The Secret That Colleges Should Stop Keeping
69 comments
·February 23, 2025cjpearson
newsclues
How do you change incentives when the people in charge of the incentive system have a interest in maintaining the status quo?
whiplash451
This is typically where the government steps in.
atom-morgan
Isn't that exactly why we're in the position we're in? Near universal financial aid driving up prices?
HarryHirsch
By outside forces, of course. Women entered the legal profession in the 1920's, but wages did not catch up until the Equal Pay Act was enacted under the Kennedy administration. There were plenty of labour market arbitrageurs profiting from the game, but the Civil Rights movement proved stronger.
grandempire
I grew up in a different class than most of my peers. It’s interesting to see how many of them are willing to go all out for their kids when it comes to college. Touring many schools, application prep, savings accounts, meal plans, etc.
It sometimes seems as this support comes out of nowhere after years of not being involved in their child’s life.
So my question is what motivates this? Are they right? Is it really important for their kids future to go to a top 70 instead of 130? (I believe top 5 is worth almost any amount of money)
Is this based on college being a good time in their life and they are projecting that experience? Do they feel obligated to “finish strong” in regards to parenting?
The attitude of my parents is to make sure the degree will lead to a job, and then find a local and cheap school to get that credential. I believe there may be taboo class issues around this topic that are not vocalized.
HEmanZ
Attitudes around college in the US are really fascinating to me, because I’ve found they vary a lot from region to region and I think really reinforce class divides. I grew up in an area/class where my parents and their friends believed:
- All universities and even community colleges are equally good, except for maybe the Ivey league schools they’ve heard about, but no one actually goes to those.
- All majors are equally good, except whatever makes you a doctor, which is the best.
- Colleges on the east and west coast are very bad because they are purely for liberal indoctrination
- The highest earning career path from college is becoming a doctor, and if you become a doctor you are very upper class.
- what is majoring in finance? Is that like being a bank teller?
- what is studying computer science? Is that like working at Best Buy?
Once I got to college and met what I now think of as “the American urban professional class” I found a completely different set of beliefs, where college rankings were do-or-die, everyone wants their kid to go into finance, consulting, or tech, or get an MBA, and everyone seems to inherit large corporate networks from their parents.
I’m sure this has all sorts of culture war implications. I know the politics of the community I grew up in has more to do with distrusting/disliking the urban professional class than any wholistic political ideology. Probably both groups should learn something from each other.
csa
> Are they right?
Maybe
> Is it really important for their kids future to go to a top 70 instead of 130?
There are definitely rough cutoffs. Using your ballpark thresholds, yes, there can be a big difference in 70ish and 130ish in terms of opportunities. The big issue is whether the student will avail themselves of these opportunities.
> (I believe top 5 is worth almost any amount of money)
Oh, definitely not true unless the student avails themselves of the available opportunities.
At top 5, it’s only worth the money (assuming that you’re price sensitive) if the student does one or more things like uses the school alumni network, develops a robust network in school, works with top tier researchers, accesses unique learning opportunities, goes into fields that only pull from these schools (e.g., investment banking, consulting, etc.), tapping into the varsity athlete network, and other things like that.
If they just go and get a degree and then do whatever they were going to do if they had gone to State U, then it’s wasted money.
The classroom education at the top 5 universities is largely not that good. Smaller liberal arts colleges do a better job of classroom education, imho, if thats what someone is looking for.
> Is this based on college being a good time in their life and they are projecting that experience?
Maybe.
There’s probably a lot of intuitively knowing that it’s better to go to a good school without necessarily knowing what about going to a good school makes it matter.
> The attitude of my parents is to make sure the degree will lead to a job, and then find a local and cheap school to get that credential.
Smart, but very limiting if you have ambitions beyond being a middle manager.
> I believe there may be taboo class issues around this topic that are not vocalized.
Class issues, yes. Taboo… I’m not so sure.
grandempire
> unless the student avails themselves of the available opportunities.
I was imagining it in personal terms. I would have paid any amount of money for myself because I believe it would have worked for the reasons you mentioned.
> knowing that it’s better to go to a good school without…
That’s likely.
