Why tuition costs are rising

By Felix Salmon
November 21, 2011
Jim Surowiecki's column on student loans, but I wanted to respond quantitatively to his theory about productivity growth at universities:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

I’m late to Jim Surowiecki’s column on student loans, but I wanted to respond quantitatively to his theory about productivity growth at universities:

Education costs, and student debt, are rising at what seem like unsustainable rates. But this isn’t the result of collective delusion. Instead, it stems from the peculiar economics of education, which have a lot in common with the economics of health care, another industry with a huge cost problem. (Indeed, in recent decades the cost of both college education and health care has risen sharply in most developed countries, not just the U.S.) Both industries suffer from an ailment called Baumol’s cost disease, which was diagnosed by the economist William Baumol, back in the sixties. Baumol recognized that some sectors of the economy, like manufacturing, have rising productivity—they regularly produce more with less, which leads to higher wages and rising living standards. But other sectors, like education, have a harder time increasing productivity. Ford, after all, can make more cars with fewer workers and in less time than it did in 1980. But the average student-teacher ratio in college is sixteen to one, just about what it was thirty years ago. In other words, teachers today aren’t any more productive than they were in 1980. The problem is that colleges can’t pay 1980 salaries, and the only way they can pay 2011 salaries is by raising prices.

On its face, this makes sense. In widget factories, wage inflation is offset by productivity growth. In universities, it isn’t. So while the cost of a widget can stay the same or go down over time even as the widget makers get paid more, the same isn’t true of tuition costs.

In reality, however, the numbers show that wage inflation is — literally — the least of the problems when it comes to university cost inflation. Check out this excellent report, for instance, entitled “Trends in College Spending, 1999-2009″. The first thing to note is on page 26: spending on faculty compensation is never more than 40% of total spending, and “has remained steady or decreased slightly over time”. Then have a look at the numbers.

Overall, if we exclude for-profit schools, which were a tiny part of the landscape in 1999, we have seen tuition fees rise by 32% between 1999 and 2009. Over the same period, instruction costs rose just 5.6% — the lowest rate of inflation of any of the components of education services. (“Student services costs” and “operations and maintenance costs” saw the greatest inflation, at 15.2% and 18.1% respectively, but even that is only half the rate that tuition increased.)

The real reason why tuition has been rising so much has nothing to do with Baumol, and everything to do with the government. Page 31 of the report is quite clear: “except for private research institutions,” it says, “tuitions were increasing almost exclusively to replace losses from state revenues or other private revenue sources.”

In other words, tuition costs are going up just because state subsidies are going down. Every time there’s a state fiscal crisis, subsidies get cut; once cut, they never get reinstated. And so the proportion of the cost of college which is borne by the student has been rising steadily for decades.

There are other culprits, too, behind the rise in tuition costs. Surowiecki touches on one when he talks about “the arms-race problem”, where “colleges compete to lure students by investing in expensive things, like high-profile faculty members, fancy facilities, and a low student-to-teacher ratio”. Another is simply the ever-increasing amounts of money being spent on administration rather than instruction. And a third is the fact that administrators at many high-profile universities have no incentive to decrease costs, and in fact have an incentive to increase costs, since total spending outlay tends to show up as an input in university-ranking algorithms.

But of all the reasons why tuition’s going up, teacher productivity is — literally — at the bottom of the list. Whether or not teachers today are or are not more productive than they were in 1980 (and I suspect that actually they are more productive), that’s not the reason student debt in America is approaching one trillion dollars.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Universities are using a “high tuition, high discount” financial model which is a form of progressive taxation of rich families with children.

Grants financed by revenue from rich families who pay the “sticker price” tuition have been used to keep “net” tuition relatively flat. Yes, “net” tuition is flat. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1 1/04/college-is-cheaper-than-you-think/? ref=business

It is unclear whether due to rapidly rising “sticker price” tuition the supply of rich families with children willing to pay will fall to make the “high tuition, high discount” model is sufficiently large if trends continue since every year the pool of parents paying “sticker price” tuition shrinks.

By admitting the children of the rich to make high tuition high discount work universities is gentrifying which will further increase inequality and lower social mobility.

The aggregate level of student loans are rising (e.g., 5% in 2010) in a way that is not sustainable given incomes of graduates (debt service as a percentage of income is reaching fundamental limits) Something increasing at 5% doubles in 14 years says the rule of 72.

