>

I think it comes down to three things:


The two countries tax differently. The average US citizen pays around 20% of their salary as taxes while the average German pays around 40%. That's partially why schools and hospitals are free in Germany but not in the US.


Not everyone in the US pays the $15k for schools. A large portion of people pay next to $0 thanks to financial aids. This includes boarding cost too.


The $15k cost doesn't just include tuition, it also includes other fees like boarding cost, medical and books, etc. If you count the boarding cost for German schools it's closer.
/u/poolofshark (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You are dancing around one key question.
In Europe, tax dollars pay for school. In the US, the citizens have not agreed to have tax dollars fully pay for colleges.
This is the fundamental issue. 
Until people in the US want to fund colleges with tax dollars, you will see this. Given the tax rates are lower in the US, it explains why colleges charge.
What is more, the data in the US shows it does pay to invest in a college degree with typically about a million dollars more earned in the working career for having a degree. 
If you want to talk college affordability or budgets, you really have to look apples to apples.
It is just not possible to compare UCLA's budget to a European university. Simply put, UCLA is likely paying for things that the European university does not. Healthcare, public transit, and public safety all come to mind. Then you have the Athletics program which distorts this. It is a net positive for UCLA but appears as massive spending. You have the different costs for staff. What does a Professor cost in Germany vs the USA.  
Unless you begin controlling these variables, you aren't making a fair or even useful comparison. >

i would be dancing around that question if there was any evidence to suggest that universities actually needs that extra monies. UCLA clearly doesn't if it's run properly because it's already getting 3x the money than LMU and somehow it still raises its tuition fee every year. It just seems that the money is going to waste and the university system isn't run efficiently. even if taxpayers agree to more taxes, it won't solve the efficiency issue at UCLA.
colleges are funded with tax dollars. The 3 billion that UCLA gets every year comes from tax dollars through the UC system. tax payers already pay for it and they're forced to pay again if they want to attend the university. 
healthcare is free in Europe, public transit is well developed but that shouldn't be a factor because UCLA provides on campus housing and most students stay on campus. you don't need a commute for that.
what exactly is the net positive in putting everyone else in debt to fund varsity sports?
i already took those variables into account before making my post. >


i would be dancing around that question if there was any evidence to suggest that universities actually needs that extra monies. UCLA clearly doesn't if it's run properly because it's already getting 3x the money than LMU and somehow it still raises its tuition fee every year.

To be blunt, you don't have any clue what the costs really are. You are projecting your ideas into areas I seriously doubt you have any real data for.
Care to tell me exactly which line items in the UCLA budget should be reduced and by how much? If not, then how in the hell do you know what it takes to operate? >

You stated they did not need this money. The only way that is legitimate is if you have actual knowledge of thier budgets and can speak to exactly what should be cut.
It appears you don't have this knowledge and instead 'just know' they don't need this money. 
Frankly speaking, if you cannot speak to explicit details, you have ZERO basis to claim the budget is too big or not. You are speaking toward *your belief' of what things are rather than actual facts. 
It's amazing what happens when you realize your assumptions/beliefs are wrong. >

mate, are you kidding me right now.
9.2 billion translates to 200k spent on each student per year. are you actually trying to make a case that UCLA is spending 200k, directly or indirectly on each student?
if not, then my post is hardly a projection and if yes, then they're producing absolute dogshit results for 200k spent per student. >

Dude, without knowing what the budgets and line items are, you don't really have a clue what the money is spent on.
I'll give you a hint, it is not spent solely on undergraduate students. I'd actually venture to say the overwhelming majority is not spent there. This budget includes research expenditures, bond maintenance, building operation expenses, grounds maintenance, renovation/upkeep, technology, etc. 
So - since you are the self proclaimed expert, where should it be cut. Where are the actual allocations made? Oh - that's right. You don't actually know. 
That means your opinions on this are all based on your biased assumptions of what money is spent where and how much 'it should cost'. >

Most of what US universities (big public ones like UCLA) spend money on is not education. Therefore, "3x the university-wide budget" is not the same thing as "it costs 3x as much to teach a student" when you comparing US to European institutions.
American research universities are research powerhouses--out-publishing the rest of the world many times over while having amassed the most talented researches native to virtually every other country. 
Also, American universities often function as much more than "schools" to the communities in much more central ways than typical European  universities.  They often house the largest local sports teams, hospitals, theater and performing arts scenes, and museums, too.
A reasonable person can debate if US universities should have all those things rolled up in them or not, but at the moment, they do and it makes any comparison to the other universities you listed an "apples to oranges" discussion. >

True answer here. >

An engineer could earn 150k in US and only 60k in EU and I guess it's the same for professors. But completely agree with administration. >

and who exactly is stopping US firms from hiring a German engineer? I mean US firms hire boatloads of engineers from my native country, India and engineering degrees in India cost a fraction of what it costs in the US.
i mean i understand that there are caps on H1B visas but even then, they're good enough. >


I mean US firms hire boatloads of engineers from my native country, India and engineering degrees in India cost a fraction of what it costs in the US.

