About those student loans and the future of higher education

Every newspaper and magazine that I read has recently run an article about a looming student loan bubble. The topic also comes up in many articles on the Occupy Wall Street protests, where many members have student loan debt. Many of these articles make comparisons with the housing crisis, and the similarities are indeed striking. In recent years, the number of people taking out loans and the average amount they take out have skyrocketed. Prices have skyrocketed. Defaults have skyrocketed. Low interest rates and government assistance have pushed people to buy more expensive things using loans than they could afford otherwise. Even many of the players involved in the housing disaster are also involved in students loans: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Citibank, Well Fargo, and so forth.

Most of the articles, such as this one, focus on the for-profit segment of the college industry. There are charges that for-profit colleges mislead students about the value of their degrees and about job prospects, gave them the hard sell or even outright lied about loan terms, and pushed to maximize enrollment of students who had little chance of graduating. I have no doubt that many of these charges are true and that closer regulation is needed to prevent such abuses. However, I think that the focus on the for-profit segment causes some people to ignore the possibility that traditional colleges and university are more generally in trouble.

Higher education in general has for decades been driven by the urge to make everything bigger, better, and more expensive. The ratings dominate everything, and to move up in the ratings a university needs to spend more on professors’ salaries, classroom buildings and labs, dorms and cafeterias, libraries, publicity campaigns, outside speakers, technology, and nearly everything else. Hence the pressure has been to spend more and pass the costs on to the customers (i.e. students). Up to now there’s been no shortage of customers willing to pay, partially because they can dodge much of the cost through aid and scholarships and delay much of it through loans.

Now, however, trends are working against big spending. The down economy means people are less willing to spend and there’s less private scholarship money. The federal government has stepped in with more aid, but given the state of the budget and political reality, it can’t continue doing so forever. Budgets at state schools have been cut in many states. Meanwhile the number of college-aged people is declining slightly, and demographic groups that traditionally attend college are declining while those less likely to attend college are increasing. Lastly, people are becoming aware that a college degree doesn’t guarantee a good career the way it used to.

Add it all up and it looks like the higher education industry may need to rethink its model. Most universities are officially not-for-profit, but they do depend heavily on lots of money coming in. If the money stops coming in and they’re not prepared for it, they could be in bad shape.

shrug So the market will correct itself. What’s the problem?

Well we might say the same for health care spending. How can health care or higher education costs go up by so many times the rate of income growth? The drivers are surprisingly similar. The consumer regards the service as a “must have” and is shielded from the true cost. And a whole lot of cost goes into trying to shift the cost around, and making the funding models even more opaque.

I can’t even recognize the land-grant university I attended twenty odd years ago. Looks more like a country club now. The cost has gone by by five-fold, but they have a bowling alley, an NFL class stadium, a performing arts center that rivals the bloody Kennedy Center. Even the parking facilities are fantastic. We used to have a huge unpaved lot that was a mass of puddles or ice most of the school year. Now it’s paved, lighted and access controlled.

I did campus visits with my nephew and neice the summer before last. She was interested in whether the school had a Tokamak device but he was interested in the recreational facilities. The student ambassadors conducting the tours seemed to be a lot more interested in showing off the non-academic features.

Thousands of people in debt without a job whose pay allows them to ever pay it back? Thousands of people going bankrupt in the wake of the housing bubble was not a good idea.

The next factor is that a democracy* needs educated, intelligent, citizens who have learned to think critically instead of just swallowing sound bites. But with high student loans because of high tuition, people will only look at high-paying jobs, not at education. Society is ill-advised in the long run to only produce bankers, Business people and similar.College is not an investment.

  • I keep forgetting that the US is a republic, not a democracy, and doesn’t want to adhere to the rules and requirements of a civilized society for a democracy.

Of course, because the US is always the best, and free market and capitalism knows best, you guys can’t simply do away with that stupid competition ranking system, putting all colleges on equal footing regarding the requirments, and stop spending money on football stadiums because sport is so important, financing things by the state as other countries do. Because that would be socialist. And because the US is the best, things must always be continued as they were done before, no matter how much circumstances change.

