Subsidizing higher education - what’s the best path?

[Rhea]

In the discussion of subsidies for college tuition, I think there is merit in improving a society by pooling resources for advanced education and training.

In another thread, Harry wrote,

BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.

And I agree with this t an extent; I often think I’d prefer to see FIRST some subsidies for trades and vocational training.

I do think it behooves us to get college to be affordable, too, because anyone operating under heavy debt is not going to contribute to the economy as much. But I’d rather explore on that end getting those prices affordable through state education - providing a competition.

But before that, wouldn’t it help our society more hugely to get the people who want to work in trades educated first? They may not operate under crushing student debt, but they do operate under rushing medical debt, and are much less likely to have an employer plan until they achieve their vocational goals (if then). PLus the trades make the rest of the economy operate and it represents an excellent path out of poverty.

So I feel like any argument for college subsidies are even more important for trades and voc/tech assistance.

 

[zorq]

First of all, I disagree with the premise. Making education free/cheaper for everyone isn't stealing money from poor people and giving it to less poor people. That just isn't how that works. That's like saying that improving health care for everyone is a rip off for people who are too sick to benefit from it. Education like is a magic wand that can turn low income people into high income people. And occasionally it is the crucible where individual icons of innovation are cultivated. How would the world be different if Alan Turing hadn't been able to afford university? (Very)

Anyway, Yes, free/affordable vocational schools are a great idea. I just don't see any need to get specific about where the money goes in education. It should be distributed widely. Vocational schools will get great bang for their buck and STEM education is a great investment too. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE shouldn't get a chance to chase their dream. I'm not implying that there shouldn't be limits or an endless trough of money for people going to school, but education preempts so many social problems, it's surprising that cheap education isn't on everyone's political platform.

 

[ronburgundy]

I often think I’d prefer to see FIRST some subsidies for trades and vocational training.



So I feel like any argument for college subsidies are even more important for trades and voc/tech assistance.

I somewhat agree, but to be effective, this requires admitting that a large % of high school grads are not capable of taking advantage of a college education and tracking them into vocational schools as is done by the countries who provide "free college".
The reality is that the US already has more of its population going to college than Germany, Denmark, and Finland (who provide "free tuition"). That's because these countries don't allow about half of students into college, even if they want to pay for it themselves. Those students get tracked into vocational/trade schools based upon performance or testing during grade school. While Finland does not track as early as Germany, they still have separate tracks beginning in 10th grade that determine whether you get into academic University or vocational school.

While Finland allows any student to apply, University admissions are based on the high school final GPA, the high school final exam, and the university entrance examinations. The selection process is fully merit-based and objective. There are no application essays, no consideration of extracurricular activities, and no consideration of under-represented groups. IOW, if you didn't go into and excellin the academic curriculum from 10th to 12th grade, you have almost no chance to get into University no matter who pays for it.


That's how they make the "free" system work and not be a massive waste of money with little overall return to society. Which is a major reason why their college dropout rates are far lower than the US, because they don't admit students who clearly lack the capacity or will to succeed in that type of schooling.

Another aspect of it is that vocational schooling and trades are more respected in those countries, leading to well paying jobs.

Simply making college free for all US students without increasing the academic admissions criteria and tracking more students into vocational training would result in even more students failing to graduate, which is already very low at 40% 4-year grad rate. That means trillions in wasted tuition that does not translate into increased future earnings and societal productivity.

 

[laughing dog]

Vocational training is important, but its benefits directly accrue to the student via the marketplace. There is no external benefit outside of the market transactions to society as a whole. In technical economic terms, there are no positive externalities, so from a purely economic view, there is no economic rationale for subsidizing vocational training.

Conceptually, education is supposed to improve the student in many dimensions, not simply vocationally. In technical economic terms, it should provide positive external benefits. Ideally, if it was possible to clearly measure and delineate the private and public benefits from higher education, there is a pure economic rationale for a subsidy for the public benefit. However, any subsidies are best targeted to those who are most likely to succeed (which is not everyone).

