The Globe shows only one school outside 128, UMass.  How about the stats on some of the best colleges in the country, i.e. Williams and Amherst, which also happen to be in MA, and to which many of our very elite students of various means apply?  These colleges offer an arguably better education than Harvard, and are in direct competition for the very top students.

Last year, the Globe published a more comprehensive list of colleges, their tuition, R&B and fees and their average aid package.  The resulting chart showed the net cost to attend the school for 4 years.  I recall Harvard's net being about $12,000, lower than this survey number.  What it means is that college is affordable, even at the highest level, if you have what that institution is looking for.  We can all guess that the cost is lower because the instutution's endowment is larger and that school has decided to subsidized the education of its  student body.  Harvard has the endowment of a small country and uses some of its money to do just that.  I always thought that, given the tax-exempt status of colleges in the Commonwealth, costs should not rise as quickly and as often as they do.  I recall times when costs in general were rising (gas, utility bills, mortgage rates) yet college costs far outpaced them.  I also believe that when federal money and subsidies become available, the cost rises accordingly.

"Supporters of the Pell Grants, which began in 1973, want to make them an entitlement, as the cost of higher education continues to rise. But some researchers say the expansion of the grants and other federal aid has a counterproductive effect — that colleges and universities simply soak up the gains by increasing their tuition and other costs."

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/rising-college-costs-a-federal-role/

Hmmmm.......why do they mention the percentage of students gaining a bachelor's degree in 6 years. I always thought it was a 4 year program. And with mom and dad paying, what is the kid doing for those 6 years?

Northeastern is the worst value-for-money in the area?  Could've knocked me over with a feather.

The NU spox's defensive comments about employment and salary are especially laughable, especially considering who who we have to compete with.  Co-op only takes you so far when you're up against BU and Harvard grads in a tight job market, and we have higher salary requirements because of all the student debt we have to take on.  Going to Northeastern was the biggest mistake I ever made.

According to the College Navigator, UMass Amherst is only about $2,000 cheaper to attend than Harvard College. How is that not the major story?

The question shouldn't be whether Northeastern is overpriced - that is their right as a private institution, and obviously there are many willing to pay it - but whether we as a commonwealth are properly serving our young people by not providing them a high quality, affordable alternative. UMass Amherst is a fine school, but the whole point of having public higher education if that it should be available to all who qualify. Perhaps not for free, but certainly at a rate substantially less than their private competition. A rate that does not cause enormous long term debt for anyone who chooses to attend.

If anyone is curious, here is the analysis on UMass Amherst: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=university+of+massachusetts+amherst&s=all&id=166629

What about Suffolk University?  Oh, I forgot, all the tuition pays the president salary.

The cost of education is starting to run neck and neck with healthcare costs. I have two kids in college now. They both came from an excellent school and did very well. That said, they couldn't get into any local schools because, supposedly, those schools are looking for more diversity, i.e. cash. I'm not an isolationist but our kids are getting squeezed out as colleges and universities go outisde of the US looking for students who will pay the full boat to go to school. Maybe these institutions should have their non-profit status revisited as it seems to have become more about making money than educating.

Compare the cost of in-state tuition and fees at U-Mass Amherst to that of other State Universities, and it is pretty clear that other states support public education far more than we do.

this is exactly what is wrong with our higher education in this country and our state. these so called non profits pay no taxes, yet make a very nice profit. they keep raising thier costs and tuition each year, faster than health care or the housing bubble, to keep getting the fed aid and grants that also keep raising each year. they pay thier college presidents and staff, and coaches more money than the us president...they make us parents take huge loans that our kids cant default on and really never pay back for 20 years...look at the northeatern overpriced and overpaid staff. what a joke and what a scam on us all.

also note how no one quoted at these scam schools even says anything positive about how this scorecard will reduce rates or even make an attempt to understanding why the fed gov and obama wanted this done, and why we are so enraged about it...they have no clue and have no interest at all in reducing thier tuition unless forced

Don't forget that Deval wants to tax families on all these grants and scholarships...it is part of his tax plan that he says will not affect the middle class...

I'm wondering if the Northeastern numbers are skewed incorrectly due to the fact that most are on a 5-year program, in co-op for part of the year, so the annual tuition costs are not an apples-to-apples comparison?  Then again, this logic could also make Northeastern even worse depending on how the numbers were done.