Tuition over the years

Discuss various money matters here. Loans (federal and private), scholarships, lottery winnings, or other school finance related information and queries.
User avatar
You Gotta Have Faith
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 5:04 am

Tuition over the years

Postby You Gotta Have Faith » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:51 pm

Does anyone have a good link that provides a rough idea of how much tuition has climbed since the 1970s and even the 1960s? A chart or listing of some sort would be interesting, even if it's only for one school. Just curious more than anything. I couldn't find a very good one on here and that's not the sort of thing that law schools would want to advertise on their sites.

I'm looking for this info on pretty much any T1 private school just to get a rough idea of how much more students are paying today as opposed to a few decades ago (adjusted for inflation if possible... but if not, that's okay too). There's a good chance someone on TLS should have this, right?

User avatar
entrechatsix
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:05 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby entrechatsix » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:14 pm

this isnt as far back as what you're looking for, but some interesting numbers i came across while searching.

Tuition increased by 74 percent at private schools and a 102 percent at public institutions from 1998 to 2008.


http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/law-school-faculties-40-larger-10-years-ago

In 1990, private-school tuition averaged $10,620, about three times more than the average tuition at a public school, according to the American Bar Association.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0427-chicago-law-students--20100427,0,7867750.column

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby General Tso » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:18 pm

Anecdotal, but my mom paid $200 a semester in the early 70s at a major state university. That same school probably charges around $5-6,000 per semester in state today.

My law school charged $11,000 in state per year in 2003. In 2010 the tuition is $39,000+. That's only 7 years and the tuition has more than tripled.

User avatar
cinefile 17
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby cinefile 17 » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:21 pm

Wow, that's depressing. :(

User avatar
entrechatsix
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:05 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby entrechatsix » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:21 pm

here's a chart showing umich's tuition from 1950-2009

http://www.law.umich.edu/historyandtrad ... istory.pdf

and here's one for penn, along with other departments

http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/fea ... /1960.html

User avatar
Alyssa
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby Alyssa » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:27 pm

FWIW, senior partner at the firm where I worked (graduated from NYU Law in 1955) paid $700 for the year. So, it's gone up 7000% in 55 years.

User avatar
logicianwannabe
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:20 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby logicianwannabe » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:50 pm

totally anecdotal hearsay, but my uncle graduated law school in 1959. He said tuition was around $500/year.

Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby Geist13 » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:07 pm

One thing to keep in mind with respect to tuition increases at public law schools is that many of them are moving away from the state-funded model. The goal is to be as close to self-sufficient as possible because then you are not subject to state budget fluctuations. This of course means they need to raise tuition, especially in-state tuition because if you are not relying on state funds it's difficult to justify lower tuition for residents.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby General Tso » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:21 pm

I find it curious that there isn't much outrage over this on TLS. The one time the tuition issue was prominently raised here was during the UC protests back in the fall of 09. Even there, it seemed like the TLS consensus was "shut up whiney babies".

I mean, I get it, we live in America "home of the brave," "land of opportunity," etc. etc., but it just seems like there would be more anger over the fact that our generation is not benefiting from the same level of social support as our parents and grandparents.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby GMVarun » Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:51 pm

The numbers in this thread can be deceptive; they have all been cited in nominal terms. Of course real tuition has risen over the years, but far less than these nominal amounts suggest.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby General Tso » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:03 pm

GMVarun wrote:The numbers in this thread can be deceptive; they have all been cited in nominal terms. Of course real tuition has risen over the years, but far less than these nominal amounts suggest.


okay mr. smarty pants...$200 in 1970 dollars is $928 today. You know of any major research institutions charging less than $1000 a semester? Less than $5,000 a semester?

$11,000 in 2002 dollars is $11,061 in 2010 dollars.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby GMVarun » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:41 am

General Tso, I agree with your general point that tuition has been rising pretty steeply -- largely because of rapid increases in demand (in part, induced by low interest rates on education loans).

However, you can't just compare two values in time and not correct them for differences in the value of money, and say anything meaningful. Also, I am not sure what you are using to calculate inflation rates, but whatever you are using is very very off.

General Tso wrote:okay mr. smarty pants...$200 in 1970 dollars is $928 today. You know of any major research institutions charging less than $1000 a semester? Less than $5,000 a semester?

$11,000 in 2002 dollars is $11,061 in 2010 dollars.


$11,000 in 2002 dollars, according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ and http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl , is a little more than $13,000 in 2009 dollars. $200 in 1970, is about $1100 today. But I am not sure where you are getting $200 as your reference point, michigan (the only one I bothered to check) was 340/semester in 1969-1970 school year which amounts to about $1970/semester in 2009 dollars.Tuition in 2009 was $20655/semester which is about a 10.5x increase over 30 years, surely a sizeable increase. My point is you need to compare dollars in real terms not in nominal terms, but your broader point that tuitions have been rising rapidly still holds.

