Over 410,000 foreign student visas were issued in 2010. That's enough foreign
students to fill 20 medium-sized university campuses. I believe the cost of
U.S. tuition would go down significantly if the number of foreign visa was
"The Rock" said: "Government imposes a huge regulatory burden on
schools". What regulatory burden does the government place on
Stanford University and other private institutions (who, by the way, charge a
lot more for tuition than public institutions)?"Podunk"
said: It is a fact University administrators and professors are left of
center.Interesting. Since Phd's probably have higher average IQs than
non-Phd's, I wonder if there have been any studies correlating IQ and political
Let's compare the costs of healthcare to college tuition costs over the last 40
or so years. What do they have in common other than both rapidly outpacing
inflation? I think the obvious factor is increased involvement by the Federal
Government. Why was that left out of the article? This article actually said
unlimited use of a copy machine? Seriously? To the writer's credit they
did mention increased college level bureaucracy to deal with the Federal
bureaucracy which goes back to my main point. Onward to the abyss!
1-am-1 Strongly recommend you actually read the article then post a comment. By
so doing you'll discover just how inane your comment really is.
1. Anytime a third party payer is involved (health insurance, car insurance,
etc) costs skyrocket. Government is the third party payer for college.
Government imposes a huge regulatory burden on schools and eliminates any
incentive to address real issues.2. Public schools (K-12) sends about
$10,000 per student in my state (WA). This is equal to $300,000 for a classroom
of 30 kids and they still complain about education being underfunded. I think
it is way over funded.3.Public school teachers teach 5 to 6 hours each
day. University professors teach 6 to 10 hours a week in many cases. Professors
should be required to work for a living.4. Textbooks are a racket. Many
books are revised every couple of years for no purpose but to render the
previous revision obsolete and force the students to purchase new books. Many
professors publish their own texts and require their students to purchase them
at $100 + per copy. Professors should be required to write a text as a part of
their job so the state owns the intellectual property and then text books should
be revised only when they can be significantly improved.Private
industry innovates to reduce costs and deliver higher value. It is high time
higher education did the same.
@Foxtrot: You are getting the idea... I still don't think that's quite right
though. Figure $3k per semester... two semesters per year... for 5 years
(average graduating time now). That's $30,000 just for tuition. Now figure in
housing, food and books for those 5 years... probably another $30,000. So you're
looking at $60,000 as the up front cost of a college education. Still not bad if you assume a college grad may make $500,000 more over a
lifetime. But wait... we're not factoring in compound interest on
those student loans for the 10-20 years that they will take to pay back. That
will easily stretch $60,000 into hundreds of thousands. What good is
an additional $500,000 over the course of a working life (40 years)... vs
$100,000 - $200,000 in college loan payments?Now we are looking at
making maybe an extra $400,000 over a 40 year career. That's $10,000 a year. So really, the statement should be "A college grad will make
$10,000/yr more than a non-grad." I'm not going to deny that
$10,000/yr is great, we'd all love an extra $10k/yr. But really in the end...
how much of a difference does it make? That looks a whole lot less significant
than the mythical $1M.And those are conservative estimates.
Yeah, this article isn't worth reading, so I didn't. Yes costs have risen since
1980. While I think Universities, particularly state run ones charge students
way too much. I highly doubt that this article has taken into account,
inflation, supply and demand, rise in expected future wages, rises in the cost
of living and the increase in services universities provide. So the purpose of
the article? To get people fired up about a rise in costs that is perfectly
logical but to the non business savvy seems unfair and unreasonable. Sorry
things are more expensive now. A college education today costs more than in
1980, bottom line.
The article didn't mention the relationship between tuition costs and state
appropriations for higher education. The legislature has a hand in this issue
also. At UVU, state appropriations amounted to over 60% of the budget as
recently as 2000-2001, whereas in 2010-2011 they were about 42%. This decrease
tends to push tuition upward.Nevertheless, UVU remains a bargain at
about $4600 per year (resident tuition + fees, 2011-2012).
