# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared prepared Wednesday to uphold a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which would be a dramatic break from 50 years of rulings.

The justices heard 90 minutes of oral arguments in the most direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in nearly three decades.

A majority of the court's conservative justices suggested they were prepared to discard the court's previous standard that prevented states from banning abortion before a fetus becomes viable, which is generally considered to be at about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

It was unclear after Wednesday's argument whether the court would take the additional step of explicitly overturning its abortion precedents, including Roe v. Wade.

The three more liberal justices warned that the court would appear to be a political body if it tossed out abortion rulings that the country has relied on for decades.

"It is particularly important to show that what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure," Justice Stephen Breyer warned.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don't see how it's possible."

And Justice Elena Kagan said the court must not act in a way that would cause people to think it is "a political institution that will go back and forth, depending on what part of the public yells the loudest or changes to the court's membership."

At least four of the court's conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, suggested they were prepared to overturn Roe on the grounds that it was wrongly decided, despite the public's decades of reliance on it.

"Can't a decision be overruled because it was wrong when it was decided?" Alito asked.

Kavanaugh listed several past decisions, on segregation and gay marriage, that resulted from the court overruling long-standing precedents.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested he would be willing to uphold the Mississippi law without overturning Roe, but it was unclear whether any other members of the court would be with him.

The showdown, which centers on whether the Constitution provides a right to seek an abortion, focuses on a 2018 Mississippi law, blocked by lower federal courts, that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, allowing them only in medical emergencies or cases of severe fetal abnormality.

Those who seek to outlaw abortion entirely or drastically reduce availability have remained hopeful that the conservative-controlled Supreme Court will deliver them a victory decades after suffering a defeat in Roe v. Wade.

Supporters argue that the law is intended to regulate "inhumane procedures" and that a fetus is capable of detecting and responding to pain by that point in a pregnancy. Opponents contend that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution protects abortion.

"The Constitution places trust in the people, on hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country where abortion is a hard issue," Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart said during oral arguments. "It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us."

Sotomayor pressed Stewart on the broad implications of the case.

She further questioned him on the science behind the viability of a fetus before 23 to 24 weeks, to which Stewart replied, "The fundamental problem with viability, it's not really something that rests with science so much, it's viability - not tethered to anything in the Constitution, in history or tradition - it's a quintessentially legislative line."

Sotomayor came back to say, "there is not anything in the Constitution the Supreme Court is the last word on what the Constitution means."

The Mississippi law takes aim at the court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, as well as the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court has held that states can impose some restrictions on abortion as long as they do not present an "undue burden" and that the procedure cannot be prohibited before fetal viability.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated last month that among the 47 states that reported abortion data for 2018 and 2019, the number of procedures increased by 1.7 percent. The CDC report estimated that 95 percent of abortions take place by the 15-week mark.

"Mississippi's ban on abortion, two months before viability, is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent," Center for Reproductive Rights Senior Director Julie Rikelman said during oral arguments. "Two generations have now relied on this right, and 1 out of every 4 women makes a decision to end a pregnancy."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Rikelman on safe haven laws, which allow mothers of newborns in crisis to safely relinquish their babies at designated locations. Barrett argued that the concerns raised in Roe about the challenges of parenting were eliminated by these safe haven laws because now a mother could simply relinquish their child. The first safe haven law was passed in Texas in 1999.

Rikelman replied to Barrett by arguing that, "we don't just focus on the burdens of parenting." She argued that pregnancy comes with health risks, and "in fact has impact on all of their lives and their ability to care for other children, other family members, on their ability to work."

The most recent NBC News poll, released in August, found that 54 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Much of the country appears to be in the middle, with the poll finding that 23 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal "most of the time" and that 34 percent said it should be illegal "with exceptions."

Abortion rights supporters were seen outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday dressed in bright teal, with signs reading "liberate abortion" and "abortion is essential," chanting in support of abortion access.

The rally also attracted Democratic lawmakers such as Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Barbara Lee of California, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

"We are here once again to protect abortion and we aren't going to let anti-choice legislators take away our right," Lee said. "This is about the freedom to make your own decision over your own body. The right to an abortion isn't real if only some people can't access it."

Lauren Marlowe, 22, an abortion rights opponent demonstrating outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, said she is "very excited" by the possibility of Roe v. Wade being reversed or chipped away.

"I want to see abortion abolished, and one of the first steps is returning the rights to the states to make those decisions for themselves," she said.

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has yet to rule on the Texas law known as S.B. 8, which bans abortion after about the sixth week of pregnancy. The justices must decide whether two lawsuits challenging the unique structure of the law, which delegates enforcement to private lawsuits, can proceed.

