
Let’s begin this article by acknowledging or coming to terms with the fact that universities are not so much in the business of educating students as they are in the business of making money.
It is quite reasonable to call university education an American industry, be it a private or public school. Once this reality is established in the minds of readers, whether they be students, parents, or recent graduates, it’s not so difficult then to understand why the student loan problem (as part of the education industry) requires a $5.9 billion package from the U.S. government.
In the first half of the ’00s, in-state tuition at my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (an elite educational institution), was $5600 per year or thereabouts. Think that’s a steal? My high school English teacher who also attended UW paid $1400 per year in 1986. In 2012, the in-state tuition had grown to $9671, according to U.S. News & World Report. Out-of-state tuition has always been in the range of Ivy League schools (around $25,000 per year). With undergraduate enrollment at approximately 30,000, and with graduate and other enrolled students factored into the equation, the total student population reaches 42,595. 58.6% of this number are in-state students, while 46.2% are either out-of-state or international students.
We’re going to do a little math now, briefly, so hang in there—it will bring us to a nice point.
In the 2011/2012 academic year, according to these statistics, UW-Madison should have generated $241,252,766 on its Wisconsin resident students alone. It gets better. Much better. The out-of-state students should have generated $500,386,964, bringing the total revenue for these students to $741,639,730, or 3/4 of one billion dollars, and that’s not including 248 other students in UW-Madison’s system.
The argument is usually put forth that this money is generated to pay for Madison’s Big 10 football program, the Wisconsin Badgers, and various other athletic programs. However, UW’s athletic department operating budget was $88.368 million. That is quite a chunk of change left over, folks. The athletic department is bloated like a lot of other big athletics programs, but with annual revenues in excess of $741,639,730, UW is certainly not pinched because of the football team: they have $653,271,730 left in the coffers after the athletics budget is accounted for. And these number don’t account for ticket sales.
The whole point in this numbers exercise is to illustrate the point that universities generate insane amounts of money. Even smaller institutions, which cannot match a school like Harvard or UW-Madison, generate a great deal of money. And none of the above takes into account the living costs for attending university. Granted, at an institution such as UW-Madison, a great deal of money is spent on funding research and building facilities, to say nothing of attracting top rate faculty, but this cannot account for the majority of the $653,271,730 in tuition revenue (after accounting for the athletics department). And even if it did, would sending students out into the world with massive debt be worth it?
In political debate, we always talk about making government more efficient and lowering taxes, but we should also be thinking about making higher education more efficient and lowering tuition. This, however, is not the trend.
A recent College Board report found that the average price for an in-state student living and studying at a public university rose $1,100 to $21,447. No student, aside from the very wealthy, can afford that number without resorting to student loans. According to Richard Vedder and Matthew Denhart, writing in a CNN editorial:
In 2009, spending by Americans for post-secondary education totaled $461 billion, an amount 42% greater than in 2000, after accounting for inflation. This $461 billion is the equivalent of 3.3% of total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and an amount greater than the total GDP of countries such as Sweden, Norway and Portugal.
Let that sink into your mind for a moment. Spending on post-secondary education is being spoken of in terms of GDP. Let those words rattle about the skull: education costs… GDP… education costs… GDP. The university system is an immense industry. It would almost be more useful to compare higher education to McDonald’s, which isn’t in the business of feeding people but in moving massive amounts of beef about the world for profit.
There is no doubt that student loan debt is a problem, but this acknowledgment is not enough. Why is there such a necessity for big loans? It’s simple: rising tuition costs. And exponentially increasing costs of living, in which the dollar doesn’t buy as much as it used to, also create a toxic need for quick money paid back in increments. Theoretically it’s a great idea, but in practice (with high tuition and costs of living) it is simply unsustainable for both students and our country.
Thus the $5.9 billion student loan package making its way through the House and Senate misses the entire point: the legislation attempts to put a bandaid over the eviscerated corpse of higher education. Legislators, in their infinite idiocy, believe that freezing the student loan interest rate at 3.4%, with the costs offset elsewhere in the budget, will actually do any good at all. It’s inaction masquerading as action. It’s a smokescreen. A hallucination. It is, in a word, bullshit.
Education has a number of problems, many of which cannot be tackled in this editorial, but when it comes to the student loan crisis in this country, Americans need to recognize that a well-educated populace is an economic and cultural asset. And if we can lower the costs of higher education to reasonable levels, then it is very likely that we as a country will all benefit. If we don’t, this county will continue to struggle economically.





June 12, 2012 at 5:55 pm, Holly Le Du said:
excellent point- "if we can lower the costs of higher education to reasonable levels, then it is very likely that we as a country will all benefit. If we don’t, this county will continue to struggle economically."
June 12, 2012 at 8:00 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Thank you, Holly. And thanks for reading.