This doesn't mean it's easy to get a visa/job in the US. Sponsorship is hard to get. There are only boatloads of engineers coming from India because there are a billion people in India. As a percentage, very few people make it from India to the US on work visas. >

it is. most of the placements happen on campus and the companies that hire them aid in getting those visas. I know it because I went through that process. 
and sure, we have a billion people but we don't have a billion engineers. >

You don’t have a billion but you do literally have 3 million~ students studying engineering, that is 4 to 5 times as many as the United States. >

yes we do and most of those engineering degrees aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. A gender studies graduate from America will be more educated in technology than most of the garbage colleges that we have. they're only there to make profit and they're dogshit at that too.
we have good colleges and they provide amazing and rigorous training. IITs, NITs, BITS, Manipal et al. recruiters  also know this and that's why you have so much recruitment from these places for firms like Google, Microsoft and Amazon. >

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with the core notion here, that it's overpriced in the US, but there are two things to keep in mind. 
Firstly, in America large schools function essentially like cities unto themselves, mostly because the American style of government just doesn't provide many services and amenities to young people like European governments do. This isn't just housing. UCLA likely has a fully functional health center that provides basic medical services to students for free, which students would be unable to access otherwise. Similarly they probably have mental health services for students, and a career center for helping with employment. They likely have their own campus police force complete with squad cars and a dispatch. They also operate a huge sports organization complete with teams, merchandise, and stadiums. So you are getting something for all that administrative staff that you pay for. They're administrating and providing services that students want and need, but the local government simply doesn't provide. 
Secondly, hardly anybody pays sticker price. 85% of students get some kind of financial aid. This can range from a limited debt and work-placement arrangement (which of course still requires staff to administrate), to a full-ride scholarship. They're not even subtle about it: when I was applying to schools, a school I liked was just a bit too expensive, so I wrote them about this, and they replied with an offer of an $8,000 per-year discount. The tuition is just transparently a ceiling on the negotiation rather than actually a price that every student is expected to pay. >

The 85% figure is quite misleading because it includes student loans iirc correct me if I'm wrong. With that said at least at my school most students pay sticker price on tuition but housing and other costs are what add up the price >

There are lots of reasons for this. But to me the two that stand out are real estate and staffing costs. 
The US has higher salaries than Germany for skilled labor in general, and UCLA is in a particularly expensive part of the country. So UCLA has to pay more for staff. A lot more. 
UCLA is also on a VERY expensive piece of real estate. While a lot of its buildings are quite old it is still expanding and to expand has to pay to acquire real estate and then pay high California business costs to build whatever they need on that real estate. 
Throw in that UCLA runs a hospital which are very expensive to operate when the government is not capping doctors and nurse pay. You probably have a decent portion of the difference. 
UCLA also runs a huge athletics program that sucks money and probably offers more amenities. My understanding is that German students don't live on campus normally which is very common in the states. 
UCLA always has more foreign students applicants than it has spots for them, and foreign students pay even more than the posted price. So obviously there is a pretty big population, who could go almost anywhere, who think it's worth the money. >

Regarding your first points:
Munich is probably one of the most expensive cities in Germany aswell. Though true that LA is probably a bit more expensive, the difference is not that great.
LMU also is situated in a lot of old buildings, possibly older than any building in LA. And that's right at the city center/old part of town, where real estate is really expensive.
LMU also has a medicine faculty and runs a top quality hospital, one of the best in Germany. Though once again, I am sure doctors in the US are probably paid more than they are in Germany.
Athletics program is definitely a factor, but then again: do I want to pay 15k a year so I can watch a mediocre football game every 2 weeks? It's probably cheaper to just buy season tickets for bayern Munich at that point.
Real reason is probably, that they just can do it. USAs universities and research institutes have some of the best funding for research, meaning some of the best chances to get great education for the pinnacle of research. When I want to work in directed evolution, it might be worth the 15k a year to have connection (both geographically and via peers) to Caltech where Frances Arnold is working. But even then, other top rated universities also have novel prize laudates without paying 15k/year >


Munich is probably one of the most expensive cities in Germany aswell. Though true that LA is probably a bit more expensive, the difference is not that great.

