Search News


Browse Archives

News

Arne Duncan, Free Marketeer

May 21, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- If you'd had to bet on whether Education Secretary Arne Duncan or Republican Congressmen like Howard P. (Buck) McKeon and Michael Castle would have been more likely to tout the power of the market in setting college tuition prices, the smart money probably would not have been on the representative of the Obama administration that Rush Limbaugh likes to deride as "socialist."

But as lawmakers from both parties rather gently questioned (and often lectured) Duncan on a range of subjects as he testified on the administration's education priorities Wednesday before the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, among his most interesting answers were to several queries about whether the Education Department was doing enough to get colleges to restrain their spending and their tuitions.

While the Obama administration is doing much to ensure access to college by significantly expanding financial aid for students, said Castle, a Delaware Republican, "my concern is the cost of higher education.... Is there anything we could be doing to keep the pressure on" colleges to contain their prices? he asked, adding: "We cannot continue to afford to underwrite it with Pell Grants."

McKeon, a California who is the senior Republican on the House panel, noted that the administration's 2010 budget proposes tying funds from a reconfigured Perkins Loan Program in part to colleges' success in "keeping tuition down. McKeon pointed out with some irony that he had suggested a roughly similar idea in the past but that it was "rejected by the higher education community.... I hope you have better luck than I did," he said.

In response to a similarly themed question from Rep. John F. Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat, Duncan insisted that the administration was fully committed to enforcing provisions in the Higher Education Act renewal Congress passed last year that reward colleges that restrain their tuition and withhold funds from states that cut their spending on public higher education.

But Duncan suggested that today's economic realities seemed likely to compel more changes in colleges' behavior than anything the government might do. Compared to 2003 when McKeon proposed withholding Perkins and other campus-based student aid from colleges that significantly raised tuition, "things have really changed, and students and parents have more options than I think they have ever had, and are going to vote with their feet," Duncan said. With lower-cost community colleges gaining in stature and colleges experimenting with three-year degrees and "no frills" campuses, he said, "smart consumers" will stop going to schools where costs are skyrocketing."

He added: "Where costs are escalating, I think you'll see those colleges lose market share.... There are too many low-cost options."

The only other higher education issue that garnered meaningful attention at a hearing that was largely dominated by K-12 matters was, predictably, the Obama administration's proposal to shift all federal lending from the Federal Family Education Loan Program to the Direct Loan Program and use the savings to make Pell Grants an "appropriated entitlement," ensuring a consistent and growing stream of funds for the country's main need-based student aid program (see related essay).

But the snippets of discussion about the proposal, most of which was critical, was a mere appetizer for today's hearing on the Obama plan and other such proposals before the same House committee. The hearing features a diverse group of witnesses who will speak from a wide range of perspectives.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Arne Duncan, Free Marketeer

  • Standard consumer protections
  • Posted by Alan Collingeq , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on May 21, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I hope Arne Duncan takes follows prescriptions from both the Adam Smith Society, and the National Review, and supports free-market consumer protections for student loans, including banktupty protections, and refinancing rights.

     

  • College and costs
  • Posted by Anon on May 21, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Wealthy institutions, such as the small elite liberal arts colleges which charge over $50,000 in comprehensive fees, and private elite universities know that keeping prices high is the surest way to attract the wealthiest customers who will also become future donors. This is alays the motivating factor at my institution, where the president is always public about staying among the elite by charging high tuition and by regularly raising tuition above 6%. "we have to remain at the mean of our peers" is the justification.

    It may be true that some people might choose less expensive alternatives, but those who wish to set themselves apart and ensure that their children socialize with members of their own class will continue to send them to the wealthiest small colleges charging high tuitions. The Nieman Marcus syndrome (or the Needless Markup syndrome) will always remain strong in higher education.

  • 3-Year Degrees can reduce costs to students by 25%
  • Posted by Bob Seidman , Professor/Computer Information Technology at Southern New Hampshire Uinversity on May 21, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Saving 25% of college costs is something that is understandably appealing to many, including students, parents, and the US Congress. Happily, there exists a good example of a long-running very successful 3-year degree program proving that a high-quality university education can be delivered without any diminution of academic content.

    Southern New Hampshire University completely redesigned its 4-year business administration major so that it could be delivered in six semesters instead of eight. No summer-school or inter-sessions are needed. This competency and outcomes-based 120 credit honors program has proven to be very attractive especially since it lowers the cost of a university education by 25%. The program graduated its 10th class this month.

    A posting at Tomorrow's Professors blog describes this program.
    http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/archives/2009/05/947_highly_succ.html#more

  • Red Queen Race
  • Posted by David Eubanks , Director of Exotic Plumbing on May 21, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Anon's comment about price = exclusivity is spot on. My comments about how this relates to the complicated game of assessing higher ed outputs are found here: http://highered.blogspot.com/

    Note to editors: your javascript pop-up for inserting tags seems to be broken.

