Grimm74 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 A major reason that tuition is rising at most public universities is because the direct support that comes from the government to the universities is decreasing (at least on a per-student basis, but in many cases in an absolute dollar sense too). For instance, at the state university where I work only about 15% of our total budget now comes from the state (down from I believe 50% or so several decades ago). The only way to continue to finance the university is to increase tuition. (Now, some of you will have the knee-jerk reaction that we could just cut spending, but there really isn't much slack in the budget, so cutting spending means cutting stuff that students want/need.) So MORE students dropping your per-student government subside is your argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Hmm . . I have a relative that is a college professor. And to hear about how colleges are building ridiculously extravagant facilities yet "need" to keep raising tuition seems counter-intuitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 So MORE students dropping your per-student government subside is your argument? huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Having MORE students without more government aid is dropping your per student aid. Like I said the demand side of the equation is what you are siting as the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Having MORE students without more government aid is dropping your per student aid. Like I said the demand side of the equation is what you are siting as the problem. In Michigan from 2000-2006, the state budget appropriations to higher education dropped by more than 10% on an absolute (not per-student basis). I don't have the exact numbers for the last 4 years, but I know that these reductions have continued. So, your assertion that it is only MORE students that is causing government spending per student to drop is not accurate. Tuition would have gone up even if the total number of students going to college had stayed the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 In Michigan from 2000-2006, the state budget appropriations to higher education dropped by more than 10% on an absolute (not per-student basis). I don't have the exact numbers for the last 4 years, but I know that these reductions have continued. So, your assertion that it is only MORE students that is causing government spending per student to drop is not accurate. Tuition would have gone up even if the total number of students going to college had stayed the same. During that same time frame what has federal spending through grants and ridiculously low interest loans done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 During that same time frame what has federal spending through grants and ridiculously low interest loans done? Those "ridiculously low" interest rates cut both ways. While the interest on loans may not be that high, relatively speaking, the interest on savings is a total joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 During that same time frame what has federal spending through grants and ridiculously low interest loans done? No doubt that they have increased and made it easier for more students to go to college, but I would strongly argue that this is not a primary reason why tuition has gone up. I will speculate that many more students would be trying to go to college even if grant money had not increased (because a much larger percentage of udents than in the past now view a college education as prerequisite to getting a decent job. So, what has driven the demand for college education has not so much been government grants, but rather a change in students' overall desires to go to school regardless of any grant money they might be getting. Additionally, as I indicated above, a major reason that tuition has gone up is because state appropriations to universities have not kept pace with inflation and population growth. Also, it is more expensive to educate students today than it used to be. In order to make the students competitive in the global labor market, they have to have certain high-tech skills that cost money. 40 years ago, there was no need for computer labs for the average student, now such labs (and the support behind them) are a necessity. Additionally, there is a lot more "student support services" that offered today than in the past--mostly because today's students need hand-holding to get through anything. Finally, there is a whole lot of bureacratic BS. I know of certain universities (that will remain unnamed) who have created colleges of interdisciplinary studies (or similar nonsense) that cost money and probably don't do much for students actually learning anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 No doubt that they have increased and made it easier for more students to go to college, but I would strongly argue that this is not a primary reason why tuition has gone up. I will speculate that many more students would be trying to go to college even if grant money had not increased (because a much larger percentage of udents than in the past now view a college education as prerequisite to getting a decent job. So, what has driven the demand for college education has not so much been government grants, but rather a change in students' overall desires to go to school regardless of any grant money they might be getting. Additionally, as I indicated above, a major reason that tuition has gone up is because state appropriations to universities have not kept pace with inflation and population growth. Also, it is more expensive to educate students today than it used to be. In order to make the students competitive in the global labor market, they have to have certain high-tech skills that cost money. 40 years ago, there was no need for computer labs for the average student, now such labs (and the support behind them) are a necessity. Additionally, there is a lot more "student support services" that offered today than in the past--mostly because today's students need hand-holding to get through anything. Finally, there is a whole lot of bureacratic BS. I know of certain universities (that will remain unnamed) who have created colleges of interdisciplinary studies (or similar nonsense) that cost money and probably don't do much for students actually learning anything. If there weren't so much federal money (our money) available there wouldn't be near the demand and the same students that want to go to college would be going to trade schools and the like. I'll grant you the point on the state funding. I'll give you that technology costs money, but it also saves a lot of money. I know several major universities that now offer certain classes completely on-line allowing the college to save the cost of additional instructors and additional building space. Additionally I'd say that technology also allows for larger class sizes where it is implemented correctly. The reason there is a larger need for student support is there are now a lot of students that have no business being in college in the first place. I agree with you about the bureaucracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Those "ridiculously low" interest rates cut both ways. While the interest on loans may not be that high, relatively speaking, the interest on savings is a total joke. Thank you for your explanation. I do not think it serves you well to fight the point of demand as a factor or at least close your mind to it. You seem very resolved in the way you think. I have had government sub loans. In fact I had about $34k worth right out of school. Did I need the loans most likely not if I did college the correct way. During repayment I fought with the idea of paying them off early since I could gain better interest else where. I could have easily went to a local college for a couple years then transferred to my final school where I could have easily waited to graduated after a total of 5-7 years of school. Meaning not taking as many classes and working while at school. Unfortunately I was financially stupid during school and did not quite figure this out till my senior year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 During that same time frame what has federal spending through grants and ridiculously low interest loans done? Create a more educated work force that is better suited to this modern, global economy. And I think you'd agree that making people employable is a great step towards making them productive taxpayers. Not everyone's parents can afford to send their kids to college, and those same kids aren't likely to get a bank loan for educational purposes. You know, it'd be one thing if our economy had an abundance of quality jobs that required just a few years of vocational training. It doesn't - just ask the American auto worker. Or construction worker. Or mechanic. Those jobs still exist, but there are more people who want those jobs than there are jobs available. I'll be the first to admit there are people who shouldn't go to college in the first place, let alone borrow to do it. But the government is just playing the odds. Society is better off if people have jobs, and today/tomorrow's job increasingly require higher education. Consider that the unemployment rate for people with a just high school degree is like 15%. College educated - 10%. Those with graduate degrees - about 5%. The government would rather spend money investing in your future than spend money in the future taking care of people forever. While we might fault *how* the government has executed its plan, I find no fault with the underlying purpose in helping people find a way to pay for college. Lastly, my wife and I borrowed government funds to pay for three graduate degrees between the two of us. We love our jobs, make great money, and are paying back every dime to the government - with interest. And I thank God everyday that my County was willing to invest in me, and I hope it continues to provide those same kinds of opportunities to others in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Thank you for your explanation. I do not think it serves you well to fight the point of demand as a factor or at least close your mind to it. You seem very resolved in the way you think. What now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 He's saying that weigie is taking a very "un-economist" view by assuming the demand happens in a vacuum. When demand goes down, supplies contract and prices reduce. There's always budget to cut and better ways to do things. Necessity is the mother of invention. What now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.