The best colleges are also the most affordable.

[Elegiac]

But unemployment is NOT a thing

I wasn't aware there were people legitimately this ignorant, but hey.

[Deleted]

I wasn't aware there were people legitimately this ignorant, but hey.

Why have you decided to be ignorant to reality? For you, I will requote my post:

But unemployment is NOT a thing - welcome to reality.
Everyone who wants a job has a job.

I watched a video recently, by SuccessFactors (a SAP company) - they prove that there is a shortage of skillled labour.

[Elegiac]

Why have you decided to be ignorant to reality?

Because your 'reality' is a crock of shit, to be frank.

[Kaleredar]

Maybe “cheaper” is the wrong word. I did use the word “affordable” in the title. I could care less about the actual cost of the education itself. When I went to U.C. Berkeley, my tuition was $2,400 for the entire year and I knew I was getting a great bargain. Somebody else was paying the balance to maintain the campus, build new facilities, pay for professor’s salary, etc. It is still the same case now. The actual raw cost does not really matter. The important part is that the students get the quality education that they deserved, and they don’t end up with a mortgage size debt when they graduate.

Berkley only ran you 2,400 dollars a year? Don't know when you went there, but Cal States cost more than that now. And that's ignoring housing and other costs; the cost to go to class at a UC now runs you about 10 times what you paid, and that's if you're a California Resident. (meaning, heyo, you get a slight discount for having paid taxes!) A nonresident can pay up to 52,000 dollars a year (for somewhere like UCLA,) and that's living with relatives where your housing is presumably free. How many people are in that situation? Probably not the majority.

Now, somewhere like Harvard? That'll run you roughly 60,000 dollars. Just for tuition. If you live on-campus? You're looking at another 22,000 dollars on top of that.

And I found all of that out by looking at the tuition information readily presented by the schools themselves.

The conclusions drawn from the source are invalid. Equating "affordable" with "lack of debt upon graduation" is a terrible parallel to make. Many students that go to exceptionally expensive schools LIKE Harvard and the other Ivy leagues have the substantial means (like wealthy parents) to pay exclusively for their schooling, meaning they never have to take out loans.

No one is doubting that Harvard and Yale and UCLA and such are good schools. But "the most affordable?" That's just fucking laughable.

[Rasulis]

Berkley only ran you 2,400 dollars a year? Don't know when you went there, but Cal States cost more than that now. And that's ignoring housing and other costs; the cost to go to class at a UC now runs you about 10 times what you paid, and that's if you're a California Resident. (meaning, heyo, you get a slight discount for having paid taxes!) A nonresident can pay up to 52,000 dollars a year (for somewhere like UCLA,) and that's living with relatives where your housing is presumably free. How many people are in that situation? Probably not the majority.

Now, somewhere like Harvard? That'll run you roughly 60,000 dollars. Just for tuition. If you live on-campus? You're looking at another 22,000 dollars on top of that.

And I found all of that out by looking at the tuition information readily presented by the schools themselves.

The conclusions drawn from the source are invalid. Equating "affordable" with "lack of debt upon graduation" is a terrible parallel to make. Many students that go to exceptionally expensive schools LIKE Harvard and the other Ivy leagues have the substantial means (like wealthy parents) to pay exclusively for their schooling, meaning they never have to take out loans.

No one is doubting that Harvard and Yale and UCLA and such are good schools. But "the most affordable?" That's just fucking laughable.

I was there 1981 - 1987. Right now U.C. Berkeley tuition is 12k per year. Although, if your family makes less than 75k, you get to go for free. You just have to get in. Between 75k and 150k, you pay sliding scale, before financial aid. Even if your family makes more than 100k, you can still get up to 5k from FAFSA. So in reality, the only people paying full tuition are the ones whose family make more than 150k. Although, non-income based grants and scholarships are available out there. So unless you are really lazy, nobody should be remotely paying full tuition.

Cost of living is a big problem. Back then three of us were able to rent a 3-bedroom apartment for $800. Right now, a one bedroom is probably at least $2,000. No good solution there. Student loan will probably be required to cover the cost of living expenses.

Actually, assuming the data on Harvard’s website is correct, 20% of the students go to school tuition free, 70% on reduced scale tuition which is capped at 10% of the family income with financial aid. I assume the remaining 10% pay full tuition.

[Kaleredar]

I was there 1981 - 1987. Right now U.C. Berkeley tuition is 12k per year.