Seems LA is about 50 % more expensive depending on what source you use. 

LMU also is situated in a lot of old buildings, possibly older than any building in LA. And that's right at the city center/old part of town, where real estate is really expensive

It's not the old buildings that are super expensive its the new ones you have to buy and build. UCLA is doing a ton of expansions to their campus. These are mostly dorms because UCLA isn't strictly speaking an urban campus where student housing can be fully accommodated in the surrounding city. 
I'm guessing LMU students just live wherever they can/want in Munich as opposed to university built/owned student housing. It might actually be more expensive in Munich (doubtful but possible) but those costs are not included in school costs at LMU but would be at UCLA. 

Athletics program is definitely a factor, but then again: do I want to pay 15k a year so I can watch a mediocre football game every 2 weeks? It's probably cheaper to just buy season tickets for bayern Munich at that point.

It's not just football. It's scholarships and facilities to all their programs. Basketball, track and field, swimming, gymnastics, field hockey, ice hockey, baseball, golf, etc. There are thousands of student athletes at UCLA playing a sport nobody will watch. Whether or not you actually care about that is your preference, but it's part of the model and costs money. 

Real reason is probably, that they just can do it. USAs universities and research institutes have some of the best funding for research, meaning some of the best chances to get great education for the pinnacle of research. When I want to work in directed evolution, it might be worth the 15k a year to have connection (both geographically and via peers) to Caltech where Frances Arnold is working. But even then, other top rated universities also have novel prize laudates without paying 15k/year

There is definitely some of that. UCLA is a great school. But it's also just access to the American job market. Yes you can go to a German school and immigrate, but that's not easy and few in the US will know LMU while everyone works wide will know UCLA. I know a number of expats from south and east Asia who went to American schools then right back to their home countries because the cache of an American school was so valuable in their home economy. 
But that is about the price, not the cost and UCLA ultimately spends all the money it gets as a non-profit. 
So perhaps they spend 3x because they can charge 3x because ppl value the brand 3x. Not you obviously, but enough ppl to support the price. >

Unnecessarily expensive?  Depends
My friend finished college with an engineering degree paying around 15,000 dollars for his entire education.
How?
Community college and going to an in state school.
Many young people just still make the mistakes of going out of state and not utilizing community college.  It might be a pride thing or it might be a lack of education on what their getting themselves into.  They also want to go to schools that have prestigious names and/or "party schools".
If someone lives Califronia and goes to a community college then a CSU they will spend around 15,000 dollars and no more than 20,000.
I hate to be the "take responsibility" guy but young people make it way harder on themselves financially for school than they need to. >

The point is, they will still spend 15k more than a German student or an international student in Germany and while LMU and UCLA have similar quality of say engineering degree, LMU and a community college won't. 
just the sheer size of the alumni network of LMU will make it both cheaper and better for someone like your friend. >

If this line of logic is a generally convincing to you, I had a college that was offering me a free ride and to pay me $15K to attend school there. Granted this was in a state where every HS graduate with a high GPA gets free in-state tuition. >

that line of reasoning is convincing because while there was one college giving you that free ride because you were a brilliant student, i would receive that free ride regardless of how exceptional or ordinary i am. sure, i won't get into LMU but i can go to University of Cologne and I'll still recieve a free education.
if being a genius was a requirement for college, they would be free everywhere because the herd would be very thin. >

Tbf you don't necessarily have to be a prodigy or anything. Plenty of schools will pay you to attend with academics that are below the 90th percentile. Granted, these may not be the "name-brand" schools that many would want to attend and you would likely be able to get into a better school, but IMO choosing an undergrad school should just be going for the place with the best opportunities out of the ones that give you money (and then getting loans/spending money for grad school). Just my 2 cents tho. >

still doesn't change the fact that i can attend a uni for free in Germany/Sweden/France for free even if i am in 75th percentile. I might not get my first or second preference but i will get a uni for free if i want to study. >

Fair enough. Uni is defo overpriced here for sure, just wanted to add that making it more affordable isn't unachievable. >

Can anyone in Germany go to college for free? In the US 40% of people 25-34 have a 4 year degree while in Germany the number is only 28%. More of the population are able to get degrees in the US. >

