I retired 2 years ago after a long career in advertising in the private sector. The last 12 years of that was spent as an "administrator" at a state university. There are a lot of comments here about bloat and waste in state school budgets.
My reason for posting this is to say from personal experience all of those statements are true.
I have never seen such waste and utter lack of simple accountability in my life. All university employees, including faculty and union staff, would lead you to believe money grows on trees. The students are the ones caught in the cross hairs.
33
Why don't we quit making colleges look like 5-star resorts then they would not need to cost so much. And parents demand every kind of counselor known to man - if students are not ready for college they should stay home with mommy and daddy. Schools should be for LEARNING and EDUCATION. Reduce everything else and the costs will come down dramatically. We don't need climbing walls, indoor tennis courts, riding programs, etc. Get rid of that stuff BEFORE the recession hits.
139
@Sarah99
I read a study just last week that confirmed that the parents who complain the most about high college costs are the same parents who are the most impressed with dazzling facilities.
Folks in the know do not look for that kind of stuff. Believe me, the freshman dorms at Harvard are pretty musty and no one seems to mind.
23
@Sarah99
Community colleges and low end state schools are not the ones building lavish facilities.
27
@Sarah99
Leaving home for college is a time when many (seemingly) well adjusted kids come off the rails. Don't cut the counselling budget.
6
Before they o anything else; before we get into debates about who deserves grants and finding; before we try to separate people into pools - brilliant, underprivileged, downtrodden let's just address the gorilla in the room.
Get profiteering out of education financing. Provide government loans, at near prime rates, with low service fees, and keep rates low until people default. Then consider raising them. And cap the amount a college can charge to get the federal funding.
Imagine if a persons $30,000 debt could be paid back with something close to $30,000 over 10 or 15 years? Al those people would have resources for cars, housing, food, entertainment, furniture, children.
Sure, go ahead and expand grants. But hit the huge problem first.
133
@Cathy I agree and would go just a bit further: offer interest-free government loans to students who complete a degree program. Interest would be applied to those who default on their payment schedules or fail to complete their studies. The system would feed itself as money returned to the fund and it would keep enrollment under control. Not everyone needs a college education. There'll always be trades and alternative careers.
23
@K M - I like it, and agree. I back off to minimal interest, just to get past the folks who cry socialism. But yes, the key is to get rid of the interest burden, and manage the tuition burden.
4
Free college is such a bad idea for so many obvious reasons. If we want to think about how to reorganize education spending, this is not the right direction. State colleges, the ones that would end up free, are already the ones where students can graduate with a reasonable amount of student debt. $30,000 of student debt for an undergrad degree is not unreasonable when 90% of the benefits are going to go directly to the graduate, and not to society at large. (rule of thumb: debt should not be higher than your anticipated salary your first year after graduation - that is a manageable amount).
The real problems are twofold: (a) we need FEWER people going to college, not more (already jobs require a degree only as a handy sorting function) and (b) we need much more robust investment in primary and secondary education.
So many second-tier state colleges and community colleges are basically remedial centers for high-school-level reading, writing and math. Get students at grade level early and keep them there - small classes, surrogate parenting, etc is expensive but such a better investment than "free college." Which of course isn't free - this article conveniently forgets to mention who is actually going to pay for all this.
72
@Big Cow what is wrong with fewer going to College ?? Lets have more trade schools . This model has already made income stagnant even for Professors , because we have a dime a dozen .
5
@Big Cow
Thank you for mentioning the real elephant in the room.
3
Fewer people going to college? So we can expand the pool of people who can be employed at minimum wage (below subsistence)? That seems to be the goal in my state (Florida, don’t judge me, we’re not all idiots).
14
Here's the root of the problem--dozens and dozens of administrators making 200-400k a year sit around wondering what they can do, if anything, to make college more affordable. Meanwhile, your child gets buried further under debt.
61
We send way too many students to college that are really not suited for those jobs and waste their time and any free money that might be offered to their education.
Money for job training for real world needs should be getting the funds.
Too many students spend 4 years as a party, and that is ok if on the parents dime, or student loans they have to pay, not public funds.
If any additional money is given to students we need to start applying a testing model similar to Europe where you have to test to get the free ride.
Also the fact that colleges offer remedial classes is a disgrace, and the bloated upper staff, and facilities that are way too expensive.
We need to start educating people in high school for the world, and then only those who have rich parents money to waste or test into college should be going, if it is going to be on the taxpayers dime.
27
@marie "the fact that colleges offer remedial classes is a disgrace" The fact that college students need remediation is the disgrace.
The principal function of public high schools is to "kennel" children for several hours a day. When educational issues are raised they must be delt with elsewhere.
5
States have cut their funding to public colleges for decades. It didn't start with the Great Recession. It started when Reagan was taking office in 1981. He didn't cause it except in California where he did cut funding as governor of the state. But Americans have a hate hate relationship with education. They hate to spend money on it and they hate to admit that they don't respect intelligence even as employers demand a college degree for jobs that don't require one. College degrees now represent what a high school degree did decades earlier.
If Americans truly value education and intelligence we would stop underpaying teachers and denigrating the profession. We would stop funding huge sports programs to the detriment of academic programs. We would expect companies to pay their full tax bill on property they own and on income because those monies help fund education for all. We would do a better job educating and selecting teachers and professors. Too many college professors are not decent teachers. And we would revamp our K-12 curriculum to ensure that students not on the college path graduate ready and able to find jobs. In other words we'd fix our educational system to serve the students rather than the other way around.
42
@hen3ry
Yes. This is right.
2
@hen3ry Yes.
2
@hen3ry Yes.
2
In WI the state university system and the flagship school in Madison were considered sacrosanct until the Republicans gerrymandered the districts and took control of both houses and Republican Walker served two terms.
There is something about public education and teachers not only at he college level but even at the grade school level that infuriates our Republican legislators.
They cut spending on both to a level not seen in years. They abolished the teachers' union. The university system lost faculty and had to raise tuition.Teachers salaries have become static or decreased.
The source of their animus to public education is so visceral that I cannot fathom it. But it is real and dangerous to the future of a state that is aging and the working age population is declining or state excepting two counties.
102
@Edward B. Blau
The source of animus towards public education, at all levels, is that "they" might benefit. Public schools were great until Brown v. Board of Education made them accessible to all Americans. Once public schools were desegregated, the public will to fund them started to die.
27
@Edward B. Blau
Their hatred of education stems from their wealthy backers, who do not want a populace educated enough to see through their lies. Supply side economics does not work, giving tax cuts to the rich does not pay for itself in new job creation, and an educated populace can figure that out. Critical thinking is the enemy of people whose goal is to get the hoi polloi to vote against their own interests.
23
@Edward B. Blau The animus comes from the uniform leftward attitude of teachers. If teachers would give the political teachings of the right equal time, the Right would support education wholeheartedly.
1
Years ago, we saw the writing on the wall when Colorado voters decided that they wanted more money in their pockets and voted for TABOR, which put a significant pinch on education spending at all levels. Hey, that's fine -- I get it -- but it flipped the tables on parents, who (at least in my neck of the woods) took their tax windfall and spent wildly or cars, vacations, and home renovations rather than putting that extra money aside for university. I remember quite clearly sitting in a college planning session for high school parents a few years ago when it dawned on my peers that they had not prepared adequately to send their kids to school. They all looked like deer in headlights. While I sympathize with those who genuinely do not have the resources to attend college, I don't feel sorry for my socioeconomic peers. I just don't. Yesterday, I ran into an acquaintance, who has high schoolers and was complaining about the high cost of our state universities while at the same time complaining about taxes and Democrats taking over the state. It was all I could do to remain civil. Hey, dude, you chose this. It's not the Democrats' fault that you valued fancy cars and vacations over saving to send your kids to college, so spare me the tears.
