On average, I see more expensive cars in the Bay Area than I do in my home state. I suspect that's because they're proportionally cheaper to someone who can afford to live there.
People in rural areas have less options to live with their parents while attending a college.
People that live with their parents while going to college save a significant amount of money compared to people that live on their own.
College costs are actually not the same for everyone. It's hard to find two people that have the same degree and paid exactly the same for it. It's easy to find two people eating the same burrito that paid exactly the same for it.
That's true, and actually amplifies the point I was trying to get across. A low rural cost of living doesn't help low-income rural kids afford college, since the college is likely in a higher income city area and priced accordingly.
Agricultural and land grant schools are often not in urban areas - and far closer to where rural kids are growing up, and have more helpful programs to help them in their actual careers.
Washington State University, for example, is vastly more affordable to live near than the University of Washington, and has agriculture, forestry and farming oriented majors, as well as all the ones you'd typically expect.
That's not true in the least. Housing costs make up a huge piece of a degree for most people, and costs vary wildly. I made the dubious decision of going to school in Santa Cruz and San Francisco. My costs would have been cut in half, at least, had I gone to Kansas State.
There's also huge variance in tuition, including public vs private, in-state vs out-of-state. There's federal, state and other grants - they cut my costs by a bunch. And a 2-year degree generally costs a fraction of a 4-year degree.
It is never cheap to be a full time student, but the cost is highly variable.
Living expenses trump cost of college, IMO, especially if you are a needy person. Needy people can get great assistance, even if they don't know where to get it.
I meant that referring to someone as "needy" is needlessly derogatory and offensive, regardless of what the poster meant. If he meant low-income, there are less offensive ways to express that which he should use instead of "needy".
Not necessarily. College X costs the same for everyone (modulo scholarships and grants), but Chadron State College (in Nebraska), say, probably doesn't cost as much as Stanford.
You can do alright if you learn a trade, which is typically much less expensive than university. In another life, I might have hung around home and taken up being an electrician, carpenter, boiler tech or mechanic. Cost of living is so much lower, in particular housing costs and taxes, that I could make half as much money and experience a comparable quality of life.
If the finances balanced like this, Ii's unlikely that cities would be such popular destinations for young adults. I expect you'd find that the missing income is even greater than the savings in costs of living.
Or they do balance like this but the opportunities you miss out on as a young person are worth far more to you than the cost of living. That's certainly how it worked for me. I could have lived off $20.00/hr in the rural area I grew up in, but I would be isolated or stuck going to church for all of my social interactions. In the city I can't live comfortably off less than $30.00 but other people are right outside my door.
I dunno. I think there's more to the draw of cities. Like, I personally know I'm saving less living in a "city" than I could be living in my hometown... But, there's a lot more to do, it's a lot more culturally diverse, etc etc. I value that more than the extra money I could be saving. I'm willing to bet others value things like that, as well as the career opportunities, that come with cities.
