"'We have a more informed class of college consumers,' said Bonnie Snyder, founder of Kerrigan College Planning in Lancaster, Pa. 'Everyone today knows someone who went to college and ended up with a career that didn't justify the cost. They see college as a more risky investment.'"
Yep. More and more of us know more and more examples of college graduates who live in their parents' basements because they can't support themselves with their college diploma. It's time to be more discerning consumers of higher education.
Colleges try to confuse the issue of their value with imaginary list prices subject to discounts ("scholarships") that mislead about what a college is actually worth. Here's an interesting link about how colleges are advised to set their prices by consulting firms, a link I learned about from a Harvard-trained economist and policy analyst:
High prices plus liberal aid is a great racket. The combination lets a college look both extra valuable ("such high tuition!") and extra generous ("so much aid!"). All the while, they're actually engaging in profit-maximizing price-discrimination and government-subsidy-farming. More on how this may not be sustainable for higher education here:
Colleges try to confuse the issue of their value with imaginary list prices subject to discounts ("scholarships")
The lack of transparency in the discounting process is deplorable. I ended up trying law study via an online correspondence school - a terrible idea, with hindsight, due to the social isolation - because the B&M schools' scholarship policy seemed so arbitrary and opaque that I was unwilling to take the risk of becoming liable for $ix-figure up-front tuition costs if I didn't play my cards right. This hasn't done my continuing education/career prospects any good, but in mid-life I don't feel comfortable playing poker for >$100k of non-dischargeable student loan debt.
"More and more of us know more and more examples of college graduates who live in their parents' basements because they can't support themselves with their college diploma."
Source? Or just speculation? I for one, know many people living in basements, but not a single one of them has a college degree. Anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
"It's time to be more discerning consumers of higher education."
Higher education is as necessary today as it has always been, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. We need trained professionals to work on highly technical areas, or we can't progress. How else are we going to have mechanical, aerospace, electrical, chemical engineers and many other professions?
This doesn't mean that a college or university is for everyone though. It is left to each person to balance the very subjective pros and cons of deciding whether to go to college or not. Also no students are forced to attend highly expensive colleges, since most of the time there exists a high quality public institution available.
All I have to do is take one quick look at unemployment rates to understand just how valuable college is. In the rhetoric over rising costs, the benefits have never been more clear.
On the other hand, factory jobs were sent to China or replaced by robots and there is work only for x number of plumbers, mechanics and electricians. Individually, everyone is trying to do better than the other, until they get the bill and have no jobs.
"18% of 165 private universities and 15% of 127 public universities project a decline in net tuition revenue"
What about the remaining 82% and 85%? What fraction of these project an increase? It's not mentioned, so perhaps there's also been a similar rise in the fraction that projected an increase, and all you can say then is that there's increased variance in projected revenue change, not that universities on average are facing projected revenue decrease.
Those that project a net increase could do so by inflating the costs while assuming the number of students remains unchanged. In context I gathered that the schools predicting a decline saw a decline not just in per-student revenue but also in student enrollment.
> College officials said they need to increase net tuition revenue to keep up with rising expenses that include faculty benefits and salaries.
I would put forth that administrative costs are increasing faster than faculty costs. No hard evidence to back it up, just a lifetime of studying how organizations & bureaucracy grow.
I would also put forth that college life is increasingly cushy. The dorms at my alma mater are amazingly nice, compared to when I went there. I lived in a converted motel run by the university. Today's students have suites, with kitchenettes, free cable TV, reserved parking, and a fitness center. I'm not saying it should return to the barely-better-than-prison experience I had, but there needs to be a limit set, because all that stuff adds to the semester's cost.
> I would also put forth that college life is increasingly cushy. The dorms at my alma mater are amazingly nice, compared to when I went there. I lived in a converted motel run by the university. Today's students have suites, with kitchenettes, free cable TV, reserved parking, and a fitness center. I'm not saying it should return to the barely-better-than-prison experience I had, but there needs to be a limit set, because all that stuff adds to the semester's cost.
How about letting the free market decide, instead of forcing students to live on campus?
I tend to agree. Add to it the fact that a lot of people (or is it most) do not pay the sticker price. Most top colleges use their endowments regularly to make ends meet so it's not like there is money deposited to the proverbial bank account from student's tuition.
