Search News


Browse Archives

News

Evidence of the Tuition Bubble

February 4, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Commentators have increasingly been wondering if the end might finally be in sight for the many years' worth of steady and often not-so-slow increases in college tuitions. How much longer, the thinking goes, will American students and parents be able to afford -- and/or put up with -- rapidly rising prices and expenditures on higher education?

Of course, predictions of the end of the line for big tuition increases have come and gone before, and threats of aggressive federal efforts to try to control college prices typically recede, as they did during the passage of last year's Higher Education Act renewal. But a new poll released today offers compelling evidence that, much as people view higher education as increasingly essential, public concern about the price of college and access to higher education for lower-income Americans is accelerating rapidly. The survey, conducted in December by Public Agenda and the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, follows fairly closely on the heels of the group's last such poll, in early 2007, yet shows significant changes in that short time in the responses of Americans on key subjects.

Fifty-five percent of the 1,000-plus respondents, for instance, said they believed a college education is necessary to "be successful in today's world," up from 50 percent in 2007 and just 31 percent in 2000. That's the good news -- higher education is seen as increasingly essential.

But the upbeat results more or less stop there for higher education. On a series of questions related to the price and affordability of college, the answers suggest that Americans not only see higher education getting too expensive, but unreasonably so compared to other things they value.

Sixty-three percent, for instance, said they believed college prices are rising at a faster rate than other things, up from 58 percent who gave that answer in 2007. Respondents who gave that answer were then asked whether they believed college prices were rising faster or slower than those health care; 35 percent said faster (up from 20 percent in 2007), 42 percent said the rate was the same, and 17 percent said slower.

A series of other questions reflected respondents' growing sense that the rising prices were hurting access to higher education for the non-wealthy. While 74 percent said they strongly agreed that prices should not deter qualified students from going to college, a full two-thirds (67 percent) said they strongly agreed that students are forced to borrow too much to pay for college (up from 60 percent in 2007), and only 30 percent strongly agreed that "almost anyone who needs financial help to go to college can get loans or financial aid." That's down from 38 percent less than two years ago -- and 22 percent strongly disagreed with that statement, up from 15 percent in 2007.

"This is a red flag for policy makers and college leaders," said Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. "Most American believe in the value of getting to college and getting a degree. Yet the public increasingly feels that college is out of reach for many people who deserve to go. It points to a growing sense of unfairness about the economy and American society today."

One other aspect of the Public Agenda/National Center survey is also likely to trouble college leaders, as it suggests a connection in the minds of respondents (placed there, perhaps, by the survey's sponsors) between rising prices and the conduct of colleges. In 2007, 43 percent of respondents said they believed colleges and universities "mainly care about education and making sure students have a good educational experience," while 52 percent said "colleges today are like most businesses and mainly care about the bottom line" (5 percent said they did not know which was more accurate).

When asked again in December 2008, as part of the current survey, the proportion saying colleges mainly cared about education had dropped to 35 percent; 55 percent said the institutions mainly cared about the bottom line, and 9 percent were uncertain.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Evidence of the Tuition Bubble

  • Finding affordability
  • Posted by David Eubanks , Dean of Academic Support Services at JCSU on February 4, 2009 at 6:35am EST
  • I think a lot of us in higher ed have worried about the connection between the banking bubble and tuition. The problem of availability of loans is an obvious one. I think the time has come for university-originated loans (for private institutions anyway). You can find details about this idea on my blog here: http://highered.blogspot.com/2008/12/virtual-loans.html

    This is not a short term solution, however. I predict a growth industry in higher ed consultants.

  • you gotta be kidding
  • Posted by finaidfollies on February 4, 2009 at 8:05am EST
  • Average indebtedness at graduation for undergrads is $20k; grads $32k; PhDs $40k; and professional degrees much, much higher.

    Cohort default rates are a joke, intended to mask the true level of default that is rampant throughout the student loan system.