If you have the grades, then yes anyone can go to uni. >

For free? Or even at 75-95% off tuition price?
The question wasn't if Germans are ALLOWED to go to uni. It was how many of them are going at little to no cost. >

yes, for free. >

Thank you. I wasn't sure. >

Putting aside academic quality…
UCLA is a top tier research university plus a hospital system. The medical system pays for itself with around a 3.5 billion dollar budget. UCLA also gets around 1.4 billion in research grants.
There are a few key differences in the educational systems in the USA compared to Germany. One such difference is how the the German government/educational systems restricts students choices for higher education. If you don’t do so well in an exam in elementary/primary school, it won’t be possible to attempt to get certain higher education degrees. This means Germany restricts/gate keeps who can get higher education, restricts the students who can go along with limiting the freedom of choice of the pupils.
In the USA, essentially all students are free to pursue a high education. The federal government is unable to fund this venture for everyone without limiting those you can go attempt to get higher education. 
The cost of living, government regulations, and generic expenditures are also much different in the USA compared to Germany. A direct comparison in spending for administration/academic professional are not directly comparable on budget basis. 
It is worth noting that college tuition is generally changes based on the merit of the student and there ability to pay for the tuition e.g. if you come from a family of no wealth/poor, you are poised to get a free or a significant reduction of tuition cost for university. There are also cheap higher education alternatives such as community college that can lead to a 4 year degree at a flagship university >

have you looked into LMU and if you did, what makes you think that it isn't a top tier research university? statistically speaking, it's the second best university in Germany after TMU with a very high research output. 
sure, you might not restrict it as a rule but that choice is made for the student regardless. a kid with poor grades won't go to uni in Germany or if they did, won't study medicine. a kid with poor grades won't get admission to any in demand major at UCLA because of his poor grades. we essentially reach to same conclusions either way. I mean Germany has 80% more doctors per 1000 people so obviously they're graduating more doctors than US anyway.
the question wasn't about admin spending, the question was why do you need so much extra admin staff to manage similar number of students.
yes, i know it changes on those basis and that why i quoted the data based on average in state value at UCLA after aid. >

That is why I said “putting academics aside” because this isn’t really about a pissing contest of what school is better. It also is not optimal to 2 compare 2 explicit universities when you are trying to make an argument about the overall education system.
In the USA, somebody with awful grades in primary and secondary school still can go on to be a medical doctor if they preform well in college. They could go to ucla by transferring from a California community college. Admissions to ucla is completely at the discretion of UCLA. Besides all that, the reason why their is a doctor shortage in the USA is mostly due to limited residency slots which is a federal government program ( to become a medical doctor in the USA is different than Germany). This aspect is not relevant to the discussion. 
As I mentioned before, the USA has different rules, regulations, cost of living, and expected salary compared to Germany. One key difference which contributes to significant bloat is title IX protection which universities and public’s schools must adhere too. The university is also a large multi billion dollar hospital system which a lot of the administrators are going to be dedicated too: it isn’t just for the students >

Ok, so... it's very common in the field of high-end goods for the last 10% to cost twice as much. 
Take binoculars for example. A high-end pair of Nikons might set you back $500, but Swarovskis are ~$2500, and are only maybe 25% better quality. 
You can call them "overrated" all you want, but their higher quality is objectively real, and people are willing to pay for that extra bump if they really need the best to get the most out of what they are using them for. There's nothing "irrational" about that. Supply and demand sets prices, not "reasonable assessment of the merits"... I know this must be very disappointing to some people, but it's reality. 
Why is this relevant?
The most respected university rating system puts UCLA at 14th best in the world, and Munich at 47th. 
Are they both great? Absolutely. But you really can't tell how much more #14 "should cost" than #47, especially if you're getting a job in a country where people know more about UCLA than LMU Munich as well. Because price and quality almost never have a linear relationship. The closer you are to the best of the best, the much higher price things are. 
Ultimately, though, you're making a reductive mistake that lots of people make about education. It's not all about what you learn or what you're taught. It's also very much about the reputation and accuracy of the certification that they provide that you're a high-quality student. 
That's because employers are taking a risk by hiring anyone. That risk has a cost associated with it. Reducing that risk by taking someone with a more reputable certification over another is always a worthwhile investment. 
Maybe companies are making mistakes by doing this, sure... but to the student choosing a college it really doesn't matter at all as long as they do. 
So... this could just be a matter of one particular poor example, but US colleges represent 8 of the top 10 schools in that list. 
It doesn't matter if that list is in some abstract sense "accurate" or representative of what people learn, because learning is not even the main point of a college degree in a world where anyone can learn anything at the touch of a finger on a phone: the main point is the reputation of the certification of that learning. 
At least to employers. Who are the people college students are generally paying money to get their degree to impress. 
Also, don't ignore massive differences in actual prices of these degrees vs. the nominal one. Like many things in the US (e.g. healthcare), the sticker price is often very much inflated compared to what people actually pay. 55% of people attending Harvard get substantial need-based scholarships. 20% of students pay nothing there because of this. And that's completely ignoring merit-based scholarships. >

