The above post might make no sense whatsoever, by the way. I'm very tired.

This isn't a topic I know much about, but I've read that university enrollment goes up in poor financial times because a certain segment of prospective students decide between entering the work force or univeristy out of high school. And if there's no job, they are more likely to go to university.

I think @252 is a better explanation. People also work part time and go to school part time. College takes both time AND money. Plus, you gotta eat and banks will loan you money to go to school.

If the supply-side explanation were true, why haven't high schools experienced the same rate of growth in cost?

You've found the flaw in your own argument.

Something like half of college students were paying tuition using borrowed funds. Borrowed funds are covering, on average, something like 30% of tuition. Since half of students are borrowing 0% of their tuition costs, the other half are borrowing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of tuition. They are borrowing for both public and private, more for the latter but a significant amount for the former, too.

Fewer than 10% of high school students are in private high schools, and I would assume public high school is largely tuition-free. I don't have a sense of the tendency of that 10% to take out loans. But if private high schools raise their tuition, then the value proposition of tuition-free schools becomes greater, and the 10% market share they have becomes 8%, or whatever. High schools haven't enjoyed the same growth in cost because something like 90% of high school students are in publicly-funded schools.

A good rule of thumb is that any large pool of profits will go to whoever can exert the most influence over it. In the short run, banks could get more profit by loosening their standards on student loans - which was somewhat encouraged federally. In the long run, colleges could handle the increased demand for enrollment (by people who could now "afford" tuition that they couldn't previously) by upping their tuition.

Speaking of the job market ... Anyone know any web engineers looking for work? Must relocate to SF Bay Area. Apparently twitter/fb/google soaks up all the programmers around here.

The underlying cause of these mostly money- and time-wasting adminstrative expansions isn't political correctness, it's the self-perpetuating nature of administrative offices in the context of the massive influx of new money from the tuition bubble.

It's not just self-induced bloat. It's competing with other institutions. "Come to Eastern State! Our graduate TAs have had an intensive program of training at the Graduate Learning Center! Not like those dunces at Western State!"

If people were looking at going to college as an investment, there would have been a significant decrease in applications and enrollment over the past four years, as the idea that it wasn't such a good investment after all became more prevalent. Has there been such a decrease?

My institution has reported a 5% fall in enrollment for next year.

The unemployment rate for college graduates is only 4.0%, and the emp-pop ratio is 73.2%, only about a 4% decline from the absolute peak in 2007. All of those numbers are significantly better than non-college graduates during the recession. If anything, the recession has shown that having a college degree means a lot, although whether it's worth the cost, I don't know.

Part of the reason that student lenders have tightened their lending standards during the crisis is that in 2010 the government ended the FFELP program by which it guaranteed private student loans. Now, loans are either direct from the government or private and unguaranteed.

Asking whether the cost of education is supply-driven or demand-driven kind of misses the point; it's driven by both. The availability of massive loans that are below market rates naturally increases demand for the product in the sense that it increases the amount people are able to pay. If people couldn't pay as much, you'd find demand reduced, prices declining, etc. Other things can and have happened that move the supply curve, such as increasing costs to provide a college education, fewer subsidies from the state, etc., and those things also affect prices.

#247 As the Economist never tires of noting, the one part of education that the US does consistently well at is top end universities. ( Here is the most recent Times World University Rankings. The top 3, 7 of the top 10 ... are American)

As long as this stays true, these Universities will stay in demand, = expensive, per your model.

EDIT: Of course there is a market for an affordable alternative, and it's at minimum plausible that if student loans could be discharged that prices to these could face the downward pressure.

Fewer than 10% of high school students are in private high schools, and I would assume public high school is largely tuition-free. I don't have a sense of the tendency of that 10% to take out loans. But if private high schools raise their tuition, then the value proposition of tuition-free schools becomes greater, and the 10% market share they have becomes 8%, or whatever. High schools haven't enjoyed the same growth in cost because something like 90% of high school students are in publicly-funded schools.

Isn't this an argument for free college as an effective means to bring down costs?

Why is college different from HS? Free HS greatly depresses the value of private HS, leading to lower costs. Why wouldn't free college do the same?


