Blaming inflation for its largest tuition hike in a decade, Stanford tuition will be nearly $64,000, some 7 percent more than last year, the San Jose Mercury reported today.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/20/s...t-a-decade
I'm not aware if Rice has announced it's tuition for next year, but in the past two years, it has increased 3.5 percent (for 2021/22, to $52,070) and 3.9 percent (for 2022/23, to $54,100).
San Jose Mercury Wrote:Stanford’s increase this fall is twice the 3.5% rate of annual tuition hikes imposed from 2013 through 2018. Undergraduate tuition rose 4.25% and 4.9% over the next two years, there was no increase in 2021 but it rose 4% last fall.
By comparison, Santa Clara University did not raise tuition in 2020 and upped it by 4.2% in 2021 and 3% in 2022, the same rate as its increase this fall (i.e., up 3% to $58,586).
Yale University ... is raising rates by 3.9% ... — tuition will be $64,700. .... Brown University is raising tuition by 4.75% to $65,656. Harvard University raised tuition by 3% last year to $52,659; it’s not clear what’s in store this fall.
From the past 2 years looks like Rice announced tuition updates around the end of March.
Damn why go to college if that expensive. Just go their for graduate school.
Given that these schools also give financial aid to nearly anybody farther than a stone's throw from a trust fund, the accounting is all made up. They could say the tuition is $1,064,000 but everybody gets at least $1,000,000 in aid, and it would hardly be any more obscurely priced than it already is.
(02-20-2023 07:22 PM)franklyconfused Wrote: [ -> ]Given that these schools also give financial aid to nearly anybody farther than a stone's throw from a trust fund, the accounting is all made up. They could say the tuition is $1,064,000 but everybody gets at least $1,000,000 in aid, and it would hardly be any more obscurely priced than it already is.
This is incorrect. Many families, well removed from trust funds, cannot afford this. Remember the "tuition" is just a portion of the overall cost of attendance. This is part of the reason for soaring college loan debt. Look, private schools can charge whatever they want, it's the public school increases that continue to get my goat having college age kids. However, can anyone in the current middle class ever think that the current cost of Stanford, Rice etc. is worth the education they receive compared to other institutions? The schools tout their financial aid but it rarely, if ever, helps the middle class student. Rich could care less and the poor get the free ride. Middle foots the bill. How about we look at professor & administration salaries. Maybe some cost savings there. Also, how many buildings at Rice have a mortgage on them? I seriously do not know but I believe most were funded with donations. Endowment income, Rice Management income could be reallocated to keeping costs affordable to those that qualify for admittance. As the original charter allowed. Rice will tell you that they already subsidize the student cost but has anyone seen the numbers. It used to be the cost (reported) was about 85K/student per year but it was never stated if that was tuition only or COA. If that is the true cost then someone is making out like a bandit. Rant completed!!!
(02-21-2023 11:32 AM)Musicowl1965 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2023 07:22 PM)franklyconfused Wrote: [ -> ]Given that these schools also give financial aid to nearly anybody farther than a stone's throw from a trust fund, the accounting is all made up. They could say the tuition is $1,064,000 but everybody gets at least $1,000,000 in aid, and it would hardly be any more obscurely priced than it already is.
This is incorrect. Many families, well removed from trust funds, cannot afford this. Remember the "tuition" is just a portion of the overall cost of attendance. This is part of the reason for soaring college loan debt. Look, private schools can charge whatever they want, it's the public school increases that continue to get my goat having college age kids. However, can anyone in the current middle class ever think that the current cost of Stanford, Rice etc. is worth the education they receive compared to other institutions? The schools tout their financial aid but it rarely, if ever, helps the middle class student. Rich could care less and the poor get the free ride. Middle foots the bill. How about we look at professor & administration salaries. Maybe some cost savings there. Also, how many buildings at Rice have a mortgage on them? I seriously do not know but I believe most were funded with donations. Endowment income, Rice Management income could be reallocated to keeping costs affordable to those that qualify for admittance. As the original charter allowed. Rice will tell you that they already subsidize the student cost but has anyone seen the numbers. It used to be the cost (reported) was about 85K/student per year but it was never stated if that was tuition only or COA. If that is the true cost then someone is making out like a bandit. Rant completed!!!
Don't disagree with most of this.... but it doesn't really change what Frank said in terms of what is possible.
Rice used to charge nothing... then they went to charging something nominal... a fraction of the cost of the education with the endowment picking up the majority of the tab for everyone.
The only difference between a school charging 25k/yr to everyone and a school charging 100k/yr and then giving an average scholarship of 75k. The 'net' cost is exactly the same... the difference is 'who pays for it'.
I tend to agree with you that many of these policies (which are mostly dictated by what our peer groups are doing) tend to squeeze the middle to upper middle class, but the alternative to participating in this is to give the wealthy a break.
If Rice wants a bunch of wealthy people and no 'less wealthy' people to attend... we can go back to charging (using my example) everyone 25k. The not wealthy won't be able to afford it or will find better options elsewhere... and the wealthy will see Rice at 25k vs Stanford at 70 and many (not all) will seek the better investment. If instead Rice wants to help even more middle class and upper families, we could use Stanford's hike (and others I suspect) to also increase our top line tuition, and then increase our financial aid.... so while the wealthy will still pay more, we will be just as competitive as we were before... and the extra money they pay will allow us to fund more scholarships.
Lots of ways to play this game
(02-21-2023 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2023 11:32 AM)Musicowl1965 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-20-2023 07:22 PM)franklyconfused Wrote: [ -> ]Given that these schools also give financial aid to nearly anybody farther than a stone's throw from a trust fund, the accounting is all made up. They could say the tuition is $1,064,000 but everybody gets at least $1,000,000 in aid, and it would hardly be any more obscurely priced than it already is.
