Making College More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Tuition Aid

Not something you'll likely see promoted at Cato.

 

If Drs. Borcher and Kennedy should happen to believe their arguments justify a sky-high cost for education then I disagree with the good doctors.

That quality education has been provided at less cost argues against the notion that quality education must be expensive.

 

Provided by whom?

How in a blue hell can you get skilled labor without cost?

 

Provided mostly by the same institutions currently providing.

You can't.

But what should be the cost? Costs are best determined in competitive market.

 

Are you arguing that educators are overpaid?


I mean, really???

 

This is an interesting debate. I have been in a Cal State MBA program for about two years now and have watched my tuition (fees they like to call them, I ask you what the hell is the difference?) rise some fifty percent within that time.

I read in my university newspaper and watched on local TV stories about students who could not afford to pay the additional fees. At first, I sympathized with them. After all, it costs an arm and a leg out here just to rent a one room shack.

However, the more I found out about some of these people, the more I realized that they: (a) weren't accepting student loans (they chose only to accept grants) OR (b) didn't apply to receive any financial aid (they relied on a paycheck to cover their college expenses).

There were (are) options for them, but they chose not to take on the added responsibility and burden of financial aid. Also, as a result of each fee increase my student aid was increased by the same amount since I was well below the annual limit for loan disbursement.

So in these instances (especially (b)) the status of federal student aid programs can minimized if not completely disregarded because they fail (refuse) to either take full advantage of it or not use it. (And don't tell me "well, I'm a dependent student and my parents' make too much." That's a BS excuse.)



So what are the factors that contribute to higher tuition??

The skilled labor aspect that Stanislav mentioned is a factor.

Also, (especially in CA) the public university systems receive less funding on a per student basis. In CA, the governor has stated that there will be an increase in funding for the CalState system next year. (BTW, 50% of that increase will be paid by higher student fees.)

Another factor is energy costs. It simply costs more to keep the lights on and run the servers. There is a reason that economists look at the CPI index MINUS food and energy.

The CPI reference leads to another factor, inflation. Before the recent rounds of fee increases, both CA public university systems had not had a fee increase in about ten years. You mean to tell me that there has been no inflation since then?

So one may so, "Okay, lets scrap federal student aid programs and let the private financing market decide funding and rates."

SO:
Would there be a reduction in access? By this I mean, would student loan companies be more selective than the federal government in deciding who should receive federal aid? (Only something that can be answered if the feds actually scrap these programs)

Would this necessarily reduce tuition?
Frankly, I don't see how given so many externalities.

Lastly, we can't ignore politics here. I think I live in one of the best nations on earth, but we have some really stupid people living in here. People that ride the fence on issues because they haven't bothered to look at them. And as a result, even if I thought this was the answer, it probably wouldn't stand a chance in hell of actually being implemented.

 

Of note is that the author of the study is on the faculty of Hillsdale College, the only RA institution in the nation to refuse ALL federal funding (and the "first American college to prohibit in its charter all discrimination based on race, religion, or sex," according to their website.)

 

Interesting rhetorical question. Of course they wouldn't deny their own children, it's just someone else's child who they think doesn't need access to post-secondary education.

Also interesting to note the argument is coming from two people with doctorate degrees, guess they didn't think it was necessary to deny higher education to themselves either.

Kit

 

I believe Nosborne & Alarmingidea are both right.

We do over stress university prep in high schools. In many areas public high school vocational programs for trades and business are being cut or phased out completely. Not for lack of student interest but because school boards and administrators talk about the "need" to prepare all students for university. This fantasy ignores the fact that not every kid is or even should be college-bound. Some already don't have the grades that predict college success. Eliminating vocational programs while also raising high school graduation requirements doesn't raise grades for those kids, it makes them more likely to drop out. Other high schoolers simply don't have the maturity level to succeed in the greater freedom and responsibility atmosphere of universities, they are too dependent upon the hand-holding they get in high school. Those students would do better to be prepared for jobs where there is more direct supervision than in college, and wait a few years for their maturity to develop before attending college.

Also, there's still a need for qualified electricians, legal secretaries, and other jobs that have been traditionally taught in public high school vocational programs. Certainly much more than any false "need" to prepare every high schooler for university when the reality is all of them are not going to go and many who do will never finish.