70
@Allison - gimlet-eyed observations - I love it
1
@Allison - gimlet-eyed observations - I love it
2
@Allison
Not to mention that if your kid is really talented, academically, athletically, musically, or whatever their gift may be, some college somewhere will offer them scholarship money. They might not get into Harvard, but they'll get into a second- or third-tier school without needing to amass a lot of debt. Too many are going to college now who are mediocre across the board, unlikely to graduate, and not sought after by schools.
2
An agonizing article. Cal Berkeley has an endowment of $4.6Billion which can, and should, be used for student tuition. Period!
2
People with the qualifications to be hired as adjuncts should just refuse to work in support of tenured faculty with feathered nests and administrators who might just as well be selling hot dogs. To accept an adjunct job is to contribute to the problem. They don’t pay much more than minimum wage anyway and experience as an adjunct doesn’t lead to the tenure track. And yes, let’s cut the humanities out entirely. Then the rest of the world that thinks Americans are fat and stupid can have their prejudices validated.
1
We really need to get a handle on the inappropriateness, for all parties concerned, of sending large numbers of people with vaguely defined educational and professional goals and rather poor academic preparation to aqueous bachelor's degree programs at frankly marginal colleges and 'universities'. Most people seeking post-secondary education in the US do so for overtly vocational reasons. in other industrialized countries these people pursue their further educations in institutions which are candidly vocational in nature and the cost of this further training (and I use that word consciously) is born to significant extent by the industries and specific businesses which ultimately employ them. Here, the wealthy and the corporations and businesses they control live, and prosper, by the mantra 'socialize the costs, privatize the profits'. In the case of education, since they have effectively starved states and local governments of revenue, this means individuals are left to pay for their own post-secondary education which, per the above, is often ill-suited to their largely vocational goals. This model needs to be broken and discarded in favor of one in which business is compelled to foot the bill from education and training focused on the provision of an appropriately trained labor force. For those students truly capable of and prepared for genuinely academic work, that opportunity should be provided and financially supported.
6
In a recent survey, one quarter of economists polled by the WSJ predicted no recession before the end of 2021.
Feel better?
1
College costs are increasing at public universities due to increased pension obligations. This is particularly true of the UC system. If you look at education spending, much of the money that had traditionally gone to education is now being diverted to pensions. This is true of higher and K-12 education. These promises were made. In the future, in addition to a reserve fund, professors and teachers should be shifted to a define contribution plan to prevent this from happening again.
Also, Europe offers lower cost because it limits who can go. Germany has tracked middle and high school based on merit and testing. If you make it through a college bound high school, you go to college at low rates/free. If you arent, you receive specialized training and start a job in industry. We used to have something similar here in the 70s-80s with shop classes and apprenticeships. Now this isn't popular because parents need their kid to go to college to feel successful. Meanwhile, Tesla struggles to hire skilled labor to weld frames. There is nothing wrong with a trades based education system except we have accepted the falsehood that all need to go to college. Trades need to be respected again.
Lastly, cap student loan guarantees at 10k per year. This will encourage private schools to lower tuition and reduce debt. Nothing like a 50k private liberal arts college to find onself at high cost with loans (many public service forgiven) to pick up the tab. Without a fed backstop, costs go down.
2
@Steve
We used to have trades based education back when we had JOBS for trades. Having offshored much of our industrial base there aren't jobs for skilled blue collar workers.
Even the jobs that do exist are grossly underpaid. A CNC machine operator who can program is offered less than $15 an hour?!?! Skilled welders are similarly underpaid.
Yes, far too many college grads wasted time and money getting a degree. Law school is one of the biggest scams - as this paper detailed a few years back. Good luck finding a job if you're at the bottom of a class graduating from a mediocre school.
No matter. The way the world is going, in 10 years blacksmithing may be in high demand.
8
The biggest future expense for states in the ever expanding population of elderly residents with need for residential memory care and nursing home care. The resulting Medicare expenses will continue to grow. Do not expect states to throw grandparents out of care to support higher ed. While more $ and taxes will be required, Academics and Higher Ed will also need to be innovative and more responsive to change.
"Free" college is not free, and it is a handout to the comfortable and rich who are in a much better position to afford college already on their own, than struggling people. It is elitist.
In my perfect world, we'd all be able to have the four year college experience - heck, to all be trained in the classics. But that's not reality.
So I would much, much rather see the Democrats focus on radically reforming post high school education, root and branch, to benefit that group they've forgotten about: working class people.
There are industries which are desperate for workers - web developers, truckers, nursing and other skilled healthcare workers, welders, tradesmen, the list goes on and on. You know those dreaded robots that will steal all of our jobs? There needs to be skilled technicians to maintain and run them.
A dear friend of mine never went to college, and runs his own precision metal working business based on skills he learned starting in high school shop. He makes well over $100,00 0 a year and loves his life.
We need to stop mocking "shop," trades and trade schools.
Celebrating working with ones hands again. Bring them back full force, and embed them into the last year of high school.
8
@Livonian
There is no need to “mock shop”-millennials and their parents need to wise up and recognize how lucrative a trade can be and how oversubscribed many attractive white collar jobs are for any but Ivy League graduates - in a major metro area in the NE, window washer, pressure washers a of decks and sidings, jobs requiring no formal training if not skill, able to gross well over $750 a day- we are talking physician money here people, without the opportunity cost of 10 post collegiate education and training- teh delta is seven figures if you do the math. And i haven’t even discussed master electricians aNd plumbers working for themselves grossing $120/hour.
4
I was at University of California in 2008 and 2009, it wasn't just a recession, which is expected to pressure public education. The crisis in the UC was amplified by gross mismanagement of the UC retirement funds by the unaccountable Regents. Just a few years before, the Regents had changed the way that retirement funds had been managed, and the result was disastrous. Other California pension funds also suffered in the downturn, but not nearly as much as the UC. And to make up for the shortfall in funding baby boomer professor retirement obligations, the UC Regents then doubled tuition, all while blaming the recession and GOP legislators in Sacramento while deflecting attention from their own mismanagement. It is a vicious circle, because there is still no accountability in that system, and no reckoning for what happened.
3
If we provide more financial support for college, then let's also raise standards for admission and for graduation. In my work, I encounter a lot of people who graduated from college who cannot write or respond to a simple email. What's the point of the degree if the level of competency to get a degree is so low?
18
@Abby I work at a highly competitive university in WA were the average high school GPA this yr was 3.7.
Unfortunately, many students just don't want or feel they need to take a heavy reading or writing class any more. Our culture is now, STEM, STEM,STEM and more STEM.
10
Colleges know that if your middle class kid is accepted to a "reach" school you will very likely accept and pay full tuition. Pick a school a step lower and the offers for reduced tuition are likely to pour in. The quality of education will be near identical. This is one method great, but less prestigious schools fill their freshman class and improve their ranking.
Here's a thought. If you kid is a high achiever (most US HS students won't qualify) with several APs consider a college abroad. Tuition and cost of living are often much lower - and in some cases foreign students can get low interest loans. Many BA programs are three years only = additional savings.
Education, like healthcare and so many other things in the US are starting to resemble a racket.
7
@erik
Good advice.
And I would delete the words "starting to resemble"
3
Even as someone who believes strongly in public support for public education, I have to say that I don't like the idea of pledging billions of taxpayer dollars to colleges and universities without any means of holding them accountable.
