewer words.

Further, you are attempting to draw a distinction between "tuition" and "costs." First, who cares? All that matters is what the kid pays in total.

If they add "activity fees" and "technology fees" and "environmental fees" and so on onto your cost of attending, what does it matter that it's not under the column "tuition"?

It's a scam, just like the rest of the system.

I get what you're going for now. Very clever.

The University wants more money. So they raise room and board and fees 25%. They don't raise tuition. So the title in the local paper reads, "Tuition rates will not be increased, but costs for students rise." Is that it? Is that the game? Is that the contorted logic the lifers are using now?

If the buildings are paid for, how do they justify raising room rates every year? Higher taxes at UConn? Are the bricks getting more expensive.

How about college text books? It costs what for a calculus book now? 200 bucks? It was 50 when I went to school.

You figuring that into your "costs" category? Unrelated to federal loans and the demand to go to school? Unrelated to the fact that University Profs directly profit from books?

That newer editions are required every year, despite the fact that Calculus hasn't changed much recently? They still teach derivation and integration, right? Limits and areas and curves and what not. Right?

It's a scam that depends on the artificial distinction between costs and tuition.

You totally fail at understanding economics.

If loan subsidies are allowing universities to spend more than they should, then that would fall under expenses, or costs.

But that's not happening. Only tuition is rising fast, not expenses.

This is pretty basic stuff and it's bizarre that you can't understand it.

I bet the vast majority of people on this board understand the distinction.

 

[upstater]

You're completely missing the fact that this is a cultural phenomenon that has taken 50 years to develop. In 1960, about 4 million attended college. Culturally, it wasn't considered necessary to go to college unless you wanted a particular specialty, or unless you were rich and just wanted the college degree.
Today, 20 million go to college. But the population at large has only doubled. So, by the 1960 culture, we've got 5 fold greater college attendance. Why?
Simple - 1. Federal loan money. 2. Cultural shift and the delaying of growing up.
[EDIT - just one more example of how bankers control the world - Student loans are big business - the Federal Govt, translate the tax money of all Americans, guarantees the loans. Guar - en - freekin - teed. And you can't dismiss the debt in bankruptcy, so the banks have, almost, zero risk. Nice deal if you can get it.]

If you want to understand why the cost of college is so high, just look at this graph. It's very obvious. Greater demand results in greater price. Colleges raise fees, costs, tuition, whatever, because they can because the demand is there. If you want to control the price of college actively, simply remove the subsidized funding AND make all student loan debt dischargable in bankruptcy. You'd cut enrollment in half in a few years. Prices would collapse. If you want to do it passively, just wait - the U.S. govt. won't be able to afford all the subsidization welfare much longer.

US population in 1980: 226 million.
US population in 2010: 313 million.

Population rise: 40%
College enrollment rise: 45%
Subtracting for-profit online enrollment, college enrollment rise since 1980 is: 33%.

Fewer people as a % of the population are attending bricks&mortar universities than they were three decades ago.

 

[upstater]

as I stated earlier, you can't discharge student loans (public or private) in bankruptcy and this law changed in 1998.

For those who have to repay a student loan and are considering filing for bankruptcy, the question on their mind would be: does filing for bankruptcy discharge my student load? Unfortunately, student loans are usually not discharged in the case of bankruptcy. According to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy law the only time a student loan might be discharged is if it would cause the debtor “undue hardships”. The same basic rule also applies to Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases.
Discharging student loans became popular during the 1970s, when students would file for bankruptcy soon after they finished their pricey education. They would do so before they started earning so that they could get the loan out of the way. However, the requirements for discharging student loans were changed in 1998.

if they reverted back to laws prior to the 1990's, fewer loans would be given out from private lenders with advantageous rates. This would force all institutions to curb costs, which would curb tuition.

First off, private lenders don't give out guaranteed student loans anymore. That practice is over. Only the gov't gives them out.
Second, the government has always given out those loans.

I'll say this for the umpteenth time even though it is not getting through to you for some absolutely bizarre reason: costs/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. Only tuition is.

 

[Wolferowski]

First off, private lenders don't give out guaranteed student loans anymore. That practice is over. Only the gov't gives them out.
Second, the government has always given out those loans.

I'll say this for the umpteenth time even though it is not getting through to you for some absolutely bizarre reason: costs/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. Only tuition is.