However, I do think that there has been a misallocation of educational resources towards promoting vocational training. High schools tend to promote college over vocational training based on the reasoning that lifetime earnings of college graduates are significantly higher than those of non college graduates. However, that reasoning is flawed because the non-college graduate group includes high school drop outs and those without any vocational training. IMO, there is good reason for the businesses and industries that benefit from specific trades to either subsidize the training in those trades or the promotion of vocational training in those trades.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing I would do--cap student loan repayments to some % of income above the poverty line (or perhaps some more complex formula along these lines.) I would like to see something done about the for-profit ripoff schools but I don't see any good means of identifying them other than in hindsight.

I would also make 20 hours/week of on-campus work give free tuition at all community colleges. I don't like free education (free causes too much abuse) but it should be affordable.

 

[Harry Bosch]

One thing I would do--cap student loan repayments to some % of income above the poverty line (or perhaps some more complex formula along these lines.) I would like to see something done about the for-profit ripoff schools but I don't see any good means of identifying them other than in hindsight.

I would also make 20 hours/week of on-campus work give free tuition at all community colleges. I don't like free education (free causes too much abuse) but it should be affordable.

Yes, I would agree with something similar to the above. I definitely think that the cost of college is becoming a serious problem in the economy. I have three high schoolers. I'd greatly benefit from free college! I think that the larger problem is getting people into the trades.

 

[ronburgundy]

Vocational training is important, but its benefits directly accrue to the student via the marketplace. There is no external benefit outside of the market transactions to society as a whole. In technical economic terms, there are no positive externalities, so from a purely economic view, there is no economic rationale for subsidizing vocational training.

Conceptually, education is supposed to improve the student in many dimensions, not simply vocationally. In technical economic terms, it should provide positive external benefits. Ideally, if it was possible to clearly measure and delineate the private and public benefits from higher education, there is a pure economic rationale for a subsidy for the public benefit. However, any subsidies are best targeted to those who are most likely to succeed (which is not everyone).

However, I do think that there has been a misallocation of educational resources towards promoting vocational training. High schools tend to promote college over vocational training based on the reasoning that lifetime earnings of college graduates are significantly higher than those of non college graduates. However, that reasoning is flawed because the non-college graduate group includes high school drop outs and those without any vocational training. IMO, there is good reason for the businesses and industries that benefit from specific trades to either subsidize the training in those trades or the promotion of vocational training in those trades.

Having people with skills in high-demand trades has massive economic value to society. It reduces the number of people on public assistance and reduces crime and all the other harms (including to their kids) that is done by poverty and unemployment. In fact, those economic benefits are greater than for college, given the high % of college majors that do not instill any marketable skills.
Academic college (at least for the non-professional degrees) have non-economic value to society, such as a literate informed citizenry that is essential to rational democratic decision making.

 

[Rhea]

It seems that one benefit of subsidizing trade school (basically having affordable public schools) would be to increase its status, which IMHO is deserved, Overdue, and productive.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "since college is so expensive, how should it be paid for?"

You should ask "how did it get this expensive and how should we lower the price?"

The price increased faster than the inflation rate. This has not been reflected in the pay of professors though. It has been reflected in the hiring of more and more administrators.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing I would do--cap student loan repayments to some % of income above the poverty line (or perhaps some more complex formula along these lines.) I would like to see something done about the for-profit ripoff schools but I don't see any good means of identifying them other than in hindsight.

I would also make 20 hours/week of on-campus work give free tuition at all community colleges. I don't like free education (free causes too much abuse) but it should be affordable.

Yes, I would agree with something similar to the above. I definitely think that the cost of college is becoming a serious problem in the economy. I have three high schoolers. I'd greatly benefit from free college! I think that the larger problem is getting people into the trades.

My intent with the % cap was an automatic way of addressing hardships.

 

[steve_bank]

Loans played back out of future earnings is the best way. I don't want to pay for someone's PHD in philoasophy who is going to work as a cab driver.



There is a young woman who volunteers at my facility who is graduating with a degree in social work and that is where she is headed. She worked her way through a state school without debt. It took her a little longer but she did it.

Statistically it has been shown that on the average going to an average state school or an upper tier school produces the same results career wise.

Students are going deep into debt in all those for profit schools.

 

[Toni]

You're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "since college is so expensive, how should it be paid for?"

You should ask "how did it get this expensive and how should we lower the price?"

The price increased faster than the inflation rate. This has not been reflected in the pay of professors though. It has been reflected in the hiring of more and more administrators.

I think you are right. Furthermore, K-12 education has the same issue: more administrators are hired at a higher rate of pay, leaving fewer funds for classroom teachers.