I have never understood the argument that cheap student loans were what drove the cost of increase.

The unemployment rate for college graduates is only 4.0%, and the emp-pop ratio is 73.2%, only about a 4% decline from the absolute peak in 2007. All of those numbers are significantly better than non-college graduates during the recession. If anything, the recession has shown that having a college degree means a lot, although whether it's worth the cost, I don't know.

It's still a big advantage in the long run to have a college degree, but the worrysome thing in this recession is the number of graduates who are being hired for work that in previous generations were being filled by non-college grads.** And while in some ways it's nice to see college graduates getting a taste of how lower income people have always had to scrounge, when you add in the debt factor you can see the cause for concern.

**which in turns ratchets up the unemployment for the high school grads who used to fill those jobs.

I have never understood the argument that cheap student loans were what drove the cost of increase.

what's really baffling is that you don't seem to see a connection

what's really baffling is that you don't seem to see a connection

I don't. It seems to me that the removal of subsidies explanation is a much cleaner and more logical one.

What's your counterfactual? If there were no cheap student loans, and everything else happened the same (i.e., state government cutbacks requiring the removal of state subsidies), what would have happened? Your argument indicates that in that counterfactual, tuition costs don't go up, and instead a number of colleges close. Is that correct?

Private school tuition has also grown a lot faster than inflation. I'm not sure where the notion that it hasn't is coming from.

According to this link, the average private high school tuition went from $6,053 in 1999-2000 to $10,549 in 2007-2008, a 73% increase in real cost in just 8 years (the numbers are already inflation adjusted). For non-religious high schools, the average cost went from $14,447 to $27,302, an 89% increase over the same time period.

What no one's mentioning here (Andy's hinting at it) is that publicly subsidizing education serves the really crucial function of providing a highly-trained workforce for employers. As Bill Gates is fond of pointing out, this passes the burden of education and training from companies onto taxpayers. If wages were rising with the rising expectation of education, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. The short end is companies want better-trained and more competent workers, but they don't want to compensate them for it. The minimum amount of computer skills necessary to do any sort of professional job today is significantly higher than it was a decade ago, and we're (edit: by "we", I mean educators teaching in pretty much all subject areas today) expected to provide students (mistakenly referred to as "digital natives") with those skills as part of their college education. Employers want/expect highly-trained interns to do the work for free that they used to pay full-time employees for. Their free labor didn't train itself.

Barry's Lazy Boy noted in 234 that students expect high-tech libraries because they don't want to learn by cracking a book. That's a really, really poor read on the situation (although it's certainly true that some students would rather not crack books). Schools are providing high-tech learning environments because that's the only way to prepare them for the work environments we're going to be sending them into. We routinely have employers tell us they expect students to be *experts* in using and navigating computers the second they step on the job site. Having this conversation about subsidized education without considering the broader economic function of a skilled workforce seems a bit absurd.

I don't. It seems to me that the removal of subsidies explanation is a much cleaner and more logical one.

It makes perfect sense to me that both have had an impact.

What's your counterfactual? If there were no cheap student loans, and everything else happened the same (i.e., state government cutbacks requiring the removal of state subsidies), what would have happened? Your argument indicates that in that counterfactual, tuition costs don't go up, and instead a number of colleges close. Is that correct?

I would expect that tuition would go up *and* some college would have to close (or enrollment would decline).

I have never understood the argument that cheap student loans were what drove the cost of increase.

Its not cheap to the borrower, its cheap to the colleges and universities who don't see the direct effects of asking students to borrow these ammounts outside of "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MORE MONEY."

#264 - a lot of that is undoubtedly true. It is more expensive to educate kids today given the technological requirements. And the subsidies (in the form of cheap loans) may make sense in that context. But the cheap loans combined with no real constraints on what the schools spend the money on are a bad combination, as others have pointed out with the proliferation of high-salaried administrative positions, luxury dorms, and other things which have little to do with training a technologically skilled labor force.

It is more expensive to educate kids today given the technological requirements.

Yes and no. Established industries (textbooks, universities) have done a good job protecting their turn from technology, but I can't see it lasting, and it wouldn't surprise me if developing countries tipped the scales.

