<p>No, I don’t. The average Pell Grant during the Bush years was around 2500.00. Most of the really expensive schools had less than 10% Pell grant recipients attend during that time. Please explain how giving about 5% of the total cost to less than 10% of the attendees drives up the cost.</p>
<p>Oversupply of applicants (customers) means greater demand and gives the company (i.e. Universities) the ability to raise prices without a drop off in business. Throw in funny money from the government, and it causes prices to rise even further.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, you’re the one making the Keynesian aggregate demand argument.</p>
<p>Sure, federal FA expands access to higher education, creating additional demand, especially at the lower end of the market, in community colleges and second- and third-tier state universities where most Pell grants are awarded and where Pell grants + federal student loans represent the largest fraction of tuition costs. And if the supply of higher education services were somehow fixed or inelastic, that would tend to drive up prices. But supply is elastic. More demand leads to growth in the number of seats in community colleges and lower-tier public universities. Eliminate federal FA and the result will simply be that community colleges and lower-tier public universities shrink, cut programs and course offerings, or close their doors entirely. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the effect higher up in the food chain would be minimal. A Pell grant represents about 10% of the cost of Harvard’s tuition, and only 15% of Harvard students receive them; eliminate them, and it represents about $4 million in revenue that Harvard needs to make up elsewhere, probably through some minor tweaks elsewhere in its $180 million FA budget (of which Pell grants represent about 2.2%), such as making minor adjustments in FA eligibility at the top end, or by raising tuition by $4 million, either of which marginally raises costs for affluent students. Same for federal loans, which are of negligible consequence at Harvard. Harvard is expensive because it’s Harvard, and people would be clamoring to get in–i.e., there would be far more demand than there are seats–even without federal FA, which in point of fact plays almost no role in creating that demand. As a non-profit, Harvard doesn’t use that excess demand as an opportunity to raise prices; it could easily fill all its seats with full pays at double the tuition if were seeking to turn a profit, but instead it elects to moderate tuition increases and give steep discounts to some consumers (clearly not something a for-profit business would do in that circumstance, which is where your business analogy falls flat on its face), and seizes the opportunity created by all that demand to make itself ever-more selective in its admission policies. Yes, prices have risen at elite private colleges and universities, but according to NCES data the biggest run-up came in the 1980s (+53% in constant dollars) and have actually moderated since then (+26% in the 1990s, +16% in 2000-2010, +1.3% since President Obama took office).</p>
<p>Cutting federal FA would devastate community colleges and second- and third-tier public universities, i.e., the cheapest end of the market, and one already reeling from deep state budget cuts in many states. It would simply mean that far fewer people go to college, and many others would see a reduced range of opportunities as schools closed and programs were shrunk or eliminated. Again, supply in that end of the market is elastic; if demand shrinks, so will supply. Meanwhile, prices at the top end of the market will be unaffected, because there will always be more demand for seats at Harvard that there are seats available, even if the federal government eliminates all federal FA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with ExhaustedDad here - government lending has artificially increased the demand for education. </p>
<p>But, to your point, you say this as if it’s a bad thing. Right now 50% of recent college grads are either unemployed or underemployed (working a job that doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree). Closing a lot of these lower ranked schools with poor employment rates is a good idea, because it saves students from student loan debt and the schools don’t improve job prospects anyway. </p>
<p>The idea that everyone is entitled to a college degree devalues a college degree. Going to college should be a right, not an entitlement thrown at everyone, including idiots. I think the Boomer propaganda of “everyone should go to college” and “college improves your life” has become more and more farcical, especially since colleges teach a lot of useless, unemployable BS (not the degree) and admissions standards at a lot of these “universities” are nonexistent. The statistics speak for themselves - half of recent college grads are unemployed or underemployed. Maybe these lower-tiered schools, which presumably have higher unemployment rates, should be shut down.</p>