> but very limiting if you have ambitions beyond being a middle manager.
Say more. That kind of thing sounds worth paying for.
> Taboo
For example, someone might secretly think state school education was a waste of time, but not want to talk bad about their peer’s schooling. Or want their child to socialize with other well-to-do families.
rafram
> I believe top 5 is worth almost any amount of money
Is it, though? Of course people who go to Harvard et al. do well afterwards, but many of them came from wealthy families and were bound to do well no matter what. If you’re poor, Harvard [1] is less likely to make you rich than UC Riverside [2].
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
antasvara
Which measure are you going off there? Because I see the "Chance a poor student has to become a rich adult" metric at 41% for UC Riverside and 58% for Harvard.
There is the "overall mobility" metric that favors UC Riverside, but the way that's being measured would seem to skew in favor of whichever college has students in lower quintiles (a top quintile kid can't move up 2 quintiles).
grandempire
Money is not the same as status, and opens different job opportunities like key government officials . I would be more interested in a survey that includes whether the participant was satisfied with their career trajectory
silvestrov
I wonder how many of those peers that can evaluate the quality of the teaching itself.
I'm guessing a lot of people (especially those without an university education) look at how impressive the buildings and facilities are because those are the status signals they understand. I don't think many check how large percentage of lessons are run by assistants.
So too many US colleges end up being 80% overly expensive hotel and 20% education.
BigGreenJorts
Because the 80% overly expensive hotel is precisely what you're paying for. Quality of education is a bare minimum requirement. The rest is the people you'll meet. Be that your neighbors in the expensive hotel or the professors you'll work with, or the activities that will bond you with those people.
grandempire
It’s well understood that teaching quality is a small part of the package value, so I dont even know if it matters for this decision.
jackcosgrove
I just searched for "best predictor of career success" and found a bunch of conflicting results. Open networks, conscientiousness, grit, intelligence, class, etc. This is actually reassuring, since if there were a known path to success everyone would crowd into it. Curiously I didn't see any articles or studies saying "it's partially random" because no one wants to hear that.
I think academic prestige is best understood as a safety net. It won't guarantee success, because nothing can, but it can do a decent job preventing failure. In that respect the parents are right. Academic assistance is a way they can convert financial resources into something that can't be taken away from their children (and isn't subject to the gift tax limit).
That said it's easy to go overboard, and many do. Unless you want to work in a small number of careers that have target lists of schools they recruit from (which again is because the credential is a selling point to clients, not because the education is better), there is no difference between a public university and a prestigious one.
To the extent parents know that prestige is signalling all the way down, and does not imply being better at what you do or knowing more about your subject, they do have some inside perspective compared to the population at large.
grandempire
> Academic assistance is a way they can convert financial resources into something that can't be taken away from their children (and isn't subject to the gift tax limit).
This is a really good summary. The end result is a permanent, non-transferable, protection with strong resistance to “inflation”.
> they do have some inside perspective compared to the population at large.
Would that advantage manifest as playing into the system - looking for opportunities for signaling? Or discounting - finding good education with less signaling value.
jackcosgrove
> Would that advantage manifest as playing into the system - looking for opportunities for signaling? Or discounting - finding good education with less signaling value.
Good question! I think that can play out both ways, ultimately based on how wealthy the parents are. If money is no object, play the prestige game. If you are middle class and know the rules of the game, maximize value.
For example, I am acquainted with parents who are teachers at a prestigious private school. Their child attended said school because of subsidized tuition, and then attended college in an honors program at a state university in the middle of the country. He was paid to attend! The parents are fully abreast of all the studies on the effects of education, both being teachers and being in the middle of the college admissions frenzy that goes on in these schools. So they know how the game works, and they are playing it to the max for value.
On the other hand, at this school are children from generational wealth who play obscure sports from an early age to give them an edge in admissions. The children never need to actually earn a living, and the target school admission is seen as a defense of a family legacy and bragging rights for the parents - pure prestige.
kevin_thibedeau
I know someone who is a guidance counselor at an ultra elite high school. He globetrots every year to a plethora of institutions that are desperate to attract those students. All presumably because they want the alumni bucks when they have their own children. For a certain class, higher education serves an entirely different purpose.
lumost
Lack of involvement can come from multiple issues. I don’t spend as much time with my kids as I’d like. Partly so that we can have good education, a decent home, activities, and college without stress.