The irony is that when colleges want to pay faculty less or cut benefits, students protest and call them greedy.
Healthcare alone is growing by xx% a year and employees expect a raise each year. Building repairs and everything else is also increasing, year after year.
I'm 33, with a PhD, a full time job, a start up on the side, and I am still in tertiary education. I'll be in the library this evening. I'm fine with this. I think I'll do an MBA next.
Ye good folk States-side need to quit slamming on 'college education' and start complaining about the 'costs of education'. Education is just learning. Maybe some sources of education are better than others, and in particular for some fields, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and keep railing against university, which really just opens up opportunities, and lets somebody who knows more than you choose what you should learn.
Although, to qualify, I choose graded self-study courses where possible, because I'm kinda a dick as a student.
I have trouble understanding the logic of making education so expensive. Isn't it obvious that making education free, or at least cheap, allows the country to grow, both economically and intellectually.
Sure, have your private universities for the elite. But the government should be subsidising education for the rest of the population in the interest of improving the life of everyone.
In Australia it only costs about $10,000 per year and that is even outlaid by the government and only paid back when the student is earning over about $50,000 per year (as a small percentage added to their tax). If you never earn over $50K, you never have to pay it back.
> Sure, have your private universities for the elite
If you mean the financially elite, then actually in the US the top private universities are often more affordable for the non-elite. For instance, if your family income is under, I believe, $100k, Stanford waives tuition. If it is under something like $70k, they also waive room and board.
It's actually the top state schools, such as the University of California, that are the hardest for the non-elite to afford (especially for students from out of state).
And yet, America does much better at the high end of education than Australia does. I have known a few professors who tried working on Australia for their careers and were not very impressed by the infrastructure and opportunity of research, nor the general caliber of students in their classes. I'm not saying cheap education is not useful, but I don't think it is a panacea, and the issue is much more complex than it appears.
Throwing more money at these universities will not drive down the cost of education. The answer is MOOCs of course. If you want personal treatment, you pay to go to a university. If you just want the curriculum and the credit, you use a MOOC.
It would be interesting to see colleges investing in people via education and getting returns via some sort of percentage of the first years of professional career... Say, let the university teach/prepare the kids, and then for the first 10 years charge a 10% "income tax'(numbers would vary)... Some careers would be quite idiotic to promote, while others very good, it would further incentivize colleges to shape kids into productive citizens and give better education and resources... and then people who chose crappy majors can no longer complain about how the system sucks, because they paid little to nothing for what they got...
You then end up with little to no incentive for "non-profit" producing things, like archeology. While it might work, it does detract from the purposes of a university, which is to educate, not vocational training.
Its a shame that not more people opt for vocational training instead of university, then expecting to get vocational training at a university, all the while complaining it costs so much more.
Perhaps this would be a good time for schools to reevaluate the number of MBAs they have hired. Some amount of management is clearly needed, but when a university has as many MBAs as professors, something is very wrong. Also, perhaps schools should stop trying to turn their campuses into the equivalent of a suburban mall, and reconsider having students do some of the work that is being contracted out.
I am a programmer. Every day I am happy and, frankly, a little mystified to find that I get to make a great living doing something I love. But that's why I originally pursued it: because I loved it. Not because I was chasing a paycheck.
I am horrified that we have so little place for others whose passion is in other directions. Man can not live on bread alone, and society can't flourish on software alone. It is heartbreaking that in our increasingly efficient world, where production of food, shelter, and even medical care for all should be trivial, they seem to be harder to reach for many.
We should have more room for the humanities now, not less. It should be possible for more people to pursue philosophy and literature and theater and art and music for the rest of us to enjoy.
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
"'We have a more informed class of college consumers,' said Bonnie Snyder, founder of Kerrigan College Planning in Lancaster, Pa. 'Everyone today knows someone who went to college and ended up with a career that didn't justify the cost. They see college as a more risky investment.'"
Yep. More and more of us know more and more examples of college graduates who live in their parents' basements because they can't support themselves with their college diploma. It's time to be more discerning consumers of higher education.
