How Colleges Are Selling Out the Poor to Court the Rich
theatlantic.comI don't mean to restate the obvious, or pander to the crowd on HN, but every time we read one of these articles it needs to be stated that the current system is broken even when it is paid for. That is, for all the ink spilled over who can afford what and how much money is spent where, there are tons of kids right now graduating without a sliver of hope for a job. Worse yet, the system has been blowing smoke up their asses for so long that many of them somehow feel entitled to a job whether there's one out there or not.
I love education-related stories. I feel that hacking in this area can help the most people and advance the species the furthest. But we also need desperately need to keep new information we receive in context.
I'd like to test your assumptions here.
You claim : "the current system is broken"
You submit as evidence to that claim : "there are tons of kids right now graduating without a sliver of hope for a job."
If I ran this claim backwards (which is to say reverse its assertions) then a "working" education system would produce "most of the kids employable" ?
I wonder why that defines "fixed" (or broken for that matter). I feel a bit differently about it of course (or I wouldn't be whining here :-) that the 'publicly funded' part of our education system (that is K-12) should strive to make you generally employable, and that higher learning institutions should help you explore your interests regardless of the applicability of those interests to employment.
Of course looking at it that way its a harder problem, since it really says that every kid who graduates from high school should have the equivalent of a two year STEM degree these days, but those are the base skills that employers want to start from, and we're still not even graduating 100% literate kids from our high schools.
"Higher learning institutions should help you explore your interests regardless of the applicability of those interests to employment."
I disagree. Historically, postsecondary education might have been limited to the disciplines of academia and focused solely on liberal arts. However, at this point, a four-year degree is an effective prerequisite to 90% of white-collar job. (Irrespective of the actual value of a degree in performing jobs, of course. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of professions don't require four years of institutional training or education to perform. Indeed, I'd wager that most careers don't require academic knowledge beyond that of a seventh grader.)
So, college has been perverted by the labor market into a corollary of the K-12, "career-preparatory" apparatus, and few students enter college in pursuit of actual intelectual stimulation. Most are simply going through the motions to get an entry level job. In effect, college has simply become a funnel from high school to the labor market. We can debate about whether or not this is good, but the fact remains that, given the current post-secondary education landscape, colleges exist to get people jobs and should be measured by that standard.
As for only K-12 being government-funded and thus career-oriented, many if not most students take federal aid of some sort, implicating public funding even for private colleges. It's impossible to disassociate colleges and government money, as federal aid pervades tuition expenditure.
The reason why jobs require degree is because degree is a proxy for both IQ and ability to perform set tasks in defined settings and achieve measurable results. Since other proxies are either hard to get or illegal, here we go.
This is a difficult issue for a lot of reasons, hence my restating the context.
I'd venture that no matter what else an education provides, if it does not enable a graduate to repay their loan, it is non-sustainable. (Whether you want to use "good" or "bad" here is up to you)
Even the phrase "public education" is broad and fuzzy. With a tremendous amount of student loans publicly-financed, with public financing also intricately involved in the public university system via research grants, there's a distinction between secondary education and higher education, but I'm not sure how much the distinction matters for purposes of broadly-based public policy discussions.
> if it does not enable a graduate to repay their loan
What a weirdly backwards way of phrasing it. Why should anyone take out a loan to get an education? Why would a public university charge tuition? My parents did not take out loans to get college degrees (in California, in the 1960s). But their generation got rich and now doesn't want to pay for the next generation to do the same. Should boomers who attended fully subsidized public education now really be let off the hook with their ridiculous claims that they're some kind of Randian superhero who worked their way up "on their own", and it would be "theft" to ask them to pay taxes so the same system they benefited from can continue?
It's certainly not impossible to do so, if people aren't so stingy. I moved out of the U.S. and now live in a country that has free public education. Not just free, but you get paid to attend university, up through a master's degree. (Not paid a lot, but a modest living stipend.) We have a lower unemployment rate than the U.S. does, too. And better transit and less bureaucratic healthcare.
Repaying the loans is only one way the system might be corrected. Allowing student loans to be discharged via bankruptcy would be another, which has recently been outlawed. Thus prices for education are set in a marketplace which rewards bad loans by shifting all of the risk to the borrower.
Why shouldn't the borrower shoulder most of the risk? If we shift risk to the lender then they will simply stop lending. Then people will complain how they can't get a loan to go to college.
