4 ms·

It’s mostly because financing by the states has disappeared though.

jimhefferon 9y ago
This is right. We used to all agree, as a society, that we would all benefit by people educating themselves, becoming then next generation of civil engineers, doctors managers, and maybe poets. But we no longer believe that, we believe that people should pay for it themselves.
- JPKab 9y ago
  I think that your viewpoint focuses on the people paying, but you are ignoring the people taking. It's not fair to ask people to simply pay, and not allow them to hold the institutions accountable. Universities are packed with dead weight professors, dead weight majors, and dead weight administrators who take advantage of the blind belief that a bachelor's degree in anything is better than nothing. The University of Florida got rid of its Computer Science program a few years ago, while expanding it's English department. Do you think that was a wise use of Florida taxpayer's dollars?
  - robmass94 9y ago
    >The University of Florida got rid of its Computer Science program a few years ago, while expanding it's English department. That isn't accurate. There were boneheaded plans in 2012 to eliminate the CS department (but still have a program), but they were abandoned.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  No other county in the world requires about twice the average annual income per year to cover the expenses of enrolling a single student in a university degree. When a college degree is so expensive, the problem doesn't lie in the university's revenue.
jimbokun 9y ago
Shut down all of the state and federal loan programs, and plow all of that money into investing in the state university systems, with nominal tuition fees. Stop plowing tax dollars into multi-million dollar executive salaries, that do nothing to improve higher education. All of the boards of trustees in the article brazenly brag about how the compensation for these people is only based on "fund raising", not about providing quality educations at low cost. So let them continue charging independently wealthy individuals $50,000 / year to educate their children, but it is obscene that a single dime of public money is being handed to these people.
pitt1980 9y ago
But the available research suggests that if state lawmakers increased appropriations for public colleges and universities, it would be unlikely to have an effect as large as advocates assume. More state funding appears to buy pennies on the dollar in lower tuition. That makes increasing appropriations for public colleges and universities an ineffective—even wasteful—policy for keeping tuition low. It also implies that grant aid might deliver more bang for the buck than larger state appropriations. What might explain why appropriations have such weak effect on tuition? Again, the studies discussed above do not offer much explanation, but two theories come to mind: perhaps universities look to exploit their pricing power in the market leading them to raise tuition whether appropriations rise or fall; or maybe when faced with a reduction in state funding, universities cut spending instead of raising tuition dollar for dollar. Those are excellent theories for future research to test. To be sure, the research on the effects of state disinvestment is severely limited, and further work may yet find a stronger effect on tuition. But limitations are not a reason to continue assuming the effects are as large as many have claimed. Just the opposite. The fact that the research is limited, and that it shows state disinvestment is not a major cause of rising tuition, are reasons to doubt the state disinvestment argument and the policy agenda attached to it. Researchers should see this as a call to action. They should be putting at least as much effort into measuring the effects of state appropriations on tuition as they do the Bennett Hypothesis—and employing the same rigorous analytical methods. They can also help determine what factors really are the primary drivers of tuition increases at public colleges if appropriations matter so little. Journalists should also change their approach in light of the evidence on state disinvestment. They should hold claims about the effects of state disinvestment on tuition to the same standards of evidence as they do claims about the Bennett Hypothesis. Meanwhile, it is time to start calling the claim that state funding cuts are the primary driver of rising tuition what it really is: the state disinvestment hypothesis. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-disinvestment-hypothesis-dont-blame-state-budget-cuts-for-rising-tuition-at-public-universities/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-disinvestment-hypothe...
geezerjay 9y ago
> It’s mostly because financing by the states has disappeared though. State financing affects revenue, but requiring $50k per student just to operate is a problem that lies exclusively on the expenditure. Throwing more money at this problem won't fix it. It will only make it worse.

This is right. We used to all agree, as a society, that we would all benefit by people educating themselves, becoming then next generation of civil engineers, doctors managers, and maybe poets. But we no longer believe that, we believe that people should pay for it themselves.

JPKab 9y ago
I think that your viewpoint focuses on the people paying, but you are ignoring the people taking. It's not fair to ask people to simply pay, and not allow them to hold the institutions accountable. Universities are packed with dead weight professors, dead weight majors, and dead weight administrators who take advantage of the blind belief that a bachelor's degree in anything is better than nothing. The University of Florida got rid of its Computer Science program a few years ago, while expanding it's English department. Do you think that was a wise use of Florida taxpayer's dollars?
- robmass94 9y ago
  >The University of Florida got rid of its Computer Science program a few years ago, while expanding it's English department. That isn't accurate. There were boneheaded plans in 2012 to eliminate the CS department (but still have a program), but they were abandoned.
geezerjay 9y ago
No other county in the world requires about twice the average annual income per year to cover the expenses of enrolling a single student in a university degree. When a college degree is so expensive, the problem doesn't lie in the university's revenue.

jimbokun 9y ago

Shut down all of the state and federal loan programs, and plow all of that money into investing in the state university systems, with nominal tuition fees. Stop plowing tax dollars into multi-million dollar executive salaries, that do nothing to improve higher education. All of the boards of trustees in the article brazenly brag about how the compensation for these people is only based on "fund raising", not about providing quality educations at low cost. So let them continue charging independently wealthy individuals $50,000 / year to educate their children, but it is obscene that a single dime of public money is being handed to these people.

pitt1980 9y ago

But the available research suggests that if state lawmakers increased appropriations for public colleges and universities, it would be unlikely to have an effect as large as advocates assume. More state funding appears to buy pennies on the dollar in lower tuition. That makes increasing appropriations for public colleges and universities an ineffective—even wasteful—policy for keeping tuition low. It also implies that grant aid might deliver more bang for the buck than larger state appropriations. What might explain why appropriations have such weak effect on tuition? Again, the studies discussed above do not offer much explanation, but two theories come to mind: perhaps universities look to exploit their pricing power in the market leading them to raise tuition whether appropriations rise or fall; or maybe when faced with a reduction in state funding, universities cut spending instead of raising tuition dollar for dollar. Those are excellent theories for future research to test. To be sure, the research on the effects of state disinvestment is severely limited, and further work may yet find a stronger effect on tuition. But limitations are not a reason to continue assuming the effects are as large as many have claimed. Just the opposite. The fact that the research is limited, and that it shows state disinvestment is not a major cause of rising tuition, are reasons to doubt the state disinvestment argument and the policy agenda attached to it. Researchers should see this as a call to action. They should be putting at least as much effort into measuring the effects of state appropriations on tuition as they do the Bennett Hypothesis—and employing the same rigorous analytical methods. They can also help determine what factors really are the primary drivers of tuition increases at public colleges if appropriations matter so little. Journalists should also change their approach in light of the evidence on state disinvestment. They should hold claims about the effects of state disinvestment on tuition to the same standards of evidence as they do claims about the Bennett Hypothesis. Meanwhile, it is time to start calling the claim that state funding cuts are the primary driver of rising tuition what it really is: the state disinvestment hypothesis. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-disinvestment-hypothesis-dont-blame-state-budget-cuts-for-rising-tuition-at-public-universities/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-disinvestment-hypothe...

geezerjay 9y ago

> It’s mostly because financing by the states has disappeared though. State financing affects revenue, but requiring $50k per student just to operate is a problem that lies exclusively on the expenditure. Throwing more money at this problem won't fix it. It will only make it worse.