Is college tuition too high?

[8filltheheart]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html?_r=1

 

(I honestly haven't finished reading the entire article.  I just started it, but don't have the time to finish it right now.  But, I thought I would link it for others to read.)

[bettyandbob]

I read the article. Most of it has been said elsewhere. The whole situation is frustrating.

As a parent about to send a second kid to college, yes, I think it's too expensive. The whole system is just messed up.

[shawthorne44]

Absolutely.  At my Alma Mater it seems that finances are controlled by drunken sailors, who really like landscaping.  

[Teachin'Mine]

I thought it was a good article.  I love what CUNY is doing with their ASAP program.  52% graduation is great.  As was pointed out in the article, the additional costs for supporting the students while attending are more than made up for later in tax revenues and reduced spending for public programs.

 

 

[Lolly]

It is. Shame no one would accept a homeschool college diploma...

[Lori D.]

It is. Shame no one would accept a homeschool college diploma...

 

I was thinking that using something like College Plus or other provider (or going with a DIY version) IS a lot like a homeschool college diploma… ;)

[Joules]

I was thinking that using something like College Plus or other provider (or going with a DIY version) IS a lot like a homeschool college diploma… ;)

 

I was looking at the Arizona online freshman year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/us/arizona-state-university-to-offer-online-freshman-academy.html?_r=0

 

I do know a couple of students who are looking at all four years online, but ds will probably go to grad school. I would think with selective grad school admissions, one or two years online would be the max.

[Lori D.]

I was looking at the Arizona online freshman year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/us/arizona-state-university-to-offer-online-freshman-academy.html?_r=0

 

I do know a couple of students who are looking at all four years online, but ds will probably go to grad school. I would think with selective grad school admissions, one or two years online would be the max.

 

Yes, there certainly are pros and cons to the CLEP-and-distance-learning degrees (College Plus), and the MOOC degrees (ASU).

 

A con, as you mention, is the lack of GPA attached to these degrees, which may be needed for admission to a selective master's degree program.

 

And some potential cons are the transferability of credits if the student wants to switch out of one of these types of programs to a regular university, and that only some, not all, kinds of degrees can be earned with these alternatives.

 

Most important when considering these types of programs: is it a good match for the student's learning style and personality? And does the program have  any student support? I know that part of the College Plus program includes a mentor, who touches base with the student weekly to help keep them motivated, and who works as the student's advisor and liaison with the school that actually grants the degree.

 

I personally know 2 students who earned their degrees through College Plus. Both are very bright, self-motivated and hard-working; both do well with independent learning, all of which made them a great match for earning a degree in this way. But both have said that it was *hard* to keep going and complete, and they really needed that mentor. Both young ladies had no troubles finding jobs as teachers afterwards. One is considering returning to the local university for a Master's degree and it looks like her BS will be accepted just fine.

 

You might also look through this thread on low-cost options and creative alternatives for funding college: "s/o: Cautionary Tale/high college costs -- a brainstorm $$ ideas thread!" That includes ideas like:

 

- free tuition colleges

- a few colleges have students work in exchange for tuition

- lower tuition, or even free tuition, at overseas schools

- college tuition exchange programs (attend an out-of-state school for in-state rates)

- tuition reimbursement programs (company pays for part/all of tuition)

tion, and in exchange, at graduation the student works for the company at a lower wage for several years)

- take gen. ed. credits at a lower-cost community college, then transfer credits and only need 2 years at a university to finish the bachelor's

- volunteer 1 year with Ameri-Corps (domestic version of Peace Corps), earn $7000 towards college

- earn an Associate's degree (or apprenticeship) in something that pays a decent wage, then work you way through a Bachelor's degree

 

BEST of luck in sorting through all the options! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[FaithManor]

My alma mater has increased 425% since I graduated. Wages have not come anywhere close to that. It is similar for dh's alma mater as well.