The issue of whether the Constitution provides a right to seek an abortion is not before the court in the Texas challenges, but it is directly present in the Mississippi case.

CORRECTION (Dec. 1, 2021, 2:10 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misspelled the first name of a Supreme Court justice. He is Neil Gorsuch, not Neal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court signals willingness to uphold abortion limits in Mississippi case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared prepared Wednesday to uphold a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which would be a dramatic break from 50 years of rulings. The justices heard 90 minutes of oral arguments in the most direct challenge to Roe v.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You're reading an excerpt from the Today's WorldView newsletter. Sign up to get the rest, including news from around the globe, interesting ideas and opinions to know sent to your inbox every weekday.

The risk of war in Europe is rising. A blitz of diplomacy has failed to defuse fears of a Russian invasion in Ukraine, whose pro-Western government is sounding the alarm that Moscow has "almost completed" a menacing troop buildup on the country's eastern frontier. A strike would force Washington and European allies to move from deterrence to action.

But how far is the West willing to go to defend Ukraine?

U.S. officials have warned of a possible Russian invasion for weeks. Espousing a vision of Russia and Ukraine as "one nation," Russian President Vladimir Putin is demanding a promise that its neighbor will never join NATO. Defending the right to self-determination, the Biden administration has refused such a pledge. Russia continues to deny a pending assault. But on Wednesday, President Biden predicted Putin would "move in" on Ukraine because, after all of his saber-rattling, "he has to do something."

Biden on Wednesday suggested the Western response would depend on the level of Russian intervention, before clarifying Thursday that the United States would not accept even a "minor incursion." What a "war" could look like runs the gambit: Cyberattacks on Kyiv ( which have already begun, though by actors as yet undetermined). Missile strikes. A limited occupation of the Donbas region - a part of Ukraine in the grips of Russian-backed separatists for years. The worst case scenario: A full-on march on Kyiv.

On Jan. 19, President Biden said he was "confident" that parts will be passed ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. (The Washington Post)

Biden has ruled out American troops going head to head with the Russians, a response that risks escalation between nuclear powers. Threats of reprisals have instead centered on sanctions. Yet, with Europe dependent on Russian gas, doubts linger about how far key partners, particularly Germany, would be willing to go. And even if Moscow were slapped with biting sanctions, they tend to inflict sustainable wounds. Just ask Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, whose regime has withstood some of the harshest possible U.S. sanctions and came out stronger by tapping a rogues gallery of alternative financial partners in Moscow, Tehran, Ankara and Beijing.

But talk is growing of a combined response in the event of an invasion that could mix economic pain with a higher cost for Putin on the battlefield in the form of a U.S.-backed, pro-Western Ukrainian insurgency. The roughly $2.5 billion in U.S. aid committed to Ukraine since 2014 has focused on defensive weaponry, including Javelin antitank missiles, retired Coast Guard cutters, armored Humvees, radios and communications equipment. The United States has also helped to train Ukrainian special forces.

But Washington is signaling that an invasion could be a game changer, potentially bringing a host of new assistance, resources and weaponry for guerilla-style warfare in parts of Ukraine the Russians seize, and turning Putin's incursion there into an Afghanistan-like quagmire.

The Post's David Ignatius wrote last month that the Biden administration was weighing "ways to provide weapons and other support to the Ukrainian military to resist invading Russian forces - and similar logistical support to insurgent groups if Russia topples the Ukrainian government and a guerrilla war begins."

Last week, Helene Cooper of the New York Times reported that help could involve training in NATO eastern flank countries including Poland, Romania and Slovakia. Beyond logistical support and weapons, Cooper wrote, the United States and NATO allies could also supply medical equipment, services and even sanctuary during Russian offensives.

"In discussions with allies, senior Biden officials have also made clear that the CIA (covertly) and the Pentagon (overtly) would both seek to help any Ukrainian insurgency," Cooper wrote.

As the specter of war grows, military aid to Ukraine is already ramping up. The Biden administration on Wednesday announced an additional $200 million in defensive military aid. That came after Britain this week said it had begun shipping antitank weapons to Ukraine to help it boost defenses. "They are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia," British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told Parliament. "They are to use in self-defense."

But a Russian invasion appears set to compel the West to send more, and broader, firepower: "I think that we're talking about trying to take the edge or deter a Russian mostly conventional ground offensive," Peter Zwack, former U.S. Army brigadier general and former defense attache to the Russian Federation, told NPR this week. "And for that, the Ukrainians would need more Javelin antitank missiles."

They would need surface-to-air missiles such as Stingers, he said: "They need to be able to knock down, threaten Russian air support."