Alarmingidea's a la carte aproach to college is also interesting. That need is already somewhat fulfilled by universities and particularly by community colleges by offering certificate programs to those who may not need degrees. But the need isn't filled enough, hence the proliferation of private vocational schools that also offer certificates, but often at much higher costs and sometimes with no recognized accreditation. Stangely, the proliferation of such schools hasn't caused many colleges to increase their certificate or vocational programs so students continue to fill private trade schools. It's not because of non-competition due to financial aid since many trade schools advertise that they can also get financial aid for their students.

Along the same lines is the consideration of requirements to fulfill degrees, which are close to universal at most accredited universities. There is the "well-rounded person" argument, but in reality it often isn't revelant. Other than that well-worn and overused non-argument, there's little reason other than increased revenue to universities or saving certain university teaching jobs in requiring lingusitics majors to take two (or more) higher math courses and one (or more) laboratory science courses. Or to require engineering majors to fill their schedules with their choice of specialized humanities such as theatre arts or basket weaving. Or requiring majors in either to fulfill a physical education requirement with their choice of tennis, bowling, or interpretive dance.

An English or linguistics major will never see outside of the classroom those higher math courses they may well have struggled to get through, and an engineer will have little if any real use for those extra arts and humanities classes. Each would be better served by being allowed to take additional credits that pertain to their major rather than fill their schedules with courses that are of little use other than to fulfill arbitrary general education requirements that have gone well beyond core curriculum aimed at well-rounded individuals. It's another false "need" at work. Everybody doesn't "need" two years of college algebra while others don't "need" theatre arts, basket weaving, or interpretive dance.

Kit

 

Well, I don't see that universities require TWO years of college algebra from liberal arts students. Furthermore, I beleive that any individual claiming college degree should be exposed to the typical curriculum of College Algebra course(s) (I'd like to see Euclidean geometry as well, as a prime example of deductive mathematical reasoning, but...). It straighten out thinking process and cultivates appreciation for "quantative reasoning". Besides, it's really not that difficult and rightfully belong to the high school curriculum.


But than again, I'm math major myself

 

I agree that the current liberal arts degree system suffers from a certain inertia and inefficiency, but there are very good educational reasons behind a lot of the requirements. I once had to take a class called "Interpersonal Communications" which I loathed and still consider absolutely worthless. I was also required to satisfy a math requirement by using College Algebra and Finite Mathematics. I thought I would never have to use this knowledge as an english major. Well guess what, they've both proved invaluable in the workplace, in studying for tests like the GMAT, and for MBA preparation. In some fields of linguistics you will never use higher math, but I have seen some linguistic studies that rely on pretty advanced statistics.

The same goes for math, science and technology majors. I think they should actually be required to take more than the required 2 classes of english comp; they should have 2 english comps PLUS an intermediate level class on technical writing. You may be brilliant in the field of computer science, but if you have deficient writing skills and are asked, on the job, to write materials for training and reporting purposes, you might fail horribly.

I do agree that the typical phys-ed requirement is totally ludicrous. I satisfied mine with a course called "Slimnastics"... which was taught by a very fat gymn instructor.

 

I once began to take a course of the same title. The prof was the husband half of a husband/wife team who were the authors of the textbook.

What I learned in that class was why my company's managers had come to speak in packaged phrases and why it had become all but impossible to have a meaningful conversation with those managers. I walked out on that class after a couple of weeks.

 

Off-topic, I know, but you wouldn't happen to remember where you heard it from, would you?



Tom Nixon

 

My good man,

Let us suppose that you were to start Stanislav University. Under the current system, with government-sponsored Pell Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans, private scholarships, employer reimbursements, rich Daddies, and rich Uncle Georges paying for your students' tuition bills, you could get away with charging much higher tuition than would be the case if the only source of tuition monies was whatever your students could afford in good old cash on the barrell-head taken out of their own current incomes. In short, if all of these additional sources of tuition monies were to dry up, you would, as any good money-grubbing capitalist would and should, reduce your prices in hopes that more people could afford to buy your product.

