I guess you skimmed the article, as inflation is not the main argument, but rather that most people don't pay the "sticker" price, but get various "discounts"
Somehow, I don't think turning the finances of education look more like the finances of the American healthcare system is the big win they think it is.
I re-read the article and stand (partially) corrected.
>Since 2014-15 school year the cost attending a public four-year university has fallen by 21 percent, before adjusting for inflation.
Not sure how the cost is calculated though. The cost will be tuition, room and board, fees, less scholarships/grants (effectively college lowering the price to get the customer in), less various loans. If the loans are excluded from the cost this is not accurate, this is still the money the school will be getting, and the student will be paying. Also notice 2014-2015 and ONLY public four year school qualifiers (cost at private colleges continued to go up, although, according to the author, less then inflation).
> Once tax benefits are factored in, according to a recent Brookings Institution analysis, the average American is paying the same amount for tuition as they were in the 1990s.
Yeah no, this doesn't read like an honest analysis but as an attempt to drag the facts, kicking and screaming, to align with the author's agenda.
yes, this 100% . the discounts , scholarships, etc. make a big difference. This is why a college college degree is a better deal then the doom and gloomer naysayer pundits insist. With federal student loans, you are borrowing at close to the prime rate, but for average people, not hedge funds. This is a great deal assuming you graduate. Even 'soft' subjects from middling schools confer a ROI.
Ah, fair point. My 2008 graduate school loans were 6.8%, when the prime rate was 3-something%, so I'm reacting to old grudges. (And, of course, much higher interest rates, which I still haven't thoroughly assimilated.) Looks like the formula changed ~10 years ago, which is a good thing.
