5 ms·

Want to make college more affordable? Reform the accreditation system

HarryHirsch 9y ago
It's difficult to follow the line of argument, but it seems to go like this: accreditation is de facto mandatory and creates an artificial shortage of colleges, keeping tuition high. By getting rid of accreditation new players will enter the education market and competition will reduce prices. It's at odds with reality. Accreditation has been around since the 1900s, whereas tuition began to rise disproportionately in the mid-1980s. Also, bootcamps are very lightly regulated, and we are seeing that market collapse. Why not try what works in most European countries: fund colleges adequately and shift the burden of the cost from the individual to society as a whole?
- orf 9y ago
  Because shifting the burden to society is akin to the dreaded socialism and we cannot have any of that now can we. Bootstraps not supplied sonny jim.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  There's a sizeable minority that believes that we already have too many college grads [1] and that the number of college educated jobs in the United States will continue to decrease due to automation and outsourcing/globalization. That camp certainly won't be up for shouldering the cost of something that they think there's already too much of. [1] and possibly that the ones who do need it will be able to pay off college debt reasonably... which I don't think is quite true but I sort of understand the reasoning that making college affordable for those who really should get it and making college affordable for everyone even those who won't actually make a productive use of it are two different things.
- tylerhou 9y ago
  > accreditation is de facto mandatory and creates an artificial shortage of colleges, keeping tuition high. More specifically, it creates an artificial shortage of affordable colleges, i.e., those which offer federally assisted financial aid programs. > Why not try what works in most European countries: fund colleges adequately and shift the burden of the cost from the individual to society as a whole? This article seems to offer a solution in line with some European countries --- most notably, Germany, which famously has a dual education system [1]. Not everyone needs to go to college, and I think there's a high likelihood that not everyone should, given the success rates of vocational high schools and equivalent colleges. I also don't think that free or reduced college costs make sense or are a net-positive for society in general. For one, college is essentially an investment which increases your earnings potential over time. Subsidizing college is approximately like society giving 17/18 year olds free money (to the order of >$100,000) to invest. I don't think society giving away money on the order of 6 figures is a good idea, not to mention that you would run to severe problems such as misaligned incentives/principal agent. Furthermore, free or heavily subsidized college seems to disproportionately benefit the class of U.S. citizens who most likely go to college, i.e. upper-middle-class families, which I don't think need the most help right now. (I've heard rumors that college-as-an-investment might not be the best analogy; please correct me if that's true/I'm wrong.) [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dual_education_system https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dual_education_system

It's difficult to follow the line of argument, but it seems to go like this: accreditation is de facto mandatory and creates an artificial shortage of colleges, keeping tuition high. By getting rid of accreditation new players will enter the education market and competition will reduce prices. It's at odds with reality. Accreditation has been around since the 1900s, whereas tuition began to rise disproportionately in the mid-1980s. Also, bootcamps are very lightly regulated, and we are seeing that market collapse. Why not try what works in most European countries: fund colleges adequately and shift the burden of the cost from the individual to society as a whole?

orf 9y ago
Because shifting the burden to society is akin to the dreaded socialism and we cannot have any of that now can we. Bootstraps not supplied sonny jim.
hkmurakami 9y ago
There's a sizeable minority that believes that we already have too many college grads [1] and that the number of college educated jobs in the United States will continue to decrease due to automation and outsourcing/globalization. That camp certainly won't be up for shouldering the cost of something that they think there's already too much of. [1] and possibly that the ones who do need it will be able to pay off college debt reasonably... which I don't think is quite true but I sort of understand the reasoning that making college affordable for those who really should get it and making college affordable for everyone even those who won't actually make a productive use of it are two different things.
tylerhou 9y ago
> accreditation is de facto mandatory and creates an artificial shortage of colleges, keeping tuition high. More specifically, it creates an artificial shortage of affordable colleges, i.e., those which offer federally assisted financial aid programs. > Why not try what works in most European countries: fund colleges adequately and shift the burden of the cost from the individual to society as a whole? This article seems to offer a solution in line with some European countries --- most notably, Germany, which famously has a dual education system [1]. Not everyone needs to go to college, and I think there's a high likelihood that not everyone should, given the success rates of vocational high schools and equivalent colleges. I also don't think that free or reduced college costs make sense or are a net-positive for society in general. For one, college is essentially an investment which increases your earnings potential over time. Subsidizing college is approximately like society giving 17/18 year olds free money (to the order of >$100,000) to invest. I don't think society giving away money on the order of 6 figures is a good idea, not to mention that you would run to severe problems such as misaligned incentives/principal agent. Furthermore, free or heavily subsidized college seems to disproportionately benefit the class of U.S. citizens who most likely go to college, i.e. upper-middle-class families, which I don't think need the most help right now. (I've heard rumors that college-as-an-investment might not be the best analogy; please correct me if that's true/I'm wrong.) [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dual_education_system https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dual_education_system