I'm not saying they give out guaranteed loans. I'm saying there's no downside to any private giving out loans, considering they can't be defaulted on.

I've heard you say it for the umpteenth time, yet you still haven't proven that cost/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. I'm not taking a 1998 study as the word of God. Which is why I disagree with you.

 

[upstater]

I'm not saying they give out guaranteed loans. I'm saying there's no downside to any private giving out loans, considering they can't be defaulted on.

I've heard you say it for the umpteenth time, yet you still haven't proven that cost/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. I'm not taking a 1998 study as the word of God. Which is why I disagree with you.

Why would you disagree with me again? Shouldn't you just be agnostic if you don't accept the 1998 study (which was a huge congressional study)?

You can only go on a case by case basis. I gave the numbers for the Cal. system which show that the costs there since the end of this study have only risen 2% a year.

But, you can just look at this article from 2010 on UConn: http://ctmirror.org/story/6401/uconn-approves-1-billion-budget-61110

If the state budget for the university is being slashed and the tuition is rising at a slower rate than the amount of slashing, that tells you something about costs/expenses, doesn't it.

It's simple math.

This article bears out the same dynamic as the 1998 study, but again the only way to do this is to look at studies of costs on a case by case basis. You can only look at what a school's budget was like in 1998 and compare it to its current budget in order to tell you whether costs are rising at above the rate of inflation. But, beyond that, increased health care and technology costs SHOULD signal that costs are rising faster than inflation. The fact that they aren't at a place like U. Cal. tells me that Cal is cutting corners elsewhere. Less financial aid is one likely place, as well as fewer full-time faculty, fewer courses offered. That's another savings.

 

[upstater]

I'm not saying they give out guaranteed loans. I'm saying there's no downside to any private giving out loans, considering they can't be defaulted on.

I've heard you say it for the umpteenth time, yet you still haven't proven that cost/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. I'm not taking a 1998 study as the word of God. Which is why I disagree with you.

By the way, the standard for discharging private debt is lot easier than discharging federal loans. There are a lot of allowances for discharging private debt that aren't available to you otherwise. If you're unemployed, it's possible to discharge private debt, but not federal loans. You just have a higher standard you have to meet than, say, trying to get out of credit card debt.

I would also say, if you're a student, look into the IBR program. You get to discharge your student debt after 10 years of making payments in relation to your income.

 

[Robertelamin]

Of course costs are rising. In the last decade they built a new chemistry building, pharmacy building, hilltop suites, charter oak suites, co-op, north parking garage, vistors center, business building, information technology building, I think a new agriculture building. They redid northwest campus, wilbur cross building, CLAS building, student union. Built two football facilities, built a computer lab on the Hartford campus and who knows what else since I graduated in 2004. Someone has to service all the new buildings. Maybe costs at other schools have dropped or remained the same but certainly not at UConn.

 

[upstater]

Of course costs are rising. In the last decade they built a new chemistry building, pharmacy building, hilltop suites, charter oak suites, co-op, north parking garage, vistors center, business building, information technology building, I think a new agriculture building. They redid northwest campus, wilbur cross building, CLAS building, student union. Built two football facilities, built a computer lab on the Hartford campus and who knows what else since I graduated in 2004. Someone has to service all the new buildings. Maybe costs at other schools have dropped or remained the same but certainly not at UConn.

I'd want to know how much was raised privately through UConn 2000, and beyond that, whether the new facilities lead to an increase in research funding.

Looking at that article about UConn that I cited above, you had a 5% cut in state outlays for UConn in 2009-2010. The UConn budget rose by 4.8%. So UConn increased tuition by 6%.

Seems to me that the tuition rise is related to the cut in state outlays, but it's impossible to know unless I was able to see the budget to determine what % of revenues comes from tuition.

Of the 4.8% increase in costs/expenditures, you have to look at research funding which increased from 210 million in 2009 to 233 in 2010. So, research funds were up 12% as the budget rose 4.8%. Since research funds accounted for about 25% of the budget, that means the increase in research funds contributed to 4% of the rising costs. Outside of research funding, the UConn budget increased by .8% for the year.

 

[Prezidint]

US population in 1980: 226 million.
US population in 2010: 313 million.
Population rise: 40%
College enrollment rise: 45%.

You're either intentionally being deceitful or your math is terrible. I'll let you claim which one.
Is this what they teach you in the institutional system? To make up numbers? To make up arguments that sound good?

