The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

[vt]

Was anyone aware that public expenditures to higher education has rise 5 Times as much as defense spending since 1960?!

It's not the professors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/op...-much.html?_r=


The real cost of K-12 education is vastly understated:

http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...public-schools


Staffing costs have risen far faster than student population growth, especially the explosion in administrators. 7 times the growth of student population!

http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Rep...c-Schools.aspx

We need to educate our young, but the return on investment is far less than a number of nations that produce better educated children.

Administrators are bureaucrats. When you have too many too much money is wasted, be it in the public or private sector.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

Administrators are bureaucrats. When you have too many too much money is wasted, be it in the public or private sector.

+1

[seobook]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nline-program/

Some 3,100 students accepted as freshman by the University of Florida for the fall got a big surprise along with their congratulations notices: They were told that the acceptance was contingent on their agreement to spend their first year taking classes online as part of a new program designed to attract more freshmen to the flagship public university.

In theory, the efficiency gains from the shift to online should bring costs down. Will it?

[lektrode]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

Was anyone aware that public expenditures to higher education has rise 5 Times as much as defense spending since 1960?!
..
Administrators are bureaucrats. When you have too many too much money is wasted, be it in the public or private sector.

+1

+2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nline-program/

In theory, the efficiency gains from the shift to online should bring costs down. Will it?

shur - by about as much as all the 'efficiencies' have brought down .mil costs...
/sarc

here's a bit of an eye-opener on how 'ideology' tilts/twists the 'academic mind'
(not that any of em in academia are 'ideological', no siree... but it does 'trickle down' to the student body in any case)

http://tech.mit.edu/V135/N9/vierra.html

Opinion: Scientific illiteracy in left-wing politics
By Collin Vierra
April 2, 2015

It seems that every week we hear a new story that demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy in right-wing politics. Recently we learned that employees of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection under the tenure of Gov. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) were instructed not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official correspondences. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) recently brandished a snowball on the Senate floor as evidence that global warming is a hoax. Last month Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) refused to state whether or not he believed in the theory of evolution, and who can forget former Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-Mo.) famous gaffe about “legitimate rape”?

These politicians have been widely criticized — and rightly so — for their anti-science views. Rarely, however, are left-wing political figures held accountable for the same crime. As a Democrat myself, I think it is crucial that we move beyond partisan criticism and call out scientific illiteracy wherever it exists.

It is tremendously ironic that the political left, which frequently attacks the right’s denial of evolution, is much more likely to oppose one of the most promising scientific advances that we have achieved through the study of genetics: GMOs. Initiatives to mandate the labeling of GMO products have found varying degrees of success in blue states like Vermont, Oregon, Maine, Hawaii, and Washington. GMO labeling might make sense if modern genetic modification techniques produced foods that were substantially different from those produced by conventional methods, but the fact is that scientific studies have consistently and overwhelmingly shown GMOs to be safe for both humans and the environment. In fact, those concerned about the environment should praise GMOs, which allow us to produce the same amount of food while using less water and land, emitting less carbon dioxide, and applying fewer pesticides.

Perhaps the worst example of anti-GMO activism is the opposition to Golden Rice, which was genetically engineered in 1999 to help people suffering from vitamin A deficiency. Despite the promise of Golden Rice, activist groups like Greenpeace have gone so far as to support the sabotage of Golden Rice field trials across the developing world. Vitamin A deficiency causes several million deaths per year, and many of these deaths could be prevented if not for widespread, anti-scientific opposition to genetic engineering.

Although the political left may be genuinely concerned about the environment, its lack of scientific literacy still inspires it to promote policies that are counterproductive to its goals. And since the political right often denies the reality of environmental issues outright, the left’s unscientific policies are the only ones discussed and implemented.

The left’s aversion to nuclear energy stands out in particular. Senate Democrats have held ten hearings on nuclear safety since the 2011 Fukushima disaster. But discussion of this disaster requires some perspective. The Fukushima plant was built on the tectonically active “Ring of Fire,” and it required a tsunami triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake to cause the meltdown. The plant itself was in violation of myriad safety recommendations. Still, short-term radiation exposure from the plant killed exactly zero people. The liberal LNT model, notorious for overestimation, predicted a total of 130 deaths from long-term exposure. The tsunami itself, by comparison, killed 16,000.

Fracking enrages the left even more. To be sure, fracking is not risk-free, and many experts have proposed better regulations to ensure that cement casings are more secure, for example. The oft-heard claims that fracking causes dangerous earthquakes, poisons drinking water, and produces exceptional air pollution, however, are misleading. The left has some legitimate concerns about fracking, such as the safe disposal of wastewater, but many charges levied against fracking are appropriately applied only to issues incidental to the process of gas extraction. Other charges — that fracking is linked to seismic activity, for example — are technically true, but also hold for conventional wells, mining, and geothermal technology.

