Comments on: Chart of the day, College tuition edition

By: Rosemary

Rosemary — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:05:01 +0000

I have to agree with Michael. More selective colleges admit students who in general are more likely to be ready for the academic standards of that college. These colleges have the ability and luxury to filter out students they don’t think will make it through in 4-5 years. Less selective institutions have to deal with a much wider range of preparation. If these institutions conduct remedial classes (as many community colleges do), they know that they will have a low success rate at high cost to the institution. Less selective colleges have a more difficult educational task ahead of them vs. the more selective colleges, which can let its students run on autopilot, so to speak. Why do you think professors at research universities (like UM) have such terrible reputations as teachers?

Tuition is an important factor for a student choosing where to go, and would involve socioeconomic factors very directly. Here’s a comparison of EMU and UM tuition:

EMU, resident tuition, undergraduate: $238.50/credit hour; EMU estimates tuition and fees cost for freshmen as $4188.50.

UM, resident tuition, undergraduate: $805/first credit hour, $449/add’l credit hours; full time enrollment for lower division undergrad (12-18 credit hours) $5735 + 95 in various fees. The total increases by about $700 per term for upper level undergraduates.

Either is expensive, but EMU would be an easier choice for someone without a large pool of financial and social support.

Another factor to consider for students who must work to support their education is to what degree institutions accommodate people who work during the day and/or have to get childcare. Institutions like EMU and community colleges have much more available in those regards than more selective places like UM or the University of Iowa, where I teach. Getting an undergraduate degree at either one of these places would be extremely difficult to do for someone with a full-time job. The undergraduates I have who are returning students leave full-time work when they get to upper division courses, which are scheduled at the convenience of the college and faculty, not the student.

By: Ralph Pasola

Ralph Pasola — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:18:03 +0000

Eastern’s graduation rate is due to a high percentage of non-traditional older students, a high percentage of students who transfer in to EMU and a high percentage of students who must work to support their educations. Comparing the U of M to EMU is a ridiculous comparison.

By: Incentives

Incentives — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:48:22 +0000

Here’s a thought: students who transfer to other schools are listed as “dropping out”. When I transferred schools in undergrad, my original school never wrote me asking why I didn’t show up that fall, didn’t ask if I transferred elsewhere, and certainly didn’t follow up several years later to find out if I graduated elsewhere. I bet that a sizable percentage of the “dropouts” are transferees. Here’s a question: how many undergrads transfer into U of M every year, and how many of those come from EMU?

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:24:15 +0000

I’m sorry, Felix, just where are you going with this? Or have you moved on? I think there is something relevant here, if you would just, well, comment.

By: Markus Robinson

Markus Robinson — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:21:27 +0000

It’s a “natural” result of growing income disparity in this country. The artificial shortage of those with 4 or 6 year degrees has caused their services to increase in cost faster than the median income. Maybe eventually we’ll have enough people with degrees, so that the wages wouldn’t be so inflated.

By: John Caddell

John Caddell — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:52:18 +0000

Thanks to the readers who pointed out the error in the chart. I have fixed it in the original post (link here: http://caddellinsightgroup.com/blog2/200 9/09/a-brief-explication-of-the-problem- of-rising-us-college-tuition/). The revised chart, to me anyway, still says that college is radically less affordable than it was in 1980 or 1950–but apparently I got a way better deal in 1980 than I had realized!

regards, John

By: James B. Shearer

James B. Shearer — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:09:56 +0000

The chart is seriously misleading. It is dividing the cost in 1950 and 1980 by the current median income not the median income in 1950 and 1980.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:57:10 +0000

Felix, you have some great comments here; how about a response?

My own comment is:
>> the presence or absence of a campus makes a big difference: students are much more likely to drop out if there isn’t one.
>> if most of your peers are dropping out, you’re more likely to follow suit than if nearly all of them are graduating.

I don’t think you can support these statements, but would appreciate it if you had some evidence here.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:38:48 +0000

Felix, you seem to be arguing in circles. It simply can’t be the case that graduation rates at Eastern Michigan are low despite the fact that the students are poor, while at the same time graduation rates at the University of Michigan are high because the students are rich, which you seem to suggest. It’s an issue of socioeconomic status, cultural standards and adequate primary education; there’s nothing magical about Ann Arbor over Ypsilanti.

By: drewbie

drewbie — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:11:03 +0000

For the most part I found this to be an interesting article, but I was surprised to read you say a degree does wonders for a graduate’s lifetime earnings when you wrote an article less than a week ago questioning that very idea. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2 009/09/05/the-value-of-a-college-educati on/)

why the change of heart?

By: maynardGkeynes

maynardGkeynes — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:52:52 +0000

That chart shows the “list price” of attending RPI, the cost without merit money or need based financial aid. Such aid is substantial at schools like RPI, and even greater at richer schools like the Ivies. If your family income is under $100K, going to Harvard (and possibly RPI) is still quite affordable. Harvard, in fact, is listed as a “Best Value” in college guides for that reason. The ones who take it on the chin are the lower echelons of the upper middle class, ie., income > $100K, who get little or no aid, and in fact, subsidize the tuition of the students with whom they competed (insanely) for admission. Nice system…

By: John Caddell

John Caddell — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:48:19 +0000

Felix, thanks for sharing my chart with your readers. I agree with Aaron Davies but would go farther. The government is only one factor skewing the cost of education. The colleges themselves, with grants, loan programs and tuition abatements, also contributes to a murky, uneven market.

This contributes to their automatic assumption that they can increase their charges above the inflation rate every single year.

regards, John

By: Aaron Davies

Aaron Davies — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:10:32 +0000

sigh. this is, as usual, the government’s fault. like most things that are irrationally overpriced, the cause is subsidies, in this case, much as with housing, through artificially easy credit. the solution is to abolish federal student loans and most of the rest of the ways federal money skews the cost of education. if colleges had to face a real market, they could never charge multiples of the median income for their degrees.

By: Peter D. Kinder

Peter D. Kinder — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:37:47 +0000

With all due respect, both phenomena are rational and explainable from the perspective of less wealthy students.

First, in every way — from dating to housing to hockey tickets — UM is more expensive than EM — leave aside tuition.

Second, the attrition rate at EM-type schools is also rational given the opportunities available both to drop outs and to graduates.

But most importantly, where higher ed is concerned, Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message. The medium is debt; the message is you better have a plan to find a conventional job that pays a lot.

Talk to college dropouts from EM-type schools. Very few in my experience mention anything ahead of expense — and the unlikelyhood of financing and repaying it — as a reason for leaving.

The EMs of the US provided teachers, engineers, nurses, accountants, etc. In short, our lower- and middle- middle class infrastructure.

The ever-rising college costs and the debt required to finance them is driving social change. To understand why our competitive/economic future is so bleak one need look no farther than EM and the now-gone infrastructure of low cost, public institutions that existed into the 1970s.