The borrower, the taxpayer, and anyone who holds dollars shoulder the risk to one degree or another. The "lender" has only to move paperwork in order to reap a profit. Can you not see that if the lender had to assume some risk, then the lender would probably lend more to high paying, high demand job skills, and less to skills in saturated market segments and unproductive skills.
I can also see that lenders might exert their influence in ways you'd find objectionable, making lending predicated on family assets/income, requiring co-signing from a parent with a 650+ credit score, not lending to liberal arts majors at all, refusing to lend at "black colleges", or preferentially lending at Ivys, etc.
Of course, they'd do it in the name of lending to high paying, high demand job skills and high likelihood of repayment. Under such a system, I'd have still gotten loans, but I'd rather see a system where some percent of people who make bad choices suffer from their choices, but where educational loans are widely available than a system where few are "allowed" to make bad choices, but loans are more narrowly available.
I don't want a world that's even more "rich get educated, poor don't" than today. If I look back at my family, my generation is much, much better off, primarily via education, than my grandparents who very literally mined coal and worked in a steel mill. They scrimped and saved so my parents could go to college to become teachers, who in turn ensured we did as well. That's no college to no-name college to top-name college in the span of two generations.
Of course that's only one data point, and if I read it in a paper, blog or on news.YC, I'd roll my eyes at the cherry-picking, too, because it'd be 1 story hand-selected from 100s of millions. In my case, it's 1 of 1, so I want to ensure we preserve the conditions that let my parents work hard to forge a better life for themselves and my siblings. Maybe in a world where college loans are hard to get (such as the world they lived in), this would all work out similarly, and easy college loans are in fact part of the problem, but I think there's been heaps of hidden benefits to having education being more widely available and more common that people overlook when they see Mr or Ms Bad Choices as an adult with untenable student loan debt.
I was responding specifically to the parent comment who appears to like the fact that the borrower assumes a high degree of risk, and the paper lending company assumes essentially none. I hadn't really meant to offer it as a final solution to all our problems.
>I can also see that lenders might exert their influence in ways you'd find objectionable,
If the gov't decides to use economic forces to manage the supply of college grads, I would hope that a large portion of funding would go into very productive areas. It should/would likely change over time to correct oversupply, changing demographics of society, etc.
>making lending predicated on family assets/income, requiring co-signing from a parent with a 650+ credit score,
An unfortunate but predictable outcome. Ideally, a parent with a 650+ credit score would be able to afford to support a child in college w/o much support. I have such a credit score, but probably won't be able to educate my kids based on my college instructor salary alone. Ironic, eh?
>not lending to liberal arts majors at all,
Funding the arts via loans is right out, obviously. Funding the arts is a problem that has spanned pretty much all of recorded history. No simple scheme such as mine can pretend to solve it today. Attempting to use economic/market forces in the normal manner to produce good art will only ever have comical results at best, and the nominal result will be crap. (I have an amusing idea. I'll tell it further down.)
> refusing to lend at "black colleges",
Grants? Be prepared to write off a lot of the "loans" to minority and impoverished areas. Since they are minorities, it will be cheap anyway. We could probably do away with race-based affirmative action, and simply make grants to students and institutions in impoverished places, and from impoverished families.
> or preferentially lending at Ivys, etc.
I'm also not sure how to effectively stop the well-connected wealthy from sponging off of everyone else. I could say "means testing" but we both know that these types of parasites are clever and quickly adapt to their environment. Hopefully if the rich use loans, the majority will repay them, and thus be a source of income rather than a drain. More likely, their parents will hire expensive accountants to help rid their heirs of this debt, justifying this thievery because it is "so unfair" to "tax success."
>Of course, they'd do it in the name of lending to high paying, high demand job skills and high likelihood of repayment.
Yeah, so, at least we agree that there may be a possibility for a pseudo-private-ish loan outfit to be somewhat profitable for some higher-ed funding.
> Under such a system, I'd have still gotten loans,
I could have gotten loans too, but I refused (for better or worse, I'm not sure). I had negative/neutral financial support from family, and eventually dropped out of Uni before completing my BS. meh.
but I'd rather see a system where some percent of people who make bad choices suffer from their choices, but where educational loans are widely available than a system where few are "allowed" to make bad choices, but loans are more narrowly available.
I don't want to see people suffer, but I don't think that's what you really meant. I think it would improve our economy, and the lives of many people if some of us were economically herded into productive industry. I know, it almost sounds like communist central planning, and it probably is. But letting high school seniors choose the economic direction of our country at their whim seems like a poor alternative.
I don't want a world that's even more "rich get educated, poor don't" than today.