 

Schools are Economics Powerhouses today

One of the reasons I feel college tuition is so expensive is that schools are economic and political powerhouses. It's as if they were businesses that had some sort of sideline doing education. What business has not raised prices? And schools, especially state schools, can raise tuition and get away with it simply because....THEY CAN. Few state legislators stand up for the student and families sending children to college.

Purdue University is a prime example. They have built these business "incubators", tech parks, across the state. These things are not cheap. Now, Indiana University wants to get in on the action. Indiana(setup as Indiana University Research and Technology Corp.) is going to throw "seed" money out to the tune of 2.1 million dollars and then spend annually on this. Many Hoosiers see these schools as being more self serving rather than investing in the state and the education of Hoosier students. Indiana is always touted as being in a severe brain drain status. The centers haven't seemed to stop that at all. No state legislator seems to be able to get the guts to take an opposite view of Purdue or IU here either. Maybe someone on the board can tell me if any have, though.

While the mission of state schools might be to educate and train, I feel that the unwritten mission for many is to make a buck.

I work with many Indian techies. One thing they continually tell me is how cheap it is to go to school in India. Something like $200/year tuition. $200 per year!!! Of course, that represents a VERY select few attending college at all there.

I know of one campany, at a W. Lafayette Purdue tech park, and they are using H-1b labor. Hmm. Not exactly bringing the job bacon home for the state, eh. I know that the J-1's(teachers, profs, consultants), F-1's, and A-1's don't pay on social security. So, we have workers here and they are not contributing to social security...at least for a 5 year period. Wonder what is wrong with social security? Maybe we could hire citizens to work and have them pay on social security instead.

Where many B&M schools seem to make the extra buck is in student housing. Wow! That is the real surprising increase compared to even tuition.

I think the highest tuition I ever paid at BYU was 640/semester(been a while, though). My housing was darned cheap, too. I'm thinking it was 1500/yr. BYU tuition was cheap then, but it was in line with state schools. Now, tuition is nearly 5 times that for a state school and the room and board have gone up about 6 times. They can make anything up with that room and board. Oh, and those "freshman fees" are getting to be over $1K.

 

Re: Schools are Economics Powerhouses today

They (we) also dont get any social security, being visitors, so it would be unfair to make us pay it, wouldn't it? H-1s do pay it, but cannot use it (unless, of course, they get Green Card later).

 

Re: Schools are Economics Powerhouses today

Explain to me something. You are a citisen of a democracy, right? State schools are part of a respective state's government, right? You are unhappy with them? Can't you do something about it?

 

Re: Re: Schools are Economics Powerhouses today

Thanks for asking this question. It really is an excellent question. Can a citizen do something in this country?

Let's see. Our government redistributes house districts based on illegal immigration. We don't have closed borders. Senators and Congressmen sit in their respective jobs for an entire career. It takes millions of dollars to run for a federal office. Basically, this shuts out anyone who might have good ideas to change things and who otherwise doesn't have access to a huge financial powerbase...PACS and other corporate donations. It doesn't look so good.

An ordinary citizen generally cannot do much. Yet, if like-minded citizens band together they can accomplish a great deal. It's the getting people off the couch to make a positive difference that is tough.

With regard to state schools...I cannot donate the kind of money to officials like these power houses can. So, they are not likely much to my concerns.

 

Re: Re: Schools are Economics Powerhouses today

Visitors. Not exactly the word I would use. You are not a visitor but a worker.

I don't agree. Think of it as a cost of doing business....a chance to get a green card. How much would you pay for a green card? Well, I know h-1b's that plopped down 20K, and more, of their own money to buy labor for the green card. So, it's worth that. I'm guessing anyone who would pay that amount for the chance to stay here would pay into social security without much bellyaching.

You may not directly see the benefit of social security, in the form of a current or future check, but I would be willing to bet that you benefit from social security in one way or another. The government borrows against social security to fund all sorts of government fun deals. It's one reason SS is in such a bad shape.

I'm going to write my representatives to ask them to do just this...help social security out by making EVERYONE, visa or not, pay into social security. Yet...chances are that they may have received some "donations" from Tata, Wipro, or CHC. They may not listen to me then.

 

Re: Re: Re: Schools are Economics Powerhouses today

With all due respect, you'all just took "taxation without representation" one step further. Have the guts to say it: "fairness is reserved to U. S. citizens". Visa laws already work this way.