It’s been in the news lately, ‘free’ college blah, blah, blah, but it got me thinking. There is pretty much no way that paying $60,000 a year is worth it. For anything. Even the highest paid majors straight out of college, (petroleum engineers?) will still have borrowed more than their starting salary by a couple of years. And if you’re considering Med or Law School, you can pile on more debt.
It seems like Colleges have become more and more like businesses, in that they’re all about appearance and making money. The ‘stalker schools’ for example. I feel bad for people who actually think mail from the University of Chicago means that UofC wants them to attend. They do want you to apply, but only to bring their acceptance rate down which makes them so much ‘better’ according to USN&WR and thus gets more students to apply in the future and on and on and on. In 2011, Chicago’s acceptance rate was 35% - it is now 8% - before '11 it was even higher. Vanderbilt’s acceptance rate in 1999 was 61% - it is now 13%.
Now look at the cost. Tuition at Harvard in 2000 was roughly $23,000 - now it is roughly $45,000.
Did the quality of education get better? (Inflation, I know) Did there become so many more smart students that these schools have to reject them all? Is a Bachelor’s Degree in English worth that much a year? is a degree in Engineering even worth the going rates of college nowadays? What is the real difference between a state school and an ivy? The connections, sure. The prestige, sure. But the actual learning is what you’re there for, right? You can major in math at Harvard or you can major in math at State School X, you’re still going to be learning the same thing. The teachers might be better at teaching the math, but at the end of the day - you’re still learning math.
So, will this whole system collapse? With people piling on debt and spending absurd amounts of money on a degree they might not even use, when will the people collectively be done with it? When people stop applying to Stanford, when they stop applying to Harvard and Yale and Princeton, when they stop applying to colleges altogether, then the market will even things out and the tuition and acceptance rates will drop to the levels that the colleges are actually deserving of.
And I’m most likely going to go to college and feed into this system anyway.
Yes, the inflation rate of college tuition is unsustainable and the whole thing will eventually collapse. The Ivy’s and similar schools with large endowments will thrive, but expect programs like UF’s PACE system to become commonplace and smaller schools with minimal endowments to disappear. Unfortunately, the ability of the current system to sustain itself will outlive my children’s graduation horizon.
@qpqpqp that’s not true. Plenty of people make great money without college degrees. PLENTY. Plumbers, Welders, Mechanics, Real Estate, even Truck Drivers and many more make great money without degrees, and many, many, many more make above minimum wage without college diplomas. The thing that prevents tons of people from doing these jobs is because they are not what many people consider ‘fulfilling’ or ‘worthwhile’.
The college system will not collapse, but it will evolve, not only because of the issues you raise about cost/value (which I question as you leave out an critical component, but more on that later), but mostly because of the changes to the clasroom environment due to technology. E-learning, or distance-based learning, or whatever it is called, will have a huge impact on the evolution of the college system. When students will be able to get more and more content free or cheaply via the internet, why will they need to pay for in-person course lectures? At some point, it is easy to predict bright or hardworking students deciding to skip the expensive part of college, learn what they need to in order to get jobs, and schools will have to change their business model.
But when you addressed the high cost of education, you left out the critical part about financial aid. At the very expensive schools, even where the sticker price is $60K per year, most students do not pay close to that amount. The schools with large endowments attract the brightest students, and give financial aid to cover what families cannot afford. The very top schools do not give merit aid, so top students from well-to-do families are better off attending schools that do offer merit aid.
In other words, the top students are taken care of. The system fails the students in the middle - those that don’t work as hard, or aren’t as gifted, or who have other extenuating circumstances. It also fails the students on the lower end of the scale academically.
But who makes the rules of the game? Those with power write the rules, and stack them in favor of self-preservation.
Some of today’s students are exceptionally motivated, extremely bright and passionate about building a better future. I am hopeful and confident that enough of them will be able to change the world.
@3puppies I do agree with that. There is so much available on the internet: textbooks, lectures, poems, whole novels and so much more that it might be, well is, more cost effective to learn on your own. But, the diploma still means something.
Unfortunately for your theory, Stanford and Harvard (and the great majority of the other colleges for that matter) are seeing applications increase dramatically.
If you go to college to make money, you are welcome to drop out when the ROI isn’t good enough for you.