 

Our state schools have been almost as bad and especially in the room and board department. It is a untenable situation and especially when state aid here is so poor, and the pool of money available for merit aid has shrunk.

[flyingiguana]

I don't think the state schools are really too expensive -- it's just that the state is no longer paying for most of it.  And the higher tuition at state schools has allowed private schools to raise tuition even more and still get a decent sized class of students.

 

Education isn't cheap.  The question is who should be paying the bill.  Sure, a lot of colleges do crazy things with money, and if I were in charge they'd have a much tighter budget, but the bottom line is that someone has to pay the professors and provide the facilities and those things aren't cheap.  You could only cut back so much.

 

So the real question is who should be paying for college.  Is it worth it to society to have this paid for by tax dollars?  This seemed to be the consensus for some time in the US.  State schools were more heavily funded by taxes and on top of that there were programs like the GI Bill.  We're not that far into the period when college education is mostly being funded by the students  -- or "the consumer" as many like to put it, but that's not strictly true.  Is the consumer really just the student?  Or does society as a whole have an interest in having a college educated population?

 

As we move further into the era of the student paying for the education, we're beginning to see that this may have profound implications for our economy as a whole.  Already, it's becoming more difficult for people paying off a student loan debt to buy a house.  What will the implications of that be even further down the road?  If the kids today can't buy a house (ever), their retirement is going to look different as well.  They won't have a rent free house to live in, or have built up equity in the house if they sell it.  Of course, there were always people who rented forever and didn't have that advantage, but now the percent of the population in this position will be much higher.

 

 

[flyingiguana]

This is another thing that's happening: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/13/minnesota-high-schoolers-could-lose-collegelevel-classes-

"High school students around Minnesota are at risk of losing access to college-level classes in their schools due to new requirements that teachers have a master's degree or at least graduate-level credits in those subjects.

The change could be a major blow to a growing number of students who rely on dual-credit classes to earn college credits to take a bite out of their future higher education costs.

Hundreds of high school educators in Minnesota could soon be barred from teaching the classes, forcing students to take courses at a local college or university or forgo them all together.

The problem arose because the Higher Learning Commission recently updated its standards for college instructors. The HLC accredits nearly 1,000 colleges and universities in 19 Midwestern states including 114 in Minnesota."

 

I can understand why they're doing this.  Some of the kids we see who have these credits really do NOT know the material, and it's an issue for them when they actually get to college.  Although, I don't know that requiring a masters degree from the teacher is really going to fix that problem.  However, I think it's interesting that it seems that doing college "on the cheap" this way isn't as effective as one might hope.

 

This has been an issue with AP credits as well -- students often just don't know the material.  This is somewhat masked by the fact that most kids who do AP (or have so far) tend to be the brighter kids who can make up deficiencies without anything more than a lot of hard work.  

[flyingiguana]

Community colleges really can be a great alternative.  They are cheaper (probably because they're funded better by states?) and they can give an education that is just as good as a 4 year college.  However, this only works if the state is putting resources into them, if they're in an area where they can hire (or attract) high quality professors, and if they have a good transfer program in place.  This does happen in many places, so I wouldn't rule them out unless you know for a fact that they're of low quality in your area.

 

The student body may be of lower academic "quality" on average, but my experience at community colleges is that there is often a group of students who have their act together.  They can drive the quality of the class and give a decent student someone to interact with.  There are also a number of students who didn't pull themselves together in high school but are now back in school and doing a good job with their second chance.  So while they may look like losers (based on past performance) they may not really be bringing down the academics.  (Some of them can be the best students)  And then there are those who treat cc the same way they did high school, but they tend to mostly skip class anyway.

[MarkT]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html?_r=1

 

(I honestly haven't finished reading the entire article.  I just started it, but don't have the time to finish it right now.  But, I thought I would link it for others to read.)