    Credit card debt among college students is at epidemic levels, and is racking up interest at ruinous rates.

    Tuition costs have gone up near double the rate of inflation (on average) since the Eisenhower era, according to the College Board.

    But for the likes of David Eubanks, 'affordability' means the ability to get a loan to pay for college. Not just any loan, but a utopian barter-system which, at best, would indenture graduating students, and at worst would create enormous fiscal gaps when students 'default' on their obligations. These fiscal gaps, however, cannot be filled with 'virtual' money.

    This kind of thinking just pours more gasoline on the college cost firestorm. Colleges get the revenue they crave when students borrow. Lender-enablers love to lend (on terms which they define, now that they have fled FFELP in droves).

    Loans are not the solution. Reducing cost is the solution.

  • Reply to finaidfollies
  • Posted by Anonymous on February 4, 2009 at 8:50am EST
  • Reducing costs is the solution.

    In the same way Americans not getting sick is the solution to the health care insurance crisis.

    In the same way no hurricanes is the solution to FEMA's mismanagement.

    It ain't going to happen, what's the point of bashing student loans.

  • Empire Building
  • Posted by Kevin , Lecturer at The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on February 4, 2009 at 8:50am EST
  • Amen to finaidfollies. The cost of education needs to be more transparent, access to loans is just a red herring that we are all choking on. Ask your institution for a complete breakdown of their budgets and wonder at the response. One telling statistic: 3% of the square footage of buildings on this campus is devoted to classrooms. Ask how much is devoted to Administration! Academia is as guilty of "Empire Building" as any Citigroup, General Motors or any private enterprise now sucking the life out of taxpayers.

  • Bubbles are for speculators
  • Posted by Hugo Ottolenghi at Florida International University on February 4, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • There cannot be a bubble in higher education because you cannot speculate on the future value of higher education. More simply, you can't flip a B.S. A university can price itself out of the market, as Ivy League schools did until they instituted tuition waivers based on income. Those replaced tuition loans with grants. Not enough schools are providing help, so a lot of bright students are settling for second best because their families -- good, middle-class families -- can't afford what's best for their children. And that threatens the future of the United States.

  • reducing cost is a chimera
  • Posted by KEL on February 4, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • The litany about reducing costs has reached absurd levels. There is a point at which costs can not be be reduced unless the world would like to provide a separate living for myself and my family in place of a salary. College professors need money to live and we are a lot cheaper that Wall Street bankers.

    What the country and its citizens need to face up to is that one needs to pay for what you want. College has becom increasingly out of reach for the poor and ordinary people because states have cut funding for higher ed. No funding, higher tuition. The result is an elitist class oriented higher education. Since democracy led to this situation, one can only assume that Americans want only the rich to educated.

    You get what you vote for.

  • Cost Reduction Is Proven, Just Not For Students
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at SMARTHINKING/Straighterline on February 4, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Cost reduction is not only possible, it's proven. Take the results from the National Center for Academic Transformation's (NCAT) work with general education courses. They have shown dramatic cost reductions AND quality improvements for gen ed courses. These are the courses that account for about 1/3 of all enrollments in higher ed. Further, the cost of production and delivery of distance education is dramatically cheaper than face-to-face education. However, may colleges actually charge more!

    The problem is not that it can't be done, it's that those cost reductions are not passed on to students. This happens because the presence of dramatic state subsidies, the roughly lock-step in-state tuition setting, and the uniform tuition pricing across courses greatly diminishes the ability for colleges to compete on price (and therefore let students choose based on price). Using NCAT principles and to pass these savings on to students, SMARTHINKING just launched a course offering for gen ed courses called Straighterline. Among other things, Straighterline has subscription pricing at $99 per month so that the quicker a student can complete a course, the lower the cost. This tracks more closely with the actual cost inputs of a course than traditional course pricing. As institutions increase tuition because of budget problems, students seek more affordable alternatives because of declining incomes and savings, and the Internet enables more pricing alternatives, I think you will start to see more students piecing together degrees from multiple sources to keep costs down.