Left-wing politicians have generally endorsed large “green energy” subsidies to combat climate change, but the reality is that today’s green energy is simply not advanced enough to fuel a Western standard of living. Subsidies for solar and wind power will do little to reduce carbon emission in the long term, and subsidies for ethanol and electric cars may actually increase carbon emissions. Vast tracts of carbon-sequestering forest and grassland have been cleared to plant corn for ethanol production, and electric cars are ultimately powered by coal. Moreover, every dollar spent subsidizing today’s unproductive renewable energy is a dollar taken away from green energy research. In the meantime, the left’s irrational fear of nuclear energy and fracking means that instead of transitioning to lower-carbon energy sources in the short run while greener technologies are developed, we will continue to rely disproportionately on dirtier oil and coal.

Finally, the left has a vaccination problem. Four of the five states with the highest vaccination-exemption rates are blue. California (my home, sweet home) is suffering from a measles outbreak. Meanwhile, leftist pundit Bill Maher is regularly applauded for his anti-vaccine rants and is rarely confronted for using the typical conspiracy theorist’s defense: I’m just asking questions.

The political left loves to bring up scientific consensus when discussing climate change and evolution, but it rejects scientific consensus as a valid metric when it comes to discussions about genetic modification, nuclear energy, and vaccines. And, in fact, while a disbelief in evolution is foolish, it is not nearly as dangerous as a rejection of modern technology.

Vaccines freed us from polio and smallpox. Genetic engineering, along with other techniques, has helped us to produce a cheap, stable, and more environmentally friendly food source. And fossil fuels, for all their problems, have made us so wealthy that we can now afford to research environmentally friendly alternatives. This is a luxury that could not be imagined by the nearly-half the world’s population that still cooks and heats its homes with wood, trash, and dung. Indoor air pollution contributes to roughly 4.3 million premature deaths each year — more than the total number of deaths caused by outdoor air pollution from all sources, including fossil fuels.

The political right is properly criticized for its anti-science views. The political left, however, is often unfairly spared similar criticism. Those on the left must be willing to criticize members of their own camp when they endorse policies based on poor scientific understanding. Otherwise, the left and right may find some common ground, but it will be to the detriment of society as a whole.

Collin Vierra is a member of the Class of 2015.




View 12 comments on this article

any questions about any of this, or how the lamerstream media then uses it to 'shape opinion' ? (read: inflame the anti-everything luddite brigade who then gets all the 'press' while they ignore their benefactors .... uhhhh... indescretions ?)

[lektrode]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

Was anyone aware that public expenditures to higher education has rise 5 Times as much as defense spending since 1960?!
..
Administrators are bureaucrats. When you have too many too much money is wasted, be it in the public or private sector.

+1

+2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nline-program/

In theory, the efficiency gains from the shift to online should bring costs down. Will it?

shur - by about as much as all the 'efficiencies' have brought down .mil costs...
/sarc

here's a bit of an eye-opener on how 'ideology' tilts/twists the 'academic mind'
(not that any of em in academia are 'ideological', no siree... but it does 'trickle down' to the student body in any case)

http://tech.mit.edu/V135/N9/vierra.html

Opinion: Scientific illiteracy in left-wing politics
By Collin Vierra
April 2, 2015

It seems that every week we hear a new story that demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy in right-wing politics. Recently we learned that employees of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection under the tenure of Gov. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) were instructed not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official correspondences. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) recently brandished a snowball on the Senate floor as evidence that global warming is a hoax. Last month Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) refused to state whether or not he believed in the theory of evolution, and who can forget former Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-Mo.) famous gaffe about “legitimate rape”?

These politicians have been widely criticized — and rightly so — for their anti-science views. Rarely, however, are left-wing political figures held accountable for the same crime. As a Democrat myself, I think it is crucial that we move beyond partisan criticism and call out scientific illiteracy wherever it exists.

It is tremendously ironic that the political left, which frequently attacks the right’s denial of evolution, is much more likely to oppose one of the most promising scientific advances that we have achieved through the study of genetics: GMOs. Initiatives to mandate the labeling of GMO products have found varying degrees of success in blue states like Vermont, Oregon, Maine, Hawaii, and Washington. GMO labeling might make sense if modern genetic modification techniques produced foods that were substantially different from those produced by conventional methods, but the fact is that scientific studies have consistently and overwhelmingly shown GMOs to be safe for both humans and the environment. In fact, those concerned about the environment should praise GMOs, which allow us to produce the same amount of food while using less water and land, emitting less carbon dioxide, and applying fewer pesticides.

