# Why is a federal dept. of education needed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376 "2012-02-10T04:11:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/81 "2012-02-13T15:37:07Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > You’re missing the point here. Comparing construction costs to 1950 dollars and today’s dollars is irrelevant because technology changes, the law changes, and university needs change. A building built for $1 million in 1950 wouldn’t be built today because it probably wouldn’t meet modern needs and codes. I’m not sure what your point is here. You are the one who seems to be saying that construction and maintenance costs have increased dramatically. It’s impossible to make such a claim without comparing costs now to costs then. It’s reasonable to assert that construction costs are higher now due to stricter building codes and compliance requirements, but in order to sustain your claim you need to provide actual figures, not just hand-waving. Because you are (presumably) not claiming a modest increase – you are (presumably) claiming a dramatic increase. So please show me some actual figures. > [@](#): > > Well, there is the law of supply and demand, for one. Universities that don’t have reasonably modern facilities can’t compete against those that do. No students means no tuition dollars and limited alumni support, among other things. That’s pretty much the point. Making massive amounts of student loans and grants available increases the amount that students are willing and able to pay for college. Colleges are competing for these extra dollars and using the extra money to pay for fancy facilities to aid in their competition. The whole process would be funny if it weren’t so wasteful and destructive. > [@](#): > > And there are those pesky safety regulations and best practices, like making sure chemistry labs are properly vented so chemical fumes and gases can’t build up and suffocate people or explode. Y’know, little things like that. When I went to college 20 years ago, all of the chemistry labs were properly ventilated. Probably that was true 40 years ago too. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/82 "2012-02-13T16:53:35Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’m not sure what your point is here. You are the one who seems to be saying that construction and maintenance costs have increased dramatically. It’s impossible to make such a claim without comparing costs now to costs then. You’re right in that, in strict dollar amounts, construction costs have increased dramatically. However, it’s still an apples-to-oranges comparison when you consider that construction costs now have to factor in newer technology, updated codes, and the cost of specialized classroom and lab space. I’m trying to dig up information about the original construction, but I’m not having any luck. > [@](#): > > It’s reasonable to assert that construction costs are higher now due to stricter building codes and compliance requirements, but in order to sustain your claim you need to provide actual figures, not just hand-waving. Because you are (presumably) not claiming a modest increase – you are (presumably) claiming a dramatic increase. I provided cites, two of them in fact, from a reputable information service. Please read them. > [@](#): > > So please show me some actual figures. I did. But since you’re being difficult, here [are some more](http://www.ship.edu/assets/0/153/686/0cbfa1e0-e0da-46a6-8a35-8ea0da027b1f.pdf). I should explain that some of these projects are funded by the University itself, some are funded by the Student Association with money that they already have, and some are funded by the University’s Foundation, which raises money from alumni, friends of the university, and corporate donors, and which does not receive money from the university at all. And some are funded directly by the state through the Department of General Services. The SA, Foundation and DGS pay for projects from their own pots of money, which does not affect tuition one way or the other, since they do not receive tuition money. ISTR a conversation between me and the head of the Graduate Council where he claimed that the majority of tuition goes to the operation of the university; that is, faculty and staff salary, supplies and materials, technology, and facilities maintenance, but not construction, which is the biggest reason why funding cuts from the state hurt so much; there’s no money for additional faculty, reduced budgets for supplies, and computers have to last a little longer. (Yes, my post is my cite. I was there and you weren’t. Deal with it.) > [@](#): > > That’s pretty much the point. Making massive amounts of student loans and grants available increases the amount that students are willing and able to pay for college. Colleges are competing for these extra dollars and using the extra money to pay for fancy facilities to aid in their competition. The whole process would be funny if it weren’t so wasteful and destructive. If college buildings didn’t have names attached to them, and if college foundations didn’t have capital campaigns, and if the state weren’t stepping in to pay for