[silvestrov]

No, the cost to tax payers in Europe is less than what people in USA have to pay the college.

This is because my University (in Europe) had no sport facilities whatsoever, not even a soccer field. It also had no dormitories, canteens, no fancy library, sport teams etc.

It did teaching + research, and nothing else.

[user5994461]

For reference, cost in France is about 11kE per year for undergraduate and 22kE per year for master in computer science engineering. That's what it costs the university per student, not what the student pays (up to 1k a year). This doesn't cover accommodation or canteen since that's not part of the university.

I don't know what's the cost in the US but I don't imagine it's orders more. The worst number I heard from coworkers was 60k$ a year in NYC (that's easily triple income and taxes compared to France so not a straight comparison).

[pb7]

That's roughly how much public in-state universities cost in the United States on average[0]. Some states are significantly cheaper.

[0] https://www.valuepenguin.com/student-loans/average-cost-of-c...

[sudosysgen]

Wait. You're comparing total cost in France, to cost at the point of use excluding taxes in the US. Education in public in-state universities is also highly subsidized.

[gammarator]

Those state subsidies have steadily been eroded over the time period under discussion--part of why tuition has increased. At most large state flagships, public funding is now a significant minority of revenue.

[sudosysgen]

Right. But you still can't compare US price without subsidies to French price with subsidies. They are still a significant minority, about 30-40% of what Tuition brings in.

Besides, public funding given a year ago still factors into costs today.

[ericmay]

Is it highly subsidized? Any reason to think that is the case?

[sudosysgen]

It is indeed highly subsidized, to the tune of billions a year. You can read the Financials online.

[ericmay]

Do you mean subsidized in the sense of student loans backed by the government?

[SilasX]

Right -- in the context of Europe, high quality means high education quality; it may not be high quality in the sense of all the frills Americans usually expect out of the college experience.

[nemothekid]

>had no sport facilities whatsoever, not even a soccer field. It also had no dormitories, canteens, no fancy library, sport teams etc.

Sports teams and dorms are no where near the top of the ticket of University expenses. Many of the Ivies hardly invest in sports and still come with a 60k ticket.

American private universities are more expensive because American universities hire more administrative faculty and pay them more. That’s largely where the money is going.

[zamfi]

> Many of the Ivies hardly invest in sports and still come with a 60k ticket

Believe it or not, at some of those Ivies, the cost per student exceeds $70k/yr, and is covered by overhead on grants, endowment, and other donations.

[srtjstjsj]

Ticket price has nothing to do with budget. The schools have endowments and scholarship for rich students to pay more while poor students pay less.

[ericmay]

Idk. People say this but are sports the real cost driver here? Many sports programs in the US pay for themselves and more or might be close to break even.

We also have Title IX (1) which in some cases will lead to increased costs. Not to mention we have, you guessed it, a Title IX coordinator at every university that has to comply with Title IX who probably makes $50,000 - $100,000. If you think about other programs at universities, you’ll see quite the glut of administrators.

https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/what-is-titl... (1)

The US education system is really just screwed up by free, guaranteed government loans. If we just made loans dischargeable then most of our issues would go away overnight. The issue you have here though is that we are concerned about access to affording college for those who have to take out loans, but this route we have just makes college increasingly unaffordable. It’s a viscous cycle. I think stopping it is the way forward.

Most likely sports are going away at US universities. Big football programs will stick around though because the make a killing and people generally love them. Men’s basketball too because it’s relatively affordable. For reference, as I’m watching Bloomberg there was a report that came out suggesting star quarterbacks at major Us football programs at the collegiate level should be compensated at around $2.4 million dollars. We won’t have a men’s rowing team, or women’s volleyball anymore though. Kind of sad since these are also used as Olympic training programs. But maybe we will change how we do things. I think the US will start losing a lot of sports talent though because the infrastructure isn’t there outside of the university system.

[skissane]

> We won’t have a men’s rowing team, or women’s volleyball anymore though

Universities in Australia generally have sports clubs where students play sport at an amateur/non-professional level. And that can even involve a representative team that plays the sport with students from other universities, even a handful of sports scholarships for promising athletes. That doesn’t cost the university that much at all, because unlike many American universities they are not trying to field a professional level team, just provide students with a recreational break from their studies, some exercise and socialising

[1123581321]

Yes, most lose money and average losses are projected to increase. Here’s an NCAA study: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/growth...

[triceratops]

> We won’t have a men’s rowing team, or women’s volleyball anymore though.

Why not? Can't they be funded in the same way as intra-mural sports i.e. by the athletes?

[jldugger]

Title IX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Equity_in_athletics) has pretty broadly been interpreted as meaning equal funding. So scholarships you allocate to men's football needs to be equally funded in women's scholarships. IDK what the OP is talking about, beacuse there's no way the status quo changes until Title IX is repealed.

[triceratops]

Equal funding, yes, but not necessarily to the same sports. They're allowed to take into account interest and participation. Otherwise, wouldn't we see million-dollar coaches for women's college football teams too? (I actually don't know of any women's college football teams, for that matter)

[jldugger]

I never said equal sports; but pretty much any women's sport doesn't draw in enough ticket sales to justify its existence based on profits alone.

[triceratops]

Almost no college sports, men's or women's, are profitable. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[watwut]

Afaik, only few super winning sports programs are earning. The rest of them costs money.

[ericmay]

Probably 20-30 I’d say safely make money. For the others, it depends on how much it costs. Like if they are in the whole $100,000/year they could instead fire an administrator, or ask alumni for donations.

I have to think most universities aren’t losing too much money or they’d cancel the sport already, but I think with COVID-19 this is going to happen across sports in college anyway,

[Terr_]

One theory goes that the whole "College ranking" apparatus has created a "race to the most affluent" situation, since high tuition costs have no negative effect on a College's ranking, and if you don't spend on facilities and things to up your ranking, then you'll lose customers to the competitor who does.

[chmod775]

Aren't college rankings mostly using the bullshit "citation" metric, for which researchers optimize by forming citation rings? [1]

[1] not to mention self-citations, which is probably half of all citations in the US vs roughly 1/4th of them in most other places: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?order=au&ord=desc*