It can be proved by deduction based on the rate of increase in tuition

secabeen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which tuition are you referring to? Nameplate tuition is like the sticker price on a new car; few to no people pay it. Net tuition is the number that actually matters, and it's been largely flat the last 8 years.

▲

danaris an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know the figures for large universities, but at the small liberal arts college I graduated from and the one I've worked at for the last 15 years, the average figure for "full pay" students—which, as the name suggests, is the students who pay, or whose families pay, the full sticker price, either directly or through loans—has generally been between 46% and 53%.

Now, if you have figures showing that what you claim is true on the whole across all of US higher education, please, by all means, post the links. I'm genuinely interested to know just how different it is with the larger universities.

▲

gosub100 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So you're saying academics use the same opaque market practices as, e.g. health insurance? Yeah all the more reasons to cut funding. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear with transparency.

	▲	epistasis 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You seem to have no interest in transparance or understanding, but answer everything with "cut the universities" no matter what. If differential pricing based on ability to pay is a reason to destroy something, then we had better destroy 90% of B2B. But it's not a reason, you're just parroting the same desired end result no matter what is actually said about universities.
	▲	lesuorac 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What's not transparent? We know this information because the colleges give it out. They are transparent. There's not much the colleges can do if somebody is commenting without researching.

▲

counters 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I didn't ask you to prove it. I asked why it wasn't already happening.