So I have a question for the Ricochetti:

The reason why we have high fructose corn syrup in the U.S. is (at least mostly) because we have corn subsidies that keep the price of our corn artificially low.  Somewhere along the line, some clever people found a way to turn this super cheap and plentiful corn into a super cheap and plentiful syrup.

With higher education, we have all sorts of subsidies (loans, gov't grants, etc.) yet the price of college has increased 1000% in real dollars since 1965.  I'm sure that the massive subsidies to higher ed have created a lot of bad results, but it doesn't seem to have lowered the price.

I realize that corn and college are not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but I hear a lot on our side about how part of the problem with the price of higher education is the subsidies.  

What's the deal, Ricochet?

Comments:


Doug Kimball
Joined
Aug '11
Doug Kimball

There is the "price" of college, as advertised and then the actual cost of college, which is the total cost to operate the college divided by the number of students attending.   There is also the average amount a student is charged, net of grants and scholarships.  Each of these figures is relevant.  At a public university, donations and state and federal monies cover a large portion of university operating costs.  The balance is paid primarily as tuition and fees.  At private universities, alumni donations, grants and endowment income make up a protion of operating costs.  Tuition must cover the rest.  How these revenue sources compare among colleges would be an interesting doctoral study.

However, in answer to your question, why has college cost gone up, the answer is simple: the Kimball Rule.  The Kimball rule asserts that absent a profit motive, an organization will spend whatever it is able to garner and this level of spending will then become a new baseline for future spending.  For example, if a private college has a stellar year collectiong donations from alumni, it will not lower tuition rates for students, but expand spending. 

Roberto
Joined
Mar '11
Roberto

Supply-demand mismatch. Higher education is not a commodity product; there is only one Harvard, there is only one Yale and all institutions only have a limited number of spaces for applicants. Yet demand is continually increasing due to pressures the government has brought to bear.

Lucy Pevensie
Joined
Nov '10
Lucy Pevensie

A lot of the subsidies for education are in the form of loans to cover tuition (student loans). These effectively shift the demand curve to the right and thus cause the price of an education to rise.  It's entirely analogous to the effect on housing of increasing the availability of mortgage loans (for example, to people with substandard credit scores). 

Schrodinger's Cat
Joined
Mar '12
Schrodinger's Cat

Your corn comparison is inapt.

What the government subsidies in education are doing is the equivalent to the government giving subsidies to grocery shoppers to buy products which use corn. Demand increases causing price increases.

Currently, the Feds subsidize corn growers (producers), while in education, the Feds subsidize consumers (students). Subsidize producers prices stay low, subsidize consumers prices go up.

Jim  Ixtian
Joined
May '12
Jim Ixtian

This article might be somewhat dated but it gives an excellent account of the problems. Some depressing lowlights;

Higher education seems an unlikely site for this kind of speculative bubble. While housing prices are based on what competing buyers are willing to pay, postsecondary education’s price is supposedly linked to its costs...

...So why would universities raise tuition so high so quickly? “Because they can” answers this question for home-sellers out to get the biggest return on their investments, or for-profits out to grab as much Pell Grant money as possible, but it seems an awfully cynical answer when it comes to nonprofit education.

...First, where the money hasn’t gone: instruction...

...If current trends continue, the Department of Education estimates that by 2014 there will be more administrators than instructors at American four-year nonprofit colleges....

Also,the reality is that universities and colleges are more in the business of fundraising for their multi-billion dollar endowments than education. That's why you see so many more deans, provosts, BoT members, etc. not to mention the extra bureaucracy needed to back fundraising operations.

Edited on February 12, 2013 at 9:51pm
Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey

Depends what you subsidize - Consumption or Production

Higher Ed consumption is subsidized.  So more people demand a limited good and price rises.

Corn production is subsidized.  So suppliers over-produce relative to demand and the price falls.

Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

In addition to SC' summary, college is a labor intensive product and corn is not. The marginal increase in a farmers earnings contribute virtually nothing to each unit of consumption. But, for all practical purposes, in higher ed labor is nearly the entire bill, whether of professor, administrator, or staff. And the ratio of labor inputs to student consumers is relatively fixed in a traditional educational system. So as pay levels increase, often absurdly, there is nowhere else for student costs to go but up.

Lucy Pevensie
Joined
Nov '10
Lucy Pevensie

By the way, there is an entirely analogous process occurring in the area of adoption, where the government gives tax credits (not deductions but credits, ie subsidies) to people who adopt whose incomes are below a certain amount. The cost of adoption has risen, and since the subsidy takes the form of a tax credit, the cost is borne by the taxpayer and by adoptive parents whose incomes exceed the maximum allowable for the credit. It astonishes me how few people seem to understand this relationship.

There's a really interesting vicious circle in the adoption world. Because it is entirely illegal for any of that extra money going into the adoption process to get to the parents giving up the child, all of the extra money goes to adoption agencies and other service providers.  There is an increasing incentive for crooked people to become adoption providers, because there is so much money to be made. Activists then realize that there are crooked adoption providers and push for greater regulation in the adoption world, which drives up the cost of adoption further. Then adoptive parents push for the tax credit to be increased. And around we go.

Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey
Tom Lindholtz: In addition to SC' summary, college is a labor intensive product and corn is not. The marginal increase in a farmers earnings contribute virtually nothing to each unit of consumption. But, for all practical purposes, in higher ed labor is nearly the entire bill, whether of professor, administrator, or staff. And the ratio of labor inputs to student consumers is relatively fixed in a traditional educational system. So as pay levels increase, often absurdly, there is nowhere else for student costs to go but up. · 3 minutes ago

Actually, pay levels/new dorms/rec centers etc have been a response to the influx of cash.

