The Ragin' Man just watched the latest episode of the McGlaughlin Group. At the top of the program they discussed something that he rages about often, the price of higher education. The Ragin' Man went to a private institution in Illinois before graduating from a public institution in Missouri with a BA in History. The Ragin' Man understands the value of a good education because he got one.
Now, out of the third person, something that has concerned me greatly is the growing cost of a good education. The McGlaughlin Group talked about President Obama's latest plan to reduce the cost of higher education. A statistic the McGlaughlin Group used was a 72% increase in the cost of a 4 year degree over the last ten years. Why the increase, and how does this plan help?
I know you're going to find this hard to believe, but the Republican on the panel, Rich Lowry, first blamed professors' salaries and how they were calculated. Lowry later went on to list a few professors who manage to rake in exorbitant salaries, but in the same episode they cited a statistic that said the average professor salary had only gone up 14% in the same time the cost of an education had gone up 72%. Figuring that there are far more students at an institution than there are faculty this 72% increase cannot be blamed anywhere near entirely on teacher compensation. The average professor makes about $30,000-$40,000 less than a 4 year education costs. Certainly increases in pay will lead to increases in cost, but costs have skyrocketed at 5.6% a year while professor salaries have been largely stagnant.
Many have made a big deal of supply and demand on the system, and I am sure that is a major issue. This is particularly true as the demand for low skill workers dries up. No longer is there any other option for a high school graduate seeking a good job than to go to college. Employment is simply not there.
Of slightly greater impact to the cost of an education than the 14% increase in professor salary is the 20% decrease in state support over that same time. At the same time more strain is put on the system due to more demand to educate students there is a drop in spending by governments that has an increased effect on pricing because, while the number of professors to students should increase relative to each other, the number of state governments remain constant.
Another issue only mentioned briefly by the McGlaughlin Group was the investments in sports programs and alumni outreach. I haven't seen this written, but as a graduate of a brick and mortar school with no major sports program I find that I have to identify I went to a "real" university and not an Ashford or University of Phoenix for profit. I've heard it said that students will fill institutions regardless as long as the doors stay open and pay whatever is charged, so Presidents worry about alumni relations (to get donations) as state spending has decreased. Essentially the student is no longer the consumer, the fan of the football program and the alumni become the sought after buyer. This is one of those cases where causation would be next to impossible to prove, but my personal experience leads me to believe there is a significant truth to this.
Now, what does the President's plan do to stop all of this? In truth, next to nothing. President Obama supports an opening of "Race For The Top" to higher institutions. This accounts for $1 billion of the program, but there is a $7 billion increase in the Perkins Loan Program.
I don't see how a 7 fold increase in a program to allow more money for students to become indebted with provides much in the way of relief. The $55 million grants to institutions who keep costs low is a start, but clearly the largest amount in funding is borne by the student.I guess I don't understand why Republicans don't support this plan. All but 13% of the spending increases are going to be paid for over time. Maybe the actual bill that is introduced will contain something more, but as it stands the plan does little to defray the costs of a good education.