You should take that up with Berkley's website; Berkley assess the current cost of a California resident living with family (i.e, the least expensive possible option) to realistically run an individual 23,000 dollars a year. Tuition is but a fraction of the costs colleges dump on students.

Although, if your family makes less than 75k, you get to go for free. You just have to get in. Between 75k and 150k, you pay sliding scale, before financial aid. Even if your family makes more than 100k, you can still get up to 5k from FAFSA. So in reality, the only people paying full tuition are the ones whose family make more than 150k. Although, non-income based grants and scholarships are available out there. So unless you are really lazy, nobody should be remotely paying full tuition.

Which begs the question... why is Tuition so high if apparently it's just so gosh darn blindingly easy to just not have to pay for any of it?

Cost of living is a big problem. Back then three of us were able to rent a 3-bedroom apartment for $800. Right now, a one bedroom is probably at least $2,000. No good solution there. Student loan will probably be required to cover the cost of living expenses.

Housing on-campus isn't any cheaper.

Actually, assuming the data on Harvard’s website is correct, 20% of the students go to school tuition free, 70% on reduced scale tuition which is capped at 10% of the family income with financial aid. I assume the remaining 10% pay full tuition.

And what kind of numbers does that sliding scale encompass? I don't think Harvard is incorrect with their data, but as this topic has proven, statistics can be utilized in a very deceptive way.

[chazus]

Maybe “cheaper” is the wrong word. I did use the word “affordable” in the title. I could care less about the actual cost of the education itself.

It's neither cheap, nor affordable.
That's like saying if someone has money in the bank, something expensive is 'affordable'. It's still more expensive, costs more, uses more of your money, however you want to phrase it, it takes more.

When I went to U.C. Berkeley, my tuition was $2,400 for the entire year and I knew I was getting a great bargain.

Expand on that. You keep ignoring certain aspects out of convenience for debate. You paid 2400/yr, that's 1200 per semester. That's insanely low, even for UCB. If you got grants, great. But not everyone does, especially at public schools. And sure, not everyone can get in, but most private schools require either something special, family, connections, or a shit ton of money (Actually you need a shit ton of money regardless)

[Rasulis]

You should take that up with Berkley's website; Berkley assess the current cost of a California resident living with family (i.e, the least expensive possible option) to realistically run an individual 23,000 dollars a year. Tuition is but a fraction of the costs colleges dump on students.



Which begs the question... why is Tuition so high if apparently it's just so gosh darn blindingly easy to just not have to pay for any of it?



Housing on-campus isn't any cheaper.



And what kind of numbers does that sliding scale encompass? I don't think Harvard is incorrect with their data, but as this topic has proven, statistics can be utilized in a very deceptive way.

Just for clarification. The statistic that I quoted is specific to Harvard student body. The way I understand it, if your family makes less than 65k/year, if you are accepted, you can go tuition free. This is the 20%.

If your family makes 65k to 150k, it is sliding scale capped at 10% of the income. So if your family makes 100k/year, the tuition is capped at 10k/year. This is your 70%.

The University of California system is the same. Except instead of 65k, the limit is 75k.

Getting in is another story. Both myself and my daughter graduated from U.C. Berkeley. I also have a lot cousins, nieces and nephews who graduated from the various U.C. campuses so I am fairly familiar with the system.

This is very simplified. Generally the acceptance criteria would be class rank > unweighted GPA > weighted GPA. Class ranks is an important indicator because difficulty of getting a certain GPA varies from school to school. Colleges know what schools are competitive or not. They know that kids in the top 10% of a competitive magnet school are probably better students than the top 10% of an average high school. So that is taken into consideration when class rank is considered. Schools like U.C. Berkeley and Harvard then re-calculate your GPA to something more similar to an unweighted GPA. They only look at core class and use a scale similar to A/A+=4.0, A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, B = 3.0 . They can't use weighted because the systems vary from school to school.

That being said, the weighted GPA of the incoming freshman class for these schools have a tendency to go up each year. So even if you get in tuition free, you still pay in blood and sweat to get that GPA and class rank.

This website has some interesting statistics of Harvard student bodies by income, SAT, GPA, ethnicity, etc. The portion on SAT by income and ethnicity is kinda interesting. Keep in mind these are all Harvard students, so the gap is fairly small.

http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/...dmissions.html