Incomes are flat and unemployment at sustained high levels means that paying for living expenses while in college is more and more of a problem, not just tuition. Federal Pell Grant covers only about one-third of what it costs for a public four-year college in state. In the 1980s it covered about half; in the 1970s it covered more than 70 percent.

States will essentially take public university funding levels to zero over the next decade (effective privatization) and federal spending on research universities will at best be flat.

If state/federal funding is down, students/families are tapped out on debt due to limits on disposable income and the pool of rich people with kids is growing too small, greater teaching productivity seems the only answer/potential way to relieve pressure on the educational system. If not greater productivity then specifically what is the solution that does not require “more money”? Be specific in your answer.

Posted by tgriffin | Report as abusive

Seems obvious to me that easy loans flood the university education market. You can’t talk about the cost of education without acknowledging the massive heaps of cash, in great disproportion to the rest of the economy, lugged at it.

Posted by Pvrhye | Report as abusive

I could see some version of the Baumol problem in student services costs. A student is going to take up as much room in a dorm will consume as much heat, light, soap, and replacement hallway fire-alarm handles as he or she did in 1980. So no productivity gains there either.

Meanwhile real estate, construction costs, and WiFi costs have gone up.

But as you say that accounts only for the ~15% inflation you mentioned. Which is still way bigger than the ~5% inflation in actual education expenses.

I think what Tyler Cowen would say is that you’ll get productivity gains as soon as Kaplan-style “online” universities eliminate the expense of providing facilities for students *or* professors. Although Kaplan-style online graduation rates being what they are they’ll also largely avoid the expense of printing diplomas.


Posted by figleaf | Report as abusive

You say: “…of all the reasons why tuition’s going up, teacher productivity is — literally — at the bottom of the list. Whether or not teachers today are or are not more productive than they were in 1980 (and I suspect that actually they are more productive), that’s not the reason student…” [costs of education are rising].

I respectfully disagree. Those “…high-profile faculty members…” that teach few, if any students and a “… low student-to-teacher ratio…” is a wasteful use of educational funding. The higher proportion of “…money being spent on administration rather than instruction” and the lack of institutional incentive to decrease costs show how truly abysmal and archaic our educational process remains.

The educational establishment in America has long believed it beneath their dignity to graduate students with immediately marketable skills. Administration and teachers are so insulated from the real world that they are utterly unaware of their fundamental responsibility to modernize their process.

With all the iPods (for note taking or backups), iPads, laptops, web access, etc. there is no longer any reason for the excessive, boring and largely ineffective time students spend on many subjects in classrooms and lecture halls. Professors should put their lectures on the web for students to download, look up references and do research on their own. Learning can thus take place in the libraries, student union, Starbucks, under a tree, in the dorm, wherever is preferred. Existing facilities could thus serve more students with minimal, if any increase in expenses.

Individual appointments of short duration with the instructor/professor will bring most having minor trouble with a subject “up to speed”. You don’t need an expensive professor to monitor testing to assure identity and prevent cheating. Higher education should emphasize individual discovery and comprehension. Brilliant students can take a higher class load and the plodders a lower one, with each advancing at a speed consistent with their abilities.

What an advance it would be if boredom could be banished from academia! Educators have forgotten that imparting knowledge should be the lighting of a fire, and not the filling of a pail.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

tgriffen beat me to it…

At the public universities, tuition increases have primarily been offsetting the loss of subsidies. In a country where “socialist” is a dirty word, should we be surprised by this trend?

At the private universities, only the wealthy families (those with six-figure incomes) pay the full sticker price. Middle class students receive a heavy discount, in many cases attending for free. The Ivy League schools are evenly split between the rich and the smart. The smart lend their reputation for brilliance to the rich. The rich foot the bill for the smart. Both populations benefit from the networking.

Instead of focusing on student loans, let’s instead focus on access to quality, low-cost public education? Cheaper for society to subsidize that up-front than to pay for it by dumping heavy loans on the young.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

I agree with your argument but failed to find the quantitative part of your response. Just to make sure that we don’t over-complicate things, the basic price driver is demand elasticity for education (which is similar to the demand elasticity for health care). You can easily check this if you analyze trends in filed applications. The withdrawal of government subsidy is just an easy justification to hike the price.

