I’m not assuming that at all. Other out there are asserting that things like air conditioning are what has caused the massive increase in the cost to attend college.
First of all, they won’t care. If they did care, humanities majors at Harvard would be rushing to take computer classes at ITT Technical Institute during the summer. Second of all, there’s nothing stopping our hypothetical Harvard student from buying his own computer for $500 and practicing with it during the summer. Or from supplementing his education with a computer class at community college.
Not that I don’t believe you but I just GOTTA ask. When and where did you go? I mean living in cars and friend’s couches?
I went to college in the 1980s and the cost of attendance was about half what it is today in absolute dollars (tuition room and board was about 25K its about 50K today) and NOONE slept in their car or crashed on their friends couch (unless they were looking for housing at the beginning of the year).
Yes it has driven up the cost of tuition. It has also increased access.
Baumol’s disease basically says that because the wage level rises across industries, those industries where productivity does not increase as much with technology tend to have prices that outpace the rate of inflation. Health care and education are the poster children for this phenomenon.
You do realize that tuition does not pay for for one student’s portion of running a college in most cases, right?
I don’t know. I do know that the increase in lifetime income from having a college degree vastly outstrips the cost. I know that the unemployment rate among college grads is significantly better than high school grads. I know that the advantages of having a college degree makes it almost mandatory to have one.
There is no reason to magnify the advantages of wealth in our society.
You ever wonder why employers have policies against moonlighting? Because it interfere’s with your ability to do your day job.
Same holds true for college.
Well, I like the European system where admission is highly selective but it pretty much free once you get in.
They also have vocational schools that teach you how to earn a living.
Just about any durable goods manufacturing.
And you think denying access to college education to the poor would result in that?
Frugal is one thing. Eating at soup kitchens is another.
I’m sorry if I confused you. I didn’t mean that it was impossible, I’m saying it was practically infeasible for a lot of people. The cost benefit starts to tilt heavily away from college if you are going to have four years of working 20 hours a week during the school year, 60 during the summer and eat at soup kitchens.
Wow.
You can discharge student debt in bankruptcy. Its a lot harder than with other debt but if you can’t afford the student loans it can be discharged.
I don’t think ANYONE disagrees with the statement that student loans have resulted in increased tuition. A lot of us don’t think that cutting off access is the answer.
I went to college about 20 years ago. Sorry, I’m not going to say where, but I think most reasonable people would concede my point which is that it’s completely doable for a 20-year-old to live extremely frugally for 4 years.
So what exactly have I said that you disagree with?
I realize that this is denotatively correct but it is connotatively false. In other words, if you look at the total budget of a place like Harvard or Princeton, the revenue from student tuition payments is only a fraction of that total budget. So strictly speaking you are right. However the statement is connotatively false because it subtly assumes that the cost of running a college is some fixed number which was brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai, which is of course untrue. It would be completely possible to have a no-frills college financed 100% by modest tuition payments.
If you don’t know, then there’s not much meat to your claim that “we are actually educating more people who are contributing more to society as a result.” Perhaps it’s only 2 or 3 people a year.
So what? This is not the least bit inconsistent with the degree inflation hypothesis.
Have I suggested anywhere that our society should do so? And do you agree that it’s foolish to level the playing field at all costs?
Do you understand that even today, plenty of kids work during college? And assuming your answer is “yes,” are you saying that the current system is “not desirable”?
I like it too, but I would note two things: First, this sub-thread is about the current system in America, not that of Europe. Second, I’m pretty confident that even in Europe children of the rich who are mediocre students get opportunities to go to college which opportunities are lacking for similar children of the middle and lower classes.
Are you seriously claiming that a line worker in a factory needs a college degree for his job? A simple yes or no will do.
No I don’t. Please either quote me where I have so suggested or admit that I made no such suggestion.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
I’m not sure what you mean by “practically infeasible.” Putting aside the Ivy League, do you agree that in the 50s and 60s there were public colleges which were far cheaper? For example CCNY charged no tuition at all at that time. Any bright but poor child in New York City could attend for 20 cents a day – the cost of two subway rides between his parents’ tenement and CCNY’s campus in upper Manhattan. That works out to about 40 dollars a year in 1950.
Lol, a stunning rebuttal.
As a practical matter, it’s impossible. And it’s not enough to show that you cannot afford to make the payments. Normally you have to also show that you will be unlikely to be able to make payments in the future. For a young healthy person, this is extremely difficult.