Me neither.
If I look back at my family, my generation is much, much better off, primarily via education, than my grandparents who very literally mined coal and worked in a steel mill. They scrimped and saved so my parents could go to college to become teachers, who in turn ensured we did as well. That's no college to no-name college to top-name college in the span of two generations.
Yes, it's so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said. Education will improve everyone's life to a greater degree than pretty much anything else.
Of course that's only one data point, and if I read it in a paper, blog or on news.YC, I'd roll my eyes at the cherry-picking, too, because it'd be 1 story hand-selected from 100s of millions. In my case, it's 1 of 1, so I want to ensure we preserve the conditions that let my parents work hard to forge a better life for themselves and my siblings.
Let's call this a friendly chat over coffee, and overlook these misdemeanors.
* Maybe in a world where college loans are hard to get (such as the world they lived in), this would all work out similarly, *
I think it needs a systematic approach. The colleges themselves have to adopt ethics. It will be tough, you can't really outlaw meanness, wanton greed, stupidity.
and easy college loans are in fact part of the problem,
Greedy businessmen are sucking this money out of kids' pockets as fast as the kids can borrow it. I see it every semester. Students pay 2X, 3X, 10X, prices for books, computers, supplies, etc. because the campus store is integrated with the school and makes spending that money much easier than buying used texts from individuals, the internet, etc. The bookstore stocks lab items for my courses, but at a huge markup over retail. Next to every nasty decrepit warm-water fountain is a vending machine full of cold Dasani(TM), or better yet Coke!### Prices at the "food court" are another outrageous example. Privately financed campus housing? The same.
* but I think there's been heaps of hidden benefits to having education being more widely available and more common that people overlook when they see Mr or Ms Bad Choices as an adult with untenable student loan debt.*
Absolutely, but, I think that was probably true to a greater degree in the past, and that the [education funding] system for people in our cohort (middle-class-ish?) is tending more toward a sort of Hobson's choice of debt-slavery / indentured servitude vs. forgoing formal education.
## Arts funding should be fragmented from education funding. It should be as independent as possible from political influence. There could be divisions administered by appointees (appointed for life) who would primarily give block grants to institutions of their choosing. Funding divisions could be run in a variety of ways, but at least one should be required to only make funding decisions while under the influence of mind-altering drugs. Now that I think of it, the same arrangement might do well for science funding (especially Physics).
### Unless Pepsi has the vending "contract"
That was one of the most well reasoned wall of text, point-by-point replies that I've ever read. Well written and I suspect we agree far more than not. Thanks also for teaching me "Hobson's choice". Cheers!
Perhaps we don't see a similar level of difficulty.
"I'd venture that no matter what else an education provides, if it does not enable a graduate to repay their loan, it is non-sustainable. (Whether you want to use "good" or "bad" here is up to you)"
Your reasoning here doesn't make any sense to me, are you claiming that if a student takes out loans in order to pay for an education in basket weaving. Then fails to earn enough money by applying their acquired expertise in basket weaving to repay that loan. That they educational institution was at fault here?
There are many colleges which will train you in skills that will pay off the entire cost it takes to attend them in under 5 years. In California alone there are 23 campuses of the California State University system, with a median four year tuition of $25,000 for state residents which will train you in a STEM degree which is less than you would pay for a new car. There are community colleges which will do an Associates degree for even less.
But you are absolutely right there is a problem here, it just isn't with the colleges (although there may be grounds for accusing them of collusion).
Come at this from a different angle, how would you like to be able to conscript hundreds, thousands, maybe even a million people into a program where some fraction of everything they earn goes right into your pocket? Sell them a government guaranteed loan that they can't afford to pay back. It was a great scam in the Mortgage business for a while, the banks made billions on it, the tax payers took it in the shorts when the bottom fell out. And why did the bottom fall out? Because those damn suckers could declare bankruptcy and get out of paying the loan! Can you imagine. Well the banks have fixed that loop hole, you can't declare bankruptcy and get out of a student loan, no way no how, you're mine for life.
And guess what, the same people who were fleecing stupid people with bad mortgages are now fleecing people with student loans. In some cases literally, like when I heard from the same Wells Fargo loan officer who used to do mortgages and now wanted to talk to me about getting loans for my college age kids.
Its a problem *for schools" if they are over priced since they need students to survive. Guess what, if they can't justify their costs they go out of business or they get more efficient. As long as there are people willing to provide the same degree for less money, the system will continue to work and anyone who wants to be a doctor, or an engineer, or a lawyer, or a geologist or whatever can get their degree.