YES

without reading article I have read plenty already

 

mostly academics argue otherwise

[Teachin'Mine]

This is another thing that's happening: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/13/minnesota-high-schoolers-could-lose-collegelevel-classes-

"High school students around Minnesota are at risk of losing access to college-level classes in their schools due to new requirements that teachers have a master's degree or at least graduate-level credits in those subjects.

The change could be a major blow to a growing number of students who rely on dual-credit classes to earn college credits to take a bite out of their future higher education costs.

Hundreds of high school educators in Minnesota could soon be barred from teaching the classes, forcing students to take courses at a local college or university or forgo them all together.

The problem arose because the Higher Learning Commission recently updated its standards for college instructors. The HLC accredits nearly 1,000 colleges and universities in 19 Midwestern states including 114 in Minnesota."

 

I can understand why they're doing this.  Some of the kids we see who have these credits really do NOT know the material, and it's an issue for them when they actually get to college.  Although, I don't know that requiring a masters degree from the teacher is really going to fix that problem.  However, I think it's interesting that it seems that doing college "on the cheap" this way isn't as effective as one might hope.

 

This has been an issue with AP credits as well -- students often just don't know the material.  This is somewhat masked by the fact that most kids who do AP (or have so far) tend to be the brighter kids who can make up deficiencies without anything more than a lot of hard work.  

 

It sounds like they're referring to dual enrollment classes which are held in the high schools and taught by high school teachers.  I understand that this is a convenience for schools and students, but the lower level of instruction and rigour is one of the reasons why many colleges won't accept any dual enrollment credits Which are not taken on the college campus with regular college professors and college students.  To me the benefit of college classes is so much more than the actual course content and much is lost by trying to teach it in the usual high school setting with the same high school teachers and students. 

 

IMO a good solution to the problem in Minnesota is to provide transport for students to take classes at the community or state colleges.  Of course this involves more expense, but at the least they could offer them free tuition if they're able to arrange their own transport.  If they can't do either of those, perhaps the college professors could teach their classes at the high school and follow the same syllabus as is used on campus.

[Matryoshka]

As we move further into the era of the student paying for the education, we're beginning to see that this may have profound implications for our economy as a whole.  Already, it's becoming more difficult for people paying off a student loan debt to buy a house.  What will the implications of that be even further down the road?  If the kids today can't buy a house (ever), their retirement is going to look different as well.  They won't have a rent free house to live in, or have built up equity in the house if they sell it.  Of course, there were always people who rented forever and didn't have that advantage, but now the percent of the population in this position will be much higher.

 

And that's only the beginning of the ripple effect.  In the past, people who rented might still be able to save some of their salary, for their own kid's college, for retirement, or just for the rainy day fund, which is now paying down their own college debt.

 

They've gotten rid of defined-benefit pensions and says everyone's just supposed to save up for it themsevles, made college so stratospherically expensive people have to take on crushing debt to afford it - how is not stunningly obvious that this will crash and burn in just one generation?  How is the next generation supposed to save for their own retirement AND their kids' education, when they are going to be spending their whole working lives paying off their own college debt?  How will the next generation afford college?  What are we doing to do with all these destitute elderly people?   Whether or not people can afford to own vs. rent a house seems the smallest part of the problem...

 

[Matryoshka]

It sounds like they're referring to dual enrollment classes which are held in the high schools and taught by high school teachers.  I understand that this is a convenience for schools and students, but the lower level of instruction and rigour is one of the reasons why many colleges won't accept any dual enrollment credits Which are not taken on the college campus with regular college professors and college students.  To me the benefit of college classes is so much more than the actual course content and much is lost by trying to teach it in the usual high school setting with the same high school teachers and students. 

 

IMO a good solution to the problem in Minnesota is to provide transport for students to take classes at the community or state colleges.  Of course this involves more expense, but at the least they could offer them free tuition if they're able to arrange their own transport.  If they can't do either of those, perhaps the college professors could teach their classes at the high school and follow the same syllabus as is used on campus.