  • Giving customers what they want
  • Posted by Interested Observer on February 4, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • When it comes to rising college costs, there's plenty of blame to spread around:

    Uncle Sam: Anyone read the 1100+ pages of the Higher Ed Opportunity Act? Seen how many extra reporting requirements have been tacked on? Someone has to do that reporting if the school takes federal funds, and I'm beyond confident it won't be someone from the faculty ranks. Call it "administrative bloat" if you wish, but it's gotta get done.

    The schools themselves: We all think we're elite and have to price ourselves accordingly. I've argued for years that reducing our cost makes more sense than "enrollment managing" the discount rate, but I've been told more than once that if we want to be compared with XYZ University, we have to be in the same price range as they are. And so we are, as are numerous other wannabe XYZ's.

    College-goers: It better be the newest and shiniest, or away we go. Satellite TV service, wireless high-speed internet, and the obligatory climbing wall are expectations among students and families. Throw in all-day meal service and, as one colleague observed, "The only difference between today's colleges and cruise ships is that we don't leave port." And did I mention the lowest possible faculty-student ratios? Sorry, America; we don't do "Mr. Chips" anymore--being paid a living wage comes with the territory.

    I won't go into what it costs to feed the US News rankings beast.

  • Wrong!
  • Posted by Jerry in LA on February 4, 2009 at 10:25am EST
  • "College has becom increasingly out of reach for the poor and ordinary people because states have cut funding for higher ed. No funding, higher tuition."

    A statement like this could easily be backed-up with facts. But the facts show that it is wrong. Overall, states have consistently INCREASED funding for higher ed, year-after-year. 2009 will be an exception (funding will increase again in 2010 - bank on it).

    So please stop blaming higher tuition on lack of state funding (unless you want to show your state is an exception).

    And double-amen to finaidfollies - "Loans are not the solution. Reducing cost is the solution."
    Or, at the least, how about keeping costs to the rate of inflation? (a horrible thought, I know)

  • naysayers, get thee behind me
  • Posted by finaidfollies on February 4, 2009 at 11:06am EST
  • Can't cut costs, eh? Let's look a little closer at Anonymous' and KEL's positions.

    'It [cost-cutting, presumably] ain’t going to happen, what’s the point of bashing student loans.'

    -- Using this reasoning, CAFE standards for more miles per gallon would never work; after all, the automakers told us so. And California's stringent anti-pollution laws would never induce automakers to build cars that could meet such draconian standards.

    Decades of Moore's Law have given us computers with incredible power, at incredibly low prices. This is cost-cutting on a monumental scale. But no, you can't cut costs in higher education. Higher education is special.

    'College professors need money to live and we are a lot cheaper that Wall Street bankers.'

    -- Yes, and given bankers' recent performance, a lot better value. I'm no expert on faculty salaries, but is this really the only place on campus where savings can be realized? C'mon, these are institutions of Higher Learning. Can't we have a little, you know, innovation?

    'What the country and its citizens need to face up to is that one needs to pay for what you want. College has becom increasingly out of reach for the poor and ordinary people because states have cut funding for higher ed. No funding, higher tuition. The result is an elitist class oriented higher education.'

    -- KEL is right that we're headed for an elitist class-oriented higher education. But more state funding is the answer? Last time I checked, students and parents are also taxpayers.

    We do indeed need to pay for what we get. Can't we find a way to provide higher education to more people without using the same classroom model that's been in place for centuries? No other private or public sector institution operates in the same way it did even mere decades ago, yet the way we teach is perfect, needs no changing, and can only be bettered with more money.

  • FA REGS HAVE BLAME!
  • Posted by John A on February 4, 2009 at 12:05pm EST
  • Yes, there is tremendous waste in higher education institutions with a myriad of unnecessary and never reducing administration and construction.