<p>clonetox, with you on that one. I know here in California the top 33% of HS graduates are supposed to be able to get into the California State College System. That being said, more than 50% of those HS graduates need to be taught remedial English and/or math once admitted. </p>
<p>In fact: “According to information made public by CSU, system-wide the bulk of entering first-time freshmen (60 percent) needed remedial courses. While at some CSU campuses, more than 75 percent needed remediation. The California Faculty Association reported that, in 2009, the level reached 93 percent at one campus, Dominguez Hills.” NINETY THREE PERCENT NEEDED REMEDIAL MATH AND ENGLISH??? Guessing there were millions upon million of federal monies supporting these 93%. WHY?? They simply should not even be on a college campus, period! Just pushes the supply of students up further driving demand and the cost of college skyward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the claim that has been made repeatedly but just hasn’t been demonstrated in this discussion. How, exactly, does the fact that the federal government enables a student to attend a community college that wouldn’t even exist absent federal help, drive up the cost at some school further up the food chain? This strikes me as ideological cant, not reasoned analysis. Explain to me how this works. How does the fact that my neighbor’s kid attends our local community college on a Pell grant and a federal loan to learn to be an automotive service technician–a trade very much in demand in our area, and one that promises substantially higher lifetime earnings than he’d make flipping burgers at McDonald’s–drives up the cost of my other neighbor attending Harvard? Or for that matter, how it affects the cost of a third neighbor attending our local public flagship? These people just aren’t playing in the same markets. It’s like saying if the government subsidizes bicycles or bus transit, it drives up the cost of a BMW. No, it just doesn’t work that way. It makes no sense.</p>
<p>I understand you want to shut down community colleges and deny my neighbor’s kid the opportunity to be an auto mechanic because he wasn’t a great student in HS and has some deficiencies in English and math. Fine. I’m glad we live in different states, and I hope never to be in your state when my car breaks down.</p>
<p>And it’s not just auto mechanics, by the way. Our local community college was rated #1 in the country by Washington Monthly for creating upward social mobility, with vocational programs in such areas as accounting, computer graphics, food service management, manufacturing technology, medical lab technology, medical office careers, plumbing, practical nursing, welding, and many more, in addition to liberal arts and pre-engineering programs aimed at preparing students to transfer to a 4-year college or university. Our community would be poorer and more dysfunctional without skilled people in these vocations, and lacking the social mobility and educational opportunities our community college provides. Are the kids who go there Harvard material? Of course not. Should they nonetheless have the opportunity to move up in the world educationally and economically, as far as their capabilities will take them? Of course they should.</p>
<p>its alright</p>
<p>bc, I am not for closing down Junior Colleges as some of them actually provide “job training”, as you note, for those not seeking a four year degree. What I would shut down is a State College who has to provide remedial math and/or English to 93% of their accepted Freshman. Sorry, I’m not paying for that with my taxes which had already been spent on a seemingly pathetic K-12 experience for all of these students.</p>
<p>As for Pell grants, I am not against them, but I sure would love to see the outcomes of that $39 BILLION (do you get the size and scope of that number yet???) spent last year via those grants. Guessing that the ROI is pretty poor. As a perfect example, the State College mentioned above, Cal State Dominguez Hills, has a graduation rate of under 30% (TOTAL, AFTER SIX YEARS!). Almost 50% of the students at that university are there with the aid of Pell Grants. So, using a simple statistical calculation (i.e facts for you folks of the liberal persuasion), one would assume that only 30% of those students graduate (probably less). So, of the more than 6,000 students currently getting those grants less then 2,000 will graduate. That, my dear friend, is a very, very poor ROI (that’s return on Investment for those working in the Public sector).</p>
<p>Well, actually, exhausted dad, if you look at the employment and earning over a lifetime statistics, those with “some college” which is an actual category, earn more than those with only a high school degree. So, I guess there does need to be some perspective.</p>
<p>I have no problem with the pell except I do not believe it is nearly enough money and feel if it were still the same percentage of tuition that it was when it was first introduced, we would see many more successful college graduates in this group. The pressure on impoverished students, when compared to higher SES groups, is staggering. The majority of them are working real jobs, in addition to attending full time classes. </p>
