Talk:College tuition in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


breaking things down[edit]

96.59... requested my input on these issues on my talk page a few days ago. Sorry to say I'm just getting to it now. I've looked through it and feel like I do have a sense of what's going on, though it doesn't seem like things have moved much since the NPOVN thread. Unfortunately, a whole lot of text has been generated that will make it difficult for third parties to jump in. I think what would help, at the risk of requesting redundancy, is to first come to an agreement on what the specific points of contention are ... and then (and only then) creating clear, dedicated sections to hash out each one discretely.

Here's what I gather are the points of contention:

[Note: broke questions into sub-sections below]Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If this is an agreeable approach to coming to consensus, I hope you'll validate or correct me where I'm getting it wrong (keeping in mind arguing the points themselves comes later). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for being slow to see your reply, Rhododendrites. Yes, my IP address is dynamic, meaning is moves around a little bit. OK, since I asked for your fedback, and you stopped by, it is my duty to reply.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I validate your 3 points, and, as of right now, can't think of others to include. (Keeping in mind that massive arguments for many of these are above.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if 96.59.148.191 is no longer going to insist on adding the line about loan forgiveness not being inflationary, there's no more need to discuss #1, whether or not the Watts amicus brief is a reliable source. Watts was just the source for that line. Since #2 wasn't really a debate--no one objected to including a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section--there's no change under discussion here. It seems we can concentrate on #3 only, "Should the recommendations section include personal finance advice." But I might be misreading this. Flyte35 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Points 2 can safely be eliminated; but actually, all 3 of the other points are balls in play: 1. What is the beef with the Watts source as an advocate? Even when a claim is properly sourced, having other sources as "resources" is beneficial for depth. In that light, perhaps Watts, Mockelr, and other genuine advocates can be added back in. 2. Eliminated. 3. Recommendations are recommendations, whether local or global, and 4. Does the PIRG source (see discussion immediately above) really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies... etc.? Thx.96.59.142.135 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Watts RS?[edit]

1. Is the Watts amicus brief a reliable source in the context of the recommendations section? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a chief bone of contention, but actually all sources are in contention. While Watts, and the other advocates, are clearly neither experts, nor a members of the mainstream media press, they all are advocates. (Exceptions might include Dr. Kantrowitz, a higher ed expert, and selected press or well-known advocacy groups, like USPIRG or the CATO institute.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Sufficient RS to include line about forgiveness[edit]

2. If the Watts amicus brief is not reliable, are there sufficient other reliable sources to include a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section? Conversely, if the Watts amicus brief is reliable, then is it, in combination with any other available reliable sources, sufficient to include a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point; I accept this as a valid matter to consider. But one other thing: While I was insistent on putting in a line that bankruptcy and other standard consumer protections are not inflationary, I might have asked for something that is not needed or is redundant. Since many advocates are on record as saying that removal of Consumer Protections, like bankruptcy, is inflationary, then maybe I don't need to address the retention of the same Consumer Protections, which (obviously) would be just the opposite as removing them. (But, still, I think if we can address this point, it would be good to cover both sides.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is (#2) really an accurate summary of the discussion. There's already a line in the article about student loan debt forgiveness. And that is pretty well sourced. I don't think there was every any question about removing it as a proposed recommendation. I think the question (closely related to #1) was only whether or not to add Watts as a source, and quote that source, in the recommendation. Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
To his credit, Flyte35 has not, so far as I know, suggested removing this recommendations, that already existed before. Also, my insistence to put in a source to an argument that loan forgiveness was not inflationary might have been redundant because the article clearly had advocates who were quoted as saying the lack of forgiveness is inflationary. However, it would have been cool to have it in.96.59.142.135 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Resolved

- there is no disagreement. the line is ok to include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Personal finance advice in recommendations section?[edit]