It is a fact University administrators and professors are left of center and
trying to get these folks to understand a profit motive and run a university
more like a business will be tough. I just wonder where the chief financial
officers of these institution are hiding, seriously if you did not make an
attempt to consolidate I.T. and purchasing accross the entire university,
you..CFO should be fired for being incompetent. THAT IS BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Just look at who gets hired as Presdients in Higher Ed.- all with steller
credentials in management (joking)- in Utah it appears last names help alot and
then we pay them substantial six figure salaries and ask for no real measure in
terms of an ROI for what we pay them- as long as they tell funny stories and
smile for alumni and say the right things we increase their salaries- but then
again I think that is exactly what The Regents desire
Re: "No worry Procuradorfiscal, about the leftists. They are counteracted
by the right-wingers . . . who've donated nearly $700,000 to USU.Not
even close! That $700K wouldn't hire enough conservative brainpower to
counteract 1% of the leftists at USU -- by comparison at least, a pretty
convervative institution.Of 1.2 million American "higher"
ed professors and instructors, 72% self-identify to the left of center, 15% to
the right. 50% reported registering Democrat, 5% Republican. No figures were
reported on registration as Communist-Workers, Democratic-Socialists,
Libertarians, or other fringe parties.Other studies suggest
academics substantially under-report left-leaning.So, suggestions
there are no legitimate worries about leftist bias in Big Ed ring a little
@DeltaFoxtrot - funny what your name means.Fine I might be willing
to conceed that $1M is a bogey, but, even if it is off by an order of magnitude,
whatever. $3K for $100K? Ok. $3K for $500K? ok. I am not sure
why the costs are going up so quickly, there is undoubtedly waste to be cut, but
I am always amused at everyone thinking that everyone else is corrupt or stupid,
the mirror seems to never be looked at. Its obviously easier to throw stones.
I am also amused at the seemingly irrational connections. Sallie Mae = bad = "skyrocketing" costs of education (whatever that
means)Professors who are some of the most educated and talented people in
the world should work for? How much? So that is the reason. I
don't like Obama : US Government is bad: Corruption is inherent: People are
stupid: Why school costs are going up. Anyways. I always get
sucked into these conversations. I don't know why. Convincing people that
education is worth it, is probably a fools errand.
No puzzle here. The government provides loans that artificially inflate the
price of tuition. I don't know that my fellow-students or the private school
ever evaluated tuition based on average annual salary, demand for degrees, or
anything else. They knew Stafford loans paid 18,500 and so they charged 18,500
+ X. Any effort to reign in tuition can begin with reducing subsidies by
removing the government from the student loan game.Same with sky
rocketing medical costs. If you want costs to come down then get the government
out of the business of subsidizing medicine. In free markets, price
is determined by what the market can bear. Unqualified lending to un-screened
applicants, independent of their qualifications is exactly what got us into the
mess we are in today. And, I'll point out, that thanks to BO, the
government is the only game in town for student loans. That is crazy!!
Have friends who had 13 children. In the year or so between finishing high
school an going on missions the boys in particular took courses such as heavy
equipment operators. On return from their missions they attended university and
had summer jobs that paid them up to 35 dollars an hour.Out of this
comes three doctors, one dentist and one MBA/CPA.The medical care
costs are an interesting factor. While at the Y, I broke my leg skiing. I head
a snap as the leg went by my ear an can remember hoping that it was my leg
(insured) and not my ski that was broken.
@Foxtrot: I hate to tell you, but the income disparity studies between grads and
non-grads were done 20 years ago or more. BEFORE the recession... back when
highly educated workers were still in demand.To my knowledge there
haven't been any studies of income disparity done since 2008. If there were I
would wager the numbers would be very different.