The push into college is kinda the last hurrah for parents to set their kids up. Taking it seriously helps the (soon to be adult) kids take it seriously, finding a good fit can have an outsized impact on what they do next.
I do wish we lived in a world where we could be both involved and supportive of future endeavors. I grew up in a lower middle class home. College involved atrocious debt while my parents were uninvolved as … they were still busy working.
Why can’t we have time for ourselves in society?
grandempire
I think this a poor justification for uninvolvement. All families need resources - so satisfying that can justify all your time. But for many people on this forum that does not occupy all their time and attention, except for brief exceptions. What differentiates quality of upbringing is not resources. So working harder at your white collar job does not make you a better parent.
lumost
I don’t think it makes me a better parent, apologies if that was how it was interpreted.
The point is that there is no other alternative. My observation, at least in tech - is that the expectation of greater than 40 hours of work per week is ever present. There is no choice to earn less, take it easy, and have more time for other pursuits. If both parents are under this expectation then there are fewer hours to be involved. A break of 1-2 years will be held against you in future interviews.
From talking with other parents, this is a common conundrum across industries. No one feels that they have enough time to be a good parent.
More concretely, what work arrangements do you have or are aware of which allow you to cap the hours worked while affording a livable home life?
prododev
Where your kid goes to school is a status symbol. And like most status symbols, it is a foolish and conspicuous waste.
Americans love to root for teams and build their identities around what teams they are on. In sports, in politics, in college selection, even which state or city they are from. College selection is just an easy way to buy yourself into a team.
grandempire
I’m gonna need a steel man here. Is this real status they are buying? If so it has real impact?
These are otherwise shrewd people.
prododev
Bragging about where your kid goes to school is extremely common. It signals not only what can you afford (like a car), but also lets you buy and display a bunch of gear. (University name) Dad is like a super common apparel and bumper sticker item. And having, e.g., Stanford Dad is more prestigious than eg New Mexico State Dad apparel.
lapcat
The word "loan" doesn't appear even once in the article, which I find bizarre and confusing. It talks about "financial aid" multiple times but doesn't mention how much of that aid is in grants and how much in loans. If the loans have to be paid back later, that doesn't truly lower the cost of college attendance.
readthenotes1
This is nothing more than an advertisement for the loan organizations. The secret that colleges should stop keeping is that you are taking on indentured servitude by attending.
ghaff
A lot of elite universities in particular have given financial aid for ages if you were at the lower half of the parental income scale or thereabouts. But my recollection from the 70s is that upper middle class at least pretty much paid sticker. Today, my understanding is that sticker (for undergrad at least) is largely a fiction that few people (at least non-international students) pay.
Which
cjpearson
Yes, it is largely a fiction. For private universities (the ones typically with the high sticker prices) 16% paid the full amount in 2019-2020. For public schools the number is 26%. [0]
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ignore-the-sticker-price-...
grandempire
The international students are definitely whales for funding.
crazygringo
One critical point the article doesn't clarify:
Is the reduction in price entirely due to discounts, or is it also counting student loans that have to be paid back?
Because it keeps using the term "financial aid" throughout, but financial aid includes both grants/scholarships and loans.
And if the amount you have to pay immediately is going down but the part you have to pay after graduation is going up by the same amount, that's not necessarily good news.
It's bizarre that the article doesn't address this distinction at all. I want to believe the total price (including loans that need to be paid back) is going down -- but with student debt ever-increasing, I'm suspicious.
thelastgallon
Americans have some of the best and cheapest colleges. First, most people don't have to pay tuition (low income) or a lot lower than tuition. Then, in-state tuition is ridiculously cheap. Citizens are eligible for a LOT of grants and scholarships. They can work on-campus as teaching/research assistants which offer fee waiver and get paid a decent wage! Their parents/grand-parents/etc fund tax advantaged college savings account, which has to be used for college! They can work off campus or any remote job. And finally, a range of federal/state grants, loans, etc are available. Student health insurance is also incredibly cheap. And health centers on campus. And there are no rules that say you must go to college and be done with it at this age (unlike other countries), US is incredibly flexible, you can defer, do part-time, do slowly (work one year, college next year), lots of options!
