David:
Bernie Sanders has made free college tuition one of the hallmarks of his campaign. Hillary Clinton agrees with Republicans that idea is not financially feasible. But, the issue is now in the sights of the federal government.
The cost of higher education is an issue for most students, and the costs have reached the point where something needs to change. As a professor, what do you see as the largest drivers of cost, and what can be done about it?
Doug:
Whoa. That is a hard, good question. First, I must say that I'm not going to dismiss Bernie Sanders' plan out of hand. I'd like to know more about what he has in mind. I could imagine that a free college ride is actually an effective use of taxpayers' money. Rather than putting money into a "safety net" (or prison system, or war, etc.) we could put it into the system to prevent most of the needs of that same net.
David:
You are making an assumption, of course, that spending trillions to provide "free" college tuition would somehow prevent the need for the US to protect itself, or that crime is related to the cost of college. Neither of those things would change.
Doug:
Of course people would commit less crimes if they had more education. More education leads to better jobs, which leads to more money. And of course the US needs to protect us, but I think we can do that without the high cost of war.
David:
Primary education leads to less crime. A college education does not. I can't find any data at all to suggest that the reason most criminals commit crimes is that they lack a college degree. Your comment strays far from the question I asked, and has more to do with improving primary education (through efforts like creating more school choice) than it does higher education.
Doug:
Whether or not free college is "feasible" is dependent on one's values. I definitely value an informed electorate.
David:
On that point, we can certainly agree.
Doug:
As to what needs to change, many colleges and universities are asking that very question. Many believed that the idea of a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) was going to save the day. But these experiments have not helped that much. Instead, they may have helped widen the gap.
Colleges and universities serve a unique role in our society. They aren't run like a typical business, and they can't really be because of this unique status. Colleges and universities are designed (through tenure and other means) to allow people to study a topic, and speak out about it without repercussions.
David:
Much like healthcare, the "product" is sometimes hard to define in concrete terms. This makes it difficult to determine if you are getting your money's worth. Of course, that has not kept the federal government from stepping in to control healthcare costs.
Doug:
Professors have many duties, and teaching is just one. They also must help run the college (do advising, serve on committees, etc.), be involved in the service of their profession (conferences, publishing, etc.), and do research (including the pursuit of grants).
David:
That sounds very similar to the life of a hospital-based physician. I currently teach med students, serve on several committees, attend regular conferences, and although I no longer am involved with any, many physicians are involved with research. But I don't see how that has anything to do with costs (or charges). What's your point?
Doug:
When you pay for college, you pay for all of that.
I was initially torn when a tenured faculty member at a Florida school became the spokesperson for a fringe group denying that the Sandy Hook massacre had actually taken place. It is desirable that no one has to step in and fire a tenured faculty member, but he had so severely crossed the line, that I had to reconsider my position. In the end, I believe that his perspective was without any basis, and no one would agree with him. But I am concerned that it sets a precedent regarding firing tenured faculty because they are disagreeable.
I mention that not because it has anything to do with direct costs, but to give an idea of the special role that colleges and universities (and their faculty) play in our society.
David:
Tenure should not be a license to do or say anything. And, as we've seen more recently, for professors that buck the current politically-correct mantra, firing is not the concern. Professors appear to be threatened by the very students they are trying to teach. So much for free speech.
Doug:
Ok, I laughed out loud at that one. You start by stating that tenure should not allow professors to say anything, and end with a lament that free speech has been lost. The whole tenure system is exactly based on freedom of speech. Firing is the concern, even for those that you might not agree with. If you wanted to argue that the Sandy Hook denier should keep his job, then I would understand. But my agreement with his firing doesn't have anything to do with "political correctness", if that is what you are implying. His firing gives me pause. But that faculty member was harassing parents by claiming that their children weren't really dead. That can't be defended by any principle (unless he was correct that it was all staged. If there were any chance that Sandy Hook was a hoax, then he would be a hero for taking the unpopular position and discovering the truth. However, that is far from the truth.)
I have no idea why you are mentioning students and some perceived threat.