since when did the US news rankings become the most respected university ranking system and who exactly awarded that honour?
regardless, are you really out here suggesting that a comparable degree from UCLA is 25% better than LMU? the question out here is how are you defining "the best". to me, it's like the US claiming to be the world champions of American football when only they play American football seriously.
my question to you would be, why do you think a certificate and degree from LMU will be any less valuable than UCLA? The general public might be dumb and unaware but people who recruit aren't. They're well aware of how rigorous an education a prospect received. If that wasn't the case, you won't see many Indians from places like IITs in US. 
again, that list is prepared by a US source that you claimed to be the most reputable. 
also, i am not ignoring the actual prices vs sticker price but that fact still remains that nothing is cheaper than free. >


The general public might be dumb and unaware but people who recruit aren't.

Don't overestimate the intelligence of recruiters. That would be a bad mistake. 
Again: it's all about reputation... or rather, that's very close to all it's about. 
LMU Munich simply has no reputation in the US unless someone looks it up in a list. I can't judge how true the reverse might be in Germany, but I've been a hiring manager in the US, and have known many recruiters, and hired several people, including some fresh out of college. 
The main reason IIT grads are hired in the US is both because they're less expensive on H1B visas, and often because the company has done work with an offshoring SW company and already knows the candidate's work. 
So, yes, there are exceptions to the rule. 
As for US News and World Report... they're certainly the most reputable in the US, so if you're planning to get a job in the US when you're selecting a school, that's the one you'd use... 
But every world-wide college ranking list out of the 5 I checked before posting this show UCLA as substantially higher than LMU Munich, and many US colleges in the top 10. Only the exact ranking differs. 

nothing is cheaper than free.

Let's not pretend that tax-funded services are free, shall we? In most countries, including Germany, a large majority of those taxes are paid for by college educated people, so it's really just a deferred cost... much like a college loan. >

I think you’re missing a couple of things here. One is return on investment. In the US the median increased earnings for having a degree are $24k a year. I doubt it’s as high in Germany. 
Another issue is the aggressive tracking used in Germany and other countries. Weaker/under performing students are ferreted out and can’t really attend higher education.
I’d also note that despite the cost, the US ranks rather well in terms of population with a tertiary degree. >

I think people in these debates really don't understand how elitist the process is in Germany to end up on the university track. Poor and working class Germans are basically paying for free college for the upper class. Not to mention, if you are an migrant who doesn't know German, your education opportunities are pretty screwed. >

Can you elaborate on how the German Univeristy track is elitist? >

Read as "merit based". >

I totally agree that the US school universities are wildly bloated at the administrative level. It's due to a long list of factors including student debt industry, college sports, societal expectations, etc.
But I think that comparing tuition cost with Germany in a vacuum isn't valid. When you graduate with a degree in engineering, supply chain, math, or medicine, you're entering an industry where you make far more money than your German counterpart. If the decision between the two colleges was made based on quality of education for the money, Germany every day. But people are going to college to gain access to the highly paid American corporate employment opportunities. >

the amount of money can differ very quickly, med school costs like 200 grand >

med school cost 0 in Germany because like everything else, it's free. >

It is paid for through taxes. None of it is "free" it is just paid for differently. I'm not German so I'm making some assumptions here but if these things are paid via taxes then everyone pays in. In the US the tax support for college is only a portion of it, the rest is paid for by those who choose to attend. 
And, you can correct me if I am wrong but, isn't there some significant gatekeeping to getting into a German college? In the US a lot of state colleges are open enrollment. >

brother, your uni systems is already throwing more money into the system while also charging your students. 
that why i specifically pointed out the budgets and how UCLA has essentially 3X the budget from UC system. The 3 billion that UCLA receive from UC system is also paid through taxes and yet it charges a fee. >

Why compare it to four years at UCLA?  
It actually only costs like $15-20k total to get a good state-school college degree in the US, and that’s only if your family makes too much for financial aid otherwise it’s closer to 0.  
My estimate includes two years of community college. Doing the first to years at a university in America is an entirely unnecessary luxury. >