  • High end education
  • Posted by feudi , FAO on May 21, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • I agree with previous posters that higher ed will always have "high end" schools who believe they MUST charge more to maintain their elitist stature. Mr. Duncan may be correct that the majority of people will seek out lower cost schools, but there will always be that segment that bases it's perception of value using the monetary scale. Worse than this phenomena are those schools that specialize in serving low achieving children of the wealthy. These schools seem to be multiplying each year. You can tell these schools by their high tuition rates and academically poor student bodies.

     

  • failure of the market
  • Posted by PS on May 21, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • McKeon and Duncan both fail in their analysis and assumptions about the "market" in higher education. When financial aid first began (like Pell and state aid), it was assumed that since students now had a choice in where to take their financial aid (or vouchers), that colleges would keep their prices low to compete. 

    Or at least that is what conservatives like McKeon thought. The problem is that price is not the only criteria when choosing higher education. Many students are constrained by geography, for instance. The result of this market-based, voucher system, which started in the 70's and took off in the 80's, was skyrocketing tuition. The market did not keep prices low....it inflated them.

  • Where the smart money is going
  • Posted by Michael McIntyre , Associate Professor, International Studies at DePaul University on May 21, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • So the smart money is going to low-cost no-frills schools, eh? That would be the choice of "smart consumers" like Duncan's parents who sent him to the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and Harvard. Or the Obamas who sent their daughers to Lab and now send them to Sidwell Friends. I wonder where "smart consumer" Duncan will be sending his children. DeVry?

  • Yes, the cheapest of everything, by all means!
  • Posted by Rich on May 21, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • As McIntyre notes above, we'll believe in equal quality and outcomes between cheaper and more expensive programs, and between three-year and four-year degrees, when people who have a real choice start choosing the cheaper and shorter programs in large numbers. Right now, those numbers are approximately zero.

    This discussion is ridiculous on its face. Most people do not drive the smallest and cheapest car available, nor do they eat the cheapest food available, unless they can't afford anything else or unless they have an independent ideological or esthetic preference that guides them, e.g. environmentalism for a smaller car, and even then it's likely not the cheapest one. I'm all for inquiry into why expensive private colleges cost so much, and I'm all for price as one of the significant decision factors, but the reflexive preference for cheaper and shorter sounds a whole lot like something that the better-off counsel to the worse-off in order to reinforce the wall between them.

  • Smart Consumers
  • Posted by Blind Man. on May 21, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I have to clarify for the poster who takes issue with where Arne might send his children that when he was talking about "smart consumers" he meant "poor" smart consumers.

    Arne would in no way be considered poor and as a result would have the choice of sending his kids to the elite cost "enhanced" schools other posters mentioned as opposed to low cost schools.

    If however, there are fewer "rich" people then there used to be, and we know that there are, then we would expect that a few of the high cost schools that used to depend on the pure status seekers for enrollment are in for some tough years.

    I would not mind seeing a few of them go away. That would do wonders for the national average for tuition prices, and would also do wonders for the poor kids that have been fooled into thinking that price equals quality.

  • irony on both sides
  • Posted by random thoughts on May 21, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • McKeon is only sometimes interested in "less government." When it has come to higher education, he has consistently sought increased regulation.

    I'm not at all surprised to see common sense break out on this subject, although I note that it does not appear to come from Congress. Pendulums swing. Market corrections happen. In every set of challenges (here, higher prices) someone will find an opportunity, develop an alternative that will take off, and the landscape will change. (Think Japanese cars pushing quality and economy.) Prestige schools won't suffer like Detroit has, but at various price points, many people will explore alternatives.

    And, you know, there are literally thousands of fine institutions of higher education. While I am very grateful for the education I received at a highly selective private university, success in life is a lot more about what I do than where I went to school.

  • Private College Costs Becoming Exorbitant
  • Posted by George Patsourakos , Retired Administrator at Harvard University on May 21, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I believe that a plethora of parents will soon be sending their children to a state college or university, because the tuition and other costs of private institutions of higher education are becoming exorbitant. In fact, it would not surprise me if several private colleges -- especially small colleges with a high tuition -- became defunct in the near future, due to an insufficient number of applicants for admission.

    On the lighter side of this predicament, a parent visited the college loan officer of his bank and told him, "Frankly, with four children in college, our family is suffering from 'maltuition.'"

  • And, George P.,
  • Posted by DFS on May 22, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • The better education will be obtained from any state institution.

    Otherwise, they are only inculcated, and not challenged.