Perhaps the worst example of anti-GMO activism is the opposition to Golden Rice, which was genetically engineered in 1999 to help people suffering from vitamin A deficiency. Despite the promise of Golden Rice, activist groups like Greenpeace have gone so far as to support the sabotage of Golden Rice field trials across the developing world. Vitamin A deficiency causes several million deaths per year, and many of these deaths could be prevented if not for widespread, anti-scientific opposition to genetic engineering.

Although the political left may be genuinely concerned about the environment, its lack of scientific literacy still inspires it to promote policies that are counterproductive to its goals. And since the political right often denies the reality of environmental issues outright, the left’s unscientific policies are the only ones discussed and implemented.

The left’s aversion to nuclear energy stands out in particular. Senate Democrats have held ten hearings on nuclear safety since the 2011 Fukushima disaster. But discussion of this disaster requires some perspective. The Fukushima plant was built on the tectonically active “Ring of Fire,” and it required a tsunami triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake to cause the meltdown. The plant itself was in violation of myriad safety recommendations. Still, short-term radiation exposure from the plant killed exactly zero people. The liberal LNT model, notorious for overestimation, predicted a total of 130 deaths from long-term exposure. The tsunami itself, by comparison, killed 16,000.

Fracking enrages the left even more. To be sure, fracking is not risk-free, and many experts have proposed better regulations to ensure that cement casings are more secure, for example. The oft-heard claims that fracking causes dangerous earthquakes, poisons drinking water, and produces exceptional air pollution, however, are misleading. The left has some legitimate concerns about fracking, such as the safe disposal of wastewater, but many charges levied against fracking are appropriately applied only to issues incidental to the process of gas extraction. Other charges — that fracking is linked to seismic activity, for example — are technically true, but also hold for conventional wells, mining, and geothermal technology.

Left-wing politicians have generally endorsed large “green energy” subsidies to combat climate change, but the reality is that today’s green energy is simply not advanced enough to fuel a Western standard of living. Subsidies for solar and wind power will do little to reduce carbon emission in the long term, and subsidies for ethanol and electric cars may actually increase carbon emissions. Vast tracts of carbon-sequestering forest and grassland have been cleared to plant corn for ethanol production, and electric cars are ultimately powered by coal. Moreover, every dollar spent subsidizing today’s unproductive renewable energy is a dollar taken away from green energy research. In the meantime, the left’s irrational fear of nuclear energy and fracking means that instead of transitioning to lower-carbon energy sources in the short run while greener technologies are developed, we will continue to rely disproportionately on dirtier oil and coal.

Finally, the left has a vaccination problem. Four of the five states with the highest vaccination-exemption rates are blue. California (my home, sweet home) is suffering from a measles outbreak. Meanwhile, leftist pundit Bill Maher is regularly applauded for his anti-vaccine rants and is rarely confronted for using the typical conspiracy theorist’s defense: I’m just asking questions.

The political left loves to bring up scientific consensus when discussing climate change and evolution, but it rejects scientific consensus as a valid metric when it comes to discussions about genetic modification, nuclear energy, and vaccines. And, in fact, while a disbelief in evolution is foolish, it is not nearly as dangerous as a rejection of modern technology.

Vaccines freed us from polio and smallpox. Genetic engineering, along with other techniques, has helped us to produce a cheap, stable, and more environmentally friendly food source. And fossil fuels, for all their problems, have made us so wealthy that we can now afford to research environmentally friendly alternatives. This is a luxury that could not be imagined by the nearly-half the world’s population that still cooks and heats its homes with wood, trash, and dung. Indoor air pollution contributes to roughly 4.3 million premature deaths each year — more than the total number of deaths caused by outdoor air pollution from all sources, including fossil fuels.

The political right is properly criticized for its anti-science views. The political left, however, is often unfairly spared similar criticism. Those on the left must be willing to criticize members of their own camp when they endorse policies based on poor scientific understanding. Otherwise, the left and right may find some common ground, but it will be to the detriment of society as a whole.

Collin Vierra is a member of the Class of 2015.




View 12 comments on this article

any questions about any of this, or how the lamerstream media then uses it to 'shape opinion' ? (read: inflame the anti-everything luddite brigade who then gets all the 'press' while they ignore their benefactors .... uhhhh... indescretions ?)

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

Was anyone aware that public expenditures to higher education has rise 5 Times as much as defense spending since 1960?!

It's not the professors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/op...-much.html?_r=

It's not just the amount of money, which has gone up at the federal level, but shrunk substantially at the state level. It's how you get the money.

Even 10 years ago, a larger share of a smaller pool of federal money than today came from Congressionally Directed Appropriations (earmarks) and substantially more money came from states.

Money from states goes directly into schools' general funds. Money from the feds must be kept separate. And more often than not you have to compete for it, even if the competition is fake.