some of this stuff, you might be right. But there is a lot of philanthropy that benefits universities, and that’s what pays for fancy new buildings and stuff. If anything, these gifts reduce the cost of tuition or keep it even because that money pays for stuff so the students don’t have to. > [@](#): > > When I went to college 20 years ago, all of the chemistry labs were properly ventilated. Probably that was true 40 years ago too. Whatever was “proper” 20 or 40 years ago may not be best practices now. One of the reasons why universities need to update and modernize their facilities is because they know that their students will enter the workforce, and they’d like their students to be properly trained for that workforce. Teaching modern-day science in a properly-equipped lab is a great way to guarantee that their future alumni will know what the hell they’re doing when they get a job. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/83 "2012-02-13T17:07:00Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > You’re right in that, in strict dollar amounts, construction costs have increased dramatically. However, it’s still an apples-to-oranges comparison when you consider that construction costs now have to factor in newer technology, updated codes, and the cost of specialized classroom and lab space. I’m trying to dig up information about the original construction, but I’m not having any luck. Again, I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to be claiming that the cost of compliance has increased construction costs dramatically, i.e. multi-fold. Please back up your claim. > [@](#): > > I provided cites, two of them in fact, from a reputable information service. Please read them. I looked at them and did not see anything there which backed up your claim. Can you please quote the relevant parts? > [@](#): > > I did. But since you’re being difficult, here [are some more](http://www.ship.edu/assets/0/153/686/0cbfa1e0-e0da-46a6-8a35-8ea0da027b1f.pdf). I see nothing in that chart which supports your claim. I agree that it costs a lot to construct an academic building nowadays. I agree that the cost is probably higher now than in the past because of stricter building codes and other laws. > [@](#): > > I should explain that some of these projects are funded by the University itself, some are funded by the Student Association with money that they already have, and some are funded by the University’s Foundation, which raises money from alumni, friends of the university, and corporate donors, and which does not receive money from the university at all. And some are funded directly by the state through the Department of General Services. The SA, Foundation and DGS pay for projects from their own pots of money, which does not affect tuition one way or the other, since they do not receive tuition money. ISTR a conversation between me and the head of the Graduate Council where he claimed that the majority of tuition goes to the operation of the university; that is, faculty and staff salary, supplies and materials, technology, and facilities maintenance, but not construction, which is the biggest reason why funding cuts from the state hurt so much; there’s no money for additional faculty, reduced budgets for supplies, and computers have to last a little longer. I have no idea what your point is here. Look, it is undeniable that college tuition has increased dramatically since 1950. In real dollars, it has increased like 7-fold at the University of Pennsylvania. There has been a suggestion that this increase is due in large part to increased costs to construct and maintain buildings. Do you agree with this claim or not? > [@](#): > > If college buildings didn’t have names attached to them, and if college foundations didn’t have capital campaigns, and if the state weren’t stepping in to pay for some of this stuff, you might be right. But there is a lot of philanthropy that benefits universities, and that’s what pays for fancy new buildings and stuff. If anything, these gifts reduce the cost of tuition or keep it even because that money pays for stuff so the students don’t have to. Again, I have no idea what your point is here. If the money for construction comes from sources other than tuition, it undermines the claim that tuition increases are being significantly driven by construction costs. > [@](#): > > Whatever was “proper” 20 or 40 years ago may not be best practices now. Show me actual dollar figures from both now and in the past. Otherwise you are just waving your hands. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/84 "2012-02-13T17:42:04Z")
> [@Pablo\_O\_Malley](#): > > i’m from pa., home of new math and outcome based ed., both of which failed miserably > > can’t another agency handle the grants if thats all it does? It does more than that. All of which can be handled by another department but other than reduce the payroll of the US government by one cabinet secretary. What have you achieved. You could get rid of the department of defense and run our military out of the department of homeland security if you want. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/85 "2012-02-13T17:57:15Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The problem isn’t with the amount of money being spent. We spend more money than places like South Korea and Finland, but we perform well below that level. So the problem isn’t lack of funding as progressives will claim in the face of nearly every failure of government. The problem is the system on which that money is spent. I don’t know about Finland but South Korea is not a great example. They do not accommodate non native speakers or kids with special needs. You are on your own. This makes for much lower school spending per student Average class sizes are in excess of 50 (turns out that once class sizes exceed something like 20 there is very little loss of learning by increasing class sizes as long as you can maintain discipline. The school day is much longer too. But the biggest difference is the parents. Korean parents spend slot of money sending their kids to special tutoring classes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/86 "2012-02-13T18:47:01Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > You shouldn’t since that loan money is primarily a benefit to the college and a detriment to your child. If student loans were unavailable, colleges would have no choice but to cut tuition down to the reasonable levels of the 50s and 60s. Back then, it was possible to work your way through an Ivy League college and professional school at a minimum wage job. I think you are mistaking correlation for causation to some extent. People simply couldn’t AFFORD to go to college before guaranteed student loans. Guaranteed student loans increased access to education which increased demand for education and it is this increase in demand that has caused the increase in price. High cost of higher education is a problem but restricting college education largely to the wealthy hardly seems like the right way to go n ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/87 "2012-02-13T18:48:47Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The Republicans dislike for the department of eduction basically boils down to the following. > > 1. The Department of Education was put into place by the Carter administrations > 2. Carter was a Democrat > 3. Everything the Democrats do is bad > Therefore > 4. The Department of Education is bad. Didn’t Nixon create the EPA ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/88 "2012-02-13T18:55:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, no need to speculate about what happens to tuition without student loans. That was the situation in the 50s and 60s. And what do you think the college attendance rates looked like back then? If you removed the GI bill what would it have looked like? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/89 "2012-02-13T18:59:21Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I’ll bet 50’s-and-60’s era style tuition would be perfectly adequate to pay for a 50’s-and-60’s style education, complete with 50’s-and-60’s style classroom technology, 50’s-and-60’s style computer and science labs, 50’s-and-60’s style housing and food, 50’s-and-60’s style athletic facilities, etc. Well inflation accounts for about half of the increase in higher education cost. The eat of it is probably based on higher demand. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/90 "2012-02-13T22:54:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you are mistaking correlation for causation to some extent. > > People simply couldn’t AFFORD to go to college before guaranteed student loans. That’s just not true. I have shown the calculations earlier in the thread. > [@](#): > > Guaranteed student loans increased access to education which increased demand for education and it is this increase in demand that has caused the increase in price. I’m not sure what your point is here. My position is that access to student loans increased the amount of money people were able and willing to pay for college. This increase demand resulted in an increase in tuition. Do you disagree with my position? > [@](#): > > High cost of higher education is a problem but restricting college education largely to the wealthy hardly seems like the right way to go n Before student loans, poor (but bright) people could and did go to college. I have family members who did so. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/91 "2012-02-13T22:55:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And what do you think the college attendance rates looked like back then? I would guess that they were far less than what they are now. Which I see as preferable to today’s situation. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/92 "2012-02-13T22:57:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well inflation accounts for about half of the increase in higher education cost. Tuition at the University of Pennsylvania has increased 7-fold in real dollars since 1950. So I think it’s reasonable to state that the vast majority of the increase in tuition is attributable to causes other than inflation. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/93 "2012-02-14T03:06:40Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > It’s not a discount because they use money from their endowment and other endowed scholarships to pay all the real costs of running the university that would otherwise have been paid by the student’s tuition. It would be a discount if they simply didn’t collect that portion of the tuition, but then they would become insolvent and all teaching and research would come to a screeching halt. Its more a sliding scale than a discount. But not every school has a 30 billion dollar endowment. > [@brazil84](#): > > Let’s see if I have this straight: If Harvard cut tuition by 5% across the board, the whole university would promptly fail? I don’t get the impression you are talking about reductions in the 5% range. I get the impression that you want something on the order of an 80% cut across the board. (Penn was $740 in 1950, that inflation adjusts to $6700 in 2010, they currently charge about $48,000 all in, it seems like you think that the tuition should have increased at approximately the rate of inflation) Oh yeah and as someone mentioned earlier, See Baumol’s cost disease. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > it doesn’t seem to actually improve their ultimate success; we can chart that much earlier based on their SAT scores, and their education has very little to do with it in the long run. Cite please. Lifetime earnings of a college dropout is lower than a college grad. I don’t know why you would think otherwise. > [@](#): > > In short, it doesn’t really matter what arguments you have to the contrary, because the outcomes are clear. There’s simply no evidence that it has any measurable impact. As a result, it doesn’t matter what nice programs it runs or how good it makes people feel. Cite please. It seems to me that our economy has changed to the point where no matter how smart you are, your chances of success increases with higher education. > [@brazil84](#): > > I wouldn’t. Not a positive result anyway. Most of the value in having a college degree comes from distinguishing yourself from others. Pushing millions of extra people into college just creates degree inflation and wastes a lot of peoples’ time and money. And saddles hundreds of thousands of young people with billions of dollars of dollars in debt which can never be discharged in bankruptcy Wait. What? Sure some people spend their time getting silly degrees with no idea how that will help prepare them for life after college and there is some degree inflation but it hasn’t been ALL degree inflation, we are actually educating more people who are contributing more to society as a result. If you want to limit access to higher education then fine but basing it on ability to pay is one of the worst ways of doing it. > [@brazil84](#): > > That’s essentially false. Before widespread financial aid, it was possible to “work your way through college” at a minimum wage job. I know it sounds crazy in 2012, but just do the math. For example, in 1950, tuition room and board at the University of Pennsylvania was 740 per year. The minimum wage at that time was .75 per hour. So you could work part time during the year and full time in the summer and work your way through college. And plenty of people did it. > > Also, there were still government subsidies at the state and local level. For example, plenty of smart but poor kids went to CCNY and did not pay a dime in tuition or fees. Are you fucking serious? Sure its possible but its not desirable. > [@](#): > > I think that everyone in the country should be entitled to a basic level of free education, i.e. through high school. After that, higher education should be for the intellectual haves, perhaps the top 15 or 20 percent of the population in intelligence. And yet you seem to be advocating a system that would favor the top 10-15% of the population in wealth. > [@](#): > > I don’t object to a government subsidy for education; my objections are to (1) the everyone should go to college idea; and (2) subsidies through student loans and grants which allow greedy colleges to soak up most of the benefits. We’ve had threads on the first issue and frankly we simply can’t compete in 2010 with a 1950 work force. There are about a hundred Chinese business leaders in DC this week for a meeting with the US chamber of commerce. All the jobs that don’t require a college degree and can be exported to China will be exported to China. > [@](#): > > Even today, with billions of dollars in funding for education, health care, and everything else, the rich have more and better opportunities than everyone else. I don’t see this as a big problem. You don’t see the benefit of levelling the playing field? > [@brazil84](#): > > It’s not even necessary to work full time. If you worked 20 hours a week during the school year and 60 hours a week during the summer at a minimum wage job, you would have made $1267 – far more than the total dollars for tuition, room, and board for Penn. Not only that, it’s possible to save a lot of money by crashing on a friend’s couch; eating at the local shelter; staying with your parents; taking your minimum wage job at a restaurant; etc. Eating at the local shelter and crashing on a friend’s couch? Sure Steve Jobs did it but we can’t