[deleted]
Basically, costs over the last few decades are because of pointless administrators and corrupt spending on pet projects by those administrators. Also, the cost of living in the US is fairly high compared with Romania to begin with.
[deleted]
Submitted 19 hours ago by cosmic__cutie@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
fodor@lemmy.zip 2 hours ago
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 hours ago
Why is american [insert anything here] so much more expensive than in other countries
Unrestricted capitalism
Paddy_NI@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Psychopaths going unchecked.
meco03211@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
This is an important distinction to contrast the answer you’re responding to. In fact it’s not “unrestricted capitalism”. It’s very restricted for the private consumer. So many laws, rules, and regulations working against us lowly proles we can’t use our superior numbers to truly drive a competitive market.
Witchfire@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
It’s a true shocker that a greed based economy favors the ultra greedy
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Specifically the need of capitalists to have workers.
The oft repeatedly lie is the tragedy of the commons, literally a fable made up by aristocrats to justify closing the commons to force people to go work in factories.
The huge levels of debt are part of the system to keep Americans working, if you don’t got to college you need to work non-stop to get healthcare, if you do go to college you can get a stable job but you need to pay off that debt.
It’s a system to keep the wealthy wealthy and the rest of us busy until we are too old to do anything about it.
AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Basically the government guaranteed loans to college kids, saying you can’t be denied a loan. The idea was to allow anyone the means to better themselves through an education.
Then colleges realized they could raise prices to whatever they wanted and the loans would get approved. Remember you can’t deny someone a loan for college anymore, they don’t check if the prices are “reasonable”.
I’m sure there’s more nuance and other factors to it.
fodor@lemmy.zip 2 hours ago
That sounds like victim blaming, lol.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 14 hours ago
State governments realized they could reduce their funding towards universities (or keep it fixed while it devalues due to inflation) and push the cost onto students. Administration has also exploded in numbers. Many get paid much more than faculty. Universities have also expanded services and features to make students want to come. Universities can’t raise prices higher than students are willing to pay. Note students are also not guaranteed to get federal loans plus there are limits. Private loans aren’t guaranteed either but have a variety of programs.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 14 hours ago
The guarantees for student loans actually go the other way - the guarantee is for the lender. Given the amounts people generally need for an education, along with a complete lack of income, students wouldn’t be able to get a loan of sufficient size without government stepping in as a backstop.
alternategait@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Many get paid much more than faculty.
Universities are "adjunctifying many positions and adjunct professors are not paid well. Some faculty are homeless.
jode@pawb.social 15 hours ago
Not just that but allowed entire industries to cash in on that. See: text book prices
musicalphysics@discuss.online 14 hours ago
Textbooks have more features than they used to, like online homework and the like. The online component makes it easier for companies to push new versions. Professors are overworked, and intro classes, where book prices/versions rule the most, are massive. The dept probably doesn’t have funds for a full TA so grading becomes a massive undertaking. It isn’t possible in many cases to manage lecture halls without the features from the textbook publisher. So what is a young faculty member likely to do? Pick a text from a major publisher. Generally speaking, faculty aren’t out to get you, they are trying to teach you.
aeiou@piefed.social 17 hours ago
A great many reasons, but one that gets overlooked is the influence of an Austrian economist who firmly believed university should be out of the reach of the poor, a philosophy which many, particularly Republicans, seem to have swallowed whole.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Yo all my homies hate Roger Freimann
jam12705@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
By 1968, he was criticizing desegregation efforts in The Wall Street Journal, saying that there was no evidence that desegregation leads to better educational outcomes, arguing instead that student achievement comes down to “genetic factors and environmental influences”
Real piece of work
Seiter describes Freeman’s work as an American phenomenon, writing “from a European perspective, many of [Freeman’s] conclusions are open to criticism.”
Everyone else thought he was nuts
AskewLord@piefed.social 19 hours ago
because they aren’t paid for by public taxes.
phailhaus@piefed.social 15 hours ago
Additionally, the ‘fix’ for education being too expensive was to make it so anyone could get government-backed loans for tuition. This has led to schools being able to spike tuition since to an 18-year-old there’s no difference between a $20k loan and an $80k loan.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 6 hours ago
Cause they’re cucks looking for the payouts
Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
America is a grift that exists to fuck as much money out of you as possible.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
I haven’t seen this mentioned yet.
At one point college was reasonably priced. It wasn’t cheap, but aside from the most prestigious schools, you could work a part time job while attending college and pay for your classes. I don’t know the specifics of how and when, but at some point the government decided that college was VERY important for young adults, so they started a program that would guarantee funds and loans to help the poor kids pay for college.
Sounds like a great idea on paper, but the colleges soon realized that potential students were no longer choosing schools based on affordability because they could easily get loans to go to any school they wanted.
Remember, these are teenagers we’re talking about. They are a demographic that isn’t known for making prudent decisions.