<p>As for the undischargable parent loans? i agree with you that these are just wrong. they are administered in a very irresponsible fashion because even the private parent education loans are undischargable in bankruptcy. if this were not the case? Banks would not lend most of those people money. Even when kids take loans which require co-signors, since it is not dischargable and practically risk-free for the bank, they loan to people with no hope of repaying. This leads to upward pressure on tuition, for sure.</p>
<p>But those loans aren’t guaranteed by the taxpayers.</p>
<p>As for the community college? I think it is one of the best things we do here in the States, and I think it represents the best opportunity for a lower SES student to get an affordable education, and I am for it, completely. if a kid needs remediation, more often than not, it is the fault of the spotty K-12 system, and nobody should be penalized for having to live in a bad school district as a kid. Sorry. They just should not.</p>
<p>In these areas I agree with Bclintonk. However, the salaries of administrators in the university systems are an outrage, imho. We don’t need robber baron pricetags in non-profits and state institutions. sorry. It’s too much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to ask you to please refrain from the snarky, puerile political jabs, which in any event are inconsistent with CC’s terms of service.</p>
<p>I’m just not sure that it’s sensible to measure the value of college education exclusively by graduation rates. Studies show that people with some college have measurably better job, career, and lifetime earnings prospects than people with no college. Of course we want to encourage as many as possible actually to graduate, but for some that just doesn’t work out. Often it’s a financial question. A Pell grant isn’t a free ride; many, possibly most, Pell grant recipients also need to work, and many have competing family obligations which may force college to take a back seat, even after a promising start. Others reach their limit academically. But before we start making grand pronouncements about return on investment based solely on the metric of graduation rates, perhaps it is worth examining what it is worth, in cold hard cash, for those who try to earn a college degree to walk away from it with at least a year, or two, or three of college, but not the degree; and, what is harder to measure, what it is worth to us as a society to have those people better equipped to do jobs that they would not have been capable of without even that modicum of higher education.</p>
<p>Are you proposing that they not even try? And how are we to determine, ex ante, which of them will complete a 4-year degree, and which won’t? And what would you do with those you exclude? Maybe it’s a seasonal thing, but your callous dismissal of these people reminds of a tale about a certain Ebenezer Scrooge who, when confronted with the harsh reality of mass poverty, thundered “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” My point is that is may be worth something to us as a society–perhaps a great deal-- to create avenues of opportunity for people to have a chance to improve their lot in life, even if we know in advance that a certain percentage of them will not ultimately succeed. Historically, that’s who we have been as a nation. And that needs to be counted in ROI as well.</p>
<p>As for remedial math and English: well, yes, it’s unfortunate that our K-12 educational system does such a poor job. That’s a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But I’m not sure the sensible response is to say to people who come out of that system with deficient math and/or English skills but want to improve those skills, that they shouldn’t have a second chance. Maybe there’s someplace better to do it than a 4-year college; traditionally, this is another role community colleges have played. But I’ll tell you what, not just for what it means for the lifetime earning prospects of the individuals involved, but for what it means for my own quality of life, I want to see those people upgrading those skills. I just can’t tell you how many times in recent months I’ve encountered cashiers who were so innumerate that they were incapable of giving correct change, and I had t walk them through the arithmetic step by step. Every time that happens I think, “Jeez, our schools must be terrible; but this person would be better off, and I’d be better off, and her employer would be better off, if there were a way to get her a little remedial math.” There’s value in that.</p>
<p>BC, again, you simply avoid the subject. Please attempt to wiggle and squirm your way out of the fact that only 30% of the students admitted to this California State University graduate. Is that a good use of state funds, to prop up a very unsuccessful institution of “higher learning” whose outcomes are so poor? Seriously, address the subject at hand as you know that this figure has got be be very similar to every other states lower performing state universities/colleges. Let alone the billions tossed at the JC’s much of which simply goes down the drain. Simply put, in any way shape or form, the return on investement of Pell grants is poor. Sure feeeels good though, and that’s what counts (chuckle, chuckle); sorry, that aint the real world. As for the “snarky” comments, sorry if I hit a chord…</p>