Seems like OP just wants to argue that Germany is better than the US and this is the platform he chose. >

nope, i want someone to challenge my view on how US degrees aren't overpriced and overrated. all people are doing is saying that education is worth it, a point that I agree with and never put up for challenge. >

I think you answered the question about the price already in your digging of numbers. You had a number that an American university spent on its academic staff and that was much higher per head than it is in Germany. The obvious explanation is that academic scholars are paid worse salaries in Germany than in the US. There's nothing magic in that. And then that cost (which is likely to be the biggest cost for a university) the propagates to the cost of a degree in the university.
I can't say anything about the overrating of the degree but the above gives you a pretty good explanation for the price. >

Comparing just raw budget numbers is a terrible comparison without knowing what those budgets pays for. 
How many operations are being run by LMU? Does it have medical, dental, nursing school? World class sports? Does LMU have a giant fucking hospital system under its name?
UCLA seems to get over $1B in research funds - greater than the entire budget you state for LMU. It appears you are comparing apples and oranges. >

Totally agree with you. A quick Wikipedia search (obviously not the best source) shows that while LMU education budget is €735 million, if you include the hospital it's €1.94 billion. So OP just left out 63% of the budget of LMU while including it in UCLA. He clearly doesn't understand how UCLA works. >

I think comparing European to American education is somewhat of a sysyphian task. Yes. German education costs less. It's a more socialized economy. As a result German salaries for white collar jobs are lower. 
The example I give is medical school. Debt for medical students in the UK is considerably considerably lower. But I can make 2-3x as more as a physician in the us than I can in the UK. Debt is almost always a wise investment if it finances a high roi. There are of course upstream and downstream consequences of this decision. People need to view college as a financial decision rather than an educational one. You're looking for an roi not a place to learn and grow, first and foremost. (not saying that you can't experience the latter). And you're incentivized heavily to take a high paying job which might create sectors of the population whom are underserved. 
America, philosophically, values the individual over the group. It is a core principle that has been upheld time and time again by a large swath of the country. So, rather than dispersing costs we concentrate them and expect individuals to handle the burden. 
Is this a good philosophy? Depends on your prospective I guess. Working in psychiatry I tend to have a social view of things. To me it has overwhelming costs that can absolutely destroy a person which can lead to cracks on a social level. But many of my colleagues wouldn't do medicine if they couldn't make a half mil a year. So... Take it for what you will. 
What has always impressed me about the US is for a geographically large country we provide a massive infastructure for education. If you want to get a college education you probably can. Often cheaply if you're willing to forgo rankings. People shit on the US a lot (and for good reason) but access to education is viewed as a moral good and the physical places to study genuinely do exist which is honestly kinda impressive. >

You raise a lot of good points and IMO the government should make it a lot easier for the poor to attend college. 
One thing you don't seem to cover is that even if you take out student loans college is still financially worth it.
The median income of a college grad is sufficiently higher than high school only or some college that it's financially in your best interests to go to college. 
Until tuition, college debt incurred, or interest rates on college debt increases significantly (or some combination) to the point where it's a financial wash long term it will continue to be worth it. >

i never questioned whether college itself is worth it or not because it absolutely is. as a personal example, i essentially did my undergrad and grad in India at a whopping cost of 6000 dollars for 6 years. including the living cost, i basically survived those 6 years for less than 15k. on my degree and experience, i now make 350k in US. so college is absolutely worth it.
my post was about the overrated college system in the US, especially when you look it from a financial perspective. at 29, i have 0 debt because education was cheap in India, something i can't say for some of my coworkers who graduated and are from the US.
and i mean isn't the answer obvious? cut out the admin and varsity sports out of your system and suddenly, you can make college affordable for everyone. why hang on to dead weight. like i worked for 6 months in Barcelona and students weren't going to college football games because they don't exist. Instead, they were more than happy to go to camp nou and attend a FC Barcelona game. Same holds true for universities in London where Med School like Imperial is less than 10k for budding doctors.
what exactly is the point in hanging onto dead weight that forces your University system to raise prices every year by 5% after you gave them billions already from taxes? >

Side note: many to most athletic programs are independently funded from outside the schools vi boosters, tv deals, tickets, etc. Typically if a school does help fund an athletic program, it’ll be as an added fee to student tuition.
Athletics are an easy cop out for tuition being high but it’s not the case. >

the biggest criteria in all other rankings( qs for example) was research and even in those metrics LMU isn't behind UCLA. no matter how you cut it, LMU is a world class university. while we can't directly say who is better, i think indirectly we can make a case for LMU. the number of academic staff is one factor that's very important in determining it and that catagory decisively goes to LMU.
prices mean absolutely nothing in these regards. you want me to pick another example from US? how about University of Wisconsin at Madison? 
UW charges a good amount to provide student housing and i can bet that Madison isn't more expensive than Munich.
I mean we can easily take that data out. if we assume that a student is living off campus, all we need is a comparison on numbeo to figure out the cost of living difference. >


the biggest criteria in all other rankings( qs for example) was research and even in those metrics LMU isn't behind UCLA. no matter how you cut it, LMU is a world class university. 