Why do textbooks, especially elementary, high school, and intro undergraduate textbooks, cost money at all? The fundamental content doesn't change -- where is the leverage of a brand new textbook? The fact that there's not widely adopted digital open-source textbooks amazes me.

The same is true of much course content. If lectures of several hundred are effective, why aren't digital lectures to thousands or more more widely adopted?

I realize there are efforts in this area (particularly Stanford and MIT, IIRC), but they haven't been as disruptive as we have the potential for them to be.

But the cheap loans combined with no real constraints on what the schools spend the money on are a bad combination, as others have pointed out with the proliferation of high-salaried administrative positions, luxury dorms, and other things which have little to do with training a technologically skilled labor force.

I'm the last one to defend luxury dorms or high-salaried administrative positions, but that doesn't tell the whole story-- what we've seen is the shifting of the costs of education onto the students while employers contribute the same amount or less, and expect better-trained workers. What's happening with internships right now is absolutely criminal (and literally illegal, in a lot of cases). Employers are raising expectations without being willing to compensate their employees for the cost of the training they're demanding. Students consider the training in "networking" they get from all of those activities we consider superfluous as an essential part of what they learn in college, because employers are telling them they need those skills to succeed in the contemporary workforce.

In terms of "technologically skilled"-- that means the university has to look like the modern office-- flatscreens, networked to the gills, ect, so that the transition from school to office is a seamless one. That doesn't come cheap. Every class we offer, every class offered at almost every school now, has an online component (like Blackboard), regardless of the content. Pretending that hasn't added huge costs, and huge benefits for employers, misses a substantial part of the equation.

===
The same is true of much course content. If lectures of several hundred are effective, why aren't digital lectures to thousands or more more widely adopted?

I realize there are efforts in this area (particularly Stanford and MIT, IIRC), but they haven't been as disruptive as we have the potential for them to be.

This is a substantial conversation in academia right now-- I think there are big changes coming, but not for a while, in large part because a lot of education is about more than just delivering content. I'll be replaced by a computer program eventually, but for now, you need to be able to scale difficult material to the level of the 20-40 students in the room, cultivate critical thinking skills, ect.Education is only in small part about imparting knowledge; it's much more about imparting the discipline and habits necessary to succeed in whatever work environment your training students to enter.

but for now, you need to be able to scale difficult material to the level of the 20-40 students in the room

I see your point, but at the same time, the schools that are putting a couple hundred people in a room for intro courses are still charging $20k+ a year.

I could see inexpensive commodity education becoming the new widely accessible "junior college".

Education is only in small part about imparting knowledge; it's much more about imparting the discipline and habits necessary to succeed in whatever work environment your training students to enter.

If the parents haven't instilled that by the time they are 18, or their primary and secondary schools haven't, or they do not just have it within themselves, woe unto them.

I see your point, but at the same time, the schools that are putting a couple hundred people in a room for intro courses are still charging $20k+ a year.

Sure, but what happens when those couple hundred people are no longer taking intro courses?

It used to be that lower-level students were funding higher-level research - I don't know if that holds true anymore. I went to a very expensive private college, got out in 1999. People didn't even have cell phones yet. More than a few kids didn't have computers in their rooms (and again, this is at a very, very expensive school) - these were mostly the kids who were there only through heavy financial aid (and who were also uniformly among the most brilliant people there) - but there were a few (including myself for a while) who felt they didn't NEED one to get through college yet. I can't imagine that's the case today. Professors didn't have computers in classrooms, it was still overhead projectors. All this stuff is overhead, both for students and the university itself. Given the technological demands it has to be far more costly to educate students today even than it was just those short 10+ years ago.

the schools that are putting a couple hundred people in a room for intro courses are still charging $20k+ a year.

And usually funneling those couple hundred people into sections with TAs who are supervised by the instructor of record. I haven't had the pleasure of running a large lecture course yet, but I spent a few years in grad school as a TA for some excellent and well-liked profs (and a couple who weren't as well-liked or excellent). There were a lot of strategic discussions about how to teach material, what unexpected issues or topics were coming up with the students, what students seemed to be retaining from the lectures, ect. The largest class I TA'd for was around 400 students, and the prof was really helpful and curious about what was going on in discussion.