David:
It doesn't appear to me that many professors feel the least bit threatened of being fired for saying or doing anything they want. As long as what they say follows liberal group-think. But, if they say something that actually stimulates some thought, like suggesting the college administration shouldn't police Halloween costumes, or that wearing a costume on Halloween that challenges political-correctness is allowable in a free society, the professor felt the need to take a sabbatical to get away from the threatening students.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
We've discussed this before. But we digress....
Doug:
You are indeed digressing. What happened at Yale doesn't have anything to do with the high cost of education. If anything, it is merely an example of what freedom of speech looks like. You might not agree (or even understand) either side of the argument, but it happens out in the public and no one is harmed.
But deep, thoughtful, criticism of our society can't be made if professors are afraid to speak out. Tenure protects faculty in this role to support the "common good":
http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
To many, that is the most valuable aspect of our college and university system. I'm not sure if anything can change to make college cheaper. It just may be that this is what it costs to have such a system in our society.
David:
Except for the fact that the government is now in charge of student loans. In much the same way that Medicare provided federal agencies a foothold to control costs in healthcare via price controls, higher education is now in their sights. If you can't think of ways to save money and cut costs, I'm sure some bureaucrats at the Department of Education will. Costs must decline. The question is: how?
Doug:
There are very affordable college options. I don't think Bernie's plan would cost that much more than what we are already spending. It could even save money (e.g., no need for loan collectors). I don't think anything will change.
David:
That comment made me laugh out loud. You use the term "we" pretty loosely. Currently, students pay for the product themselves.
Doug:
No way! A few families are able to pay 100%, but the vast majority of us can't afford it. For the rest of us, we have to get loans and scholarships. The middle class gets lots of loans. I'll have two kids in college next year.
David:
Right. The student gets loans, that they then repay. They pay for the product themselves. Young people who decide to forgo college, or go to community college, make their own decisions as to what they want, and what they are willing to pay for. You, and Bernie, are planning to make everyone pay through much higher taxes, for a new entitlement program.
Doug:
Many of those loans don't get paid back. These are huge amounts of money. And many students go to college on other types of funding that are not required to be paid back.
David:
Come on. Surely you have some ideas to contain costs. If not, then you deserve to have the government step in and start controlling your spending.
Doug:
Sorry, but we don't have a "Pharma Bro" charging $750 per pill that we can ferret out. It costs money to educate students and run a college/university. And, as I said, there are many affordable options. Here is a website put together by a programmer to help match up incomes with appropriate colleges:
http://www.college-costs.com/
Most people don't want "free college"; they just want one that they can afford. Here is a very thorough analysis of the complexity of higher education costs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html?_r=0
One quote from the article: "In other words, our system gives three times as much aid to the least needy as it gives to the most." I can think of many things I'd like to fix, but none of them will make college any cheaper.
David:
Well, I might say that it costs money to take care of people and run a hospital, too. Apparently, you don't feel that a company should be able to recover the millions of dollars it costs to bring a successful drug to market, or perhaps you just don't understand what goes on behind the scenes. But that doesn't stop you from saying healthcare costs too much, but education deserves all of the money that it charges. The high costs of higher education are hurting all students, and the poorest students the most. Something has to give.
Doug:
It definitely costs money to take care of people. And when one's business model is to make money off of taking care of people, then you have some serious conflict of interests. But your analogy breaks down when you compare state-run colleges to private-run colleges. State-run colleges are generally very affordable. People aren't making the kinds of money that they make off the healthcare industry. But at what cost? Many state schools don't even have tenure. That is a price too high.
David:
Let me make some suggestions. Perhaps we can provide "free" tuition to students, but just tell all universities and colleges they now have to provide the same educational opportunities they did before, and to the same number of students (or more), but they will only get paid 60% of what they charged before. That's pretty much how Medicare works. Let's see how that works for the education system.
Doug:
This is very similar to how the system currently works now.
David:
A better idea might be to have centers of higher education focus on individual degree programs. So, you might have a group of schools that provide only biology degrees, or business, or chemistry. By providing only one or two specialized programs, we could likely decrease costs of duplication of all degrees at all schools. What say you?
Doug:
That is how state schools often divide up the areas of study. It isn't a coincidence that the Engineering programs in the state of Indiana are at Purdue University, and the rest is at Indiana University. This was a conscious decision by the state to not duplicate services. That generally works fine, but the costs are what they are.