User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby im_blue » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:33 am

--LinkRemoved--

Berkeley's OOS tuition has gone up an average of 9% a year over the past 30 years.

User avatar
You Gotta Have Faith
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 5:04 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby You Gotta Have Faith » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:37 am

Hey, thanks for the helpful links so far everybody, both the state and private ones as well as the personal knowledge from other attorneys. It helps to paint a picture of what things used to be like.

I continue to be surprised that this isn't discussed all that much. It is ridiculous in a way that our parents' generation were paying less than half of what we are when adjusted for inflation. Ugh. That just ain't right.

User avatar
stintez
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby stintez » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:38 am

I wish it was still 1998!

User avatar
CG614
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby CG614 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:45 am

GMVarun wrote:General Tso, I agree with your general point that tuition has been rising pretty steeply -- largely because of rapid increases in demand (in part, induced by low interest rates on education loans).

However, you can't just compare two values in time and not correct them for differences in the value of money, and say anything meaningful. Also, I am not sure what you are using to calculate inflation rates, but whatever you are using is very very off.

General Tso wrote:okay mr. smarty pants...$200 in 1970 dollars is $928 today. You know of any major research institutions charging less than $1000 a semester? Less than $5,000 a semester?

$11,000 in 2002 dollars is $11,061 in 2010 dollars.


$11,000 in 2002 dollars, according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ and http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl , is a little more than $13,000 in 2009 dollars. $200 in 1970, is about $1100 today. But I am not sure where you are getting $200 as your reference point, michigan (the only one I bothered to check) was 340/semester in 1969-1970 school year which amounts to about $1970/semester in 2009 dollars.Tuition in 2009 was $20655/semester which is about a 10.5x increase over 30 years, surely a sizeable increase. My point is you need to compare dollars in real terms not in nominal terms, but your broader point that tuitions have been rising rapidly still holds.


You also have to add in demand. If people are willing to pay the high costs, why is it not rational? In fact, some could argue that costs should be higher.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby General Tso » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:24 pm

CG614 wrote:You also have to add in demand. If people are willing to pay the high costs, why is it not rational? In fact, some could argue that costs should be higher.


It's not rationale because it's not the "people" paying, at least not initially...it's the government/Sallie Mae. The value of a degree is so speculative and young people are already irrational consumers that it's hard to see this as a rational market.

User avatar
CG614
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby CG614 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:40 pm

General Tso wrote:
CG614 wrote:You also have to add in demand. If people are willing to pay the high costs, why is it not rational? In fact, some could argue that costs should be higher.


It's not rationale because it's not the "people" paying, at least not initially...it's the government/Sallie Mae. The value of a degree is so speculative and young people are already irrational consumers that it's hard to see this as a rational market.


So, people don't buy houses, the banks do? Come on. It is a functioning market, at this point. It can be argued that the people making decisions are not making good ones, but the information is free and the market operates as a rational market.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby General Tso » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:43 pm

CG614 wrote:
General Tso wrote:
CG614 wrote:You also have to add in demand. If people are willing to pay the high costs, why is it not rational? In fact, some could argue that costs should be higher.


It's not rationale because it's not the "people" paying, at least not initially...it's the government/Sallie Mae. The value of a degree is so speculative and young people are already irrational consumers that it's hard to see this as a rational market.


So, people don't buy houses, the banks do? Come on. It is a functioning market, at this point. It can be argued that the people making decisions are not making good ones, but the information is free and the market operates as rational market.


Houses are different...it's easy to see estimate the present and future value of a house. How do you rationally value a Le Cordon Bleu pastry chef degree, or a Florida Coastal JD? You can't even estimate the value of a decent JD like American or Hastings or something, because it depends on so many variables (class rank above all else, not to mention the state of the regional job market).

It's getting to the point that many degrees are no longer financially sound investments. Irrational exuberance =/= rational market.

So if idiot 18 and 22 year-olds want to pay $125k per year and Sallie Mae will write the check and the US Govt will underwrite the loan you think that'd be a good thing? People are already talking about student loans as the next subprime crisis.

User avatar
CG614
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby CG614 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:54 pm

General Tso wrote:
CG614 wrote:
General Tso wrote:
CG614 wrote:You also have to add in demand. If people are willing to pay the high costs, why is it not rational? In fact, some could argue that costs should be higher.


It's not rationale because it's not the "people" paying, at least not initially...it's the government/Sallie Mae. The value of a degree is so speculative and young people are already irrational consumers that it's hard to see this as a rational market.


So, people don't buy houses, the banks do? Come on. It is a functioning market, at this point. It can be argued that the people making decisions are not making good ones, but the information is free and the market operates as rational market.


Houses are different...it's easy to see estimate the present and future value of a house. How do you rationally value a Le Cordon Bleu pastry chef degree, or a Florida Coastal JD? You can't even estimate the value of a decent JD like American or Hastings or something, because it depends on so many variables (class rank above all else, not to mention the state of the regional job market).