Going further requires a certain calculus.

Several European countries are unlikely to back an insurgency, stoking divisions among allies.

Moscow has also signaled an aggressive response, threatening military deployments to Cuba and Venezuela. U.S.-backed insurgencies also have no great track record - think Nicaragua, Syria and many more.

Yet the goal might not be victory but, rather, punishment: To ratchet up the cost to Putin of a Ukrainian adventure. Seth Jones, director of International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that punishment could be a prolonged insurgency that grinds away at the Russian military. To make that happen, he calls for a "Twenty-First Century Lend-Lease Act" led by the United States to provide Ukraine with war materiel at no cost. Priority items, he writes, would be the needs of a military involved in sustained combat, including air defense, antitank, and anti-ship systems; electronic warfare and cyber defense systems; small arms and artillery ammunition; spare vehicle parts; petroleum; rations and medical support.

James Nixey, director of the Russia-Eurasia program at London-based Chatham House, told me that the Ukrainians - better trained and equipped than when Russia's "little green men" moved into Donbas nearly a decade ago - are likely to put up far more of a fight than the Russians encountered during their crushing blow to Georgia in 2008.

Western assistance in a guerilla-style war could amp up the pressure. Ukrainians would pay the highest price.

But Putin "will also not be able to hide all of those body bags," Nixey said.

The United States finally has free rapid tests and N95 masks - well behind many other countries

How to help Afghans without aiding the Taliban

Lithuania is learning the cost of standing up to China. Without E.U. backing, it may be forced to sit back down.

The latest The geography The backstory Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | How far would the United States go to back Ukraine?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You're reading an excerpt from the Today's WorldView newsletter. Sign up to get the rest , including news from around the globe, interesting ideas and opinions to know sent to your inbox every weekday. The risk of war in Europe is rising.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast

The idea that Americans are polarized makes it seem as if there are only two sides in politics - liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican.

But Americans are far more complicated politically, a new Pew Research Center typology shows in a study that gives a clearer picture of the full spectrum of American political views.

Americans are divided not just by party but also within them, enough so for Pew to sort Americans ideologically into nine distinct categories (one more than in its last typology four years ago, with some decidedly different contours).

Clear lines emerge when it comes to race, inequality and what the government should do about it. There are also decidedly different views on the role of government overall, economic policy, immigration, religion, the United States' standing in the world and - for Republican-leaning groups - former President Donald Trump.

What's more, despite surveys having found broad support for a third party outside the two major ones, the study shows that there's no magic middle. In fact, the study finds that the three groups with the most self-identified independents "have very little in common politically."

There are also clear implications for control of Congress. While there has been much focus on Democratic divisions between progressive and moderate wings in Congress, the study finds there are more divisions among Republican groups on the issues. But where Republicans have an advantage is having more of a sense of urgency about who is in charge in Washington. The strongest Republican groups more so than the strongest Democratic ones think next year's midterms "really matter."

The typology was created using more than 10,000 survey interviews over an 11-day period this past July. A typical national survey has about 1,000 respondents. This is the eighth typology Pew has created since 1987.

Here's an overview of Pew's nine categories (to see where you fit, you can take Pew's quiz here):

Faith and Flag Conservatives (10% of the public)

Committed Conservatives (7%)

Stressed Sideliners (15%)

Democratic Mainstays (16%)

Establishment Liberals (13%)

Republican-leaning groups

Republican-leaning groups largely believe government is doing too much, that everyone has the ability to succeed, obstacles that once made it harder for women and nonwhites to get ahead are now gone, white people largely don't benefit from societal advantages over Black people, that political correctness is a major problem and military might is key to keeping the U.S. a superpower.

Two-thirds also think the Republican Party should not accept elected officials who have been openly critical of Trump.

They divide, however, on economic, social and foreign policy. On economics, there are splits on whether corporations make a fair amount of profit and if taxes should be raised on the wealthy. They also don't fully agree on which is more important - oil, coal and natural gas expansion or developing alternative energy supplies.

On social issues, they diverge on whether same-sex marriage or abortion should be legal, if government policies should reflect religious beliefs and even whether they feel uncomfortable hearing people speak a language other than English in public places. There are also differences on whether election changes that make it easier to vote would make elections less secure.

On foreign affairs, some think the U.S. should take allies' interests into account; others do not.