To me, it seems like common sense that if federal government guarantees a substantial portion of tuition costs, those costs are likely to go up. Raising tuition would become an easy way to increase federal spending in your state, and universities would have no problem finding something to spend the money on. States, which would receive $1 for every $1 they spend, would have little reason to stop the gravy train.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't like the idea of the federal government handing out blank checks--not even for higher education. If the taxpayers are going to foot the bill, there needs to be a way for the government to control costs.
6
CUNY and SUNY are free (if a student's family earns less than ~$150k per year), and the quality of education is high. For example, 80% of CUNY students graduate debt-free, even though class sizes are small and the faculty are top-notch (there are numerous Nobel laureates and MacArthur geniuses).
New York state has shown that it is possible to produce high quality, debt-free education. Why isn't the rest of the nation paying attention?
23
How much will additional government education assistance cost, and where will the money come from?
The Feds “balance” by taking on a trillion dollar annual deficit. States balance by cutting annual spending.
Focusing on how to pay the ever rising cost of “college” education isn’t working. Rather we should focus on how to reduce the cost of “college” education.
Almost every college, public and private, large and small seeks to outpace inflation, adding more buildings, more programs, grander residences, more extracurricular add-ons. So why shouldn’t cost go up.
Cost growth has outstripped income growth, fewer families have the means to pay the cost. College is not affordable, and federal and state governments have been unable to change that dynamic.
America created a strong public eight-year elementary school system, governed by states and districts. As needs increased, they created the public four-year high school extension, and then a two-year pre-school extension. Fourteen years, from ages four to eighteen is a long time.
A thought: instead of sending everyone off to “college,” why not rethink the academics and develop high school graduates capable of working the typical jobs that our more demanding, complex and technical economy requires?
10
@Ed C Man
Help! Spending on education! Where will the money come from?
We already spend 70 billion on education!
We also spend over one trillion on "defense", an assortment of (undeclared) wars, and maintenance of hundreds of military bases around the world. Not to mention corporate welfare to subcontractors etc.
But that's "money well spent" I suppose.
1
Great idea! But Republicans hate anything that costs the rich money to benefit society. You can be sure they will fight to the last breath. If they can cut grandma's Social Security benefits, they will not let students stand in their way. Tax cuts forever is their mantra.
6
Tax the rich at pre-Reagan levels. Pay college administrators a lot less money as they really don't deserve it (same for private company CEO, COO, CFO's and other upper management).
Taxes have been reduced on the rich and corporations and hospitals yet the overly paid administrative staff keep the costs of colleges and health care beyond affordability to the average person or family who pay higher taxes than the rich and corporations. The rich were plenty rich and corporations were plenty profitable when higher tax rates were in effect and my high school teachers who went to CUNY or SUNY colleges in the 1960's paid just $25.00 for tuition.
I'd like to see those days come back. But without taxing the rich at pre-Reagan levels and middle class wage growth, most of our society is doomed.
7
The lack of public support for post-secondary education has forced colleges and universities to operate on a business model. So they have had to compete for students. So we see the construction of country club like student centers, administrative bloat, and admissions without standards. Statistically, college grads earn more than non college educated people, but included in those statistics are the obscenely overpaid professions of the very few. Still, many people believe that a college degree is the ticket to a middle class life that disappeared about 30 years ago.
12
Free or subsidized higher education a foolish dream? Then how come so many other countries do it? Just google the countries that don’t charge an arm and a leg to get a quality education. A high school diploma is no longer enough, so some kind of advanced education is a must. One of the reasons for skyrocketing costs is the competition for students. Better dorm rooms,cafeterias, great athletic facilities. One wonders though if a four year institution makes much economic sense for many. An advanced trade school or other type of advanced education institution may be a cheaper alternative. We may totally have to redesign our approach to higher education. No matter how it is done,more public funding is the only answer for many to get the needed learning.
4
@Viincent
Just shovel more money into sky rocketing costs through public funding? Costs have to be addressed first. Other countries don't all have country club like campuses to support. I do agree that we may have to redesign higher education. Employers now cannot find workers. Perhaps corporations pay tuition for the employees they need.
4
States should pay down all debt and build reserves in good times so that they have the capacity to go into debt when times get bad.
Politicians, especially in NY are averse to paying down debt or building reserves so when bad times hit, they have no capacity to do anything to soften the blows for its citizens.
7
Why does Kvaal think he can mansplain college affordability to Warren? Kvaal himself was in a position to protect public education funding from the economic cycle, and he didn’t do it. But now that Warren is proposing to make public education free — the ultimate check on tuition hikes — he’s suddenly interested in claiming that she’s missing something.
The fact is that this article isn’t about education policy at all. It’s all about James Kvaal, the man who knows better.
4
@Adam Probably because free college is a bad idea. Helping with the cost of college is a noble goal but seeking free college would drive down the cost of a college degree. We don't need more college degrees we need less and a greater emphasis on what people can do without a degree.
7
@Evan I agree with your end statement, just not the assumption that free college would, in driving down costs, increase the number of degrees. Students should be accepted to a school based on their merits (grades and SAT/ACT scores.) Those whose HS grades aren't adequate can go to Jr college, and if successful there, transfer to a full university. Others can/should, as you suggest, go to trade schools and learn a skill.
1
@LesISmore
They can don that ALREADy (ie transfer from JC) look at the top out rate at huge flagship land grant colleges and you’ll start realizing, too many people are going directly form grade inflated high schools to college. Entrance standards are NOT too high at state schools outside of UVA ,UC , UT Austin and UNC, they’re really arent.
1
The former deputy policy advisor to Obama should know that there is no automatic extension of unemployment benefits under current federal law. The temporary extension of unemployment compensation law enacted during the last recession expired more than 5 years ago.
3
Missing from this article was that cutting the budget and shrinking the number of instructors caused students to take longer to graduate because they couldn't get some of the classes needed to graduate. That all contributes to more time and money spent in college, adding to the layer of loan debt, etc.
Gov. Jerry Brown created a rainy day fund when he served his last term. This was due to the fact that California had a surplus before the recession and then had a huge deficit after the recession. I don't know if this is a solution for colleges, but it certainly will help our state deal with other expenses.
7
Sounds more dire than it really is.
SPECIFICALLY - do you remember (it was in 2015 - not all that long ago!) when Republicans opposed just about every penny Obama wanted to spend ... saying that it "wouldn't be prudent."
And job #1 - the only "accomplishment" Trump can point do - was indubitably "Let's repay our most generous supporters with the taxcut that they had all but paid to have enacted!"
"Can we afford it?" was NOT a question any Republican - not even Rand Paul - was audacious enough to ask.
Same here. If Elizabeth Warren is honest - a big question mark, both because of her history ... and the justified fear that her campaign will go up in smoke if she gets identified as a raise-taxes candidate - SHE WILL say that these terrible times (for a host of reasons) require something new - a WEALTH TAX. The heck with "estates" - Bezos could live another 30 years ... and that tax has always been swiss cheese, given the many loopholes and dodges.
Every year, there are a few "100 Richest Americans" features published. You know some of the names! One tenth of one percent of just those 100 taxpayers' "net worth" would generate billions!
Smart investors know that the folks managing their money for "just 1%" per anum ... can well afford the gazillion commercials that accompany the US Open (either one!)
Same here. Just as Obamacare was the one "wish" that the previous Democratic President got from our plutocratic Senate, EW could spend her political capital to get this done!