 

This whole concept of "dual-enrollment" / "college-level" classes taught right in the high school is completely foreign to me - I've only heard of it here - our state must not have this.  I can't see how this would be equivalent in most cases.  If you're going to teach "college-level" classes at a high school, I think AP is a better way, as there is a defined curriculum and a standardized test so that the level can be objectively measured.  Sounds like a lot of schools dumb-down the AP classes anyway, but then the test scores reflect that.  With these "dual-enrollment" at the high school type classes, there's no such check to determine if they're really worth a college credit.

 

Our local ps has a bunch of dual-enrolled students, but the ps also has a rotating schedule which makes it impossible to schedule both at the ps and off-site classes.  So it's all-or-nothing.  If you're dual-enrolled in our town, you're pretty much full-time at the CC.  That's one way to handle it...  They also have a ton of AP classes if you just want to pick and choose...

 

[J-rap]

Yes, it is too high. 

 

The college I went to in the early 80's was about $6,000/year.  Now it is $52,000.  How is that even possible?

 

I recently sat next to a college dean on an airplane, who told me she feels the increase in expenses was mostly due to a huge increase in administrative staff.

 

Our flagship state school -- our big university, used to take pride in advertising that it was affordable for all students of our state.  At about $22,000/year now, that is far from true nowadays.

 

It drives me crazy how high school students are told they have to go to college, when a technical school might be perfectly adequate.  It also drives me crazy how companies will only hire a student with a college degree, when a non-degree applicant might be every bit as capable and smart and can learn on the job.

 

I have too much to say about this.  For one semester last year, four of our children were in college at the same time.

 

Something needs to change, and I think it will.

 

 

[elegantlion]

My school is affordable and non-competitive. Tuition is about $3300 for 15 semester hours. Room and board is $4k-$5k/ semester - more than tuition. 

 

I haven't seen the numbers, but most of the students are from the region and we have a large percentage of commuters. 

 

One thing they noted this year is that the average ACT score for incoming freshman is higher than it has ever been. So even the more competitive students are looking closer at costs. 

 

By the time you factor in commuting to the nearest community college system, it can end up being cheaper in overall costs. 

 

It's not the right school for every major, but the majority of full-time faculty hold PhDs. They've also received some pretty large endowments in the last few years. My guess/assumption is that are other schools like this scattered around the country. They are capturing those students who want/feel the need for college yet are not super competitive or don't want a mountain of debt: Affordable, a quality education, opportunities for internships, and a decent regional reputation. 

[J-rap]

 

It's not the right school for every major, but the majority of full-time faculty hold PhDs. They've also received some pretty large endowments in the last few years. My guess/assumption is that are other schools like this scattered around the country. They are capturing those students who want/feel the need for college yet are not super competitive or don't want a mountain of debt: Affordable, a quality education, opportunities for internships, and a decent regional reputation. 

 

More and more I think this is perfectly adequate for many liberal arts degrees.  It's not until you really specialize and go on to graduate school that you need to be more picky.

 

[flyingiguana]

 

 

I recently sat next to a college dean on an airplane, who told me she feels the increase in expenses was mostly due to a huge increase in administrative staff.

 

 

 

This has contributed some to the overall cost increase, but at state schools, the huge increases have probably mostly been due to cost shifting away from government support.

 

I also seem some wacky spending both on the part of colleges AND students.  The feeling seems to be, well, it's all loan money anyway, so we can afford to spend a little more.  So I suspect that funding education through consumer loans not only saddles ex-students with a lot of debt, it is also allowing spending to increase.

 

But the bottom line is still that education is a very expensive endeavor.  If you extend the opportunity to most of the population it can get really pricey. 

[flyingiguana]

My school is affordable and non-competitive. Tuition is about $3300 for 15 semester hours. Room and board is $4k-$5k/ semester - more than tuition. 

 

....