Let's s start with this basic math:
(313-226)/226 = 38.5% So the rise in population, using your numbers, is 38.5%, not 40%.

Then, using the graph I supplied, above, the college population, in millions, went from about 12 to about 20 million over that same span. (20-12)/12 is 8/12 which is 75%.

That means that the increase in college students over the 30 year span, as a percent, is about double the general population increase, as a percent. So, professor, you weren't even close. You get an F, and it's going to take you an extra year to graduate.

If I had to guess, I don't think your math skills explain your post. I think you intentionally rigged the numbers because that's how you've been taught to do things as a lifer in a failing system.

I drink YOUR milkshake.

 

[Wolferowski]

By the way, the standard for discharging private debt is lot easier than discharging federal loans. There are a lot of allowances for discharging private debt that aren't available to you otherwise. If you're unemployed, it's possible to discharge private debt, but not federal loans. You just have a higher standard you have to meet than, say, trying to get out of credit card debt.

I would also say, if you're a student, look into the IBR program. You get to discharge your student debt after 10 years of making payments in relation to your income.

ya, no kidding. I brought up the fact that they changed the law because in the 70's and 80's so many students were filing right finishing school to get rid of the debt.
With govn't guaranteed loaned (which in reality nothing really is guaranteed), and private loans that have very little downside for the privates, a artificial demand is created in mkt. The GSEs did this during the housing bubble. Sallie and harder discharges on privates are doing it to the college loan mkt.

 

[Wolferowski]

You're either intentionally being deceitful or your math is terrible. I'll let you claim which one.
Is this what they teach you in the institutional system? To make up numbers? To make up arguments that sound good?

Let's s start with this basic math:
(313-226)/226 = 38.5 So the rise in population, using your numbers, is 38.5%, not 40%.

Then, using the graph I supplied, above, the college population, in millions, went from about 12 to about 20 million over that same span. (20-12)/12 is 8/12 which is 75%.

That means that the increase in college students over the 30 year span is about double the general population increase. So, professor, you weren't even close. You get an F, and it's going to take you an extra year to graduate.

If I had to guess, I don't think your math skills explain your post. I think you intentionally rigged the numbers because that's how you've been taught to do things as a lifer in a failing system.

I drink YOUR milkshake.

lol.

ya know, I originally started posting on the topic because I was saying that the author of the article doesn't know how to calculate % increase. upstater argued with me for a while about it, then eventually said he was agreeing with me she wrote it wrong. hmmm

 

[upstater]

You're either intentionally being deceitful or your math is terrible. I'll let you claim which one.
Is this what they teach you in the institutional system? To make up numbers? To make up arguments that sound good?

Let's s start with this basic math:
(313-226)/226 = 38.5% So the rise in population, using your numbers, is 38.5%, not 40%.

Then, using the graph I supplied, above, the college population, in millions, went from about 12 to about 20 million over that same span. (20-12)/12 is 8/12 which is 75%.

That means that the increase in college students over the 30 year span, as a percent, is about double the general population increase, as a percent. So, professor, you weren't even close. You get an F, and it's going to take you an extra year to graduate.

If I had to guess, I don't think your math skills explain your post. I think you intentionally rigged the numbers because that's how you've been taught to do things as a lifer in a failing system.

I drink YOUR milkshake.

My math was bad. But I also had different numbers than you, because you excel at inflating things. 20 million? No. Looks like 19 million, and I was at 12.5 million for 1980. So, my numbers come out to 52%. But, as I said, look at Bricks&Mortars and take out for-profits. 3.2 million for profits. 19-2.3=16.7-12.5=4.2 million increase.

As for the last comment, you're in Bernie Fine territory, I don't know what the hell that means.

 

[Prezidint]

By the way, the standard for discharging private debt is lot easier than discharging federal loans. There are a lot of allowances for discharging private debt that aren't available to you otherwise. If you're unemployed, it's possible to discharge private debt, but not federal loans. You just have a higher standard you have to meet than, say, trying to get out of credit card debt.

Huh?
I was reading the Bankruptcy code just yesterday. Can you please direct me to the statute that says Federally guaranteed loans may be dischargable? I have clients who would find that extremely useful.

Also, with regard to employment, can you please direct me to the Code sections that make discharge dependent on employment? I've been looking at the bankruptcy code for many years now, and I can't seem to find that section.

It seems that I was under the bizarre impression that total non-exempt income was all that mattered when applying the Chapter 13/7 means test.