Posted by Tseko | Report as abusive

I see a common observation among the answers: universities post a high sticker price on their tuition which they supposedly only expect to be met by the folks who can afford it; for students who can’t afford full tuition, many layers of discounts are available.

That much is true. But if you are reasoning that this means everyone attending is paying a price affordable to them, you are deeply naive. First, the utterly predatory federal student loan program ensures that students who can’t afford high tuition upfront can sign what is basically a blood oath to borrow the money at terms no private financier would ever take. That is the primary source of financing the tuition gap, and it’s the most widely available option – you qualify for it by filling out a FAFSA form, which is almost a rite of passage for middle-class high school students. Second, alternate sources of plugging that tuition gap are not plentiful as the gap is wide, and the difference is growing. Available scholarships are mostly puny in comparison to tuition costs (they sometimes pay for books and not much more), and the few that are generous are scarce in the current environment. Third, universities rarely offer students what we would call a “discount”. At most private and public universities, there’s no sliding scale tuition or promo codes or negotiations with admission officers. We bill, you pay, that’s it. Supposedly Harvard is an exception; they’re more dedicated to having a diverse student body than the usual institution. In any case, the opportunities for middle class students to find a “discount” tuition are simply no match for the size of the middle class population. Most middle class students who attend these universities end up paying most or all of the high tuition costs that are set by the universities; and the universities with the highest tuition costs end up gentrifying rather than rebalancing for economic status. Once again, if you’re stupid and rich you can do anything in America.

Let’s put it another way: if we actually went so far as to track the performance of these “middle class discount” claims to figure out how much tuition college students in the economic middle 60th percentile were paying in aggregate (and how much that group was being saddled with non-dischargeable debt), and we held university administrators and trustees responsible for meeting a reasonable performance goal for matching net tuition to affordability for that group, we’d have to fire them all for incompetence and fraud.

The funny thing is that everyone here believes it because a bunch of rich white men said it.

Posted by BrianVan | Report as abusive

It’s silly to think that “increased productivity” will result in higher student-teacher ratios, because increased productivity means getting the results people want with fewer resources. A low student-teacher ratio isn’t a means to an end for many students choosing colleges; it’s an end in and of itself. Many schools advertise low student-teacher ratios as a selling point.

Posted by jfruh | Report as abusive

“That much is true. But if you are reasoning that this means everyone attending is paying a price affordable to them, you are deeply naive.”

That depends on your definition of “affordable”. For-profit institutions aside, most students can make the payments on their student debt. It is simply a drain on their finances for many years.

Moreover, I didn’t mean to say EVERYBODY gets these discounts. At private colleges, the best students (or those with demographics that make them desirable to schools looking for “diversity”) get very generous offers. Your average white middle-class “B” student does not.

I suspect I’m speaking from experience broader than that of BrianVan here… But I would make a further point — we are (or should be) responsible as a society to make quality, low-cost education available to people. That is very different from forcing people to choose that low-cost education over the higher-cost alternatives. If you don’t like the price tag of the third-tier private colleges, why not explore your state school?

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

Great comments. I also call bullshit on your theory. When I was an academic in the 1990s, my university raised tuition by 18 percent in one year, because they believed there was a direct relationship between price and quality, and they wanted to be immediately perceived as having higher quality. http://wp.me/pJhAL-9I

You may argue that most students don’t pay the sticker price, but that just means that colleges has obfuscated the actual cost to a level we would never accept in any other industry.

Productivity matters, and academia believes they have perfected higher education, and believe themselves immune from market forces. And productivity is much more than simply professors’ salaries. You know that, Felix.

I think Kid Dynamite had it right in a comment to a previous post. College costs are in a bubble that will burst sooner or later.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

“that just means that colleges has obfuscated the actual cost to a level we would never accept in any other industry.”

Except health care. :) Yet another parallel!

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

@TFF: I do agree that the main goal should be to provide quality education at a low-cost (without bells/whistles) as an option for the masses – not to shoehorn poor students into costly education systems. I really believe we can do that.

I don’t agree that student debt, at the current levels, is “affordable”. It’s merely acquirable. Big difference, as a lot of people with upside-down mortgages have learned in the last 3 years.