I implore you not to let the red herring story of 'students drowning in debt' convince you that college is broken, its not, student lending is broken and students are not be properly informed with respect to what "a degree" means versus what an "employable degree" means. Once we educate them and they start spreading out to the more affordable schools the private schools will have to fight harder for the top talent and will do so with scholarships so that their 'total cost' is the same as if they went to a state school but got their 'marquee' name.
Make students more discerning shoppers and the "problems" you decry go away.
"I'd venture that no matter what else an education provides, if it does not enable a graduate to repay their loan, it is non-sustainable. (Whether you want to use "good" or "bad" here is up to you)"
Your reasoning here doesn't make any sense to me, are you claiming that if a student takes out loans in order to pay for an education in basket weaving. Then fails to earn enough money by applying their acquired expertise in basket weaving to repay that loan. That they educational institution was at fault here?
Not at fault, just not sustainable. As in, if the students can't make enough money to pay the school, the school will go out of business. Less drastically, if a student knows they will have to take a job doing something else to pay off the basket-weaving-school loan, they will not pay thousands of dollars to learn something that can't make them that money back.
>>that the 'publicly funded' part of our education system (that is K-12) should strive to make you generally employable, and that higher learning institutions should help you explore your interests regardless of the applicability of those interests to employment.
Sorry, but... what?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but why should society pay for your exploration of your interests regardless of their applicability to employment?
We use employment as a means of converting skills into economic value. This is why when you work for a company or a government institution, you are given money in exchange for the value you produce. This value is determined by consumer and citizen demand for goods and services. What this means is that you need to produce something other people want, as opposed to what you want. Otherwise you won't have a job, because nobody will need your skills and knowledge.
Public education is a contract between the citizen and the (state) government. The citizen pays taxes to fund it, and in return his/her child gets a subsidized education. But that is where the contract ends. If the kid wants a job after that, they better make sure they are making the most use of the education by learning how to fulfill consumer and citizen demand in the economy. They can pursue their interest in botanics or cultural studies in their spare time, as hobbies.
Higher education should give you means to pursuit your interests later. That means giving you a set of skills and knowledge directly applicable to making money, because to follow your interests that's what you need.
At least I think so. And that's because, at least for me, exploring my interests while worrying about my employability later, worrying about grades and every failure is pure hell, enough so to make me lose any interest I had at the beginning.
Education, in the form it takes now, is for the most part killing any joy of learning. I don't really think that this is possible to fix as long as we rely on money this much. So my conclusion is this: make the education as painless as it needs to be to make it relevant for earning money (more relevant and in a good sense), but don't prolong it far into the twenties. Let it end as quick as it's possible and let the people earn enough to pursuit their interests by themselves later.
Higher education is publicly funded by a large degree, via all kinds of government grants and government-guaranteed loans. Unfortunately, while it is funded on a premise that higher education equals better employment - and thus better contribution to the economy, which is supposed to more than offset the cost of the funding - the reality is that many of the degrees sponsored in such way do not produce this result, and instead only transfer money from taxpayers to people running these degree programs and on the way seriously mess up lives of many people by making them waste time and get into various financial obligations based on assumptions that never come true.
This is why system is broken. If you want unbroken system, there should be a link between how much particular degree raises the income of its owner (after paying off the loans) and the public funding available to those seeking such degrees. If you want to study aspects of underwater basket weaving in medieval French poetry - be my guest, but do not expect a dime of public funds to be invested in it.
>>>> higher learning institutions should help you explore your interests regardless of the applicability of those interests to employment.
That is true only if you ignore the premise that is described above. However, since the public support of the higher education availability is largely based on this exact premise, I do not see how you can ignore it.
And then of course there's the problem that youth unemployment will always be a little bit higher than general unemployment and you're in a miserably bad economy anyways.
>feel entitled to a job
Should we really insult people's character for wanting to work? Entitlement is a connotatively charged word that implies privilege, laziness, and an unreasonable desire to enjoy the fruits of other people's labor while sitting around. I can at least understand the use of the word "entitled" when leveled against welfare, progressive taxation, refusal to do entry-level work, etc.
But how is it wrong or anti-personal responsibility to want to work to support oneself?
I think the connotation is that they feel as though they ought to be able to obtain a livable job doing what they want to do, which is not the case. They aren't necessarily entitled, but are naive and have unrealistic expectations.