Are you giving any Bankruptcy seminars any time soon? I'd love to attend. Will you be making up numbers there too, or just for discussions of college enrollment.

Jesus. You are unreal. But an exemplar for the college system in the U.S., no doubt.

 

[Prezidint]

My math was bad. But I also had different numbers than you, because you excel at inflating things. 20 million? No. Looks like 19 million, and I was at 12.5 million for 1980. So, my numbers come out to 52%. But, as I said, look at Bricks&Mortars and take out for-profits. 3.2 million for profits. 19-2.3=16.7-12.5=4.2 million increase.

Bullsh-t. You're a liar. You're still trying to make up numbers.

 

[upstater]

ya, no kidding. I brought up the fact that they changed the law because in the 70's and 80's so many students were filing right finishing school to get rid of the debt.
With govn't guaranteed loaned (which in reality nothing really is guaranteed), and private loans that have very little downside for the privates, a artificial demand is created in mkt. The GSEs did this during the housing bubble. Sallie and harder discharges on privates are doing it to the college loan mkt.

Guaranteed student loans are capped. The rise in the cap over the years is below inflation. Students at public schools don't need more than the cap to get their degree. So private loans are irrelevant for all but private schools and for-profit schools. not needed at state schools for kids who work during the summer. There's no evidence for your point about loans leading to inflated tuition when the cuts in taxpayer subsidies far exceed the rise in tuition.

 

[upstater]

Huh?
I was reading the Bankruptcy code just yesterday. Can you please direct me to the statute that says Federally guaranteed loans may be dischargable? I have clients who would find that extremely useful.

Also, with regard to employment, can you please direct me to the Code sections that make discharge dependent on employment? I've been looking at the bankruptcy code for many years now, and I can't seem to find that section.

It seems that I was under the bizarre impression that total non-exempt income was all that mattered when applying the Chapter 13/7 means test.

Are you giving any Bankruptcy seminars any time soon? I'd love to attend. Will you be making up numbers there too, or just for discussions of college enrollment.

Jesus. You are unreal. But an exemplar for the college system in the U.S., no doubt.

I never said federal guaranteed loans are dischargeable. I said private loans.

Tell your clients to look into IBR. What was so difficult about looking that up the first time, difficulty reading?

 

[61cygni]

You're either intentionally being deceitful or your math is terrible.

Then, using the graph I supplied, above, the college population, in millions, went from about 12 to about 20 million over that same span. (20-12)/12 is 8/12 which is 75%.

8/12 is 75%? (Just kidding around )

 

[Prezidint]

8/12 is 75%? (Just kidding around )

Good catch - probably closer to 66.
I'm just pissed. I hate the college scam in this country, and having a guy come on here making up numbers to try to say that giving loans out to every wandering 18 year old, thereby encouraging over-competition, thereby driving up prices is not happening is galling.

It's inarguable that college enrollment is way up, yet this guy comes on here and makes crap up in a self-serving effort to try to hide what is as plain as day.

 

[Wolferowski]

Good catch - probably closer to 66.
I'm just pissed. I hate the college scam in this country, and having a guy come on here making up numbers to try to say that giving loans out to every wandering 18 year old, thereby encouraging over-competition, thereby driving up prices is galling.

100% on the same page as you. You've earned a like

 

[WhereistheDove?]

If you can't afford college, join the Army reserve. That's what my brother did and it made a very expensive private school very affordable, with great experience and a little money on the side. I have plenty of friends who have taken that route as well. It's not for everyone though.

 

[upstater]

Bullsh-t. You're a liar. You're still trying to make up numbers.

Says someone who doesn't know the basic difference between expenditures and tuition. I mean, you can't even grasp the basics. I said I was wrong on my calculation. Simple as that. The fact that the rise in tuition does NOT correlate with the increase in population is lost on you as well. The fastest growth in tuition occurred between 1985 and 2000. Since then it's stabilized. In that period, the rise was from 13 million to 15 million students. Not enough to account for the rise in tuition.

And you attempted to totally lie about things by disregarding population growth, the rise of for-profits, which has not only distorted the student loan problem but also the number of students enrolled in degree programs (the vast majority of for-profit students do not earn a degree).

I admitted my mistake. You have yet to admit any of yours, from the most basic (not having a grasp of tuition v. costs) to allowing for other factors in the equations (population growth).