3
Dear editor, please find and publish an in depth longitudinal analysis of numerical changes in factors determining allocation of state funds to the University. When I went through UC B, tuition was zero, rent and other expenses were affordable, and many of us could work our way through and graduate with no debt. The same was true for my father and uncle.
A place to start - http://www.csus.edu/PPA/the...
7
The state of Alaska just had to slash higher ed budgets. College branches are shuttering and student who received scholarships are aid suddenly don't have it any longer. The author is correct that any plan needs to be there no matter what. It upends people's lives if it disappears. My personal preference is something more like NY's - free up until a reasonable income level at state schools. Room and board is extra (which encourages students to live at home and stay out of debt). Free for all is not only not affordable but helps too many that can afford college.
5
When price is not a primary or even secondary consideration when choosing a service (like college) this is the result. Why are more families not selecting the most affordable schools? I see many comments suggesting that schools should cut all amenities, but my guess is that most students don't want to matriculate in such an environment.
If schools were forced to compete for students based on price/value this market would look very, very different.
3
@Sue the value is in the quality of the education, as well as opportunities for for internships, job networking etc. Best priced often times won't be the best of any of that.
2
there is little doubt that parental expertise & involvement are key factors in successful & timely college degree acquisition - probably more effective for admission criteria to be based on the parents than the charges
2
Colleges have plenty of fat available for trimming, but no one wants to give an inch. Providing colleges with more money will not solve or even improve the problem.
The government is directly responsible for creating the college loan mess. Instead of managing the costs and instituting performance requirements they chose to lower the bar and keep increasing the amount of money available to borrow.
Why should a college be conservative with their spending when their customers will keep borrowing more money to pay. Can anyone say “Big College”.
Free won’t fix anything.
17
Let's not forget that increasingly polarized politics also plays a role at the state level. In my state alone, multiple GOP legislators over the years have stated that institutions of higher education are hotbeds of liberalism, serving only to indoctrinate students into left-wing thinking. To these legislators, withholding money from higher ed (which they view as a malign force) isn't just a good thing for them to do, it's the best thing for them to do.
5
@C. Austin Hogan
Not only do GOP legislators aim to decrease budgets for education, recent polls of GOP voters have shown that the average Republican citizen views higher education as having a negative effect on the country. Oh good lord...
4
And the writer is part of a private company that issues stock shares in it's name. When do we get real? Now we have a private consulting firm (for profit) telling us how to make our universities more accessible.
This gentleman attended Stanford. He likely makes quite a bit of money telling UC and Cal State what to do. Interesting.
8
All right. It's time to put this idiotic idea to bed. Top-tier public universities CANNOT be tuition-free! Institutions such as UC Berkeley, UCLA, University of Michigan, and University of Virginia (ie. flagship campuses that draw national and international students based on their research excellence) pay their faculty and administrators competitive salaries with top-tier private universities. Typical full professors at these institutions in engineering, business, and sciences are paid well over $200,000 per year. No reasonable financial model can retain these faculty members while reducing undergraduate tuition to zero since undergraduate tuition remains one of the largest sources of revenue. No one has seriously proposed that top-tier relinquish the research mission of these institutions and lose their top-flight faculty. So, unless you're willing to transform UC Berkeley to California State University, Berkeley or the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor to Central Michigan University, Ann Arbor, the advocates who are pushing for tuition-free college should stop selling this non-sense. One of the greatest inventions in America is the world-class research public universities that have faculty that rival and often surpass that of elite private universities. Doing this is expensive and the education at these institutions is precious. Students from low-income families receive financial aid to cover the cost but for others, they should pay to maintain its excellence.
7
@UC Graduate
Or we could repeal Prop 13 in full or partially. Then there would be more money for education.
I've been surrounded by UC grads the past 20 years in grad school and in the workplace. We work in a competitive field. The UC undergrad system may have been excellent at one time, but no more. My impression is that the UC undergrad system is heavy on multiple choice and short answer tests and light on research, analysis, and writing. The research and writing skills of my UC counterparts is pretty poor in comparison to the skills of people who attend good private colleges where classes are small and heavily focused on reading, analysis, discussion, and writing.
9
@Abby In lamenting the writing ability of college students, you are missing a bigger picture. As somebody who lives in the Bay Area, you should know the link between world-class higher education and the regional economy. I could give you a bucket of sand and copper--could you turn that into a cell phone? What about a bucket of biological material into cures for hemophilia and multiple sclerosis. The American public research universities have the public mission to carry out this research and to educate the workforce that produce these realities on a daily basis. From Apple to Tesla to Genetech, the type of knowledge that is required to make our lives possible takes huge amounts of investment, talent, and vision. All the naysayers to higher education at the highest (and, yes, expensive level) must understand this basic fact: our modern society requires an immense amount of human knowledge and talent that only universities can produce. In a world where UC Berkeley is splicing and restitching the human DNA, complaining about the writing skills of a few of your colleagues is myopic and dismissive of the breathof skills and talents that are required in today's economy. Yes, UC's can do a better job of teaching writing--but, it also has to crank out tens of thousands of students who must move a thousand different levers in our complicated economy.
5
Prioritize education, not sports.
College football coaches make roughly 10x the salary of a professor.
16
"But make no mistake, the more money in her 529, the higher the likelihood of her being admitted to the college of her choice. Ability to pay is an overwhelming determinant of college acceptance at selective colleges." - interesting - but is there any information on the exact mechanism of this?t
@-ABC...XYZ+ The "mechanism" is that most selective colleges do not have the funds (endowment income and donations) to be need-blind in admissions, especially if they want to meet the financial needs of the students they admit. So, yes, after the priority candidates have been admitted, ability to pay is taken into consideration. This does lead to selective colleges having student bodies predominantly from the top socioeconomic tier. Nothing sinister about it; someone has to cover the costs of private universities that don't have state support.
3
"But make no mistake, the more money in her 529, the higher the likelihood of her being admitted to the college of her choice. Ability to pay is an overwhelming determinant of college acceptance at selective colleges." - interesting - but is there any information on the exact mechanism of this?
"But make no mistake, the more money in her 529, the higher the likelihood of her being admitted to the college of her choice. Ability to pay is an overwhelming determinant of college acceptance at selective colleges." - interesting - but is there any information on the exact mechanism of this?
Of course everybody has to go to college regardless.
Of course, thousands of colleges across the nation have to exist and be fully funded regardless.
Of course colleges have to have all the administrators they think they need, and all the buildings they want, and all the sports facilities for all the students to not use because they play online games instead.
Of course colleges must have a continuous flow of money to support all this, regardless of whether it comes from taxes, loans, billionaires with dubious motives, shifty drug companies etc.
Of course colleges don't really have to care about producing educated graduates.
9
As a university professor, the comments on this article are so depressing. Universities are not degree mills or training programs. Their primary purpose is to produce new knowledge; the magic of a university happens when innovative thinkers with deep knowledge are given time and space for this to happen. When students get to see this and even be part of it, it can be transformative. Investment in knowledge production is a part of what has made this country so strong and dynamic; divestment is doing the opposite. Tenure provides the security to pursue risky or unpopular ideas, which sometimes fail or fizzle, but sometimes change the world. Universities aren't being wasteful; we are being asked to do more with less, and students are asked to help make up the shortfall by incurring debts unfathomable to my parents' generation (which attended public universities for free or almost free).
20
@SPL
"Universities are not degree mills or training programs. Their primary purpose is to produce new knowledge."
News to me. I thought it was to educate young people to be solid citizens of the country and the world and to be able to made meaningful contributions to society (whatever that embraces). Where did this concept of "producers of new knowledge" come from?
6
@SPL
Fine sentiments and ideals. Let us all know when the colleges start living up to them again.
5
You may not be at one of the gazillion degree mills, but they are everywhere turning out the majority of their students with worthless degrees. I’d say Abby school outside of the top 200 fits the bill.
2
Senator Amy Klobuchar has been saying on Cable TV for the last couple of days that she does not support free college tuition because it’s not doable. She also doesn’t offer any realistic, workable plan to control growing costs and return higher education from the private sector to the realm of, well, education.
Free college for all would be ideal, but that’s probably not possible; except maybe state schools?. However, if colleges and universities are prevented from acting like businesses with college presidents getting paid in the millions as do athletic coaches and notorious “professors” getting huge salaries, perhaps higher education might be more accessible.
Community colleges should be partnered with the tech industry and corporations to develop practical and useful training programs. A large segment of college graduates are currently underemployed, why not invest on this talent pool for the greater good?
1
This is normal. Republican presidents always leave us a recession for the incoming Democrat to deal with. Then they blame them for how bad the recovery was.
15
In the mid 1950s, my SUNY alma mater had 2 Deans. Now, it has Deans, Assistant Deans, and Associate Deans for everything, including Diversity. That's lots of money going for what?
There are also many adjunct faculty members who get paid badly but still feel compelled to do quality teaching.
If college is free, what's to stop partying, nonqualified people from attending?
College is expensive. My son is almost done with a dual degree program thru SUNY. He lived at home for the first portion of his degree and now is completing the final portion off-campus at another college.
It hasn't been easy. So far, we have only $2000 of debt. This single mother doesn't travel to Europe or have designer outfits.
The US has a frightening amount of deficit. How can we promise free everything to everybody?
17
@KS Universities will still maintain academic standards. Students who fail too many classes are put on academic probation and if they fail to improve their grades the next term they are no longer allowed to attend, barring extenuating circumstances, which are determined on a case-by-case basis.
7
@KS I partially agree. I work as a university instructor. My concern isn't that free college will result in a lot of party animals going to college. My concern is that a lot of students, not academically prepared for college level classes, will go to college in hopes of getting a good job and better life and will eventually drop out of college. That already happens now, except they drop out with no degree and with debt. The other thing is that with the high schools grossly underfunded and universities already underfunded, I don't want the universities defunded like they are just high school v2.0. I don't think free college is the solution per se, I'm not opposed to it, but publicly funded college should come with rigorous academic expectations. We need to stop this fantasy of everyone goes to college.
The adjunct faculty being underpaid is a real issue. A related issue is the horrible academic job market. We need to hire more professors.
Things like free college and free health care are not "free". They are a public good paid for by taxes. We need to pay taxes as citizens, lots of taxes. Those taxes then go to services that strengthen the working class and middle class. Those who make more money should pay more taxes, as multi-millionaires do not work a 100 times harder than the rest of us. Which at the moment means much higher taxes on the wealthy and a small tax cut for single moms of modest means. We need to use taxes to invest in the people.
14
@KS Your comment doesn't make sense. Just because college is free, it doesnt mean it will be easier to get into. If anything, it will be harder as more people will apply. There are already free highly selective colleges. They are very hard to get into.
3
The problem is more than just a recession. The main one is Federal guaranteed student loan funding. These loans continue to drive up tuition costs, and cannot be forgiven. This is no substitute for state funding of universities. The first thing to do is stop handing out easy money. Soon the likes of Coursera will offer the equivalency of an ivy degree for 1/10th the price. This America can afford, but must do if it is to compete in the next century.
5
Education is an industry that really needs to be disrupted. We need to bring technology to bare at all levels allowing for remote classroom learning and one professor per 1000 students. Help can become a combination of virtual adjuncts and bulletin boards and chat sessions. And then companies such as Amazon need to commit to hiring people from virtual environments because if the really good jobs continue to go to the students that go to the really elite schools we will have a problem. The cost has to come down. Requiring students to live on campus or anywhere near campus is nuts. We could reduce the cost by over half if we go virtual.
2
@Dante It's hard to "disrupt" like taxis or hotels because, for better or worse, students mostly choose colleges based on reputation. You're paying for the education, but let's get real - you're also paying for the degree. People want to put Fancy School, B.A. or University of State, B.A. on their resume. Not Uber, B.A.
1
So, correspondence courses are the answer?
1
A likely recession isn't the principal problem. For decades, state legislatures have been cutting funding for our better public universities. That is the principal problem. Here in the state of Washington this was done by a Republican legislature, and justified by the standard questionable set of Republican aims and values. E.g., anti science, anti government, anti liberal universities. We now have a Democratic legislature. And Governor Inslee has frozen tuition increases for the past several years. Yep, states cut their funding after the Republican 2008 crash and recession. Yep, many states have yet to return to their pre-2008 levels of funding. Yep, future recessions will prompt states to cut such funding again. All the same, however, those facts pale in importance compared to the one big fact: Those pre-2008 levels were already far far lower than historical levels, and far far lower than they should have been. In this article there is a photo of a university gate. Once upon a time, a middle-class in-state student could easily have afforded to attend that particular very good university without taking out any loans at all. And that student could have paid for their own annual tuition with the proceeds from a minimum-wage summer job. To begin with, let's protect the quality of these great state universities and let's make them affordable again.
6
The question should be: what is the problem addressed by education after 12th grade (US), and given that problem, what is the most cost effective solution? The article here asks: given the current system, how can the current system be made more affordable for students?
COlleges need to stop funding great dorms, exciting food options, gyms, Safe spaces for each "diverse" group, trips, lounges, parties, free HBO...the list goes on and on to workout rooms with saunas...at ucla there are more of these things than students! And, we are paying for it all.
11
Students need to have some skin in the game when it comes to tuition. It might be best to refund tuition semester by semester only when a student makes real progress toward a degree. Such progress needs to be defined before a student matriculates, and the plan needs to be revisited each semester. Otherwise, I fear that no tuition will be viewed by some as a licence to avoid growing up and to enjoy a vacation from reality. I speak from 30+ years on the faculty of a large state university. Too often I saw students strung along with no degree chances and nothing to show for their time except a mounting student debt. Better to face reality after one semester, with only one semester of debt, then several years of debt and no degree progress.
4
Pressure on public colleges has become greater since fewer people can afford to send their children to private schools. For many, there is a gaping hole between having income too high to qualify for financial aid and being able to pay the $70,000 per year tuition for a private college. This, it would appear, results in students who would otherwise have been accepted to public colleges being declined because the schools - which don't have room for everyone - have to tighten admissions requirements.
1
And thanks to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the Federal Deficit rose by 29%. This reflects where our priorities really are. First - change that!
6
If you really want to make college cheaper, break tenure, bust the unions, get rid of parasitic departments (ie. diversity, inclusion, etc.). Give students more flexibility in housing options (off campus). Though college should be expensive, it is a commitment to their education, offering it free will only bring down the quality of the institution and allow students to enter a permanent education track where they begin to rely on the institution for longer time frames. Lastly eradicate social engineering programs that have no real practical job output for those students.
4
It is sad - no, deplorable - that many states have cut back so dramatically on public education spending. Not only are students becoming less and less prepared to attend college, the colleges have had to raise tuition costs to make up for state budget shortfalls. It is not only ironic that when the job market demands more well educated and qualified workers, it is tragic for our future that institutions of higher learning demand much more from those who seek that education and skill set.
What's worse, it exacerbates the widening wealth gap. Students from affluent families live in school districts that do not suffer from resources, are better prepared to compete for slots at prestigious universities, and who can afford the tuition as an investment in their futures, and who will enter the workplace several rungs higher.