Posted by BrianVan | Report as abusive

@TFF: Point taken!

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

You nailed the primary reason for increase in educational costs: the ease of loans.
If we made loans only to qualified buyers, and people had to start paying back those loans immediately, the costs would plummet, in my opinion.
A similar scenario exists in health insurance premiums due to comprehensive coverage, which is even better than loans.
If we had a commercial insurer bid every year, on providing catastrophic coverage, starting at $50,000, premiums would plummet by 70%, immediately.
It’s just the way insurance works, actuarially.
Then, we need to look at various ways of funding and financing the first $50,000 of expenses, per family.
Don Levit

Posted by donlevit | Report as abusive

“I do agree that the main goal should be to provide quality education at a low-cost (without bells/whistles) as an option for the masses.”

Certainly cheaper (at the societal level) than subsidizing luxury accommodations for college students. Money spent on college education is an investment in the future that enriches our society three-fold. Money spent on dorms and athletic facilities is simply consumption with no lasting benefit.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

@TFF: The rich vs the smart dichotomy is a false one at the top tier schools, which also happen to be the schools that soak the rich to the greatest extent. All of the Ivies and most of the the top 25-50 ranked schools have need blind admission policies. All the kids are “smart,” including the rich ones. The dichotomy might apply to private colleges in the next tiers down, but I suspect that even there the difference in admission criteria is less than one might suspect.

Posted by maynardGkeynes | Report as abusive

“All of the Ivies and most of the the top 25-50 ranked schools have need blind admission policies.”

Really? I went to one of those Ivies myself (admittedly decades ago) and there were plenty of rich kids without exceptional brains or work ethic. Even today, the admissions in my area are dominated by a certain high-priced prep school.

Maybe those fancy prep schools actually make their students smarter? (When they aren’t indoctrinating them into an anti-social culture.) Or maybe they are simply very good at polishing resumes?

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

Curmudgeon, I’m going to use your statement that “colleges has obfuscated the actual cost to a level we would never accept in any other industry.” as an excuse to go off on a tangent.

The mobile phone and wireless service industries totally obfuscate the cost of smartphones by bundling them with service. By giving away phones for free or $100, carriers hide the fact that consumers are paying $500 or $600 for these devices, spread over 24 monthly payments. The margins on these devices are impressive, much higher than on PCs, and manufacturers are able to sustain those margins because people are unaware they are paying for them with inflated monthly fees (which, by the way, aren’t reduced if you pay full price for your phone, except on T-Mo, which ATT wants to kill).

The coal mining and coal burning power industries hide the true cost of extracting and burning coal, because they don’t pay for the destroyed mountains, rivers, lakes, and streams, nor do they cover the medical cost of all the asthma and other respiratory illnesses caused by their “cheap” form of energy. Nor do the oil companies include in the cost of gasoline the price of protecting the flow of oil from the middle east.

Since you can buy any consumer item that costs more than $100 on credit, paying interest rates of almost 30% over five years or more, the finance industry has totally obfuscated the cost of all kinds of consumer goods. And if people understood the math (and they shouldn’t have had to go to college to do that), they would never buy most of those things they buy on usurious terms.

I would also argue that the fast food industry masks the true cost of the stuff they sell (I guess technically it is food, but it’s more like stuff than something people should eat).

Obfuscation is just another marketing tool.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

Ultimately the cost of some, not all, universities, is going to be unsustainable. The consequences of being unsustainable are fairly predictable, though messy – they fail. State subsidized ambiance is ending, permanently, that money is not coming back. In the next few years the states will ‘enterprise’ their U’s and pull all of the public money. The schools may think demand for their product is in-elastic, I suspect experience will prove otherwise.

Since you seem to be interested in the subject, it would be a very good thing if you posted the same analysis for community colleges and for the onlines, Like Phoenix, Kaplan, et al. Just speculating, but my bet is that the bang for buck ratio of a community college/non-traditional education (measured in terms of income increase v educational cost) is trending up while 4 year degree results are headed down. Tho I love my history degree, the IT certifications paid far better.

Qualitywise, I’ve now been to +10 different colleges and universities, including some big names like U of London, U of Colo, U of Maryland, and far and away the best instructors have been in community colleges or four year schools that limited themselves to very narrow categories. The level of self-esteem of some of the tenured faculty and vice-chancellors of: at some of the big schools is positively poignant. I suspect they will whine even more than journalists at the discovery of their lack of relevance.