If College A can get a market price of $X to fill one spot then they charge $X.  If I offer $1000 to help that student that actually does nothing to the market price.  The school knows they can still get market price $X from the student and my $1000.

That extra $1000 is what gets sloshed around on the fancy stuff.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

Subsidizing the cost of college allows colleges to charge more, so they do.

FreeWifiDuringSermon
Joined
Apr '11
FreeWifiDuringSermon

Schrodinger's Cat: Your corn comparison is inapt.

What the government subsidies in education are doing is the equivalent to the government giving subsidies to grocery shoppers to buy products which use corn. Demand increases causing price increases.

Currently, the Feds subsidize corn growers (producers), while in education, the Feds subsidize consumers (students). Subsidize producers prices stay low, subsidize consumers prices go up. · 2 hours ago

You're right! So we should cut all gov't backed student loans and just put that money into the colleges themselves? I know, not what you meant. 

Jerry Broaddus
Joined
Dec '10
Jerry Broaddus

Loans and grants provide insulation for the pain of high prices. Loans defer that pain and dilute it to a dull throb. Grants transfer the pain to others. But the point is that at the point of sale, the buyer, the student or the student's parent, feels less pain than he should when buying the service. 

This is exactly the same mechanism that has caused medical care to cost so much.

R. Craigen
Joined
Nov '10
R. Craigen

Simple principle:  Whatever you subsidize you get more of.  Or whatever you reward.  These subsidies reward expensive education.  Make it more expensive, and the government figures out how to subsidize it deeper.  It's just a reward-response cycle.

As for the mechanism, that's a bit more mysterious but I saw it in action while teaching at a university in California.  The beancounters said we were going to run out of money in a couple of years if we didn't improve revenue.  

How to improve revenue?  We needed higher enrolment.  

How to raise enrolment?  Here's where it gets tricky:  raise tuition.

How does raising tuition increase enrolment, you ask?  Simple.  Student enrolment was determined by how many applicants could get a Cal Grant.  How are Cal grants awarded?  By need.  How is "need" calculated?  By comparing tuition against family income.

Problem was, our tuition (around $10K/yr) was too inexpensive.  Too many families could afford it, by the formula.  So they didn't get Cal grants.  Increase tuition, and you increase the number who get Cal grants.

They increased tuition.  Enrolment immediately went up, and so did revenues.

It's simple. 

Roberto
Joined
Mar '11
Roberto
R. Craigen: It's simple.  · 27 minutes ago

If by simple you mean diabolical, it is simple indeed. Mr. Craigen. 

Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey

That's fascinating, Craigen. Now can you explain how my wife buying twice as much at 40% off saves me money?

Sabrdance
Joined
Aug '12
Sabrdance

There's probably another aspect as well.  States used to allocate far more money to their institutes of higher education directly.  Here in Kentucky the split used to be 70/30 state aid/tuition.  Now it's 30/70.  The state offers less, the students have to pay more.  Usually this would cause enrollments to fall off due to the higher price, but for a while they could be kept up by easy-access (ie: Subsidized) student loans.  We're starting to see problems now with people being more wary of the benefits of the loans.

Anyone know if total spending per pupil has gone up?  And if there's a difference between the behaviors of state schools vs. public schools?

Z in MT
Joined
Dec '12
Z in MT

Schrodinger's Cat: Your corn comparison is inapt.

What the government subsidies in education are doing is the equivalent to the government giving subsidies to grocery shoppers to buy products which use corn. Demand increases causing price increases.

Currently, the Feds subsidize corn growers (producers), while in education, the Feds subsidize consumers (students). Subsidize producers prices stay low, subsidize consumers prices go up. · 8 hours ago

Thank S. Cat, I was going to write this.

Z in MT
Joined
Dec '12
Z in MT

Sabrdance: There's probably another aspect as well.  States used to allocate far more money to their institutes of higher education directly.  Here in Kentucky the split used to be 70/30 state aid/tuition.  Now it's 30/70.  The state offers less, the students have to pay more.  Usually this would cause enrollments to fall off due to the higher price, but for a while they could be kept up by easy-access (ie: Subsidized) student loans.  We're starting to see problems now with people being more wary of the benefits of the loans.

Anyone know if total spending per pupil has gone up?  And if there's a difference between the behaviors of state schools vs. public schools? · 1 hour ago

The problem with your analysis is that the level of state funding at most public institutions hasn't been going down.  What is happening is that the state subsidy has generally stayed flat in real terms (i.e. corrected for inflation) but the tuition costs have been growing at twice to three times inflation, which quickly turns 30/70 into 70/30 even though the state subsidy hasn't really changed.  

Z in MT
Joined
Dec '12
Z in MT

Additionally, there are many private institutions where tuition has risen even faster than at public institutions.

Z in MT
Joined
Dec '12
Z in MT

Higher education is a very odd market in that in many cases the supplier picks their own customers.

There are basically four types of schools:

Highly Selective Institutions: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.  At these schools tuition makes up a small portion of their revenue, with most of the revenue coming from endowments, grants, federal research dollars, etc.  While they don't need it, having a high nominal rate of tuition helps them keeps up prestige.

Public Research Universities: UC Berkeley, Univ. Texas, Univ. of Georgia, etc.  These schools budgets are dominated by federal research dollars.  A large number of State universities are in this camp.  I am at Montana State University and research makes up about half of the budget.

Private Liberal Arts Colleges:  This includes many religious institutions.  Here tution is the dominate source of revenue.

Non-Research Public Universities:  These schools revenue come from both State subsidies and tuition.

Con't


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In