Faith and Flag Conservatives

23% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents

skew the oldest in age of the Republican-leaning groups

deeply conservative on nearly all issues

religious and want Christianity front and center in public life

very politically engaged; nearly 9 in 10 believe who controls Congress after next year's midterms "really matters" - the highest of any group

overwhelmingly white and Christian

among Trump's strongest supporters - most believe Trump definitely or probably won the 2020 election

roughly 4 in 5 say too much attention has been paid to the Jan. 6 insurrection

Committed Conservatives

Populist Right

23% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents

among the least likely to have a college degree and among the most likely to live in a rural area

hard-liners on immigration, even more so than Faith and Flag Conservatives

highly critical of the U.S. economic system; a majority believes the "economic system in the country unfairly favors powerful interests, that businesses in this country make too much profit and that taxes on household income over $400,000 should be raised"

strong Trump supporters; 4 in 5 would like him to remain a prominent figure in politics, and almost 6 in 10 want him to run again

about 8 in 10 believe the results of the 2022 elections "really matter"

Ambivalent Right

18% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents

the youngest and among the least religious and politically active of the Republican-leaning groups

most don't identify as "conservative" politically, but are conservative economically, on issues of race and in that they prefer smaller government

more moderate than other Republicans on immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization

lean toward the GOP but are not enamored with it; almost two-thirds would like Trump to not remain a national figure, and, in fact, a quarter identifies with Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents

the only GOP-oriented group to say President Biden definitely or probably legitimately received the most votes in the 2020 election, and only about 4 in 10 believe the results of the 2022 elections "really matter"

Crossovers

Stressed Sideliners

15% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 13% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents

financially stressed and tend to tilt left economically and conservative socially

the group to which Hispanic Republicans are the most likely to belong

largely disengaged from politics; only about 4 in 10 voted in 2020, and fewer than half believe the results of the 2022 elections "really matter"

Democratic-leaning groups

While Democratic-leaning groups generally agree on many issues and say that problems exist when it comes to race and economic inequality, there is an intensity gap about how much should be done about those problems and how radical the solutions should be.

Pew notes that in past typologies, it has found cracks among Democratic groups on social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana, but those no longer exist. Instead, now the divides are about how liberal the party should be.

These Democratic-leaning groups believe in a strong federal government, one that should do more to solve problems. They also agree that the economic system unfairly favors the powerful and that taxes on big businesses and corporations should be raised, as should the minimum wage (to $15 an hour).

They feel more needs to be done to achieve racial equality, that nonwhites face at least some discrimination, that significant obstacles remain for women to get ahead and that voting is a fundamental right and should not be restricted. When it comes to major foreign policy decisions, they agree that allies should be taken into consideration.

Fissures exist with regard to U.S. military power and, to a lesser extent, social and criminal justice, as well as immigration.

Progressive Left

Establishment Liberals

Democratic Mainstays

28% of Democratic-leaning groups, which makes them the largest of the Democratic-leaning groups

older, less likely to have a college degree than other Democratic groups

most identify as moderate

Black Democrats are concentrated in this group, though the group is the most racially and ethnically diverse of all the groups

have liberal views on race, economics and the social safety net, but are more conservative on immigration and crime and are pro-military power for the most part

73% say the results of the 2022 elections "really matter"

Outsider Left

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feel like you don't fit in either political party? Here's why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast The idea that Americans are polarized makes it seem as if there are only two sides in politics - liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican. But Americans are far more complicated politically, a new Pew Research Center typology shows in a study that gives a clearer picture of the full spectrum of American political views.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Paying for college is expensive, and many families have felt the pinch of rising tuition costs over time.

College tuition prices are a lot higher today compared with two decades ago. For instance, the average cost for tuition and fees among ranked private National Universities - schools that are often research-oriented and offer bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees - has risen by about 40% since 2004 when accounting for inflation, according to U.S. News data.

Higher education policy analysts say most of the hikes in tuition among private and public four-year institutions coincided with the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009. The economic downturn resulting from the coronavirus pandemic may also affect tuition costs in the years to come, especially due to high rates of inflation and other recessionary factors.

In comparing the 2022-2023 school year to 2023-2024, the average price at all ranked private colleges increased by about 4%, according to data reported to U.S. News by 976 schools in an annual survey. Meanwhile, tuition hikes for both in-state and out-of-state students at ranked public schools were slightly less, rising by 2% and about 1.4%, respectively, from the prior year.

"There may be times when the state level of support works in an institutional budget, so it allows (public schools) to keep their increases at a minimum," says MorraLee Keller, senior director of strategic programming at the National College Attainment Network. "But at a private institution, where the main form of institutional income is derived through tuition, you only have one place to go. And that's to increase your income."

However, the year-over-year numbers look a little different when inflation is considered. Tuition and fees at private ranked colleges decreased by 0.4%, while at public ranked schools they declined by about 2% for in-state students and about 3% for out-of-state students.