populate our colleges with Steve Jobs, there simply aren’t enough of them. > [@brazil84](#): > > So I did some Google searches and found [this chart](http://www.census.gov/construction/cpi/pdf/price_uc.pdf) which lays out construction costs for single family residences. Adjusted for inflation, there has been a modest increase – like 10% or so – since 1964. That is a constant quality comparison We didn’t have things like central air and elevators in the 1950’s. But more than the cost of the brick and mortar, see baumol’s disease. > [@brazil84](#): > > That’s just not true. I have shown the calculations earlier in the thread. You’re not talking about the one where you talk about eating at food at the local shelter and crashing on a friend’s couch are you? Because, I don’t think that’s a model for our educational system. Frankly working your way through school is not a model for access to higher education, it is a deterrant. > [@brazil84](#): > > I would guess that they were far less than what they are now. Which I see as preferable to today’s situation. And you think that wealth or the willingness to eat at the local shelter to save money is the best filter? How about we fund state schools and make them more selective. In many countries in Europe, college costs less than $1000/year including room and board but its a bitch to get in. > [@brazil84](#): > > Tuition at the University of Pennsylvania has increased 7-fold in real dollars since 1950. So I think it’s reasonable to state that the vast majority of the increase in tuition is attributable to causes other than inflation. Yes some of it is gouging by schools, but a lot of it is changes in standards (classrooms are air conditioned, facilities require more advanced equipment, facilities are generally nicer), some of it is baumol’s disease (add to that the fact that the particular sector of the labor market that the college hires from also feeds into investment banks, hi tech companies, law firms and other much higher end occupations (the median income may have only increased 60% in real dollars but that sliver of the labor force has had their median income shoot through the roof). A college degree is worth a lot more than it used to be, colleges are skimming some of that because people are so eager to capture that difference. Colleges don’t compete on price as much as you might want. Say your kid gets into University of Virginia (a great school with a relatively low tuition) and Princeton (a great school with a very high tuition). Where do you send your kid? I suppose some of these reasons don’t really sit well with me either but the notion of restricting access based on ability to pay sounds even worse. If you wanted to increase admissions standards then that would be fine with me but then I think we should fund those students that make it in better than we do. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/94 "2012-02-14T08:42:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t get the impression you are talking about reductions in the 5% range. When I asked that question, I was responding to a particular claim. The person seemed to be claiming that ANY cut in tuition would lead to insolvency. > [@](#): > > I get the impression that you want something on the order of an 80% cut across the board. (Penn was $740 in 1950, that inflation adjusts to $6700 in 2010, they currently charge about $48,000 all in, it seems like you think that the tuition should have increased at approximately the rate of inflation) Probably yes, but it needn’t come overnight. Anyway, the issue being debated is whether the availability of financial aid has caused tuitions and fees to go up a lot. Do you agree that the availability of financial aid has caused tuitions and fees to go up a lot? > [@](#): > > Oh yeah and as someone mentioned earlier, See Baumol’s cost disease. I’m not sure what your point is here. Can you spell it out please? > [@](#): > > Wait. What? > > Sure some people spend their time getting silly degrees with no idea how that will help prepare them for life after college and there is some degree inflation but it hasn’t been ALL degree inflation, we are actually educating more people who are contributing more to society as a result. I think it’s mostly degree inflation. In your view, and just shooting from the hip, what percentage of college grads are doing jobs which really require a college degree? > [@](#): > > If you want to limit access to higher education then fine but basing it on ability to pay is one of the worst ways of doing it. In our system, if you limit access to just about any resource, wealthy people will have better access to that resource. So it will always (to an extent) be based on ability to pay. Note that in the 1950s and 60s, scholarships and reduced tuition were available in a lot of places. For example CCNY didn’t charge any tuition at all. > [@](#): > > Are you fucking serious? Sure its possible but its not desirable. Why exactly is it not desirable? > [@](#): > > And yet you seem to be advocating a system that would favor the top 10-15% of the population in wealth. . Of course I do. Pretty much every system which limits access to some resource favors