They do all emphasize research.  Which means we can't say much about teaching.  I'm not saying LMU is bad - I'm saying we don't have the data here to evaluate your argument either way.

the number of academic staff is one factor that's very important in determining it and that catagory decisively goes to LMU.

UCLA has about 8,000 faculty.  LMU has a bit under 7,000.  The ratio is roughly the same.  I'm not sure where you got 5500 or 4000.
But, again, I'm not saying LMU is or isn't better/equal/worse.  I'm saying we don't have the data.

I mean we can easily take that data out. if we assume that a student is living off campus, all we need is a comparison on numbeo to figure out the cost of living difference.

Cost of living affects how much it costs to run the university directly.  Not student housing, but faculty and staff pay, cost of land, etc. >

As far as I know it's been a problem for a lot longer than 10 years, but that's interesting data. Still, if academic support and student services spending are mostly wages, they're spending nearly as much on administrators as they are on faculty, which I think could reasonably be called bloat. It doesn't seem reasonable that those should cost about $5000 per student. >

At tier 1 research universities, using students as the denominator isn't necessarily the best measure.  There is a lot of research and health care services that go on regardless of student enrollment.  
Also, the student body has changed a lot since the 60s, when most university students were middle-to-upper class white men.  They needed a lot less support than our current student body does, with more diversity, first attendee in their family students, students in need of mental health care and counseling, etc.  This is all a net good, even if it does cost more. >


There is a lot of research and health care services that go on regardless of student enrollment.  

Yes, which is why I was focusing on student/academic support, which should be roughly per student, not overall budget. Research and institution support would of course not closely track student numbers.

Also, the student body has changed a lot since the 60s, when most university students were middle-to-upper class white men.  They needed a lot less support than our current student body does, with more diversity, first attendee in their family students, students in need of mental health care and counseling, etc.  This is all a net good, even if it does cost more.

All true; even so, an average of $5k per student seems like a lot. Assuming most of the costs are in paying staff, that makes something on the order of a few tens of students per well-paid support staff member, and not all of those students would actually be using those services. >

This was a decade ago but I earned a Chemical Engineering degree from a top 5 public university for $0. The state covered 100% of the tuition for me and the vast majority of my classmates. >

I would find it extremely surprising that they covered the tuition of a “vast majority” of your classmates. >

I can claim this because the standards to get the 100% tuition were lower than the standards to get into the university. >

Interesting. Making me feel bad about the cost of my ChemE degree was that I’ve never used. >

I don't think most ChemEs directly use the degrees. It's more something to put on your CV to say "look what I can do" and get hired into whatever sector you want, generally speaking. >

Probably extremely valid. Teaches you how to problem solve. >

You're not just paying for the degree and the teaching quality, you're also paying for the position of the institution and the contacts you receive. You need to remember that the college is located in the United States, a country with extremely high earning potential, and concomitant competition for academic placements. You'll be meeting faculty and peers who will be among the country's highest earning and most well connected people in the future.
I throw up in my mouth saying that with how elitist it sounds, but it is true. That's why rich families tend to pay luxury car money to send their kids to out of state prestige colleges, when they could get the same degree for orders of magnitude less >

Absolutely! You're paying for name recognition, a lot of times. Harvard (as an example)? People all over the world know the status that Harvard insinuates and provides. >

I think of it as investment 101.  You pay a cost to get something you want to give you a return.  Mix with that there is also a supply/demand curve.  
People want to go to American universities (demand) and the supply of top tier spots is limited. That drives price up. The factors behind demand are related to benefits (perceived or real) on either quality of education or networking opportunities. They have fixed costs to run the institutions, however price would come down if they weren't filling the seats. Or at the least they would increase the amount of scholarships available (thus lowering the effective price). 
When comparing US to over seas universities, the demand side changes dramatically. Many people speak English as a 1st/2nd language, which is why Oxford/Cambridge can also charge mega rates for foreigners. There is a similar network / prestige that gets provided for graduates there. 
You can get a beef burger for $4, or a kobe beef burger for $25.  Does that mean the kobe beef burger is unnecessarily expensive and overrated?  It's what people want and there are additional costs to massage those cows and some people prefer the taste/texture of the kobe beef burger.  It has 'benefits' to the consumer (preceived or real) just like Universities.
All this is to say, the sticker price is a factor of underlying costs (you can look at the P&L of universities and see that they're not racking in tons of money here) mixed with market factors. >

Lets remember for the boomers college education was basically free, then they took it away from us. >


College Education system in the US is unnecessarily expensive.