Posted by ARJTurgot2 | Report as abusive


Original and well stated. Fine post. Thanks!

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

Keep in mind that tuiton-paying students are not just paying for their own education. Their $$$ are also funding a sigificant portion of a university’s research activities, including hundreds of professors who do not teach undergraduates or even teach at all. This is why community college tuitions have ot increased anywhere near as much as 4-year college tuitions.

Posted by mfw13 | Report as abusive

mfw13, I’m not an expert, but are you CERTAIN of your claims?

In my understanding, research faculty are expected to acquire sufficient grants to fund their activities. This includes not simply their own salary, but tuition and stipends for their graduate assistants, salary for post-doctoral positions, and a hefty “overhead” charge (50% above and beyond the line-item charges?) that goes towards running the institution.

Teaching faculty at research universities are also expected to fund a significant portion of their salary through grants. Not sure what happens to a tenured faculty who fails to acquire grants, but I imagine their teaching load would be greatly increased.

Community colleges typically keep costs low by hiring few full-time faculty and staffing their courses with adjunct faculty, typically paid $3k-$4k per course. In contrast, a full-time faculty at a mid-tier college with minimal research expectations might teach 6-8 courses for a salary of $60k-$80k (and expensive benefits on top of that). Do the math… Adjunct faculty are **MUCH** cheaper.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

TFF has it right; mfw13 has a common misconception. At ‘R1′ universities (i.e. the big ones that produce the vast majority of research), tuition does not fund research activity. Faculty who teach will often get 9 months of salary which may be paid in part from tuition, research faculty who do not teach generally get zero guaranteed salary and rely exclusively on external funding for their paycheck. Virtually all research expenses (supplies, equipment, technicians’ salary, etc.) are paid by research grants.

Posted by DrewSteen | Report as abusive

Yes, the loans allow the costs to rise, and the administrators’ respond to skewed incentives when planning expenditures. But insofar as the purchase of a university education is a “shopping” experience for students and parents I think the comparison to medicine is frighteningly apt. I am a palliative care physician and mother of three, but a demented shopper in this regard – my decisions as a proxy consumer of education stack up about as well as those of my hospitalized patients as medical consumers.

As purchasers, we are making large commitments “up front”, but do not necessarily know what portion of the costs they will end up being responsible for. (As a parent approaching the financial aid system with a scholar athlete next year, I am certainly not sure what my “co pay” will be.)

Second, the overall cost is so huge – sending my three children through to bachelors degrees will absorb at least 4 years of our income, many times the price of any house we’ll ever own – that it becomes difficult to “shop” for it. Comparing two or more things I can’t really afford is hard for me to structure as a decision.

Third, the hopes and fears that we hold for our childrens’ futures light up areas of the brain that impair our ability to make rational decisions. No one ever ever asks what chemotherapy costs, because their feelings about its importance seals their lips.

Fourth, both systems are structured to actively conceal administrative costs. If you asked for an itemized hospital bill, under most circumstances you’d be told that you were being billed by DRG, based on diagnosis. If you were paying privately, you would see a list of prices (for your tylenol, for example) that are extraordinarily inflated. You would not see any administrative charges at all. Neither would a university be able to tell you what portion of your tuition is being contributed to the wages and benefits of your professors.

Fifth, what the consumer needs from each is determined by the producer, not the consumer. My patients would choose to have far fewer chest x rays and demand that I improve my physical exam skills, if they understood the sensitivity and specificity of each. But I get to decide who needs another film this morning, and I do not have to pay for the pictures. (Though, in my defense, the culture of palliative medicine as a subspecialty tends to produce fewer useless tests.) Likewise, undergraduate graduation requirements in this country has a frightening similarity to high school ones. Someone will eventually decide that my future social scientist needs to take a physical education class, for which I will be required to pay. It makes the British system, where 18 year old putative adults have the right to stop taking math classes when they are studying classics at age 20, look pretty sweet. Both my patients and myself are being told what we need, then charged for it.