    BUT, we have a financial aid system that gives NO tools to FA officers to control the debt of students. Yes, we need students to have access to the loans they need to attend the institution of their choice, but why does a student attending a public college access the same loan limits as a student attending a private institution? Our FA offices have become welfare offices. Go to school, get 10k in loans, take a year to flunk out, but in the mean time you keep adding up debt from institution to institution. It is time for the Department of Education and Congress to allow FA offices to set policies that will restrict borrowing to only necessary levels. We need to have high loan limits, and they need to be increased, but only to make college choice accessible to all. Just don't require FA offices to be welfare offices.

  • Posted by Randy on February 4, 2009 at 12:05pm EST
  • Higher education affordability will continue to worsen as long as parental income plays a role in paying for college.

    In what other segment of American society are parents expected to pay for adult children?

    We have a system that markets and sells a product that is uniquely unaffordable to the target market. As long as parental income, state and federal aid, and tuition discounting continue, this will always be the case.

  • Just an Opinion
  • Posted by Idealist on February 4, 2009 at 12:05pm EST
  • In reading the comments today I find validity in almost all. Today we look at a vast majority of our problems as if they are an insurmountable crisis. This includes health crisis, global warming crisis, educational funding crisis, and the crisis of the day. Obviously these aren’t crisis except when we wish to create hysteria, then only the problems exist and solutions are knee jerk. Educational costs are escalating and it is pushed by a full spectrum of reasons. There really isn’t a magic pill for this ailment. However,when you look closely at who pays and who receives in health care for example you generally find one person pays, in full, for the other nine who don’t. I certainly can’t see the reason why the costs to the “one” are so high! I am only guessing here, but in Higher Ed, I would speculate that we have at least 40 to 60% of the student population going to school on someone else’s dime, not counting endowments, institutional state and/or private funding. Education comes at a cost and someone has to pay, after all there are no free lunches. If we continue to try to be all things to all people, we better get real comfortable with escalating tuitions until the law of supply and demand forces some balance.

  • Higher Education Not Necssary says HGSE student
  • Posted by Brokeharvardgrad on February 4, 2009 at 12:10pm EST
  • Had to comment here, because I found a posting from a Harvard student in the Graduate School of Education that stated that she didn't think higher education was necessary for "our kids" anymore. Not a proud moment for the program. I've included her quote in my post. It's an obnoxious statement and flies directly in the face of all the studies stating the increase in income directly related to higher education.

  • Cost Reduction
  • Posted by Ron Modreski on February 4, 2009 at 12:10pm EST
  • It always amazes me how disconnected from the real world that many if not most in the Higher Ed community are. Of course you can take cost out,it is done everyday in the world of commerce and business where most of the students will go. Those that don't adjust will shrink or disappear. Whether it is the auto industry, airlines, retail, health care,etc this is what happens. The same thing will happen to Higher Ed colleges and universities if they don't understand this. Lots of people lose their job because of new technologies, better service, lower price, and hanging on to old models. Delivering education in the 21st century in global competition must change. Getting a PHD does not guarantee a job for life, get over it.

  • Posted by Rufus on February 4, 2009 at 12:10pm EST
  • I'm pretty skeptical that cost-cutting is so difficult. Given the top-heavy administrative structure at many universities, particularly state universities, and the various perks that have been added to give a college education that cruise ship aura, I would suspect that a good accountant with a red pen could find any number of ways to bring costs down. Just walking around the huge mall-like university where I study, I can think of at least a dozen offices that could easily be eliminated.

  • Higher Ed Funding
  • Posted by Anthony Johnston on February 4, 2009 at 12:10pm EST
  • "So please stop blaming higher tuition on lack of state funding (unless you want to show your state is an exception)."

    Illinois has cut or flat funded higher ed since 2002.

