Slashdot Mirror
The College-Loan Scandal
Matt Taibbi writes in Rolling Stone about the economics behind college tuition. Interest rates get the headlines and the attention of politicians, but Taibbi says the real culprit is "appallingly high tuition costs that have been soaring at two to three times the rate of inflation, an irrational upward trajectory eerily reminiscent of skyrocketing housing prices in the years before 2008." He writes,
"For this story, I interviewed people who developed crippling mental and physical conditions, who considered suicide, who had to give up hope of having children, who were forced to leave the country, or who even entered a life of crime because of their student debts. ... Because the underlying cause of all that later-life distress and heartache – the reason they carry such crushing, life-alteringly huge college debt – is that our university-tuition system really is exploitative and unfair, designed primarily to benefit two major actors. First in line are the colleges and universities, and the contractors who build their extravagant athletic complexes, hotel-like dormitories and God knows what other campus embellishments. For these little regional economic empires, the federal student-loan system is essentially a massive and ongoing government subsidy, once funded mostly by emotionally vulnerable parents, but now increasingly paid for in the form of federally backed loans to a political constituency – low- and middle-income students – that has virtually no lobby in Washington. Next up is the government itself. While it's not commonly discussed on the Hill, the government actually stands to make an enormous profit on the president's new federal student-loan system, an estimated $184 billion over 10 years, a boondoggle paid for by hyperinflated tuition costs and fueled by a government-sponsored predatory-lending program that makes even the most ruthless private credit-card company seem like a "Save the Panda" charity. Why is this happening? The answer lies in a sociopathic marriage of private-sector greed and government force that will make you shake your head in wonder at the way modern America sucks blood out of its young."
Part of this has to do with the subsidies they add to tuition. I remember when I was in school, tuition was about $2000 per semester. One semester, they decided to jack up tuition by $400. Most of that $400 was earmarked for subsidies for lower-income students. I found out during a meeting where the chancellor announced the change that 40% of our overall tuition went to subsidies. 40%! At which point I asked:
"So you're increasing tuition to help students who can't afford tuition, because we keep raising tuition to help students who can't afford tuition?"
They just kind of shrugged that question off.
Now, that's for private, non-profit schools. Public schools it has jumped substantially, but not for any nefarious reason: it's what happens when the state legislature looks for easy cuts in the budget and axes higher ed first. When I went to William and Mary back in the mid-80s, 34.7% of the budget was covered by the state. It's 12.8% now, but they're still expected to offer everything they did before (and more) as well as give discounts to in-state students. That money can come only from two places: tuition and endowment.
Endowment is an entire 'nother subject. You might have noticed a serious drop in the stock market a few years back? We (and many other schools) run a three year trailing average on endowment draw, so that's still hurting badly. Oh, and you can't get bonds or other securities with yields higher than a percent or two these days.. Couple the two and your endowment income has cratered as well.
Can we cut budgets? Sure: I started here six years ago in IT and my budget is 20% less than was when I joined. Software vendors don't care: my SPSS licensing costs have tripled in those 3 years for example, and everyone else wants their 5% a year bump. And I'm at a healthy school: I've been at ones that aren't and it's worse.
The real abuse IMHO is the loan industry. We've somehow gotten this idea that it's ok to put yourself into debt for the rest of your life for a degree. (And that debt, unlike every other kind can't ever be vacated by bankruptcy) Nobody should take out $100k of debt for any degree, and the feds shouldn't back it, much like they shouldn't back flood insurance for people who want to live on barrier islands. That may mean you don't get your dream school. Maybe it means 2 years of community college before residential. There are plenty of ways to get an education- shop for them just like you would for an phone
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Yep. Here in Sweden there is no tuition. Paid for through taxes. Like the health care.
Exorbitant taxes? Nope. Most people pay something like 30%. While this is more than most pay in USA, when you add tuitions and health insurance it turns out we pay less.
Why? Because there is no billionaire middle man taking his arbitrary cut.
Yeah, socialism stinks, right?
The only schools where athletics are self-funding with excess going to education are the big sports schools. Stanford, UCLA, UM, Ohio State, Florida State, and the other big sports names.
If a school isn't in the top 16, they aren't making their investment back in athletics. It's just a loss leader to stay relevant because their academics are irrelevant. And by staying relevant in athletics they're hoping they get applicants interested in attending there.
Really, though, it's really only indicative of warped USA priorities. Higher education is supposed to be about education, not school spirit, not meatheads throwing balls around, not ticket sales, not full-sail scholarships for those who will wind up contributing nothing to society except getting into professional sports and making a bunch of Gatoraide commercials.
It's a little bit like glorifying the British monarchy. Sure, castles and stuff bring tourism dollars, but at the expense of massive losses of waived inheritance tax by nobles.
If you are paying $25k a year in tuition and are making $40k a year, you will also end up with debt. Federal and state taxes will eat up 33% of that $40, so you're talking $26k left. Then you've got rent, and even a slumlord will charge $300/mo so you've got $22k left (and if you want to stay at a university dorm, that'd be $10K/yr). Then you've got food, and even an anorexic will have to pay $40/week for food, so that's another $2k a year gone and you've got $20k left. You better be walking to college because there's no way you've got money for a car, car insurance, or gasoline. So, living in a slum, walking to college, eating like an anorexic, not buying any new clothes or any new anything, and "making" a $40k salary, you've got $20k to pay off your $25k a year tuition. That still puts you in $5k debt a year. By contrast, if you took your $20k over four years ($80k) and invested it piss-poor bonds of 3% interest a year, you'd have $260 thousand dollars by the time you retire (40yrs from now) with that money alone. If you're actually smart, the kind of smart that lets you get into college to begin with, you can be making 10% growth a year and have $3.6 million in 40 years. That's just with the $80k.