Why are costs up?One reason.Easy access to government
money through subsidized loans and Sally Mae.Higher education has
been turned into a bubble just like housing was not too long ago. Colleges and
Universities have caught on to how easy it is for students to get loans so they
just keep jacking up the price... and since everyone still thinks that you
*MUST* have a college degree to get anywhere in the professional world students
and parents are willing to pay these outrageous costs in order to get one. The colleges, text book companies and housing facilities have all gotten
in on the game... to the tune of billions in profits every year. Students come
out $20,000 to $50,000 in debt after 5 years at an average institution and they
think it's just the normal thing. Little do they know they'll be paying on those
loans for the rest of their lives. With interest rates at 10-20% financial
institutions are raking in the dough.Thankfully some students and
parents are catching on to this. They see the job market and realize that for
many people college will never pay off. Last time I checked only a third of
graduates were landing jobs in their field of study within two years of
graduation... that's pretty dismal. So what do we end up with? College grads
waiting tables or manning the register at Wal-Mart. Eventually the tide will
turn and enrollment rates will begin to fall. At that point institutions of
higher learning will have to lower costs or close the doors.
"Higher education" has become one of the biggest frauds of our time.
We have set up a system in which the "degree" has become essential to
all things. We push all our kids toward college, even if they don't qualify.
Employers are now requiring degrees even for routine tasks. Students are steered
into massive debt for many years to make the loan companies (and colleges)rich,
and when they wind up dropping out and default, penalties and interest boost the
debt sky high. Pretty soon you will need a "sanitary engineering"
degree to get a job cleaning toilets. People with degrees are now taking menial
jobs while those without are pushed to the unemployment line, where they have
given up. Many with degrees pay so much on loans that they would actually
pocket more at a non-degree job with no loan expenses. Thank you, Sallie Mae.
BYU-Idaho may be the model to follow-----don't put faculty and administration at
the center of the universe----let the students shine------grow the school and at
the same time, do the impossible---cut costs. All other models will fail;
I've heard someone say the current university as we know it today, will not
exist in 2020. And that is a good thing.
The $54/year tuition in 1970, as stated in the article, is a gross
understatement. In my freshman year at the U in 1959 the tuition was $85/quarter
(3 quarters in a normal school year--pre-semester times)...$255/year. In 1966 it
was over $200/quarter...$600+/year. Textbook expenses exceeded tuition costs in
the early '60's.
Re: " The day that tuition isn't worth it . . . [the] FREE MARKET will
compensate."Big Education destroyed the free market years
ago.For 200 years, ambitions American students could and did work
their way through school. During my grad-student years, a "student
loan" was charging tuition on a credit card, then paying it off with
student-level work during the semester.Try either today.Big Ed lobbied governments -- at all levels -- to put a fat thumb on the
scale, skewing costs to the point of unsustainability. It then lobbied bloated
federal entities to intervene even more heavily, through unsustainable grant and
student loan programs.Now that foolishness has all come home to
roost, and there's but one way out -- cut costs.Start by leaning the
employee pool -- unnecessary administrators, high-priced profs that haven't
recently seen the whites of a student's eyes, unnecessary platoons of TAs and
post-docs, whole fluff-based departments.Then, cancel all unfunded
research. Cancel building plans.Most of all, reign in accrediting
"guilds."In other words, re-establish a genuine free
Foxtrot is correct. It is still an amazing bargain at twice the price for an
excellent education.Although a college degree may not be as
monetarily valuable as thirty years ago, it is still essential to get ahead in
the world. Many skilled workers do very well financially without a degree.
