@am61517 I don’t think the US higher educational system is threatened by China or any other country; there is a reason many elite Chinese families send their kids to schools in the US. I think that there are many excesses in the American higher education system, caused by a race to the top type of mentality. American universities try to model themselves after Harvard and other Ivy League Institutions and they lack any other “role model.” Everyone wants to be an elite institution and that leads them to attract students by taking on large capital expansion projects, causing prices to rise. So how do we solve this problem, well I think we need to create elite public institutions, run by the federal government, that can attract students away from the Harvards and Yales. India and Japan have federally-run, elite institutions, that act as models for a free elite education, causing prices in the private sector to fall.
@westnext
Your idea is great in theory, and might work in Japan and India. However, what does the federal government run in an “elite” manner in competition with private industry? Monopolies are fine, like the military, but I hope the postal service is not the best example.
Law schools might be a harbinger of what happens to colleges if the bubble bursts. Law school enrollment has plunged by 30% the last few years as potential law students saw how bad the legal job market was after the Great Recession. However, even with these substantial enrollment declines only one or two law schools out of 200 law schools have either merged or closed.
@em2424 Well the federal government has to charter and fund a university wholly. I think that congress can charter a university with a $500 million endowment, a $2-5 billion construction budget, and also provide the complete cost of attendance to the school, which i would say will be $50,000 (I would like $100,000 per student, but $50,000 is more swallowable). You can link the cost of attendance to the inflation or CPI to keep the funding in par with inflation without going to congress ever year. So a total initial cost of 2.5-5.5 billion and then a recurring cost of funding the school’s cost of attendance depending on the enrollment. So if the enrollment is 10,000 students then the yearly cost will be $500 million for congress and the university will have returns from the endowment to fill in the gaps in its budget. The university can be run independent of the federal government (something like the federal reserve) where the president can appoint a board of trustees, but not get too involved in the day to day running of the school. I think just having a free education can be huge draw for many students and if the school is run right, it can surely compete with Harvard and Yale. The entire point of the school is to provide free quality education that creates competition for schools to lower their cost of attendence to attract students. I know that while this idea is very idealistic and novel, it could work.
The need for such painful readjustment and evolution has been greatly exacerbated by the federal government’s role in financing student loan debt. Only the federal government would ever be in the business of funding loans for liberal arts majors with no certain future earnings prospects (absent co-signors with assets or future earnings prospects of their own).
In search of a solution, let’s go the other direction please.
@em2424: Just to offer a point of fact, the US Postal Service hasn’t been a government agency for a long, long time—it doesn’t even receive public funding. I’m sure you can come up with a good example of something run badly by the US government, but that one doesn’t work.
I think you’re right that it will collapse. I can’t see how states can support so many institutions so I see some state ones closing. On the private side-very tiny not well known ones w/o huge endowments will fold. From a sports side, Division 2 schools will close first. College is too expensive & in our society it doesn’t guarantee employment. I think that problem is deeply rooted in our system of outsourcing labor to 3rd world countries-and it’s not just manual labor. This is sad. We don’t make anything anymore & customer service is poor. In the private sector they simply lay off & put more work on the remaining shift. We need a cultural change. Not everyone grows up to be a CEO. The less people that are able to get into a field, the less tax revenue coming in. That in turn rolls on down to the state level & you can’t keep levying higher taxes on the public to save the state schools that only promise you will pay a tax. One big reform that would help is to de-emphasize the huge sports programs because they are not bringing in money to defray tuition. Those monies are going to well-connected people, athletes, coaches, administration. What is sad is that college is becoming an avenue only for the very wealthy & it’s not looking out for the public welfare as a whole. The govt. only wants to just keep giving more aid to students & I am not against that per se, but it’s not treating the cause, only the effect. The slice of the pizza keeps getting smaller. Who can afford to pay back the tuition, r&b, mortgage, car, etc?
@LOUKYDAD, if you look past the propaganda, you’ll see that the amount of federally-subsidized loans allowed for undergraduate education is pretty limited and not enough to actually send someone to college these days almost anywhere.
@westnext, 10K students is a drop in the bucket of the US higher educational system and you are proposing spending a substantial amount of money for it. In any case, the USMA, USNA, and USAFA already exist.
Elite schools, whether public or private, will educate only a tiny percentage of college students (if they admit lots of students, they would not be seen as elite). So they may not be particularly relevant to the overall college situation, particularly in terms of how moderately selective public and private schools that educate the bulk of college students will fare in the future.
Note that the US government runs elite schools, but for the specialized purpose of educating military officers.
On the question of whether it’s worth it to pay $50k a year to elite institutions like Harvard or Yale : a lot of the people are applying because of the * name *. It works wonders when it’s on your CV and you’re applying for jobs, and people readily assume you’re smart when they learn you attended - no one would ask you to actually prove it. The network of people and contacts you form when you get there is valuable too, and would make the amount you paid worth it (assuming you are not applying for financial aid). But that is where it stops. Unless it’s a top college with a world known name, you are thrown into the pool with the thousands of other kids who are on the hunt in the job market * without * the name of a prestigious school on your resume. You may still find a job, sure, but you’re job prospects are that much lower. The debt accumulated will also - like noted in the many posts above - take considerable time to pay off (assuming, of course, that you majored in something with great career opportunities).