 

It's not the right school for every major, but the majority of full-time faculty hold PhDs. They've also received some pretty large endowments in the last few years. My guess/assumption is that are other schools like this scattered around the country. They are capturing those students who want/feel the need for college yet are not super competitive or don't want a mountain of debt: Affordable, a quality education, opportunities for internships, and a decent regional reputation. 

 

Some schools use their considerable endowments to lower tuition.  Some use them to lower tuition for select students (ie -- lowering the sticker price).  Some just hang on to the money and don't do anything with it but watch it grow.

 

And there are a number of private schools out there who don't have much in the way of endowment who are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.  

[flyingiguana]

It sounds like they're referring to dual enrollment classes which are held in the high schools and taught by high school teachers.  I understand that this is a convenience for schools and students, but the lower level of instruction and rigour is one of the reasons why many colleges won't accept any dual enrollment credits Which are not taken on the college campus with regular college professors and college students.  To me the benefit of college classes is so much more than the actual course content and much is lost by trying to teach it in the usual high school setting with the same high school teachers and students. 

 

 

My impression was that the original intent was to have college professors come into the high schools to teach these classes.  The schools near us were somewhat successful at picking up adjuncts who wanted more jobs, but I don't know that there were ever any "regular" professors doing this.

 

But then they couldn't even find PhD's willing to take the job on as an adjunct position.  Too much travel time for the professor?  Not enough pay?  Not enough prestige to put on a CV if one ever wanted to go after a "real" job?  Too much school admin to deal with?  Teachers in the schools wanted the jobs themselves?  I don't really know what the story was.  It's not like were hurting for PhDs in the area who would have been qualified to teach these classes.

 

What I've heard from kids in the high schools near us is that the college in the schools program was a complete joke.  They were as bad as the high school classes (which already seem really dumbed down to me compared to what we had when I was in school).  Some of these kids went and retook the same classes DE in a regular college and found huge differences in the amount of material covered.  I don't know if that's been the fault of the teachers or if trying to teach college to a class that is made up entirely of high school age kids just won't work in most schools.  Too many of the students perhaps still think it's just high school so why bother?  This can be a problem in DE at a college as well, if the class has too many high school students in it.  There've been complaints from the actual college students that it can really bring down the level of a class if over 50% of the students are high school DE students.  (Just because some kids have the maturity at that age doesn't mean they all will)

 

At work, we're also finding the kids coming in with these college in the schools classes are pretty much unprepared for anything following in the sequence.  The kids who took AP are somewhat better.  As mentioned, there's at least some accountability in the test. But it still seems that AP isn't as good for the students as an actual class with a decent college professor.  (I say this both as someone who works at a college AND as a parent who's had kids go both routes.  It's not all about professors wanting to be paid.  They usually get enough students as it is.)

[MBM]

I think the issue is low wages in non governmental jobs. We just had years where our friends in govt were getting cola to 4.5% annual salary raises, while private industry was stagnant for salary, and lowered health care benefits while charging more , or there were layoffs. Add the tax burden, and its very difficult for non govt. middle class.

 

We had friends in that category that assumed the CC and transfer route was the cost savings. Unfortunately CC here is only slightly less costly than public 4 yr...no major savings, and gas eats up quite a bit of what would have been spent on housing at a 4 yr. Our boys ended up at same 4 year...they were surprised to find out that our total costs are the same (students similar academically) due to more availability of merit aid for freshman than transfers. So, son lost out on undergrad research opportunities, mentoring, depth of coursework, and ecs related to his major due to the assumption. His internship was low quality, as compared to what he was able to get after junior year.

They had a difficult time transferring, as most Us werent interested in their 4.0 at the CC son, and the CC had no partnership with any 4 yr school in his major. They did get 2 very quality offers, both with no merit, but this path wasnt easy street. They would have been better off financially and academically to go to the 4 year state U nearby (same commute distance), then transfer, as the CC has no merit money, while the 4 yr does plus the course quality is more appropriate. Or to have gone to a 4 year, and taken advantage of the co-op opportunities.