Colleges try to confuse the issue of their value with imaginary list prices subject to discounts ("scholarships") that mislead about what a college is actually worth. Here's an interesting link about how colleges are advised to set their prices by consulting firms, a link I learned about from a Harvard-trained economist and policy analyst:
http://www.maguireassoc.com/services-challenges/optimize-net...
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/11/26/the-net-p...
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
The lack of transparency in the discounting process is deplorable. I ended up trying law study via an online correspondence school - a terrible idea, with hindsight, due to the social isolation - because the B&M schools' scholarship policy seemed so arbitrary and opaque that I was unwilling to take the risk of becoming liable for $ix-figure up-front tuition costs if I didn't play my cards right. This hasn't done my continuing education/career prospects any good, but in mid-life I don't feel comfortable playing poker for >$100k of non-dischargeable student loan debt.
[+] [-] elteto|13 years ago|reply
Source? Or just speculation? I for one, know many people living in basements, but not a single one of them has a college degree. Anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
"It's time to be more discerning consumers of higher education."
Higher education is as necessary today as it has always been, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. We need trained professionals to work on highly technical areas, or we can't progress. How else are we going to have mechanical, aerospace, electrical, chemical engineers and many other professions?
This doesn't mean that a college or university is for everyone though. It is left to each person to balance the very subjective pros and cons of deciding whether to go to college or not. Also no students are forced to attend highly expensive colleges, since most of the time there exists a high quality public institution available.
[+] [-] enjo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OGinparadise|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArchD|13 years ago|reply
What about the remaining 82% and 85%? What fraction of these project an increase? It's not mentioned, so perhaps there's also been a similar rise in the fraction that projected an increase, and all you can say then is that there's increased variance in projected revenue change, not that universities on average are facing projected revenue decrease.
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiph|13 years ago|reply
I would put forth that administrative costs are increasing faster than faculty costs. No hard evidence to back it up, just a lifetime of studying how organizations & bureaucracy grow.
I would also put forth that college life is increasingly cushy. The dorms at my alma mater are amazingly nice, compared to when I went there. I lived in a converted motel run by the university. Today's students have suites, with kitchenettes, free cable TV, reserved parking, and a fitness center. I'm not saying it should return to the barely-better-than-prison experience I had, but there needs to be a limit set, because all that stuff adds to the semester's cost.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
How about letting the free market decide, instead of forcing students to live on campus?
[+] [-] OGinparadise|13 years ago|reply
The irony is that when colleges want to pay faculty less or cut benefits, students protest and call them greedy.
Healthcare alone is growing by xx% a year and employees expect a raise each year. Building repairs and everything else is also increasing, year after year.
[+] [-] hessenwolf|13 years ago|reply
Ye good folk States-side need to quit slamming on 'college education' and start complaining about the 'costs of education'. Education is just learning. Maybe some sources of education are better than others, and in particular for some fields, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and keep railing against university, which really just opens up opportunities, and lets somebody who knows more than you choose what you should learn.
Although, to qualify, I choose graded self-study courses where possible, because I'm kinda a dick as a student.
[+] [-] pedrogrande|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|13 years ago|reply
If you mean the financially elite, then actually in the US the top private universities are often more affordable for the non-elite. For instance, if your family income is under, I believe, $100k, Stanford waives tuition. If it is under something like $70k, they also waive room and board.
It's actually the top state schools, such as the University of California, that are the hardest for the non-elite to afford (especially for students from out of state).
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huevosabio|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chii|13 years ago|reply
Its a shame that not more people opt for vocational training instead of university, then expecting to get vocational training at a university, all the while complaining it costs so much more.
[+] [-] betterunix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sopooneo|13 years ago|reply
I am horrified that we have so little place for others whose passion is in other directions. Man can not live on bread alone, and society can't flourish on software alone. It is heartbreaking that in our increasingly efficient world, where production of food, shelter, and even medical care for all should be trivial, they seem to be harder to reach for many.
We should have more room for the humanities now, not less. It should be possible for more people to pursue philosophy and literature and theater and art and music for the rest of us to enjoy.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jamesaguilar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ScottBurson|13 years ago|reply
An indication that something that clearly can't go on forever is in fact starting to come to an end is very likely to be correct.
[+] [-] Vivtek|13 years ago|reply
At which point I stopped reading. The WSJ is a political instrument.
[+] [-] hessenwolf|13 years ago|reply