Fully agree and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise. It's almost universally accepted that college education is grossly over-inflated cost-wise.

College Education system in the US is extremely overrated

Hard disagree right here, and this is why. I'm going to give you an example of my own personal work experience. I went back to college around age 30 to pursue a degree in construction management. After a couple of years back in school my financial aid was pulled and I was no longer able to afford to continue the degree program. Fortune was on my side in that I had been doing an internship with a construction company at the same time and they were willing to let me continue working with them full time.
At this point, almost a decade later, I've mostly learned what I would have otherwise learned in college here on the job. So with enough time you can argue the point that any person dedicated to the job can learn most of what they need without ever stepping foot in a college classroom. But that's not how businesses in the US are set up. You could say that colleges are a "pay-to-win" scheme, in some regards, because one thing that any company sees when they see that a potential employee has a bachelor's degree is that this person is a hard worker. It's one immediate flag to the employer that this person is serious about the job and already has industry knowledge. It will take less time to train that college-educated individual than it will another person who isn't.
At the same time, it doesn't matter how much a high school drop-out has turned their life around and gotten serious about pursuing a serious trade skill or job - this is something that is going to be a black stain on that person's resume in the eyes of a potential employer until that person goes back and finishes school or pursues higher education. Whether it's construction or banking or retail or any other job, there are going to be questions about the dependability and work ethic of an individual who hasn't "put in the time".
College is only overrated to individuals who aren't able to take advantage of all the perks that a college education can bring. College education can give you life-changing advantages over someone who doesn't have a degree. You get opportunities to go from jobs paying $15 or less to jobs that are much higher. Think about it... it's very hard to find any job that doesn't require a higher education that pays much more above the poverty line. Even a job paying $15/hour is only getting you $31,200 a year at 40 hours a week before taxes. There are more jobs requiring higher education paying well above $15/hour than there are paying at $15 or less per hour. >

Change it to what? It's actually worse? >

Your argument would have more strength if you’d picked one of the thousands of random, pointlessly expensive universities in the USA. But you’ve picked UCLA, which is one of the great research institutions of the globe, a world class hospital system, a massive sports culture unto itself, and is in Los Angeles California, one of the most desirable places in the world to live. 
Also, it is part of the University of California system, which is far more affordable to in-state residents - not cheaper than free,of course, but any difference in price compared to a German university is quickly washed out when you factor in how much more American college graduates who enter the workforce will make vis-a-vis their German counterparts in the same industry, especially with a prestigious degree like UCLA. 
Also, the University of California system strongly benefits applicants who come from the community college system. I personally know two people who did very poorly in school as kids, worked, went back to community college in their 20s, and graduated from UCLA and UC Berkeley, without ever paying much. That freedom to pursue an education track later in life is feature of the UC system (and the US higher education system as a whole), not an incidental side-effect. >

I basically agree with everything your saying, especially that administrative bloat is responsible for the exorbitant cost of education in the us. This is a result of the government backed/subsidized student loan program imo.
However I do want bring up two points.
One, and you probably know this, is that college in the US is fundamentally a different thing from elsewhere. It's not just an education, it's a social experience facilitated by things like on campus housing, amenities, sports events etc, so drawing a direct comparison doesn't really work.
Two, your saying that a us college education is overrated. I would posit that the education is basically as good on average as anywhere else. An education from UCLA is an excellent one, as is LMU I'm sure. However, it is over-priced. This may seem like semantics but I think it's an important distinction. >

Bachelor's required entry level roles would beg to differ.
I do agree it's very possible to make a good living in the trades, but they take a toll on your body and/or take a long time to make money. >

There are plenty of schools around the US that are actually very reasonable price-wise, even more-so if it’s a public school and you can get in-state tuition >

Expensive, yes. Over rated? I don’t know because people from all over the world come to America for an education. I’m not saying people don’t go to Europe or Asia for higher ed, but higher education in America is one of the few things we do right.