But for those who want to get ahead and enjoy a satisfactory career-a degree is
At 15, Jarvis Nelson should be in high school and even thinking about
college.Yet Jarvis is in seventh grade, and doesnt know where hell
go to high school or even where he will be living when he graduates from
junior high, hopefully next year. Jarvis, like thousands of other students in
Chicago Public Schools, is homeless.He is just one of more than
10,660 students who were homeless at the beginning of the school year. Thats
1,466 more than at the same point in the previous school year. Last school year
ended with a record 15,580 students with nowhere to call home, the current surge
means this school year is on pace to be another record breaker.Nationally, 1.6 million U.S. children lived in homeless shelters, motels, with
relatives or other families or living on the street in 2010 a 38 percent
increase since 2007.(Chicago Sun Times)
I'm amazed that no one is willing to face the reason for the incredible tuition
increases. Yes, the cost of living is higher, but these increases are so far
beyond that, even far beyond the rise in healthcare costs, that it's really
said. So, how do the universities get away with these sky-rocketing tuition
increases? Because our federal government makes it so easy for them to do it.
With loans. Take away the loans, the student enrollment goes down quickly,
the universities must take drastic steps to get their houses in order so tuition
can be lowered to get the students back. Every time the government intervenes,
costs rise. Think post office, education and healthcare. Wait until
Obamacare is really in place. The other, smaller but important
issue is that professors are rewarded for publishing, not teaching. It's the
academia way and its ridiculous. Get rid of government loans and publishing
rewards and tuition will drop by 40-50% very quickly. The free market always
I believe the author incorrectly reported tuition costs at the U of U. I'm
certain I paid (out of my own pocket) at least $54 per semester, not per year.
(those were the days!)Additionally, the article failed to identify
the Goldwater Institute as a conservative think tank.
This article not only underestimates the cost of attending the U now, but unless
there was a tremendous jump in tuition from 1970 to 1972, it listed those
numbers incorrect as well. Tuition in 1972 was about $350 a year.
"They calculate that Berkeley could save $40 million to $55 million just by
simplifying organizational structure. 'This might include eliminating some
administrators and having supervisors oversee more subordinates.'"--------------------------When the institutions of academia and
"higher learning" are such stellar examples of mismanagement and,
let's be honest, stupidity, what hope have we that politicians (even less
renowned for their intelligence and/or integrity) will do better.In
fact, as noted in several places in the article, it is the combination of the
two, with government dabbling in the finances and operations of higher
education, that is the most likely culprit in this example of institutional
inefficiency and ineptitude.
No worry Procuradorfiscal, about the leftists. They are counteracted by the
right-wingers such as the Koch Brothers who've donated nearly $700,000 to USU.
The money has been used to hire five new faculty members, and establish a
program for undergraduates to enroll and learn about Charles Kochs Science of
Liberty management theory. The Koch Brothers have made similar donations to
George Mason University, Florida State, Brown, and others.What about
salaries? For example, at UC Berkley, 2 coaches are paid over $1m. At UC Davis
it has been reported 19 professors and administrators are paid over $400k. UC
San Diego has 45 staff making over $400k and at UCLA seven employees received
paychecks exceeding $1,000,000, and 72 professors and administrators received
paychecks over $400k.(Note however, these UC schools are in the top
10 nationally ranked public schools).Another factor:pensionsThe economic crash took a big chunk out of pensions. The State of CA stopped
funding pensions when they were overfunded in the 1990s. Most likely tuition
will be raised to make up the current and future gap.Demand and
supply won't work. Many more US and foreign students apply than get accepted.
Hmm, I am always fascinated by these types of articles. First, the
U is extremely affordable. Stop complaining. Even BYU is a steal. Second, if you don't think it is worth it, don't go. What is the number? Oh
yeah, a college graduate, on average earns a $1 million more than high school
graduates during their lifetime. It seems as if $3000/semester is steal. After moving outside of the state of Utah I am probably biased because I
moved for school, but Utahns DO NOT VALUE EDUCATION the way the rest of the
country does. Everything from complaining how much their public schools costs
to the cost of tuition at its EXTREMELY affordable colleges. I
really appreciate my extraordinarily expensive education. Every dollar of it.
My opportunities afforded was greatly opened by those degrees and experienes,
not to mention my income which is considerable. Its a free world.
If you don't like it, go somewhere else, or don't go. No one is forcing you.