This is incorrect. Many families, well removed from trust funds, cannot afford this. Remember the "tuition" is just a portion of the overall cost of attendance. This is part of the reason for soaring college loan debt. Look, private schools can charge whatever they want, it's the public school increases that continue to get my goat having college age kids. However, can anyone in the current middle class ever think that the current cost of Stanford, Rice etc. is worth the education they receive compared to other institutions? The schools tout their financial aid but it rarely, if ever, helps the middle class student. Rich could care less and the poor get the free ride. Middle foots the bill. How about we look at professor & administration salaries. Maybe some cost savings there. Also, how many buildings at Rice have a mortgage on them? I seriously do not know but I believe most were funded with donations. Endowment income, Rice Management income could be reallocated to keeping costs affordable to those that qualify for admittance. As the original charter allowed. Rice will tell you that they already subsidize the student cost but has anyone seen the numbers. It used to be the cost (reported) was about 85K/student per year but it was never stated if that was tuition only or COA. If that is the true cost then someone is making out like a bandit. Rant completed!!!
Don't disagree with most of this.... but it doesn't really change what Frank said in terms of what is possible.
Rice used to charge nothing... then they went to charging something nominal... a fraction of the cost of the education with the endowment picking up the majority of the tab for everyone.
The only difference between a school charging 25k/yr to everyone and a school charging 100k/yr and then giving an average scholarship of 75k. The 'net' cost is exactly the same... the difference is 'who pays for it'.
I tend to agree with you that many of these policies (which are mostly dictated by what our peer groups are doing) tend to squeeze the middle to upper middle class, but the alternative to participating in this is to give the wealthy a break.
If Rice wants a bunch of wealthy people and no 'less wealthy' people to attend... we can go back to charging (using my example) everyone 25k. The not wealthy won't be able to afford it or will find better options elsewhere... and the wealthy will see Rice at 25k vs Stanford at 70 and many (not all) will seek the better investment. If instead Rice wants to help even more middle class and upper families, we could use Stanford's hike (and others I suspect) to also increase our top line tuition, and then increase our financial aid.... so while the wealthy will still pay more, we will be just as competitive as we were before... and the extra money they pay will allow us to fund more scholarships.
Lots of ways to play this game
Really good points here. However, the way Rice chose to "play this game" is not working IMO. The Rice Investment was a great idea but if you keep raising the cost (to keep up with the Joneses, i.e. peer group) then the "student/family portion continues to increase as well (at least for the 50% qualifiers). Agree with many ways to do better I just wish Rice would DO BETTER!
I guess I don't find Rice (after accounting for TRI) particularly expensive. Obviously it's expensive compared to my tenure there (2002-06), but I actually looked at this recently as my kids are starting to get in the ballpark where I'm thinking about college expenses. For reference, I suppose we'd fall in that "upper middle class" bucket where we'd be getting half tuition off through TRI.
Cost of attendance for Rice is $74k. After half off tuition, cost to me before other aid would be $47k.
Cost of attendance for my local big-state school: $32k
Cost of attendance to go to Texas A&M (to pick my wife's alma mater) as an out-of-state student: $59k
Is Rice more expensive than in-state public school? Yes. But I guess I don't find it anymore expensive than what I would expect.
I would also agree that the whole process and cost is about as transparent as medical billing.
(02-21-2023 04:26 PM)picrig Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I don't find Rice (after accounting for TRI) particularly expensive. Obviously it's expensive compared to my tenure there (2002-06), but I actually looked at this recently as my kids are starting to get in the ballpark where I'm thinking about college expenses. For reference, I suppose we'd fall in that "upper middle class" bucket where we'd be getting half tuition off through TRI.
Cost of attendance for Rice is $74k. After half off tuition, cost to me before other aid would be $47k.
Cost of attendance for my local big-state school: $32k
Cost of attendance to go to Texas A&M (to pick my wife's alma mater) as an out-of-state student: $59k
Is Rice more expensive than in-state public school? Yes. But I guess I don't find it anymore expensive than what I would expect.
I would also agree that the whole process and cost is about as transparent as medical billing.
the real problem, just as in the fed income tax, is for the upper middle class.
Families in the 200k-400k are looking at high federal taxes, and then 74K AFTER taxes to send a kid to Rice. If they are in the low 200k income, ~ half of post-tax income goes to Rice ( or whomever)
(02-21-2023 06:33 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-21-2023 04:26 PM)picrig Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I don't find Rice (after accounting for TRI) particularly expensive. Obviously it's expensive compared to my tenure there (2002-06), but I actually looked at this recently as my kids are starting to get in the ballpark where I'm thinking about college expenses. For reference, I suppose we'd fall in that "upper middle class" bucket where we'd be getting half tuition off through TRI.
Cost of attendance for Rice is $74k. After half off tuition, cost to me before other aid would be $47k.
Cost of attendance for my local big-state school: $32k
Cost of attendance to go to Texas A&M (to pick my wife's alma mater) as an out-of-state student: $59k
Is Rice more expensive than in-state public school? Yes. But I guess I don't find it anymore expensive than what I would expect.
I would also agree that the whole process and cost is about as transparent as medical billing.
the real problem, just as in the fed income tax, is for the upper middle class.
Families in the 200k-400k are looking at high federal taxes, and then 74K AFTER taxes to send a kid to Rice. If they are in the low 200k income, ~ half of post-tax income goes to Rice ( or whomever)
I agree with you. Much better to make 190k than 230k, especially if you have several kids to put through.