 

Not all government workers have been getting 4.5% annual salary raises. Some have been frozen for years.

 

As someone who is married to a government worker who is very intelligent and well-educated, hard-working, puts-his-hiney-on-the-line-for-the-vulnerable-and-ignorant, I am sure not advising my kids to do the same. My husband has an utterly thankless job.

[Dmmetler]

On the " why don't college professors teach these classes"-a big answer can be work conditions. Teaching a high school class is far more paperwork and other duties than assigned than a college class (I have never been told I had to do cafeteria duty or chaperone a dance at a college). A single class typically blocks up your schedule for a full year, which can make it hard to take adjunct positions (and adjunct professors who actually need to make a living here often teach at more than one school), and it can also work against you on getting a tenure track position, because often it requires getting your name on publications to do so, and if you are stuck at the high school, you're not in a good place to do your own research and publication (when I've adjuncted at the State U, I can often set office hours in, say, the music library and work on my own literature searches in between helping freshman music appreciation or junior music education majors. I can't do that if I'm teaching Music Appreciation or AP Music Theory at the local high school. They don't have the journal search capabilities or the library I need).

 

I do try to divide my time between teaching in K12 and at the college because most of the classes I teach are education and having that boots on the ground experience makes me better at teaching prospective teachers, but honestly, if I had a choice between teaching three hours/day of elementary music and one hour a day of high school DE for the same salary, I'd take the elementary kids, despite more prep and effort being required. And I'd rather teach 1000 level music appreciation to a bunch of kids who only know top 40 and were told they had to take this class by their football coach, with an entire alumni association pressuring me to give them passing grades than to teach AP music theory to the 6 kids who actually want the subject at the local high school-because the administrative set up is so miserable at the high school.

[Mom22ns]

I really think it depends on the college. I think all the state U's in my state are less than $10,000/year for tuition and fees. Our local CC is about $100/credit hour. The college I attended 25 years ago has roughly doubled their tuition & fees from $3,500 to just over $7,000 for in state students and it is consistently ranked in the top 10 in US News rankings for midwest regional schools. I think a solid education can be found for a reasonable price.

 

CLEP and online options are another way to get an affordable college education, although I don't think the quality of that education typically meets that of a B&M University at this time.

 

There are many, many schools that are out of reach for most students or produce s student debt load that we would never consider allowing our kids to take on. I think students have to be smart consumers. Find a college that will do a good job for the type of degree they are interested in obtaining at a cost that fits their family budget. For some that is an Ivy league education. For some it is a State U. Colleges are not one size fits all and I don't think they should be.

[Teachin'Mine]

My impression was that the original intent was to have college professors come into the high schools to teach these classes.  The schools near us were somewhat successful at picking up adjuncts who wanted more jobs, but I don't know that there were ever any "regular" professors doing this.

 

But then they couldn't even find PhD's willing to take the job on as an adjunct position.  Too much travel time for the professor?  Not enough pay?  Not enough prestige to put on a CV if one ever wanted to go after a "real" job?  Too much school admin to deal with?  Teachers in the schools wanted the jobs themselves?  I don't really know what the story was.  It's not like were hurting for PhDs in the area who would have been qualified to teach these classes.

 

What I've heard from kids in the high schools near us is that the college in the schools program was a complete joke.  They were as bad as the high school classes (which already seem really dumbed down to me compared to what we had when I was in school).  Some of these kids went and retook the same classes DE in a regular college and found huge differences in the amount of material covered.  I don't know if that's been the fault of the teachers or if trying to teach college to a class that is made up entirely of high school age kids just won't work in most schools.  Too many of the students perhaps still think it's just high school so why bother?  This can be a problem in DE at a college as well, if the class has too many high school students in it.  There've been complaints from the actual college students that it can really bring down the level of a class if over 50% of the students are high school DE students.  (Just because some kids have the maturity at that age doesn't mean they all will)

 

At work, we're also finding the kids coming in with these college in the schools classes are pretty much unprepared for anything following in the sequence.  The kids who took AP are somewhat better.  As mentioned, there's at least some accountability in the test. But it still seems that AP isn't as good for the students as an actual class with a decent college professor.  (I say this both as someone who works at a college AND as a parent who's had kids go both routes.  It's not all about professors wanting to be paid.  They usually get enough students as it is.)