I do not like to put a price tag on education and I think it’s invaluable, but I also think it ridiculous to expect parents to stretch themselves to the breaking point in order to afford standard-college education to their children who would then spend a lot of their post gradation years paying off the remnant debts.
I would also like to note that in certain European countries (Norway, Sweden etc.), higher education is free, and these countries are far from being broke. Other countries offer education at costs exponentially cheaper than the costs of study in America. The learning they receive there is equal to - and sometimes surpasses - that given in US colleges and universities.
Just a few thoughts here . . . Clearly we are seeing changes in the model of higher education, but many seem to be flashes only. So MOOCs are promoted, then mostly dropped for undergraduate education, and so tenure-track faculty become over 50% of the faculty, but as they start to unionize, they too are being rethought. International students were to save state schools, but the fight for them is getting fierce.
The patches aren’t working. The US hasn’t figured out hoe to fill the need for highly trained workers.
I wish we would have the will to go to a system like those of Norway, Sweden, Germany, but like health care, corporate interests and special interests will prevent us from developing a sound model. We are too afraid that someone will get something for free and we won’t. . . And so the US fails to adapt to the changes of the 21st century.
Finally liberal arts majors are not useless. They teach critical writing and thinking skills. Though English majors may start out making less than nurses, by mid career they are the same. And I know from experience that nursing is tough physically after 30. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html
The current way things work will continue to work. Until it doesn’t.
Trees don’t grow to the sky.
IMHO, Federally Guarantee Student Loans (FGSL), Supplemental Student Loans and Private student loans are basically what is propping-up the entire College System. Its far too easy to borrow money for college. Did you know that there is more outstanding debt for student loans than there is for Auto Loans or Credit Card loans ? Take away easy access to student loans and the system will collapse. Certainly, the proliferation of For-Profits Diploma Mills would not occur if it wasn’t for easy access to FGSL
The passage of any Federally-Mandated “first two years of community college as free as high school” will lead to a significant fall off in enrollment in 4-year institution (America’s College Promise), as significantly more low income and middle class families opt-in for this option. Read what happen when Tennessee “College Promise” was instituted:
“Led by Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, the state has signed up more than 90 percent of its roughly 60,000 high school graduates from 2013 for a new community college scholarship.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/09/white-house-plans-take-tennessee-promise-national
Obama’s Federal Program is even more generous than the Tennessee’s Model. I would expect that 4-years Institutions will be the major opponents of any attempt to “federalize” the Tennessee Program. In the next 5 - 10 years, we will also see more Colleges granting Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees totally Online. University of Florida has a significant number of Undergraduate Degrees that can be pursued Online, saving participants the cost of Room and Board and other Fees. Their newly Piloted PaCE Program, where students spend their first two years (60 Credits) taking Online Courses before transitioning to Onsite/Resident status, will accelerate this paradigm shift among 4-year Institutions.
We also see a number of 2-year Community Colleges be re-branded as State Colleges and offering 4-year degrees in certain disciplines, as these CCs attempt to retain their Students who would otherwise transfer to 4-years Colleges once attaining their AA degree.
Finally, I think we will probably see more 4-year Colleges resort to a 3-year Model and drop a lot of the [useless?] General Education credits that most 4-year students take as part of their degree program. Don’t be surprise if High Schools get into the mix and extend High School beyond 12th Grade and allow “capable” students the option to complete an additional two-years in High School to satisfy the first two-year in College (this is done in many Countries outside the USA)!
I really like your post.
I wish more people would stop viewing these problems, like college tuition going up, as isolated problems and see them as problems within our society and culture as a whole.
There is going to be radical change in the next 10-20 years and it’s not just going to happen to universities. People are becoming more aware of their rights and we’re more in control of the information we receive (thank you beautiful internet). We’re raising awareness problems that many of the incredibly rich and powerful want to ignore because it goes against their interests: climate change, income inequality, low minimum wage, classism, the list goes on. I think it’s about time we realized how powerful and influential we can be when we collectivize.
And to address the topic directly, I don’t think private, “elite” schools are going to be affected at all. The filthy rich are only getting richer. According to this recent Oxfam report, by 2016, the richest 1% of the world’s population will own more than 50% of the world’s wealth. These people, most of who know exactly what it takes and who to hire to get their kids into top, private universities, will probably be donating more to these institutes. These universities might then be able to offer more financial aid to amazing out-of-this-world students who can’t afford their high fees, and the income gap within the university will mostly balance itself out that way.
As for the rest, since the wealth keeps trickling up and average people won’t be able to keep up with inflating college prices, they might not be willing to pay for not-so-elite private universities so many of these will close down. That would put a lot of pressure on affordable state schools that can only handle a certain number of applicants, and ultimately we’ll have to start protesting for lower tuition, more affordable, good schools. Ultimately, in order to get more funds for public universities, we have to shut down access to tax havens. You have NO IDEA how much money the public loses because huge corporations basically refuse to hand the money over. In 2013, the US lost about $337 billion. Unless we’re able to bring about enough change in the system to get billionaire CEOs to pay their taxes, things will never really change.
@Psata82, a 3-year degree (or even a 2+ year degree) is already possible at many schools that accept AP and dual-enrollment credit.
I get sick and tired of the “equity” argument, that somehow the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is abnormal. I agree that the richest among us, especially those who live off of others, need to pay their share, but income gaps come down mostly to what you do - we need people to be janitors, to work at McDonald’s, to cut our hair. Those people will NEVER become middle class. Ever.
Either the government steps up and makes things like health insurance mandatory and subsidized (sound familiar), and make sure all colleges are bringing in enough low-income students, and maybe even discounting for middle-income students, or the poor continue in that trend. The only thing that gets people out of poverty is education. And I know several people who have almost all of their relatives still in poverty, while they are in middle class or upper middle class, all because of education and getting out of a depressed area.
(and climate change is overblown - poverty, famine, war are much more serious immediate issues. Let’s limit CO2 and other carbon emissions, but let’s not make believe that decreasing violence and war is suddenly less important.)
@rhandco - I was under the impression that there have been times and places (in the US) when janitors, hairdressers, and waitstaff could lead middle-class lives on their salaries.
I don’t know too many details, but I know one example - I am a teacher, and I recently read an article about the relative deflation of “para” (bus-driver, cafeteria worker, janitor) salaries relative to e.g. teacher salaries which aren’t so wonderful in the first place. This had occurred in the location profiled mainly by union-busting and privatizing/outsourcing various job parts. Whether you think as I do, that this is a very negative change - or not - I think it might not be accurate to say that “Those people will NEVER become middle class. Ever.”
@rhandco
But the gap can be decreased to a great extent. Many large companies, like McDonald’s and Walmart, the biggest employers in the world, can pay their employees more without increasing the cost of their products. They just don’t want to. Some of the billions of $ they hoard overseas can go towards raising wages so that their employees don’t have to live in poverty, at the very least.
I know people like that too (my dad) but its hard to break out of poverty when no one cares about your education. Only reason my dad did it is he was lucky. Most aren’t able to break out because the environmental factors are too strong. It still means the whole system will have to change eventually.
(Also OT but climate change leads to more frequent and severe natural disasters that displace people, especially those in developing countries. Ive seen it in my own country. Millions were displaced and lost their means of livelihood and thousands died because of floods. Many, many others are currently displaced here because of war. Are both IDPs equally worse off? Yeah pretty much.)
Norway has nearly the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world (from North Sea oil & gas). It must be nice to pump money out of the ground and have to administer services to a population of only 5 million people.
One reason those companies don’t pay people more is turnaround. It is not worth investing in a person who does not consider your job a career. An 18 year old with no dependents does not need to make a “living wage” if he lives at home. A 30 year old who can only get a job at McDonald’s should get help from the government, that is the 30 year old who has a problem. Maybe: free community college tuition for all those making poverty-level salaries? Or free trade school enrollment? We should return to making McDonald’s a job where it doesn’t matter if it is a living wage, no one who needs to make a living wage will be in that job.
Hoarding overseas, yes that’s illegal in certain cases and should be stopped if so.
One thing that gets me angry is the profits that big oil makes and they get subsidized by the US government! Corporate welfare is a huge issue, and perhaps instead of “a law” about minimum wage, there should be incentives for companies to pay living wages if they want corporate welfare.
I agree with GMTplus7, the thing is, the US is a big country plus we are serving the whole world with our colleges.
As for post #76 " I was under the impression that there have been times and places (in the US) when janitors, hairdressers, and waitstaff could lead middle-class lives on their salaries."
Yes, but remember that people in the US now must have:
- cable TV
- Internet
- computers
- smart phones
- nice clothes for the kids (can’t make them any more)
- dental care (don’t recall going to the dentist every six months as a kid, maybe remember going four times overall before age 18)
- medical care (well child care? you got shots occasionally, you didn’t go otherwise)
- medical insurance
I know people in poverty by every definition who still manage to scrape up a hundred bucks for new sneakers for their son. Who have a smart phone but have trouble paying rent.
The American dream used to be:
- have a roof over your head
- feed and clothe you and your kids
- be able to save a little to go to the beach for two weeks in the summer
Now all those things in the first list are necessary. There are people in the US in true poverty, and there are people in the US who feel poor because they are worried about what their neighbor has. I think a key thing is that people used to be content with their lot in life, and now people are not. Movies used to be about glamorous people who the everyday person could not aspire to be. Now people feel entitled to everything other people have worked for (granted some have not worked for it). How many people cheat on their taxes? How many people
The sense of entitlement in the US is evident in the students I teach. Even over the past five years, students are less and less motivated. They don’t want to work. They don’t think of college as “a job”. I wonder, is the reason that college costs are increasing two-fold: higher costs of paying administrators (look at college president and dean salaries) and having to teach to the lowest common denominator?