This isn't to say that new models won't emerge-- it's inevitable that they will-- just to say that it's erroneous to assume information flows only one way in a large lecture class.

If the parents haven't instilled that by the time they are 18, or their primary and secondary schools haven't, or they do not just have it within themselves, woe unto them.

We don't have an industrial model in the workplace any more. Primary and secondary schools still look like the industrial workplace. With how much work people are expected to do remotely, the concept of a "workplace" is even changing. Employers want to know that students can work in these new environments. A college degree provides some sort of vetting process for employers.

Why do textbooks, especially elementary, high school, and intro undergraduate textbooks, cost money at all? The fundamental content doesn't change -- where is the leverage of a brand new textbook? The fact that there's not widely adopted digital open-source textbooks amazes me.

In the case of my field (art history), the images of artworks appearing in the book each have to be licensed and paid for.

If the parents haven't instilled that by the time they are 18, or their primary and secondary schools haven't, or they do not just have it within themselves, woe unto them.

This is simply not true.

It used to be that lower-level students were funding higher-level research - I don't know if that holds true anymore.

Definitely true in the humanities -- the intro courses bring in the money that allows the upper-level stuff to be taught.

there were a few [students] (including myself for a while) who felt they didn't NEED one to get through college yet.

Right, but that's also a time when one didn't need a computer to get through modern life. I suspect that everyone in college has a computer because everyone has a computer.

All this stuff is overhead, both for students and the university itself. Given the technological demands it has to be far more costly to educate students today even than it was just those short 10+ years ago.

Right -- I can see an eager embrace of using technology to make education more expensive (or, at least, saying "Technology! Damn the cost!"), but not much traction in terms of using technology to make education cheaper, because, well, there's not much (direct) money in cheaper.

Definitely true in the humanities -- the intro courses bring in the money that allows the upper-level stuff to be taught.

This makes me think of a business model that has as bright of a future as print newspapers :)

Barry's Lazy Boy noted in 234 that students expect high-tech libraries because they don't want to learn by cracking a book. That's a really, really poor read on the situation (although it's certainly true that some students would rather not crack books). Schools are providing high-tech learning environments because that's the only way to prepare them for the work environments we're going to be sending them into.

The cracking a book part was snark. But I have trouble believing the argument that the library needs to have all this stuff so that students learn technology. There are technology classrooms and computer centers on campus, in addition to most students having their own technology. What technologies do they miss in class/centers/self that they need the library for?

How about the multiple coffee shops as part of the library? Are companies demanding that students are prepared for on-site coffee shops in the business world?

This makes me think of a business model that has as bright of a future as print newspapers

In all seriousness, can you suggest an alternate one?

How about the multiple coffee shops as part of the library? Are companies demanding that students are prepared for on-site coffee shops in the business world?

I expect the coffee shops serve the purpose of revenue maximization -- they're not adding to the cost of tuition.

In all seriousness, can you suggest an alternate one?

No, but I can recognize the risk in a model that says "I need to use the money A to fund B" as a longterm strategy. When someone starts doing A cheaper or better than you, B is in big trouble.

The cracking a book part was snark. But I have trouble believing the argument that the library needs to have all this stuff so that students learn technology.

Wait, are you arguing that libraries don't need computers? Where do you think research is done in 2012? I don't love the electronic subscription model, but one of the big virtues is that it allows for simultaneous viewing. I guess we could go back to bound journals and card catalogs, but if you're trying to prepare students for the information navigation environment they're going to be inhabiting, getting them used to working on multiple computing platforms seesm pretty prudent.

Plus, the library has working printers. It's amazing how many of my students don't actually have a printer at home.

How about the multiple coffee shops as part of the library? Are companies demanding that students are prepared for on-site coffee shops in the business world?

At my university, the coffee shop in the library charges money. So do the 3 Starbucks within a block of campus.

Isn't this an argument for free college as an effective means to bring down costs?

First, the argument isn't about the absolute level of costs but rather the rapid increase in costs. But, yes, all other things being equal an expansion of free tuition at public colleges would tend to rein in the increase in tuition at private colleges. Not the top tier private colleges, but otherwise yes. The proportion of public vs. private colleges is not as extreme as it is at HS, so the effect might not be as great as seen at the HS level. But it would likely have an effect for some time at mid-tier private colleges.

