Myth and reality in the crisis of college affordability (2015)
demos.org
demos.org
I graduated from a SUNY school in 1992. My tuition was $675 per semester. Fees were minimal. Especially if you lived at home and commuted, or had an apartment. The minimum wage at the time was $3.35/hr. You could work all summer and pay for your tuition and books, and work a part-time job during the semester to pay for your living expenses. I paid for college myself (with help from merit scholarships) and graduated from college debt free. That's nearly impossible these days. I just looked, and my school now costs $4690/semester in tuition and fees. That's an increase of almost 7x.
We really need to increase public funding for education.
"We really need to increase public funding for education."
Shouldn't the conclusion be to lower costs and not increase funding if it's increased 7 fold in a short period?
I almost wonder if this might be part of the reason for the rising costs. Since there is no option to escape from college debt free these days, the difference in costs appears minimal, as it comes down to a small monthly difference in a far-off student loan payment. I'll bet this makes students much less likely to protest tuition increases, as it is all essentially far-off funny money, and doesn't impact their bottom line.
I remember participating in massive protests of a new (small) bus fee when I was in school. The fee was imposed in contradiction to a promise of free inter-campus transport made when a second campus was built 20 years prior. I doubt such a small fee increase would result in such massive protests these days. For me, that fee was the difference between ramen and real food for a few weeks.
"We find that declining state appropriations for higher education is indeed the primary driver of rising tuition, responsible for 79 percent of tuition hikes at public research universities [11] between 2001 and 2011 [12] and 78 percent of tuition hikes at public master’s and bachelor’s universities over the same decade. Increased spending on administration accounts for another 6 percent and 5 percent, respectively, at the two categories of institutions, and increased grant and loan aid has had a negligible effect, at most. Finally, the purported construction boom’s impact on tuition has been minimal as well, as we estimate spending on construction has accounted for 6 percent of tuition increases at both research and master’s/bachelor’s universities."
For one thing, conservatives are very hostile toward higher education because they consider it a hotbed of marxist atheism. In fact, one of the founding books of the conservative movement, <God and Man at Yale> by William F. Buckley, focused on exactly this point.
Secondly, conservatives believe in making government as small as possible, so they have been shrinking tax support for universities. And when universities respond by becoming big businesses in partnerships with profit-making corporations and neglecting teaching, the conservatives think this is just fine.
In the meantime, countries we are competing with like China continue to support public education as a way of beating us in free market competition. Conservatives never seem to make the connection.
If your assertion is correct, then the rate of increase in traditionally conservative states - such as Utah, Texas, Kentucky - would be significantly higher than in liberal states such as California, New York, and Massachusetts.
Does the data support your assertion?
I thought we were talking more recently than 50 years ago..
People continuously spew that unemployment is a problem, when it is pretty much at the optimal level on a national scale. (5% is actually BETTER than 4%).
Manufacturing is only terribly if you buy cheap products, increase what you pay and mfg quality will increase too.
Yes stagnant wages are bad, I agree.
Free/easy money causes the price of assets to rise, as our Fed is demonstrating. Why would it be the opposite with education?
Tax benefits cut forcing more students to seek financial loans for student expenses. Conservatives further protect lending institutions (and punish students) by making student debt one of the forms of debt not clearable by bankruptcy creating an artificial safety for lenders. Student loans are now a low risk lending market so lenders relax requirements for loans. Now students have greater access to financial loans of larger size so Universities are able to raise tuition without impacting operations/enrollment.
This is obviously a contrived line of reasoning, but the point is that there is a complex interaction occurring resulting in what I (personally) would consider market failure.
The easy money of student loans is a federal program, not the state governments. And conservatives like it because then the big financial corporations that make student loans can make lots of money. And the more expensive education is, the more money they can make. So yes, conservatives think it is just great when higher education gets more expensive.
The opposed the old universities because they believed they were marxist. They like it that the new universities have become more expensive because that keeps people out of universities, or when they are in they enroll in business-oriented programs rather than the humanities, which are rather anti-business. They like it that universities have abandoned education in favor of entrepreneurship. And they like the student loan program because it helps universities be like businesses, and makes lots of money for financial corporations. Do you really disagree this is what conservatives think and feel?
>What is a 'financial corporation'? Is there a non-financial corporation that exists?
A financial corporation is one that makes its money from services involving money, such as loans or managing pension funds. I find it very hard to believe you didn't know that.
>How have universities abandoned education to favor entrepreneurship?
They put the focus on hiring non-teaching staff, earning money from patents, and forming profit-making partnerships with corporations, and neglect teaching, such as substituting low-paid adjuncts for regular staff. I find I hard to believe you didn't know those changes have been going on.
>How were universities previously not like businesses
For centuries, since their founding, universities saw themselves as engaged in a service to society, like churches or charities, and university presidents earned a modest middle class living. It is only within recent decades that they decided to maximize cash flow. You really didn't know that?
>how do student loans - which have existed for quite some time - make them be 'be like businesses'?
Students become like customers. The goal is to get as much money from them, and loans make this easier.
> If the axes for conservatism are democracy, the free market and religion, where do people who only care about 1 or 2 of those items fall?
They attack the universities for only 1 or 2 reasons.
>Since college enrollment is rising significantly, how is it keeping people out of universities?
Conservatives have conflicting goals here. Because they think universities are hotbeds of marxism, they want to keep students out. Because they see them as recently becoming hotbeds of entrepreneurialship, they want to support them. Besides, conservatives, fortunately, are not the only factor at work.
I take it you are a conservative. Why don't you say what you think of universities today, like how they are good or bad?
A similar dog wagging tail is equating the expansion of athletic staff as adding essential personnel. People who are not teaching or researching are administrative in a world where TV sport contract revenue is not a core university function.
What you are paying for is validating your knowledge when you go to college. I hope we start the argument by first getting the basic facts right.
Universities have been doing the same thing all businesses do: charge as much as the market will bear.
"The claim that increased student aid causes tuition to rise was originated by William Bennett, the secretary of education under Ronald Reagan, in a 1987 New York Times opinion piece.19 Numerous academic studies since have tested the Bennett hypothesis, and though a few have found some link between rising aid and tuition in at most one sector of higher education,20 the vast majority have “…found not a shred of evidence of an empirical relationship,” as David Warren wrote in the Washington Post.21 As Warren notes, three major federal reports in the last fifteen years have each surveyed the existing academic literature, and each concluded that no such relationship exists.
The most recent, conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2011, took advantage of a unique “natural experiment” to test the Bennett hypothesis: the substantial increases in Stafford Loan limits between 2007 and 2009.22 In 2007, the yearly loan limits, adjusted for inflation, ranged from $2,925 for freshmen to $6,125 for upper classmen. By 2009, they had risen to $5,750 and $7,825, respectively. All told, the yearly borrowing limit for all undergraduates increased by an average of $2,340. However, average tuition at public 4-year universities rose by just $540 over the same two years, in line with recent historical averages, leading the GAO to reject the possibility of a relationship between the two. Additionally, these increases in borrowing limits were the first since 1993, meaning that the inflation-adjusted value of the limit had declined for more than a decade during which tuitions rose steadily. All told, both the empirical evidence and academic consensus deem the Bennett hypothesis false."