Just because one loves writing does not mean that they will be able to secure employment as a writer. Yet, students continue to enter writing programs and graduate with useless degrees, expecting to enter the workforce immediately. Certain positions simply aren't in demand, yet students act as though finding employment will be trivial.
I also believe the world has tended to conflate talent discovery with the talent quantity, because historically, talent discovery was up to a select few gatekeepers (like record labels and publishers), who could (or would) only showcase a small fraction of the available talent pool. Whether they did this because of unavoidable resource constraints or to ensure an artificial scarcity is another debate.
Now that anyone with a decent amount of talent and/or the willpower to put in some effort into honing a skill can also showcase that skill, the supply of writers and singers and musicians has suddenly become much larger than before. So it follows that the price associated with purchasing access to the fruits of these talent/labours will have dropped.
TL;DR: Microeconomics 101.
Perhaps a better way to say that is they "feel entitled to a job regardless of whether they can contribute any value to an organization". And a likely cause of having nothing to contribute would be studying a subject they find personally interesting but has no relevance to the broader world.
(I don't know if that's what the OP intended, I'm just clarifying in a way that makes more sense to me.)
I just went through college and I can say for a vast majority of students it's a sweet fantasy world of partying and fun paired with 2-3 nights of marathon study sessions before midterms and finals.
Then we see articles saying "Well we need more science and engineering students in our colleges because that's where the jobs are too."
Perhaps the non engineering students aren't getting jobs because they just breezed through 4 years of fun while expecting a reward and a career at the end.
I graduated from a college that cost over $160,000 through four years. I am also from a low income house hold and I will attest to the fact that the college was very hesitant to give me any financial aid, while these kids that would pour in from Marin County California and Manhatton were going to school on a huge price break.
What I realized is that for the institution, my tuition money is all the money they were going to get. From the rich families they could expect donations throughout the year. I had a friend who paid very little to go to school there, but it was also clear to us that without his Dad financing the tennis team, we probably wouldn't have had any of the amenities that we were treated to. There's always that give and pull.
Another point to bring up is that financial aid can be up to the individual in charge of your application. When I worked at the schools technology center fixing faculty computers, one time I happened to fix the head of financial aid's computer and when she came to pick it up she asked to thank me personally and told me that, "If you need anything from the financial aid office, even just a little bit more, you come tell me and I will make sure to take care of you." I didn't know this lady until then, but I was sure glad to have fixed her comp...
When people vote to not raise taxes to fund these schools, what do they expect is going to happen to subsidized tuition? We saw this happen a few years ago in Washington after voters voted against raising taxes to fund schools, and schools started accepting more foreign students and fewer local students to make their budgets. People were upset about this, for some reason.
If the school gives four students $5,000 scholarships on a $20,000 bill - the school makes $60,000 and the students feel good about themselves. If they give one student $20,000, they make zero. At the end of the day, someone has to foot the bill - and if it's not the taxpayer, it'll be the people who can afford to pay.
Of course, high quality education should be available to everyone, but as a society we have to be more lucid about where the money is coming from. If taxpayers want people from low income families to go to school (and I am firmly in this camp), taxpayers need to be willing to pay for these people to go to school.
I think it's too easy to blame people who vote against raising taxes. The rate at which college tuition has gone up since I went ('95-'99) is insane. This is not including that you could graduate from college from my era and find a decent job.
I don't know why the tuition fees have risen so rapidly over a short period of time but it's certainly not helping out middle class families.
University of WA cost has not gone up a single penny since 1990. It used to be that the state paid 80% of that, now it is 30%. Which is why the cost the students see has increased so much -- decrease in state funding, and indirectly, people who vote against taxes.
If UW cost had simply kept pace with inflation, it would be $30,000 this year. And if WA residents had maintained their support at 80%, the student bill would be $6000.
Many states have significantly reduced funding for public higher education. Much of tax funding now goes towards Medicaid, and perhaps half of that is not for poor people who need medical assistance but rather middle-class people in nursing homes. Nursing home payments are paid out of Medicaid as well as healthcare for the poor.
So, in a sense, the reason why states are spending less on higher education than a decade or two ago is simply because of this middle class entitlement. The middle class should be purchasing nursing home insurance but instead they leave it up to the state to support.
It isn't a lack of taxes, it is that Medicaid (a federally mandated program) is out of control and is absolutely destroying state education budgets.
