>

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.
/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.