3. Should the recommendations section include personal finance advice or should it be limited to recommendations on the level of public policy and macroeconomics? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree! This was a major bone of contention between me and Flyte35. I will add that I think he is acting in good faith, but a recommendation is a recommendation, personal or policy, and both need to be included.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As I've written, the reason I deleted it is because this is an article about policy. The other recommendations are policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. The things you want to include ("get a job while in college" and "completing your general education requirements at a community college... obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition") are inappropriate because they're personal finance recommendations, which wouldn't have any impact on tuition. Adding this sort of thing isn't a problem on the level of unreliable sources or SYNTH, which we've discussed extensively, but it's simply bad writing, because it's presenting new information that has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Flyte35 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that the things that I want to include ("get a job while in college" and "completing your general education requirements at a community college... obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition") are not policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. However, they don't need to be. You see, Flyte35, the article simply states that: "Based on the available data, recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:" source: College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Recommendations. These certainly address the rising tuition, not by changing the tuition paid out,, but rather by changing the monies paid in (getting a job, getting scholarships). (Actually, one of the ones you listed does change the tuition paid in: going to a community college ensures lower tuition paid in.)
So, based on a strict reading of the language in the article, all of these recommendations are appropriate. (And, I add, help the reader cope with the difficulties associated with unfordable college costs, and so it has plenty to do with the rest of the article.)
I will add: your reading comprehension error, while probably well-intentioned, is clear to me, when I am reading what the article demands along the way of recommendations. Moreover, this is like (analogy follows) when a person prays to God for a problem. Sometimes God changes the problem (tuition costs), but sometimes God changes the person (their income, choice of college, etc.).
If you could miss the clear language of what the article demands along the lines of "recommendations," then it is not surprising that we might disagree on "reliable sources" issues. (This, by itself, doesn't prove you're wrong on these other points, but it does bring your reasoning and analyses abilities in question and demand further analysis and outside feedback.96.59.139.179 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

4. PIRG sourcing[edit]

4th question: Does the PIRG source (see discussion immediately above) really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the amount a student may borrow.?" It seems not, but I defer to your assessment, here, a 2nd set of eyes on this source.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, the source ("Affordable Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies". U.S. PIRG. 2011.) is just poorly cited, since the link no longer goes to an article called "Affordable Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies." It just goes to the general education section at PIRG. The line was added by anonymous editor 71.100.178.19 (Lakeland, Florida, again) in 2011. If someone can find the original article referenced there that would be great. Other than that we would, I guess, be justified in removing the line since the sourcing for it is weak.Flyte35 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I will defer to other editors on this, as I haven't had time to look more closely at it, but I think the PIRG source, while probably improperly placed or quoted wrongly, can be used somehow in the article. So, two down, two to go.96.59.138.125 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Article review[edit]

At the risk of making things even more complicated than they already are, I'm going to share some thoughts about the article as a whole. I think that some of the issues raised above might be better addressed through a broader discussion of the article (but that's not to say I intend this to replace the above threads).

Lead, first impressions:

  • Judging from the lead and first sections, the subject is [the problem of college tuition increases in the United States], [increases in college tuition in the United States], [or college tuition controversies in the United States]. It does not read like an article called simply [tuition in the United States] should.
  • A glaring omission in the lead is the role of states in higher education. Simply stating the the federal government doesn't support higher education [except in certain ways] doesn't accurately summarize the subject since the subject is about tuition in the country, not tuition and the federal government.

Structure:

  • It's long enough that the lead should suffice to give an overview and should be followed by a history section -- a history section not just about tuition increases, but which inevitably touches upon that subject. The subject needs to be better established before turning to college tuition increases as a problem (which is not to say that it's not a significant part of the subject, of course)
  • There should be a section about states (at least one), which talks about state university systems, any significant variations in tuition by state, etc.
  • Privatization is a subject relevant to college tuition, not just about college tuition increases. Public vs. private institutions should have its own section.
  • Related to #3 in the section above, I think there's room to talk about student finance (the tone needs to avoid being that of advice, though, and needs really great sources)

Much more attention to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is needed. There are several articles on related subjects which should be better summarized (and linked to clearly).

Sourcing:

  • This is a high-visibility article, and one which many people may turn to to help them understand their own finances and financial decisions. We need a higher bar for sourcing. Among others, I would suggest excising entirely those websites which exist only to advocate for a particular political position, all amicus briefs not issued by a high-profile legal institution (Stanford, for example), all blogs (except top tier/WP:NEWSBLOGs), sources of data that do not offer a methodology or cite where the data came from, "fluff/pop" sources like "top 10 things you can do to lower your debt" on some pop culture website or magazine, etc. I'm being specific, but I think in general we just need a higher bar. If that means removing some content, personally I'm ok with that. This is an article we need to get right.

