Hacker News Reader

Comment by readthenotes1 | Hacker News Reader

"State funding for higher education has declined by roughly a quarter, to $7,152 per student enrolled in a public two- or four-year school in 2015, down from $9,489 per student in 1987."

The article is not in disagreement with the thought that Free Federal Money displaces other sources.

Also, the article does not show why tuition has risen 1200% instead of 30%.

View on HN

Tuition in the University of California system increased by an infinite percent from 1960 to 1980. It used to be tuition free. Had it remained tuition free it would have been cheaper and better overall for society.

I think many people are for tuition free for a certain amount of people based on merit. However it shouldn't be just a 5th-8th year of high school...like it seems to be becoming. When an admissions rate of a large public university can reach 95%+...we are no longer selecting the best students that will actually gain anything from going to college.

Too many people are going to college but now that colleges are run like a business this isn’t going to change. With declining state support we need more clients and the tuition money they bring.

The UC schools have always tied enrollment to the top 9% of California High School seniors. As High School graduation rates increased, the UC system increased its enrollment (most recently by building a new campus).

Enrollment at UC wouldn't change if it were free -- it will always be ~9% of graduating seniors.

That's great, but certainly not what most people are thinking when they are pushing for "free college".

Sorry, I must be misinterpreting, because I’m he way I read this now, you can’t get into the school system without having gone to HS in California?

The UC system accepts out of state admits but they have always paid full tuition. In state residents get a discount (which used to be 100%).

But they also guarantee that they will admit 9% of state grads.

The 9% merit bar is increasingly being circumvented by students electing to take one or two semesters of community college and take advantage of the 30% transfer rate into the UC system enjoyed by full-time students of those schools.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. If you can get good enough grades at JC to prove you should have been admitted in the first place, then good on you, eh?

The free federal money existed even before the law being suggested.

It’s not clear why a minor change in mechanics would lead to such a significant change in incentives.

The linked article doesn't say it's constant dollars, that's probably a far bigger change than it looks like.

Also, note that the relationship is non-linear: Suppose it really is constant dollars and constant costs and it really costs $10k/quarter/student and look at the numbers: $511/quarter in 1987, $2,848 in 2015--a 30% drop in funding leads to a 557% increase in tuition.

The CPI tuition number is also quite complicated to calculate:

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/college-tuition.htm

I can't fully tell here how much of this is the non-linear relationship you identified vs BLS not compensating for all financial aid and other reductions to create an actual net student cost.

The highest paid educator at the private R1 research university I work for makes about $200k, the average director or higher level administrator makes about $350k, while the LOWEST paid athletic coach makes $500k.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com