Unfortunately, as governments pick up the tab for whatever costs exist at public colleges those colleges will redefine upward "whatever costs exist" so they can get more money. As that happens, content providers - faculty, textbook publishers, food services, etc. - would increase their prices to get a share of the money. As content costs rise, and mid-tier private schools can't raise tuition without losing enrollment, eventually the low-tier and some mid-tier colleges go out of business.

As public colleges become free due to public funds, there would likely be a change in who goes to college. That they are going on someone else's dime, and wouldn't have gone otherwise - even when banks are handing out loans like candy on Halloween - suggests they might not have the incentive to work at it. Likewise, people who otherwise would have had loans but went to a free school instead would have a little less incentive to ensure good grades / graduation / job ensues from their collegiate experience. People do work harder when they have a personal stake. The proliferation of unmotivated students at free schools might also encourage the high-tier private schools to raise tuition, as the value of a degree from their school would only increase. (Besides, all that student loan money the banks can lend can now be spread among fewer people, which means those people can afford even costlier colleges.)

So, in the end, costs would be reined in for most individuals, but quality and overall cost could suffer.

- - - - -

As an aside... My own college, in the 10 years prior to my arrival, had added one building, a dorm that made up a bit for the low amount of on-campus housing. In my 4 years there, they added one more building, home to the growing computer science department. So, that's a rate of roughly 4 major infrastructure projects every 20 years, right?

In the 20 years since I left, they have added 4 buildings on campus (one dorm, a student center, a whole three-story building just for the admissions office, and a third athletics* building - so, uh, zero buildings for education), undergone major renovation/expansion of 3 buildings (one for education, two for what is termed "student life"), performed several major general landscape/beautification projects (including one that permanently closed the main street through campus to install a fountain), and built a huge office park nearby to attract businesses in the hope of encouraging them to partner with faculty for research. Yes, they all make the school nicer, more attractive, etc., but most of these are the kind of expenditures you don't make with a tight budget. They're the kind of expenditures you make if you have a lot more money than you need in the short run. They have it because they raised tuition; they raised tuition because they could; they could because the applicant pool could afford higher tuition; they could afford higher tuition because loans were easier to come by; they were easier to come by because banks didn't have to worry about defaults.

* Division III, BTW.

Sure, my college also spruced up their technology, which helps to prepare students for technology in a business environment. But the vast majority of their major expenditures in the last 20 years were around student comfort or school image, not educational quality.

No, but I can recognize the risk in a model that says "I need to use the money A to fund B" as a longterm strategy. When someone starts doing A cheaper or better than you, B is in big trouble.

I don't think anybody else is doing A, or even attempting to do it, but I could be wrong. I have a real concern, though, that the way A is being done these days, at least in my field, is almost worse than having no A at all. Of course, the way B is done in my field has pretty much jumped the shark, too.

Why do textbooks, especially elementary, high school, and intro undergraduate textbooks, cost money at all? The fundamental content doesn't change -- where is the leverage of a brand new textbook? The fact that there's not widely adopted digital open-source textbooks amazes me.



In the case of my field (art history), the images of artworks appearing in the book each have to be licensed and paid for.

The same is true of musical scores from beyond a certain time. In fields other than art and music, though, I can't for the life of me see why there hasn't been wholesale movement toward open source, free textbooks.

I'm also unconcerned about being replaced by a computer program or an online course model in music*; there needs to be a kind of interaction for music that can't come close to being duplicated in an online format yet (and for applied music, would require some kind of seamless holography--possible, perhaps, but not for decades most likely). I would have to think that lab-based science courses will still have to be done in actual physical proximity for a good while, too.

* That is, those musical disciplines that haven't jumped the shark, which is thankfully most of them (but not the one I've spent the last few years in ).

This is simply not true.

Well, who can argue with such a cogent argument.

