The South Bend Tribune has an article attacking tuition increases at all of Indiana’s major public universities over the next biennium:
Ivy Tech – 7.8%
University of Southern Indiana – 12%
Purdue – 9%
Indiana State – 11%
Ball State – 9.8%
I.U. – 10%
These hikes — all considerably above the overall cost-of-living growth — come after the Indiana General Assembly approved a $26 billion budget that met the needs of higher education better than any in recent years . .. In past years, state universities complained that the skinflint General Assembly left them no choice but to pass growing costs on to students and families. That excuse doesn’t wash this year. Yet the universities proceeded anyway to feed the phenomenon of “education inflation.” Every public university in Indiana has raised tuition way more than 100 percent in a decade.
There is a pretty good Wikipedia entry on college tuition costs.
So, what is it that’s changing about the college tuition equation that requires increases that well exceed inflation — cost of infrastructure? professors salaries? cost of the administrative bureaucracy? Is the per capital quality or quantity of any of these things increasing? Are taxpayers shouldering less of the educational burden; requiring more dollars to come out of individuals directly? (And, if so, where have the tax dollars been shifted?)
I haven’t the foggiest idea of the answers to any of these questions.
Recently I thought about the future of universities in this country. I wonder if we won’t start to see more of a specialization at each state college. For example it might become necessary for Purdue to be the engineering college and eliminate Liberal Arts majors altogether. Focusing on specific programs would allow universities to eliminate staff and thus restrict spending.
I know the idea may not be popular but I wonder if it’s inevitable…
I think the universities have also been doing better about getting large donations for building new facilities. Perhaps the state money is going to buy for the huge amouunt of repairs and upkeep they have to do on the old ones. Not to mention large salaries for the upper management. Both IU and Purdue got new Presidents this year, both of whom earn twice or more what the governor does. (Not that I wanna give MMM more $$.)
I think A LOT about tuition, twice a year, when I help my niece and nephew pay bills. They are at IPFW which is much more affordable than the other schools you listed (except Ivy Tech), and they get some scholarships/financial aid, and it’s STILL a lot of money.
It has always seemed to me that the tuition problem is related to the fact that the basic teaching model hasn’t changed much. It has a high labor content and there are only so many students you want to (or can) shoehorn into a classroom. So prices go up every year for inflation, and on top of that you have either real or perceived capital needs which cost money. Plus the labor issues are complicated by academic freedom and tenure – great gigs if you can get them but not the best tools to control labor costs OR ensure a good match of educational supply and demand. Compare this to most other industries where there have been big changes (for good or bad) in labor content over the past 30 years.
On-line classes may start to change the economics of higher ed but I don’t think that has hit yet. I certainly have no great solutions to this problem, but I hope that somebody figures it out.
My advice for you, Doug, is to start socking away gobs of cash so you can pay for part of your kids’ college in 15 years when they get there. One budget suggestion is to stop eating just one meal a day. Of course, that is just a start and is unlikely to be enough, so you might want to take in a boarder or two for the extra income.
I shudder to think of what college is going to cost when the youngest of my nieces and nephews graduate from high school.
Good luck.
I think A LOT about tuition, twice a year, when I help my niece and nephew pay bills. They are at IPFW which is much more affordable than the other schools you listed (except Ivy Tech), and they get some scholarships/financial aid, and it’s STILL a lot of money.
It has always seemed to me that the tuition problem is related to the fact that the basic teaching model hasn’t changed much. It has a high labor content and there are only so many students you want to (or can) shoehorn into a classroom. So prices go up every year for inflation, and on top of that you have either real or perceived capital needs which cost money. Plus the labor issues are complicated by academic freedom and tenure – great gigs if you can get them but not the best tools to control labor costs OR ensure a good match of educational supply and demand. Compare this to most other industries where there have been big changes (for good or bad) in labor content over the past 30 years.
On-line classes may start to change the economics of higher ed but I don’t think that has hit yet. I certainly have no great solutions to this problem, but I hope that somebody figures it out.
My advice for you, Doug, is to start socking away gobs of cash so you can pay for part of your kids’ college in 15 years when they get there. One budget suggestion is to stop eating just one meal a day. Of course, that is just a start and is unlikely to be enough, so you might want to take in a boarder or two for the extra income.
I shudder to think of what college is going to cost when the youngest of my nieces and nephews graduate from high school.
Good luck.
I think that the whole State College system is going to collapse under it’s own weight. As fewer students can afford a degree, they are going to charge more to the those few who can until eventually their expenditures will totally overwhelm their funding and they’ll find themselves with too few students who can financially support their operations and no support from the taxpayers. After all, why should my tax dollars go to support a University that my kid can no longer afford to go to? I really think that the universities need to get back to the basics and spend money on education instead of the physical infrastructure. I attended Purdue 20 years ago and just visited the campus about 2 years ago. I couldn’t believe all the new buildings that have been put up. It looked to me as if they’d rebuilt the entire campus in the space of a mere 18 years. That kind of frivolous waste of money is what gets my dander up. All those new buildings aren’t helping educate anyone any better, but it sure adds up on the bottom line when the bill comes due….
Thanks for those cheery thoughts. So, now my question is whether the kids would get more from selling a kidney now to pay for college or whether they should wait until just after high school graduation?
I’m thinking sooner rather than later because: a) compound interest; and b) the possibility of synthetic organs in 15 years.
It is a complex issue. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the need for or blame high tuition cost on new buildings, although I do partially agree with Tom. My sister works at a small private college where the buildings are literally falling apart, and it is to that college’s detriment. Some students will choose to go to a particular college or university at least partially based upon whether the dorms and classroom facilities are up to modern standards. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something new than to repair existing structures. Also, many times new buildings are paid for by donor gifts, at least initially.
I do agree with Tom that it is disconcerting to see Dorm #35, Science Building #3, etc. popping up on campuses that have the means to build them. Many times, the old buildings are still in existence and perhaps not being used to their fullest.
This is just my own opinion, but I do think that universities and especially colleges have been hurt by the changing needs of students. People want and need to have classes that fit their schedules and their lives. Not everyone can go to college right after high school and go full time for four or five years straight. Yet it seems to me that colleges and universities focus on the 18-22/23 year-olds who can attend full time. I would think that the number of people in that category is shrinking and may at least partially be a reason that tuition costs have risen and continue to rise dramatically.
Doug, I think you’re right on the timing of selling the kidneys. Good plan.
When I wrote my Master’s thesis last year, I found in my research that pharmaceutical companies are trying to lower their costs against the threat of government price controls by farming out their research to universities. The labor is cheaper, overhead is practically nonexistent, and they look like good corporate citizens helping the next generation of scientists. Universities get influxes of cash and equipment and good publicity in return.
The problem is, if the scientists discover something, it’s the corporation that owns it and profits from the research. I know Purdue claims that they are in their commercials, but most schools do not. Not only that, but these colleges are subsidizing some of the research on their own, and that costs money too. Tuition raises aren’t funding increases in the cost of education; they’re funding increases in the cost of doing business and their half of a partnership that generates little to no financial return. If you could spend an ego boost at the store, then these partnerships would be great.