 

Yes I think it would be very hard to replicate the true college class experience in a high school classroom with just high school students no matter who's teaching the course.  Dd's DE college had a limit on the number of DE students allowed in a class.  It only became a concern in one introductory class as most others were not typically taken by DE students.

 

 

[Mom22ns]

Our local high school does DE classes in the high school. They are taught by high school teachers, but nearly all teachers here have a masters degree. A 3 credit hour class meets every day for a year. They may cover the amount of information covered in a college class, but it is certainly not the same learning experience. I have talked to more than one kid that went to college with 30 hours of college credit earned DE and found out they were completely unprepared for the pace and instructional style of college. DE lands them in higher level classes that are intolerant of their inexperience with fast paced, independent learning.

[Teachin'Mine]

It's the pacing and instructional style which sets apart on campus courses from DE in the classroom and even the AP classes, many of which also allocate a full year for a typical semester course.  And part of the college experience is having students with a variety of life experiences contributing to discussions on a level rarely seen in high schools.

[MBM]

I didnt claim they did. I stated cola as my bottom, as no one around here was frozen. They saw it coming and had raises already written in to their contracts

 

At the height of the recession, in my state, even state govt admitted that a state job paid 9% on avg more than the equivalent nongovt job. Since then the gap has increased and those who are not getting raises or more hours are pinched greatly compared to those who werent affected by the recession. Its sad in our schools. Free lunch, business owner, and govt employee children have AP or DE, since they either have a fee waiver or pay out of pocket, while everyone else has study hall. Then you get to the college choices. Gifted nonURM are going military...they dont have the coursework available to be attractive for merit aid .Locally, prices are set for govt employee couples. The Superintendent of schools has responded to protests over the school tax by telling the speakers to move if they cant afford to pay. The towns have brought in consultants to figure out what businesses would work on boarded up main streets, who keep hearing the same words ....we would love to eat out more often, or shop locally, but we dont have the wages to go with your prices.

 

I think you are talking about government contractors? They are probably paid differently than others. My husband is not a contractor.

 

Many non-contracted federal employees have been dealing with pay freezes for a few years now. Their salaries are usually not commensurate with the private industries, either; they are often lower than what they could get in the private sector. Government jobs become desirable when the economy deals with downturns because they are more stable. My husband is looking for a statistician with a BA, btw, and having a difficult time finding someone -- anyone. It pays well but very few are applying.

 

ETA: I asked my husband about contract workers and he said they are part of the private sector.

 

The majority of federal employees received two 1% pay raises in the past five years.

 

“While any increase in pay is needed and welcomed, the federal workforce deserves a higher raise,†he said. “Federal salaries have increased by just 2 percent in the last five years, which includes the three-year freeze. In that time, private-sector wages rose 8.3 percent, according to the Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index.â€

 

“In the past five years, federal employees have endured a three-year pay freeze, two years of limited raises, reduced pay due to increased retirement contributions (without any added benefit), furloughs due to sequestration and a government shutdown that caused grave uncertainty. They have sacrificed enough."

 

The quotes are from this article:

 

http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/management/2015/08/31/white-house-proposes-13-percent-pay-raise-feds-2016/71471246/

 

 

[JanetC]

 I guess I dont like the pay to play I am seeing at the high school level,

 

Hear hear!