@JustOneDad I think that’s the whole thing, though. Students are getting smarter, due in part to, as another poster mentioned, all the technology and information available to people now. Or, they’re getting better at working the system. I don’t know any statistics, so i’m just assuming here, but i’d venture to say that students are getting better standardized test scores/grades which leads them to apply to top universities thinking that they can get in, but of course the universities can only admit so many.
I think the point of college is to make money doing something you like(ish), right? There are a lot of useless degrees that you could just save your money on by becoming a Welder. But people want to do something they like. I am opposed to the idea of going to college to ‘find yourself’ unless you have a yacht to go back home to. And I’m definitely NOT saying it is anybody’s fault but the student’s when they go into great debt majoring in something with terrible job prospects. I don’t think anyone has to go to college, and while the ROI isn’t the only thing, it has to factor in, no?
Long answer: Yes, but only at the bottom. The Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Vandy, etc. are all safe. They have billion-plus endowments and massive research bases. The liberal arts schools will be in more trouble, but I expect to see most of them (esp. WASPCH, but also plenty others) get through relatively unscathed.
Who’s gonna hurt? Low-level privates on a high-price high-aid model. They’re a pure bubble produce. I can think of 5-6 schools in my city (granted, a very university-focused city, but still) that will be badly damaged, and I can guess that at least 1 of those will close outright.
Low-level publics will thrive due to a lack of other options, with people coming to realize that schools like, say, West Texas A&M are excellent at serving their specific market.
Now, to get off topic for a moment in my seemingly quixotic attempt at beating back the misunderstandings about UChicago’s system:
USNWR barely counts acceptance rate in its metrics. It's 1.25%. Chicago's reduction of that rate has more to do with the fact that it (much like Rice now) was an underrated product. A clear top-10 university with a 30% acceptance rate? Yeah, I'll apply. And once people started seeing how good Chicago was, well, it just kept going.
2. Chicago's 'stalker school' status had to do with the fact that it was facing an uphill battle in becoming known. Penn took almost the exact same route, and look at their soaring eagle now!
Once again, it’s an interesting theory, but the fact is that SAT scores are on the decline and ACT scores have fallen to the lowest level in five years.
The point of college is to learn something. Some people learn things to make money and other people learn things so they can be productive members of society.
I suspect that depends on what one defines as “great money” (your definition may significantly differ from many others’, based on the examples you provided)?
Then there are the related issues of personal satisfaction, of believing you’ve made meaningful contributions to the society, the nation and the lives of others, and finally of self-respect.
D is pursuing a M.Ed. in Higher Ed. Admin. at Vanderbilt. She is employed in the field and this degree will help her advance. Anyway, Vandy’s former provost spoke to one of her classes sometime last year and said essentially what @3puppies said in #5 regarding distance learning. He sees it as the factor that will most revolutionize higher ed in the next 5-10 years at all levels. How it is utilized varies widely between institutions, though.
OP is correct that colleges are being run more like businesses these days. I teach at a community college and the decline in the percentage of legislative funding for public institutions means that tuition dollars are more important than ever. Schools are developing more online programs to appeal to a broader audience than their regional/state audiences of 20 years ago. Evening instruction is now minimal at my school as students don’t want to come to campus if they can complete assignments on the computer. Neighboring state institutions are reaching out to our transfer students to enable them to continue working on bachelors degrees without the drive to campus. Online instruction is fairly cheap to provide since physical facilities aren’t required and many classes are taught by underpaid adjuncts.
Online education is appropriate for training students on straightforward processes and when students are highly self-disciplined. That, however, is not the profile for many of our students and I think we lose significant numbers because we don’t actually “touch” that student with live instruction. At the other end of the spectrum, students at elite schools attend for the opportunity to learn not only from top professors, but from other high achieving students. The educational experience extends well beyond the classroom. I think what is happening is that we are broadening the disparity between the classes as very few can aspire to the holistic educational experience provided by the top schools and the lower end students. High achievers get far more opportunities to develop their critical thinking skills via their on campus experiences which in turn provides for better economic opportunities over their lifetimes.
The better non bachelor’s degree jobs are skilled ones that do require post high school education of some sort. However, they are often seen as low social status, even if the pay is good, so many people look down on them and do not consider them.
I don’t think it will ever ‘collapse’ per se, but rather evolve (as someone else already said). I do get concerned with how formulaic students have become trying to get into certain colleges though - do X hours of this, join Y clubs, get Z or higher SAT scores - where is the authenticity? How will this fixation on prestige and hypercompetitive behavior affect innovation and creativity?
As for the cost of going to college, I believe we are getting close to the make or break point right now. There will be a point where most people simply won’t be able afford college any more and demand will drop significantly until the system is overhauled.
Folks, the average net tuition hasn’t been going up much faster than inflation (outside of publics). The elites have gotten more generous with fin aid while schools lower down the totem pole have been aggressively discounting with “merit” scholarships.
It’s actually quite difficult to find a private where over half the student body pays the full list price these days.
Tuition at publics has risen rapidly, however, (from a low starting point) as states have cut back on funding for state schools.
In any case, there won’t be a collapse so long as the top 1% keeps growing wealth at a good clip. Definitely an evolution, and the low level LACs and other small privates with only a local reputation will be the first to go.
This may have positive aspects, but it has many negative ones:
college presidents now see themselves as CEOs, and want to be paid like it. And they surround themselves with a big layer of upper level management beholden to them, and build a non-critical BoD that basically rubberstamps everything. All this is hugely expensive, and leads to short-term thinking and instability IMO. Example - a few years ago when Harvard's endowment took a tumble, they responded by cutting freezing wages and laying off hundreds of people. If they weren't thinking like a business, maybe they would have found another way, like tapping some of the $28bil that was still left in the endowment. God forbid they put people ahead of money... a few years later the endowment was bigger than ever. Did the layoffs and wage savings save Harvard from going out of business? Did it make a material difference in the endowment? I somehow doubt it.
to save money somewhere else, they've commoditized the instruction. Instead of tenured professors with years in their field, more and more you are getting adjuncts and TAs, who are essentially minimum wage labor. With distance learning, I wouldn't be surprised to see this off-shored to save even more money. Or switched to just recordings. Too bad it you have questions... it makes economic sense in the short term.
business is all about growth. So emphasis has been placed on growth - growing applications, growing your rank, growing your campus. There's been a huge building boom on campuses the last ten years, in the name of "competing" for students, but I think much of it is ego-driven. Does a university really need a $10mil student center and luxury dorms to get students to attend?
businesses stay in business by pleasing the customer. How better to please the customer (mostly parents) as prices inexorably rise than by getting more of what you are paying for as the price goes up? Grade inflation is ridiculous, and at some schools 'A' now stands for 'average'. (In fairness grades have been inflating for decades... but a school with a business mindset has zero incentive to stop it).
Unfortunately colleges will likely see the business failure model as well - takeovers, bankruptcies, etc,
I will take the opposite side of this argument. The college system is not only not collapsing, but it’s heading to far greater levels of sustainability. Yes, there will be winners and losers among institutions, but the global economy is increasing the financial divide between skilled and unskilled workers. There are successful plumbers and other exceptions, but the facts are that a college education increases the chances of success exponentially, and the difference is growing.There is a huge worldwide demand for education and like iPhones, the world wants the best. If colleges were stocks I would be buying the the top fifty, and would be particularly be waving in #s30-50 (whatever you think those are).
I think the biggest mistake I see countless times on CC is using a strictly monetary time to break even calculation to judge the benefits of college. I would borrow every cent and make whatever sacrifices I could to send my kids to the best college possible. This is a lifetime benefit that could end up returning hundreds of thousands of dollars though knowledge, networks, finding a spouse, and the issues that TopTier mentioned.I cringe when I see people decide on a lesser institution for a small amount of money that could be borrowed.
Few people actually pay $60k a year. No one HAS to pay that amount. Those that do (i) can afford to do so and (ii) voluntarily choose to do so vs. all of the cheaper options. Paying $60k a year is like choosing to buy a Mercedes.
The average net price paid at most private colleges is about 50-60% of the sticker price. In a country where the median pre-tax household income is about $50k, it is literally impossible for most college seats to be sold at anything close to full price.
But families are wising up and increasingly less willing to load up on debt to finance a four year degree. That’s a very very very very good thing. Even though people don’t pay $60k a year for college, we still as a country throw way too much money at college in pursuit of traditional 4 year degrees.
I love Obama’s CC plan for that reason. If would be the best and most immediate deflator of the 4 year college bubble. Makes so much more sense to have all kids get 13th and 14th grade paid for (academic or technical) while living at home at a MUCH lower cost. Everybody gets more education (which is critically needed in the modern economy), and we destroy the model/idea that everybody needs four very expensive years at a residential college and a 4 year degree.
That part of the current college system needs to collapse. I really wish it would.