It's getting to the point that many degrees are no longer financially sound investments. Irrational exuberance =/= rational market.

So if idiot 18 and 22 year-olds want to pay $125k per year and Sallie Mae will write the check and the US Govt will underwrite the loan you think that'd be a good thing? People are already talking about student loans as the next subprime crisis.


You are throwing out a bunch of jargon, but not really using it correctly. How easy is it to estimate the FV of a house? Ask someone that brought one 5 years ago that question. My point is not whether is a good idea, it is that it is a rational market. What is the PV of a stream of annuity that returns $70K per year, minus opportunity costs of other options? I bet it is well over the $150-$200K a law degree costs. So, even if students don't do the greatest, it could still be a solid investment. Granted, ITE even $70K isn't guaranteed. BUT, the information and placement stats are freely available and players make decisions, hopefully, with all the information. Hence, it is a rational market.

Now, if you want to talk about whether the people going to T3 and T4 schools are rational, in the sense of having reasonable expectations, that is a different story.

PS. Student loans are completely different than the subprime lending situation. Degrees are not traded on an open market, therefore speculation means nothing.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby GMVarun » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:07 pm

CG614 wrote:
GMVarun wrote:General Tso, I agree with your general point that tuition has been rising pretty steeply -- largely because of rapid increases in demand (in part, induced by low interest rates on education loans).

However, you can't just compare two values in time and not correct them for differences in the value of money, and say anything meaningful. Also, I am not sure what you are using to calculate inflation rates, but whatever you are using is very very off.

General Tso wrote:okay mr. smarty pants...$200 in 1970 dollars is $928 today. You know of any major research institutions charging less than $1000 a semester? Less than $5,000 a semester?

$11,000 in 2002 dollars is $11,061 in 2010 dollars.


$11,000 in 2002 dollars, according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ and http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl , is a little more than $13,000 in 2009 dollars. $200 in 1970, is about $1100 today. But I am not sure where you are getting $200 as your reference point, michigan (the only one I bothered to check) was 340/semester in 1969-1970 school year which amounts to about $1970/semester in 2009 dollars.Tuition in 2009 was $20655/semester which is about a 10.5x increase over 30 years, surely a sizeable increase. My point is you need to compare dollars in real terms not in nominal terms, but your broader point that tuitions have been rising rapidly still holds.


You also have to add in demand. If people are willing to pay the high costs, why is it not rational? In fact, some could argue that costs should be higher.


I am not sure where you see in my post anything about rationality and I agree increases in prices have been due to increases in demand. Some of that demand, surely, has been stimulated by access to cheap (low interest rate) loans.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby GMVarun » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:16 pm

The problem with your analysis is that there are a lot of variables that are individual specific. There have been many papers (I don't remember exactly the source here, but someone I am sure can help out on this) written doing exactly the calculus you attempt to do here. It is not as simple as saying an annuity that pays 70,000 -- some will be making significantly more than that, some significantly less. I am not sure the expected value is 70. Also, you have to account for taxes, and related expenses (just an example, there are numerous, the bar exam isn't free). Also, most jobs in this market aren't guaranteed into perpetuity... there's uncertainty. Also, what interest rate are you going to use to evaluate that annuity? The really low interest rates now in the market (which will inflate your calculations)? This is not a very straightforward calculation.

Also, obviously, the opportunities different schools afford greatly affect the expected salary.

The conclusion most academics make when running through all the calculations is that in this market many many (most) students have negative NPV on their investment. But since everything depends on your individual circumstances, the authors largely suggest analyzing your own outcomes rather than generalizing for others.

User avatar
CG614
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Tuition over the years

Postby CG614 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:19 pm

GMVarun wrote:The problem with your analysis is that there are a lot of variables that are individual specific. There have been many papers (I don't remember exactly the source here, but someone I am sure can help out on this) written doing exactly the calculus you attempt to do here. It is not as simple as saying an annuity that pays 70,000 -- some will be making significantly more than that, some significantly less. I am not sure the expected value is 70. Also, you have to account for taxes, and related expenses (just an example, there are numerous, the bar exam isn't free). Also, most jobs in this market aren't guaranteed into perpetuity... there's uncertainty. Also, what interest rate are you going to use to evaluate that annuity? The really low interest rates now in the market (which will inflate your calculations)? This is not a very straightforward calculation.

Also, obviously, the opportunities different schools afford greatly affect the expected salary.

The conclusion most academics make when running through all the calculations is that in this market many many (most) students have negative NPV on their investment. But since everything depends on your individual circumstances, the authors largely suggest analyzing your own outcomes rather than generalizing for others.


I am not stating that 70K is the EV, just making a point. I brought up the point of prices increasing because of demand and the other poster argued that the market was not rational.




Return to “Financial Aid”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest