While this author makes some excellent and valid points, he's missing a critical reason for the rise in college tuition that the NYTimes published just a couple of months ago: Deans who are looking to make a college a "luxury" product. The Deans at GW University and the University of Southern California have both employed this tactic - increasing prices so high and as a result they've seen a surge in enrollment. Go figure. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college...
4
Kevin Carey misstates the facts regarding the University of Alabama in this otherwise important article. The situation is worse than he describes. Over the past several years, UA has reduced the total number of Alabamians enrolled while at the same time rapidly expanding the total number of students. According to The university of Alabama Factbook 2013-2014 (http://oira.ua.edu/d/sites/all/files/reports_archive/Factbook/1314_factb..., p. 32), the number of first-time undergraduates from Alabama peaked at 3,207 in 2008, when there were 5,116 new first-time undergraduates, for a percentage of 62.3% in-state. By 2013, there were only 2,585 Alabamians in the first-time undergraduate cohort of 6,478, for a percentage of 39.9%--in contradiction to Carey's statement, a drop in absolute numbers of Alabamians of 3,207-2,585 = 622 new first-time undergraduates. If you add in new undergraduate transfers and new graduate and professional students, the results are the same: 5,155 in-state out of a grand total of 7,954 in 2008, of 64.8%; 4,168 in-state out of a grand total of 9,340 in 2013, or 44.6%, and a decline in *absolute terms* of almost exactly 1,000 Alabamians in five years.
And so the statement "Alabama accomplished this in part by substantially expanding the total number of students it enrolls, including in-state students" is factually incorrect for the period 2008-2013, and in fact all the way back to the mid-2000s. Please fix.
And so the statement "Alabama accomplished this in part by substantially expanding the total number of students it enrolls, including in-state students" is factually incorrect for the period 2008-2013, and in fact all the way back to the mid-2000s. Please fix.
7
While the Republican Party tries to tell us privatizing services is better for everyone, they neglect to say that selling off the state higher educations systems to out of state and international students, selling off prison systems to contractors, selling toll roads and highways that were all paid and created with taxes is simply stealing from the working, middle class, and retired segments of the electorate to line the pockets a political contributors.
They won't be happy until they replace the U.S. economic systems with a return to serfs and royalty.
They won't be happy until they replace the U.S. economic systems with a return to serfs and royalty.
4
Don't blame this on the GOP. As everyone knows, nearly all universities are populated with liberals - from the Administration to the professors. Stick to the facts please.
3
Part of the reduction in the number of instate students can be attributed to the reduction in support of higher education by the state--lower appropriations to the state college and university systems. The colleges respond by raising tuition for all. In some places, the higher tuition is offset by higher scholarship support, but not called instate tuition.
Colleges are responding to the supply of students increasing. The colleges will provide slots for as many students that can pay. They compete based on price and quality.
Isn't that what we want them to do?
If the state wants their instate students to get a break, the state can accomplish this by providing support for instate students in the form of scholarships. Do not blame the colleges when this isn't done.
Colleges are responding to the supply of students increasing. The colleges will provide slots for as many students that can pay. They compete based on price and quality.
Isn't that what we want them to do?
If the state wants their instate students to get a break, the state can accomplish this by providing support for instate students in the form of scholarships. Do not blame the colleges when this isn't done.
1
I think sometimes there can be a conflict between the interests of faculty and the interests of students and their families. This might seem like a stretch, but faculty are sometimes something like the "1%" we often hear of: their interest is in getting the most impressive research done so they can progress in their field, not teaching students. So naturally an ambitious faculty person will want to teach at one of the "national research universities" the author writes of rather than one of the "regional universities." If he can get top notch students from out of state or abroad, that will also help him to meet his goals. Like the "1%," his allegiance is to something international, the fraternity of researchers, not to the students and families in his area.
We may have to take action against those ambitious faculty members just as we do against the 1% if we hope to maintain our social cohesion. This is not to say there isn't a place for top researchers just as there is for talented entrepreneurs. Both groups need freedom and autonomy. But our middle class will wither if a college education becomes out of reach.
We may have to take action against those ambitious faculty members just as we do against the 1% if we hope to maintain our social cohesion. This is not to say there isn't a place for top researchers just as there is for talented entrepreneurs. Both groups need freedom and autonomy. But our middle class will wither if a college education becomes out of reach.
1
Two observations:
1. The article largely references "students" without differentiating between graduates and undergraduates. The geographic distribution of the former is usually vastly wider than the latter at a large university, to the point that it's immaterial to combine them. Only if the author is referring in all cases to undergrads, however, does the analysis have any value.
2. The observation that universities are targeting higher net-tuition out-of-state and international undergrads to offset reduced state funding, while simultaneously boosting spending on athletic programs, still puzzles me. Are smart Chicago or Chinese kids with family money really coming to Tuscaloosa because Saban's Tide is winning? And wouldn't the parents of those smart kids with money shield their ears from the siren call of the big-football social life and insist they compare faculty quality, class size, nearby internship opportunities, and postgraduate admission and/or first-job acceptance patterns?
3. Finally, the data I've seen says that paying a lot for an undergraduate degree at a large university is a true waste of money. In terms of measurable knowledge instilled during a four-year academic career, tests show smaller liberal arts schools, with their smaller class sizes and faculty hired for their teaching skills, are far better investments. Just tell them to road-trip to the big schools on football Saturdays.
1. The article largely references "students" without differentiating between graduates and undergraduates. The geographic distribution of the former is usually vastly wider than the latter at a large university, to the point that it's immaterial to combine them. Only if the author is referring in all cases to undergrads, however, does the analysis have any value.
2. The observation that universities are targeting higher net-tuition out-of-state and international undergrads to offset reduced state funding, while simultaneously boosting spending on athletic programs, still puzzles me. Are smart Chicago or Chinese kids with family money really coming to Tuscaloosa because Saban's Tide is winning? And wouldn't the parents of those smart kids with money shield their ears from the siren call of the big-football social life and insist they compare faculty quality, class size, nearby internship opportunities, and postgraduate admission and/or first-job acceptance patterns?
3. Finally, the data I've seen says that paying a lot for an undergraduate degree at a large university is a true waste of money. In terms of measurable knowledge instilled during a four-year academic career, tests show smaller liberal arts schools, with their smaller class sizes and faculty hired for their teaching skills, are far better investments. Just tell them to road-trip to the big schools on football Saturdays.
3
It would be interesting to analyze data on financial assistance provided to in-state students over time. Raising tuition and fees while not providing adequate financial assistance to in-state low-income students could be a factor in the broader pattern of growing income inequality in our country.
6
Not sure what the point of this article is. This has been happening for twenty years. What's worse, though, is that there is no national policy regarding higher education and most states apparently have no clue what to do with their elite public universities except to raise tuition and increase non-resident enrollments. So the Michigans and UCLAs are increasingly looking like the Harvards and the Stanfords in terms of the socio-economic backgrounds of their students.
2
In-state students still make up over 80% of the student body at ucla. There are thousands and thousands of students from poor and middle class backgrounds and students from affluent backgrounds are overwhelmingly the exception.
1
Given the gridlock and the ineptitude of state governments, I don't see this issue being solved any time soon. Also, I don't think you can blame the state schools for trying to fend for themselves. Furthermore, it is true that state schools have gotten better with more out-of-state students and international students. However, it is unfair to the state residents that have paid taxes to support the state schools for a long time.
I think one possible solution that increases both the quality of the school and the enrollment of in-state students is as follows.
State schools can offer free academic camps to state residents. In-state students can apply for these camps and learn. This way the students will have a better education and have a higher chance of being admitted to the state school. I think the cost of the program can be managed if the school uses talented undergraduate students to teach/mentor (or partner with teaching majors)
However, being in a school, I know how long it takes for things to change. So in the mean time, here are some ways that you can get good education.
Study great online courses: Coursera.org and edX.org provide great courses for free from the top institutions including Stanford, MIT, and Harvard. The quality of the courses are very high (so good that I wanted a refund for my undergrad). Also, KhanAcademy.org and Udacity.com have great materials.
I think one possible solution that increases both the quality of the school and the enrollment of in-state students is as follows.
State schools can offer free academic camps to state residents. In-state students can apply for these camps and learn. This way the students will have a better education and have a higher chance of being admitted to the state school. I think the cost of the program can be managed if the school uses talented undergraduate students to teach/mentor (or partner with teaching majors)
However, being in a school, I know how long it takes for things to change. So in the mean time, here are some ways that you can get good education.
Study great online courses: Coursera.org and edX.org provide great courses for free from the top institutions including Stanford, MIT, and Harvard. The quality of the courses are very high (so good that I wanted a refund for my undergrad). Also, KhanAcademy.org and Udacity.com have great materials.
2
Last summer when my grandson started high school I started looking at college tuition costs. What I discovered was that private, non-profit colleges have been doing what is called "enrollment management" for some years, but that state universities were just beginning to do the same sort of things. Basically it is a system of maximizing revenues from students. A consulting firm named Noel-Levitz holds conferences each year to teach universities how to do this. This information was very disheartening.
5
This is just the result of corporate-orientation of government functioning (more so Republicans than Democrats, although both are to blame). State budget allocation to public universities have been cut and cut for decades, in order to free up revenue that can be reallocated for tax cuts, tax breaks, and corporate subsidies in general. The second factor is various entitlements to retiring boomers.
What this means is that taxpayers are increasingly asked to pay money is funneled to to corporate pockets.
What this means is that taxpayers are increasingly asked to pay money is funneled to to corporate pockets.
1
What this article doesn't report is California & several other states have given in-state & in many cases heavily subsidized (i.e. free) tuition to illegal immigrants & children of illegal immigrants. This public largesse occurs simultaneously with the decline of in-state admissions, so taxpayer citizens are triple-taxed or impacted by paying for the university, paying for another person's education rather than their own kids' education, and then having to pay out-of-state tuition IF they can even afford to send their kids to college without their expected in-state tuition.
Many parents have funded 529 plans & made other sacrifices for many years expecting the rules & laws wouldn't change on them. This egregious political grab by state legislators & university officials due to pressure from special interest groups has resulted in many families' American Dream being thwarted or shattered, while non-taxpayer immigrants (legal, on visas, or illegal) receive unearned benefits off the backs of taxpayers.
Fine, let international students study at public universities, that is what has helped make the USA a great nation. However, do it in proper proportions & with proper motives, and don't do it for political self-aggrandizement & misguided or even illegal purposes!
Many parents have funded 529 plans & made other sacrifices for many years expecting the rules & laws wouldn't change on them. This egregious political grab by state legislators & university officials due to pressure from special interest groups has resulted in many families' American Dream being thwarted or shattered, while non-taxpayer immigrants (legal, on visas, or illegal) receive unearned benefits off the backs of taxpayers.
Fine, let international students study at public universities, that is what has helped make the USA a great nation. However, do it in proper proportions & with proper motives, and don't do it for political self-aggrandizement & misguided or even illegal purposes!
6
I saw it first hand that the university does not increase international enrollment on its own. It's more like after pressure of persistent decline in state budget allocation that they start to become more business like, more like the bean counters. Legislators are fully aware that when public university budget is cut, they will have nowhere to turn to but admitting more international and out of state students.
1
No - They do have plenty of other places to turn! This is the fallacy of the argument from university administrators & politicos, and the political Left. The double-speak is alarming as much as it is disabling of the middle-class American dream.
Administration costs have BALLOONED during the past 3-4 decades. This is highly correlated to the increase in student tuition & fees, with no discernible & measurable increase in services or quality. Hack out the dozens of high six-figure incomes of part-time & occasionally full-time university administrators, and you'll find a big chunk of inflation can be reversed.
Pensions also add to bloat, and similar hacking & restructuring of lavish pension programs can achieve even more!!
Administration costs have BALLOONED during the past 3-4 decades. This is highly correlated to the increase in student tuition & fees, with no discernible & measurable increase in services or quality. Hack out the dozens of high six-figure incomes of part-time & occasionally full-time university administrators, and you'll find a big chunk of inflation can be reversed.
Pensions also add to bloat, and similar hacking & restructuring of lavish pension programs can achieve even more!!
2
Here is Clark Kerr's warning.
"...I am concerned..that...the greatest threats to the university will be those which arise from within the university..."
Right now the threat is not to the university itself - at least not to its financial and research arms. The present threat is to American education.
Our biggest problem is not that students have to pay so much (though that is a gigantic problem); it is how little they get back. State schools going after money is just a symptom of the destructive illness that attacks the "education" in higher education.
I don't have room to describe what is happening. I have a blog to do that: inside-higher-ed.com. I can only quote the man that Clark Kerr considered the most insightful observer of higher ed of his generation, David Riesman. He saw symptoms as far back as 1980.
"...advantage can...be taken of [students] by unscrupulous instructors and institutions...the student estate often does not grasp its own interests, and those who speak in its name are not always its friends..."
The carriers of this illness are the professors (most now administrators) who saw how easily they could acquire prestige, and how easily they could hide their actions. The Obama administration is trying to shine a light on them, and that is good, but it will take a lot of light to ferret them out.
If we keep watching what they do, as this article does, we will learn who they really are. Hopefully, then we will act.
"...I am concerned..that...the greatest threats to the university will be those which arise from within the university..."
Right now the threat is not to the university itself - at least not to its financial and research arms. The present threat is to American education.
Our biggest problem is not that students have to pay so much (though that is a gigantic problem); it is how little they get back. State schools going after money is just a symptom of the destructive illness that attacks the "education" in higher education.
I don't have room to describe what is happening. I have a blog to do that: inside-higher-ed.com. I can only quote the man that Clark Kerr considered the most insightful observer of higher ed of his generation, David Riesman. He saw symptoms as far back as 1980.
"...advantage can...be taken of [students] by unscrupulous instructors and institutions...the student estate often does not grasp its own interests, and those who speak in its name are not always its friends..."
The carriers of this illness are the professors (most now administrators) who saw how easily they could acquire prestige, and how easily they could hide their actions. The Obama administration is trying to shine a light on them, and that is good, but it will take a lot of light to ferret them out.
If we keep watching what they do, as this article does, we will learn who they really are. Hopefully, then we will act.
1
OK, so we moved out of NJ to avoid high property taxes to pay for the good schools our one daughter attended. We would've stayed if NJ did not tax my retirement income which had already been taxed by NY State and City (NYC tax in effect most of my 40 years working in the City).
I don't propose a Proposition 13 for New Jersey. Nor do I expect our 3-year old granddaughter to get a tuition free college education in New Jersey or anywhere else. Neither do I want her to be saddled with huge college loans.
As such, I started a 529 college fund for her at birth. I am not a "Romney Taker," so I am contributing enough (by avoiding NJ taxes) to provide about $400,000 in inflated dollar 15 years from now. So, there you have it. OMHO, there is no free lunch (or tuition) anymore in capitalist America. You get what you can pay for in our free society; that is what democracy means...every person (including corporations) are free to do what they want.
I don't propose a Proposition 13 for New Jersey. Nor do I expect our 3-year old granddaughter to get a tuition free college education in New Jersey or anywhere else. Neither do I want her to be saddled with huge college loans.
As such, I started a 529 college fund for her at birth. I am not a "Romney Taker," so I am contributing enough (by avoiding NJ taxes) to provide about $400,000 in inflated dollar 15 years from now. So, there you have it. OMHO, there is no free lunch (or tuition) anymore in capitalist America. You get what you can pay for in our free society; that is what democracy means...every person (including corporations) are free to do what they want.
1
There most certainly remains a free lunch - the problem is you & I pay for it while others who don't pay eat our kids' or grandkids' lunches, quite literally!!
What this article FAILS to report is California & several other states have given in-state & in many cases heavily subsidized (i.e. free) tuition to illegal immigrants & children of illegal immigrants. This public largesse occurs simultaneously with the decline of in-state admissions, so taxpayer citizens are triple-taxed or impacted by paying for the university, paying for another person's education rather than their own kids' education, and then having to pay out-of-state tuition IF they can even afford to send their kids to college without their expected in-state tuition.
Many parents have funded 529 plans & made other sacrifices for many years expecting the rules & laws wouldn't change on them. This egregious political grab by state legislators & university officials due to pressure from special interest groups has resulted in many families' American Dream being thwarted or shattered, while non-taxpayer immigrants (legal, on visas, or illegal) receive unearned benefits off the backs of taxpayers.
Fine, let international students study at public universities, that is what has helped make the USA a great nation. However, do it in proper proportions & with proper motives, and don't do it for political self-aggrandizement & misguided or even illegal purposes!
What this article FAILS to report is California & several other states have given in-state & in many cases heavily subsidized (i.e. free) tuition to illegal immigrants & children of illegal immigrants. This public largesse occurs simultaneously with the decline of in-state admissions, so taxpayer citizens are triple-taxed or impacted by paying for the university, paying for another person's education rather than their own kids' education, and then having to pay out-of-state tuition IF they can even afford to send their kids to college without their expected in-state tuition.
Many parents have funded 529 plans & made other sacrifices for many years expecting the rules & laws wouldn't change on them. This egregious political grab by state legislators & university officials due to pressure from special interest groups has resulted in many families' American Dream being thwarted or shattered, while non-taxpayer immigrants (legal, on visas, or illegal) receive unearned benefits off the backs of taxpayers.
Fine, let international students study at public universities, that is what has helped make the USA a great nation. However, do it in proper proportions & with proper motives, and don't do it for political self-aggrandizement & misguided or even illegal purposes!
4
Children of illegal immigrants are usually legal US citizens. Just saying.
3
How are illegal immigrants Not US and State taxpayers?
If they rent, property taxes are collected from their landlords on the property they rent. Everything they buy or lease, including automobiles is covered by sales taxes, and license fees. If they use a cellphone, or have cable TV they pay US excise taxes, as well as State sales taxes. Their incomes are taxed for Medicare and Social Security, which they can never collect, as well as Federal and State Income taxes, they can't get refunds on. So how are they such a rip-off ?
If they rent, property taxes are collected from their landlords on the property they rent. Everything they buy or lease, including automobiles is covered by sales taxes, and license fees. If they use a cellphone, or have cable TV they pay US excise taxes, as well as State sales taxes. Their incomes are taxed for Medicare and Social Security, which they can never collect, as well as Federal and State Income taxes, they can't get refunds on. So how are they such a rip-off ?
1
I think that state governments should require these public universities to admit a certain percentage of tax-paying citizens. A certain percentage of foreign students is OK, but when the state university is relying on those students to make up for budget deficits, it's not fair to the taxpayers of a state.
These public universities should cut the bloated salaries of administrative jobs.
These public universities should cut the bloated salaries of administrative jobs.
2
Actually, taxpayers are not paying for it. Google allocation of state budget to public universities, you can see it has been declining. Moreover, the decline is steeper than the decline of number of in-state students admitted by public universities.
What this all means is that taxpayers are NOT funding tuition of international students. But they are funding other items in state budget that were allocated away from public universities.
What this all means is that taxpayers are NOT funding tuition of international students. But they are funding other items in state budget that were allocated away from public universities.
2
"National public universities are cutting in-state enrollment in part to make up for state budget cuts."
That is the entire reason at Berkeley. Ever since the Reagan-era votes to block mechanisms to increase taxes needed to invest in the state's resources, tuition has been going up at Berkeley. Unless California taxpayers and proud alumni are willing to support this great University, it has to make up the difference by recruiting full-ride paying students from out of state and overseas. It uses this $$ to give scholarships to many who cannot afford the increased tuition.
That is the entire reason at Berkeley. Ever since the Reagan-era votes to block mechanisms to increase taxes needed to invest in the state's resources, tuition has been going up at Berkeley. Unless California taxpayers and proud alumni are willing to support this great University, it has to make up the difference by recruiting full-ride paying students from out of state and overseas. It uses this $$ to give scholarships to many who cannot afford the increased tuition.
2
I am still angered over this practice and how it affected my child last year. Graduating with a 4.32/4.5, 31 out of 650+ students in graduating class, multiple athletic, academic and musical organizations and leadership positions, AP's in calc and physics and he couldn't get into UCONN's main campus. Another state university in the NE offered him a merit scholarship which ALMOST brings his tuition, room and board to the in-state UCONN cost. He was offered an RA position for next year so it will be less expensive than UCONN in-state going forward. I'm sure he could have transfer in now with his 3.97/4.0 first year grades but I'm still so angered about this practice that if he asked I would encourage him not to.
1
I visited UConn on a college visit with my son last year. I couldn't get over the number of foreign students there (I could tell because they weren't speaking English or Spanish). It's obvious UConn has adopted the model of taking in more foreign students to enhance revenue, which is then wasted on superinflated salaries for Kevin Ollie, Geno Auriemma and President Herbst.
1
The Nytimes article "Why tuition has sky rocketed..." seems to explain these costs.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/why-tuition-has-skyrocketed...
Any comparison of university funding that does not take into account the number of students is fatally flawed.
The data in this article, which is in fixed dollars over 25 years, shows tuition per student has doubled from $2k to $4k and state supported has dropped by $2k per student. Based on these numbers seems like roughly the loss in state support has been passed on to tuition. I realize that the trends are not linear.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/why-tuition-has-skyrocketed...
Any comparison of university funding that does not take into account the number of students is fatally flawed.
The data in this article, which is in fixed dollars over 25 years, shows tuition per student has doubled from $2k to $4k and state supported has dropped by $2k per student. Based on these numbers seems like roughly the loss in state support has been passed on to tuition. I realize that the trends are not linear.
2
I recently attended the PhD program in Industrial Engineering at The Ohio State University. My fellow students in the graduate-level classes that I attended were overwhelmingly international, the majority coming from China, but from many other countries as well. Rarely did a class have >25% 'Americans' in attendance. And all of those international students paid the full out-of-state tuition rate. That is a lot of $s.
This was widely known and openly discussed by school faculty, especially Deans and Chairs. "Paying for the programs" was a key consideration...and hence for admission.
This was widely known and openly discussed by school faculty, especially Deans and Chairs. "Paying for the programs" was a key consideration...and hence for admission.
4
I am currently in a PhD program, and I believe I am the only local resident in the program, meaning I was actually living here before I applied. In my cohort, there were students from Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, and from all over the country. Overall, in-state students are a minority, and not a sizeable one.
3
How can one find out the admissions trend in a specific state? (Maryland, Massachusetts, to be specific).
2
Go to collegeconfidential.com. Also you can get a lot of information at Newsweek.com - search the college rankings. They offer a lot of admissions history information too. Key terms to search: Admissions Scattergrams.
Too much administration and to little education!!!!!!
6
State support for state universities has collapsed across the country. But the collapse in Michigan has been especially dramatic.
In Michigan not many decades ago the legislature funded above 70% of the University of Michigan’s expenditures,
The total budgeted spending for U-M this past academic year (2014-15) of $6.9 Billion. Of this, the legislature’s contribution was $295 Million -- less than 4.3% of U-M's total expenditures.
With this abdication of state responsibility, the University has come to depend more on out-of-state tuition (now more than triple in-state tuition, roughly $43,000 vs. $13,000), and on research funding, earnings on the endowment, alumni donations, and the like.
The University administration has navigated through this quite magnificently, and there is little serious doubt that U-M remains one of the great universities. But the legislature deserves very little of the credit.
Did someone say, "public in name only”?
In Michigan not many decades ago the legislature funded above 70% of the University of Michigan’s expenditures,
The total budgeted spending for U-M this past academic year (2014-15) of $6.9 Billion. Of this, the legislature’s contribution was $295 Million -- less than 4.3% of U-M's total expenditures.
With this abdication of state responsibility, the University has come to depend more on out-of-state tuition (now more than triple in-state tuition, roughly $43,000 vs. $13,000), and on research funding, earnings on the endowment, alumni donations, and the like.
The University administration has navigated through this quite magnificently, and there is little serious doubt that U-M remains one of the great universities. But the legislature deserves very little of the credit.
Did someone say, "public in name only”?
6
Another middle class perk disappearing. Soon, if not already, college will be available only to the rich. Why should it be so expensive to send a child to college, when, for the most part, it is low paid adjunct professors without benefits doing the teaching. Where's all the money going? University Presidents and administrators?
7
Football and basketball coaches and athletic directors at big schools earn more than the university president. Shiny new buildings that may or may not be needed, named after individual donors. This is what comes of treating universities "like businesses" instead of as mission-driven institutions whose purpose is to educate its citizens.
http://www.cheesefoodnation.com
http://www.cheesefoodnation.com
3
Left to the rich and to the poor. If you are poor and a good student, you'll basically be given a free ride - especially if you are Latino and a first-generation college goer. It's the middle class who will continue to get frozen out. Hasn't that always been the case? Make too much for financial aid, but not enough to pay full price.
2
Oh. The author forgot to tell everyone who use public schools to thank all those old Americans or middle ages Americans for paying taxes for the last 40 years or more. Yes, in NJ, an elder neighbhor is paying and had to sale her home of 40 years because taxes per year is 10,000.00 US dollars.
I have never seen a school teacher or politican or police officer or public school student or non-NJ resident thank her for her hard cash.
And she also held a job for most of her years and her one son died from agent orange from the war. Yes, she paid her fair share of taxes because politicans decided to tax her.
So, now she is moving to Flordia so she can afford to live the remaing years. And, no, there is no parade by non NJ born residents or politicans or public school union officals for her devotion to the great state of NJ of the land of liberty.
I have never seen a school teacher or politican or police officer or public school student or non-NJ resident thank her for her hard cash.
And she also held a job for most of her years and her one son died from agent orange from the war. Yes, she paid her fair share of taxes because politicans decided to tax her.
So, now she is moving to Flordia so she can afford to live the remaing years. And, no, there is no parade by non NJ born residents or politicans or public school union officals for her devotion to the great state of NJ of the land of liberty.
3
You don't suppose the lady might benefit from physicians trained at these schools, do you?
3
I will wait to thank you until you thank us young folks for paying into your social security and medicare too. You don't really think you paid into those as much as you are getting out, right?
3
Well, I thank her. It is a bit sad that we have come to a point where people deserve special recognition just for performing the basic duties of citizenship, such as paying for schools. It is hart breaking and stomach churning that some people seem to think that such responsibility is somehow an unfair mandate, or that paying into taxes to support the duration of the next generation is to be resented or constitutes martyrdom. Such sentiments say something very sad and very profound about the decay of morals and patriotism among our citizenship.
2
Unfortunately, state and local taxpayers each year provide over $75 billion to fund the operating losses at public colleges. While the growth of this subsidy has not been dramatic over the last 10 years, the real issue is how quickly the cost to run public colleges has risen. As Kevin points out too many public 2 year and 4 year colleges want to act like their private brethren and enhance their image with new state of the art dorms and other student amenities. The funny part here is the private non-profit colleges they emulate are in growing financial distress, as seen by the downgrade of bonds of such schools by S&P and Moodys.
Without substantial endowment funds, running schools with high levels of operating losses before subsidies is a fool's errand.
In general, schools are a business and the administrations running them have not managed their finances well. This is a growing problem in the U.S. and will only become more evident in the coming years.
Without substantial endowment funds, running schools with high levels of operating losses before subsidies is a fool's errand.
In general, schools are a business and the administrations running them have not managed their finances well. This is a growing problem in the U.S. and will only become more evident in the coming years.
3
The author forgot to mention that out of nation students get American foreign student aid. Odd as it sounds. America pays full tution to not English speaking students who pass the TOEFL test.
I think president Nixon had this passed as a means to help poor countries get educated citzens. The idea was they would go back with the good old American know how.
Well, that sure hasn't worked as planned.
Also, in NJ community schools, non American born students get state aid for books and tution. NJ state born students pay the full ticket price.
I know a disabled NJ born student who was paying full price being mocked by out of NJ born students for being disabled. Those students where allowed to mock because it was their non American culture to mistreat Americans.
Yes, American born in state NJ students are third class.
I recommend every one to move to another country during high school get a citzenship from that country and come back and apply as non American student.
I think president Nixon had this passed as a means to help poor countries get educated citzens. The idea was they would go back with the good old American know how.
Well, that sure hasn't worked as planned.
Also, in NJ community schools, non American born students get state aid for books and tution. NJ state born students pay the full ticket price.
I know a disabled NJ born student who was paying full price being mocked by out of NJ born students for being disabled. Those students where allowed to mock because it was their non American culture to mistreat Americans.
Yes, American born in state NJ students are third class.
I recommend every one to move to another country during high school get a citzenship from that country and come back and apply as non American student.
4
In state tuition is not a discounted rate. It is the rate that takes into account the fact that state residents have been supporting the institution with their tax dollars. The difference in out of state tuition makes up for the the out of state resident not paying taxes to the host state.
4
The contrasts in wages for the haves and have nots in university education are illuminating, Administration salaries skyrocket, especially for rain makers able to get wealthy alums to contribute. T.A.'s are a step above fast food wages. With little or no hope of tenure.
7
As a longtime adjunct, I can tell you that it's common for US universities to court foreign students now, regardless of whether they can speak English or not. But what's really scandalous is that foreign students are often getting the bulk of the scholarships as well. When I've questioned admissions officers about this policy, I'm told that American students can take out loans, while foreign students can't. That alone is offensive enough. But the real reason universities give money to foreign students is because it's an easy form of international advertising and branding. Of course, this is ironic because thanks to the low standards of many American universities now, it is only a matter of time before foreigners catch on and seek their educational needs elsewhere.
This is already under way as I've noticed a real shift in my foreign students - they seem well aware that the programs they have been admitted to are simply "cash cows" (an expression they learn surprisingly quickly these days). Of course, in ten years time, a degree from any America university will be utterly worthless outside the US (and possibly within). It's sad to see our educational institutions, once rightfully well-respected, fall into disrepute and oblivion simply because of the greed and short-sightedness of an increasingly bloated administrative sector that feels they deserve Wall Street salaries.
This is already under way as I've noticed a real shift in my foreign students - they seem well aware that the programs they have been admitted to are simply "cash cows" (an expression they learn surprisingly quickly these days). Of course, in ten years time, a degree from any America university will be utterly worthless outside the US (and possibly within). It's sad to see our educational institutions, once rightfully well-respected, fall into disrepute and oblivion simply because of the greed and short-sightedness of an increasingly bloated administrative sector that feels they deserve Wall Street salaries.
14
Bottom line is there are simply far too many universities in the US. Higher Ed is now an industry, and just like any other industry, it's mainly in the business of sustaining itself. Higher Ed today exists for the sole purpose of providing jobs for its administrators, staff and teachers. Education is just a by product. Anything that brings revenue and "growth" is good for such a model.
Add to that the liberal hypocrisy running amok among these administrators and teachers, and you get tons of administrative bloat in useless departments like the Diversity department or Center for LGBT rights/climate change/race, class and gender equality -- millions to support liberal causes that bring zero benefit to the students, but someone's got to pay for the salaries of those VPs and directors running those departments. Who but foreigners who still worship at the altar of US higher ed, especially the Chinese and Indians, who see that student visa as an open invitation to immigrate to the US.
Add to that the liberal hypocrisy running amok among these administrators and teachers, and you get tons of administrative bloat in useless departments like the Diversity department or Center for LGBT rights/climate change/race, class and gender equality -- millions to support liberal causes that bring zero benefit to the students, but someone's got to pay for the salaries of those VPs and directors running those departments. Who but foreigners who still worship at the altar of US higher ed, especially the Chinese and Indians, who see that student visa as an open invitation to immigrate to the US.
2
The US is such a weird country.
Even its so called public universities try to enroll wealthy students that can pay the exorbitant tuition. The Ivy league schools apparently feel little obligation to educate US citizens and are enrolling so many foreign students that they are close to being a majority of the student body. Many of these universities derive enormous benefits from research grants from the federal government.
Yet all these institutions are classified as being nonprofit and thus pay no taxes. (If institutions such as Yale and Harvard are nonprofit then how did they manage to accumulate billions in endowment funds?)
The administrators of these institutions must have a good giggle to themselves whenever they see their over-sized salaries being deposited to their accounts.
Even its so called public universities try to enroll wealthy students that can pay the exorbitant tuition. The Ivy league schools apparently feel little obligation to educate US citizens and are enrolling so many foreign students that they are close to being a majority of the student body. Many of these universities derive enormous benefits from research grants from the federal government.
Yet all these institutions are classified as being nonprofit and thus pay no taxes. (If institutions such as Yale and Harvard are nonprofit then how did they manage to accumulate billions in endowment funds?)
The administrators of these institutions must have a good giggle to themselves whenever they see their over-sized salaries being deposited to their accounts.
7
Actually foreign enrollment is usually no more than 10% at the Ivies, and they do a good job of making sure not all students came from 1 or 2 countries, unlike our public universities who are happy to take money from anyone who is willing to pay. Something to be said for holistic admission I suppose.
1
This article is an oversimplification, at least in the case of the University of California campuses. The out-of-state and international students pay far more and therefore in a sense subsidize the in-state students' education as the state itself has drastically reduced funding to the University of California. On top of that, the campuses have been attempting, admirably in my view, to provide scholarships and other meaningful support the children of families from the middle- and lower-income. Thus, the UC campuses are really using all available levers given to them (absent sufficient funding from the state) to maintain the promise for those in-staters who get in. California only covers about 11% of UC's costs, after fees, donations, and Federal funds for research. It turns out running a university is pretty complicated; it's all too easy, in my opinion, to make judgements "from the outside" without seeing the real, and bigger, picture.
5
My suggestion is send your kids overseas for their education. It is far cheaper and in some cases far better. The "kids" are expected to behave as adults so the students actually learn responsibility and are vested in their own education/learning versus in partying and football. Not that there aren't sports or parties - just seems to me there is a more serious respect for education. And did I mention it is cheaper?
That said, vote for Bernie Sanders. Endorse his proposal for free college tuition here in the US. Where will the money come from? It is all about priorities and what is most important over the long haul. Our country will be far better off investing in education than in wars.
That said, vote for Bernie Sanders. Endorse his proposal for free college tuition here in the US. Where will the money come from? It is all about priorities and what is most important over the long haul. Our country will be far better off investing in education than in wars.
17
I'd rather see the country invest in health care for all before handing out free college educations to every 18-year-old, many of whom are ill-equipped to attend a university level class.
4
America cannot afford to elect Bernie Sanders. He'll bankrupt us all!
You just finished saying that US students invest their time in partying, sex and sports as compared to other countries. Now you want the taxpayer to fund ALL of that? Please.
If children at school act like they're on vacation, I'm not paying. And if children at school take puff classes, which the majority do, I'm not paying.
If children at school act like they're on vacation, I'm not paying. And if children at school take puff classes, which the majority do, I'm not paying.
1
This is SO sad! I would never have been able to attend college if not for the lower tuition for in-state students.
8
Given that most American jobs in the future will be working in big box chain stores for the minimum wage with no benefits selling cheap goods made in communist Chinese sweat shops, a college education is a waste of money for most American young people.
10
Interesting that Berkeley apparent raised in stat tuition and fees to $13,200 from $3,964 about 300%-- but the state of California possibly ;facing a permanent drought cannot raise the price of water more than 5 to 10% -- and of course we really can't add additional taxes to the cost of gasoline in the USA -- politically ?? unpopular? unsustainable?? what???
soooo interesting....
soooo interesting....
5
I found this very confusing: The author cites Alabama as having many more out-of-state students. But he nowhere says the U. of Ala. has increased fees for in-state students. And with all respect to the school, when I hear "elite public university," I think more of Berkeley, U. Michigan, U. Virginia et al.
7
I concur. UVA and Berkeley are the "Public Ivies". Alabama who?
2
Apparently Alabama is trying to raise its national profile by attracting the best of the very best with a very generous financial aid package as well as internships, mentoring, books, study abroad, and other great opportunities on campus. USC had a similar strategy about 15 years ago when it was ranked in the mid- to low 30s. In less than a decade, it made it to the top 20.
1
Finally someone is telling this story! I teach full time in the English department at a large community college, and the majority of my writing students are now non-residents paying higher tuition. A resident pays $155 for my 5 unit class; a non-res pays $900. Many of my international students were unable to enroll in acceptable programs in their native countries, and their wealthy parents send them abroad to take advantage of our open enrollment policy and our coveted transfer agreement with UC Berkeley. To help support them, colleges offer priority registration as a way to ease their transition into a new/unfamiliar environment, which then gives them access to the most popular courses and a fast track to transfer. Colleges also expand recruiting, counseling and retention programs for international students while many programs for continuing/adult/community education have disappeared. I've always seen the expansion of international student programs as a cash cow rather than an educational equity issue b/c these students do not invest their education back into our economy or work to improve the lives of their families or communities in the US--most return home to their native countries and lucrative family businesses. At the same time, the average or low income resident faces increased competition to the state-funded schools their parents have been supporting through tax dollars in hopes that investment would lead to an affordable, accessible education for their children.
13
Rebecca - as your college has an open admissions policy, international students don't compete with the Americans - but allow the college to pay your salary plus a few others... As for the Berkeley transfer agreement, the US school takes only good students, wherever they are coming from...
1
Having worked in college admissions, I would say "open admissions" is a misnomer, or, perhaps more realistically, non-existent. Colleges have all sorts of metrics for filling each class. They want a percentage of females, males, in-state, out-of state, ethnic diversity, international, and sometimes providing for a mix of rural and urban students as can be the case here in Wisconsin. Those metrics continually change based on a perceived need to give access to a diversity of people, and, yes, an institution's financial situation (case in point: # of in-state students are going to go up with Walkers big budget cuts here, which means fewer seats for in-state students.) Also, when times are tough, it's pretty compelling to attract East Coasters who are going to go back, make more money, and potentially donate more as alumni, versus kids who are going to move back to the middle of nowhere WI to be a doctor, lawyer, or whatnot.
Let's have balance. The main reason they have done this is because state support has collapsed. I know you want to figure out ways to skewer universities and no doubt they deserve some. But let's keep the eye on the main event: legislatures have simply walked away from their obligations to fund their state universities, resulting in huge increases in tuition and fees, and the quest for higher-tuition-paying out-of-state students, and other methods of generating "revenue." At UMass Amherst, the state used to pay for 85% of the cost of running the place; now, they cover just over 50%. We only jumped back over 50% because of a huge push in the past couple of years.
15
What about all of the universities that have overbuilt in the past ten years and then called alumni to fund their building in the interest of "remaining competitive," they say? Today's major universities are also top heavy with administrators, some of whose job titles are indecipherable. Try getting hold of a copy of a list from one university and, if you are lucky, a list of what these people are paid, and you will see for yourself. Where does one-upping end? The real purpose of the university is disintegrating.
2
There has been a great push for state universities to recruit students from other states. My daughter was offered very generous scholarships to attend out-of-state flagship state universities. The out-of-pocket cost to her was the same as an in-state student. I am not certain how this improves that university's bottom line.
4
How is this story about increases in the in-state tuition rate at public universities? The author provides one example of a state university that increased it's in-state tuition rate (California, which brought the rate more in line with the in-state public university tuition market). If anything, the story is about more out of state students being willing to pay the "full freight" out of state rate, which is generally comparable to (or even a little better than) the rates charged by many private universities.
4
Beggars can't be choosers.
1
The increase in in-state tuition is good news. Poor in-state students now get substantial scholarships and end up paying little or no tuition. Wealthy in-state students are finally paying the increased tuition costs that they can well afford. When in-state tuition was lower, the taxpayers were subsidizing all students, including the wealthy. Since college students tend to come from better off families than the general population and will earn more than the general population, taxing the middle class to subsidize these students is taxing folks who make less for the benefit of those who make more. Bad policy.
3
Middle class students are paying much more in in-state tuition and "fees" that they used to, and they aren't getting scholarships that make up the difference. Middle class taxpayers pay much if not most of the taxes that support the state colleges and universities. The result is that middle class students end up with much higher loans to pay off when they graduate.
13
This depends on what you mean by middle class. Many families earning $100,000 qualify for some financial aid. If they've planned ahead and spent reasonably, they should be able to afford in-state tuition for a couple of kids -- I know because I did it. Many earning more than $100,00 get no financial aid, drive a Lexus and overextended themselves for a really nice home. Those so-called middle class folks can't pay tuition, but whose fault is that?
1
Michjas - it depends a lot on the families' locations and the tuition, to determine if a family can save enough.
The difference is cost of living. $100,000 here buys a family what $67,000 buys in an area that has an average cost of living. But the family still has to save as if they earned the $100K. No Lexuses here... just debt.
Here, a state school will cost that family about $20 - $25K per year. Saving for that school will begin once the $15K per year daycare bill goes away. So effectively, people with one kid have ten years to save about $10K per year off the top for college. If they have two kids in daycare, they have fewer years of being able to save before the first enters school.
It really isn't affordable, except in areas where incomes are high, cost of living low, and the state tuition and housing costs are low as well.
The difference is cost of living. $100,000 here buys a family what $67,000 buys in an area that has an average cost of living. But the family still has to save as if they earned the $100K. No Lexuses here... just debt.
Here, a state school will cost that family about $20 - $25K per year. Saving for that school will begin once the $15K per year daycare bill goes away. So effectively, people with one kid have ten years to save about $10K per year off the top for college. If they have two kids in daycare, they have fewer years of being able to save before the first enters school.
It really isn't affordable, except in areas where incomes are high, cost of living low, and the state tuition and housing costs are low as well.
The solution to this is simple. All high-school graduates who qualify for a college education AND want a college education should be allowed to attend publicly funded universities for free. And students who do not want to attend college should be allowed to attend equivalently funded technical schools for free. Do we need a model for this? Look at Germany . . .
It is ridiculous that publicly funded universities are spending taxpayer dollars on foreign students. While I believe foreign students should be allowed, they should pay the full cost of their education.
As a society, we need to change our way of thinking about our obligations to the young. They are our future and deserve nothing less than the best opportunity to learn that we can give them.
It is ridiculous that publicly funded universities are spending taxpayer dollars on foreign students. While I believe foreign students should be allowed, they should pay the full cost of their education.
As a society, we need to change our way of thinking about our obligations to the young. They are our future and deserve nothing less than the best opportunity to learn that we can give them.
20
Foreign students pay more than the full cost of their education. That's why they are increasingly being admitted at the public universities. they are a good source of income for public universities.
The problem is that taxpayer's dollars are not being spent on public universities and it looks like taxpayers have no interest in that.
Of course, the biggest problem is that "taxpayers" have no clue what they are paying for or should be paying for, but that's a longer story.
The problem is that taxpayer's dollars are not being spent on public universities and it looks like taxpayers have no interest in that.
Of course, the biggest problem is that "taxpayers" have no clue what they are paying for or should be paying for, but that's a longer story.
16
This is a fine idea. I want the state you live in to tax you at 60% of your income so affluent "Johnnie and Betty" next door can go to school for free. Health care for the poor- no big deal, Johnnie and Betty are more important!
Last I checked, Germany had one research university in the top 50 worldwide and the University of California alone had around five. That research has huge benefits, including educational and financial ones. I'm all for free public higher ed in theory, but it would require much more taxpayer investment, and these days things are unfortunately going in the other direction.
1
The belief of NYTimes, and of many other well-meaning parties, that everybody should go to college, is part of the problem here. With increasing demand for college-level education, and increasing offers of "financial aid", of course the overall market has to adjust its price.
Coupled with decreases in state funding of education in all levels, state universities have more incentive to raise tuition and pass the cost of education to students that are willing to pay for it. The alternative is to limit in-state enrollment in the face of decreasing state funding.
Well, there is another alternative, which is that universities take on operating loss, but gee I wonder if any of them would do that.
Coupled with decreases in state funding of education in all levels, state universities have more incentive to raise tuition and pass the cost of education to students that are willing to pay for it. The alternative is to limit in-state enrollment in the face of decreasing state funding.
Well, there is another alternative, which is that universities take on operating loss, but gee I wonder if any of them would do that.
6
There is another option. Do not cut state funding for the public universities. How about that?
9
Here is a further option. Stop funding schools who want to create luxury dorms, luxury food courts, and entertainment/exercise facilities.
Stop funding school departments like "gender studies" or "studies" that can be found online or at adult education depts. Make state colleges focus on classical liberal arts and sciences and professional programs, STEM courses and fine arts. Get back to a true liberal arts and science education. Perhaps if taxpayers saw that, they would lobby to pay for it.
Stop funding school departments like "gender studies" or "studies" that can be found online or at adult education depts. Make state colleges focus on classical liberal arts and sciences and professional programs, STEM courses and fine arts. Get back to a true liberal arts and science education. Perhaps if taxpayers saw that, they would lobby to pay for it.
2
I would add, stop using tax payers money to fund our bloaded military budget, and overpaid politicians. We then use that money to start funding education. I propose, since wars are fought for the purpose of economic and power superiority, that benefits the 1%, let them pay for the wars and our military. The average joe or jane does not benefit from having his/her tax dollars thrown at the military and all the other secret agencies our taxes pay for. What a superior educational system we would have, ( I dream I have).
Suppose everyone has seen the news reports about the high school student accepted to all the Ivy Leagues but chose Alabama. He is not a football player. Received best scholarship package from Bama. Roll Tide and keep more like that coming.
4
The Federal government, and assorted do gooders, are responsible for this whole mess. It is almost exactly the same mechanism that created the housing bubble.
First, the Feds provide all manner of loans and grants for often terribly prepared kids to go to college. Do gooders of all stripes tell kids that all should go to college. But, behind the scenes, many, many kids are "graduating" from high school, incapable of doing any real college work.
Colleges, good empire builders, expand capacity. Enter for profit schools. Expanded schools. Take anyone who can fog a mirror community colleges. Competing for students, colleges add amenities -- fancier facilities, concierge service in dorms, name brand professors, etc.
All this costs money. Because their cost structures are higher, colleges raise tuition and fees, in as many ways as they can, to be paid by whomever is most able to pay them. Foreign students? Out of state? Sure. Kids who take on a lot of debt? You bet. Why would you sell a $10,000 car for $3,000 just because the buyer was in state?
And the real shame: millions of kids who should never have gone to college at all who drop out or "graduate" with a lot of debt and no real benefit from a stint of pretending to be a college student.
It is hard to conceive of a system that could be more dysfunctional in so many ways.
First, the Feds provide all manner of loans and grants for often terribly prepared kids to go to college. Do gooders of all stripes tell kids that all should go to college. But, behind the scenes, many, many kids are "graduating" from high school, incapable of doing any real college work.
Colleges, good empire builders, expand capacity. Enter for profit schools. Expanded schools. Take anyone who can fog a mirror community colleges. Competing for students, colleges add amenities -- fancier facilities, concierge service in dorms, name brand professors, etc.
All this costs money. Because their cost structures are higher, colleges raise tuition and fees, in as many ways as they can, to be paid by whomever is most able to pay them. Foreign students? Out of state? Sure. Kids who take on a lot of debt? You bet. Why would you sell a $10,000 car for $3,000 just because the buyer was in state?
And the real shame: millions of kids who should never have gone to college at all who drop out or "graduate" with a lot of debt and no real benefit from a stint of pretending to be a college student.
It is hard to conceive of a system that could be more dysfunctional in so many ways.
11
Mostly correct. But why do states cut funding for public universities?
Make stricter criteria for entering major public universities and make sure that state government funds them properly. Who can get into them should be able to attend without getting too deep into debt. Those who cannot get in can pay their way through regional schools or private for profit institutions.
Make stricter criteria for entering major public universities and make sure that state government funds them properly. Who can get into them should be able to attend without getting too deep into debt. Those who cannot get in can pay their way through regional schools or private for profit institutions.
8
Why do states cut funding? There is no money left after paying bloated public pensions!! We in IL are in deep doo-doo because of our state constitution; can't even change the pension system. Wish I'd had the foresight to spend my career working a government job. I could have retired at age 53 with a sweet pension like my neighbor. Meanwhile, Joe and Jane Taxpayer are being bled dry on their property and state income taxes.
My only child is graduating from college this year, from a good, in-state public university. It has taken all, and I mean all, my resources for the past four years to get her through college, without debt. I watched the cost of college soar in the last 22 years, sick to my stomach at every news article about the upward spiral. I couldn't begin to save enough to consider a private university, anywhere. Cobbling together a small scholarship here or a grant there wasn't going to help that much either. While I'm proud to have given my daughter a debt-free college education (and based on these comments, it's probably the best financial thing that I will ever do for her), I'm also very happy that I'm done with the system. I feel for families with a young child, or more than one child, in 2015.
21
The response of the state Universities in CA to the recent budget cuts is to restrict admittance to CA residents. My university puts a cap on in-state graduate residents. It is easier to get into my university as a non-resident than as CA resident. There are many problems with this plan. Not the least of which is that it erodes even further the public support of our universities. When people know that their children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, etc can not get into the state schools in California they are less likely to support funding for the UCs and the Cal States. This makes us even more reliant on the extra tuition provided by out-of state and foreign students.
We have been told that the Dean of the Graduate School wants all programs to focus on filling seats with international students.
These students pay higher tuition and because they are on student visas are not eligible to apply for in-state status after one year. Out of state US residents can apply to be considered CA residents after one year.
The one group of students with the lowest priority for admission to the graduate school: California Residents.
It makes me sick.
We have been told that the Dean of the Graduate School wants all programs to focus on filling seats with international students.
These students pay higher tuition and because they are on student visas are not eligible to apply for in-state status after one year. Out of state US residents can apply to be considered CA residents after one year.
The one group of students with the lowest priority for admission to the graduate school: California Residents.
It makes me sick.
11
This is misinformed. There is no cap on in-state admits in the UC, and it is not easier to get in from out of state. Admission is getting harder for everybody, not just in-state applicants. Out of state graduate admits actually cost departments more because departments have to cover their out of state tuition with waivers that come out of department budgets. UC campuses are struggling to compete with private universities for top graduate talent from around the country as a consequence. I know because I ran a UC graduate program for two years.
1
I'm shocked!the Loss Angeles Times puts out of state freshman enrollment at Berkeley at thirty percent and the entire U C system at twenty percent. This is a California taxpayer supported school with an international reputation. If they are enrolling out of state students these students shouldn't be paying 23000 more in tuition than in state students, they should be paying 33000 more. And they should be only top flight scholars, not just anyone who's California-tax-dodging parents live in another state or country.
1
I agree in principle, but raising out-of-state tuition will just make these institutions prefer out-of-state students all the more.
The solution is probably a cap on out-of-state students, and/or public subsidy of in-state students that makes universities prefer (at least slightly) in-state students.
The solution is probably a cap on out-of-state students, and/or public subsidy of in-state students that makes universities prefer (at least slightly) in-state students.
7
Government funding for state Universities is declining to the point where the state universities are really private universities , sometimes saddled by unfunded mandates imposed by the state. At this point well managed private universities are cheaper than state universities on a total cost to the student per degree.
7
"At this point well managed private universities are cheaper than state universities on a total cost to the student per degree."
That's the funniest thing I've read all week!
That's the funniest thing I've read all week!
Mr. Carey cites 2 reasons for changes in the treatment of in-state and out-of-state students at public flagships: declines in state appropriations and the boundless ambitions of public universities aspiring to rival prestigious private peers. For the former explanation, there are ample empirical data. The latter explanation is to my mind bogus. Here's the truth on the increased cost of education in public flagships: between 1985 and 2010, educational expenditures in constant dollars per student at public research universities rose only 10.4%, or four-tenths of one percent per year compounded annually, far far below the rate of inflation in the overall economy over that 25-year period. What that means is that the universities--their executive leadership, their faculty, and their staffs--have worked very hard to keep the rate of real cost increases lower than in almost any other enterprise, non-profit or for-profit. That doesn't bespeak costly aspirational mission creep. Fingers should not be pointed at the institutions but at ourselves: we the people have let other priorities--notably the costs of prison systems--eat the state budgets that used to subsidize low-cost post-secondary education. For data sources and a full discussion see David Shulenburger's chapter in PRECIPICE OR CROSSROADS: WHERE AMERICA'S GREAT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES STAND AND WHERE THEY ARE GOING MIDWAY THROUGH THEIR SECOND CENTURY (a book I edited with Elizabeth Malson-Huddle, SUNY Press, 2012).
7
The author wrote:
"This happened [in CA] at the same time that in-state tuition and fees increased to $13,200 from $3,964."
That's an obscenity. I'm a late baby boomer, and my friends who went to UC Berkeley in the mid/late 70s paid $75/quarter in tuition. Those were the days when you COULD work your way through college on a minimum wage job, an obvious impossibility now, as the state refuses to properly fund public higher education. Thank you, Howard Jarvis, for Proposition 13.
"This happened [in CA] at the same time that in-state tuition and fees increased to $13,200 from $3,964."
That's an obscenity. I'm a late baby boomer, and my friends who went to UC Berkeley in the mid/late 70s paid $75/quarter in tuition. Those were the days when you COULD work your way through college on a minimum wage job, an obvious impossibility now, as the state refuses to properly fund public higher education. Thank you, Howard Jarvis, for Proposition 13.
17
Actually I do thank Howard Jarvis for Prop 13 and I am both a previous and future UC tuition payer and a property tax payer in CA. Because of prop 13, my properties tax increases in the past 20 years have been growing but limited to what I consider to be entirely reasonable limits. I cannot control the wild speculative real estate market in CA and do not under any circumstances want to pay wild real estate taxes on my only property - my quite humble residence. Over 20 years this has saved me tens of thousands of dollars. In the mean time, we did and will pay increased tuition and we still consider it a reasonably good deal.
1
Of course prop 13 is good for homeowners in that it saves them money. That's not the point.
Was Howard Jarvis the beginning of the plutocratic revolution? Something to think about, right?
Either the out-of-staters must be rich and can pay cash tuition or they must obtain loans that will cripple them for a lifetime. More win-win for the banks. Opportunity denied for the in-staters and lifetime customers for the banks. This is really sad.
1
My daughter is about to graduate from the Macaulay Honors Collegenof CUNY at CCNY. Her year was the last for which the program was tuition free for all students. Now it is tuition free for in state students. Further, each student has an "opportunities fund" to spend on educational things. It might be grad school test prep. My daughter used it to fund three international experiences: January classes in Argentina, and community service internships in Peru and South Africa.
High quality education that doesn't break the bank is stii out there, as long as you look carefully.
But this article makes claims in the headlines that are unsupported, or undersuported in the article.
Mostly, the cost of both private and public education has far, far outstripped inflation for well over 30 years.
High quality education that doesn't break the bank is stii out there, as long as you look carefully.
But this article makes claims in the headlines that are unsupported, or undersuported in the article.
Mostly, the cost of both private and public education has far, far outstripped inflation for well over 30 years.
5
In Pennsylvania, the colleges/universities that are purely state schools (what we call our PASSHE schools), seem to consist of almost all in-state students. The tuition at those schools remains a very good value for students from most economic backgrounds. We have three state-related universities--Pitt, Penn State and Temple. It seems that all three have in-state tuition that hovers close to $20,000 per year. Pitt and Penn State seem to offer minimal scholarship opportunities to even high achieving in-state students (my son, for example, in the top 8% of his class with a 1500 CR/M score was accepted early to Pitt, but not to its honors college and he did not receive any scholarship). Word is that Pitt likes to keep some of its available scholarship money to attract more out-of-state students. My son, who was accepted also to BU (and its highly competitive honors college) and to Temple (and its honors college) decided on Temple, which uses various metrics to award scholarships (he got full tuition at Temple). But Temple has three other levels of scholarships for students and it is quite generous in my opinion, and Temple still seems to favor in-state students. The honors college offers smaller classes in almost every imaginable class. For him it was a no-brainer. Go Owls.
1
Our family came to the same conclusion, even with only a partial scholarship.
2
it is the middle class as usual that is squeezed. do the numbers for college tuition. there was an article in forbes how a woman decided to take a 60k less stressful job than a 120k job because after figuring out the reduction in her daughter's tuition and a mortgage modification based upon income etc she would be paying a marginal tax rate of 79% or just gaining $12000 if she took the higher paying job.
too things to consider: 1. the "so called"poor never pay. 2. private colleges may offer better financial deals than public universities 3. debt is extinguished for taking certain public service jobs. it is a waste of resources but as the country swings to the left that is the result.
too things to consider: 1. the "so called"poor never pay. 2. private colleges may offer better financial deals than public universities 3. debt is extinguished for taking certain public service jobs. it is a waste of resources but as the country swings to the left that is the result.
4
Among the myriad reasons not to vote Republican, it's the evisceration of public education. The day Scott Walker is elected is the day we fully sacrifice our future and hand the country completely over to the plutocrats.
23
Germany now has no tuition at any university for anyone, foreigners too.
11
If you speak German! Great if your American student does. Not so helpful otherwise. And you better speak it very well. They are not nice to bumblers of their language.
There seems to be two different trends going on: the first is represented by Alabama that provides scholarships for out-of-state candidates to attract a better level of students to the school. From the state's perspective that may well be a sound decision if the belief that these students will settle in Alabama and boost the economy proves correct. The other trend is represented by Berkeley admitting more out-of-state for the higher tuition. That is clearly not driven by the need to attract better students since California's pool of 40 million people represents good enough fishing. From the state's perspective that is short-sighted, yes it alleviates funding pressures on the state (UC Berkeley only received 16% of its total funding needs from the state in recent years) but it may drive highly qualified students out of the state for college with the subsequent risk that they don't return. New York was never able to develop elite public universities comparable to UC Berkeley and UCLA and that may be one reason Silicon Valley is in Santa Clara county and not along the Hudson. It is sad if California lets its crown jewels, the UC system, become self-funding institutions with no obligation to educate its bright but economically disadvantaged students.
12
My understanding is that the UCs offer lucrative retirement packages. Packages that very few of us in the public sector get. My question is to what extent does that drive the tuition increases. Why do public sector employees deserve in this day and age to receive so much more benefit than the norm?
What a tragedy for the United States, I suppose if wild conservatives had their way we would no longer have a free public school system at any level.
22
Totally private institutions may admit whomever they want. Any college or university that takes any kind of federal taxpayer funding should be restricted to accepting the same percentage of foreign students that the school admitted in 1995
These schools need to be American citizens and legal residents first, and everyone else second. The UNC model of 18 percent out-of-state students isn't a bad one, either. But let's end this foreign student who pay full tuition racket.
These schools need to be American citizens and legal residents first, and everyone else second. The UNC model of 18 percent out-of-state students isn't a bad one, either. But let's end this foreign student who pay full tuition racket.
4
Not a bad idea if the level of taxpayer funding was the same as 1995.
6
someone can put 2 and 2 together.
American taxpayers have invested in higher education for well over a century, reaping enormous returns. My alma mater, UC Berkeley, was founded in 1868. Today, our investment is being destroyed by successive state legislators and governors who don't understand the extent to which UC has undergirded the long term prosperity of the state of California. We spend twice as much on prisons as we do on education in California, a disgrace and a slow-rolling disaster. Berkeley does not have ambitions to be Harvard- it is already a greater institution than Harvard is capable of becoming, with more Pell grant students than the entire ivy league and a profoundly creative and committed faculty. To protect our great public investment, taxpayers must get involved in the effort to resuscitate public higher education. Call your state legislators and demand that they restore funding to public higher ed. And finally, Go Bears!
30
I was shocked to find out last week, from a friend whose daughter is starting college next Fall, that the in-state tuition for the University of Washington is a whopping $27,000 per year! That is completely insane to me, as it is clearly far beyond what a middle class family can be expected to save in this economy, especially if they have more than one child. Such high tuition means it is harder to enroll more low income students, as each one must receive enough financial aid to bring them up to the $100K level in four years. Competing for fewer of these already pricey in-state spots is just adding insult to injury.
I grew up in a state with fairly weak public universities, and one reason I chose WA state to live in was because UW is a quality institution that I figured would be an excellent, more affordable option for my children as long as they keep their grades up and apply themselves enough to be prepared for it. This is the place I chose I contribute to my community, through time, effort and taxes, and I feel we have lost something valuable if our state institutions aren't oriented to benefit their own communities anymore.
I grew up in a state with fairly weak public universities, and one reason I chose WA state to live in was because UW is a quality institution that I figured would be an excellent, more affordable option for my children as long as they keep their grades up and apply themselves enough to be prepared for it. This is the place I chose I contribute to my community, through time, effort and taxes, and I feel we have lost something valuable if our state institutions aren't oriented to benefit their own communities anymore.
7
Hi, I agree overall, but one small correction. $27,000 represents a total cost of attendance budget (including room and board away from home and transportation), not the actual in state tution for an in state undergrad ($12,394) https://admit.washington.edu/Paying/Cost#freshmen-transfer
2
People in Washington state pay no income tax. With that tax savings, sending their kids to any college should be duck soup.
1
Let's be a bit careful with the details. In-state tuition at UW next year is $10,394. The larger number you are quoting is the "estimated cost of attendance" for a student living in a dorm.
6
In 1973 when choosing between Cornell and U of Mich, Michigan's out of state costs were still less than Cornell's private university costs. Finding the two schools' undergraduate experience to be fairly similar, I chose the cheaper one so as not to tax my parents' resources. My mother paid for my college education out of her earnings in an office job in a furniture store -- no loans.
Sad to think that nowadays this is not the case. But it bothers me even more than someone like my college roommate, a scholarship student from a working class suburb of Detroit, would find U of M prohibitively expensive were she attempting to attend now.
Sad to think that nowadays this is not the case. But it bothers me even more than someone like my college roommate, a scholarship student from a working class suburb of Detroit, would find U of M prohibitively expensive were she attempting to attend now.
6
The headline and announced thesis is about the disappearance of in-state tuition discounts. The one set of financial figures given, however, shows in-state tuition/fees, while up significantly over 12 years, as about 35% of out-of-state (Berkeley). Then, U. of N. Carolina Chapel Hill is held up as a model. But there, tuition by itself is 25% of the rate charged to outsiders (housing and other costs are equal). http://admissions.unc.edu/afford/cost-of-attendance/
There may be an argument about fewer in-state slots, but evidence for the tuition argument seems to be thin.
There may be an argument about fewer in-state slots, but evidence for the tuition argument seems to be thin.
2
Public universities are becoming more a business in the field of edcation and less of an educational intstitution that has to be run on a fiscally sound basis. Is the message really that if you want your child to get a good, sound, college education and eperience, don't send him or her to a large university unless the school is paying most of the freight ?
3
"Purdue University cut annual in-state slots for incoming freshmen by more than 500 students." Hey, Luke Kenley, what do you think of them apples? Thanks, Mitch.
1
I attended Purdue and when the University President, former GOP governor Mitch Daniels came to Chicago he told the Alumni that foreign students were more profitable than in state or out of state students while simultaneously disrespecting minority students saying and I quote " We will not lower our standard for black students."
This is the mantra of the GOP. Equal opportunity to be shafted and demonized. What about all of the African Americans living in Indiana paying taxes for schools that are deliberately keeping them out?
This is the mantra of the GOP. Equal opportunity to be shafted and demonized. What about all of the African Americans living in Indiana paying taxes for schools that are deliberately keeping them out?
2
What's not clear from the story is if the uptick in numbers of out-of-state or international students can be legitimized by university officials as a result of better grades relative to in-state applicants…. Or are out-of-state and international students taking up seats, paying more to university coffers, but less qualified than in-state students?
3
Well, we are SUPPOSED to be a country of equals, treated equally. But we all know that is seldom the case. In America, some people are more equal than others. Else, tuition would be the same for everyone. Would it not? Should it not?
1
How could any sane person take issue with the fact that if it is funded at the state level people from that state should get a discount over those who didn't fund it before arriving?
1
The problem isn't just state budget cuts. It's the belief that hiring big name faculty and a plethora of administrative staff will attract and JUSTIFY higher rates. Universities are now more than ever driven by profits and the desire for larger and richer donor bases. They all see the same view of the future: 10-20 years from now, those that thrive will be those which built the best funnel to create big endowment funds. Unfortunately that funneling is coming from our pockets and going straight into those of the university, it's overpaid coaches, and its over-bloated administration.
6
College costs are going up for many reasons. But don't overlook that universities must now provide significant staff and funding for student mental health, career counseling, drug and alcohol management, health care, sexual identity, 529 compliance, sexual assault, etc. Such services did not exist when I was in college in the late 70s.
12
U.S. tuition has gone up while tuition at over 95% of Canadian universities is less than $7000 a year.l All Canadians get the same rate regardless of their home province. Tuition in Newfoundland is $2500 a year in the hope that students from out of province will stay after graduation. Student loans here in PEI for PEI residents are interest free. Student debt can be erased in court after 7 years. This is typical of most colleges in developed countries. College upper mobility is obviously not a priority in the U.S..
12
It is good to see the NYT giving some attention to public colleges instead of always focusing on a few elite schools. With the funding cuts, the priority of these in-state schools should be to cut cost, instead, most colleges continue to let cost escalate then increase revenue by giving away in-state students' spots to foreign students.
Most of the cost increases are related to administrative cost - pensions for retirees, and far too much administrative bloat on useless departments such as "Diversity department", "Center for equality" or "Center for Climate change" or other liberal causes. Each dept. and center has at least 1 VP or director who makes over $120k a year. A complete waste of taxpayer funds to support liberal causes that yield little to no value to the students.
In addition, almost every D1 school has a football team, yet only 25 schools actually make money off their football program. The rest all lose money, and students are required to subsidize it through tuition and fees.
The Univ. of WA has increased its international student population to 20%. Meanwhile, the number of slots to the highly competitive engineering and computer science programs remain the same. More and more slots are given to foreign students, and then our employers complaint that there aren't enough US students who major in these subjects, and call for more H1b visas for foreign students. How does this benefit the country in the long run?
Most of the cost increases are related to administrative cost - pensions for retirees, and far too much administrative bloat on useless departments such as "Diversity department", "Center for equality" or "Center for Climate change" or other liberal causes. Each dept. and center has at least 1 VP or director who makes over $120k a year. A complete waste of taxpayer funds to support liberal causes that yield little to no value to the students.
In addition, almost every D1 school has a football team, yet only 25 schools actually make money off their football program. The rest all lose money, and students are required to subsidize it through tuition and fees.
The Univ. of WA has increased its international student population to 20%. Meanwhile, the number of slots to the highly competitive engineering and computer science programs remain the same. More and more slots are given to foreign students, and then our employers complaint that there aren't enough US students who major in these subjects, and call for more H1b visas for foreign students. How does this benefit the country in the long run?
10
"Listen" blames the cost increase on "administrative cost" and gives as an example the "Diversity department" with supposedly highly-paid directors. Apparently "Listen" feels that education is only for white kids. Don't worry, though, "Listen," most of those highly paid directors are white men in areas like "vice president for corporate development" and "vice president for strategic initiatives" and other areas trying to fill in where state legislatures have cut budgets. The people who do the teaching and ensure that first-generation college students are still graduating? Don't worry, state budget cuts make sure we keep the pay nice and low for those folks.
3
This all reminds me of vastly different prices for airline seats. Financial aid packages are truly a marketing art, all meant to disguise real prices and shift cost among the stupid American. Make no mistake, it all is a game of 'three card monte', with 'financial aid advisers dealing the cards. As for the product, 'education', well none of that is going on. It will not be long now before 'global prices' are introduced. Years ago a marketing professor taught if you do not really know the price, you cannot determine the value. American higher 'education' depends on that.
2
I think the expression may be if you don't know the cost you cannot determine the value. Certainly true as pertains to health care. Capitalism is marvelous at creating wealth but never promised that the wealth would be distributed fairly.
Until the last couple od sentences, this was an informative piece. At the end it was an unsupported opinion devoid of any facts.
4
It would be interesting to know the U.C. Berkeley Enrollment by parents income level? Cal (as it is known) is becoming harder for in state kids to get into as the university seeks higher paying out of state students. The author believes this is hurting the less affluent students but does not provide clear data to support this thesis. My sense is Cal's desire to have out of state students is hurting all in state students (from rich to poor) but that does not fit the NY Times story line....
2
Out of state is a pretty term for foreign rich kids from benighted countries.
As another commenter has pointed out, UC Berkeley has a higher percentage of Pell Grant recipients, who have very low family incomes, than any top university in the US. It's something like 35% of undergrads. That's over 8,000 undergrads out of a total of around 25,000. (Compare that to 18% at Yale, which has a much smaller student body and a huge endowment.) Many are transfers from CA community colleges. These students also receive Cal Grants from the state if they are CA residents, as well as financial aid from the campus. Of course there are also plenty of kids from prosperous families at Berkeley. One problem with articles like this one is that it gives the sticker price for attendance rather than the actual price paid by students at various family income levels. This is a bit deceptive. The Berkeley Middle Class Access Plan caps costs (including room and board) at 15% (?) of family income for families who earned under $150,000. I believe that this plan is being adopted throughout the UC. In effect, what you have is a sliding scale for poor and middle-income families. It's not perfect, but it's not as bad as the press often makes it sound. Keep in mind that the majority of UC students receive financial aid, and aid has increased with tuition. Ideally, all aid would come in the form of grants. But only a handful of private universities have endowments big enough to do that, and the public ones do not receive enough state funding to make it possible.
State universities have completely lost sight of their mission, which was to provide higher education at a reasonable cost. In 1970 the tuition at my then local state university in the U.S. was $250 dollars a semester; now it's $3,000 dollars. I seriously doubt that most people's wages have kept pace with that increase. Good luck, poor people, in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. And good luck, America, in competing with countries with little or no tuition fees.
4
Gary, why are you blaming the universities? It is the state legislatures that have consistently cut funding to the universities, leaving them struggling to identify new resume streams. Too bad Kevin Carey mentions "declining public investment" only in passing.
2
I graduated from Penn State almost 50 years ago. At the time, in-state tuition was $175/trimester and out-of-state was $350. A young man from PA could get a summer job that would cover all of his tuition and most of his living costs. Very few of my friends came from professional families. They were the children of coal miners, farmers, steelworkers, and railroad workers. Today in-state tuition at Penn State is $20k a year. An 18 year old cannot earn that in a summer. I suspect that the percentage of students from working class families is way down.
11
In Georgia, the Hope Scholarship guarantees every Georgia student a tuition-free degree at a public university, provided minimum grades and other qualifications are met.
This is not a particularly high bar, but not all can go to the University of Georgia, which has truly become an elite public university - this fall's class had 15,000 applicants for something like 5,600 slots. Many highly-qualified Georgia students were thus rejected.
Did they instead enroll at the lesser Georgia schools? Hardly. Most were aggressively recruited by Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and others, all of which offered generous scholarships that at the very least offset the out-of-state premium.
In fact, my neighbors on each side of me have daughters who were rejected at UGA, but who were both offered Presidential Scholarships - full rides - at Alabama.
I realize the Hope Scholarship and its affect on the dynamics of college choices for Georgia students is unique, but the author certainly should have pointed that out in any discussion about how Alabama's out-of-state enrollment has changed.
It's not about anything that Alabama has done; it's all about what's happened in Georgia.
This is not a particularly high bar, but not all can go to the University of Georgia, which has truly become an elite public university - this fall's class had 15,000 applicants for something like 5,600 slots. Many highly-qualified Georgia students were thus rejected.
Did they instead enroll at the lesser Georgia schools? Hardly. Most were aggressively recruited by Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and others, all of which offered generous scholarships that at the very least offset the out-of-state premium.
In fact, my neighbors on each side of me have daughters who were rejected at UGA, but who were both offered Presidential Scholarships - full rides - at Alabama.
I realize the Hope Scholarship and its affect on the dynamics of college choices for Georgia students is unique, but the author certainly should have pointed that out in any discussion about how Alabama's out-of-state enrollment has changed.
It's not about anything that Alabama has done; it's all about what's happened in Georgia.
5
This is a pattern we will see all over America.
The GOP will continue to starve budgets, forcing government organizations to fail, unable to do their jobs for Americans because they are starved for cash.
Then, we will hear the GOPers talk about governments inability to do the job properly, and how all these agencies/schools/scientific bodies will offered for privatization.
To guess who? The GOP cronies and lackies that hate our government, not because they hate democracy per se, but because they are being frozen out from profiting from it at all.
Low taxes, less government translates to give it to my buddy, I'll be rewarded with political contributions.
The GOP will continue to starve budgets, forcing government organizations to fail, unable to do their jobs for Americans because they are starved for cash.
Then, we will hear the GOPers talk about governments inability to do the job properly, and how all these agencies/schools/scientific bodies will offered for privatization.
To guess who? The GOP cronies and lackies that hate our government, not because they hate democracy per se, but because they are being frozen out from profiting from it at all.
Low taxes, less government translates to give it to my buddy, I'll be rewarded with political contributions.
19
I myself am amazed at how Republican control of California has starved universities for cash. Oh, wait, Never mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_California
1
Maybe you should be looking at all the GOP controlled states then HMI. You'll find the one thing they have in common is they are all welfare states, taking monies from the blue states to support their failed policies.
Oh, excepting Texas and North Dakota, no thanks to the GOP, thanks to their naturally occurring geology.
The GOP has had control of the three branches of government for an extended period of time only twice in my mother's lifetime [she's 90}. Their first time controlling everything led to the Great Depression, their most recent foray into controlling the three branches resulted in our current Great Recession.
Oh, excepting Texas and North Dakota, no thanks to the GOP, thanks to their naturally occurring geology.
The GOP has had control of the three branches of government for an extended period of time only twice in my mother's lifetime [she's 90}. Their first time controlling everything led to the Great Depression, their most recent foray into controlling the three branches resulted in our current Great Recession.
2
My university has several programs ranked fourth in the nation, and has 79% instate students. It ranks third in the nation for low instate costs. And, I teach there!
5
Considering the painful choices many universities are being forced to make regarding their affordability, I can't help but think that if this nation spent a fraction of its resources on education as opposed to military adventurism, this would not be an issue. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that spending money on war and destruction provides nowhere near the return on investment that spending the same money on education and infrastructure would. Then again, the military industrial complex is perfectly happy with a dumbed-down public.
39
Actually, we spend much more on education than we do on the military.
In the Federal budget alone, we $922.6 billion on education, compared to $815.5 billion for the military. And as you know, the bulk of education spending is done by the states, not to mention the huge tuition bills that individuals have to pay. Our total spending on education is about $2.2 trillion a year.
In the Federal budget alone, we $922.6 billion on education, compared to $815.5 billion for the military. And as you know, the bulk of education spending is done by the states, not to mention the huge tuition bills that individuals have to pay. Our total spending on education is about $2.2 trillion a year.
2
And, do not forget the "painful choices" universities are forced to make regarding the million-dollar-salaries of their athletic coaches. But then, fairness is not always fair. Follow the money.......
1
Jonathan:
That 922.6 billion on education is definitely not true. I will grant that different organizations will breakdown the spend differently to make their point...but for that nearly 1 trillion dollars on education spending to be true, spending on education would have to be than the disbursements on social security. Estimates at this website (national priorities.org) put it at 1/10th of your estimate.
But having said that, we, as a nation, spend more on education than the federal government spends on the military.
That 922.6 billion on education is definitely not true. I will grant that different organizations will breakdown the spend differently to make their point...but for that nearly 1 trillion dollars on education spending to be true, spending on education would have to be than the disbursements on social security. Estimates at this website (national priorities.org) put it at 1/10th of your estimate.
But having said that, we, as a nation, spend more on education than the federal government spends on the military.
A very strange and unfair piece. State universities are being blamed for finding new ways of bringing in revenue, with the idea being (as I read this) that we (the people) are supposed to get angry about rising in-state tuition. What's barely mentioned is that state legislatures and governors are cutting back funding for state universities big time. Has the author not seen that Scott Walker has cut back funding for U Wisconsin by 300 million dollars? But the even bigger issue: Who elected Walker (and governors around the country) and his state legislators (and state legislators around the country) who have cut back funding so dramatically? And who now is upset that in-state tuition is going up? Something is wrong here.
30
Americans don't value education. We do value celebrity, liars, cheaters, bigots who say what we want to hear, politicians who tell us we're a great nation (though they never say great in comparison to what other nations), and the idea that someday we'll get rich too, just like the Koch Brothers. It's those pesky regulations, social safety net programs, and taxes that are in the way. So we'll cut taxes, pay teachers less, let school buildings rot, let the roads go, allow our public spaces to become disgraceful but with less taxes to pay we're on the way to being rich. And if you're rich who cares about a little thing like usable roads, good schools, clean public spaces, affordable medical care? Rich means never having to worry about paying for anything.
42
The Koch bros *inherited* their wealth.
1
The difference is that I didn't INHERIT my wealth like the Koch Brothers. Those bums are useless.
1
Good. While the university system is an important part of upward mobility, it does not change the fact that the student population comes from higher income familes than the median American family.
Colleges (private and public) should charge MARKET tuition, and then provide NEED-BASED financial aid (grants and subsidized loans) to low-income students. This policy (1) maintains the fiscal health of the education system, (2) assists low-income students, and (3) does not subsidize higher-income students with taxpayer money.
Colleges (private and public) should charge MARKET tuition, and then provide NEED-BASED financial aid (grants and subsidized loans) to low-income students. This policy (1) maintains the fiscal health of the education system, (2) assists low-income students, and (3) does not subsidize higher-income students with taxpayer money.
1
No. Universities, especially state ones, and most especia;;y elite state ones. should charge the same amount ... in real dollars, to all in-state students, and give actual scholarships only to the best. No money for being poor.
This would instantly make elite college more affordable for
middle class people. Charge more for out of state.
This would instantly make elite college more affordable for
middle class people. Charge more for out of state.
2
Did you read the part about decreasing slots for in state students? You'd really like a lot of rich Saudis, whose work ethic is not existent and whose sense of entitlement outstrips that of the richest American kids. As an alumnus of dear old state, don't you love the fact that your kid can't go to your alma mater because room has to be made for Chinese students paying foreign freight?
2
Absolutely ridiculous. When liberals talk about "low income", they mean blacks and illegal immigrants, who usually can't even qualify on academic merits without AA. The high tuition is hurting all middle income families. We need to cut tuition across the board, not keep raising for middle class families. Colleges just need to learn how to cut cost, cut the frivolous diversity department, center for racial equality and all those liberal nonsense!
To graduating high school students being recruited to pay out-of-state tuition: it's not worth it. If you want to pursue a degree beyond a Bachelor's out-of-state or at a private university that's fine, but there's absolutely no point to going into debt or leaning on your parents to pay absurd tuition costs that could be better spent in any number of ways. Especially when you're 18 years old and will spend a good portion of the next four years partying.
8
When I visited New York City a few years ago, my husband & I were very surprised to see a full page ad in the Sunday NY Times touting the wonders of Indiana University and encouraging New York students to get their education in the Hoosier state. We both have IU degrees, graduating in the late 70s when a decent summer job could pay your tuition and if you graduated from a high school in the state, you could gain admittance, even if your grades weren't stellar.
IU's student body is now about 50%+ out-of-state students. Why? Because they pay out-of-state tuition. Meanwhile, in-state students are shut out. But I guess the politicians figure the young people will leave the state anyway, so might as make money off of them while you can!
IU's student body is now about 50%+ out-of-state students. Why? Because they pay out-of-state tuition. Meanwhile, in-state students are shut out. But I guess the politicians figure the young people will leave the state anyway, so might as make money off of them while you can!
14
As a high school teacher, now retired, I am firmly in the camp of students going onto some kind of college: Community college, university, or vocational programs. It is beyond belief now that some public universities and colleges, are recruiting out of state students solely for the purposes of getting higher fees from them. Even one community college not far from where I live is recruiting out of state students for that purpose.
I attended a state owned university n the early and mid-70s. It was and still is in a large urban area of the state. I paid very little to attend and one semester we got a rebate as it was determined we overpaid.
And: I am not anti-sports, but on too many campuses King Football controls everything. My college had the remnants of a football team, that won just about 15 games in the four years I was there. The entire conference was a non-athletic scholarship conference. The players 'carried their own jocks.' Many of these players would not have even been given a look by a major like USC of Alabama.
Colleges are for learning, not a ticket to the NFL or the NBA.
I attended a state owned university n the early and mid-70s. It was and still is in a large urban area of the state. I paid very little to attend and one semester we got a rebate as it was determined we overpaid.
And: I am not anti-sports, but on too many campuses King Football controls everything. My college had the remnants of a football team, that won just about 15 games in the four years I was there. The entire conference was a non-athletic scholarship conference. The players 'carried their own jocks.' Many of these players would not have even been given a look by a major like USC of Alabama.
Colleges are for learning, not a ticket to the NFL or the NBA.
9
What do other countries do? In many (e.g. Europe) university tuition is free. American companies can import an educated workforce via H1-B visas. Why go to the expense of educating our own, when we can import from abroad?
14
Europeans expect a reasonable rate of pay. And most will stay in their own universities until their postgraduate work is finished. We've been picking off geniuses from the third world. But now there are universities with better reputations in China and India as well. And as for start ups.... Software is easily transportable.
send fewer and more qualified students to college.
college costs are yet another example of a poorly-planned public-private partnership (such as Fannie/Freddie, which still make the U.S. residential mortgage market). while the (until recently) expanding college age population boosted demand to explain a portion of the rapid rate of tuition/price increases (because the supply is limited), the much larger cause is the relative demand inelasticity induced by the Federal student loan program. It has become cultural practice for students to take on relatively massive amounts of Federally-insured debt and worry, later, about their capacity to service that debt. First elite private and then elite public universities figured out this demand inelasticity and began treating tuition as a major revenue source. These price increases aren't cost-driven, they're driven by an unintended consequence from the Federal participation in the market for higher education, which has abetted these consistently crazy tuition hikes over the past 30 years. Now it's a huge challenge to "put the genie back in the bottle" without harming the current crop of students (e.g. by capping loan amounts and their growth rate, or restricting the class of universities at which these funds may be spent).
This same problem of demand inelasticity - to a more complex degree (due to price insensitivity among the insured) - characterizes the entire U.S. healthcare system and explains why provider costs continue to increase at much faster rates than inflation.
This same problem of demand inelasticity - to a more complex degree (due to price insensitivity among the insured) - characterizes the entire U.S. healthcare system and explains why provider costs continue to increase at much faster rates than inflation.
3
I believe "terrance" is wrong. The federal intervention in tuition/college and health care is only recent. The growth in costs is much longer in time. Similarly, the comment about price insensitivity in health care might be a comment on Medicare fraud, which is being remedied but only slowly. One of the largest benefactors of medicare fraud is gov. Rick Scott of Florida who had to pay $300 million in fines. But he is no felon, so can run for office with his ill-gotten gains. In my mind, a typical GOP/Ter
I entered Queens College (QC: part of the city University of NY) back in 1954. Tuition was free. My only expenses living at home were bus fare, books, lab fees ($35 a semester) and lunch money. I think the combined income of my parents who both worked back then was about $8,000 a year. We considered ourselves lower middle class. We even had a Buick. At the time I think private college tuition (not including room and board) was a bit over $1,000 a year.
Let's fast forward to today. To maintain the same ratio between family income and private school tuition my folks would now need to be making close to half a million dollars a year. When people opine that the USA is "on the wrong track" this is what they are talking about.
QC was my path to the middle class. Those were the good old days.
Let's fast forward to today. To maintain the same ratio between family income and private school tuition my folks would now need to be making close to half a million dollars a year. When people opine that the USA is "on the wrong track" this is what they are talking about.
QC was my path to the middle class. Those were the good old days.
42
I graduated from Oneonta State in 1980. I think that the classes of 80, 81 and 82 were the last undergraduate classes to graduate from college without enormous debts to shackle them throughout most of their working lives. For a country that claims to value education we do a very poor job of it from K-12 and again at the college level. There would be less need for college if our K-12 system was more rigorous, had apprenticeships as part of the high school program, and made sure that those students who weren't interested in or ready for college could find jobs after they graduate. A high school diploma should mean more than just sitting in a classroom for 12 years. A college diploma should mean that one is capable of more than just following directions and filling out forms.
However, industry has hurt us too. By seeking tax breaks they have contributed to the decreased value of education. They want the employees but not the cost of educating them. Then when they hire they don't want to train. Next best thing, outsource, bring in foreigners, don't hire Americans. I graduated with a degree in science. The things they say now about STEM are what they said over 30 years ago. It's a lie. They don't want to pay for Americans to do the job. It's more profitable to hire abroad and leave Americans in the dirt.
However, industry has hurt us too. By seeking tax breaks they have contributed to the decreased value of education. They want the employees but not the cost of educating them. Then when they hire they don't want to train. Next best thing, outsource, bring in foreigners, don't hire Americans. I graduated with a degree in science. The things they say now about STEM are what they said over 30 years ago. It's a lie. They don't want to pay for Americans to do the job. It's more profitable to hire abroad and leave Americans in the dirt.
38
My eldest daughter will enter HS next year. Instead of the AP madness, I am going to encourage her to take joint credit classes at our local community college. They then graduate with 1-2 years of real college experience and credit under their belt, making them more attractive to 4 year universities and making their overall college costs more affordable. In Texas we have really short-circuited ourselves by investing so heavily in only 2 Tier I research universities. If we made a reasonable investment in 3-4 other outstanding public universities within the state, the competitive madness of enrollment in the 2 "best" in-state public universities would decrease, the new Tier I universities and their surrounding economies would benefit, families would save money, and we'd be educating thousands more highly qualified graduates every year. It's going to require investment and serious planning by Tier II state schools to determine what their research niche should be, and start recruiting the faculty and facilities that will allow them to accomplish this. Maybe this will happen in time for my younger daughter!
4
Are those 'real college courses' taught by anyone who actually knows the subject? If not, they will not be worth the paper they're printed on, your kid will be considered eligible for only 3 years of Pell grants and other scholarships, and they'll have to take the same college classes all over again taught by real professors. Particularly bad in math and the sciences. Who in their right mind who knows physics or calculus would work as an adjunct in a community college or high school teaching dual credit courses?
I would stick with the AP courses. Universities have no way of assessing the quality of concurrent enrollment courses, whereas the AP tests provide solid data. AP courses are also usually more demanding, and universities know that. School administrators love concurrent enrollment because they can say they are giving kids college credit without having to worry about AP test results. As for the Texas public system, it should not be a zero-sum game: all campuses should receive needed funding. The result would be a better-educated public and a richer state.
What is the relationship of this phenomena to the fact that for about the last twenty years, the various universities have been pushing their "diversity of students" (i.e. different backgrounds and points of origin) as a positive for why you should enroll there.
1
The relationship is this: racist citizens have responded to the integration of public universities and other institutions by withdrawing their support while pretending that they are merely concerned with curtailing runaway spending. The result has been the financial evisceration of once-great public school budgets throughout the country, which has led to higher tuition. This has contributed to income inequality, which affects racists and non-racists alike.
This is as it should be expected in our nation - anyone can matriculate to the finest educational institutions in the country, provided they can pay. It used to be that a public university could not compete with the redoubts of the private sector institutions. That has changed, but so has the entire cost structure in maintaining such levels. The State University of New York is still a comparative bargain considering the overall value compared to other state schools, but the differential between in-state and out-of-state tuition has always been small. In another aspect of the issue, consider this as an extension of the Common Core argument: it may be that the current average college candidate from Alabama is just too stupid to attend the state university.
2
The author didn't quite draw the dots -- international students are a huge cash cow for universities! These students usually pay more than even domestic out-of-state students. Administrators can choose to cut their own glut (administrative university costs have quadrupled related to other costs in the past 40 years) or they can find ways to pay their rising costs. It's pretty clear which path many universities have selected.
10
This article makes no sense. The headline and anecdote implies it will be about how in-state tuition is increasing to be more in line with more expensive out-of-state tuition. But ultimately it is a veiled attack on universities that attract, or recruit, more out-of-state students. So what? Private universities are not held to some "geographic" standard, why should an institution that receives 16% of it's budget from a state? These are no longer stated-supported institutions, but rather are state-assisted.
7
While I'm sure both governments and universities share some of the blame for this sad state of affairs, I am concerned by an implication in the author's final paragraph, to the effect that public universities shouldn't wish to be "like elite private universities." On the contrary, I think our goal should be that an outstanding student from a distant corner of any state should be able to get into that state's flagship university and receive a world-class -- not a second-class -- education. From this perspective, the radical divestment from funding for higher education pursued by many state legislatures during the recent recession plays the critical role in what we see happening. This is particularly true in places where state universities still relied heavily on government funding (i.e., not states like Virginia or Michigan, where the flagship schools moved long ago toward seeking largely private support, both through endowments and out-of-state student recruitment). In cases in which state funding still made up a significant portion of university budgets, universities have had to scramble madly in the past few years to stay solvent. If we truly want excellent higher education available to in-state students at an affordable price, we have to insist that state governments once again make higher education a priority. We also have to be willing to invest in it as a public, as the government's funds come from us.
10
In Canada, all the universities are public, and you can still go to any of them, including the best, for less than $5,000 per year. The result of keeping tuition relatively low is that students with good grades - whatever their family income - have the whole range of universities open to them, at a relatively manageable cost. We also have tax-sheltered education savings plans, which help a lot.
I don't know how people in the USA can pay for the high tuitions there. I have never understood this. We could certainly not have managed this for our three children.
Tuitions for some graduate and professional programs (e.g., law, medicine, and MBA) are in the range of $15 K to $20 K, which means that those students have to take on debt. This may be short-sighted in the case of medicine, as we have a tax-funded single payer system, and doctors will need to get paid more to cover their education debts.
We do not have athletic scholarships in Canada - not sure why. While this makes the sports less interesting, and while we lose many of our best athletes to the USA, this does have the effect of keeping the focus on the academics.
I don't know how people in the USA can pay for the high tuitions there. I have never understood this. We could certainly not have managed this for our three children.
Tuitions for some graduate and professional programs (e.g., law, medicine, and MBA) are in the range of $15 K to $20 K, which means that those students have to take on debt. This may be short-sighted in the case of medicine, as we have a tax-funded single payer system, and doctors will need to get paid more to cover their education debts.
We do not have athletic scholarships in Canada - not sure why. While this makes the sports less interesting, and while we lose many of our best athletes to the USA, this does have the effect of keeping the focus on the academics.
75
What are your income and capital gains tax rates that support those excellent benefits?
1
Well, that depends on your income level, right? For someone making $45,000 a year, with capital gains of $5,000, in Quebec, the total federal and province tax average would be about 20%.
In the U.S., the total withholding, federal and State tax average would be ... about 20%.
You can look it up; Google Canadian tax.
In the U.S., the total withholding, federal and State tax average would be ... about 20%.
You can look it up; Google Canadian tax.
Perhaps if we quit referring to any "market for education" and started accepting that education is a public service - and in particular if perhaps we quit electing private school graduates to top offices - these problems would go away.
8
Even though education is a conduit for upward economic mobility, there are many who lack academic ability and either can't or won't use that conduit. These people pay state taxes too. In my state, WA, which doesn't have an income tax, they pay a higher percentage of their income in state taxes than wealthy and more educated people. Why should they subsidize UW students, most of whom come from wealthy families (as a group the wealthiest, by far, of any college in the state). It makes some sense to me to simply make UW and WSU private universities, and concentrate state subsidies on the other 4 year colleges. Then if wealthy families want their children to have the prestige of a UW degree, then they can pay for it themselves.
1
People forget what the difference is between the poor, middle, and upper classes. The poor minimize their income to qualify for benefits. The middle class maximizes income, saves it, and invests it in things they think are assets, but which may really be liabilities (i.e., a mortgaged house, college tuition). The rich invest their money in assets that they completely own and control where no mortgages or loans are involved. Back in the day, the middle class would actually work for money and pay for tuition themselves. But these days, they're acting like the poor-class because they're merely trying to qualify for their benefits (in this case student loans). You cannot get rich by borrowing - only by working. Here's a rule of thumb: do not take out student loans that exceed your first year of expected starting-salary. Of course, this rule may bend because the government will adjust the loans down to 10% of your salary. But after you account for 10% of salary for student loans, 30% for housing Section 8, 20% for 'affordable' health care (LOL), what are you left with??? Poverty!!!
3
The poor are poor because they "minimize their income to qualify for benefits"??? What planet are you on? I didn't know people were still passing out Ronald Reagan's Kool-aid, but I suggest you stop drinking it.
1
That's the point! Limit upward mobility, maintain a stratified society with pretty rigid class boundaries, and encourage an underpaid underclass with few options other than volunteering for the "cannon fodder division" military in order to fuel our endless wars. Anyone who does not see how 21st century America does not resemble 19th century Britain is just not paying attention.
19
It seems like we are talking about the intersection of The Twilight Zone and Reality.
Football at the University level should not ever be a reigning factor for those trying to get educated and getting on with it. Paying for the coach's Lifestyle, stadiums, and head injuries when you can't get a job is like paying for the upper crust to stride about in spats while you get to carry the golf bag, Forever.
Come on - getting an education should help you get out of an economic rut, not make you comfortable there with a football beanie on your head when you are middle age.
Football at the University level should not ever be a reigning factor for those trying to get educated and getting on with it. Paying for the coach's Lifestyle, stadiums, and head injuries when you can't get a job is like paying for the upper crust to stride about in spats while you get to carry the golf bag, Forever.
Come on - getting an education should help you get out of an economic rut, not make you comfortable there with a football beanie on your head when you are middle age.
11
As much as I dislike the obscene amounts of money spent on football and basketball in my state, and the enormous coaches salaries, these expenses do NOT come out of the school budget funded by the state or by tuition. These are funded by alumni giving, and boy do they give to see "their school" (many never actually went to college at all), be a winner. And these programs earn a LOT of money for the schools, as well. The earnings of athletic departments are astounding!
My son played a non-income earning sport in college. The facilities provided by his university were pretty sad, but the football program? Oh, they lived in style, because it GENERATED income, not used it.
All part of life's great unfairness...
My son played a non-income earning sport in college. The facilities provided by his university were pretty sad, but the football program? Oh, they lived in style, because it GENERATED income, not used it.
All part of life's great unfairness...
1
Just another example of policy tilting to the wealthy. This country is going to ruin while the ignorant elect right wing nuts. And the ignorant all believe they are or will be in the top 10%.
25
Ridiculous...soon we will have more young folks without any higher education because they simply cannot afford it!
3
See the Washington Post, Sept 2013
"How much state funding does the University of Virginia receive?"
For all university divisions, state appropriations accounted for $154.4 million of a $2.6 billion budget, or 5.8 percent. For the academic division, state appropriations were $139.5 million of a $1.36 billion budget, or 10.2 percent."
One has to read down to the third last sentence in the article to find to find the first mentioning of State Budget cuts, the primary reason why In State tuition cuts are disappearing.
=======================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/how-much-state-funding-doe...
"How much state funding does the University of Virginia receive?"
For all university divisions, state appropriations accounted for $154.4 million of a $2.6 billion budget, or 5.8 percent. For the academic division, state appropriations were $139.5 million of a $1.36 billion budget, or 10.2 percent."
One has to read down to the third last sentence in the article to find to find the first mentioning of State Budget cuts, the primary reason why In State tuition cuts are disappearing.
=======================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/how-much-state-funding-doe...
5
Very sad. How many in state Alabama students could b enrolled with Nick Sabans multi million dollar salary? I fail to see what having a division 1 football team has to do with the state mandate to provide quality education to its resident students, whose parents support the school with their taxes.
14
"How many in state Alabama students could b enrolled with Nick Sabans multi million dollar salary?"
A better question: "How many in-state Alabama students wouldn't be enrolled without money made off Nick Saban's football team?"
A better question: "How many in-state Alabama students wouldn't be enrolled without money made off Nick Saban's football team?"
1
The football team generates tens of millions of dollars for the school. Those dollars help keep tuitions lower than they would be without the football revenues.
I attended UC Berkeley in the late eighties and early nineties, and I believe 92% of the undergraduates were from California, due to the level of state funding at the time (although I was not). One unintended consequence of this policy was that the Californians seemed on average less intelligent than the out-of-state students, because the admissions department had to fill their 92% quota from California, but for the remaining 8% they could choose from applicants from the rest of the country and the world.
It seems to me that these institutions should be funded by the federal government rather than the state government, and should not have to discriminate at all based on where the student lived prior to attending university. If politicians really think that some students should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars per year (which I do not), let it be those whose families make so much that they would never miss it, or at the very least let it be merit-based.
It seems to me that these institutions should be funded by the federal government rather than the state government, and should not have to discriminate at all based on where the student lived prior to attending university. If politicians really think that some students should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars per year (which I do not), let it be those whose families make so much that they would never miss it, or at the very least let it be merit-based.
2
I have three law degrees and the glut of attorneys in the market has meant that I make between $58,000 and $85,000 per year, after 12 years of legal practice. When my five year old daughter gets older, I will be encouraging her to choose the cheapest route possible for college. The lesson I have learnt is that you can work hard, get degrees, and still end up, due to unforeseen circumstances, in a situation where you aren't in stable employment. The best bet is to pay as little as possible for education so you don't end up a wage slave. I know many younger lawyers who are being evicted and have defaulted on their student loans because they simply haven't found steady work.
12
"State budget cuts" are not responsible for the rise in tuition costs (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college.... The root of the problem is that colleges and universities have been in full for-profit mode for the past three decades, morphing into "businesses" in order to justify exorbitant salaries and benefits for ever-increasing numbers of executives, administrators, and top-tier (not part-time) faculty. Taxpayers pay not only the running costs of these businesses, but also tuition for their children, and in some states will be paying retirement benefits in the future as well. State legislatures could fix this problem by returning salary and administrative costs for higher-ed "public servants" to historic levels. Eliminating student loans, the exploitative business model relied upon by universities, would also help solve the problem.
7
State budget cuts are most definitely a significant factor in the rise of tuition at public universities. The article cited by RC tries make its case by saying that total aggregate state funding for public universities has increased, which is correct. However, even this article admits that the state funding PER STUDENT, which is the directly relevant factor, has fallen since 1990.
The problem of adding layers of executives and administrators is also real, but while I have no love for administrators, the truth is that a good deal of that has been forced on universities by ever increasing unfunded mandates from federal and state governments. I have been a physics professor for 25 years. I know for certain that I now spend far more time filling out government mandated microscopically detailed budget and spending information (down to the penny level!), responding to safety and security audits, certifying that privacy laws are being adhered to, taking training courses in non-discrimination and sexual harassment, etc. etc. compared to 20 years ago. Every one of these mandates requires some administrator to oversee.
The problem of adding layers of executives and administrators is also real, but while I have no love for administrators, the truth is that a good deal of that has been forced on universities by ever increasing unfunded mandates from federal and state governments. I have been a physics professor for 25 years. I know for certain that I now spend far more time filling out government mandated microscopically detailed budget and spending information (down to the penny level!), responding to safety and security audits, certifying that privacy laws are being adhered to, taking training courses in non-discrimination and sexual harassment, etc. etc. compared to 20 years ago. Every one of these mandates requires some administrator to oversee.
7
RC, where's the evidence that public universities are in profit mode?
Public Universities are often attended by the first generation family members to attend college. In many inner cities the applicants are from lower income immigrant families. Taking out of state or International students , while providing higher tuition income to the school, deprives in state applicants an ability to climb the ladder of growth to middle class and wealth. As a student in CUNY in 1964 I paid $37 a semester to attend. That no tuition opportunity was repaid back to N.Y.C. and state by me and my fellow classmates in the tens of millions we paid in taxes while working toward becoming members of the 1%. While tuition free college is not now feasible financially, public universities and private schools should not give preference to those who can pay high fees while rejecting admission enrollment to in state residents. The institutions should honor and remain true to their charters .
7
This is such sad news. I knew it was happening. My daughter will graduate in 2016. With scholarships and the family paying for her education, she will almost be debt free. That does not help the rest of the students who are her peers. I care about my fellow citizens too. I am so frightened for our country.
9
Your daughter is lucky and blessed in many ways. Good fortune and a happy, productive life to her!
1
Why shouldn't UC Berkeley compete for the best? Clearly it is one of the country's elite universities. The real issue is the affordability of college.
3
The fact that I attended City University of New York and paid no tuition means I will enjoy a much better retirement.
5
Yes and when little Johnny or Jill doesn't get admitted they will blame affirmative action rather than national and international competition.
2
College "ain't what she used to be" in many ways. We now have administrators whose goal is to maximize profits by minimizing expenses and charging the most the market will bear. "Education" is but a minor goal of college.
What I never could understand is when foreign students only have to pay out-of-state tuition. Seems to me like out-of-state tuition should only apply to U.S. citizens - or at least long-term U.S. residents. When those foreign students complete their degree, they should go home and share the benefits of their knowledge inside their own country - not take a job in the U.S. at lowered wages because they found an employer to certify that there were no applicants for the specialized job at an advertised god-awful salary, so that employer "needs" the State department to issue a work visa. Meanwhile qualified American graduates can't find work in their field.
Instead of limiting in-state students, why don't they add another tier to the tuition scale: foreign students. They ought to pay at least twice the out-of-state rates, and post a bond for a ticket home after graduation.
What I never could understand is when foreign students only have to pay out-of-state tuition. Seems to me like out-of-state tuition should only apply to U.S. citizens - or at least long-term U.S. residents. When those foreign students complete their degree, they should go home and share the benefits of their knowledge inside their own country - not take a job in the U.S. at lowered wages because they found an employer to certify that there were no applicants for the specialized job at an advertised god-awful salary, so that employer "needs" the State department to issue a work visa. Meanwhile qualified American graduates can't find work in their field.
Instead of limiting in-state students, why don't they add another tier to the tuition scale: foreign students. They ought to pay at least twice the out-of-state rates, and post a bond for a ticket home after graduation.
6
I don't know about other professional fields, but Chris has no idea about the realities of the high-tech industry in the US. By "high-tech" I mean computer engineering, electrical engineering, electronics, etc. I have trained many students who have gone into those industries, and I have many industrial contacts. The truth is that if when I walk the corridors of an Intel, or a Texas Instruments, or a Google, I estimate that 70 to 80% of the engineers I see (not the managers or administrators, the honest-to-goodness working level engineers) are immigrants who first came to the US for college or graduate school and stayed. They are not taking jobs away from US students -- there simply are not enough US students in these fields. The high-tech industry could simply not exist in the US without these foreign students.
5
I'm not sure why the author includes Division I status as part of the discussion. It has zero to do with excellence. The best thing that could possibly happen to American universities is the total elimination of athletic scholarships and the dismantling of all football and basketball programs. They add zero to their universities besides nostalgia to their dumbest alums and inflated salaries to people who run the athletic circuses. As someone who got a grad degree from one of the more hapless Division I institutions, I can tell you that the entire athletic department and the university's upper administration have never been smart enough to realize that while there are a few winners in athletics, there are many, many losing teams that suck their universities dry while pleading that a turnaround is just around the corner if you promise to build more multi million dollar facilities and pay the coaches more millions. The athletic dept. laughs all the way to the bank; the hapless students pay through the nose.
19
looking up the cost of my alma mater - UMASS - tuition and fees have increased 20 fold for instate students since i graduated in 1976.
i left with a job and no loan debt. i don't know how kids can afford to do it these days.
i left with a job and no loan debt. i don't know how kids can afford to do it these days.
6
Confusing. This article needed to focus on the public state universities and colleges which used to be affordable. $50,000 a year universities are far from the realm of possibility for the middle, or striving to be middle "class". If one's choice is a $200,000 education, it is a choice. Let's focus on elevating the possibility of education without $$$$$ debt for our own state citizens.
5
Remember the Forbes article about Noel-Levitz teaching universities to arrange their admissions so as to give less financial aid and succeed in recruiting those students who can pay? It will ruin your day.
1
I see a slight disconnect with the Alabama recruiting officers. They are trying to get more students who can pay full freight, but yet also have a bunch of scholarship money/aid to disperse to out of state students.
3
So much for that ridiculous belief that socioeconomic-based Affirmative Action is the best way to address racial diversity issues in higher education. Get a clue. In a country built on greed and the power that came from oppression and discrimination, diversity will never increase unless it is addressed DIRECTLY.
3
As with everything in these United States, the educational system is unwittingly advancing a conservative philosophy that further adds to an unassailable plutocracy instead of the egalitarian democracy we all dream of. Subsequently, poor Americans of all races are finding formidable barriers to achieve competitive educations and economic freedom. The capitalistic system is exacerbated by competition from state-supported foreign students, which the universities greedily accept to the exclusion of American citizens. To be born a poor American is becoming more of a trap than previous generations. Yet, the poor Americans are so easily duped into becoming the patriotic fodder of the armed forces. Add a bevy of corrupt politicians and we have a fine mess. Capitalism, has always been the bane of the poor, but is now juggernaut of oppression for poor Americans. Can you imagine if all the money squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan, which suddenly all the politicians unabashedly regret, were invested in education? No, I can't. In fact, I have never felt so little hope in America.
7
I'm not sure you need the word "unwittingly."
1
There are many reasons why tuition keeps, on going up as people have enumerated: decreasing state subsidy with inevitable increase in both tuition rates and out-of-state students who pay a higher rate, the competition among universities which requires more and more elaborate non-academia services such as impressive sport facilities, psychological counseling, sexual harassment units, and many more, proliferation of highly paid administrators. I don't mean to put more or less value to these activities nor equate them, I simply mention their incidence on budgets. So, when Republicans talk about cutting taxes on the wealthy and making up the difference by cutting down on education, we must remember that the toll will be paid by our children.
5
Yes, and don't forget the 7 million dollar salary of the football coach.
4
Selfish institutional interests? Like paying faculty and staff to run the institution and receive raises that at least account for cost of living increases? The reason universities try to get more out-of-state students is that those students pay for the real cost of education. The in-state students do not. In my state, Virginia, the state legislature has not maintained the state's portion of the in-state students' costs. As a result, we don't get enough money from the state to cover the cost of educating its own students. Growing enrollments by changing the mix of in-state vs. out-of-state students is one mechanism to make the budget balance and maintain the quality of education. We don't lower the number of in-state students--we increase enrollments and change the mix on the new slots. And it's no big secret that at my institution (Virginia Tech) our out-of-state costs are comparable to in-state costs in the northeast, so we are seen as a great opportunity for students from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. This article has some good points, but paints the problems faced by state flagships and land-grants as the fault of desired elitism. The issue is, rather, that running research-intensive universities that educate thousands of undergraduate students is expensive. Universities are suffering with insufficient funds from states that refuse to raise taxes in order to educate their own citizenry.
17
An over-arching problem for all of these institutions as well is the problem of adjunct faculty where raises and benefits are nonexistent. It is an unsustainable and unethical practice rampant in universities to treat faculty like an immigrant work force.
The University of Colorado pays its adjunct faculty such an embarrassing amount that it should legally be called Volunteer Work For The State. Needless to say, the revolving door does not serve the goals of educating people very well.
The University of Colorado pays its adjunct faculty such an embarrassing amount that it should legally be called Volunteer Work For The State. Needless to say, the revolving door does not serve the goals of educating people very well.
2
The real villain of this piece is state budgets that prohibit deficit spending. State governments are responding logically to this incentive and reducing ongoing cash outflows like supporting state universities. State universities are then scrambling for revenue. Where are they going to get it? Tuition.
The article did make an interesting point about how admitting more out-of-state tuition payers made for a de facto tuition rise, but, as others have pointed out, context was lacking.
Here's some context. When I started at the University of Texas at Austin, tuition was $4 a credit hour. When I graduated in 1987, it had quadrupled to $16 per credit hour. Current in-state tuition is $8,500 per year for up to 30 credits.
The article did make an interesting point about how admitting more out-of-state tuition payers made for a de facto tuition rise, but, as others have pointed out, context was lacking.
Here's some context. When I started at the University of Texas at Austin, tuition was $4 a credit hour. When I graduated in 1987, it had quadrupled to $16 per credit hour. Current in-state tuition is $8,500 per year for up to 30 credits.
9
The real villain is right wing nuts who want to cut taxes and cut support for education, like UT, as well as primary and secondary education. I am a UT grad also-1965.
If state taxpayers had continued to support state universities, then in-state students would be getting the same great deal that my generation did. Instead, tax-cutting became popular under Reagan and continued for decades. As a result, the rich have gotten richer and the state universities have been asked to continue accepting more in-state students with less state funding. Rather than let the quality of education drop, the schools that could, i.e. those with international reputations, began charging higher out-of-state tuition and accepting more full-paying students to pay the bills that let in-state students continue to benefit from an excellent education.
If the citizens of this country want state-funded resources like good schools, universities, roads, libraries, fire-fighters, etc., the we need to vote in the taxes to pay for them. To reduce the wealth gap, we need a return to progressive taxation. When we learn to do all of this again, we will all win.
If the citizens of this country want state-funded resources like good schools, universities, roads, libraries, fire-fighters, etc., the we need to vote in the taxes to pay for them. To reduce the wealth gap, we need a return to progressive taxation. When we learn to do all of this again, we will all win.
66
You blaming the wrong person. College salaries and lush facilities, sports and new buildings have exploded, along with tuition costs.
So you have less taxes, but far great costs. It is that disconnect that results in massive price increases, plus a population that is absolutely insensitive to cost, as they can borrow it all and worry about it "tomorrow".
So you have less taxes, but far great costs. It is that disconnect that results in massive price increases, plus a population that is absolutely insensitive to cost, as they can borrow it all and worry about it "tomorrow".
I attended one of those "national public universities" in Georgia about a decade ago. Since my graduation the cost to attend for an in-state student has roughly doubled, while the percent of applicants who gain acceptance has fallen from above 70% to under 20% - despite the fact that the university does not accept the Common College Application. Today significantly less than half of the student body hails from Georgia.
I think that the impetus behind this shift has been the college arms race driven by trying to game various rating systems, as well as the ideology that students should go to "the best" college they can, regardless of cost. Admitting students from afield with higher test scores boosts the university's standing, making it more likely that more students from afield take notice of it and decide to apply there. Then as admission to the best public schools becomes more competitive, more and more students find themselves unable to get into their state's public flagships, but are accepted into another state's - in part because they represent a large boost to that university's bottom line.
Even if state funding returns to previous levels, I don't see these trends reversing themselves. Their feedback loops have already been established and nothing short of legislative fiat will break them up.
I think that the impetus behind this shift has been the college arms race driven by trying to game various rating systems, as well as the ideology that students should go to "the best" college they can, regardless of cost. Admitting students from afield with higher test scores boosts the university's standing, making it more likely that more students from afield take notice of it and decide to apply there. Then as admission to the best public schools becomes more competitive, more and more students find themselves unable to get into their state's public flagships, but are accepted into another state's - in part because they represent a large boost to that university's bottom line.
Even if state funding returns to previous levels, I don't see these trends reversing themselves. Their feedback loops have already been established and nothing short of legislative fiat will break them up.
11
It's working! Make affordable education unavailable to the mainstream. Dumb down the populace. And what you get is what we have; a nation of progressively uninformed, undereducated, underachieving lumps.
I believe the monied and powered interests saw what an educated youth could wreak on policy during the fifties and sixties. What better way to avoid a repeat. And, better yet, repeal the draft, just to placate them further.
Ah! The gifts we accept, that all the while were actually a Trojan Horse.
I believe the monied and powered interests saw what an educated youth could wreak on policy during the fifties and sixties. What better way to avoid a repeat. And, better yet, repeal the draft, just to placate them further.
Ah! The gifts we accept, that all the while were actually a Trojan Horse.
34
A very interesting perspective, though I suspect it wasn't purposeful, but rather a handy by-product of the overall cut-taxes-government-is-the-problem-transfer-the-wealth/power-upwards-love-the-flag, hate-the-(used to be Commies, now, whoever),control-the-you-know-who mentality. Many things that appear to be "conspiratorial" arise in this manner. No one planned them per se, but when a certain status quo arises, it becomes advantageous for certain vested interests to maintain it, just as if they had built it from scratch.
Educated students (Free Speech Movement, SDS, SNCC, the antiwar movement) were most certainly a very disruptive force to the "Establishment" in those decades. Perhaps some actually do learn from the past?
Educated students (Free Speech Movement, SDS, SNCC, the antiwar movement) were most certainly a very disruptive force to the "Establishment" in those decades. Perhaps some actually do learn from the past?
1
I actually agree with you, Tom. Although not purposeful at the onset, the energy and reward soon became apparent.
Sadly, as mad money exerts an ever more corrosive effect on the electoral process and lobbying from profit-centered 'colleges' (as with most special interests) skyrockets, the effects on an intellectually and financially stressed middle class become even more amplified.
Student debt is just one more way of getting youth to take their eyes 'off the prize'. Even the 'Establishment' ain't what it used to be.
Sadly, as mad money exerts an ever more corrosive effect on the electoral process and lobbying from profit-centered 'colleges' (as with most special interests) skyrockets, the effects on an intellectually and financially stressed middle class become even more amplified.
Student debt is just one more way of getting youth to take their eyes 'off the prize'. Even the 'Establishment' ain't what it used to be.
1
Sending everyone to college is expensive. My experience over 40 years in higher ed is that the percentage of the population motivated, capable, interested, etc in advanced study has remained about the same. The percentage now enrolled in higher ed, however, has increased significantly. Succeeding, that is, earning a degree, is not the same today as it was in the past. Higher ed has followed the path of K-12. I think the latest figures show that over 40 percent of grades given are A. Do you really think 40 percent of our students are doing A work? I guess it depends on what college has become and what you define as A work. Many students are using resources that could be best used to support those who can and will take advantage of the opportunity higher ed offers them.
9
Tuition hikes at least at my institution, which is typical, have come in tandem with the grotesque administrative bloat and an uptick in building projects. Our tiny department has 3 chairs; our college has 4 Deans/assoc. Deans. We have legions of IT/computer development staff who make far more than faculty and yet do very little except monitor and restrict faculty use of equipment. We have several new entertainment/dining facilities at 50 million a pop, and the endless agitation for a new stadium we do not need. It is the worst kind of graft and nest-feathering at the expense of faculty and students--the actual group who are necessary for the university to function.
35
Exactly. I once got hold of what is now a 3-year-old list of job titles and salaries of a major Midwestern university. It is unbelievable how much money goes into administration. The titles of these jobs are very creative, such that one can't tell what the jobs are. At this same university, someone I know who applied to the school--a state-born guy with a nearly 4.0 average--was not accepted. There is nothing wrong with him; there is something very wrong with the system. The university in question accepts a high proportion of international applications. It is also a university on a building spree. It seems pretty obvious what is going on here.
1
This is all fine, but rarely do reporters hammer on why education is getting more an more expensive in the first place, and they should.
Higher tier administrators are taking an increasing cut, and blooming. Lower tiers unionized do the same. Both on the backs of students and their families.
After graduating with a liberal arts degree, my wife realized she wanted to be a vet. She took a staff position at Columbia University so she could get the free course benefit to do her pre-med requirements.
In her unionized position, she was able to complete her daily assignments by 11am, and then spent the rest of the day studying and taking classes. Her co-workers gave her constant grief for making them look bad. There are thousands of these positions at every university.
Higher tier administrators are taking an increasing cut, and blooming. Lower tiers unionized do the same. Both on the backs of students and their families.
After graduating with a liberal arts degree, my wife realized she wanted to be a vet. She took a staff position at Columbia University so she could get the free course benefit to do her pre-med requirements.
In her unionized position, she was able to complete her daily assignments by 11am, and then spent the rest of the day studying and taking classes. Her co-workers gave her constant grief for making them look bad. There are thousands of these positions at every university.
5
Truly amazing how we can go from zero-to-blame-the-unions on almost any issue.
Only 7% of private employees are unionized today. How can 7% of workers be responsible for 100% of the nation's problems?
Only 7% of private employees are unionized today. How can 7% of workers be responsible for 100% of the nation's problems?
32
Unions are far more dominant on campuses than in other industries, and it's bleeding heart management layers, feathering their own nests, who have no incentive to rock the boat.
But you don't explain how this drives up tuition rates, 4000% in 20 years in some cases, while wages have remained flat for those 20 years.
1
The cost of higher education, state or private. goes up in part because of an arms race for better facilities, faculty, more course offerings, new schools-win-schools, etc. and because another couple of thousand here or there just happens. But state universities also have to deal with the hostility of politicians who have contempt for higher education, or perceive it as having an ideological bias that doesn't meet their personal political philosophy. That makes state universities easy targets for outrage and the demand for budget cuts, and the money has to come from someplace. State universities are like the privates-they are reacting to the market place. Let's be realistic--one $60K+ per year out of state/foreign student is "worth" more than two in-staters who are paying half (or less) of that, so one can rationalize that choice by saying the out of state admit subsidizes the in state. Might not meet the initial mission of educating as many in-state kids, but business is business, as unpleasant as that might sound when applying to educating the best and brightest of your state. To change that, you need a political environment that sees the state system as a jewel worth subsidizing. I just don't see that happening.
10
Wisconsin also has a cap on out-of-state freshman as a percentage of the freshman class. The only campus where it is a problem is the Madison campus.
One way around this is to increase the overall size of the freshman class, which is a strategy employed there. The bottom line is that the money has to come from somewhere and if it is not provided by state legislatures we will continue to see more of this creative financing.
Another dodge is students from abroad who do not even need the enticement of scholarships.
One way around this is to increase the overall size of the freshman class, which is a strategy employed there. The bottom line is that the money has to come from somewhere and if it is not provided by state legislatures we will continue to see more of this creative financing.
Another dodge is students from abroad who do not even need the enticement of scholarships.
2
Its somewhat meaningless to talk about tuition rates without mentioning financial aid.
UC Berkeley provides free tuition to all students whose parents income is less than $80,000 and caps tuition for income under $150,000, so that two thirds of students receive financial aid.
University of Washington, second largest research school in the US, also offers free tuition to 25% of undergrad students. While highly selective for freshman, it also provides alternative admissions after two years of community college and has a very high graduation rate of 80%.
So some public schools at least are serving the broader public with less ruinous financial paths to graduation.
UC Berkeley provides free tuition to all students whose parents income is less than $80,000 and caps tuition for income under $150,000, so that two thirds of students receive financial aid.
University of Washington, second largest research school in the US, also offers free tuition to 25% of undergrad students. While highly selective for freshman, it also provides alternative admissions after two years of community college and has a very high graduation rate of 80%.
So some public schools at least are serving the broader public with less ruinous financial paths to graduation.
13
I can guarantee you'll that UC students with family income of less than $80k do not receive free tuition. There is a middle class scholarship available through the state, but in no way does that reduce tuition to anywhere near free. Perhaps you're thinking of free tuition for each and every illegal immigrant who need only declare that he/she doesn't want to report family in me or fill out the FAFSA in order to get. Free ride at any Cal public college.
2
According to conservative political philosophy Francis Fukuyama, violent internal revolutions are part of the state and democracy building process. His examples are Russia and China, both works in progress. Post-war Germany also, following its development from Prussia to the Third Reich to the Federal Republic
Simply put, he is saying that if the middle class wants the state to provide affordable or free college education and other social benefits, the middle class will have to lead in the fight for it. Purple Revolutions, Arab Springs, Glorious Revolutions don't spill enough blood. The 1% will win every time.
I hope Prof. Fukuyama is wrong. But then, I haven't read his earlier book, "The End of History."
Simply put, he is saying that if the middle class wants the state to provide affordable or free college education and other social benefits, the middle class will have to lead in the fight for it. Purple Revolutions, Arab Springs, Glorious Revolutions don't spill enough blood. The 1% will win every time.
I hope Prof. Fukuyama is wrong. But then, I haven't read his earlier book, "The End of History."
3
Seems that the tuition at top universities resembles something that of New York real estate. No matter how high you jack up the price, there still will be suckers who want to pay. There is one difference though. New York City is on the verge of becoming a ghost town, as most of the luxury buildings stand empty, for they serve as pied-a-terre for rich investors in dire need to park their money, whereas the top university as filling up with more and more foreigners who are better educated than run of the mill Americans and are very rich.
Our secondary education is pathetic compared to the first world standard, but top colleges are now selling their seats to foreigner (who are probably better qualified than many Americans, but still). Great future for America.
Our secondary education is pathetic compared to the first world standard, but top colleges are now selling their seats to foreigner (who are probably better qualified than many Americans, but still). Great future for America.
18
Posters are complaining that because they pay taxes to support public universities, their children should have a fair shot at attending in-state schools. What the public either doesn't understand, or doesn't want to admit, is that it stopped paying to support state schools years ago. The University of Washington used to receive 80% of its funding from the state. Now it receives 30%, and the trend is steadily downward. The situation at the University of Virginia, an elite school, is even more stark: UVA gets less than 10% of its funding from the state. The universities saw the writing on the wall and got busy with Plan B, marketing their schools to out-of-state students who pay full freight.
Blame the legislators who cut higher education funding, but take a good look in the mirror, people.
Blame the legislators who cut higher education funding, but take a good look in the mirror, people.
243
Have the peoples taxes gone down as a result of this 80% to 30% reduction in state aid to the colleges, as you've described?
1
You can't say that without noting that though the PERCENTAGE is down, the actual dollars are way way up -- the cost of college has exploded -- up something like 4000% over 20 years.
SO the taxpayers pay more and more and get less and less.
SO the taxpayers pay more and more and get less and less.
1
The University of Colorado used to receive 50+% of its support from the state...now it's approx. 5%. The least expensive degree including tuition, fees, room and board for Coloradans at the in-state rate is approx. $32K per year, more for business and engineering majors. Non-resident non-Coloradan (approx. half the student body) costs are approx. 45K per year, and that doesn't even include lift tickets.
1
This article is highly misleading in its analysis for the University of California and I suspect the same holds true for other state schools, as well. In California the state subsidizes the University of California only for a set number of in-state students each year. If more in-state students were accepted, the state would not provide any more money. Even if there were no out-of-state students, there would not be any more in-state students unless the legislature and governor chose to subside more students. On the other-hand, out-of-state students, by paying high tuition, implicitly subsidize the in-state students.
35
Reading this article one would think that Berkeley admits a higher percentage of out-of-state students than UNC. It does not. Berkeley admits about 11% from out of state while UNC goes right to its max limit of 18%. A comparison of the actual percentages is more useful than picking out a few universities that have decreased the number of in-state slots (like Berkeley). The University of New Hampshire, for instance, admits 52% from out of state, while the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign may have cut in-state slots as the author said, but they still only admitted 7% of their students from out of state last year.
9
Respectfully, you are incorrect. For 2014, Berkeley admitted 23% nonresident students and UCLA admitted 20%. Moreover, Berkeley reserves a quota of 500 freshman slots only for illegal immigrants grants. Illegal immigrants who refuse to document their family's income get free tuition via the CA Dream Act. Napolitano threatened to raise nonresident admissions if Broke n didn't kick in more state funding, and she and her liberal cronies declined to cut administrator salaries while raising undergrad tuition yet again. Only 2 Regents (one of whom was Brown) voted to keep tuition at its current level).
Good article. It highlights, once again, the changes in American values mirrored by changes in our public universities. These schools are simply reacting to the funding priorities set by state legislatures and the federal financial aid system. This "crisis" is directly linked to the student loan "crisis". As funding from state legislatures and the feds has been choked off, the schools have changed their business model and mission to find other revenue streams and reinvent themselves. The losers in the whole affair are the kids. But this is what the voters want. The legislators and governors carrying out this agenda are simply reflecting the citizen voter's values. They don't value public education and they don't care if this generation loses economic opportunities as a result.
18
The main reason for tuition increases, as I saw it when I was a student, is the continued hiring of bureaucratic staff, most of whom do not have college degrees, most of whom care little or nothing about education and are being brought in to fill once temporary positions that were previously filled by students and student workers who were often doing work study programs. What this does ios to create an enormous, often unionized, group of wage earners who have an interest in the university or college merely as another form of employment. Increased pay for the top professors is paid for by decreased pay for the temporary graduate assistants who do all the heavy lifting.
In the background are enormous numbers of well paid gardeners, cleaning staff, plumbers, cleaners and food service employees, all mostly high school dropouts along with the security staff. Eventually we moved to universities filled to exploding with numerous well paid paper shufflers , soaking up money once saved by staffing university jobs with students. The students were paid "in kind" to do temporary office work by reducing their bills .Ironic that our universities now seem to exist to payu banks
fees to lend money to students and usemost of the balance to pay non University educated people to run the universities (Oh, and a few 6 figure earning professors who make it in 2 1/2 days a week, in the afternoons .)
In the background are enormous numbers of well paid gardeners, cleaning staff, plumbers, cleaners and food service employees, all mostly high school dropouts along with the security staff. Eventually we moved to universities filled to exploding with numerous well paid paper shufflers , soaking up money once saved by staffing university jobs with students. The students were paid "in kind" to do temporary office work by reducing their bills .Ironic that our universities now seem to exist to payu banks
fees to lend money to students and usemost of the balance to pay non University educated people to run the universities (Oh, and a few 6 figure earning professors who make it in 2 1/2 days a week, in the afternoons .)
16
My reading on this issue shows that all of the things you say are true. The root cause of the increase in tuition at state universities has been the reduction of state funding, but now their costs are starting to be tied to the large amounts of money they are borrowing, just like the private, not for profit universities. Moody's rates most of this debt, and they require that tuition be pledged to repay it. They also require an increase in tuition and fees each year, as well as a reduction in fixed costs--meaning tenured faculty. Graduates of California universities that I know are irate about their current billions of dollars of debt. The student newspaper at Michigan has several good articles about out of state admissions and debt.
1
The root of this problem is the incredible rise in college expenditures over the past 30-40 years. And this has not been due to increases in Professor salaries. The real problem is the explosion in administrators, their pay (Deans, etc have become as almost well paying as private sector jobs - paying in the millions), Club Med type recreational facilities, insurance and liabilities (i.e., law suits and legal costs) and the regulations they stem from (anti-sexual harasment, other forms of discrimination). These have contributed greatly to price escalation and are the underlying reasons for the problem of college price impact on the middle class. The NY Times needs to write a few articles on these topics. These costs desperately need to be brought under control.
89
The Professors are not part of the cost problem? Why not? Do they not receive salaries and health care? Pensions? I believe they are part of the problem along with provosts and the rest of the lot...
You know that $$$ isnt going to the adjuncts, ie, Volunteer Teachers Without Benefits.
Yoda, the tired line of blaming administrators for the rise in college tuition is, well, tired. I was an administrator, and at one school received a $1,500.00 raise over the course of five years. I would have complained, but thus was the case with everyone else. Oh, and deans don't make millions of dollars. You'd be hard pressed to find deans that make over six figures, in fact. How about placing the largest part of the blame where it belongs: the public's refusal to invest in education. You want to live in a country with minimal taxes? Fine, but everything else that a civilized society requires for living will cost an arm and a leg, as does medical care and education. You do get what you pay for.
Excuse me for being European, but what does a "Division I" football team have to do with a college education?
189
It means you have an amenity which allows you to more easily recruit more students willing to pay a higher price.
2
Absolutely nothing.
1
Absolutely nothing.
1
Why are any of my state tax dollars going to support an institution that does not support our citizens first and foremost? If you don't wish to fulfill the original mission of a Land Grand university then I say - Go fund yourself!
21
Didn't you read the article. That is exactly what the schools are doing. State legislatures have cut spending dramatically, so the schools are paying the bills by bringing in out of state students who pay high tuition and subsidize the in-state students.
1
Actually, hardly any of your tax dollars are going to support the flagship university in your state. I know this because my son graduated (as an out-of-state student) from UMD last year. When he was a high-school senior, Maryland recruited him (and other high-achieving students) hard for their Honors Program. At one of the Honors recruitment sessions, one parent asked about how recently-announced state cuts would be affecting the University. The answer was that the University received such a small percentage of its funding from the state (I don't recall the exact figure, but I am certain that it was no more than 20 percent, and possibly less than 10 percent) that the cuts simply weren't going to make much difference at that point. So yes, your flagship university, UMd, DOES overwhelmingly "fund itself." It is likely that the other colleges in the UMd system rely more heavily on state aid, but they are not the ones recruiting out-of-state students, either.
1
This is more short-sighted thinking while students from other countries get on with getting educated and working.
Our students are getting so mired in debt that they are looking at a lost decade. In the late 70s you could easily pay for cheap tuition at the University of Texas with crummy jobs. I was shocked to see the nickel-diming Bush push interest rates up on student loans for American kids while he was building the trillion dollar disaster in Iraq.
Making an education a luxury item is a huge mistake. We are exporting a lot of young talent right now to other countries where students can get better deals.
Not everything should be some predatory opportunity for the gougers in America.
Our students are getting so mired in debt that they are looking at a lost decade. In the late 70s you could easily pay for cheap tuition at the University of Texas with crummy jobs. I was shocked to see the nickel-diming Bush push interest rates up on student loans for American kids while he was building the trillion dollar disaster in Iraq.
Making an education a luxury item is a huge mistake. We are exporting a lot of young talent right now to other countries where students can get better deals.
Not everything should be some predatory opportunity for the gougers in America.
53
It is now.
"We are exporting a lot of young talent right now to other countries where students can get better deals." - That's nonsense. Where is your proof of that? My child just graduated from one of USNWR's top rated high school. Not a single senior is going outside of the US for their education.
Why shouldn't the elite public research institutions seek to attract the most competitive students? Why should this development bear the shameful mark of privatization? The University of Alabama has many campuses for in-state students for which in-state tuition is readily available. As Mr. Carey himself admits, the number of students enrolled in state university systems around the country has steadily increased over the past decade. So, should we condemn those exceptionally talented and hardworking students who are unfortunate enough to grow up in states in which too many like-minded individuals are attending college? To suggest that the rationale behind this shift in enrollment is due to greed is cynical at best. The numbers, however, do not support Mr. Carey's conclusions. The average GPAs and SAT scores for the incoming freshmen at these elite public institutions are higher now than they have ever been. In short, the smartest and hardest-working applicants are being admitted to the research institutions.
5
Too many of the poor are already forced into the military solely for the purpose of employment and a college education - providing they survive their military stint in good enough shape to do so. This actually suits the suits just fine because someone has to fight their dirty wars for profit, and kids need to learn how to obey orders of their masters without question in these days of corporatocracy. That's the kind of employee they want, plus low wage of course.
How else to beef up military 'enrollment' now that we don't have a draft? Corral the kids out of dorms and into the barracks. Yes, sir!
How else to beef up military 'enrollment' now that we don't have a draft? Corral the kids out of dorms and into the barracks. Yes, sir!
18
The military is downsizing and it too has become more selective. It is no longer a reliable route to upward mobility for the masses.
8
Elect a Republican president and that oversight will soon be corrected.
1
Who is "they" in the last sentence of the article? Administrators? Faculty? Admitted students? Excluded students? Alumni? A closer examination and better understanding of conflicting interests and incentives is required for progress in analyzing this issue.
9
You can stop it all by stopping Federally subsidized student loans. No loans no tuition within 4 years the price of a college education will half. Everybody knows this but the government won't do it.
9
how will ending student loans lead to more in-state students being accepted? If out of state and foreign pay more the school still has a strong incentive to accept more or them than in-state students.
3
Sure, if your sole objective is to lower prices, getting rid of federal loans will accomplish that. But of course, there's a cost to that victory -- you would effectively deny access to students who made the mistake of being born into families who haven't saved enough to pay for their educations upfront when they graduate from high school.
If the goal is access and affordability, what you propose is actually not a solution at all.
If the goal is access and affordability, what you propose is actually not a solution at all.
There is a reason SUNY @ Stony Brook is an active recruiter in India and South Korea and a no-show at local HS college fairs. Meanwhile NYers get stuck sending more and more money via their state taxes to Albany to keep this joke of a system going.
7
And yet the full time tuition at SUNY is $7000 a year, which means the cost of a degree is less than the cost of a new car. Less, if the student spends their first two years at a community college.
America the great. All for a price, even education. What can be more stupid than to make education unaffordable to the middle class and the poor? Instead of uplifting the American masses, that callousness and greed, plunge the masses further into the doldrums of financial ruin, debt and despair or into giving up on higher education. So our public universities are watering and cultivating the global 1%. Nice. Do to all of them what was done to U North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
16
If only this were the only thing broken about our higher education complex.
One can start a list with football. Imagine characterizing the "elite" public universities by their football!! And imagine an article which talks about soaring costs which fails to mention the falling quality of the faculty actually met by undergraduate students -- no longer the soon-to-be anointed Ph.D candidate, but more likely an adjunct drawn from the ranks of those who cannot get in as regular faculty and are paid a pittance (possibly commensurate with their actual skill levels).
And let us not forget that the tax base which should be properly funding these national treasures and assuring that poor students such as I was (thank God for the U. of Wisconsin's then $79 per term tuition!) is in the hands of the party dedicated to evicerating any public program since their offspring benefit from private education. One might (I do) conclude that it is just another part of the agenda of securing a large base of lower middle to lower classes to serve as fodder for the rapacious capitalism of the elitists of the land.
One can start a list with football. Imagine characterizing the "elite" public universities by their football!! And imagine an article which talks about soaring costs which fails to mention the falling quality of the faculty actually met by undergraduate students -- no longer the soon-to-be anointed Ph.D candidate, but more likely an adjunct drawn from the ranks of those who cannot get in as regular faculty and are paid a pittance (possibly commensurate with their actual skill levels).
And let us not forget that the tax base which should be properly funding these national treasures and assuring that poor students such as I was (thank God for the U. of Wisconsin's then $79 per term tuition!) is in the hands of the party dedicated to evicerating any public program since their offspring benefit from private education. One might (I do) conclude that it is just another part of the agenda of securing a large base of lower middle to lower classes to serve as fodder for the rapacious capitalism of the elitists of the land.
40
Those "failing quality" adjuncts (as you put it) are often second tier researchers but first tier teachers. The regular faculty are researchers/grant developers and often don't care about teaching. Adjuncts usually have "real life" experience that is more relevant to students.
12
I agree with Lori somewhat, that the adjuncts are often first-rate instructors and are fine scholars. I would hesitate at tossing mud at full-time tenured faculty. They also are often fine instructors in addition to bringing in research grant money to support the school, provide research opportunities for students, create networking opportunities for students, etc. I believe that the issue isn't which is better at their job, it's that the balance of adjuct to full-time faculty is out of whack at about 50% adjunct nation wide. Universities and colleges need to pay the top administrators less, stop building high-end luxury facilities with whirlpools and water slides for the students, and invest in the hiring more full-time faculty, moving adjuncts into those positions where they can both be great instructors and researchers/ scholars.
21
Research indicates that what Daisy Sue and Lori say is true. Adjuncts are not inferior teacher -- and in many cases not even inferior researchers or creators of intellectual content. They are people who have fallen victim to their institutions' cynical cost-cutting (How do we pay for the new gym? The multi-million-dollar football coach's salary? Simple: squeeze the adjuncts; cut back on tenured professors).
Inside Higher Ed reports on a couple of studies: "Most of the existing research on the employment of adjunct faculty and student success shows a negative relationship, not because adjuncts are bad teachers but because their working conditions prevent them from being as effective as they could be. But earlier this fall, a much-cited study disputed by some, showed the opposite: that students actually may learn more from adjunct faculty members -- at least at research universities that can afford to pay part-timers well and that may discourage tenure-track faculty members from focusing on teaching."
Inside Higher Ed reports on a couple of studies: "Most of the existing research on the employment of adjunct faculty and student success shows a negative relationship, not because adjuncts are bad teachers but because their working conditions prevent them from being as effective as they could be. But earlier this fall, a much-cited study disputed by some, showed the opposite: that students actually may learn more from adjunct faculty members -- at least at research universities that can afford to pay part-timers well and that may discourage tenure-track faculty members from focusing on teaching."
6
"But they also have a strong desire to become more like elite private universities — Stanford, Duke, the Ivy League — that have the freedom to enroll the best and the brightest from around the world"
This is a smokescreen. *Except* for the elite private universities, colleges go after international students because they pay more. Qualifications of the international students is generally lower, not higher, than other students. However those universities which depend on alumni contributions will, I think, be in for a surprise; again except for the elite private universities, I expect foreign students will not be as generous as other alumni in giving to the alma mater.
This is a smokescreen. *Except* for the elite private universities, colleges go after international students because they pay more. Qualifications of the international students is generally lower, not higher, than other students. However those universities which depend on alumni contributions will, I think, be in for a surprise; again except for the elite private universities, I expect foreign students will not be as generous as other alumni in giving to the alma mater.
26
Elite universities should admit only the best and brightest. No legacy admissions, athletic admissions, or lower standards for any other group wherein the student cannot meet the high standards.
1
It's only natural for a university - public or private - to want "to enroll the best and the brightest from around the world" if it has the reputation and quality to do so. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of excellence.
2
Yes, but he's not saying "the best and brightest." He's saying "the ones with the deepest pockets."
17
Wait a minute, this article doesn't say anything about qualifications of students. You obviously haven't had a child apply for college in the last 10-15 years. Go talk to the parents in California whose smart, high-achieving children (products of the CA public education system) don't stand a chance at being accepted to one of the better UC's. Both of my children and most of my friend's children are at private schools scattered across the country. If I'm paying taxes and part of my taxes go to public education, I expect my children, who were born in CA and attended public schools throughout their lives, to have an equal opportunity to attend a quality state university based primarily on academic qualifications. (That's the way it was 30 years ago when I was accepted to UC San Diego with a 3.65 GPA, something that would be unheard of today.) They absolutely do NOT have such an opportunity.
31
As public universities, they should have balanced admissions policies that allow access for qualified students who are likely to succeed. Chasing the "best and the brightest" only dilutes a mission of access to public higher education. Should public universities have honors programs for the strongest undergrads and competitive graduate programs? Yes. But should they use meritocracy as a cynical excuse for attracting higher-pay students from out-of-state? No.
4
Why didn't the author say the more out of state students was done to further diversity, I thought more diversity was a good thing. In a speech at the National Preds Club the President of histically black Morehouse College said her school was very diverse because it had students from 43 different states, so why wouldn't that apply to Purdue, or any of the schools cited.
1
In Arizona, our state constitution says that the state universities are to provide as nearly free of an education as possible to residents. It doesn't say anything about diversity, as laudable a goal as that is.
Movie matinee pricing is designed to fill the seats with paying customers that also buy food (?) and drink (?). It fluctuates with demand ( is intentionally not designed to be cheap - just popular). Same with college admission policies and tuition. If newly minted upper and middle class foreign students see American education as a desirable good (they certainly do!), they will drive prices upward thereby enhancing administrator, professor and coach emoluments.
Students are the tourists in college towns. The higher the prices can be raised the more they will be. "Out-of-state tuition" is much more important to universities with successful football programs. Paying for them requires a huge national and even international following. The kids on tobacco road, figuratively speaking, will have to go to regional schools (or, maybe, non-football schools with real matinee pricing?).
Students are the tourists in college towns. The higher the prices can be raised the more they will be. "Out-of-state tuition" is much more important to universities with successful football programs. Paying for them requires a huge national and even international following. The kids on tobacco road, figuratively speaking, will have to go to regional schools (or, maybe, non-football schools with real matinee pricing?).
Alabama isn't the only southern state university casting a wide net for out-of-state students. So are South Carolina and Georgia. According to a South Carolina admissions officer (who helped steer a friend of my daughter to Columbia) the rationale is to raise the overall academic reputation of the University -- something of a challenge in the South, where the quality of education is uneven, to the say the least, according to most measures.
UNC-Chapel Hil, as this article points out, is doing precisely the opposite, assuring a much more homogenous student body derived from a state where public education is of such poor overall quality that UNC's journalism school (to mention one example) has to enroll many incoming students in remedial English.
The NC state legislature has limited out-of-state enrollment for another reason, as well: to prevent "liberal types" of students from New York, California and other relatively progressive states from infiltrating the minds and hearts of God-fearing North Carolina conservative youth.
UNC-Chapel Hil, as this article points out, is doing precisely the opposite, assuring a much more homogenous student body derived from a state where public education is of such poor overall quality that UNC's journalism school (to mention one example) has to enroll many incoming students in remedial English.
The NC state legislature has limited out-of-state enrollment for another reason, as well: to prevent "liberal types" of students from New York, California and other relatively progressive states from infiltrating the minds and hearts of God-fearing North Carolina conservative youth.
11
No. The UNC system has had an out-of-state cap for many years. It has held firm over many administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. The BOG would like to lift the cap for the reason given in the article -- they can get more tuition from out-of-state students.
The UNC system is very diverse and recently the NY Times noted that UNC Chapel Hill has the highest rating of public universities for economic diversity. And I would challenge you to go to the campuses of the UNC system and find those hoards of God-fearing conservatives you mention. The Republican-held legislature would love that, but it hasn't happened yet.
The UNC system is very diverse and recently the NY Times noted that UNC Chapel Hill has the highest rating of public universities for economic diversity. And I would challenge you to go to the campuses of the UNC system and find those hoards of God-fearing conservatives you mention. The Republican-held legislature would love that, but it hasn't happened yet.
4
UNC brings in their "best and brightest" in the form of their merit scholarship programs, notably the Morehead-Cain scholarship, still the most prestigious merit scholarship in the country.
Long ago, I chose grad school at the University of California California because they had a far better program than in schools in my state, Virginia. I paid a bundle in out of state tuition the 1st year and then paid almost nothing my 2nd year plus had a teaching assistantship. Many students, given the option, would rather attend UC than their own in-state schools with 2 UC campuses - Berkeley and UCLA - ranked among the top 10 universities in the world in some international rankings. Not to slam other states but there are few I would prefer academically over Berkeley and UCLA. In addition, these campuses are beautiful, in cities with fine weather.
There certainly needs to be a balance between in-state students and interlopers willing to pay more. But in this case, once your in-state universities achieve academic rankings alongside the finest private universities in the world, is it strange non-residents are clamoring to get in? Out-of-state students receive a superb education at Berkeley, with out-of-state tuition still appreciably less than the tuition at Princeton or Stanford.
It's also easy to imagine that the culture at Berkeley or UCLA might be a better fit for students from Saudi Arabia or Iran than studying at Princeton or the University of Wyoming.
Geography should not be destiny in terms of which states U.S. students can study in. Personally, I would have done anything to avoid attending college in the south and California was spectacular in every way.
There certainly needs to be a balance between in-state students and interlopers willing to pay more. But in this case, once your in-state universities achieve academic rankings alongside the finest private universities in the world, is it strange non-residents are clamoring to get in? Out-of-state students receive a superb education at Berkeley, with out-of-state tuition still appreciably less than the tuition at Princeton or Stanford.
It's also easy to imagine that the culture at Berkeley or UCLA might be a better fit for students from Saudi Arabia or Iran than studying at Princeton or the University of Wyoming.
Geography should not be destiny in terms of which states U.S. students can study in. Personally, I would have done anything to avoid attending college in the south and California was spectacular in every way.
9
Good and memorable point about "geography should not be destiny," but what's up with dissing Virginia's schools of higher ed? University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and William and Mary --just to name a few--are extremely competitive.
I think there is a little "grass is greener" going on here. Although you do have an excellent point about the California weather!
I think there is a little "grass is greener" going on here. Although you do have an excellent point about the California weather!
A lot missing in the article starting with two salient background facts. First, "public universities" should differentiate between the original public universities such as land grant schools and others. Second, there is no discussion of the decline in state support of public universities. In the late 1970's, before the tuition really started to climb, state legislatures funded an average of about 70% of the actual tuition costs for in state students. This was NOT state funding for administration or any other university costs. Today, the funding from state legislatures that goes to tuition covers an average of 8% of the actual tuition costs for an in state student. The public, parents of potential students and potential students haven't paid attention to the state legislatures for the past 40 years and now are paying the price.
95
Excellent point. State funding for education has dropped as expenses have risen. I wish there were truly people who valued education, particularly our elected officials. Long term vision is lacking. "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish".
2
Marylee, agree. Politicians that fail to adequately fund not only public universities but education in general make the country less productive and we have more jobs without the workers to fill them. A dollar spent on education today returns between 7 and 10 dollars in the near future (2 decades), more in the long term, and saves another 5% of government expenditures dealing with less educated and drop outs. Then again, politicians can't see further than the next election. On the other hand, politicians love an uneducated electorate who will vote for them on emotion and not question the facts.
2
My son attended Cornell for four years without ever being allowed in-state tuition.
The first year he received what we realized afterwards was an incentive scholarship, given to first-year students to get them to enroll. Once they're established and have put in a year at Cornell, the money (actually just a discount on tuition and fees) was then withdrawn for his second year, and used to lure another talented student into the school.
His subsequent three years at Cornell, during which he spent most or all of the year in Ithaca, New York somehow without achieving residency, cost $50,000/year.
Cornell made a big deal out of putting together a funding package that consisted primarily of federal and private student loans to cover the exorbitant out-of-state charges this profit-making nonprofit university levies on its students.
Granted that $50,000/year is an outrageous sum of money for a college education, my son's experience was an example of the basic unfairness of collegiate funding. Years have passed, and he and I, his father, are still grappling with the crippling debt he faces and will continue to face for many years to come.
The first year he received what we realized afterwards was an incentive scholarship, given to first-year students to get them to enroll. Once they're established and have put in a year at Cornell, the money (actually just a discount on tuition and fees) was then withdrawn for his second year, and used to lure another talented student into the school.
His subsequent three years at Cornell, during which he spent most or all of the year in Ithaca, New York somehow without achieving residency, cost $50,000/year.
Cornell made a big deal out of putting together a funding package that consisted primarily of federal and private student loans to cover the exorbitant out-of-state charges this profit-making nonprofit university levies on its students.
Granted that $50,000/year is an outrageous sum of money for a college education, my son's experience was an example of the basic unfairness of collegiate funding. Years have passed, and he and I, his father, are still grappling with the crippling debt he faces and will continue to face for many years to come.
14
No one forced him to take on the debt needed for a 50 k a year college education which is no better than if he went in state. No one cares where you went to under grad. after your first job interview.
I told both my boys, its instate in Colorado or University of Wisconsin since they get a legacy discount, which makes the tuition the same out of state as in state for Colorado public universities.
I told both my boys, its instate in Colorado or University of Wisconsin since they get a legacy discount, which makes the tuition the same out of state as in state for Colorado public universities.
3
Cornell University is primarily a private university, not a public o ne. I believe that it only has two majors that are considered to be state, with much lower tuition. Tht said, most, if not all, public uiversities have residency rules in place requiring the out of state students to demonstrate that they are in fact independent, and are not listed as dependents on their parents pax reutrns, in order to qualify for residency. This is to prevent out of state parents from dumping the students there and claiming residency. It sounds as though that is what you were attempting to do.In state tuition rates were established to benefit the children of local residents that help pay for state universities.
14
Is Cornell a state school? I believe that it is an Ivy league private college without different tuition for instate and out of state residents. Has this somehow changed recently?
1
The so-called business approach to higher education means maximizing profits and minimizing expenses while mass-producing a product. It, in my mind, has little to do with assuring as many young citizens as possible receive the education they need to be productive members of society at a price they can afford without loan payments that prevent them from starting a family, buying a home and generally setting down economic and personal roots. The student loan industry would much prefer to see kids pushed out of their in-state school by out of state ( i.e.,"profit center") students so they can loan BOTH groups more money. When are we, as state taxpayers, going to demand a different approach from our elected leaders?
45
I'm in a state where there is still a difference between in- and out-of-state tuition. So guess what: the recently installed current administration of our local state U. campus is going all out to recruit out-of-state students, "growing" the total student population by 20% as a result of an all-out marketing campaign.
None of this plan was discussed, coordinated, or anything else with the city government or residents. One result: a huge fight over a private dorm builder-operator that tried to site a facility for several hundred students within spitting distance of an elementary school, on the edge of a quiet, single-family neighborhood. The necessary rezone might have gone through, except that the contractor's web site prominently featured its facility trademark: a red plastic beer cup with a smiley face.
All this, at a backwater state land grant institution, with a barely competent, on-the-make president whose ambition appears to be Harvard. Good luck with that.
None of this plan was discussed, coordinated, or anything else with the city government or residents. One result: a huge fight over a private dorm builder-operator that tried to site a facility for several hundred students within spitting distance of an elementary school, on the edge of a quiet, single-family neighborhood. The necessary rezone might have gone through, except that the contractor's web site prominently featured its facility trademark: a red plastic beer cup with a smiley face.
All this, at a backwater state land grant institution, with a barely competent, on-the-make president whose ambition appears to be Harvard. Good luck with that.
18
Ironic. State universities ought to be outright free to qualified students. Education provides the highest returns of any investment the taxpayers make. When regressive politicians cut funding for education the people who are hurt most are those who have no political voice. This needs to stop.
86
Agree.
How much are you willing to pay in higher taxes to make this happen?
How much are you willing to pay in higher taxes to make this happen?
2
Clearly, David, the phrase "We are already $18 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT" means nothing to you.
College can only be free (as it is, at point of use, in a FEW -- not all -- nations) when only the elite students get to go there. And on top of that, you can't have a $7 million football coach, or dorms that look like luxury resorts, or cafeterias that serve gourmet sushi. And no professors who earn $350K a year for teaching 2 classes a week.
And when only the elite students get to go -- what will the rest of the kids do? what if those elite students are almost all white and asian -- what will black parents and groups say when most black students are entirely shut out of higher education?
College can only be free (as it is, at point of use, in a FEW -- not all -- nations) when only the elite students get to go there. And on top of that, you can't have a $7 million football coach, or dorms that look like luxury resorts, or cafeterias that serve gourmet sushi. And no professors who earn $350K a year for teaching 2 classes a week.
And when only the elite students get to go -- what will the rest of the kids do? what if those elite students are almost all white and asian -- what will black parents and groups say when most black students are entirely shut out of higher education?
Ridiculous. Even the UK discovered that it could no longer afford to fund university educations, and those were always only for the "best and brightest", not those who think college follows 12th grade the way 2nd follows 1st.
I have watched UNC-CH up close for a number of years. My feeling is that every university needs to decide what it wants to be and the best ones can state a specific, distinct mission in one or two sentences. In UNC's case, I believe it is "to provide a world-class education to qualified North Carolina students, regardless of ability to pay, at the most economical cost possible." This one sentence defines educational standards, cost targets, and the primary constituency served. I am pleased that UNC has resisted the forces (mostly, so far) described in this article.
Too many schools, particularly private schools and public schools that want to be private schools (I am looking at you, UVA) do not seem to have a distinct mission that is much beyond "to be the most academically exclusive that we can be". Such a mission might lead them to providing a satisfactory education to many of its students but provides the institution no guidance whatsoever in making long-term strategic decisions. They therefore struggle to maintain a consistent approach to the educational standard/cost/constituency served equation.
Bottom line, there are many wonderful alternatives to providing, and getting, a good education. Each institution needs to have a vision of how it fits into the picture. We would hope that public institutions understood their unique role in serving the public good in the broadest sense. To see that role being ceded in too many instances is an unfortunate sign of our times.
Too many schools, particularly private schools and public schools that want to be private schools (I am looking at you, UVA) do not seem to have a distinct mission that is much beyond "to be the most academically exclusive that we can be". Such a mission might lead them to providing a satisfactory education to many of its students but provides the institution no guidance whatsoever in making long-term strategic decisions. They therefore struggle to maintain a consistent approach to the educational standard/cost/constituency served equation.
Bottom line, there are many wonderful alternatives to providing, and getting, a good education. Each institution needs to have a vision of how it fits into the picture. We would hope that public institutions understood their unique role in serving the public good in the broadest sense. To see that role being ceded in too many instances is an unfortunate sign of our times.
8
While keeping in state enrollment high is a wonderful goal for UNC-CH (and one I happen to agree with), there's a downside to dependency on the state. The NC government has slashed education spending in recent years. The result has been pay freezes and serious budget cuts at UNC. While budget cuts in some areas might make sense, what's happened is that universities in other states who are better funded from their legislatures and from out of state tuition have been poaching the excellent research faculty. It becomes a vicious cycle where established investigators who bring in grant funding leave for greener pastures, then you have to replace with typically less experienced faculty who are not funded. It can take 5 years or more for a starting faculty member to land their first big grant. So, you're not only losing experienced professors, you're also losing additional grant revenue and it becomes a "double hit" with the loss of state funding.
For more info: http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/02/unc-tuition-hikes-to-target-...
For more info: http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/02/unc-tuition-hikes-to-target-...
2
That universities would expand the number of students who pay higher tuition rates and reduce the number who are eligible to pay lower rates was inevitable given the dramatic reduction in government support of higher education over the past decades. From the article, "A result is the creeping privatization of elite public universities...". Isn't it obvious yet? That seems to be the ultimate goal. As more and more of the burden for financing these institutions is put on the student the end result will be that the public university isn't public anymore.
27
So this is the big picture of how state universities are ceasing to be engines for social mobility. For a close-up of the impact on academics and student life, and its impact on working class and first-generation students, you've got to read Paying for the Party, by Elizabeth Hamilton and Laura Hamilton: impact on "academic offerings", increasing prominence of the Greek party scene, and on and on and on... it's terrible picture of institutions selling themselves to rich out-of-state students who weren't able to get into Ivy Leagues and who'd rather party all the time anyway.
20
Whoops, make that Elizabeth Armstrong & Laura Hamilton...
I wish the author had provided more information on state budget cuts to higher education -- numbers, in fact. Without this information as context, the cause of the phenomenon described here remains ambiguous.
107
They are 'cuts' only in the sense they are not keeping up with university spending. In absolute terms, with inflation, they are increases.
1
Absolute terms are of course meaningless, especially in the context of these universities, which have increased their undergraduate populations: what you need to look at it per-student spending, and that's gone down an average of 23% from 2008-2014: data here: http://www.cbpp.org/research/states-are-still-funding-higher-education-b....
2
We simply have too many people going to college, period. Time to weed out the chaff from the wheat. Reserve college for the "A" students and let the rest go to a trade or community college. Quit wasting money. The student loan program have made colleges the fastest growing industry. And all the state colleges do is complain about budget cuts.
24
But you have to have a college education because they've outsourced all the jobs for people who don't have college degrees. Of course, per the NYTimes book review yesterday, jobs that require a college education are rapidly being turned over to robots, but whatever.
3
I hope you also want the government to start a work program for all those unemployed high school grads -- more more welfare. Jobs in the US increasingly require a college degree, or have you not noticed we don't have manufacturing any more?
1
Yes, it's easy to sentence others and others' children to this fate, but may I ask where you went to school, and where your children attend? From another NY Times article, at community colleges, "Just 20 percent of full-time students seeking a degree get one within three years." Community college students report being less satisfied with their experience, have fewer opportunities to work with professors on research projects, and are taught by a majority of adjuncts or lecturers, as opposed to full-time professors. The educational experience is monumentally dichotomous, and the subsequent opportunities are worlds apart.
1
I don't understand the claim (suggestion? it's unclear) that these tuition breaks are meritocratic. They're precisely not meritocratic: they make it easier for students to go to a college on the basis of an arbitrary feature, their geographic origin, not their preparedness for college. I don't see how the fix for various other kinds of meritocracy-distorting privilege is to introduce another that doesn't correlate as precisely with privileged socioeconomic position.
6
Good article addressing a real problem. State and city universities have been the hallmark of realizing the American Dream. Countless immigrant families have sent their children to college because of more affordable tuition. In fact, the CUNY system was once totally free.
Taxpayers pay for this opportunity but their kids are being thwarted by out- of- state residents as well as children of illegal immigrants. My son was accepted to 3 medical schools last year, clearly qualified, but his own state school didn't have room. There were, in fact, places for out-of-state students. Something is very wrong here.
Taxpayers pay for this opportunity but their kids are being thwarted by out- of- state residents as well as children of illegal immigrants. My son was accepted to 3 medical schools last year, clearly qualified, but his own state school didn't have room. There were, in fact, places for out-of-state students. Something is very wrong here.
48
I'm sure it was illegal immigrants stealing spots from your son.
2
As a career-long teacher, I can attest to the institutional pecking order in public higher education. The definition of organizational ambition is to bump-up whatever the institutional status-of-the-day happens to be. Thus, community colleges aim to transform themselves to four-year institutions, state colleges seek to become universities, and the regionals aspire to Tier One research status.
As a consequence of such misguided ambition, constituent interests, primarily of students, get shortchanged, along with a trade-off of public service for perceived institutional prestige. Such prestige is illusory, of course, because most other institutions at the same rank are behaving similarly. Everyone scrambles but nobody wins, least of all the students.
Hello elitist rat race; good-bye middle class human capital development. Over time, America will pay an increasingly steep price for such shortsightedness.
As a consequence of such misguided ambition, constituent interests, primarily of students, get shortchanged, along with a trade-off of public service for perceived institutional prestige. Such prestige is illusory, of course, because most other institutions at the same rank are behaving similarly. Everyone scrambles but nobody wins, least of all the students.
Hello elitist rat race; good-bye middle class human capital development. Over time, America will pay an increasingly steep price for such shortsightedness.
146
Mr. LeBaron,
Thanks telling it like it is.
Thanks telling it like it is.
2
What a miserable article. We get factoids selected to exagerate the issue rather than a sober reporting of facts. (For example UAlabama is not a representative example, it is the college with the greatest shift in the country over 2000-2012. A "drop of 384 in-state students at Berkeley" must be seen against their freshman class size of 6500.) The Stephen Burd link with the real data is broken. The author's assertion that the public universities WANT budget cuts so they have "an excuse to become what they wanted all along" is an unlikely and shocking conjecture, unsubstantiated by any reporting in the article. It's just as reasonable that the schools turn to out-of-state because they have to for financial reasons and so they make the best of it. And finally,I was astonished that the author puts zero value on the benefit of going to college with people from outside one's community. What? An education where you meet people from foreign countries and the other Coast is actually a better education! If anything, we should consider a system where public universities allow "year abroad" and transfer programs where kids can shift from one public to another one out of state, and still retain the lower tuition benefits, provided that there is an offsetting transfer in the other direction. That would cost the USA no more than today, while providing a better education and allowing different programs to specialize.
110
"An education where you meet people from foreign countries and the other Coast is actually a better education"
It sure would feel better if these other folks had been paying state taxes in my state for all these years to help subsidize our wonderful state university.
It sure would feel better if these other folks had been paying state taxes in my state for all these years to help subsidize our wonderful state university.
15
This response is right on the mark. The author of the article seems to be unaware of the precipitous decline in state appropriations over the past 40 years (down 23% in national public universities just from 2008-2014: http://www.cbpp.org/research/states-are-still-funding-higher-education-b.... Admitting more out-of-state students (including foreign ones) is simply a rational response to trying to meet the huge budget shortfalls that the legislatures have saddled these universities with.
13
It's time for a reality check; universities are using any means possible (including discriminating against in state residents) to raise revenue to build football stadiums & pay their CEOs, er...presidents, outrageous salaries. No matter where you're from if you don't have the money don't even bother getting in line.
5
For at least half a century, elite private universities have been enrolling selected overseas student whose tuition fees are paid by the US Department of State. By setting a high fee, those universities are effectively federalized with students receiving loans and grants proportionate to family income.
6