On a recent episode of “The Daily,” Michael Barbaro and Paul Tough discussed changing perceptions of higher education. An increasing number of Americans don’t believe attending college is worth the cost.
Toward the end of their discussion, Tough seems to suggest that part of the solution to the higher education cost problem involves a shift from a “consumer good” to a “public good.” Rather than leaving students and their families to pay for college themselves, Tough argues for the extension of publicly funded education beyond high school instead of determining to “throw young people to the wolves and say it’s up to you to figure out how you’re going to get to the right kind of education and how you’re going to pay for it.”
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Join Higher Ground for a free LIVE Q&A with Washington Times columnist Billy Hallowell and best-selling author Dr. Everett Piper on Tuesday, September 26th at 7:00 pm Eastern. Click here for details.
While I can appreciate the sentiment, I would also argue that higher education is already being considered as a “public good,” as demonstrated by federal and state subsidies. The public has already been subsidizing higher education (both public and private). While state and federal funding has shifted over the years, higher education has been viewed as a public good.
Overall, I believe higher education is still worth it…it is a public good. Higher education was a formative part of my life. Learning to research, analyze data, evaluate positions, and make arguments has been invaluable as I pursued the various aspects of my professional life.
Subscribe to have The Washington Times’ Higher Ground delivered to your inbox every Sunday.
Yet, I don’t believe that increasing public support for higher education alone is the answer. Many (not all) higher education institutions need to take their responsibility to the public more seriously. Even, or perhaps especially, private colleges, need to keep the spirit of public funding in mind as they evaluate their budgets. Public funding is intended to decrease the financial burden on students and their families. Based on the data regarding college costs, it is difficult to believe that this goal is or has been primary for colleges.
Since 1980, the price of attending a four-year college full-time has increased by close to 200%. Yet, this number does not consider what students are actually paying.
A 2017 McKinsey study states, “The weighted average cost to attend four-year college has risen 10% over the decade [2007-2017].” Phillip Levine rightly notes, “These data confirm that lower- and middle-income students pay a net price that is typically much less than the sticker price. And net prices have actually been falling on average, in recent years, not rising.” However, Levine’s assertion that the “lack of college affordability for lower-income students, not the dramatic rise in sticker prices which only higher-income students pay, is what should capture our attention” goes too far because he (a) assumes that higher income families can and will continue to absorb the tuition increases and (b) lets colleges off the hook too easily.
Why is the price rising if the sticker price is unimportant? It is because costs are actually increasing.
“Sticker price” has increased, in part, so that colleges can charge those who can afford it a higher rate of tuition. While looking at college cost increases through the lens of net tuition should temper our concerns to a degree, net tuition doesn’t address higher education’s lack of accountability to the public regarding instruction and administration.
Administrative bloat has almost assuredly contributed to increased costs in higher education. As Jay P Greene of the Heritage Foundation is quoted as saying by U. S. News and World Report, “A university is not an all-service commune with full-service, soup-to-nuts care for every need, as if students were children.”
While I am inclined to agree with Greene to some degree, I would also note that student care has both missional and fiscal drivers. Colleges want to graduate students. Doing so helps to maximize college investment in individual students, which is increasingly important due to higher recruitment costs.
“Evil administrators” may be easy targets, but instructional expenditures are often just as problematic. In my experience, schools often sustain unprofitable programs despite dwindling enrollment to pacify internal and external constituents. The broader public, whose tax dollars are being used to fund education, is seldom considered when alumni or faculty coalitions create disruptions. Public funding is often a significant portion of a college’s budget, but the allocations come from an anonymous mass with few opportunities to withdraw (i.e., stop giving) or target (i.e., give to a particular program or initiative) support. Aside from broad regulatory frameworks, which arguably often add cost without adding value, public money is free money.
There is no single solution to the college cost problem. However, increasing public support without addressing higher education accountability is unlikely to be effective.
In addition to higher education accountability, student accountability must also be addressed. Students receive a great deal of benefit from state and federal funding. Yet, the six-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time freshmen beginning in 2020 was 64%. While that number is generally viewed as a success, it also means that 36% of those who began a bachelor’s degree in 2014, many of whom presumably received federal aid or state subsidies, have not finished their degree. Colleges are not the only ones who should be responsible and accountable for public funds.
As I noted, I believe higher education is still worth it. Yet, that belief is, to some non-trivial degree, influenced by the fact that there are relatively few viable alternatives to higher education. Higher education has a monopoly on the undergraduate and graduate credentialing industry.
Until other forms of credentialing rivaling undergraduate and graduate degrees become available, higher education will have little reason to change. Without viable alternatives, colleges are left to handle higher volumes of students with diverse interests and needs. That will continue to be expensive. It isn’t time to abandon college, but it is time to create different paths for credentialing.
–
James Spencer earned his Ph.D. in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He believes discipleship will open up opportunities beyond anything God’s people could accomplish through their own wit and wisdom. As such, his writing aims at helping believers look with eyes that see and listen with ears that hear as they consider, question, and revise the social, cultural, and political assumptions hindering Christians from conforming more closely to the image of Christ. James has published multiple works, including “Christian Resistance: Learning to Defy the World and Follow Christ,” “Useful to God: Eight Lessons from the Life of D. L. Moody,” “Thinking Christian: Essays on Testimony, Accountability, and the Christian Mind,” and “Trajectories: A Gospel-Centered Introduction to Old Testament Theology.” In addition to serving as the president of the D. L. Moody Center, James is the host of “Useful to God” a weekly radio broadcast and podcast, a member of the faculty at Right On Mission, and an adjunct instructor with the Wheaton College Graduate School.