So they started registering for schools with bigger campuses, modern facilities and better dining options.
The schools all needed to set themselves apart from the others and focused a LOT of resources into their First Impressions, meaning if they couldn’t wow a student at their first visit to campus, they could kiss that tuition goodbye.
Constantly improving your campus isn’t cheap, and neither are admissions events. They need to raise prices to cover those costs, and now a college education costs 20-30 TIMES as much as it did 50 years ago.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 14 hours ago
Universities got more expensive as state support generally declined. Features expanded as you said to draw students as universities had to compete more to get students. Plus you have these lists that rank each university. That drives students to demand more and requires more funds from universities to compete over listing items.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
There’s a big crunch on higher ed right now. We’re hitting a population plateau and there aren’t going to be enough students to use most of these upgraded facilities.
litchralee@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
Despite the USA being somewhat of a political pariah at the moment, it has long been the case that American universities are desirable from an educational perspective and for “clout”. Not to say that TU Delft or anywhere else doesn’t have name recognition, but being a fully English instruction on a continent with few neighbors, it is a very “exotic” destination to go study at.
That Hollywood and media hype up the American collegiate experience (eg red Solo cups, fraternity/sorority life, binge drinking, road tripping for spring break, etc), even some non-research public college systems like the California State University (CSU) system will receive international students, while the reaearch-focused University of California (UC) systems remains in the top tier of public American universities.
From the university’s perspective, they have a commodity they can market to an international audience, so why not charge more? As for why these colleges are behaving like capitalists – especially the public universities – it is because of chronic state underfunding: the USA federal government does not pitch in very much to the universities, except as research grants. And when push comes to shove, state legislators will cut university funding, meaning more has to be paid for by students. Some states even slash school funding and then try to replace it with state lottery proceeds, which means schools are only well-funded when there’s a gambling epidemic…
Now in your case, it should be noted that the University of Southern California (USC) is a private university, that regularly jostles with UCLA (a UC campus) for the highest ranking as a college in southern California. Accordingly, they are priced similarly for international students but not for domestic students: the UC system first-and-foremost must serve its constituent citizens, so to keep tuition low for in-state students, they will raise the price of out-of-state or international students. USC and other private colleges would follow suit, because free extra money.
We haven’t privatized the public universities in the USA, but they’re almost operating as though they already have been, charging as much as the market can bear.
foxwolf@pawb.social 15 hours ago
Hey. Pick a different school. The US is a hellscape and is extremely violent at the state level towards people not born here as well as people they suspect were not born here. There is nothing for anyone here. Unless your parents are fabulously wealthy. If that’s the case, come to the US and do whatever you want! You will never face consequences.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
Corruption and greed, same as everything else
cattywampas@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
That’s not really an answer.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
You’re not really an answer
disregardable@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
The price listed for tuition isn’t the price most students pay. You apply for financial aid and scholarships, and each family gets a different price based on what they earn. In general, local schools are less expensive than nationally ranked ones.
ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Another thing to note is many colleges are cheaper for people who already live in state. So any option for some is to move, establish residence and then go to college that way.
cosmic__cutie@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
[deleted]HubertManne@piefed.social 19 hours ago
scholarships can be for sports as well and sometimes there is even something just for being abroad due to the institutions wanting more cultural diversity. There have even been things if your country has few college grads. Granted though those last things are not as in vogue in the current us climate. Honestly you have to be a bit mad to want to go to the us from abroad at the moment. literally have been grabbin students with greencards and deporting them and not necessarily to the home country. Rule of law is vague at best here atm.
AskewLord@piefed.social 19 hours ago
don’t come to school here unless you’re parents are rich and they are paying 150% of your costs.
that is what the vast majority of the international student population is here. even at the graduate level.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
International students at US universities are 1% genius level students with full ride scholarships and maybe even grants. 5% student athletes with full rides, and likely NIL packages now. 94% children of rich parents that can afford the full tuition price and an apartment + allowance for their children.
11111one11111@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Havent seen it yet so ill add it to the list: Sports programs. The highest paid government employee for like a decade was Nick Saban the college football coach for Univerity of Alabama. The NCAA schools pay fuckin billions for their coaches and athletics department and its all part of that great college experience you are paying for to get your $40k/year salary degree field diploma.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 14 hours ago
Sports programs that can afford expensive coaches don’t cost the university money. Big football programs pay for themselves and fund a wide variety of other sports, which don’t make money, at the university.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk 18 hours ago
Out of the countries you listed, the US would be my last choice personally. You’ll likely have a great time and learn great things wherever you choose.
RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I’m not sure how they compare to schools abroad, but Community Colleges in the US are significantly cheaper than Universities in the US. (Community colleges get even cheaper if one goes to a community college in their home state.) It might be worth looking into those.
California, especially Los Angeles
You are also looking at one of the most expensive places in the US. Everything costs more there.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 15 hours ago
The government wanted more people to go to college, so they offered loans to anyone who wanted to use them to go to college.
Colleges realized loans were getting approved no matter what, so they raised prices because why not.
About 20 rich kids took out loans to attend Harvard Business School, then filed bankruptcy to avoid paying back the loans and because their families are so rich they don’t need to borrow money, so 7 years later, bankruptcy rolls of your record and you have a “free” education.
The government looked at that and decided they didn’t want anyone else doing it, so they passed a law that says student loans can’t be discharged if you file bankruptcy.
So, skyrocketing tuition costs, leads to skyricketing debt, combined with no way to escape the loans, and that’s how we have a “student loan crisis.”
the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Capitalisim
Pika@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
Societal preferences combined with a fairly unrestricted market.
In the US, people don’t go to college in order to increase their knowledge. They go to be able to pursue theoretical higher paid jobs.
Going to school/college in the US isn’t to increase societal knowledge, its for selfish personal gains and as such only really shared by the person going.
This combined with very few restrictions on what colleges can charge means that the excuse of “well it’s for your own personal development” can be used as a way to sidestep the inexcusable pricing.
in many countries, the post-education sector is either subsidized or cheaper cost due to society having a higher value on the actual education aspects of it and the want of the general members to be more knowledgeable, that value isn’t as strong in the US, and depending on what state you are in may actually be against the members interests as a whole.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Because the US has Freedom! and other countries just have actual freedom.
bluGill@fedia.io 18 hours ago
Because high price is what makes them exclusive and so they compete on high price. Then they give everybody a scholarship - something else they can compete on - which with a little math gives you the real price.
A friend of mine is department head of a local private university. He says that they have consistently found nobody chooses a university for the low price. Meanwhile some choose against a school because if the cost is too low "you must get what you pay for". If you get admitted to that school you automatically get a 40% scholarship - which is to say they don't even want 40% of the money they are charging, but marketing insists they need to charge at least that much. Most students are getting other financial aid above the automatic scholarship as well, only the rich pay the real maximum price. Students who care about costs are looking at what scholarships the school offers them, which is to say everybody knows the sticker price is a lie and they ask about the real costs.
Until people start rejecting the system it won't change. You alone are not enough. So let this be advice to you: don't look at the sticker price. Ask someone to give you a the price after all scholarships apply. It will likely be much more affordable. Though do take your time to understand the fine print, otherwise you could find the scholarship doesn't apply to you after you have the bills and so must take a large loan to pay them.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Greed
zlatiah@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
I got too excited about this topic and wrote too much. TL;DR: combination of in-state tuition, US/EU adopting different economics theories, and USC just being really expensive
___ First of all, a lot of schools give discounts if you pay taxes. EU citizens benefit from reduced tuition at nearly all EU-universities. US also has a similar system called “in-state tuition”, but it only applies to people who study at public schools in the state where they live (a.k.a. pay taxes in). For example, UIUC (well-known for engineering, in Illinois) has an out-of-state tuition of $38,398-$46,498, but only $18,046-$23,426 for Illinois residents. Obviously this is still a lot, which leads to the main point: US and EU follow two very different takes on “who pays for college”. There is a major debate in economics (I think initiated by right-leaning economists) that reimbursing for university tuition is regressive, because you are paying for already well-off individuals (typically educated families send their kids to college) to further improve their earning potential. The counterargument is that university education improves the collective well-being of society and leads to positive externalities, so govts should still pay for university. This is also why nearly all countries provide free K9/K12 education, because no mainstream economists deny the positive externalities of early-life education But because of this ideological divergence… US universities opted for a strategy where governments mostly don’t reimburse college-level education. If the “customers” are footing the entire bill of course it would be more expensive. But it is technically a more progressive system, because underprivileged kids who defied the odds would get reimbursed by the government (such as Pell Grants) or by private foundations and can typically go to uni for almost no cost. EU in general opted for the other, more humanitarian approach, where everyone can afford to go to college, because the governments paid part of the bill. Personal opinion though, I don’t think the economics debate captured the full extent of what actually happened. For EU, yes the system is “more regressive” on paper, but you do end up getting more college-educated people which improves societal well-being. And the American system did indeed breed innovation! … but not necessarily in the “cheaper” direction. Some schools like Purdue University specialized into lowering tuition costs, a lot of others specialized into providing better “services” or “experiences” while massively jacking up their tuition costs because students can just do the student loan thing anyway Even within EU there are differences though: unless I misread it, KU Leuven (really good school in Belgium) tuition is only 1k € and under 10k € for non-EU citizens, which is half as expensive as TU Delft (Netherlands) (somewhere close to 20k € for non-EU I believe) And as a final note, USC is pretty expensive even by US standards. If I remember correctly, even LA folks kind of joke of it as the “rich-kids school”. A lot of the public University of California schools are much more affordable