About 78% of families said they eliminated a college from consideration at some point in the research and application process due to cost, according to the 2023 Sallie Mae/Ipsos survey How America Pays for College. But many higher education experts recommend that prospective students look beyond published prices, since the tuition listed may not be the actual amount they'll pay after financial aid and institutional grants.

For college-bound students and their families, here's what to know about tuition costs.

How Much Is College Tuition?

Tuition and fees vary from college to college.

In looking at schools ranked by U.S. News, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2023-2024 school year is $42,162 at private colleges, $23,630 for out-of-state students at public universities and $10,662 for in-state residents at public schools. That is, the average tuition and fees to attend an in-state public college are nearly 75% less than the average sticker price charged at a private institution, according to U.S. News data.

At public two-year institutions, tuition and fees cost $3,860 on average for in-state, in-district students in 2022-2023, according to data collected in the College Board's annual survey, Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2022.

What Are the Differences Between Tuition and Fees?

The biggest chunk of college costs is usually tuition - the amount of money required for instruction. Especially at the undergraduate level, students are often required to pay fees, and these additional costs usually need to be paid to enroll in and attend class.

"The word 'fees' can have multiple meanings," Keller says. "General fees are going to be the fees that are charged to every single student on campus. And then there are going to be fees that may be associated with a student's particular major or level in school."

Nate Johnson, founder and principal of Postsecondary Analytics, a Florida-based higher education research firm, says students and parents should look to college guides that standardize these amounts for apples-to-apples comparisons. (U.S. News Best Colleges standardizes sticker prices, listing the combined published prices of tuition and fees for each school.)

How Do I Use a Tuition Calculator?

The cost of attendance isn't always clear, since many families don't pay the sticker price once financial aid and institutional grants are factored into the bill. So experts advise families to fill out the net price calculator, which is available on each college's website - a federal requirement.

Net price is the amount students pay to attend an institution for an academic year after subtracting scholarships and grants. In essence, net price is the final out-of-pocket price a family can expect to pay, and it's often lower than the published price.

The Department of Education's College Scorecard includes links to schools' net price calculators. These calculators - furnished with first-time, full-time undergraduate students in mind - produce estimated values based on the information the student or parent provides.

Which Colleges Are the Least Expensive?

When it comes to published prices, attending a state school as an in-state student might be the least expensive option among four-year colleges. Johnson says that's because "everyone who goes to those schools in effect is getting a scholarship - a discount in the cost of education paid by taxpayers."

He notes that students who choose to go out of state for college forfeit that subsidy. However, a few regions and states have tuition reciprocity programs. For example, under the New England Board of Higher Education's Tuition Break program, formerly known as the Regional Student Program, residents of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont may be eligible to receive discounted tuition at out-of-state public colleges and universities within New England.

Prices among public schools across the country vary. State schools in Florida, followed by Wyoming, charged in-state, full-time students the least on average in 2022-2023 among four-year public colleges, according to the College Board. New Hampshire and Vermont had the most expensive published tuition and fees, on average, for full-time, in-state students.

Tuition and fees at flagship universities for in-state students often cost more compared with other colleges and universities in the state. For example, the University of Virginia's in-state published price for the 2023-2024 year - $22,323 - is about 64% more than the in-state sticker price of $13,576 at James Madison University in Virginia.

"If you're thinking about schools within the state where tuition can vary, then it's a question of whether the college that you're looking at that's more expensive can offer more value because it offers programs that make it worth paying a bit more," Johnson says.

Higher education experts say students shouldn't rule out private schools, which often offer tuition discounts that may make them competitive with state school prices. This practice among private institutions of offering grants, scholarships and fellowships to offset the sticker price is known as tuition discounting.

According to a report from the National Association of College and University Business Officers, 341 private nonprofit institutions discounted their tuition by an average of 56% for first-time, first-year, full-time undergraduate students and by 51% for all undergrads in 2022-2023 - an estimated record high for both.

Which Colleges Are the Most Expensive?

Per U.S. News data, the colleges with the highest published prices are Kenyon College in Ohio and Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania. These National Liberal Arts Colleges - schools that emphasize undergraduate education and award at least half their degrees in the liberal arts field of study - charge $69,330 and $68,380, respectively, for their 2023-2024 tuition and fees. But many students pay less than the published amount to attend.

"While private colleges generally look more expensive on paper, students often pay far less than the listed cost of attendance," Kimberly Lord, an IvyWise college admissions counselor and former senior associate director of admission at Vassar College in New York, wrote in an email. "Private institutions have greater flexibility to leverage financial aid packages and merit scholarships to attract students. And, schools with large endowments are often able to meet a student's full demonstrated need, in many cases without offering loans, only grants and scholarships."