<p>Poetgirl, with regards to “some college”, seriously? As for the ROI on that, what, it keeps some off of welfare or from getting food stamps? Please, let’s call a spade a spade and agree that many, many of those enrolling in a four year university simply don’t belong there and should be at a JC, at best, learning a vocation (nothing wrong with that). In fact, that’s exactly what JC’s should be, vocational schools. The ROI on that would be astronomical.</p>
<p>Well, I think there is a place for vocational training in the community college, but around here, given the absolutely astronomical cost of even a state education in Illinois, many of our top low SES students go to CCollege and take advantage of the articulation agreement between them and the four year colleges to reduce their cost of attendance and loans to a managable amount.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot decry the cost of loans and then penalize the responsible students at the same time.</p>
<p>I “get” what you are saying, but I also have to say that I feel we need to make sure that we have affordable educational options for those who want a college education and the community college is one of these paths in many states, including, as far as I know, Illinois, North Carolina, New York, California, and Virginia, just to name a few.</p>
<p>I do not think these institutions should be offering only vocational degrees and certificates, though I do believe they should ALSO be offering vocational degrees and certificates.</p>
<p>poetgirl, guessing that most of those receiving Pell Grants to JC’s simply don’t move on to four year schools. Now, I obviously could be wrong, but I would bet the percentages are very, very low. So, since tax dollars are scarce (or should be), those in the Department of Education need to publish a study on this very issue. Alas, since the Dept of Education shouldn’t even exist, they will never do any research on the ROI on Pell Grants in the name of job protection…</p>
<p>You know, I think it might be useful to take a look at what is happening with pell students, and also “why.” Part of it may well be the immense financial pressure they are under since the pell does very little to defray the cost of college.</p>
<p>Your pell student is not having some frivolous academic beerfest on the taxpayer. Most of them are working full time jobs. So, the question of why they are not getting the education we need them to get to fund the social security system we all seem to depend on in this country would be an important one to get answered. I agree with you there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. Studies have shown that those with “some college” but no college degree earn, on average, $250,000 more over the course of a lifetime than those with only a HS diploma. I’d say that’s a pretty good ROI on 3 or 4 years of a Pell grant at an average of $4,000/year; or even 6 years, for that matter. That’s still a payout of about $10 on each dollar invested. (Some, of course, will be lower, but some will be higher).</p>
<p>For college graduates the payout is much, much higher. The holder of a bachelor’s degree earns, on average, $1 million more over the course of a lifetime than the average holder of only a HS diploma. So is it worth it to invest $16,000 or $24,000 in 4 or 6 years of Pell grants to support undergraduate education at a school where only 30% earn their degrees? Well, let’s do the math. The 30% who graduate will, on average earn $1 million more than those who stop at a HS degree. So even if we give zero credit to the additional lifetime earnings of those who start the process and end with “some college” but not a college degree, simple arithmetic tells us that, on average, the students going through this college will earn $300,000 more over the course of their lifetimes ($1 million X 30%) than those who never start–and that’s taking into account a 70% attrition rate. So, a public investment of $16K to $24K, to produce additional lifetime earnings (on average) of $300K? Sounds like a pretty fabulous ROI to me. </p>
<p>And of course, an honest accounting would need to add the additional lifetime earnings of those who end with “some college.” So let’s see: an additional $250K (on average) for the 70% who start but don’t graduate, plus an additional $1 million for the 30% who do graduate. Seems to me that works out to an average of $475,000 in additional lifetime earnings for those who begin at that college–calculated on the basis of its 30% graduation rate.</p>