It's tragic as well that we can spend trillions on defense and world wide conflicts but skimp on education. Many states don't have a broad based economy and are subject to economic ups and downs. Many have robbed their tax base with tax free deals to lure businesses but have a net negative effect.
There is one way to if not fix then mitigate the problem. Donate to your favorite school(s). The need the endowments. We all benefit from the output of students who will excel and themselves donate.
And we could redistribute all that sports revenue to academics. I know lots of deans and professors who would be happy with coaches' salaries.
2
@Larry Heimendinger People voted for the representatives that pledged to lower their taxes and were not too concerned about the consequences to education or anything else. People can vote in new, more progressive, representatives but somehow I doubt that will happen.
1
There's the upper echelon colleges with vast sports programs making millions, and then there are the state colleges and universities doing the same old same old of educating people who attend classes.
The elites can take care of their own. Let's boost real public education, both liberal and vocational arts. A person without an education will not do well in our complicated and ever changing society.
State college and universities have way to many managers getting very high salaries. The assistant to the directer, the assistant to the assistant of the vice director, the positions are endless and expensive especially in MA. Elizabeth Warren made $400,000 grand a year for teaching one class at Harvard. That's just nuts. When the federal government started heavily subsidizing tuition and cost the price sky rocketed.
14
Not a single mention of Senator Sanders in this entire article, the only presidential candidate who plans to completely eliminate the cost of attending college for working families. The media's bias, and fear, is palpable here.
We have a choice next year. Make it the right one.
5
I am all for a lot of the common sense preparation for a downturn mentioned, such as more money for Community Colleges, etc., but I can't see wasting a dime for four year schools that tighten their belts by using a lot of adjuncts to teach and their campuses have facilities like a resort. They seem to have forgotten their mission in some places. There a lot of nice to haves that the public is fine with if they pay for them without soaking the public or making the institution less than affordable for their students, but I would suspect that there a lot of items mentioned in this article that the public or even private individuals won't be interested in picking up any portion of the tab for, until their is better evidence that schools are re-focused on their primary mission and that good stewardship for any additional monies will be in place.
3
I think the focus exclusively on tuition rates misses the real problem, which is the COST STRUCTURE of college. If all we do is push the Federal and State government(s) to provide more subsidies, we're not addressing the cost, only the price. The costs will continue to skyrocket. The higher education industry needs to be challenged with what it can do to reduce the cost of delivering post-secondary education. Progress here will address the affordability crisis in a sustainable way that merely throwing taxpayer dollars at a problem will not.
6
Defense costs at 1 trillion, lots of waste and most unnecessary. Imagine we take 15% of this and use to fund college expenses?Imagine we take the tax back to the 1980 level where corporations paid 33% of federal taxes rather the the 11% they now do. Imagine that the 280 corporations, who made billions in profits paid taxes" .Last year they paid zero.
No, we have the wealth its just kept by a small number and protected by their political investments.
12
@Richard Head "Defense" spending is untouchable.
I'm sorry to belabor the obvious.
Attacking the corporate tax structure is a trivial pursuit unless you have thousands of lawyers on retainer.
@Heckler
""Defense" spending is untouchable."
Why?
I am watching how major shifts in higher education will play out over the next few years, with few real commitments to address these challenges. First, in second and third tier Universities we have watched the percentage of tenured faculty and their teaching loads go down. About one-third of courses at my old University are taught by tenure track faculty. More courses can be taught by cheaper instructors and adjunct non-tenured faculty for a fraction of the cost of tenured faculty. This is not to say the quality of instruction for undergraduate courses automatically declines. Second, the cost and number of administrators as increased. On top of this there are many new committees that are now staffed by faculty. That is many of the tasks previously carried out by the administration are now at least partially done by faculty. Third, we are not fully taking advantage of online courses. Students claim they value faculty contact but when office hours for online courses are offered few students show up. Online courses, particularly at the undergrad level, can be of high quality and book publishers have utilized teams of educational experts to develop high quality courses. This decreases high cost of new building and staff for maintaining buildings.
There are lots of extraneous cost in higher education that are unrelated to actual education. For example, division one sports with annual multi-million dollar coaching costs. Model after European Universities.
4
I am concerned that improvements in education funding will get lost in the scale of the problem. I think Pres. Obama struck the right note when he proposed free community colleges. CCs address 2-yr academic, transfer AND vocational and technical education needs. CC enrollments are more than those of most university systems - the CA CC system serves ~2 million students. Many, if not most states, had free CC well into the 80s, and reasonably priced CC until the mid-2000s - so this is something we know how to do.
I would like to see proposals to go after this low-hanging fruit, which will serve the most students in the most cost-effective way. (And, by the way, relieve some pressure on the 4-year schools.)
7
@Steve "free community colleges"
Community colleges instruct at high school level. They exist because someone does not consider having 19yr old guys schooling with 14 year old girls a good idea.
1
Most students spend the first three semesters learning things that their high schools should have taught them but didn’t.
1
@Cold Eye
Perhaps, but if that is true the fault lies in the K-12 system, not in community colleges. If you are arguing to increase K-12 rigor and funding, that's one way to go.
1
Cut taxes for the rich. Then there is no money for the public good, including public education. Repeal laws protecting workers. Then workers make less, have fewer benefits. Let the insurance companies jack up healthcare prices and deductibles so high that many people who get sick go bankrupt. In other words, transfer all costs to working people, while the rich get richer. Then say there is "nothing we can do" but to continue to raise prices for EVERYTHING. No money for infrastructure, so tires blow out when you hit pot holes. Who pays? The individual. Still, workers keep trying. They go back to school, assuming it is their fault for being "undereducated." Then they find out that there are no good jobs to pay off the loans. Privatization of public goods is not ok. It makes a Darwinian, mean-spirited society.
15
The biggest problem is that State University Systems just keep adding Division 1 Men’s Football teams. In Georgia during the height of the rescission they added Division 1 Football teams at Georgia State and Kennesaw State University. Then they have had to buy the Atlanta Braves former stadium and convert it to a Football Stadium. Kennesaw got a new Stadium. Then they need new training facilities so they can recruit Atheletes and coaches. They pay the coaching staff millions of dollars. While the University professors are part time and work with their students in the local restaurant.
20
@MJS
Is that the problem? Are those programs adding revenue to the schools or are they taking money away from other academic or sports programs? I don't know the answer, but I'm curious if you do? My baseline understanding is that men's Football Programs typically generate more revenue than all other sports programs combined. That should result in a net add to the bottom line, not an expense.
3
@John This has been extensively studied and only about 20 D1 football schools make money per an investigation by Congressman Jim Moran. That was done in 2013, and there likely hasn't been much change since then.
3
@John - tilting@windmills
" ... the other candidates overlook the central role of the economy in college affordability."
We are seeing burgeoning enrollment at the community college at which I am an adjunct. While the administration rejoices ... I'm not so sure. For CA community colleges and the CSU system, there is an inverse correlation of enrollment with health of the economy. As the economy slows (or tanks), recent HS graduates and lower-skilled turn to public secondary education to finish their degrees, get a certificate ... whatever, better to qualify them in an increasingly tough employment market.
I've never seen any formal economic reports on this, but it is a recognized phenomenon among classroom teachers.
6
Why do Bernie and Liz want free public college for high income families? It should be needs based. That would save a lot of expense. I could afford my kid’s school so I paid. I’d rather see the money go to kids who need the help.
7
@Marc Why should I buy a beer for everyone at the bar (though taxes) and not get one myself?