Thoughts? I can probably spend some time on this in the next few days pending objections. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Point of order: you implicitly asked for feedback on this edit: "(→‎breaking things down: please revert if either of you feel this is a violation of WP:TPO. I reorganized this thread based on the separate questions and marked 1 as resolved)". After carefully reviewing screen shots of "before & after" pics, it appears that nothing is missing, nothing new added, and the chronological order is correct. So, I affirm and validate your organization into neat sections. It did not violate WP:TPO. Regarding your overall review, I haven't had time to reply as I just saw it pop up.96.59.139.179 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • First objection: You state: "Among others, I would suggest excising entirely those websites which exist only to advocate for a particular political position," but this is an incorrect representation of Wikipedia guidelines: See e.g., Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources, which rebuts your assessment of advocacy or opinionated sites: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Thus, it is not only permitted, but actually required to go get differing advocacy sites! In the "real" courtroom, the advocates (lawyer) are ALL biased, but we present both sides, and get a fair day in court. Likewise, the Wikipedia guidelines above recognize the importance of espousing all views in the court of public opinion. Thus, even if some of the potential sources are not neutral, that does not disqualify them.96.59.139.179 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, which states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" Based on this standard, Michael Collinge, or Gordon Wayne Watts , or Robert Applebaum, for example, could be valid and used in the article.96.59.139.179 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Thus, it is not only permitted, but actually required to go get differing advocacy sites! While I can understand that perspective, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:NPOV means that we present all "significant views published in reliable sources". If a perspective is published in multiple high quality sources, it should not be presented alongside some source only available on an advocacy website. More importantly, however, is that while WP:BIASED does say biased sources can be reliable, it goes on to say "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." The fact is, very, very few advocacy sites meet these standards. Regarding WP:SPS, you included the key quote above, "information about themselves". That means information from a company's website can be used to verify information about the company in its article or that we can take basic information about a person from that person's website. If we wanted to verify information about Watts, WP:SPS says we could cite Watts. Here the subject is college tuition, not Watts's activities. It's also important to note that just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it should be included (WP:UNDUE/WP:FALSEBALANCE). Note that I'm using Watts as an example here because you did, but only to make a bigger point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability, in reviewing all the sources, I feel all of them (excepting, perhaps, Garret Mockler) amply qualify as 'reliable' or 'verifiable' or however you want to describe it. But that raises a couple of questions. First off, while Mockler was cited in the NY Times (see discussion above), is he "reliable" enough to be quoted on his own "self-published" blog? While being quoted in the NYT is 'big time,' that's the only thing I recall finding about him, when I looked him up. All the others, by contrast, have "breadth and depth" in being cited by other blogs or news sources. Secondly, I recall someone saying that Watts' source mentioned Wikipedia a lot. Ah, I found it: Flyte35 had this to say: "And no, while I really do appreciate your persistence on this, the only thing you've got to say loan forgiveness is not inflationary is this thing, which is not published by a reliable source and, indeed, appears to contain content lifted from Wikipedia. Flyte35 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)" I went back and looked, and, indeed Watts "lifts" a lot of content from here. This appears to border on violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia_clones. While it does appear to "clone" an older version of this article, nonetheless, it appears as a sort of appendix, and not as the actual article, or advocacy source, which is strong enough to stand alone. So, Mockler and Watts both need closer review. Lastly, reviewing your standards here, it would appear that all of the sources (excepting, perhaps, Dr. Kantrowitz and "main stream media" sources) would be eliminated, but Rhododendrites, that would eliminate well-over half of the sources! That is untenable. Don't you think you are being a bit overzealous? If not, then you please tell me which sources should leave and which should stay? Indeed, if we took your tact, we'd gut the article, and I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion. Accordingly, I would posit that all the sources (excepting possibly, Mockler) stay. Going the way I suggest would appear to not violate the "Neutral point of view" on the article, the "verifiability" of sources, nor give false balance or undue weight. (Your suggestions on SPS appears so high as to kick out many good sources and gut the article.) What are your thoughts?96.59.139.179 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally support the edits suggested by User:Rhododendrites above. I think that part of the reason we're having trouble about these few issues (source reliability, recommendations, etc.) is that the article is sort of a mess now, and it's hard to make decisions about what should and should not be included given that there hasn't been any consistent application of standards or much thought about how the article works as a whole. I think that making the proposed edits would be a great improvement to the article. Flyte35 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@96.59.139.179: that would eliminate well-over half of the sources -- We shouldn't keep sources just because they're currently cited. But I understand the spirit of your response along the lines of "it's not productive to just delete most of the article." I'll try to find some time in the next few days to make some changes -- and if they're drastic, I'll put them together in a sandbox and solicit feedback (i.e. I don't intend to simply gut the article without improving it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to be burned to ground and rebuilt from scratch. As User:Rhododendrites (very politely) states, the very topic of this article is very confused. I recommend refocusing this article to focus specifically on "college tuition (and fees) in the U.S." including an overview of the historical role of the federal and state government, the ways in which tuition and fees have been and are set, how tuition and fees are paid and collected, and the role of tuition and fees in the budgets of colleges and universities. There needs to be a separate article addressing "College tuition increase causes and solutions" as a well-written article on tuition and fees will be too large to accommodate a well-written summary of potential causes and solutions for tuition increases. (And Baumol's Cost Disease *must* be prominently included in the discussion of tuition increases; it's embarrassing that this current article purports to discuss this topic without addressing the primary theory advanced by the experts who have studied this topic in the most depth!)