Which means more grants, more accounting, more bureaucracy, more BS, all for the same dollar as before.

[gwynedd1]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

There is that whole problem of credit entering the system. When supply does not keep up the only thing credit can do is cause people to bid against each other for higher prices.

However what costs us the most is the idea that good schools are about good buildings and teachers. The most important thing that makes a good school are good students. We are not a culture that tends to produce them. In South Korea it might be about academic achievement, but around here its about the football team and if you are in a band.

[shiny!]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much

It's not just the amount of money, which has gone up at the federal level, but shrunk substantially at the state level. It's how you get the money.

Even 10 years ago, a larger share of a smaller pool of federal money than today came from Congressionally Directed Appropriations (earmarks) and substantially more money came from states.

Money from states goes directly into schools' general funds. Money from the feds must be kept separate. And more often than not you have to compete for it, even if the competition is fake.

Which means more grants, more accounting, more bureaucracy, more BS, all for the same dollar as before.

This is true at the public school K-12 level as well. About 80% of school districts' paperwork is generated to satisfy federal requirements in exchange for something like (IIRC) 12% of their total funding. That's a lot of administrative bureaucrats, and teachers having to take time away from teaching just to fill out mountains of "accountability" paperwork.

The Dept of Ed has been a monumental failure. I'd like to see it dismantled (with a commensurate reduction in federal taxation) and control returned to the states. Sure, there would be unevenness in quality of education from state to state, but that exists now, anyway. Thanks to the internet, States are more accountable to public scrutiny and pressure than they were pre- 1970's, when the Dept of Ed was created to solve educational iniquities.

But heaven help a politician who says s/he wants to dismantle the Dept. of Ed. They're immediately labeled as being "against education."

[BK]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much - Univ debt

Universities and Colleges are up to their eye balls in debt.

Take a drive to your nearest public, private, or religion affiliated College or University. I wioll be you will discover a bee hive of construction activity and all this construction is being financed.

When you borrow lots of money and you are a Institution you need to keep your cash flow up to maintain your debt rating. Because every College expects to borrow, borrow, and borrow.

Why would students be afraid of a little debt when the institution of higher ed they seek wisdom from are doing the very same:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfree...-take-on-debt/

A local state school near me is spending Millions on a new STEM campus to fill all those vacant STEM jobs. AS they say you can't make this stuff up!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much - Univ debt

Many used to laugh at College of the Ozark as Hillbilly U.

I like the nickname Hardwork U:

https://www.cofo.edu/Page/Admissions...al-Aid.50.html

I wonder if their business model could be replicated and expanded?

[dcarrigg]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much - Univ debt

Many used to laugh at College of the Ozark as Hillbilly U.

I like the nickname Hardwork U:

https://www.cofo.edu/Page/Admissions...al-Aid.50.html

I wonder if their business model could be replicated and expanded?

It's a good broad idea overall. They do some stuff like this for work-study. It's just maybe still a little rough, because it looks like in this program, you have to work and go to school, and you don't see any cash, room, board, etc. for it.

Even if tuition's covered, if you don't have a mommy and a daddy to send you money, you're still going to need to come up with ~$10,000 per year to cover basic living, room, board, books, hygiene, transit, and all that.

You get a full time $10 per hour job instead and do school where you can, it will be slower, but you'll be able to keep up your own room and board and have a couple pennies in your pocket and pay piece by piece (often 2 years' equivalent in community college, then 2 years equivalent to finish a bachelors in a public college).

Even the Hard Work U is charging the kids $6,500 in room and board fees per year not including breaks, and maybe $1,000 in other fees and books too. We still have no food or shelter during winter, spring, and summer breaks, and we haven't even purchased car insurance, a car, a tank of gas, a tooth brush, tooth paste, toilet paper, pants, shampoo, etc. etc. Sometimes they say they will let some students work through the summer to cover the room and board. Which comes much closer to workable. But there's no indication as to how often that happens...

_____________________

Room and Board
Room and Board for 2015-2016 is $3,250 per semester ($6,500 annually).

Acceptance Fee
There is an acceptance fee of $315 due two weeks after admission is offered.


Health/Technology/Service Fee
This fee is $215 each semester.

Books/Supplies
Approximately $500 per semester.

Vehicle Registration
$10 per semester.

[gwynedd1]

Re: The Real Reason Why College Tuition Cost So Much - Univ debt

Many used to laugh at College of the Ozark as Hillbilly U.

I like the nickname Hardwork U:

https://www.cofo.edu/Page/Admissions...al-Aid.50.html

I wonder if their business model could be replicated and expanded?

I run into a lot of alumina from F. U. these days. They just yell out their alma mater out the window with a great and enthusiastic spirit.