The only people who pay sticker price are international students. I don't know if we can say American higher education is subsidized mostly by people from third world, taking massive loans, usually half of or almost all of their family's net worth!
thelastgallon
I forgot to add Community colleges, which are incredibly cheap. For the final year, they can transfer to top college and get degree from there.
underseacables
It would help improve things if universities, not the government, was responsible for student loan debt. Schools have no incentive to lower costs when they have no liability
tekla
This is only secret to people who have money.
Its been well known for 50 years that poor students with good grades get pretty much full rides to top tier schools due to scholarships.
smnrchrds
The article disagrees:
> One study found that most high-achieving, low-income students chose not to apply to highly selective colleges with steep sticker prices. They opted instead for schools with lower sticker prices that ended up offering much less financial aid and thus costing more.
SnowflakeOnIce
Yes, this was my own experience!
When looking at universities, when I saw a high sticker price, I ignored that university, even if in hindsight I had a good chance of being accepted.
I wish I had had someone when I was young who encouraged me to have broader horizons.
Paul-Craft
I have some regrets about my choice of undergrad school, but it isn't because I went someplace cheap. I could have gone to one of the multiple state schools that would have given me half off just for being born somewhere.
Instead, I went to a school that was in my home town. I learned things when I went to college, but that school was objectively the wrong choice. Not only did it cost double what the state school would have cost[0], I missed out on the reason young people ought to go to college in the first place: a once in a lifetime chance to spend 4 years hanging out and making friends with high achieving people who would go on to shape the face of the world.
Granted, one of my college friends ended up as a senior researcher studying cancer, and another went on to work for Mozilla, but I'm pretty sure in my class of ~300, there weren't too many CTOs, VPEs, star researchers, etc. Simply going to a bigger school would have been a better choice; going to a school that was both bigger and better than my undergrad institution would have been the best choice.
I guess that's what you get when society expects a 17-year-old to make what may be the single most impactful life choice they'll ever have. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
That said, going to a small liberal arts college had its advantages. I learned a lot. Some of that stuff I learned, I've even gotten to use once or twice. But, looking back, if I could send my past self a message back in time, I'd tell me to go somewhere else. I may not have been much better off financially if I had met someone in college at 20 who talked me into partnering up on some insane business venture or something, but that experience would have been priceless.
--
[0]: This was even after I got a scholarship that reduced my estimated family contribution to 2/3 of what the sticker price was, on top of being able to stay at home and save money that way.
ghaff
The other not-so-secret is that small private liberal arts don't necessarily have stickers all that much lower than the top schools--and, as you suggest, they're much less able to provide financial aid than schools with multi-billion dollar endowments.
diob
This is what I did.
My parents also told me college doesn't matter, just the degree (which was their way of saving money). Not that they paid a dime anyways, they just always felt comfortable lying to me if it saved them any amount of trouble.
ghaff
I think the line has shifted though as have, perhaps, expectations of work-study. And more or less everyone at a lot of elite schools (OK, leave out legacies, athletes perhaps, etc.) had pretty top grades; they wouldn't have gotten in otherwise.
whydoineedthis
Author states its lower "Once tax incentives are factored in". As she is not my CPA, I must call BS.
oldpersonintx
[dead]
The sticker price arms race will continue until the incentives change. Having an absurdly high listed tuition price is simply effective advertising, even if almost nobody actually pays that price. Surely the most expensive colleges must be the best.
Colleges know that outside of a few suckers, few will pay the full price even if they have the money. So they offer massive discounts to get you to sign. To help seal the deal, they will market the discount as something special for you based on your "merit". "Normally we charge $75k, but since you're so awesome we can give you a $30k merit scholarship." Sounds like you're getting a great deal as long as you don't find out that the actual average charged tuition is $35k and you're actually the one getting milked.