College costs

Research actually pays fornitself. Grants are huge windfall and they fund a lot if things that would otherwise fall onto student. We have a lot of grants with corrections, DHS etc. We take overhead cost. No grant can be implemented unless it also pays for cost of administration to run it. Bt in reality, after we cover cost of running the grant, grant allow us also to cover other costs which would otherwise fall onto student.
Just so we are clear, only 8% of University of Colorado budget are state funds. Everything else university has to make it. People truly believe that state universities are just flooded with state money. Grants for research cover a lot of those costs.
If R1 or R2 university had % of budget like community colleges, there wouldn’t be a pressure to go for grants.
Education is common good. How much we fund it tells a lot about us.
I believe you, I was in a research program once back then.

What I am trying to say is, there is a scale difference and cost structural difference between community college and 4 year university that makes them a lot cheaper to run.
 
I believe you, I was in a research program once back then.

What I am trying to say is, there is a scale difference and cost structural difference between community college and 4 year university that makes them a lot cheaper to run.
No, I agree with that. My point is that university budgets are more complex, but also not washed in taxpayer money as many think.
 
Yea I remember being told constantly by teachers, counselors, etc on this how much a person with no degree makes, this is how much one with an associates makes...etc etc. Never once do I remember them talking about how much it was. They also did not teach personal finance in my HS. Some middle schools like mine did but that doesn't help when the other 6 surrounding middle schools may not have it

Like you said, we're expecting 16-18 year olds to make one of the most expensive and life changing events they'll ever have. They have no clue what to do, they look to the adults in their life in hopes they'll give good guidance.

I do want to ask our post cv19 college grad hires what they think of growing up watching their country at war for their entire life, economy, job market, and how they see their place in it. I expect my eye to be opened up in their experiences, particularly growing up during war.
It is not easy. Most adults are not financially educated.

What I also see is that even internationally when people are financially educated (forced to due to poverty), the result of a degree is not guaranteed in job market in the long run. You can do all you can to reduce the odd of wasting your money and not making the return, but it is never a guarantee these days.

In other nations they just reduce the grants for future students so they don't go to college, but here we let them borrow and then they owe it till they die or they pay it off eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
No, I agree with that. My point is that university budgets are more complex, but also not washed in taxpayer money as many think.
University budgets are awash in taxpayer money, but it's indirect via Federal student loans and subsidy. University spending in the United States has risen around 7% a year in recent decades, about double the rate of inflation. The easy money spigot is the primary spending driver and Federal policy has been a primary impetuous.

I won't argue the value of true scientific research performed at the University level, but there is so much money wasted on pseudo-scientific nonsense that it isn't at all funny.
 
University budgets are awash in taxpayer money, but it's indirect via Federal student loans and subsidy. University spending in the United States has risen around 7% a year in recent decades, about double the rate of inflation. The easy money spigot is the primary spending driver and Federal policy has been a primary impetuous.

I won't argue the value of true scientific research performed at the University level, but there is so much money wasted on pseudo-scientific nonsense that it isn't at all funny.
Ah, so you are saying taxpayers are making money off of students?
 
Ah, so you are saying taxpayers are making money off of students?
Not at all. Those loans are a net cost to the government and to the economy in a large percentage of cases. A huge number of students cannot pay off the loans they take to pay exorbitant tuitions. When they default, the government is on the hook for most of it. The ones who eventually do pay off their loans often must delay starting businesses, buying homes, and various other activities that drive the economy because they are saddled with burdensome debts. Especially the ones who were swindled into studying non-remunerative subjects. The total amount of student debt owed by Americans is something in the order of 1.8 trillion dollars, last I saw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTK
Do you actually know how much administrators earn? I have opening for Graduate Retention Specialist. You can apply and become rich. $44,000 a year.
$44k a year for a low stress/ responsibility job requiring no disciplined skill is quite the bargain for some. I recall in the movie Ghost Busters where Dan Aykroyd’s character said something to the tune of having to work for the private sector where they actually expect results. I realize that was “science” and lab testing but you get the idea.

I genuinely think universities sit on piles of cash. They always have money for new construction/ remodels, programs, fluff positions etc. Not saying that’s a bad thing, but a university faculty’s salary is not directly proportional to a university’s net worth.
 
Last edited:
I think that statement has a bit of truth in small scale and a bit of survivor bias in the large scale. I can see people argue all day and not come to a conclusion. I have seen people do poorly online doing well in person both at work and in school. What I can see is that living at home save money and doing online courses cut down on commute hours.