  • The real cost
  • Posted by Joe on February 4, 2009 at 12:50pm EST
  • Regarding private schools, the 'sticker price' of a college education has indeed gone up far faster than inflation at many schools. However, the price that is published in the catalog is rarely the price that a student actually pays.

    Currently schools are shifting an unknown amount of money around and the final price that a student will pay is so variable that you need to get right down to the individual bursar account. Surely a part of what is going on is that price is a perceived measure of quality and schools want that number, paradoxically, to be large. However, once admitted there are a whole panoply of discounts, grants, scholarships, etc that are being awarded to defray the initial starting price.

    There have been some rumblings about requiring schools to report their 'discounted tuition'. I'm absolutely convinced that if we did this we'd discover two things. One, the cost of higher ed isn't increasing nearly as fast as the 'sticker price' would suggest. Two, discounts are being allocated in ways that would make educators uneasy if it were exposed to the full light of day.

    For public schools this isn't nearly as large an issue but the increases in tuition there can be mapped directly back to decreased government funding.

  • Posted by J. Nordberg , process metallurgist on February 4, 2009 at 1:10pm EST
  • I realize that I'm writing this to the wrong audience, but I feel compelled to add my opinion. Understand that I am a professional, and happy with the education that I received (20 yrs ago). If someone were to poll me about the necessity of a college education, I would say that it depends. Examples: Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, Teachers, Scientists - Yes. But look at how many people have a "necessary" education that they do not use. I think that colleges and universities have put a monopoly on one form of education, therefore the cost has increased as the perceived demand has increased. Our country has ignored other forms of education that are common elsewhere: trade guilds, extensive job training, etc. Many skilled labor careers do not need to follow a college education. If the cost of education continues to rise unchecked, I may consider encouraging my children to become electricians, drafters, or welders. The burden of debt is too great.

  • Salary bubble
  • Posted by a reader on February 4, 2009 at 1:10pm EST
  • The real bubble is in senior salaries, and the dirty secret of higher ed is that you could cut senior administrative and senior faculty salaries by 50% (yes) and you'd still have people lining up to take every one of those jobs. The outcry from current office holders would be loud, of course. They are welcome to enter the job market and find positions elsewhere. I wish them luck.

    Legislatures and trustees must decouple tenure from compensation. Faculty tenure is important as protection for risky research (although virtually no one uses it that way). But tenure should not guarantee a high salary, and it should be routine for trustees and legislatures to cut salaries across the board by large amounts in times of need.

  • No surprise here
  • Posted by Financial Aid Guy on February 4, 2009 at 5:10pm EST
  • I'm not sure a bubble exists in the true sense of the word. But with consumer confidence at an all time low and college costs at an all time high, it certainly stands to reason that the general public will start to react.

    I guarantee we will see public college enrollment rise, private college enrollment decline, and financial aid offices inundated with a record number of customers....at least until the market comes back and we all feel secure again.

    http://www.financialaidpost.com/consumer-confidence-all-time-low

  • Cost of higher education-gone corporate
  • Posted by S. Ray DeRusse on February 4, 2009 at 5:10pm EST
  • It has been very distressing to watch the tuition increases since about 2004-5 through a defacto "corporatization" deregulation scheme. It was amazing to watch the shell game of politicians complain about the high cost of tuition; something they just deregulated. Now President Obama is adding untold sums of funding to education. A necessity that has been deregulated and turned to corporate businesses. Makes not sense to me. Perhaps more need to be allocated for ethics and corporate governance.

    http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

  • tuition too expensive
  • Posted by BrokeHaravardGrad , bubble on February 9, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • College tuition continues to rise, despite inflation, despite the extended costs from a 4 year degree turning into a 5 year degree. It's a ridiculous situation for most college grads, because there is no way for the graduates to pay back loans with the economy crashing and hiring rates at a 20 year low.
    I have a graph, comparing rates of inflation on my post. Check it out.
    -Wiseass