Let’s put it this way: It was a lot easier for a poor person in 1950 to attend college than it is for anyone in 2012 to get student loan debt discharged in bankruptcy.
Let’s do this: Please quote the statement I have made which you disagree with.
CCNY/CUNY is an interesting case, but not a good argument. While the school charged no tuition for decades, the reason was because it was completely subsidized by the City of New York. It started charging tuition in 1975, when NYC went broke. Similarly, California’s community colleges were tuition-free until the 1980s.
I’m sure we can go to some basement and dig out mildewed financial records, but absent that, there’s nothing to say whether CCNY was a model of low-cost educational efficiency or if it was just a bloated municipal institution that hid its true costs in a tax-funded bureaucracy.
Given its background, CUNY should be a model of a no-frills education. It’s current undergraduate tuition cost for a non-NY resident is $460/credit hour. However, that’s almost twice as much as CUNY charges for its Community College. Given that it’s the same institution, and in many cases the same courses, I have to include there’s an intrinsic cost to a degree-granting instution that can’t be reduced.
I also poked around to find out about my alma mater, the University of Missouri. It turns out that about 25% of MU’s budget is devoted something called the University Health System. That includes not just the Schools of Medicine and Nursing, but multiple hospitals and a group of community clinics. (Ironically, it doesn’t include student health services, which are paid from activity fees.)
That particular “mission” of MU didn’t even exist in the 1950’s (prior to 1958, MU didn’t even have it’s own hospital; students in the Medical and Nursing programs were farmed out to various hospitals in the area to do their practical work.) At some point the decision was made to integrate healthcare into the educational system.
So it isn’t fair to compare today’s educational system with what was in place 50 years ago. Different funding sources, different priorities, different organizational models, etc.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Do you dispute the claim that in the 50s and 60s, it was practically feasible for poor (but bright) people to attend college?
I don’t see why you would assume that. CUNY has potential access to the same spigot of federal aid dollars that any other school has, agreed?
Why would you conclude that? The obvious conclusion is that it’s the market at work, i.e. people are willing to pay more for studies which are likely to result in a degree.
Here’s a question: Have you ever noticed that it’s usually possible to walk onto the campus of a high rated university and sit in on classes even if you are not registered as a student there? Why is it that Harvard doesn’t have people checking ID’s at the entrance to the lecture halls? Aren’t they worried that people will “steal” a Harvard education?
I disagree. The whole point is that funding sources, priorities, etc. have changed.
Correct me if I’m wrong. The issue under debate is that the availability of cheap student loans has made it possible for schools to charge higher tuition.
And, it goes to follow, without cheap student loans, colleges would be forced to roll back their tuition levels to something resembling 1950’s era levels (adjusted only for normal inflation.)
Have I summarized the argument properly?
My rebuttal is that there are a variety of factors which have affected the cost of a college education since the 1950s. The idea that schools would lower their tuition rates dramatically if students had to pay without the help of low-priced loans is not supported by the available evidence.
That’s pretty much correct, except that there were other issues being discussed too. There has been a suggestion that before student loans came in, it was not economically feasible for poor people to attend college. CCNY is one example which shows this to be incorrect.
What factors and what effects?
What evidence are you talking about?
Anyway, please answer my questions from before:
Do you dispute the claim that in the 50s and 60s, it was practically feasible for poor (but bright) people to attend college?
CUNY has potential access to the same spigot of federal aid dollars that any other school has, agreed?
In the case of CUNY, it was the dramatic reduction of tax support that caused the school to charge tuition. In the case of the University of Missouri, the school has taken on a role (health care) that it didn’t have in the past.
The only evidence that widely available student loans leads to high tuition, is that there are widely available student loans, and high tuition. Correlation is not causation.
As I noted upthread, college attendence in the 50s and 60s was already impacted by the effects of the GI Bill and other programs. A better basis point would be the interwar era (1920s and 30s). Of course, as Really Not All That Bright pointed out, only five percent of adults had a college degree regardless of income. In fact, RNATB’s cite shows that even as late as 1970, only about 15% percent of adults under 30 had a degree. If it were that easy for poor people to go to college, why didn’t more people have degrees?
Lol, you are assuming that people didn’t go to college only because they were unable to go.