"Governments’ general support for higher education 25 years ago was nearly 50 percent greater than state spending on Medicaid. That relationship has now flipped: Medicaid spending is about 50 percent greater than support for higher education. If higher education’s share of state budgets had remained constant instead of being crowded out by rising Medicaid costs, it would be getting some $30 billion more than it receives today, or more than $2,000 per student."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/opinion/19orszag.html?_r=1
Can you provide sources showing this? I wasn't familiar with these numbers and would like to tell people about them.
What increased most was the sticker price - net price has experienced a much slower increase rate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/22/153316565/the-pric...
That's not necessarily applicable here because they were not including the cost to the state in the net cost (only the cost to the individual).
It seems we play plenty of taxes if the opening quote to the article can be believed: "Neat fact: If the federal government were to take all of the money it pours into various forms of financial aid each year, it could go ahead and make tuition free, or close to it, for every student at every public college in the country."
That statement sounds somewhat deceptive, since it likely means we could make tuition free for current students at public colleges, but does not account for the current private-school students who would flock to now-free public schools.
Also, I think the gap in actual cost of tuition between private colleges and public colleges is somewhat overstated, the primary difference being that public colleges are maybe 30-50% subsidized, while private colleges are more like 20-30% subsidized.
If the government were to make the current cost of attendance available to students, colleges would just double their prices (unless you implemented gasp price controls).
I'm highly doubtful people would put up with that. Essentially people would be paying for college twice.
People will put up with anything if it's a prerequisite for being employable, as we've seen from the massive rise in tuition already.
A quote like that, I want to see how they added up their sums for "all of the money it pours into.." and "tuition free, or close to it, for..".
This is the classic dilemna, everyone wants good public services but low taxes.
The argument is often that either ways should be found to deliver better services for lower cost, or that money should be diverted away from something else instead of a tax raise. Or people want a tax increase for somebody else but not themselves to cover it.
>everyone wants good public services but low taxes.
Everyone??
Typical right-winger: I want low taxes and don't care about public services (although naturally I'd prefer public services to no services).
Typical left-winger: I want public services and don't care about low taxes (although naturally I'd prefer low taxes to high taxes).
Normal voters aren't ideologues, they're self-interested human beings.
Agreed. My point is just that each person tends to favor one or the other.
In truth, it's a false dichotomy for everyone except the super-rich. People could have both low taxes and good social services if they would be willing to tax the super-rich to the same extent that we did so back in, say, 1950.
Hell, even 1985. 91% tax rates probably aren't good policy regardless of the bracket.
If the taxes will be raised to cover current level of educational expenses, how you estimate the expenses would behave, based on observable historical trends? Is there any limit to how much money would be spent of highest quality education available to everyone and on prices taxpayers would pay to make it happen?
Tuition increases coupled with equivalent financial aid increases are also a convenient way for relatively well-endowed universities to turn "strings attached" money into "no strings attached" money that they can then use however they want. They're essentially laundering donor money.
> At most private institutions, a substantial majority of grant aid comes from endowment funds set up by trustees, alumni, and other generous donors. Many pay into the system hoping that their grants will make college more affordable for their endowed students. In the short term, it does. However, in the long term, the institution responds by raising tuition rates to keep the net price at the market value. While this may benefit especially needy students who qualify for additional grant aid, the average student feels no difference and the additional scholarship money gets diverted to other purposes. They are rarely fraudulent or scandalous. Most of the time they just involve making the institution prettier and more competitive in the cutthroat race for the best and the brightest of America's high school seniors. But looked at from a birds-eye view, one gets the uncanny feeling that colleges are not honoring their donors' wishes to make the place more affordable. And lest you think that you can avoid all of this by refusing to donate, remember that as a United States taxpayer, you pay into the system just like millions of your fellow-citizens. Are you satisfied with how your money is being spent?
http://www.stanford.edu/~rhamerly/cgi-bin/Interesting/Educat...
> At Wabash College in Indiana, 28 percent of students receive Pell Grants, and low-income students pay an average of $15,480. Yet 12 percent of its freshmen get merit aid, averaging $15,393 each. At Case Western Reserve, one of the better known institutions among the high-pell, high-net-price schools, 23 percent of students receive Pell Grants grants, and low-income undergrads pay $18,381 on average. And yet 19 percent of freshmen also receive merit aid, averaging $18,359 each
I don't mean to nitpick, but these are tiny differences between averages.
You're misreading (and the article is poorly written). That quote is listing the amount paid by low-income students, and the amount in merit scholarships received by high-income students. Apples, and oranges.
That's not quite true. They're giving merit aid instead of income based aid. You can be poor and get high test scores and they'll court you too.