For what it’s worth, college football stadia are mostly paid for by private funds: donors, sponsors and so on.

Colleges are building new dorms because there are more kids than there used to be, and a greater percentage go to college. They build new labs because if you don’t teach state of the art science and technology your students are not going to be employable, and new labs are expensive. The same goes for industry also.
Yes, college costs are growing faster than inflation, but I’ve never seen a convincing explanation of this. It does not appear to be football and it does not appear to be waste.

That states have backed off on support for education, and the stagnation of middle class wages has hurt also.

I’m talking about not-for-profit universities. For profit ones, which seem to exist to siphon money from student loan programs into their pockets, are a different matter.

True at least in some cases. I used to do some computer work for the daughter of the people that donated the stadium to Penn State.

For what it’s worth, the claptrap you’re responding to didn’t even merit that much of a response.

Well, it’s a lot of gibberish, but the underlying point is valid: market-based higher education doesn’t seem to be a very sensible system.

Yes, it’s not like colleges, even ones like Harvard, get only about 1/3 of their total funds by tuition money, another part from private sponsors, and the rest from the state or other govt. sources, anyway.

Are you telling me that private donors have so much control over use of the funds that the money can not be used for something that the students need much more than a new stadium?

By market-based, do you mean public instead of private? In some sense there is always going to be a market for colleges, since they differentiate themselves on specialties and difficulty, and even public colleges recruit.
In an ideal world I could see why it might make sense for all colleges to be public. In this world, politicians are going to get involved. They might decide to save money by cutting quality, they might not support relatively small schools, they may not support relatively elite schools. I think it is good for there to be more choices.

So Europe is both ideal and real, because we have public colleges, or rather, universities. Paid for by the state, with low or no tuition fees. Yes, politicans get involved in the form of ministers of culture. But parties and politicans get also elected - if the consie party wants to introduce tuition money, and the reds wants to do without, the voters decide on who gets the majority.

Pretty much every outside analysis of the higher ed industry agrees its either in or in danger of entering a bubble situation; pretty much the only ones saying otherwise are university presidents and the like. “The cost of a B.A. can rise every year for a generation without any problems” makes as much sense as “of course home prices will always go up.”

The question in the higher ed policy world is what exactly to do about it. The current admin seems set to propose doubling down on increasing federal student aid, either grants and/or loans. Other analysts see that as liable to make things worse, pointing out that billions of student loans over the last few decades have, in the aggregate, not actually served to lower the cost of attending college, but have instead gone to vastly increased administration and much more luxurious dorms and amenities for students.

The OP might be interested in reading a recent report written by Clayton Christensen, one of the foremost experts on how innovation and technology impacts industries. The gist of his analysis is that online education (which doesn’t just mean for-profit, and doesn’t just mean “online colleges;” most sizable universities are using some online delivery) is set to revolutionize the industry in the not-distant future.

Generally speaking, yes. Money is given with the explicit condition that it goes to the athletic program. These people are called “boosters,” and they sometimes have exceptional influence at the schools that embrace big-time sports.

(It should be added – most colleges do not have major athletic programs. At a lot of small schools, the booster club has bake sales and the like to raise funds.)

Sadly, Europe is slowly going the way of the US. When I was (warning - stealth brag ahead) at Oxford, there were protests because Oxford was going to start charging tuition. People saw where this was going.

In California, the UCs used to be tuition free back in the 60s. While still half the price of private schools, the UC system has been adding to the fees every year until now everyone just calls it tuition.

When Stanford was founded, it was free. Now, it is yet another school in that $50k per year or so range.

I hope Europe can keep a lid on costs, but I would not bet on it. I already see many UK schools here in the US recruiting students that they can charge large dollars for, similar to the UC schools accepting large numbers of foreign students that they can always charge out-of-state rates to as well.

