The primary driver of rising college costs in the US over the past few decades has been the reduction in funding from state legislatures to support public universities. You may have noticed that expensive private colleges have gotten a little bit more expensive, while previously inexpensive public colleges have gotten WAY more expensive.
Why no Sol, I haven't noticed that, but that isn't what has happened. Here are some facts Sol.
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1975-76-2015-16-selected-yearsFrom 85-86 until 2015-2016 the average price of private tuition, fees, room and board has increased by 24,213 dollars. Public during the same period has increased by 11,005. I wouldn't exactly call a 24k a year increase a little bit more expensive and and 11k increase WAY more expensive Sol.
So ultimately, when people complain about the rising cost of college what they're really complaining about is reduced state spending on education.
No Sol...when I complain about the cost of college, I'm complaining about the cost of college.
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Articles/Education_Inflation.aspCheck out the data in graph form Sol, maybe its easier for you to digest. Why has inflation in that period gone up 115% why college costs have gone up 498%? When people complain about rising costs of education, that is what they are complaining about.
There is some additional complication to this system because the process for granting federal financial aid was not constant over these decades, and increased aid probably helped offset rising tuition costs too. But the amount of federal aid available didn't rise by 500% the way that state university tuition did. Those cost increases were mostly driven by the drastic reductions in support from state legislatures.
Yup, and it didn't rise fast enough to keep pace with private tuition either.
A third reason why college costs have gone up so much is unrelated to tuition; the total Cost of Attendance at any university is the combination of tuition costs and living expenses and the living expenses in college towns have been rising much faster than the national average. At some schools (here's looking at you, NYC) students typically pay more for rent than they do for tuition. So in practice, the rising cost of college has been at least partly due to rising real estate prices. Hard to fault anyone for that one.
No, its pretty easy to fault someone for that. We all have choices of what college we want to attend...if people want to pay through their teeth just to go to school in NYC that is their choice, nothing was stopping them from commuting to a local, more affordable school.
I think spreading the cost is exactly the right answer.
No Sol...this doesn't fix the issue. What did we accomplish if we spread the cost out a little more, yet the cost of the product continues to rise beyond inflation for decades in the future, like it has for the last several? Do we just spread the costs a little more and call it a win?
If the price of milk sky rocketed over the next decade to the point milk was 30 dollars a gallon, would you be saying no problem...let's just have the government subsidize the cost of milk so it cost maybe the 5 dollars a gallon it should and all will be well? NO! You'd be saying what the heck...there is no reason for milk to cost 30 dollars a gallon, why has the price of milk shot up so fast over the last 10 years, wouldn't you?
The cost to provide a university education hasn't actually changed that much over the years; schools always needed building and chalkboards and books and teachers. The big thing that has changed is that we've stopped "spreading the cost out" because we no longer pay those costs with tax dollars, and instead charge the students themselves, via higher tuition rates. Just look at the cost increases at public vs private universities if you need convincing.
No Sol...the price of college has been out pacing inflation for decades. You are simply wrong Sol. Research some facts before posting lies.
We're a little off topic, Nick, but your criticisms of Sanders were largely based on his desire to make college more affordable by reallocating taxes back to the way they were before, so that states would support public education in the interest of growing their own economies by producing educated workers.
No Sol...my main criticism of Sander's was he plans to spend an additional 17 trillion over the next decade as I previously posted, and its simply not doable without massive tax increases or continued levels of unsustainable deficit spending. College was just one example of why I don't think the guy is a good fit for the job...I don't want a president who is just going to say "College is too expensive...let's throw tax money at it!" No Sol...I want one who is going to say "College is too expensive...why has it been outpacing inflation for so long now and what can we do to actually fix this issue rather than just stupidly throw money at it while whatever is driving up costs will continue to do such?"
I don't see that as "taking" money from anyone to pay for anyone else, I see that as good public policy. I think America should be investing in an educated workforce just like it should be investing in a skilled trade workforce. Every time you cut government spending for education, you diminish the productivity of our aggregate economic engine. Maybe not right away in the first year, but eventually. If you make college unaffordable then we won't have college educated workers, and those professional jobs will go to people educated in Europe or Asia instead.
We need to invest in education? Sir, we are.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
"At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per FTE student were $26,021, almost twice as high as the OECD average of $13,619."Its like I've said...the cost is the problem. Our government is already outspending other nations...why are college costs still unaffordable? Our government outspending other countries by even more isn't going to make us more competitive when the problem is the baseline cost here is simply out of control.
And don't even get me started on the national security implications of letting the American population fall behind the rest of the world. China already graduates almost twice as many PhD engineers as the US does, and over half of US engineering PhDs are people from foreign countries who will graduate and then return to their home countries. At the bachelor's level, some estimates suggest that China graduates more working engineers each year than the US has currently employed across our entire economy. How long do you think we can maintain superior military technology if that imbalance isn't rectified?
Let's examine that issue further...
http://www.ncee.org/2014/05/statistic-of-the-month-engineering-and-science-degree-attainment-by-country/As of 2010 about 1/3 of American adults held bachelors degree or higher. About 2% of the Chinese population held a bachelors degree or higher. 5% of those degrees in the United States were engineering degrees, and 1/3 of those Chinese degrees were engineering degrees.
Its not that we don't have an educated enough work force or aren't spending enough on college...its that our economy is simply leaving many underemployed and we are pushing out a lot more college graduates with less useful degrees. Those are things we should be trying to fix...not just throwing more money at a system that isn't working. I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone here...but a degree in theater, political science, general studies, women's studies, sociology, communications, etc just simply doesn't provide the same job prospects or benefits to the economy that math and science based degrees tend to provide. If you think its a national security issue that our college grads are lacking in mathematics and sciences how do you think subsidizing more degrees that aren't heavily focused on math or science will provide any benefit?
The sad truth is when I was in college...a lot of people who chased these types of degrees did so because they were easy. After a year in a STEM program they switch to general studies, because they can put in half the effort, get better grades, and have more time to party! Perhaps a big part of the problem is cultural issues...our college students are more fixated on the college experience, and the standards of getting into college are so low practically anyone can go, where as getting into college in China is a lot more competitive and for the cream of the crop that do get accepted, they are more focused on meaningful degrees and education. Throwing more money at colleges isn't going to change this...free college for all would just mean more people are going to go take advantage of 4 years of tax dollar subsidized partying just to end up with less than useful degrees.