In the 20 years since I left, they have added 4 buildings on campus (one dorm, a student center, a whole three-story building just for the admissions office, and a third athletics* building - so, uh, zero buildings for education), undergone major renovation/expansion of 3 buildings (one for education, two for what is termed "student life"), performed several major general landscape/beautification projects (including one that permanently closed the main street through campus to install a fountain), and built a huge office park nearby to attract businesses in the hope of encouraging them to partner with faculty for research. Yes, they all make the school nicer, more attractive, etc., but most of these are the kind of expenditures you don't make with a tight budget. They're the kind of expenditures you make if you have a lot more money than you need in the short run. They have it because they raised tuition; they raised tuition because they could; they could because the applicant pool could afford higher tuition; they could afford higher tuition because loans were easier to come by; they were easier to come by because banks didn't have to worry about defaults.

And this is why I'm having serious second thoughts about wading into that mess. Ultimately, though, (a) I have no other viable options, and (b), trite as it sounds, it's for the kids, and the kids aren't the ones screwing it all up. They come to the college that there is. There is no other college.

Wait, are you arguing that libraries don't need computers?

Nice straw man.

Where do you think research is done in 2012? I don't love the electronic subscription model, but one of the big virtues is that it allows for simultaneous viewing. I guess we could go back to bound journals and card catalogs, but if you're trying to prepare students for the information navigation environment they're going to be inhabiting, getting them used to working on multiple computing platforms seesm pretty prudent.

Plus, the library has working printers. It's amazing how many of my students don't actually have a printer at home.

The library was already chock full of computers and printers. Yet somehow it needed a $20M "transformation".

Its amazing how there are people who defend every bit of spending yet at the same time wonder why tuition is sky high.

The textbook thing is interesting to me. I think the problem is that there are plenty of fields that need updating from time to time. Certainly tech fields like computer science, etc., but I would think even other fields have research going on that changes things from time to time.

But be that as it may or not be that, I suspect the bigger issue is the publishers. Each year new students have to buy books. Sure, some can buy used, but not everyone sells their books back, and sooner or later books wear out. I expect that publishers make more money by releasing updated editions every year, forcing the class to buy all new books.

Wait, are you arguing that libraries don't need computers?

Nice straw man.

This is what you said:

But I have trouble believing the argument that the library needs to have all this stuff so that students learn technology.

I don't spend much time in my university's library (quick in and out to get books), but when I do pass through, the computers are packed with students. And there are a lot of them. Some of my students say they spend a lot of time on those computers, especially if they don't have access to a computer. And I teach at a state school-- many of them don't.

The library was already chock full of computers and printers. Yet somehow it needed a $20M "transformation".

I have no clue as to the specifics of your university's library renovations.

Its amazing how there are people who defend every bit of spending yet at the same time wonder why tuition is sky high.

Wait, what? There's real bloat at universities-- I'm not a fan of dining halls turning into "bistros", boutique dorms, and extra-large upper-level administrator salaries. No one tends to gripe louder about this stuff than faculty-- our wages have stayed pretty flat in the face of increasing workloads while upper-level admin salaries have skyrocketed. My point was to say that some of the cost is there specifically because employers have asked universities to provide training, and that in the past decade, as we increasingly require students with class material online, schools have had to work harder to ensure reliable access to computers.

I know some schools/programs require their students to buy laptops, but unless you're willing to go there, the university needs to provide access. And it's expensive.

Also, sometimes I think professors, etc. use the textbook system to line their pockets. Took a computer security course at Northwestern. The professor had a typical text book on the list, and a "supplement." The supplement turned out to be a black and white photocopy of a PowerPoint that he (the professor) had written. It was $45.

The supplement turned out to be a black and white photocopy of a PowerPoint that he (the professor) had written. It was $45.

The copy center sets those prices. The professor probably isn't seeing a penny of it.

[283] Doing "A" better: http://www.good.is/post/the-professor-behind-stanford-s-free-artificial-intelligence-class-launches-an-online-learning-platform/

The copy center sets those prices. The professor probably isn't seeing a penny of it.

The copy center's making out, though!

A couple of guys I went to college with founded Inkling, which is trying to design interactive textbooks for the iPad. Haven't tried the product yet (as I didn't have an iPad until yesterday, but my understanding is that they're trying to make textbooks better and also less expensive (by allowing people to purchase individual chapters when they don't need the whole textbook).