Saying online learning is just as good is like saying San Jose State is just as good as UCLA or UCB. You can believe it if you want to, but you can't prevent people from not buying it.
Opposite and you laid it out for me. Would you rather take a course at San Jose State from a professor that doesn't even know the course material and doesn't want to be there, or the same topic, designed from the ground up to be online, from the top professor at UCLA? Because thats the option were talking about.

Don't confuse the slop these places put out in 2020 as an excuse to sequester there students in the dorm and have some prof last minute project his face on zoom so they could charge full boat and call it "online learning". Online courses are a completely different animal and have to be designed as such. Most professors aren't teachers.

So its going to be the same thing - as light assembly workers thought 30 years ago their jobs couldn't be replaced by robots, or book keepers who thought computers couldn't replace them. Its coming because the smartest people in those fields are working on it. Tech always wins in the end.
 
Ah, so you are saying taxpayers are making money off of students?
They are complex, but they get a lot. All the federally funded pell grants, all the federally guaranteed student loans. In South Carolina pretty much 100% of lottery money goes to the colleges in the form of scholarships - my kids were beneficiaries. That is all taxpayer money that is laundered through the students also.

Much of the research funding comes from the government - places like DARPA.

It would be interesting to figure out a national breakdown of how much is paid for by government vs Students, parents and private donations / research.

Having said that I would be fine with a meritocracy based system that provides undergrad degrees at no cost.
 
UNC announced a tuition increase. And Bill Bilichick Magnet has a 50 million contract. Not to mention his sons there also. All that for a losing team and all college players are now paid athletes. College sports is ruined. I’m so thankful my two children graduated college 15 and 18 years ago. (UNC and ECU)
 
When you account for the mandatory athletic-department fees every student has to pay, every sports program at every uni is in the red without those. The money raised by the sports programs stays within the athletic department and does not benefit the uni as a whole. Some unis have gotten slick and now don't break out these fees.

To make matters worse, many alumni and donors earmark their contributions strictly to a uni's athletic department. T. Boone Pickens was a prime example. He paid big for Oklahoma State's football stadium, which is named for him. He didn't contribute to setting up STEM scholarships for future employees to keep his oil business going. Isn't that odd!

To give an idea of misplaced priorities, when I was taking engineering at Virginia Tech, the state's best engineering school, the engineering accreditation was supposedly endangered at the time due to a lack of class space, which was not being addressed. Yet at the time VT had plenty of money to improve the athletic stadium, expand a major athletic building, and start building a new athletic dorm. Go figure.

About Phoenix University and similar schools, the word is that at a lot of large employers the HR departments routinely throw away or delete job applications and resumes from those who list a for-profit college as the source of their degree. Today's students don't know about this because no one is explaining this and the problem of unaccredited schools to them. Phoenix is accredited, but some others are not, so credits won't transfer to other institutions and nobody in the real world takes the costly degree seriously.

This gets into a pet peeve, which is that we're expecting 17–year-olds to make major life-changing decisions about uni, majors, and debt without adequate guidance. This is how you end up with people going $250,000 in debt getting a degree in philosophy or French literature. High-school guidance counselors are clueless. They tell students such nonsense as, "Get the most expensive education you can, as it will pay for itself," and "It's not what major you take, but what you do with the degree." The counselors aren't discussing useless majors or the inability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy. The kids planning to go to uni have no clue about this stuff, as I've confirmed myself in talking to some people in their 20s.

To go with that, I've seen too many stories online from parents whose kids—often a daughter, but sons do this too—received full scholarships from a state school that would have left them with little or no debt for a sensible degree, but she chose an expensive out-of-state liberal-arts college because she "fell in love with the campus" and "felt right at home there".

So there are some of the answers no one really wants to face about uni costs. Flame away. :LOL:
CU Boulder is like this. They hired some ex football bozo to run their football team and turn it around. I keep hearing that you need football "It brings in way more money than it costs" but I don't think it ever has.
 
CU Boulder is like this. They hired some ex football bozo to run their football team and turn it around. I keep hearing that you need football "It brings in way more money than it costs" but I don't think it ever has.
A study was done on Alabama and the Saban effect. A successful program does drive admissions, especially from out of state students who pay more. However, not all schools will experience the same increase as Alabama. It's silly I know but it's advertising.
 