[MarkT]

salient quotes from text and comments:

 

Because a majority of selective schools have adopted these sophisticated tools for shaping enrollment, there is more competition to attract the students who are most...
Typically, fierce market competition leads to lower prices, but among elite schools, the opposite occurs, paradoxically. They often find that raising prices enables them to offer greater benefits to the most coveted potential students. (It also allows them to take part in the amenities race: nicer dorms, better food, a climbing wall: things that are regarded as essential to attracting those coveted students.)
========================================

The midtier public schools face a different set of challenges. Their tuition increases are being driven largely by state governments’ unwillingness or inability to raise per-student financing. Sandy Baum, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, says that in the 2001-2002 school year, public schools received from 44 percent to 62 percent of their funding from state governments. Only a decade later, those levels had decreased to 27 percent to 51 percent. On average, states have lowered their per-student funding by 25 percent over the last 15 years. Some — Louisiana, Wisconsin, Kansas and Arizona — have cut their support sharply in the past few years. The money allocated for public education is a tempting target for governors facing shortfalls. Education is one of the largest items in a state budget, and educators don’t have the same lobbying power as more concentrated business groups. Republican governors with national political aspirations have found that ‘‘taking on’’ public education can enhance their popularity among primary voters.

========================================

One cause for the cost explosion is that the universities examine each other's pricing and conclude, if our peers charge more, we shall also be able to charge more.

Two years ago, the University of Virginia commissioned an assessment from an outside consultancy for roughly half a million dollars to help with the development of its new strategic plan.

One conclusion was that there was still 'depth' in the market, allowing the university to raise tuition, which they promptly did. The other astounding conclusion was that the university had lost the race for federal government research dollars against its peers and might forego investment on this avenue.
The labs are emptying

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/university-of-virginia-assessment-report/302/

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I am the CC adjunct who opts to teach in the high schools each fall.  There is a vast difference between my DC and on campus courses.  My DC courses are more emotionally taxing and I have to put three to four times the effort into those classes.  Lots of hand holding and sharing of basic study skills.  I have been asked to slow down, change my vocabulary, grade on a curve, and cut out some of the work.  After all, these are high schoolers.  I refuse to make it easier and, as a result, have ruined many GPAs, class ranks, and bright futures.  The students who stick with it earn their grades.  Some thank me.  Some curse me.

 

This is my last semester and I will truly miss teaching.  (I have requested leave for my AT thru-hike and lost my place on the roster for future courses as a result. Such is the life of an adjunct.  I am easily replaced.)

[MBM]

From the NYT article:

 

Workers with more education are more productive, which makes companies more profitable and the overall economy grow faster. There are also significant noneconomic benefits. Educated populations tend to be healthier, more stable and more engaged in their civic institutions and democratic debate.

 

Education alone does not lead to more productivity, better health and more stability; good self control -- cognitive control -- is just as and possibly more important and it can and should be developed. People with poor self control won't do well in many areas of their lives if they can't control their actions. Nobel Laureate James Heckman's work has shown this (link to an article here). The Dunedin (New Zealand) Study has shown similar results as well. Dan Goleman discusses this more thoroughly in his book Focus. A snippet from his book:

 

…statistical analysis found that a child's level of self-control is every bit as powerful a predictor of her adult financial success and health (and criminal record, for that matter) as are social class, wealth of family of origin, or IQ.

 

As for the article stating that worker productivity makes companies more profitable and leads to a faster growing economy, what does that matter if companies are grossly overpaying a few upper level management with the profits (even if those individuals run the company into the ground)? That's another issue that affects middle class salaries. Here's an article about that:

 

http://magazine.nd.edu/news/59027/

[JanetC]

 

Two years ago, the University of Virginia commissioned an assessment from an outside consultancy for roughly half a million dollars to help with the development of its new strategic plan.

One conclusion was that there was still 'depth' in the market, allowing the university to raise tuition, which they promptly did.

 

This. Colleges bring in consultants with MBAs, and the only goal is to bring in as much tuition revenue as possible. So, seats at the schools are priced like airline tickets, only worse. The airlines don't get your CSS/PROFILE and FAFSA before they decide what price to offer you!