I find this amusing because you are probably so steeped in the “everyone should go to college” mentality that it did not even occur to you that in 1950, there were plenty of perfectly respectable middle class people who graduated high school and went straight to work, marriage, the military, trade school, etc. by their own choice.
You can’t have it both ways. If nobody wanted to go to college in 1950, then the reason costs have gone up is a massive increase in demand, and not the increase in available of financial aid.
I’m not sure what your point is here. “Demand” means peoples’ ability and willingness to pay for something. Increasing the availability of student loans pretty much necessarily increases demand.
Anyway, it’s not a question of whether or people wanted to go to college; it was a matter of how much they wanted to go and what they were willing to do to go. Making student loans available makes college more attractive for people at the margins.
Apparently, very few people were willing to do what it took to go to college (perhaps unsurprisingly, since you thought college students should be hanging out at homeless shelters). This stands in rather sharp contrast to your claim that college was affordable.
In other words, if we do what you suggest and eliminate the federal aid program- and thus, supposedly, reduce the cost of college to 1950s levels, adjusted for inflation- we’ll end up with a 5% college educated workforce.
The idea in the past was not just that not everyone would go to college, the idea was that not everyone would graduate high school. My grandfather, as an example, only completed the 8th grade. He eventually became a member of both the Carpenter’s Union and the Welder’s Union and had a nice, stable working class life.
It was expected that most people would do this. Being a high school graduate was a big deal and a definite step up. People bragged about being the first person in their family to get a diploma. You were management track, then, sometimes even if you were female. The fact that they didn’t want to go to college was perfectly in line with the employment environment they lived in.
Today high school diplomas are mostly no big thing because some of them are completely worthless.
That’s not really an answer to my question. You asserted that “there are a variety of factors which have affected the cost of a college education since the 1950s.” I am asking what factors in general, not about 2 particular schools.
Let me put it a different way: Generally speaking, what are the most important factors which have affected the cost of a college education since the 1950s?
It’s not just a correlation. It’s not very controversial that increases in demand for a service tend to cause increases in the price for that service. It’s also common sense.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
I would guess it was a combination of (1) it was difficult and time-consuming to get a college degree; and (2) it wasn’t necessary for most people.
In that case, why are you seemingly confident that “CUNY should be a model of a no-frills education”? If CUNY has access to federal student loan dollars, it too would have incentives to increase tuition.
Sure, it would have been a lot of work and not necessary for most careers.
Please QUOTE me where I said this. Failing that, please apologize and admit that I said no such thing.
I don’t see why. The fact that people choose not to purchase a particular service does not necessarily imply that they cannot afford it. If you were typical guy graduating high school in 1950, what would the point be of busting your butt for four years when you can go right to work and earn enough money to support a family?
Well I think that there is confusion about the value of a degree or diploma. Is the value primarily because of what you learned in studying? Or is it primarily a signal to distinguish you from others?
If it’s the former, then it makes sense to push for “everyone to go to college.” If it’s the latter, then there’s no point because it will just result in degree inflation.
As I noted earlier in the thread, one can see that elite colleges like Harvard generally do not check ID’s at the entrance to lecture halls. To me, this is strong evidence that the value of a Harvard degree is in the signal and not in the actual studying and education.
There have been a number of factors mentioned in this thread.
Changes in funding sources, including the reduction of state support
Changes in mission
Costs of an information technology infrastructure
Increased costs for buildings and maintenance, including improvements in amenities (like air conditioning, as well as the higher energy costs associated with it)
Increased levels of staffing
Higher salary levels
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. More people go to college now than did in the 1950s. Are you saying they go to college because they have access to student loans, because they believe college is good for their careers, because their families pressure them to go to college, or some other factor entirely?
As I said, it means that even in the 1950s, the cost of a college education was already being affected by the availability of funds beyond what an individual could get on his own, so it doesn’t work to use that decade as a benchmark for affordability.
It’s STILL difficult and time-consuming, only now more people feel it’s necessary.
You’re the one who brought CUNY into the discussion as a model for a low-cost education in the 1950’s. In any case, CUNY’s motive for charging tuition in the first place was New York City’s decision that it could no longer fund a 100% taxpayer-paid college education for city residents, not because the school did or did not have access to federal funds.
You didn’t address this to me, but as long as I’m posting, availability of student loans does not “pretty much necessarily increase demand.” If no one wants it, then there’s no demand, even if it’s free. In the case of college educations, obviously a lot of people want it, since they’re willing to take out loans for it.