Some schools with expensive published prices offer substantial financial aid packages.

While these schools charge tuition and fees ranging from $59,076 at Harvard to $62,484 at Stanford for the 2023-2024 academic year, they rank highly among U.S. News' Best Value Schools. This ranking takes into account academic quality and the total net cost of attendance - including room and board, transportation, books and other expenses - for an out-of-state student who received the average level of need-based financial aid.

Princeton, for example, provided need-based grants to about 61% of full-time undergraduates in the 2022-2023 school year. The average cost of attendance that year after receiving grants was $17,464.

That's why students should pay attention to net price and not just sticker price, experts say. While some schools may look more costly based on sticker price, they actually may cost less on average based on net price.

Which Schools Offer Free Tuition?

A handful of colleges and universities are tuition-free, but these institutions usually require work or service in exchange.

Other institutions that offer tuition-free education stipulate certain requirements, such as in-school employment. Alice Lloyd College in Kentucky and Warren Wilson College in North Carolina require full-time undergraduates to work a set number of hours at on-campus jobs.

Are There States With Tuition-Free College Programs?

Of the 441 existing college "promise" programs, which offer scholarships to eligible students to cover up to 100% of their tuition and fees, 132 are statewide, according to the nonprofit College Promise website. Most of these statewide programs are at the two-year institution level, but New York, for example, offers its Excelsior Scholarship at the two- and four-year degree levels.

Statewide programs typically have certain guidelines for students to qualify, including residency or household income. Other requirements range from holding a high school diploma to a minimum GPA. The Delaware Student Excellence Equals Degree scholarship program, for example, typically requires a 2.5 minimum cumulative high school GPA, or for home-schooled students either a combined SAT score of 1350 or an ACT composite score of 19 plus a complete home-schooled academic transcript.

Some promise programs are open to adult learners. The Kansas City Scholars Adult Learner Scholarship, for example, provides up to $10,000 per year for up to five years to part-time and full-time students ages 24 and older who fall in the low- to modest-income bracket. Students must live in one of the six eligible counties, among other criteria.

More than 300 promise programs exist at the local level, according to College Promise.

Tuition-free does not necessarily mean completely free, however, given the full cost of attending college. Families must also pay attention to related educational costs like room and board, books, supplies and transportation, experts say.

"A college education can provide a pathway toward a better living and a better life for students, so it's a missed opportunity anytime anyone has to postpone their college dreams for financial reasons," says Mamie Voight, president and CEO at the nonprofit Institute for Higher Education Policy. "Costs beyond a student's budget - whether they be high tuition prices, an unexpected book expense, a car repair or an electric bill - can be the difference between completing a degree or needing to pause one's studies before earning a credential."

Cost is a key part of the college decision-making process, but it shouldn't be the only driving factor, Voight adds. Rather, the overall return on investment should also be evaluated.
Trying to fund your education? Get tips and more in the U.S. News Paying for College center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need to Know About College Tuition Costs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College tuition prices are increasing but there are ways to find a school to fit your budget & goals. Learn about the cost of college from industry experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consider, if you will, the picture: Students running around choking other students. Students throwing things at the teacher. Kids fist fighting in the hallways. Teenagers screaming at the top of their lungs and running out of the room when the teacher approaches. They are out of control.

I don't know if the doves are crying, but teachers certainly are.

These outrageous behaviors aren't unique or rare. They have increased since the pandemic, and teachers don't know if they can take it any longer. Some aren't. They refuse to put themselves or other students in harm's way. They no longer will tolerate in-your-face disrespect. Teachers are quitting. They are retiring early. THEY ARE RUNNING AWAY..... And FAST. In fact, new survey data shows one in four teachers were thinking of quitting at the end of the 20-21 school year. Who can blame us?

Why is this happening?

Student trauma -Students have not had a normal school year for two whole years, now. Without the social support of the school system, the stress and anxiety in students have accelerated to a breaking point. Explosive behavior in and outside of the classroom is how students communicate that they are not ok. And they are not.

Increase in screen time - The pandemic left many children home alone with their devices. Annette Rothman, a veteran PNR in child and adolescent psychiatry in Reno, indicated that "kids are spending around 90 hours a week on their devices, contributing to a myriad of problems, which include a lack of social and communication skills, along with anxiety and depression." iPhones are raising our kids.

