college costs alot, news at eleven

Somehow I don't think this was a breaking news story. College has generally always been the expensive province of the wealthy, with some exceptions made for the gifted few. Even today with our expanded demand for college educated persons to do everything, despite the fact that few professions have better than a tenuous link to what a college education provided historically, the actual percentage of people attending what are perceived as prestigious universities (those which would therefore actually have some supposed impact on future earnings, again a tenuous link) is still roughly the same as it always has been. Roughly 10% used to get a college degree, it's roughly 10% who get either an advanced degree or attend a 'top school', even though the percentage of graduates increased to almost 30%. Virtually millions of people are effectively scammed into believing they need a college degree for...something.

To me, the fact that tuition has increased dramatically isn't surprising at all, it's predicted by basic economics. In an issue of supply and demand, where the supply is roughly fixed by the amount of people able and interested in teaching at a university level (consider for example that to do so, one should be actually versed in the subject, rather than what we often do for public schools), and the demand keeps going up and up, the price would naturally go up and up. We have made this worse by demanding through public policy that we expand the amounts of people going to college and by thus throwing money into it. A college which knows people will pay any price to go, even if it means leveraging their future earnings for a long, long time, will be able to charge any price. The results are somewhat disappointing. Of course, there are some professions which are less than concerning when this creates a strange over supply of people training in them. But what it does to say, the medicinal arts, is park a large portion of people in less than their favorable choice of specialty (or even a specialty period) in order to pay off their financial aid.

There are other issues with this that make less sense. For example, most people generally attend school/college once. They pay it back, if they must do so (some of us get scholarships or pay while working), over a long period of time during which time they have (hopefully) improved their earnings potential by going to school. The amount of money for an advanced degree may be roughly comparable to that of a home mortgage. And yet the amount of money it may potentially gain may be many thousands more than this (though this is a fishy calculation used to advertise going to college in the first place). More over, most people don't just buy one home in their lifetime, or especially, one car, which is roughly comparable to an undergraduate degree at a subsidized state college. It is assumed somehow that the price tag for college should be somehow 'cheaper'? Why? If it is both valuable enough to make a priority for people to do it, then why should it be 'affordable' in the view of the public. It should represent a cost or at best, a costly investment in human capital.

Most of the 'alternatives' that exist are perfectly reasonable. For example, going to a two year school to blow through all the gen ed requirements is both cheaper and possibly more useful. Testing out of them entirely is probably the most efficient bang for the buck, but not everyone can do that. Most people can attend a subsidized two year college, blast through a series of what would otherwise be boring classes that would cost ten times as much at another school, then transfer off to that 'another school' and finish out their degree. There is nothing wrong with this decision. Virtually all gen ed classes are the same whether they are at Harvard or Cape Cod Community College. The difference is in price and perception. It might be assumed that at Harvard, more is expected of a student (ie, the 'professor' doesn't do much actual teaching). But otherwise the distinctions are meaningless for an undergraduate.

The final problem is that is a burden on poverty. I agree with the conclusion that making college ever more expensive provides a cyclical situation, especially as we make our claims that somehow everything requires a college education to get a job in it. There are simple economic solutions to this. Freidman basically proposed a garnishment system on future earnings, sort of like a direct investment in human capital and its associated returns. I'm not totally certain we should be subsidizing the cost of higher education, but if we must do so, the premise should actually be consistent with the effect. The effect of providing loans and subsidies to universities has been to raise the effective cost of entry. As with health care, a subsidized system may be necessary or desirable to gain positive externalities for the rest of us. But the effects of such a system have proven to gain very unintended negative problems without a simple transparent system working to help control costs.

While a university education may be seen as an intrinsic good, it is effectively difficult to place an actual price tag on how we value it (sort of like a mastercard commercial: priceless). Hence we seem to be willing to find some way to bear any burden, this despite any reasonable measures on what that burden actually gains. It is difficult to quantify what an undergraduate degree gains for the person who attains it. A college graduate is apt to be a person of some natural intellect, and some natural ambitions already. Such a person might very well be capable of making, through their own exertions, plenty of money. Or it is entirely possible that only through whatever specialized training they sought and became certified in were they going to make money. Personally I suspect that the actual economic effectiveness in college education is through the networking that develops. Placing ourselves in contact with other people of similar means and goals allows us a framework to find support in as we take on the new tasks of finding gainful employment later. These casual links with professors and other students are very useful for this purpose. I highly doubt that the actual learning could not occur outside of an academic setting, particularly in some courses and that such activities are really a cover for the actual purpose of a college: academic research or scholarship. As a result, I'm not sold that such things are necessary good for the entire American adult population or that such benefits are not generally to be taken as intrinsic to the individual partaking of them, rather than as some general social good to be sought after and attained. Education in and of itself is a valuable commodity, worthy of subsidy and public supports. Higher education seems to me to be a valuable commodity to the person and individual, rather than always a socially migratory good of others.