DJ
June 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm, .9 billion student loan package ignores the real problem: education is an … – Death and Taxes | Lending Student Loan said:
[...] $ 5.9 billion student loan package ignores the real problem: education is an …Death and TaxesOnce this reality is established in the minds of readers, whether they be students, parents, or recent graduates, it's not so difficult then to understand why the student loan problem (as part of the education industry) requires a $ 5.9 billion package … [...]
June 12, 2012 at 8:42 pm, Erin Wirta said:
So where does the money go? Who gets it?
I thought people in college would be there to learn (which is why I went). They're not. They're all there to get the piece of paper at the end. My college education was a disappointment. No one cares if you actually retain knowledge. It's just shuffling through one course after another, passing exams and subsequently forgetting all the information. There's no cohesiveness or emphasis on critical thinking. All subjects are taught separately, even though in the real world nothing works in isolation. My high school taught me so much more (both about facts and how to think & express ideas) than college. I felt more learned and better able to articulate my thoughts in high school. The largest benefit I got from my four years of higher education was learning how to live independently, which isn't even predicated on college at all.
Even knowing college has been dumbed down, I still would go if I had to make the choice over, because of the stigma attached to not being college-"educated".
For an interesting opinion, check out this recap of an article from The Washington Post:
http://theweek.com/article/index/228688/not-everyone-benefits-from-college
June 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
The real, real problem with all of this is not because education is an industry.
Every product or service you use is an industry, and it is no surprise that it serves you and all the rest of us very well.
Tool manufacturing is an industry. Computer manufacturing is an industry. Trade schools are an industry. Everything you utilize that makes your life better is an industry.
This is proof that industry is not a problem. Rather it is precisely the opposite when properly regulated by an uninhibited market system. Ebay is a great example of this.
The problem with education is simply the government's involvement. I do not know where this denial comes from where we refuse to recognize the more government intervenes in an industry, the more distorted it's marketplace becomes.
Education costs have risen 3 times over the rate of inflation. There is no explanation for this except for the fact that market regulation has been castrated by government-backed, low interest loans.
Students no longer keep institutions in check by simply saying "sorry, that's too much."
Instead, they said "oh, $300,000? No problem, I have a rich Uncle Sam, he'll lend me the money."
If my motorcycle shop had access to someone with a fortune, willing to lend it out to unqualified lenders at below market-level interest rates, we would be selling exponentially more motorcycles, and at a wildly inflated price.
We would no longer be regulated by the real-world finances of the buyer.
THAT is the issue with college. If you want to bring the cost of college down, you must just apply your common sense and remove the source of it's inflation- excessive credit availability and interest rate distortion.
June 12, 2012 at 9:54 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
I don't disagree that loans encourage students to swallow the bitter pill of high tuition, but I would point out that plenty of private entities are presently in the business of lending money to students and more firms are seeing vast amounts of money to be made by entering the market. Chase Manhattan, for instance, one of the largest, most ubiquitous banks in America has a student loan division. The costs keep getting higher. If what you said was true—that the free market would drive the costs down—we'd already be seeing this with tuition and student loans, and this is not happening.
The reality is that both universities and lenders see a lot of money to be made in education. They reinforce and enable one another.
And the greater point here is that even if student loans were 100% private, with the way things are right now (judging by the 10% of private student lenders active in the industry), nothing would change. And common sense dictates that it would not be in the lenders' financial self-interest to encourage students to conclude, "Tuition is too high and I don't want to be saddled with student loan debt, I'll do something else." They would absolutely want students to take out as much money at as high an interest rate as possible to create loads of money for the bank. Private lending does not benefit from NOT lending to students. Why do you think Chase is in the damned market of student loans? They want to make money. If tuition rates were lowered, the market would shrink and therefore become unattractive.
The best outcome is for university school boards to say, "You know what… we are filching students here on tuition and we are complicit with lenders who are filching students on student loans. Let's lower tuition rates and cut out or at least vastly reduce the lending." If this decision were made, even the federal government's student loan programs would become almost vestigial. The power lies with the education institutions. It really does.
And, once again, I'll say that eBay is a fine market but it is simply not the way countries and immense economic systems function. It just is not.
June 12, 2012 at 10:12 pm, Laura Elena Fortes said:
And it's not just as simple as that. I work at a University, and we are having more and more trouble enrolling the "target" number of students to our program. But just because more and more students are saying "this is too expensive" the university will find other ways to fill in the gaps, ie, starting more undergraduate programs to feed into graduate programs and cutting PhD programs (who do not pay tuition, but who are rather paid by the University). And even though tuition is exorbitant, departments are still running deficits of millions of dollars (due to outrageous overhead). It's, well, complicated.
June 12, 2012 at 10:20 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
It's also worth noting that even if government had helped create the student loan racket, this symbiotic relationship between universities and lenders would have developed anyway. Universities would have realized eventually (as they did years ago) that they could raise tuition because private banks would enthusiastically offer student loans. Everyone wins under this arrangement—everyone, that is, but students.