1
@Marc: Do they? I was under the impression that their plans include income caps. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1
@Marc because medium income people in high cost of living areas have to choose between health care or retirement or tuition, depending on what the deck of life dealt. $125k+ families are usually two parents making 70k each, and aren't going to be pulling much in govt retirement if they get that far... having to pay for others, usually those who claim dad isn't in the picture, via taxes for the Excelsior Scholarship is a huge burden. They need tuition help, not forced off a cliff.
maybe we can just spend money on average folks during the next recession, funneling it to students, renters, parents, teachers, garbage-collectors, etc., instead of cutting all social services and throwing money at banks like Obama did. Just a thought.
5
@Thomas Watson My husband and many of his fellow tradespeople had gainful, well-paying employment thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And they are construction laborers, carpenters, etc. (average people) not bankers/elites.
3
The real problem with college tuition is that we accept that it should cost so much. There are many reasons why college costs so much more than it used to: bloated administrations, huge and wasteful athletic programs, new facilities which are largely unnecessary and underused, to name a few. But by far, the biggest cost for colleges is faculty salary--generally about 3/4 of a college's budget. Surprisingly, the bulk of this salary goes to faculty research. In many, if not most universities, faculty teach only 3 or 4 courses a year, and the rest of their time is spent on research. In the sciences, most of this is funded by grants, but in the humanities, this is funded almost entirely by tuition, paid by students and supported by state governments. I would argue that this is largely of dubious value, and of particularly little value to students. During the next recession, state governments would do well to ask themselves whether the people and the students of their states would be better served by yet another deconstruction of a Shakespeare play, or by a Professor, who actually taught 10 courses instead of four, who was held to account for their teaching, and a student (and a state government) who had a greatly reduced tuition bill.
7
@chip Excellent excellent comment! The entire higher ed system is massively screwed up and does not serve the students, that's the bottom line.
But cutting the research head off the higher ed beast would help realign the entire system in a huge way.
Why should students, many poor, take out loans and pay them over the course of their lifetime to pay for faculty research, its criminally absurd!
1
This is far from enough. Just when does all this come to it's conclusion?
I started college in California in 79. Do the math. Proposition 13, massive student borrowing, all of it.
This endless piecemeal about public education has really over 40 years time only brought us lower. Do we need expansion of physical facilities? Well, yes. Do we need a new administrative class with their own magazines to show how to literally "decorate" those campuses? Endless glossy media to lure students into UC? We sure did not need it then. I hope the reader knows where I am going.
The Republican Party has been chipping away at education all of my adult life in California. Enough playing policy patty-cake with all of this.
Legislate now for no more of public education being subject to whims of the Freidman "school" of economics. This type of discussion has become somewhat worthless over time.
1
@Walter
Prop 13 was a correction to the tax and spend policy of the 70s.
1
@Eric
Says the man in Virginia. Prop 13 has crippled higher and lower education in California.
If we had politicians who were more concerned about the future of the country than the future of their careers, we would fund education far more than the military, instead of the current vice versa.
Sanders gets it. Warren gets it. Gabbard gets it.
And unsurprisingly, the wealthy and their media are not happy with any of them.
4
It is disheartening to see you giving any credibility to "Biden's Plans." If you and the rest of the media pursue the DNC/DCCC approach to the election, we can kiss our tushes goodbye. I would like to think that your exposure to the truth would warp you in ways that might benefit society instead of repeating all the propaganda the government spews. Your editorial on the true economic impacts of Climate Change gives me hope.
2
Could somebody also address the cost of living on campus? Why does it cost $12000 for a student to share a room without a bathroom in an old building located in the middle of nowhere? That equates to more than 1,000 per month (for the ten months school is in session) for use of a bed, a desk and a closet -- often without air conditioning. Many schools require students to live on campus so it is not as if students have a choice.
26
@Kristine
Why? In Berkeley, l because California is overpopulated. In the 1950s, two students could rent an apartment a block up from Telegraph on Bancroft for $75 a month.
3
@Eric So true but factor out the high cost real estate locations. Many colleges are in the middle of nowhere and nearby towns survive thanks in large part to the schools. Iowa, Southern Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania are not high cost areas and it seems as it every school has the same cost set for "room and board" to live two people to a room the size of a closet originally designed in 1985.
5
I agree with the article, which lays out the situation very well.
The problem is not just the rising cost of college. It is that the universities are not hiring enough tenure-track professors. When a recession hits, more students go to college and stay in college, going on to pursue careers in academia. Since the colleges have more students and less money, they give additional work load to the tenured professors and focus on hiring people for temporary postdoc and adjunct positions. This results in a horrible academic job market at a time when more people are going to college and supposedly the economy is good.
The problem is Americans want tax cuts too much, and as a result taxes are too low.
We need to raise taxes on the wealthy. Then use a mere few billion to restore funding to the US universities and college and have money saved to maintain funding during a recession. If you do that, you can hire more professors and have lower tuition. I'm not even talking about government-paid tuition, just funding the universities at a reasonable level. It's not bad taxation, it's paying for a service and investing in your kids future. Compared to the rest of the federal budget, it's not much money. Yet, people want their tax cuts and states need to cut funding during the recession, so screw the universities. And with it, screw anyone who works for or attends the universities.
6
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling! So, extract even more money from the taxpayers and lavish it on bloated college administrations salaries and benefits!!!"
But if the sky weren't falling, the message would be exactly the same: "The economy is doing great, therefore, extract even more money from taxpayers and lavish it on the college bureaucrats!!!"
How about this? If you think a recession is coming soon, it's time to start firing people.
2
Why did he rob banks? “That’s where the money is”, is the answer. Where is the money concentrated now? That’s where to get it.
2
@Rockaway Pete
The money (tax revenue) is going to welfare, prisons and K12.
Excellent idea! Actually planning ahead!
I stopped putting money into my retirement account when my kids started going to college. They have student loans too, but the goal is that they will not be higher than 20K each. They are both at state colleges, one having started at community college. They will both finish this year but my rent and healthcare costs have increased to the point t hat i will not be resuming retirement savings.
4
Skills training not college, should be free. There is data to show that college degrees do not assure employment. 18 months of free skills training gives a person the option to achieve skills and determine if the expanded course work of college is something they are willing to complete.
Free college? How can you be so unaware of what happens on college campuses. Free? Why go to classes? Free? Why write an intelligible essay?
Free skills training, that can lead to 2 more years of financially supported college.
9
Affordable, but not free college.
Colleges with skin in the game. If their graduates default the college would be responsible for a significant amount of the loans.
No for profit institutions
No for profit loans. Prime plus costs until default
Options for pay back with government/military/under served area work for 2-3x the number of years of the loans.
And for those that are not college bound, real trade schools at the high school level with up to date training for the jobs that need English math booking keeping etc but not a college education. HVAC, plumbing electrician sheet metal etc. These kids should be able to come out of high school being able to read a contract, bid out a job, do the billing, and be ready to work as an apprentice or journeyman without having to be born into these well paid and well regarded trades.
27
@Lynn - MTA right now $46\hr escalator technicians
1
Administrative bloat at state colleges comes with a cost. The University of Michigan spends over $10 million per year in salary and benefits to fund over 70 "diversity" officers. Other state schools show the same trends. Who pays the bill? Students.
60
Government got heavily involved in higher education funding during the George W. Bush administration. Since then tuition and student loan debt have skyrocketed, for the simple reason that the availability of more money, simply made colleges mark-up tuition costs. The key to restoring affordability to college tuition, is to reduce the amount of financing available, not increase it. Government involvement needs to go down, not up. When students can only pay less, colleges will need to charge less or go out of business.