Further, both topics have been widely addressed by highly qualified scholars and experts in the most reliable of sources - peer-reviewed articles in respected journals, university press books, etc. - so those sources should form not only the backbone of these articles but other sources should be avoided or used only with great caution. I know that there are many self-professed experts on these topics and that many people have strong opinions but this are topics that have received enough expert analysis that we owe it to our readers to rely on those experts especially when their writing has been scrutinized by other experts. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting @Rhododendrites:: "But I understand the spirit of your response along the lines of "it's not productive to just delete most of the article." and @ElKevbo:, "...needs to be burned to ground and rebuilt from scratch." Hey, guys, in case you missed it, I was being slightly sarcastic, and arguing from Reductio ad absurdum, which basically shows that the proposed gutting, burning, and rebuilding from scratch is absurd, and must be avoided. Also, all of the sources, excepting possibly Garrett Mockler, are acceptable, as argued above. (Let's hope that another 'bot' doesn't come in an archive the related discussion above, where I make arguments for reliability, verifiability, etc., on many sources in the article.) Thank you for mentioning Baumol's cost disease, ElKevbo, something I admit I've never heard of (rise of salaries in jobs that have experienced no increase of labor productivity in response to rising salaries in other jobs which did experience such labor productivity growth), and, yes, it should be included in the article, but this phenomenon is merely a symptom of deeper underlying causes, which the article does address: the salaries were actually caused to a much larger extent (than merely "in response" to other salary increases) by other factors, namely 2 that come to mind: influx of monies to "bid up" the tuition sometimes known as the Bennett Effect, named after William Bennett, who 25 years ago as Secretary of Education wrote for the New York Times, "Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions." The other cause, removal of the Standard Consumer Protections (truth in lending; bankruptcy proceedings; statutes of limits; the right to refinance; adherence to usury laws; and, Fair Debt & Collection practices, etc.) is effectively removing the sword of protection of the students, and their lack of abilities to defend themselves against predatory lending allows loans to be pushed upon them (not counting even the monopoly in this industry: all institutions of higher ed are high, and whether they collude or merely "cooperate," the student is shut out of an affordable education).
Also, splitting the article in two to address both historical origins as well as current sickness of the institution is not without merit, but per Occam's Razor, I would advise against it as unnecessary action. Most of the sources, complaints notwithstanding, stand under scrutiny (see above arguments for them) and can be used (and, in some cases, restored) to avoid gutting and fire-burning destruction of the article: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
PS: Why is there not Wikipedia article on the Bennett Effect?96.59.139.179 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the Bennett Hypothesis. And there isn't a wiki article yet because no one has written it yet. Flyte35 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: (→‎Historical trends: no, we're not going to have en entire section dedicated to the historical trends of tuition of only two U.S universities (and one Canadian one???)), perhaps it's got room for improvement, but delete this, and replace it with what? There is a need for a historical review.96.59.139.179 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I genuinely recommend you read "Why does college cost so much?" It's by far the best written scholarly work in this area and it addresses many of your concerns. 17:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElKevbo (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Manually signed by me,96.59.139.179 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:, do you mean one of these 2 books: Why Does College Cost So Much? 1st Edition, by Robert B. Archibald (Author), David H. Feldman (Author), ISBN-13: 978-0190214104, Oxford University Press; 1 edition (August 1, 2014) or Why Does College Cost So Much? By Robert B. Archibald, David H. Feldman Hardcover – December 17, 2010, ASIN: B004VO91XS, Publisher: Hardcover (December 17, 2010)?96.59.139.179 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:, ah ha! You're a liberal! (just kidding, but see my next comment).. on page 149 of this version of the book you seem to suggest (assuming this is the only one of this title), it says that the "reduction in subsidies at state-supported institutions has made them much more reliant on tuition as a revenue source than they have been in the past." Well, I will admit that I do believe that you liberals are partly correct to demand we, taxpayers, pick up some of the costs of higher education, but you are incorrect in your analysis. I went back and took a closer look at one of the disputed sources, and he seems to find that: "In the 1956-57 school year, one source[1] reports a year of college cost $138, and another source[2] is in close agreement. But remember we have to adjust for inflation: The $138 figure is about $1,062.71 in 2008 dollars[7], probably the same for 2009, considering the year’s inflation[3] was about 0.1%. However, nowadays, the same year of college costs about $10,066, about a 10X increase. Other sources[4-6] indicate a cost of $6,142.58 for tuition and $6,920.94 for housing, for a total of $13,063.52 per year, even higher than the $10,066 fig." However, what he failed to mention (at least so far as I could see) is that these "lower cost" colleges did NOT rely upon financial aid. (In other words, a "reduction in subsidies at state-supported institutions" would NOT have "made them much more reliant on tuition as a revenue source than they have been in the past," which we know from history: colleges lived within their means and had lower tuition since they knew that students could not afford their excessively oppressive prices.) In fact, it was only after the "Big Government" pushed college loans onto unsuspecting student did the prices shoot up. That finding, alone, should show the importance of including not only Watts, but also most (or all) of these other "Advocate," who truly are reliable and verifiable sources: Watts found out something that you, an expert, missed! Looking at your profile, ElKevbo, it would appear that you're an expert in higher ed, and I am glad that you are helping us in this article (since you're apparently on the level of Watts, Applebaum, Collinge, and the other expert advocates, as well as Dr. Kantrowitz, a nationally-known expert here). But, since one of these so-called "unreliable" sources found something you missed, perhaps this is proof you guys are selling them short. Furthermore, Watts apparently is a published author in the Tampa Tribune and The Lakeland Ledger, and his letter to The Tampa Tribune, especially, nails this matter. You might also see Alan Collinge's book The Student Loan Scam, or perhaps Robert Applebaum's research.96.59.139.179 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:, sorry to be so talkative, but I somewhat sold you short on your book, and I should apologize here: on the bottom of page 172 of your book here (I'm previewing it in Amazon's previewer), it clearly says, in A Brief History of Financial Aid, that: "Financial aid as we know it has not always been an important part of the higher education system," something that many conservatives have argued is the "correct" 'less-aid' model to use (such as Bill Bennett, who - like myself - disdains and hates financial aid being thrown at higher ed), but (and this I add), guess what? The tuition was (as WATTS points out - see above!) much more affordable, even with LESS financial aide (loans, grants, etc.), that is, less expensive when you adjust for inflation. (And, I looked again at WATTS: he points out that America's higher ed system was, in fact, the best in the world, so our sorry higher ed now-days has NO excuse for such exorbitant and ludicrously expensive tuition! (Since WATTS was mentioned a bunch, much in negative light, I'm pointing out that he's not so dumb after all, and, as Rhododendrites has famously said (page search above), please note that I'm using WATTS as an example here, because others did, but only to make a bigger point (about ALL of the so-called 'sources' that are often derided as not "verifiable" or "reliable" sources).96.59.139.179 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on College tuition in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sugar babies[edit]

I'm wondering if Mistress (lover)#Sugar babies should be developed into a standalone article. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That discussion would be more appropriate for another article. Flyte35 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion.
Please comment at Talk:Mistress (lover)#Sugar babies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed from this article again, okay. How about a see also item? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary; there are no other links in that section to possible trends some students are using to pay tuition. At this point there's no Wiki article about the trend, though, so I don' t think it's worth worrying about yet. Flyte35 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on College tuition in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)