The day that tuition isn't worth it that is when FREE MARKET will compensate.
Just examine the sports depts of our universities and the wages they get (Whitt)
as an example, then go right down the list of classroom instructors and the to
the supervisorial salaries then you have the lid of from the can of worms!
Politics again, don't you all just love it?
It is not just Universities. I was at Snow College last year. Before my
mission when I went and came back last year, tuition had already gone up 300
bucks in two years. It went up 700 dollars from when my brothers were there 6
years ago. It's ridiculous.
Re: "College costs skyrocketing"The elephant lurking in
the room in any discussion of wildly inflated and unsustainable education costs
-- something also left unsaid in this article -- is the fact that Big Education
has taken on the task of providing a posh, inviting, non-demanding home for
otherwise unemployable marxists and leftist advocates.People like
the current President, his marxist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers,
Bernadine Dorn, Ward Churchill, Richard Cloward [who, interestingly, taught at
ASU], Frances Fox Piven, Cornel West, Van Jones -- and well, the list is endless
-- all found highly remunerative posts at Big Ed colleges to support their
anti-American activism.Maintaining these cynical, closet capitalists
in the style to which we'd all like to become accustomed is a primary cause of
the deranged increase in the number of non-pedagogic positions in major
universities. And that's the primary source of the bloat requiring such
breathtaking increases in tuition costs.
Yea, right after NCLB was created and enacted by presidential executive order as
a law. Then soon after the NCLB run out of federal funds so more laws and more
financial institution were created, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to help reduce
education costs to students and to guarantee funding for schools and education
costs. And they all did just the opposite to college and state funding of public
education. The promise of money for schools, not ones education, was
enough to create a national panic of money grabbing for federal funds. As the
programs grew and terms and conditions of getting money from the feds for
education, it required a lot of matching fund taxation of the people to get the
"free" federal education funds. Schools grew fat and the
more students in their schools the fatter the schools could get from federal
spending and the industry of debt of student deferred borrowing created a whole
new prosperity for higher education and public schools in the hands of federal
lending. Educations new role as OJT instructors for specialized
labor failed becasue the jobs have disappeared, now government spending is the
new measure of economic growth.
Very good article. When I attended the U in the 80's the excuse for tuition
rising faster than inflation was "we didn't raise tuition in the 70's and
we need to catch up", that excuse is a little threadbare now. The real
causes are explained well in this article.
Universities are also competing in meeting student's sense of entitlement (some
would say students have gotten spoiled). And they are competing in the
perpetual race to move up a few spots in the ranking of colleges (which is like
professional sports teams competing over the top-tier players).
The article opens by stating that a University of Utah student now spends $3000
per year on tuition. Tuition for a full-time student is actually double that.
The university's tuition schedule lists tuition of $2924.99 for a student taking
15 semester hours.
Part of the problem is that the prestige of a college or university is partly
driven by its perceived value -- and the price of tuition becomes a key function
of that perception. High prices signal value. Consequently, you have many
mid-tier universities increasing tuition partly to compete with the Ivy Leagues
in terms of cost perceptions. School debt becomes a badge of honor. Some schools want their students to "owe" money to them in paying
back loans after graduation as it creates a post-graduation relationship where
the graduate can then be the target of ongoing donations and development
opportunities.Finally, many universities are now engaged in
"branding" wars to compete with the better-known schools. Thus, they
have marketing and development people, whose sole purpose is to build the image
of the school and procure donations for buildings, facilities, and ad
campaigns.Lost in all this is funding for faculty... sure new
incoming faculty get high market-rate pay, but loyal faculty (the backbone of
many universities who have built programs, taught lots of students, established
research records) see their salaries "squeezed and compressed." The future of academia as a career is bleak!
Tuition at th University of Utah is approximately $3000 per semester, not $3000
per year. The article grossly understates the cost of attending the U.
Universities should teach courses on how to rip off students.