Did you read the article? They prefer giving small amounts of merit aid to many rich students than large amounts of merit aid to fewer poor students. The result is that, for the same level of merit, the rich get a subsidy and the poor are denied.
I wish more schools had the resources to go to the aid model that the Ivy League schools (and also Stanford?) have moved to in recent years. Fully need-blind admission and financial aid based ONLY on financial need. At Ivy League schools today there are ZERO merit or athletic scholarships. There are a few special programs that give merit-based grants for research or other special academic expenses but none that cover tuition or living costs. Even more importantly, there are semi-rigid guidelines laid out in advance that show the correlation between family income and expected family contribution (how much you'll pay for your kid to go to school). So if your child gets in on merit, you can reasonably predict how much you'll have to pay and in many, many cases it is a greatly reduced price. This is a good version of the "high tuition high aid" system. Best of all, all of this financial aid is no-loan and no-strings-attached free money.
Yes, of course elite schools will always court rich kids. Need-blind admissions will never change this. If your business school is named McGruberstein School of Business and Mr. McGruberstein's child applies to your school you'll probably take him. While this chips away at the idea of a true meritocracy it does encourage many of the donations that fund the financial aid for low income students in the first place. Yes this is "evil" and is certainly Not Fair, but the colleges need to court these donations in order to build facilities and provide aid at current levels. I know that many of the elite schools spend much more on students each year than they bring in via tuition, and this is financed by the large and ever-growing endowment that they so value.
Both the Atlantic story kindly submitted here and a recent Business Week story
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-09/college-fina...
are reporting on findings from a report by Stephen Burd for the New American Foundation, "Undermining Pell: How Colleges Compete for Wealthy Students and Leave the Low-Income Behind."
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/undermining_pell
http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/...
This has been an ongoing problem for a long time. Colleges seek the advice of consulting firms that tell the colleges how to maximize revenues, and one way to do that is to skew "financial aid" policies in favor of students from high-income families.
http://www.maguireassoc.com/services-challenges/optimize-net...
As a matter of talent development across the whole country, the United States finding consistently is that it is more advantageous for a child to a be a low-ability child from a high-income family than a high-ability child from a low-income family.
http://www.jkcf.org/news-knowledge
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=10000
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-o...
It's understandable why a parent who has money would want to use that money to give Junior leverage to gain upward social mobility. What's harder to understand is why publicly subsidized financial aid programs would fail to identify the most able students who lack family means to attend college, rather than being used by colleges to leverage the admission of even more average students from well-off families.
AFTER EDIT: Other comments in this thread are asking where parents and taxpayers can find information about the costs of each college. The United States federal government IPEDS database gathers data about college revenues and spending from all colleges in the country, and the federal data are presented in the most user-friendly format by the College Results website
http://www.collegeresults.org/
operated by the Education Trust. You can look up how radically colleges differ in what they spend per student and in graduation rates of admitted students, among many other interesting statistics, on the College Results site.
"being used by colleges to leverage the admission of even more average students from well-off families"
Entirely possible that the mix of students at a University as far as "class" needs to be skewed a certain way as well to gain other hidden benefits..(Add: in addition to what else is being talked about in your and other comments.)
For example you don't want 90% of your students coming from NY State, you don't want 90% of your students to be asian and you may very well want a larger percentage of your students coming from upper middle class families just because it creates (in their opinion) a better environment as a whole at the University.
Meaning a mediocre student from a wealthy family is still a person from a wealthy family. A mediocre student from a lower class family is a person raised in a lower class family. Different dress, different actions etc. (I'm purposely using extremes to try and make the point about possible motives.)
All of this of course is not talked about but entirely possible that it exists (pure speculation). Just as it's possible that two women interviewing with exactly the same qualifications (and family background) one who is extremely attractive and one that isn't, the attractive one gets the admission.
Your thoughts?
At the colleges that are providing generous need-based aid to the poor, that aid often comes from admitting dubiously-qualified legacies with rich parents and charging them full price (or soliciting donations for a few mil).
I went to the college that was specifically called out as "The Best of the Best" in the linked NewAmerica report. There were a fair number of complete dumbasses who also attended, and continued attending despite infractions that would've gotten a normal student expelled. Their family names frequently were on the board of trustees. Their family names were also on the notebooks I bought all through elementary school and on the department stores where my mom bought all our clothes. I suspect they've given more to the college than I'll ever earn in my lifetime.
It's generally impossible to do social good without having power. Power often means making certain accommodations to rich & powerful people. There's a strong element of Robin Hood behind pretty much any sustainable philanthropic program. A lot of being able to do good in this world is knowing just how much you can afford to piss off rich & powerful people, and how much help you can extract from them, in trying to achieve your social goals.
I don't how much more clear I need to make my last comment in this thread to point out that the United States problem is that wealthy family students are already HUGELY overrepresented among college students, and an actually DUMB student from a wealthy family is much more likely to be recruited by a college, admitted to a college, and supported through graduation by a college than an actually smart student from a "lower class" (your term) family. Money talks more than smarts when it comes to college admissions in the United States. Many countries consciously set different policies, and I think that is a good idea. (For one thing, among many other possible reasons for supporting such national policies, national policies that favor brains over money in admission to higher education appear to have higher sustained rates of economic growth for the whole country and lower rates of income inequality in the national population.)
From the Business Week article I linked to in my first comment:
"For example, the paper cites data that show 19 percent of freshman with SAT scores under 700 (out of a maximum 2,400) received merit aid, as did 27 percent of freshman with scores between 700 and 999. The term 'merit scholarships,' in other words, is a misnomer, the report says, because schools can distribute the aid however they please."
I do agree with you that if colleges decide the policies, they will presumably decide for the benefit of colleges, rather than for the benefit of society as a whole. What is objectionable about United States practice is federal tax-supported subsidies to colleges that the colleges distort into benefits for wealthier individuals.
Another way to formulate the same issue would be: Colleges more likely to give $5000 in aid than $10000 in aid. News at 11.
Sucks if you absolutely need $10000 in aid of course. Is it killing the poor ? No. I worked my way through college and paid full tuition, and only got semi-sponsored housing because some friend told me that some monks actually did that if you made your case to them (essentialy you had to get and keep getting good grades. 80%+ good grades that is, a lot tougher than it sounds (average of class was < 50%), especially if you need a job to pay for tuition as well). So I did present my grades to these monks, and they got me in that system. Later I was able to trade other things (like helping run a fraternity in trade for a room at the fraternity house).
"Many countries consciously set different policies, and I think ..."
Yes, I've seen that in Western Europe. Specifically you can get full tuition scholarship + free housing if your parents pay less than $x in income tax. That sounds great, until you realize ... that rich people are often paid through a company, and can simply set their own pay, and "invest" the rest in a new mercedes or a new house (which I agree is a defensible investment in some cases, but not in most cases). The pay they set, you ask ? $the_limit - 1 for example. (the same limit is used for free childcare, >50% reduction on health insurance, the list goes on ...). About 50% of the people in the free housing had rich parents (you can't tell how much tuition they pay, but you can tell where they live, and whether it's sponsored). That's how at least one "other country" does it.
They try to keep these rich cheaters people away from housing aid, and even that is just mostly people behind the counter acting illegally on behalf of the poor.
So, if the people pay, they bargain (successfully), if the government pays, no need for the people to bargain, so the costs skyrocket. How many times we have seen this? Now we see it in education too. Will we ever learn the lesson?
Historically hasn't this always been the case? I thought it wasn't until recently when college became a at least remotely affordable option.
It's been quite the opposite. College tuition fees has risen rapidly (as most other things have) but the middle and lower class wages haven't been keeping up with this trend. The middle class today is working more for same amount of money they made a decade ago.
I think darkxanthos is talking about centuries when you're talking about decades.
If by "historically" you mean over the past 1000 years or so (the first university was the University of Bologne, ~1088), then yes. Significant democratization of university education is largely a phenomenon of the post WWII era. In the US, the GI Bill. In Europe, various public funding mechanisms.
This democratization was controversial at the time, though it also coincided with the biggest boom in global wealth the world has ever seen. I suspect this is more correlative than causal, and is tied to the increasing energy available to world economies through fossil fuels. That said, technological increases supported in part by broader education have increased productivity ($GPD/GWh) as well.
In the US, it was the G.I. Bill following the Second World War. That's how my other grandfather, the one who didn't go to The Cooper Union, went to college. He pre-paid with four years in the 504th PIR, from Benning to Berlin.
College has been accessible for many students for decades, especially state colleges. When I went to a state college in the mid-90s it was possible for my middle class parents to pay tuition out of pocket without going into debt. That's not really possible today except for trade schools or community colleges.
Maybe we'll bring back the apprentice program. That's what I'm working on, I'm an Edoceo-er
Why is the graph so small?