Bernie Sanders has made free college tuition one of the hallmarks of his campaign. Hillary Clinton agrees with Republicans that idea is not financially feasible. But, the issue is now in the sights of the federal government.
The cost of higher education is an issue for most students, and the costs have reached the point where something needs to change. As a professor, what do you see as the largest drivers of cost, and what can be done about it?
Doug:
Whoa. That is a hard, good question. First, I must say that I'm not going to dismiss Bernie Sanders' plan out of hand. I'd like to know more about what he has in mind. I could imagine that a free college ride is actually an effective use of taxpayers' money. Rather than putting money into a "safety net" (or prison system, or war, etc.) we could put it into the system to prevent most of the needs of that same net.
David:
You are making an assumption, of course, that spending trillions to provide "free" college tuition would somehow prevent the need for the US to protect itself, or that crime is related to the cost of college. Neither of those things would change.
Doug:
Of course people would commit less crimes if they had more education. More education leads to better jobs, which leads to more money. And of course the US needs to protect us, but I think we can do that without the high cost of war.
David:
Primary education leads to less crime. A college education does not. I can't find any data at all to suggest that the reason most criminals commit crimes is that they lack a college degree. Your comment strays far from the question I asked, and has more to do with improving primary education (through efforts like creating more school choice) than it does higher education.
Doug:
Whether or not free college is "feasible" is dependent on one's values. I definitely value an informed electorate.
David:
On that point, we can certainly agree.
Doug:
As to what needs to change, many colleges and universities are asking that very question. Many believed that the idea of a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) was going to save the day. But these experiments have not helped that much. Instead, they may have helped widen the gap.
Colleges and universities serve a unique role in our society. They aren't run like a typical business, and they can't really be because of this unique status. Colleges and universities are designed (through tenure and other means) to allow people to study a topic, and speak out about it without repercussions.
David:
Much like healthcare, the "product" is sometimes hard to define in concrete terms. This makes it difficult to determine if you are getting your money's worth. Of course, that has not kept the federal government from stepping in to control healthcare costs.
Doug:
Professors have many duties, and teaching is just one. They also must help run the college (do advising, serve on committees, etc.), be involved in the service of their profession (conferences, publishing, etc.), and do research (including the pursuit of grants).
David:
That sounds very similar to the life of a hospital-based physician. I currently teach med students, serve on several committees, attend regular conferences, and although I no longer am involved with any, many physicians are involved with research. But I don't see how that has anything to do with costs (or charges). What's your point?
Doug:
When you pay for college, you pay for all of that.
I was initially torn when a tenured faculty member at a Florida school became the spokesperson for a fringe group denying that the Sandy Hook massacre had actually taken place. It is desirable that no one has to step in and fire a tenured faculty member, but he had so severely crossed the line, that I had to reconsider my position. In the end, I believe that his perspective was without any basis, and no one would agree with him. But I am concerned that it sets a precedent regarding firing tenured faculty because they are disagreeable.
I mention that not because it has anything to do with direct costs, but to give an idea of the special role that colleges and universities (and their faculty) play in our society.
David:
Tenure should not be a license to do or say anything. And, as we've seen more recently, for professors that buck the current politically-correct mantra, firing is not the concern. Professors appear to be threatened by the very students they are trying to teach. So much for free speech.
Doug:
Ok, I laughed out loud at that one. You start by stating that tenure should not allow professors to say anything, and end with a lament that free speech has been lost. The whole tenure system is exactly based on freedom of speech. Firing is the concern, even for those that you might not agree with. If you wanted to argue that the Sandy Hook denier should keep his job, then I would understand. But my agreement with his firing doesn't have anything to do with "political correctness", if that is what you are implying. His firing gives me pause. But that faculty member was harassing parents by claiming that their children weren't really dead. That can't be defended by any principle (unless he was correct that it was all staged. If there were any chance that Sandy Hook was a hoax, then he would be a hero for taking the unpopular position and discovering the truth. However, that is far from the truth.)
I have no idea why you are mentioning students and some perceived threat.