Finally, like medical debt, student loan debt stacks from generation to generation, and becomes an issue of generational warfare. What the post does not say about the drop in state subsidy for education, is the folks who went before us are largely unaware that it has occurred. As I approach my eldest’s education, I realize that I’ll be paying $928 dollars a month on my own medical school loans through my second child’s junior year of undergraduate school. Whereas my parents left the University of Wisconsin without a penny owed, with PhDs in biochemistry. But my parents can’t figure out why their successful physician daughter doesn’t have more cash.

I know it makes me giggle when anybody talks about shopping for healthcare. I always want to invite them to come meet my floors of 85 year old heart failure patients. completely typical of hospital inpatients, and often unable to choose their next meal in a way that leads to happiness 3 hours later. They are normal folks, but their circumstances make them inept shoppers. When universities watch us approaching, their disabled consumers, do they share this dark humor?

Posted by Westmoreland | Report as abusive

I just recently experienced the college application process with my older son. There is much to really dislike about the entire process as practiced at the most selective schools.

I would like to mention one aspect that affects costs (I don’t know how big a factor): the excessive emphasis on the recruitment of “student-athletes” at the college level.

First, I believe that this creates a tremendous misallocation of resources. Favoritism in scholarships and admission is shown toward players of sports that do little in the way of contributing to the University or society. With title IX, and other recent developments in society, the misallocation is growing and seldom criticized. Furthermore, the misallocation gets pushed down to the high school level, as families enthusiastically support the athletic endeavors of their kids with the hope of getting into a good college or even getting scholarships, instead of focusing on educational achievement. There is much to be said about this misallocation but I’ll leave it at that.

Second, the ability of upper-middle-class parents (usually white) to invest in the careers of their kids in semi-obscure sports creates I think a fundamental source of unfairness with regard to equality of opportunity. Lacrosse, swimming, field hockey, skiing and the like are not available to most kids, so an avenue is created for unique access with these investments.

Finally, there’s no need to go into the kind of corruption that big-time programs create. The scandal unfolding at Penn State, which in its sexual aspect is surely unusual, is I’m sure very common with respect to the degree of subservience by university administrators to sports programs.

My son ended up going to McGill, which does have sports, but with nothing like the absurd overemphasis in this country. By the way, it’s a great school, and the tuition and expenses are half that of selective United States colleges. Consider this value-added input!

Posted by blades2000 | Report as abusive

This article leaves out the banks.

Disinvestment in public education is a major factor but private banks profit from private (and privatized) universities. There is a revolving door between the financial sector and trustees / administration. It’s similar in housing, medicine, transportation, and so on. The upward spiral of paper profits on bonds from student loans drives tuition ever upward. These loans are risk-free for the banks so the student’s ability to pay is hardly relevant.

The Wall Street Journal says that these loans will default at ~40%. The government figure of ~8% is deliberately deceptive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424 052970204224604577030562170562088.html

Banks issue government-­guaranteed loans through the vehicle of a student at the usual magnification of sums possible with fractional reserve banking and wildly unregulated financial markets. This funds construction, corporate projects, and other financial instruments. The profits are upfront before a single cent is paid on the underlying debt. Once again, public money builds private fortunes.

With the euro chaos and still toxic US banks, the global economy has reentered crisis. No wages also means no debt payments. Given that student debt is roughly 5% of the total debt stock, compared to 75% or so for mortgages, it wouldn’t be surprising if politicians decide to write-down this debt to restart stagnant growth and quiet campuses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/0 3/us-haircut-idUSTRE79125J20111003

Maybe bankers will find this solution better than prison time since the protesters have already started demanding criminal charges for the biggest bankers. Eventually, a few more of them will have to be thrown into the fire to appease the raging masses.

Posted by MBeaney | Report as abusive

I think that cost disease has a larger impact than you think. First, you need a lot more than just professors to make a good university work and those human intensive tasks that aren’t listed under “instruction costs” have also risen. However you need to remember that government funding is being cut so drastically because it to is subject to cost disease. Government provides a lot of social services that cannot be easily automated and moreover it pays for a lot of healthcare that cannot be automated. Lump in pensions which deferred past labor costs into the future and you can see where all the money that used to go into Education is now leaking away.

Posted by Sturmovik | Report as abusive

This is undoubtedly valuable post. Many thanks… Put it in my bookmarks and will be checking back soon…

Screen capture http://freescreenrecorder.net/

Posted by Miranda_Johnson | Report as abusive