A study was done on Alabama and the Saban effect. A successful program does drive admissions, especially from out of state students who pay more. However, not all schools will experience the same increase as Alabama. It's silly I know but it's advertising.
Most SEC schools - including South Carolina where my kids went, pay no athletic fee and had access to world class athletic facilities, free sporting events, etc.

As you mention, the enrollment for both South Carolina and Clemson is now over half out of state, who pay double or more. So that helps fund things as well. While other schools struggle with admission, SEC schools have never been more full. I am sure the other big name sports schools in other divisions are the same.

Problem is other schools want to be like the SEC - but they don't have the TV add and ticket revenue to back it up.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 
Real data in New England not sticker price:

Daughter goes to $75k/year sticker school all in and with adjustments we pay $35k. It rose $3k since last year however increase is on $75k not what you pay.

Younger daughter accepted at state and private schools. Low of state schools is $22k all in , state university and neighbor state trying to poach kids is about $30k/year. Private is maybe $5k more despite the $70k+ sticker price.
 
Most SEC schools - including South Carolina where my kids went, pay no athletic fee and had access to world class athletic facilities, free sporting events, etc.

As you mention, the enrollment for both South Carolina and Clemson is now over half out of state, who pay double or more. So that helps fund things as well. While other schools struggle with admission, SEC schools have never been more full. I am sure the other big name sports schools in other divisions are the same.

Problem is other schools want to be like the SEC - but they don't have the TV add and ticket revenue to back it up.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Yes. SEC is in the league of its own. Football is huge return on the investment. Problem are schools who want to be Alabama, but they will never be.
 
My son graduated in 2021 from a University of California (UC) system school. He considered more expensive schools, but I told him any cost above that of a state school is on him. I wrote him a $20k check at the beginning of each year, and he was responsible for the rest. Between that, working summers, and loans, he graduated on time, with $20k in debt. Not bad. He recently received a promotion at work, and makes more than $100k/year, so the investment is paying off.

The company I recently retired from pays production workers $18-$25 per hour. We have people with 30+ years experience. A few of the younger people, the good ones, I encourage to go back to school. One of my coworkers went to a Community College at night, and then transferred to a state university to finish. It took him a long time, but he did it. I can't imagine a career where you top out at $52k a year, living in California.
 
Last edited:
I graduated college in 2001 and I lived at home all four years and attended a SUNY school at $3500 per year. I paid my way delivering pizzas. Dental school was a bit more at $150k for all four years but really still chump change compared to my ROI.

My kids can all go to college with no debt coming out but I can appreciate they are very lucky to be in that position - yes, I'm paying. Community colleges in MA are now free, regardless of income level, and they have a program where if you get your associates at an MA community college, maintain a certain GPA, and get into one of the four year UMass state schools, you pay community college tuition rates for the last 2 years. I know a lot of kids going this route.

I have attended states school my entire educational career - SUNY, UConn, and now UMass Amherst and I'm grateful they exist. Without SUNY, I wouldn't have been able to go to college or dental school.
 
I think that statement has a bit of truth in small scale and a bit of survivor bias in the large scale. I can see people argue all day and not come to a conclusion. I have seen people do poorly online doing well in person both at work and in school. What I can see is that living at home save money and doing online courses cut down on commute hours.

Saying online learning is just as good is like saying San Jose State is just as good as UCLA or UCB. You can believe it if you want to, but you can't prevent people from not buying it.
I'm finishing my MBA online at UMass Amherst next semester. Having been a traditionally taught student for 11 years of higher education, I was skeptical going into it and I'm now a HUGE fan of it. It's the same professors, same material, and tests where mostly problem and essay based and not multiple guess. You have the flexibility of you controlling your week and I averaged 8-12 hours of actual work time per course in a given week. As a FT business owner, this was a significant commitment for me. They all have recorded lectures from the in-person classes, they use Canvas as an online portal with great organization and communication. Profs are available by email and Zoom. The assignments and tests are not something you can just google easily. Most of the class assignments use your current work situation as the core of the questions and ask you to apply the material to your unique situation. This makes it both more interesting and immediately actionable and again not something you can easily google . It has been a great experience and I've learned a ton and it has changed the way I look at my business completely - truly a different person coming out than when I went in - that's what you want from the process and it delivered.


Addendum: It also cost me about $40K all-in. I'm not going to be recruited by a hedge fund like I'm graduating from Harvard Business school but this fit my needs perfectly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom