Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

That's the only fair way. Also, a set of well educated people pays itself back later in the form of mostly income and added value taxes, which provides money to keep studying for cheap for the next generation.

High cost and exclusivity is the entire point.

A university open to all with a fraction of the price would be a poorly ranked one in every competitive measure.

I'll go out on a limb and bet people in your country earn much less than the average American, too. Why? Why don't companies just pay these people more? IT all comes back in income and value added taxes.

As for amenities, back in Europe, many universities don't even have a campus, just a scattering of buildings all around the city, acquired randomly as the school grew (that includes dorm buildings, often quite far from one another). You will spend some extra time commuting among them, but the university saves money - and, indirectly, you too.

Getting from dorm to lectures usually took me about 30 minutes each way - on foot, then subway, then on foot again.

I like to call this "resort-style education".

One of Ronald Reagan's campaign promises was dismantling or breaking the department of education, similar to what he had done to California's state universities by limiting their budgets and moving the burden of tuition to students.

At the time this was quite popular as it lowered taxes.

I don't want to say Europe is without problems, but I think this kind of legislation, together with social security in general, is a clear example of how it can be handled more efficient and fair for most people.

american universities get closer to this ideal than you might expect. the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away, at least for undergraduate degrees.

it would make more sense to do this redistribution through taxes if possible, but many US institutions are private so that doesn’t really work. so the colleges basically have their own privately-run means testing programs, and like all such programs there are flaws and loopholes.

Sorry for my ranting, I just cannot believe what is still happening.

My understanding is that most universities in Europe look more like US bare bones commuter schools, opposed to an all inclusive recreational experience.

The top ranked university in Europe is Oxford, which educates more than twice as many students as MIT with half the budget. I doubt this is because Oxford is cutting corners on educational curriculum.

The expensive schools are for the richest people to say they went to school next to the best students who get in free.And for the best students to meet rich people.

The money for funding public and quasi-private (universities and hospitals) institutions has to come from somewhere. Making it equally affordable for everybody doesn't raise enough money to maintain operations. Same for funding the government.

Granted, I think all of those institutions are due for reforms, which have little chance of happening right now, but still, I think the basic funding equation can't be eliminated.

College in the US would be a lot cheaper if the government didn't inflate it. If you go back in time just a few decades, this is how it was: you paid for it, either in cash or with a PRIVATE loan, and people didn't see college as an automatic requirement. Then it was 1/10th as expensive.

That's what taxes are for: you take proportionally more from people with more assets. I find the entire conversation about "not wanting my tax dollars to pay for some millionaire's kids' education", because those millionaires would end up paying the difference in taxes (under a fair system) than they do now.

That's without even considering the perverse incentives at play when a wealthy parent can use the payment or withholding of payment for education as a way to control their kids. Just because a parent is wealthy it doesn't necessarily mean that the kid would have access to those funds, or that explicit or implicit requirements that could be imposed to access those funds would be reasonable.

But how about if I ask "And after paying for mortgage?"

...if you go back in time a few decades basically everything was about 1/10th as expensive.

e.g. "Adjusted for inflation, $1.00 in 1960 is equal to $10.43 in 2024" according to https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1...

Most other British and EU universities suffer from the same issues. For more information, see this article at The Guardian, which generated lots of debate: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/no.... In a nutshell the article states that "[...] I no longer believe that early-career positions at Oxbridge universities are viable for individuals without independent financial means." Also "[...] the median non-professorial academic salary at Oxbridge is £45,000."

I work in Massachusetts, but I live in New Hampshire. I pay more than double this on both Social Security fees & Massachusetts income taxes, which are non-deductible since New Hampshire has no income tax and makes up for that with higher property taxes (housing is cheaper though). Filtered to just health related services I can easily identify, in total I pay for Social Security, Medicare, and indirectly Massachusett's state healthcare (which I can only gain access to under limited conditions). Of these, only the private insurance fee directly benefits me, and I have little faith social security will actually pay out when I reach the qualifying age.

In terms of investment my HSA, and 401k are a much better dollar for dollar investment for my future finances than any government service, so I find it extremely unlikely I would ever truly benefit from public healthcare.

Despite my tone here, I'm more annoyed than upset about this. Due to the overall societal benefit, I'm not entirely against public healthcare depending on the details, I'm just under no illusion that it would be to my benefit, and I'm not much of an outlier. I'm also mostly convinced the root issue here is the inflated cost of healthcare rather than just the insurance aspect, public healthcare naively implemented would likely turn into yet another government subsidy for hospitals to devour imo.

Maybe, maybe not. It could just be from cost-of-living differences: salaries for many jobs (particularly highly-educated ones) pay a fraction outside the US what they do inside the US. How much are Oxford professors and staff getting paid compared to the ones at MIT (which is Boston, which is a very high cost-of-living city for the US)?

We could do this in the USA also, or perhaps even bother with online universities, except those are generally considered not very useful as degrees.

What timeframe are you looking at?

Back in 2011, registration fees at UC Berkeley were $7,230 per semester, with $813 allotted to health insurance (which could be waived if you provided proof of existing insurance from your family), so $6,417 ignoring health insurance. Meanwhile, last year, registration fees were an eye-popping $9,847 for new students, but cost of health insurance grew much faster to $1,929 ($7,918 ignoring health insurance). This is about a 23% increase, compared to CPI-measured inflation of about 35% between Sep 2011 and Sep 2023.

(The next biggest driver of the overall increase was the campus fee, which went from $253 to $820.)

Or, if you look at just tuition alone, that went from $5610 to $6261, or just barely above 10%.

https://registrar.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Fe...

https://registrar.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/fee_schedu...

If you look further back, in 1999, tuition was a mere $1543, but I posit that tuition at UCs has actually been fairly stable over the past decade.

I don't disagree, but they support my point that tuition has not changed meaningfully in the past decade (and then some), which is why I asked what timeframe you were looking at.

Inflation is perhaps not a good point of reference anyways, since in 2009, inflation per CPI was actually slightly negative. Cost of borrowing is not the same as cost of goods and services or cost of labor, for reasons such as the ones you point out (changes to banking regulations, increased risk aversion, etc).

Although, I'm a little surprised that cost of borrowing would have been much higher, seeing as that was the start of the zero interest-rate policy in the US. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was hovering around 6-7% pre-crisis and 4-5% in the years immediately following it.

I've had to submit weekly sheets that were graded in almost all courses and these qualify for the final exam (in STEM). There were two exercise groups with competent ta to ask questions..

What's missing is some kind of Disneyland experience, student unions also exist to some degree but it's more low key.

Not saying that German university is better or worse - I'm convinced it has it's own problems that only will get worse if nothing is changing but it's not like it's subpar and you are alone with your book.

Dunno where you got this "ideal".

the days of outrageous student debt are thankfully fading away

..."fading away", to the tune of (at last glance ) one and three quarters of a trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt.

it would make more sense to do this redistribution through taxes if possible

The ability of US higher ed to raise tuition prices will always overwhelm the ability of US taxpayers to meet those prices. The phrase "utility monster" comes to mind.

but many US institutions are private so that doesn’t really work.

Private, in the sense that nobody who answers to someone who must win an election is directly in charge of running them, but, who operate as charities for the purpose of donations, pay no taxes on either capital gains or real estate, and are permitted to act as government contractors skimming up to 85% of grant money they're tasked with administrating.

so the colleges basically have their own privately-run means testing programs, and like all such programs there are flaws and loopholes.

The flaw being that...the school is allowed to have total knowledge of a customer's ability to pay before it chooses to do business with them. Imagine if you had to give three years of your tax returns to the person you were trying to buy a house from.

    > According to ZipRecruiter, the average salary for a professor at MIT is $114,792 per year, with a range of $94,500 to $179,500.

    > A professor's salary at the University of Oxford can range from around £89,429 to £122,261 per year, with an average of £104,347

    > We can have kids without fear of not being able to pay kindergarten.

Also: In Belgium, can you really go to the dentist 20 times? Is there any good reason to allow this in a public healthcare system? If the barrier to entry for healthcare services is very low, then there must be (1) a lot of abuse... or (2) long waiting times... or (3) very high taxes. My guess in Belgium: A combination of (2) and (3).

    > the ideal is that college should be very expensive for rich people and cheap, free, or at least more affordable, for less wealthy people.

If you're there on a need-based scholarship, you need both kinds, but neither of them need you.

    > MIT is a huge outlier in terms of R&D

Perhaps high professor and admin salaries in the US are a problem with US education.

This is exactly my point. And not just professor and admin salaries, the salaries and costs for everything.

It's not about "cutting corners", it's that if you compare the cost of something in the US to something in another country, the US usually is much more expensive; this doesn't mean the other country is cutting corners, it means the US is just too damn expensive.

Also, it’s not exactly what I would call open enrolment as it’s only open to Swiss students who are accepted into and pass a Matura program or similar in grade school while other students typically require applications or minimum exam scores depending on the program.

this is partly true. it is cheap / free for very low income -- if you qualify for a Pell grant you can usually get additional financial aid from your state university that can bring your cost down to zero.

But if you are above the low income line, but by no means wealthy -- so if you're a household making say $100K a year, then college is extremely expensive and unaffordable especially if you have several kids. You're not poor enough to qualify for substantial financial aid, and you're not wealthy enough to afford tuition. Yeah, your kid can get into Harvard or Stanford for free, but the chances of them being accepted are vanishingly small no matter how smart they are.

The saving grace is community college -- enroll at the local CC for 2 years and then transfer to the state school.

Just looked up our main state schools and cost of attendance is $31K - $35K for in-state residents. So that's $120K - $140K for 4 years (not counting increases). And these aren't top-100 schools either.

This isn't due to staff shortages, it's more of a difference in tradition/philosophy of teaching

I wonder if people like you just lack the imagination or system thinking or equate poor with useless or are just afraid of thinking people? From the perspective of the state and the society it’s beneficial to have an educated population, unless you think you won’t have enough stupid people to man the factories?

Having just filled my annual benefits selections tonight, here's my data point: health insurance is $3000/month on the company plan (36K/year).

Yes, the company "pays" for a percentage of that. But of course the entire $3K/month is part of my total compensation cost to the company. If healthcare wasn't so ludicrously expensive in the US, they could afford to pay me more, instead of funneling all this money to insurance company profits.

When I worked in UK academia the hierarchy for permanent academic posts was something like: lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor.

- UC Merced was established in 2005, so I buy the argument on that point regarding investment in infrastructure.

- In 2009, the state's general funds accounted for $2.6 billion, compared to just under $3 billion in 2006. Student fees in that timeframe rose from $1.55 billion to $2 billion, tracking fairly closely with the corresponding shortfall in state funding. [0, 1] Yes, these numbers are also cherrypicked as a representative budget right before the GFC and shortly after, but they represent neither peak funding nor the overall sharpness of the budget cuts. So, I reject the claim that the tuition hikes in the aftermath of the GFC was due to increased borrowing costs for the UC system. I think a more mundane explanation is that the state had a budgetary shortfall due to less taxes being collected (income, property), and made cuts across the board; the UC system raised student fees to compensate.

https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2017/10/a-brief-history-of... provides an overview of how tuition at UCs evolved up through 2017, although it gets the state funding amounts off by 3 orders of magnitude (since the linked governor's budget is measured in thousands of dollars).

[0] UC's 2009 budget is outlined in slide 3 of https://www.ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/documents/2010-...

[1] UC's 2006 budget is outlined in slide 9 of https://www.ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/200607-...

"The average annual cost of tuition at a public 4-year college is 40 times higher than tuition in 1963.

(...)

After adjusting for currency inflation, college tuition has increased 197.4% since 1963."

https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate

This here is where the money is... college degrees are a very effective dull-weeder for job applications. It filters out people of lower social classes (because they cannot afford college or effects of their social status like having to work jobs next to school to help their family make rent prevent them from getting good enough grades), it filters out people with unmanaged mental health issues, it filters out young parents (good luck managing to get a degree parallel to raising a child), it filters out people with disabilities... and all of that without violating a single anti-discrimination law.

These administrators exist due to the influx of government money. As long as there is available money, the administration has every incentive to grow, and does. It's really very much like the government itself.

IOW - It's not that a larger administration causes costs and prices to go up - it's that more money coming in leads to a larger administration.

It's very much like the cost-plus model in the defense department as well: If I'm allowed to make more money when my costs are higher, then I will ensure that my costs continue to go up.

No doubt, Switzerland's healthcare is cheaper (American doctors and hospitals are some of the most expensive in the world), but the data I linked to is already adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP).

What I was talking about what you expect to pay if 1) you don't have scholarships, and 2) you're not low income enough to qualify for a lot of financial aid (Pell Grant and matching grants from state schools)

I estimate mostly [3]. That's the whole discussion here.

If you wear braces, you have to visit very frequently. Half the kids in secondary school get them at some point. If you have cavities, it's usually several visits.

Granted, it does not come for free but it will set you back hundreds rather than thousands a year.

what I'm saying is only relevant when you drop the /s quotes.

The only pro Trump reasoning I read was along the line of 'I don't care about all this guns/abortion/woke/climate stuff, I just want my taxes to be lower.' To me that sounds like a little child crying: I just want to go to bed late and eat candy all day. No one is going to take away those candy rights written in the xxth amendment.

Insurance companies usually (maybe it's always, not certain) are regulated to a percentage cap spent on categories. What is the result? They are incentivized to push prices ever higher as much and as fast as possible because a % of higher price is more profit for them.

> Insurance companies are an easy target though, since no one wants to go after the doctors and hospitals for charging too much.

Doctors and hospitals actually provide a valuable service, they provide health care. They deserve to be paid.

Insurance companies provide no value whatsoever, they are just a middleman siphoning off profits off the work of doctors (and nurses and everyone else doing the actual work).

Also, doctors don't actually charge that much. When I get billed $980 for a 15 minute doctor visit (as I just was last month), it is most certainly not because the doctor is earning ~$4000/hr. That doctor isn't paid more than your average senior software engineer (in Silicon Valley anyway), all the rest of the money is lost to middlemen who didn't contribute anything.