June 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
D. J. Pangburn look it is all this simple. A marketplace with human beings is no different than the formula of a combustion engine being gasoline + compression + spark = combustion.
Why is the education industry malfunctioning while the computer industry is not? Cel phones are far more widely used than colleges, why is there no malfunction in that service with regard to market driving down the cost?
Every problem you mention, from Chase or whomever entering the market is the distortion of government backing / guaranteeing of loans.
The only reason any industry does not serve the customer is because of laws the suppress true market regulation of the customer.
Healthcare follows the same trend. Outrageous pricing, excessive government intervention.
Housing is the same.
Now look at every industry there is that has minimal to no regulation, such as the ones I mentioned.
If you have people paying wildly inflated prices by a very large margin, it is always due to laws restricting the competition or enabling it with the backing of tax dollars, which are not subject to market forces.
A beach ball will never stay under water unless an outside force restricts it's ability to do so. The market is no different in it's predictability.
June 13, 2012 at 12:14 am, Alex Ott said:
This combustion engine (marxist) analogy makes no sense whatsoever, dude. The market isn't a machine. Even when mostly run by machines, its wildly unpredictable.
And cell phones and cell service doesn't cost north of $5k a year, so that analogy is questionable as well. People have cell phones because they can afford them. They don't go underwater in debt if they can't pay for their phone and bill — their service just gets cut off. If students can't pay their $5-$10k school bills, should they not be allowed to get a higher education? By your rationale, it sounds like that's what you'd argue.
June 13, 2012 at 1:09 am, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
Cel phones don't cost $5k / year, but that's sort of the point.
When cel phones came out we could have taken one of two directions- unregulated market competition, or subsidization of it's purchases. Had we chose the latter why would the price have ever gone down? By using tax dollars to subsidize the price, those that profit form the cel phones are sent the message that the price will not be rejected, keep it where it is and we will adjust by using taxpayer subsidies.
That is a very predictable response. Luckily, we did the opposite, left it alone, let all of these companies fight it out, and here we have smart phones that even homeless people are able to afford.
What I meant by the engine is that it operates on a principle that can't be changed, meaning you cant' have gas / compression / spark and not have combustion. It's not possible. Markets work in the same way.
You can not have widespread market malfunctions / distortions unless there is a reason for it.
The housing market experienced this malfunction because the government subsidized home buyers with subsidies and low interest loans. The buyers went on to use that money to bid up the prices of homes because all potential buyers had more wealth at their disposal, and the consequence was home values skewed very high.
Every market failure has an explanation. People don't one day start spending money differently than they did the day before for no reason. Human beings adapt.
All government does is override the organic direction of the human buyers and human sellers of the marketplace by using the force of law or revenue collected by the force of law to influence it's direction.
That, again, is predictable, just like a combustion engine.
June 13, 2012 at 1:20 am, D. J. Pangburn said:
Laura,
I appreciate your reply and the time spent reading my article.
I'm not naive enough to think it's as simple as university boards having a moment of clarity and unanimously deciding to lower tuition rates. What I meant is that the discussion must start with serious talk about tuition inflation. Do we want a university system, both public and private, that sits idly by as tuition rates soar and private and federal lenders rob students of the money that should be in their pocket?
No one is asking that students pay nothing, but education, which is an economic and cultural asset, should not cost $21,000 per year on average (or $84,000-105,000 for 4 or 5 years). And that number is just for in-state students. To study out-of-state is near financial insanity, especially in this economy.
And what is in the overhead that is so damned expensive? If overhead is outrageous, then it must be made more efficient somehow.
June 13, 2012 at 6:02 am, Glenn Bagley said:
Leaving education to the invisible hand is hope and a prayer economics….why? Hmmmm well look at the numbers as enrollment has fallen prices have not gone down? They have not lowered in order to compete? The fact is education is a vital piece to economic health in a nation….a well educated population attracts investment not the reverse….there are so many holes in this "free market" arguement…we are spending mass amounts of money and yet are falling behind countries that offer free educations to their citizens.
June 13, 2012 at 10:22 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
That is simply not true. Computers are every bit if not more vital than college education to our country's future, why aren't those prices out of control?
The only holes in a free market argument are made by people that don't understand what an unregulated marketplace is.
Ebay has proven to us with it's 15+ year track record that free, unregulated markets work. No laws, no regulations, no licenses, no price controls- just straight market pricing, unregulated selling, unmonited /uncontrolled buying. Let the chips fall where they may, good sellers prosper, bad ones are sent packing, winner take all.
Free markets work if you just stop screwing with them. There is no invisible hand, it's a purely organic movement of people with no direction except for the free will of the buyer and free will of the seller.
April 20, 2013 at 8:15 pm, Jay Yoon said:
It's time for price controls, NOT loans to help pay high prices, but laws that control and regulate the prices themselves.