MerrySkeptic

Administrative cost is certainly part of it. That's not just higher salaries, but the size of administrations as more positions are added to fill different roles. But honestly that's not even the biggest factor, especially for these small to mid size private schools that are on the chopping block. Those administrators aren't making millions.

The biggest factor as another commenter already pointed out is the elimination or reduction of state support, shifting the burden to the student. You may ask how this applies to private schools. True, they have never received operational support like public universities. But they have historically received state funded research grants, tax exemptions, subsidies, land, etc., not to mention the students who receive government funded tuition grants. All of that government support has been reduced or eliminated over the years, and the burden has shifted to the student.

Another huge factor is the fact that there is no bankruptcy for student loans. This means lenders have no problem lending ridiculous amounts of money to kids who can't even legally buy a beer. When there's no limit to how much can be borrowed, it incentivizes schools to raise the cost simply because they can.

A huge factor that isn't discussed openly very often is the fact that higher tuition allows schools to shape their student body the way they want. They can offer assistance to the students they want most that way and weed out unremarkable ones. They can attract some of the best and brightest, and the rest of the students are basically footing the bill for them.

Another big factor is the campus expansion and renovation projects that are constantly happening to attract students. The infamous "lazy river" projects and other luxuries designed to attract students so they can compete with other schools but drive up the price tag. State of the art stadiums, gyms, dining, maker spaces, etc. all costs money. The amenities that are standard today would never have been dreamed of 25 years ago.

Anyway, these are some of the ones off the top of my head. I know there's more. Yes administrative cost is part of it, and yes you should be mad that the tuition is so out of control, but to boil it down to greedy administrators doesn't really capture the majority of the problem.

I don't disagree, but the article isn't talking about for-profit universities. Private and for-profit are not the same thing (though it doesn't go out of its way to point out the difference). Most private universities in the US are nonprofit. From the article:

There are about 3,700 two- and four-year public and private degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States. That's already down from a peak of 4,726 in 2012. Almost all that have closed since then were private, for-profit schools, which enjoyed a brief boom before crashing under the weight of consumer discontent and increased regulation.

Many converging reasons explain why private, nonprofit colleges and universities, too, are now under existential strain.

None of that changes the fact that tuition is so absurdly out of control that it certainly feels like a scam. There are a ton of reasons for these rising costs. But for most schools, profit actually isn't the reason.

Is this epic fury?

Fellow Eagle Scout here. I'm so glad my son dropped out last year so he doesn't have to deal with this bullshit. It's so embarrassing to see them cave on their principles when tested

Actually they kept girls in. What they caved on was they removed a merit badge that was specifically created in the wake of BLM to teach Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. They are now going to have a military service merit badge.

It's still bad, just not the specific kind of bad you were thinking.

Depression is a label used to describe a combination of symptoms, but the cause of this combination can differ from person to person. That's why in some cases meds and exercise might not help. Unfortunately there's just still a lot we don't know about the different causes.

I don't think it was him. Definitely not confirmed

Is this a recent change? I got out about a year ago and up til then the training was clear that different sites were required

They are supposed to be in separate sites, though many troops have always skirted rules in scouting

Just going to comment here to avoid some misconceptions. Apologies for the long comment. Tl;Dr, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are not part of the same parent organization.

Scouting America is basically a rebrand for Boy Scouts of America. The rebrand happened when they began to admit girls into the program, like 8 years ago or do. Many people get confused thinking that Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts USA are partner organizations when they are not. They are two independent programs with different missions and values. For example, Boy Scouts has maintained Declaration of Religious Principle which requires to members to sign an agreement that states that they believe in some sort of higher power. They also include a Duty to God in their Scout Oath. Girl Scouts on the other hand is a secular organization that does not require a belief in any higher power but does encourage members to explore their own faith if they have one.

The decision for BSA to admit girls was a controversial one even within the organization, but their numbers have been flagging for a while and they felt that allowing girls in would help. There was also a more progressive wing within the organization that recognized how discriminatory this was and wanted to reform the organization. Joining Boy Scouts, with an organizational emphasis on nature, citizenship, and skill mastery, would be a different experience for girls than Girl Scouts, which allows troops to pick for themselves what they want to focus on to develop leadership and confidence and often doesn't include camping at all. Many girls joined Girl Scouts expecting it to have the same focus as Boy Scouts, would be disappointed, and then drop out. This could give the Boy Scout experience to girls.

In order to make this happen, it was agreed that girls would have separate troops from boys. They could share resources but each troop would have their own youth and adult leaders and would need to camp in separate sites. It is not like they are sharing tents or anything like that.

So that's why it is obvious to me that the Pentagon taking this stance is clearly regressive and just trying to be anti-woke and going after an easy target. The military is already coed, so why not give girls the same support and experiences that boys can have in Scouting? Its just another red flag that they want to prevent women from advancing in the military. They know that Scouting America is in a tough spot and thinks they can either get them to regress and tacitly endorse anti-wokeness or be made an example of.

There's another recent change in Scouting America that was also controversial and seen as woke that the article doesn't address. Following the George Floyd protests Scouting America came up with a new merit badge that would be required for any scout that wanted to reach the rank of Eagle: Citizenship in Society. This badge explicitly discusses racial injustice and teaches Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion principles. As you can imagine, this did not sit well with conservative members and many left in protest (though many had already left when girls and gays were allowed). There have been a few different new organizations attempting to recapture the old school Boy Scout mentality with a doubled down emphasis on gender exclusivity, religion, and pure meritocracy without any regard to positions of privilege. They are growing and I suspect one will try to replace Scouting America as the youth organization of choice for the military.

Vibrate.

Reports now coming in that it was their son, Nick. Tragic