[283] Doing "A" better: http://www.good.is/post/the-professor-behind-stanford-s-free-artificial-intelligence-class-launches-an-online-learning-platform/

I was referring specifically to art history when I said that I didn't know if anyone else was even trying to do A (which I was defining as "teach art history to 200 people at a time").

They're the kind of expenditures you make if you have a lot more money than you need in the short run. They have it because they raised tuition; they raised tuition because they could; they could because the applicant pool could afford higher tuition; they could afford higher tuition because loans were easier to come by; they were easier to come by because banks didn't have to worry about defaults.

Just to inject some rounded and vaguely-remembered numbers into the conversation, I had a crappy (and short-lived) fundraising job at the Big Ten school I attended.

IIRC, tuition made up just under a quarter of the annual budget and state funding was about 30%. This was back around 2001.

My personal suspicion about all the various complaints arise from the fact that universities have become increasingly viewed as failures or successes based on the US News rankings of educational institutions. How else does the board of trustees examine the direction of the school?

There are a number of ways to increase that ranking and most of them are only tangentially related to your success at educating students. For instance, the raw numbers of your incoming class is a serious factor and schools drive that up by promoting their visibility which drives more applications, which presumably also means a larger number of elite students to fill your finite number of openings. A Big Ten public university doesn't need marketing to get a sufficient number of applicants - they spend so much effort on marketing to help compete for the best students.

As for the rising administration salaries... most universities (and certainly anything resembling an elite one) get most of their money through alumni donations. From where I sit, much of the administration jobs are PR of one form or another and the bloated salaries are a reflection of the fact that alumni donations are huge and critical parts of what the school does.

Finally, I think the tuition raises at the established universities are less of a crime against humanity than a number of these community colleges. I'm going to sound elitist here but somebody I know is getting a bachelor's from some random college in some random business major. His grade is based off of short multiple choice quizzes he takes online (with a time limit) where he just googles the answers. He thinks he's beating the system but I want to grab him by the shoulders and tell him he's flushing his money away on something completely worthless and he isn't alone.

There's an article on ESPN right now about P. Diddy's (estimated worth: $550 million) son accepting a scholarship to play football at UCLA (valued at $54,000 - I assume, as an out-of-state resident, that's per year?) and their response. Link

The supplement turned out to be a black and white photocopy of a PowerPoint that he (the professor) had written. It was $45.

The copy center sets those prices. The professor probably isn't seeing a penny of it.

No, not in this case. I'd used the copy center myself. No way did photocopying 20 sheets of paper cost anywhere near $45. Were they expensive compared to Kinko's? You bet. But c'mon.

ETA: And if that's the case, why doesn't he just go photocopy them at Kinko's and distribute them as handouts? You know, like in every other class I've ever been in.

OR...why not just make the PowerPoint available digitally? It's a Comp Sci class; I'm pretty sure everyone there knew how to download a file. Or copy it to a flash drive. Or...well, you get the point. In fact, I asked him about getting a soft copy, and he adamantly refused.

There are a number of ways to increase that ranking and most of them are only tangentially related to your success at educating students. For instance, the raw numbers of your incoming class is a serious factor and schools drive that up by promoting their visibility which drives more applications, which presumably also means a larger number of elite students to fill your finite number of openings. A Big Ten public university doesn't need marketing to get a sufficient number of applicants - they spend so much effort on marketing to help compete for the best students.

I was just going to add something like this - a lot of the USA Today ranking components are based on financials. At least as I recall endowment and endowment per student both matter, and then things which are tangentially related to financials - teacher/student ratio, etc.


There's a lot of truth in everything everyone's saying. Like most big problems, increasing college costs are the result of a lot of different factors pulling in a lot of different directions, with no one simple fix.

There's an article on ESPN right now about P. Diddy's (estimated worth: $550 million) son accepting a scholarship to play football at UCLA (valued at $54,000 - I assume, as an out-of-state resident, that's per year?) and their response

I'm guessing that when Diddy Junior leaves UCLA and gets a job - whether it's with the NFL, Taco Bell or anywhere in between - his employer will also offer him something of value for his services.

flip