Parents modeling disrespect - Many parents have taken to social media to express anger that teachers are teaching more than just the curriculum. Unfortunately, teaching only the curriculum and not addressing social skills is a tad bit difficult when we have kids hiding under tables, threatening other students with a pair of scissors and calling the teacher a "B." Respect for teachers needs to be modeled, and the opposite is happening. Kids see their parents criticizing and attacking teachers, and they are now doing the same.

Whatever the reasons for the increase in out-of-control behavior from students, parents and administration expect teachers once again to provide the solutions. The number one reason for teachers going into education is to have an impact on children. When teachers feel that they are failing, it pushes them out the door even faster.

No, the lack of control is not our fault

How are teachers handling this? For one, new teachers are feeling as though they are ineffective because they are unfairly judged for possessing poor management skills when they cannot correct these out-of-control behaviors overnight.

But it's not just the new teachers having problems with behavior management issues.

In a response to a Facebook post about a student physically hurting a teacher, Lisa F., a fifth-grade teacher in New York, echoed the same sentiment saying, "In my 30 years of teaching I have never seen behaviors this bad. I can't take it much longer."

These behaviors didn't develop overnight and therefore cannot be corrected instantly. Principals frequently blame teachers as a method of avoiding and postponing action. They do absolutely nothing to solve the issues themselves.

"No one seems to care"

Anne B. who teaches kindergarten in California says, "It is traumatic for other students in the classroom to witness another student verbally and physically attacking the teacher and other students, but no one seems to care."

When do we have a zero-tolerance policy for students hitting teachers and other students? Many times, administrators send students right back into the classroom without any type of intervention or consequence. What is this saying to other students that are watching all of this happen?

Often, teachers go out of their way to help a problematic child. They provide them with special rewards and jobs. The problem is the one child that is getting all of the special attention is robbing the others of it.

What are the solutions?

Teachers need help or there won't be any teachers left. Districts must set aside funding for more mental health professionals in every school. Teachers need to stop being blamed and guilt-tripped into believing that if they were more skillful or had more knowledge, students would not be acting out. This is unfair and untrue.

Administrators need to have zero-tolerance policies for violent outbursts and step in and advise parents of their options for mental and behavioral help for their children. There needs to be money set aside for additional aides for the out-of-control students who prevent their classmates from getting a quality education.

We cannot continue to put band-aids on gaping wounds. Eight weeks of documenting behavior in order to get a behavioral IEP is too long in the case of extreme behaviors. Unions need to step in and offer assistance and demand environments in which teachers can teach effectively and maintain control. A hybrid learning scenario might be necessary for students who jeopardize the learning of all the other children in a classroom.

Standing up and walking out

Finally, teachers are standing up for themselves, not allowing physical and mental abuse from students or parents. This needs to continue. Teachers need to unite with unions and each other to demand safe and respectful working environments.

Unfortunately, standing up may also mean walking away from classrooms and communities that need us. It's a sacrifice many of us may have to make if things don't change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students are Out of Control This Year, and Teachers Aren't Having It!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consider, if you will, the picture: Students running around choking other students. Students throwing things at the teacher. Kids fist fighting in the hallways. Teenagers screaming at the top of their lungs and running out of the room when the teacher approaches. They are out of control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Covid-19 Boosted Private School Enrollment Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Covid-19 forced many parents to make tough choices about where to educate their children. Now, many won’t be going back to public education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Health experts are urging families not to forget about another kind of epidemic that dominated the headlines before the coronavirus came along: vaping among teens and young adults.

The problem "has been overshadowed, but it'll come back," Dr. Nancy Rigotti, director of the Tobacco Research and Treatment Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told TODAY.

"Vaping is still an important issue just as I think smoking is still an important issue ... We've sort of forgotten about it because we've had a bigger health concern to worry about."

Still, there's fresh evidence teens and young adults have been vaping less during the COVID-19 crisis. A survey of more than 2,100 e-cigarette users 13-24 years old - conducted in May and published Thursday in JAMA Network Open - found one-third quit vaping and another third reduced their e-cigarette use. About 17% said they vaped more.

The top reasons cited for reducing or quitting vaping included worries about the habit weakening the lungs, a user's parents finding out and lack of access to e-cigarettes.

When it came to underage youth, "their parents were likely to be home and they could not easily go to stores" during the national lockdown, the authors wrote. But the findings also suggest "vape shops and online platforms are routinely selling to underage youth during this pandemic."

Previous reports continue to cause concern.

More than 50 million Americans used a tobacco product in 2019, with 14% smoking traditional cigarettes - a rate essentially unchanged from the previous couple of years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in November.

But 4.5% of tobacco users turned to e-cigarettes - up from 2.8% in 2017 and 3.2% in 2018, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which called the findings "troubling."

