3 ms·

Your source is hardly a valid one. It gives statistics but does not cite the source of the statistics. The paper you cited contains statements like this: "In

Your source is hardly a valid one. It gives statistics but does not cite the source of the statistics. The paper you cited contains statements like this: "Increases in net tuition have significantly, but not completely replaced the decline in state support per student from 2001 to 2005. In 2001 total revenue per FTE was $10,100 in 2005 dollars, essentially an all time high. It dropped 8.8% to $9,212 by 2005. While this is a material decrease from the high point in 2001, it is roughly the level of funding available in the early 1990s. " The author thinks that since the funding per FTE student in 2005 is roughly the same as in the early 90's there has been no decline. This is an astoundingly bad conclusion. There is a thing called inflation. There is no reason to believe that since $9,000 per student was spent in the early 90s then this same amount ought to be adequate in 2005. The author also writes: "This amounted to about $10,000 per FTE student in financial aid, half grants and half loans and work study." See, he counts as part of his funding per student debt that the student acquires in order to attend school. When a student acquires debt to pay for his/her tuition then this can't be counted as part of government funding for higher education. The only part of this debt that can be counted is the reduced cost in interest payments due to any federal guarantees of such loans. In another place the author writes: "The State Higher Education Finance study, done annually by SHEEO, shows “net tuition” (tuition revenues less waivers and student aid from state and institutional sources) has grown from 22% of total expenditures in 1981, to 26% in 1991, to 37% in 2005. This is a worrisome trend. " Later the author writes: "Increases in net tuition have significantly, but not completely replaced the decline in state support per student from 2001 to 2005. " It's a bad paper and a bad source of information.

bokonist 17y ago
So what is your source? The author is controlling for inflation, that's why he says, in 2005 dollars, meaning inflation adjusted dollars. I don't think it's a particular good piece, since he doesn't cite the raw sources, which is what I'd want to look at. But it's enough to question your original statement that inflation adjusted, per student state funding of education has decreased over the past thirty years. Do you have a better source? I do agree that net tuition has increased. But that's because the universities have allowed costs to increase at a much greater rate than inflation. The solution is to control costs, not to complain about under funding.
- yequalsx 17y ago
  The author of the paper you cited explains that funding per student has declined from 2001 to 2005. He says that in 2000 funding was at an all time high. This is so because of the Clinton presidency and the economic boom. Sorry, I didn't read the part of the 2005 dollars. I suspected but didn't find it in the paper. I retract my paragraph that this relates to.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    You originally stated that, "Over the past 30 years funding per student has declined". What is your evidence for this? The paper I cited states that funding had no general trend over the time period, although with ups and downs based on the economy (for instance it declined from 2001 to 2005).

bokonist 17y ago

So what is your source? The author is controlling for inflation, that's why he says, in 2005 dollars, meaning inflation adjusted dollars. I don't think it's a particular good piece, since he doesn't cite the raw sources, which is what I'd want to look at. But it's enough to question your original statement that inflation adjusted, per student state funding of education has decreased over the past thirty years. Do you have a better source? I do agree that net tuition has increased. But that's because the universities have allowed costs to increase at a much greater rate than inflation. The solution is to control costs, not to complain about under funding.

yequalsx 17y ago
The author of the paper you cited explains that funding per student has declined from 2001 to 2005. He says that in 2000 funding was at an all time high. This is so because of the Clinton presidency and the economic boom. Sorry, I didn't read the part of the 2005 dollars. I suspected but didn't find it in the paper. I retract my paragraph that this relates to.
- bokonist 17y ago
  You originally stated that, "Over the past 30 years funding per student has declined". What is your evidence for this? The paper I cited states that funding had no general trend over the time period, although with ups and downs based on the economy (for instance it declined from 2001 to 2005).