7
Bringing up the way that unemployment insurance payments from the federal gov't rachets up during times of high unemployment is certainly relevant, though I suspect many will find the association specious. But it is true that when times are bad more young people go to school (college or vocational) and adults are more likely to go back to school. Further, when the economy is doing poorly most economists agree that federal spending makes sense, and few would argue that education is a bad investment for the future of the US.
The one thing this sort of policy should not encourage is education inflation rates continuing at rates well above the core inflation rate. This could be accomplished by providing fixed $'s per student with increases going up at the rate of overall inflation, not education inflation.
3
What about the interest charged on student loans? Is the only way for a sovereign currency nation to fund "loans?" Can we do a better job of discharging debt for hardship or at least postponing it?
Also, what will baby boomer retirement etc do the the policital will to do anything? Do we feel that people that voted for Trump even care about the issue?
2
@Bill So I guess you think that states run by the Dems have INCREASED their spending on state colleges? What is a "sovereign currency nation" ? Students have a lifetime to pay off their loans.
@Jackson we can print our own money so the risk is inflation. As to rest that’s not what I spoke about
This is good thinking, but ignores the elephant in the room: the impending "Birth Dearth".
In five years, the number of 18 year olds is going to plummet in the midwest and New England. New Hampshire will lose 20% of it's 18 year olds by 2030. (This data comes from Nathan Grawe at Carleton, the author of a great book on the topic). The dropoff occurred because working class White and Black people stopped having babies during the recession and they haven't resumed. This will also have an effect on the pipeline of students for HBCU's.
This means that policy makers at every level will feel less compelled to fund public higher education. The states that fuel the national tax base (CT, MA, NY, NJ, IL and WA) are already dominated by private higher ed institutions, further diminishing the likelihood of reasonable funding for the rest of the nation.
It's not going to be pretty.
36
Would love to see an analysis of the relationship between college costs and federal government student loan financing. Everyone does not need to go to college. Over 90% of student loan debt is held by the Dept of Education and over 25% is in grace, deferment or forbearance.
2
One thing I have learned by being an investor for more than 30 years: if 3 out of 4 economists are predicting a recession, it is highly unlikely there will be a recession. This is not necessarily a jibe at economists; if everyone is thinking there will be a recession, and adjusting their behavior in advance, that will prevent a recession from occurring.
What you really need to be afraid of is when everything is going great, and everybody is getting rich with no worries.
15
This is not all that complicated - parents and students simply need to be smarter.
State schools are still relatively inexpensive in most locales - two years at college before university can save tens of thousands. You don't get sympathy votes for self-inflicted wounds
For public schools, the average debt is $26,900 - still the cost of a first used car and most students will escape with significantly under that amount as the median is significantly lower than the average.
3
@SteveRR
The debt is much less for students who attend well endowed private colleges, which remain the "smartest" investment.
In the northeast, public colleges are not such a great deal.
5
@Cousy
And I went to school free for four years but that is not the average student's experience.
So sure - get a full ride - but for the other 90%, my advice still holds I think.
Just as the 'Northeast' experience is regrettable but self-inflicted.
btw - I once shot free throws versus Cousy at a summer camp: me 9/10 - cousy 9/10.
I haver been putting most of my IRA RMDs into my granddaughter's 529 College Saving Account, about $15,000 annually for the past seven years. Should my wife and I be spending more of this on ourselves?
We have a 3 year old Acura for regular driving and a 10 year old 4WD pick-up for driving on ice, snow, off-road and plowing. The truck has 65,000 miles on it but the made-in-South Dakota snow plow must be moved manually.
Should I spend $50,000 on a new mid-sized truck with a hydraulic lift (I am currently adjusting to a knee replacement) or wait until the truck conks out so that I can continue to put money aside for my granddaughter's future college expenses?
Like her mother, she is a natural in music and art, unlike her STEM dad. She will need to more than above average if she is to succeed in the arts.
4
@David
You should encourage your granddaughter to develop marketable skills. Some computer skills combined with arts skills are very in demand as website and apps need to be visually attractive and navigable. Some people discover they'd rather have a job they like well enough and gives them enough money to pursue their passions as hobbies. Even people with the talent to be, say, concert pianists sometimes find the constant travel and night performances isn't a lifestyle they want. A fulfilling life is not always found through a job you are passionate about, as long as you have one you like well enough.
Good, solid basic skills --- this means competency in math and writing clear prose --- are the building blocks of success. So, if she's young, help her gain those STEM skills. You don't need talent to build competency, just practice.
15
@David
What a lovely gift to your granddaughter!
From a financial perspective, the extent of your future gifts depend wholly on her parents ability to contribute to her education and the likelihood that she will go to a private versus public college. The latter, of course, depends greatly on what state she lives in.
But make no mistake, the more money in her 529, the higher the likelihood of her being admitted to the college of her choice. Ability to pay is an overwhelming determinant of college acceptance at selective colleges.
8
@SAO STEM is not for everyone. Thanks god for artists.
6
You'll know we value public universities as a country when the question of funding them becomes unassailable as defense and social security spending.
30
I would go a step further and say that many of the Democratic plans, beyond just college affordability, lack any acknowledgement that funding from taxation is directly linked to the health of the economy. It's not complicated and basic economics. When social programs rely on tax revenues to cover the costs of the plan then they are subject to economic stress during recessions.
Universal Healthcare is a prime example. The $32 trillion needed to fund Warren and Sanders plans will be paid for with new taxes on most Americans, including the middle class. This is a well known fact and Mr. Sanders has been quite transparent about it even if Ms. Warren has not. When a recession hits, unemployment goes up and tax revenue available to the plan goes down. Less money in the plan means either reducing services, raising taxes or taking on massive debt. I'd love to hear this topic raised at the next debate to see how each candidate would react.
19
@John They have discussed all of this. Taxes will be raised but a significant majority of all people will pay less overall as they don't have to pay insurance premiums.
18
@Warren
I don't think you read my post. I'm not talking about how they "propose" to pay for universal healthcare. I'm talking about what will happen if that tax funding ends up being far less than what is projected. That's the point. When taxes are the primary source of funds, and those revenues are tied directly to the health of the economy, then the plan is subject to UNDER FUNDING.
Take, for example, what happened to the UK national health system in 2008 during the global recession. The plan's assets went down, sharply, which led to some rationing of care, longer wait times for non-life threatening medical issues requiring surgery, and and overall drop in the public confidence in the plan.
8
@John At the same time how many Americans lost their job and health care at that time. It took over a year of decreased income to qualify for Obamacare, and then individuals were still likely to have trouble paying. I will bet that if you look at the rate of medically induced bankruptcies in the US following the 2008 recession you will see a huge spike. So tell me, who was worse off?
8
Actually, the reason college costs so much is: 1) Too MUCH funding; 2) Greed (as in new textbook editions every year for all subjects, athletics, endowments, student loans, et. al), and 3) Gross inefficiency (Cost-plus administration, lack of modernization, support service insourcing [see #2], et. al.).
Professional salaries have actually DECLINED slightly at many non-research public universities as they shifted dramatically to adjunct instructors.
42
While Mr Kvaal offers good insights, his advice ignores the moose on the table.
The "moose" is the out of control administrative spending, capital investments, division 1 football and the like, and escalating tuitions that bear no resemblence to the rate of inflation.
The present system does not work. It protects the interests of the administrators, and wrt the abuse of adjunct faculty, the interests of tenured faculty.
112