 

[ronburgundy]

You're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "since college is so expensive, how should it be paid for?"

You should ask "how did it get this expensive and how should we lower the price?"

The price increased faster than the inflation rate. This has not been reflected in the pay of professors though. It has been reflected in the hiring of more and more administrators.

There is definitely some administration bloat that should be cut, especially the massive salaries of Presidents, but looking at tuition increases is misguided because it reflects a shift in who is paying for it rather than a net increase in total expenditures per pupil.

A large part of the tuition increase is due to the huge decrease in state funding that colleges get per student. All but 3 states have per student funding level that are lower than in 2008, with 19 states cutting funding between 20% and 50%. 2017 was the first time in US history that public Universities acquired more $ from student tuition than government funding. Not only has funding cuts directly caused an increase in tuition, but it has lead to part of the administration bloat. Colleges are trying to make up for lost funds by attracting foreign and out of state students who can pay the highest levels of tuition, and some of the increased administration is tied to those efforts, not to mention staff to serve as lobbyists to beg state legislators for $.

 

[steve_bank]

It is supply and demand.The idea is pushed that the only way to have a good life is a college degree. Skilled well paying occupations are down played. Demand for college degrees go up with a limited supply of schools, price goes up.
Diploma mills online spawn charging a lot of money to fill demand.

Number of grads go up, salary goes down.

There are several technology schools like Devry that give bachelor degrees that are largely useless. They maxed out loans and went after GI Bill students. I think they were shut down but they are representative.

 

[Toni]

At the risk of being an extreme curmudgeon here: one reason that college education is so expensive is that students and THEIR PARENTS expect a lot more luxuries. For my generation, few kids went to college with a car. At my campus, you were required to leave your car in a locked impound lot where you could access it at Christmas and at the end of spring semester. Not many kids took that route. Campus was large and very spread out and we walked everywhere even in really bad weather. There were no fancy fitness centers in every dorm although most had small libraries as well as a very impressive main campus library. We went to school with maybe three pairs of jeans, some t-shirts and underwear and a couple of pairs of shoes. Decorating your dorm room meant maybe coordinating your bedspread with your room mate and putting up some I framed posters. With tape. And yeah: classes were held uphill both ways and there were daily blizzards..

Seriously a lot of students come to school with vehicles that are nicer than those their professors drive, multiple pairs of shoes and jeans that cost more than a semester’s worth of books(science!) in my day-each! Move in day for my oldest son: I felt like we were so overindulging him with half of the van full of stuff for his first semester. Then I noticed the vans pulling up with UHauls behind them. Of course it really is necessary to have your own computer and cell phone so that’s reasonable. But the accepted norm that kids will spend weekends drinking themselves into a stupor? OMG—I find it outrageous and ‘shrooms, qualuuds and pot were de rigeur in my day.

And my younger co-workers see no reason to save up for their kids’ educations. They’ll buy them dozens of outfits and sneakers and take them on all kinds of trips but not deny them anything. The notion that education is worth sacrificing small, transient pleasures for the long term benefits? Seems to be totally gone.

And kids are being crippled by student debt—but also consumer debt and the burden of their parents expectations that they will have all of this...stuff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "since college is so expensive, how should it be paid for?"

You should ask "how did it get this expensive and how should we lower the price?"

The price increased faster than the inflation rate. This has not been reflected in the pay of professors though. It has been reflected in the hiring of more and more administrators.

There is definitely some administration bloat that should be cut, especially the massive salaries of Presidents, but looking at tuition increases is misguided because it reflects a shift in who is paying for it rather than a net increase in total expenditures per pupil.

A large part of the tuition increase is due to the huge decrease in state funding that colleges get per student. All but 3 states have per student funding level that are lower than in 2008, with 19 states cutting funding between 20% and 50%. 2017 was the first time in US history that public Universities acquired more $ from student tuition than government funding. Not only has funding cuts directly caused an increase in tuition, but it has lead to part of the administration bloat. Colleges are trying to make up for lost funds by attracting foreign and out of state students who can pay the highest levels of tuition, and some of the increased administration is tied to those efforts, not to mention staff to serve as lobbyists to beg state legislators for $.

Second this. Education hasn't really been going up at an insane clip, tuition has because of this cost shifting. Total university spending doesn't show the same pattern.