the wealthiest people. Let me ask you this: What system do you favor? Today’s? > [@](#): > > We’ve had threads on the first issue and frankly we simply can’t compete in 2010 with a 1950 work force. There are about a hundred Chinese business leaders in DC this week for a meeting with the US chamber of commerce. All the jobs that don’t require a college degree and can be exported to China will be exported to China. Can you give me 3 examples of such jobs please? > [@](#): > > You don’t see the benefit of levelling the playing field? Not in comparison to other values, no. As an extreme example, would you rather have a system where everyone everyone is equal but miserable or a system where people towards the bottom are pretty well off and people at the top are very well off? > [@](#): > > Eating at the local shelter and crashing on a friend’s couch? Sure Steve Jobs did it but we can’t populate our colleges with Steve Jobs, there simply aren’t enough of them. I’m not sure what your point is here. Do you agree that pretty much any 18-20 year old is capable of living extremely frugally? (You can assume for the sake of argument that one must always pay for one’s food and shelter.) > [@](#): > > That is a constant quality comparison We didn’t have things like central air and elevators in the 1950’s. So what? > [@](#): > > But more than the cost of the brick and mortar, see baumol’s disease. Again, please spell out your argument. > [@](#): > > You’re not talking about the one where you talk about eating at food at the local shelter and crashing on a friend’s couch are you? I am, but if for some reason you think it’s not feasible to live that way, note that even assuming a modest expense for room and board, it was STILL possible to work your way through college. And note that for a large percentage of kids, it was and is possible to attend college while living with one’s family. > [@](#): > > Frankly working your way through school is not a model for access to higher education, it is a deterrant. So you are abandoning your claim that “People simply couldn’t AFFORD to go to college before guaranteed student loans.”? > [@](#): > > And you think that wealth or the willingness to eat at the local shelter to save money is the best filter? Not necessarily. But it’s preferable to the current situation. Better that young people should live spartan lives for a few years and end up with a big boost in life than end up with a degree of questionable value and tens of thousands in debt which can never ever be discharged in bankruptcy. > [@](#): > > Yes some of it is gouging by schools, but a lot of it is changes in standards (classrooms are air conditioned, facilities require more advanced equipment, facilities are generally nicer), These are really the same thing as I mentioned above. > [@](#): > > I suppose some of these reasons don’t really sit well with me either but the notion of restricting access based on ability to pay sounds even worse. You realize, don’t you, that under today’s system, that many children of the not-so-wealthy tend to graduate with thousands of dollars in debt which can never be discharged in bankruptcy? Anyway, please answer my question from before. My position is that access to student loans increased the amount of money people were able and willing to pay for college. This increase demand resulted in an increase in tuition. Do you disagree with my position? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/95 "2012-02-14T14:41:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Tuition at the University of Pennsylvania has increased 7-fold in real dollars since 1950. So I think it’s reasonable to state that the vast majority of the increase in tuition is attributable to causes other than inflation. I’m going to have to ask you to show your work, because you posted something earlier in the thread that turns out to be inaccurate: > [@brazil84](#): > > For example, in 1950, tuition room and board at the University of Pennsylvania was 740 per year. The minimum wage at that time was .75 per hour. > [@](#): > > [Undergraduate Schools > > College, College of Liberal Arts for Women, School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS), the Wharton School, the School of Nursing, and the School of Allied Medical Professions (SAMP) > > Tuition: $600 > General Fee: $25 > > Room and Board: $690 > Books: $50]([http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/tuition/1950.html](http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/tuition/1950.html)) Even leaving out the “general fee” and cost of books, that’s $1,290, not $740… or $12,040 in today’s money based on the CPI. [For the 2011-12 school year, tuition at UPenn was $37,620. Housing and meals (we’ll assume the 1950 “room and board” figure included meals) total $11,878, for a total “tuition, room and board” figure of $49,498](http://www.sfs.upenn.edu/paying/cost-of-attendance.htm). A big increase, to be sure, but nothing like “7-fold”. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the fact that most students pay nothing like that amount even _before_ state and federal aid, thanks to institutional gifts and loans. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/96 "2012-02-14T17:46:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Didn’t Nixon create the EPA I think you missed a memo - the correct usage is Nixon (D). ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/97 "2012-02-14T18:16:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m going to have to ask you to show your work Certainly. According to [this web site](http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/tuition/1950.html), Penn tuition (and fees) in 1950 was $625. If you then go to [this web site](http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), and enter the $625; 1950; and 2010, you get $5597. If you then go [here](http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/tuition/2010.html) and add the $36,208; $3300; $646; and $360 which are shown for tuition and fees for 2010, you get a total of $40,514. Finally, if you divide 40,514 by 5597 you get 7.23. For a 7-fold increase in tuition (and fees) in real dollars. That’s how I did the calculation, I hope it makes sense. > [@](#): > > because you posted something earlier in the thread that turns out to be inaccurate: Yes, in one of my calculations I used the wrong figures for tuition room and board. But it doesn’t change my basic point, which is that it was still possible to work your way through college before student loans came in. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/98 "2012-02-14T18:39:36Z")
I guess I can live with that. It seems rather unfair to include the fees, since according to Penn… > [@](#): > > General Fee - The general fee constitutes a partial contribution to the support of such essential facilities as a large library system, museums and institutes, and special laboratories. A general fee is charged for each session in which a student enrolls. > > Technology Fee - The technology fee covers all the public computing labs, networking access and a host of other computing services and local support. For an overview of Penn’s technology services, refer to: www.upenn.edu/computing/penngetsit/index.html. > > Clinical Fee - The clinical fee is required for students enrolled in 4 or more c.u.s and allows them unlimited access to the Penn Student Health Service. The fee is charged each semester that a student is enrolled for 4 or more c.u.s. The clnical fee is waived for students enrolled in the Penn Student Health Insurance Plan. > > Recreation Fee - Students enrolled in 4 or more c.u.s are automatically members of Pottruck Center, the University fitness center, through a dedicated recreation fee. The basketball and squash courts and pool in Hutchinson Gymnasium are available to those who have a valid PennCard but do not hold a Pottruck membership. I’m fairly certain students in 1950 didn’t receive many of those services, other than the library, swimming pool and maybe some squash courts. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/99 "2012-02-14T18:54:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I guess I can live with that. It seems rather unfair to include the fees I disagree, since fees are part of the “price of admission,” so to speak, at most universities. If you have the right to opt out of the recreation fee and purchase a private gym membership elsewhere, then it would be fair to exclude it. Same reasoning with the other fees. Note that at most universities, you can in fact opt out of student housing. When I went to college, a lot of students lived in cars; stayed with their boyfriends/girlfriends; crashed on their friends’ couches; etc. Also a lot of kids simply live with their parents and commute to college. > [@](#): > > I’m fairly certain students in 1950 didn’t receive many of those services, other than the library, swimming pool and maybe some squash courts. Well as I noted previously, part of the problem is that the injection of massive federal funding causes schools to compete for those federal dollars by spending a lot of the money on fancy facilities. Imagine if the federal government gave every American with a driver license a $30,000 grant to buy a car. With the further proviso that the money had to be spent on a car. You can bet that a lot more cars would come out with heated steering wheels. ---
**Author:** ![KneeSid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dec6dc/32.png) [@KneeSid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneeSid)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376/100 "2012-02-14T19:33:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Even assuming that removing air conditioning from dorm rooms would cut the cost of housing by more than half (Harvard charges $7,800 to live in a dorm for 10 months, not including tuition and so on), I think you’ll find employers may look at your child oddly when they find out he can’t use a computer but is a whiz on a Smith Corona. You are assuming that the student would not be able to pick up other skills on his own. Where I work our CEO and directors regularly cannot use a computer program or use it only at 10% efficiency. They simply hire people for $10/hr who can [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-federal-dept-of-education-needed/612376.md?page=6)