<p>On a $24,000 investment? Sounds like an outstanding ROI to me. Not to mention the avoided public welfare, Medicaid, public safety, and incarceration costs (currently in excess of $30K per annum per prisoner, on average, and much higher in some jurisdictions), which would only tilt the balance further in the direction of this being an outstanding investment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you would be wrong. And why do you insist on never giving the benefit of the doubt to low-income students who are striving mightily to better themselves? </p>
<p>In California, 28% of those graduating from 4-year schools in the University of California system and 55% of those graduating from the Cal State system started at a community college. That’s one heck of a lot of college graduates. Now concededly, many more people start in the California community college system than ever earn a 4-year degree. But so what? Should we brand as “failures” all those who start with the dream of a 4-year degree, but only make it as far as, let’s say, a 2-year associate’s degree? Fact is, the BLS says job growth will be stronger for those with 2-year degrees than for those with 4-year degrees for the foreseeable future. A 2-year degree is a heck of a lot better than a HS diploma in the job market. and personally, I think we should applaud those striving to improve themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, rather than denigrating them and pushing them down, as you seem so keen to do.</p>
<p>Also, many of those who start in a community college have no intention of going further. It’s estimated hat 70% of California’s nurses and 80% of its firefighters, cops, and EMTs were trained at community colleges. These are honorable, noble, and vitally necessary professions. Many, probably most of these people got their training with the assistance of Pell grants. Why do you mock and ridicule them as failures?</p>
<p>[Data</a> show key role for community colleges in 4-year degree production | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/10/data-show-key-role-community-colleges-4-year-degree-production]Data”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/10/data-show-key-role-community-colleges-4-year-degree-production)</p>
<p>from the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you need to examine your assumptions EDad.</p>
<p>Here’s some stat info on pell grant recipients.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.finaid.org/educators/ProfileofPellGrantRecipients.pdf[/url]”>http://www.finaid.org/educators/ProfileofPellGrantRecipients.pdf</a></p>
<p>BC states, “Studies have shown that those with “some college” but no college degree earn, on average, $250,000 more over the course of a lifetime than those with only a HS diploma.” That may be true BC, but it doesn’t show any correlation with those with Pell Grants (government handouts), it is a statistic regarding the general population. Again, if you wish to sidestep the facts, which were presented in the case of Cal State Dominguez Hills, then I know rational debate on the subject is impossible (again, avoid all facts and rely solely on “feelings”).</p>
<p>Outcomes BC, it’s about outcomes of those getting the “free ride” from the taxpayers dollars. In the case of Cal State DH, I can assure you, it’s a boondoggle at best. A 30% graduation rate after six years…yea BC, great ROI of our taxpayer dollars supporting the Cal State University System. Please defend if at all possible (chuckle, chuckle)…</p>
<p>Seriously, you are in the Public Sector or work for or at a University, correct?</p>
<p>Poetgirl, since that study was from a source whose bias is towards supporting higher education, I would take it with a grain of salt. The following quote from that piece is stretching the truth without looking at the underlying numbers and date: “The study – one of a series on student mobility that the clearinghouse has begun producing to capitalize on the unique data it collects as a repository of student-level information from more than 3,000 colleges – reveals that 45 percent of all students who finished a four-year degree in 2010-11 had previously enrolled at a two-year college. Of those students, 24 percent had been enrolled at the two-year institution for just one term,…”</p>
<p>So, any HS student who has attended a JC to pick up a class or others whose economic conditions forced them to do the JC/University transfer route are included. Betting that the majority of those in this study weren’t riding Pell Grants.</p>
<p>your bias is somewhat unattractive to me, in terms of phrases like, “riding pell grants.”</p>
<p>A great majority of people using pell grants are single women with children. Do you believe it would be better for them to stop getting an education.</p>
<p>If you look further down the link about the community colleges, there is a table which is too big to quote in my post. 3/4 of those who graduate from a four year college in texas have attended a community college. the lowest percentage states have one third attending and tend to be in the north east, which is lagging behind in developing the community college, for whatever reason, anyway.</p>
<p>I’m not sure exactly what it is you are trying to say, here. Do you believe that we should not give the pell? Really? I find that astonishing.</p>