David:
It doesn't appear to me that many professors feel the least bit threatened of being fired for saying or doing anything they want. As long as what they say follows liberal group-think. But, if they say something that actually stimulates some thought, like suggesting the college administration shouldn't police Halloween costumes, or that wearing a costume on Halloween that challenges political-correctness is allowable in a free society, the professor felt the need to take a sabbatical to get away from the threatening students.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
We've discussed this before. But we digress....
Doug:
You are indeed digressing. What happened at Yale doesn't have anything to do with the high cost of education. If anything, it is merely an example of what freedom of speech looks like. You might not agree (or even understand) either side of the argument, but it happens out in the public and no one is harmed.
But deep, thoughtful, criticism of our society can't be made if professors are afraid to speak out. Tenure protects faculty in this role to support the "common good":
http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure
To many, that is the most valuable aspect of our college and university system. I'm not sure if anything can change to make college cheaper. It just may be that this is what it costs to have such a system in our society.
David:
Except for the fact that the government is now in charge of student loans. In much the same way that Medicare provided federal agencies a foothold to control costs in healthcare via price controls, higher education is now in their sights. If you can't think of ways to save money and cut costs, I'm sure some bureaucrats at the Department of Education will. Costs must decline. The question is: how?
Doug:
There are very affordable college options. I don't think Bernie's plan would cost that much more than what we are already spending. It could even save money (e.g., no need for loan collectors). I don't think anything will change.
David:
That comment made me laugh out loud. You use the term "we" pretty loosely. Currently, students pay for the product themselves.
Doug:
No way! A few families are able to pay 100%, but the vast majority of us can't afford it. For the rest of us, we have to get loans and scholarships. The middle class gets lots of loans. I'll have two kids in college next year.
David:
Right. The student gets loans, that they then repay. They pay for the product themselves. Young people who decide to forgo college, or go to community college, make their own decisions as to what they want, and what they are willing to pay for. You, and Bernie, are planning to make everyone pay through much higher taxes, for a new entitlement program.
Doug:
Many of those loans don't get paid back. These are huge amounts of money. And many students go to college on other types of funding that are not required to be paid back.
David:
Come on. Surely you have some ideas to contain costs. If not, then you deserve to have the government step in and start controlling your spending.
Doug:
Sorry, but we don't have a "Pharma Bro" charging $750 per pill that we can ferret out. It costs money to educate students and run a college/university. And, as I said, there are many affordable options. Here is a website put together by a programmer to help match up incomes with appropriate colleges:
http://www.college-costs.com/
Most people don't want "free college"; they just want one that they can afford. Here is a very thorough analysis of the complexity of higher education costs:
One quote from the article: "In other words, our system gives three times as much aid to the least needy as it gives to the most." I can think of many things I'd like to fix, but none of them will make college any cheaper.
David:
Well, I might say that it costs money to take care of people and run a hospital, too. Apparently, you don't feel that a company should be able to recover the millions of dollars it costs to bring a successful drug to market, or perhaps you just don't understand what goes on behind the scenes. But that doesn't stop you from saying healthcare costs too much, but education deserves all of the money that it charges. The high costs of higher education are hurting all students, and the poorest students the most. Something has to give.
Doug:
It definitely costs money to take care of people. And when one's business model is to make money off of taking care of people, then you have some serious conflict of interests. But your analogy breaks down when you compare state-run colleges to private-run colleges. State-run colleges are generally very affordable. People aren't making the kinds of money that they make off the healthcare industry. But at what cost? Many state schools don't even have tenure. That is a price too high.
David:
Let me make some suggestions. Perhaps we can provide "free" tuition to students, but just tell all universities and colleges they now have to provide the same educational opportunities they did before, and to the same number of students (or more), but they will only get paid 60% of what they charged before. That's pretty much how Medicare works. Let's see how that works for the education system.
Doug:
This is very similar to how the system currently works now.
David:
A better idea might be to have centers of higher education focus on individual degree programs. So, you might have a group of schools that provide only biology degrees, or business, or chemistry. By providing only one or two specialized programs, we could likely decrease costs of duplication of all degrees at all schools. What say you?
Doug:
That is how state schools often divide up the areas of study. It isn't a coincidence that the Engineering programs in the state of Indiana are at Purdue University, and the rest is at Indiana University. This was a conscious decision by the state to not duplicate services. That generally works fine, but the costs are what they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!