"It is particularly concerning that e-cigarette use was highest among young adults aged 18-24," with more than half of them reporting they had never smoked traditional cigarettes, said Matthew Myers, the president of the non-profit advocacy group, in a statement.

"(The) CDC report reminds us that the fight against tobacco use - the nation's No. 1 cause of preventable death - is far from over and must remain a national priority."

There seemed to be more encouraging news when it came to smoking and vaping among middle- and high-schoolers.

Traditional cigarette smoking rates among kids are at historic lows, Rigotti said. Last year, fewer than 6% of high school students reported that they smoked a cigarette in the past month - a sharp decrease from 2011.

But almost 20% of high school students are vaping, according to the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, released in September.

It found 3.6 million children and teens reported using an e-cigarette in the past month - a number described as "concerningly high" by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but 1.8 million fewer kids compared to the previous year. Possible reasons for the drop include being scared off by the outbreak of vaping-related illnesses in 2019, and being blocked by higher age limits and flavor bans.

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, called the decline "a notable public health achievement," but warned the work is far from over: "Youth e-cigarette use remains an epidemic," he said.

The survey was conducted from mid-January to mid-March of 2020, or before the height of the coronavirus outbreak. Rigotti wondered if the lack of in-person interaction in schools - and the peer pressure that comes with it - might turn out to have a positive effect.

"We were in the midst of almost a social contagion of the spread of e-cigarettes across high schools in the United States and suddenly when COVID came, everything closed and everything became remote," she noted.

"So one possibility is that not being in an environment where there were lots of other kids and e-cigarettes available might have sort of stopped or reduced or cut into that contagion."

Experts have called the social distancing rules of 2020 a "golden opportunity" for teens to quit vaping and for families to talk about the habit's harmful effects, even if they don't think their kids are using e-cigarettes. Many parents are unaware their children are vaping, a study published last month in the journal Pediatrics found.

The authors of the new JAMA survey reported a similar finding: "The small and concealable design of e-cigarettes (often replicating flash drives or highlighters) allow underage youth to continue to hide and use e-cigarettes at home, even with family members nearby."

The worry is teens who vape become addicted to nicotine, which may harm the developing brain, and inhale potentially harmful ingredients deep into their lungs, including chemicals linked to lung disease and heavy metals, such as nickel, tin and lead, according to the U.S. Surgeon General.

One year ago at this time, the CDC was also tracking an outbreak of EVALI, an acronym for "e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury," which was linked with an additive in some e-cigarettes. The agency stopped tracking the numbers in February 2020 when cases declined dramatically.

Could the stress of the coronavirus crisis lead young people to start vaping? Rigotti didn't think it would prompt someone who'd never tried e-cigarettes to start using them out of the blue. But those who were already vaping could be doing it more since there's some data to show that traditional smokers who were stuck at home and bored during the lockdown were smoking more, Rigotti said.

Still, traditional smoking is the more dangerous behavior, she added, noting cigarette smoke has many more toxins than e-cigarette vapor. Vaping devices can also help adults quit smoking, "which is not to say that e-cigarettes are safe," she said.

Looking ahead to next year and life after the coronavirus crisis, vaping will likely come under renewed scrutiny.

"The events of 2020 - the social distancing, the closing of schools - have changed so much that it's hard to know what we will see," Rigotti said.

"It may be that they've helped to reduce teen vaping, but I don't think they've made it go away. I think it's still a problem that we'll have to deal with going forward for sure."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teen vaping is the other epidemic during the coronavirus era: What parents need to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Health experts are urging families not to forget about another kind of epidemic that dominated the headlines before the coronavirus came along: vaping among teens and young adults. The problem "has been overshadowed, but it'll come back," Dr. Nancy Rigotti, director of the Tobacco Research and Treatment Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told TODAY.

# data[].attributes.body
Julia Fair Gaines How are we going to keep schools open during covid? Kids have been back in school for about half a year. We must try and keep them open for the rest of the year. More schools are open now than they were in December 2021. We should strive the keep it that way. CDC’s guidelines are the best way to keep schools open. This includes masking indoors, getting vaccinated, and monitoring community spread. It also includes testing to make sure you do not have the virus and collaborating with local health departments. The Covid-19 vaccine is the best way to keep the community safe. All schools should host vaccination clinics. They should encourage employees and staff members to get vaccines. Schools should also provide screening testing. It is a critical strategy in identifying covid cases. Children with Covid-19 can spread it to people under high-risk categories and their families. Our priority is everyone’s health and safety. We know how to keep our children safe in schools so we should use it. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/COVID%20Guidance_Handout_Final_508.pdf