[washadjeffmad]

Housing is killer. On-campus was over $600/mo, higher than median apartment rent, and they shared with 3 other students. There's no reason student housing should be half or more the expense of attendance over the same period.

[Someone1234]

It always shocked me that for the amount American students pay for on-campus housing that they don't even get their own room.

Here while rooms might be only slightly bigger than a jail cell (room for one single bed, a desk, small closet and a bathroom w/shower); they also cost less and students get their privacy. They still share a kitchen and other spaces.

It is like student housing in the US is still set up like it is really cheap but actually costs insane amounts of money.

[delazeur]

I paid somewhere between $1,200 and $1,400 per month to share 180 square feet with one other person, and I was lucky not to be sharing with two other people. I could never prove it, but I strongly suspect either the university or their contractors were making a handsome profit off of on-campus housing.

[gherkin0]

> Housing is killer. On-campus was over $600/mo, higher than median apartment rent, and they shared with 3 other students.

That's insane. The whole point of on-campus housing is to provide very cheap but spartan accommodations. If nearby apartments are cheaper, there's no point to it.

[nilkn]

This has long ceased to be true at many American universities. The dorms command a premium because they're on-campus (short walk to class and dining halls, many of which are right in the dorms) and they foster an integrated social environment that you can't fully appreciate when living off-campus typically.

Dorms are also becoming increasingly luxurious in some cases. In my old college suite, we had maids come by every morning to take out our trash and recycling and every weekend they'd thoroughly clean the entire bathroom, shower, sinks, and toilet. Just to be clear, these were private bathrooms in individual suites that they'd clean, not just the shared communal bathrooms.

[SilasX]

I think there are two phenomena here:

1) Opportunity cost: The land on campus, due to being near campus stuff, has appreciated a lot in value, so it doesn't make sense to use as dorms (instead of whatever else) unless you can charge out the nose for it.

2) Access to loans "for education" is easy to get, and this counts as part of the education package, so students figure to pay for not having to park or to walk as far.

[CaptSpify]

Honest question: Why would you pay that, instead of renting an apartment off-campus?

[washadjeffmad]

On-Campus Housing is advertised heavily by universities as contributing to greater participation and "improved likelihood of success in college and beyond".

One practical benefit is you can roll out of bed 20 minutes before class, skipping the morning commute and hour of looking for parking (oversold lots), then walk home after class. You live at school. I've never done this.

And everyone who lives around you is a student and maybe not a couple with a wailing newborn in the middle of a divorce arguing every night at 3am, a group of problem teens with working parents that hang out outside your door smoking and being obnoxious (both the kids and parents), or someone who locks their howling dogs in the bathroom for 10+ hours a day during their shifts.

If you couldn't spend your student loan on housing, you can bet rent would be lower.

[kamaal]

>>One practical benefit is you can roll out of bed 20 minutes before class, skipping the morning commute and...

I never understood this. If a person doesn't have the discipline to wake up early(unless he/she has been studying all night), further incentivizing their laziness is barely the solution to their problems.

And let's be frank, staying living at school doesn't translate to more time for studies. It generally means you waste more time with friends.