While the voters might want the UCs to drop the price, they don’t seem willing to pay more in taxes yet…

I’ve actually been thinking this for the last decade. In truth, I think it is likely to be more severe and more sustained than the current housing/foreclosure crisis is for a variety of reasons.

The schools won’t lift a finger to make any changes, they’re far too focused on keeping their bloated administration departments full of dead weight. As they have had state funding cut, they didn’t bother to reduce costs concurrently, it was easier to just take more from the students- the vast majority coming from loans. You will never walk into a college financial aid office and hear them trying to talk people out of taking student loans, even if they are already six figures in debt already while working on a BA in English. Mostly these kids are inexperienced and uneducated when it comes to debt, so they are easy marks for the unscrupulous. In housing, this is a self correcting problem- fools who can’t afford 400k house are either denied the loan or lose the house (and the debt load) in foreclosure. The bank has an incentive to make it work for both parties. Student loans cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy, so there is no negative consequence for banks to loan 500k to people getting degrees in underwater basket weaving; at worst, they can garnish wages until they pass away. Schools benefit financially from this kind of arrangement, so don’t go looking for them to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Nationwide, this system is doing nothing more than gutting the future middle class. The costs of college have increased an outrageous amount, but there is no associated rise in earnings anymore-middle class wages have been stagnant for 30 years. With the demise of retirement and the job situation such that it is, college graduates find themselves in large amounts of debt before they even start working, have difficulty finding jobs and generally have little to no spare income when they do find work. This wouldn’t be a problem, except we’ve decided to have a consumption and service based economy, which is highly dependent on having a large middle class with a healthy supply of disposable income.

The simple fact is that bread and butter BA’s are becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s America. They are a holdover from a time when college used to make you stand out from the pack. Since they have become the new norm, they are only really useful for those looking to advance to higher degrees. The vast majority of previously middle class jobs that required BA’s are either being taught at community colleges as AA’s, shipped overseas or require additional schooling. Those in power don’t care to admit that, because the meme that ‘4 year college is the key to bright future’ is well-ingrained, simple and avoids trying to solve any of the real problems we face in this country WRT higher education.

That’s a pretty blunt statement of how I feel as well. Most people have in their heads a notion that universities are good, in contrast to the obvious villainy of the big banks and insurance companies. While I’m sure universities aren’t commiting the same tremendous crimes that the financial industry committed, we have to acknowledge that university administrations are large institutions, and hence they act like all large institutions do. They care about money. Even if they are non-profits officially, their existence depends on a steady stream of income so that they can continue building bigger and better buildings, hiring big-name professors, offering endowed chairs and lots of sabbaticals to those professors, and so forth. While there are surely many individuals within these institutions who are committed to the needs of students, the institutions as a whole cannot focus on the needs of every student. No big institution can do so.

I’d love to see some data on all these things, and not just rants.
What are some examples of luxurious dorms? Certainly not the ones my kids stayed in. The only dorm I would call luxurious was at Harvard in 1970. Most state colleges are out of dorm rooms, and kick students out after a year or two. (At least California and Maryland ones are like this.)
As I understand it, while there are some endowed professors, there are a lot more untenured faculty teaching gut classes with no real hope of a career - which saves money, but may not be a good thing. While sabbaticals could be used for goofing off, the professors I know use them for better things - like working in industry to see what is really going on or going away to do research.
As for bloated staff, I’m sure there is some bloat, but Maryland had one person dedicated to getting students awards and fellowships, and helped my daughter get a Fulbright. Worthless? I see it as a service.
California community colleges get a certain amount of dollars per student. That means that there is a big backlog of people wanting to be in nursing, where there are jobs, since teaching nursing is more expensive than teaching English, and the colleges can’t afford the facilities to teach everyone who wants to enroll.
I’m all for eliminating waste - and I’m still waiting to find some real data on it - but I also don’t want to turn all our colleges into WalMarts.