Skip to comments.(CA) Study: Investing in higher ed will save California money later (UC Berkeley researchers)
Posted on 12/01/2005 12:32:29 PM PST by NormsRevenge
BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) - Investing in higher education could net savings for California taxpayers, a new study suggests.
That's because the number of people reaching college age is growing and if they don't have the opportunity to learn, taxpayers could end up paying for more people living in poverty and even in jail, according to the study by University of California, Berkeley researchers. The study, commissioned by the bipartisan Campaign for College Opportunity and released Wednesday, looked at the potential return on investing in education and the cost of doing nothing.
In general, the study found the state will get a return of $3 for every new dollar spent on community colleges, public universities and student financial aid. For every dollar not spent, the loss was two tax dollars.
California set a blueprint for investing in college with the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education that guaranteed an education for qualified students. But over the years, state spending has slipped.
"This governor and the Legislature now have an opportunity, a precious window of time to ensure that college access is expanded for our growing young population," said Abdi Soltani, executive director of the Campaign for College Opportunity, a coalition founded by the California Business Roundtable, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Community College League of California.
Campaign leaders plan to use the report to talk about how to improve access to college. They are making a 20-city tour that began Wednesday in Sacramento and will continue through January. The campaign hopes to have a legislative agenda by spring.
an increased investment in higher ed will mostly benefir educators.
I know.....it's for the children but really it's for the faculty.
At the outset, I admit that on occasion I have been called a cynic. With that disclosure, I must ask if it is really appropriate to have a university (a state university, at that) do a study of the benefits of higher education. It seems bit like asking foxes if chickens really should be concentrated in a coop.
Beware anyone who says, "Your life will be made better if you give me money".
By their calculations given the exponential rise in education spending in California in the last 20 years there should be 50 Nobel Prize candidates in every High School graduating class this year.
Thx for the disclaimer ..
You're not a product of the California school system , eh? I can tell. ;-)
And the NEA is all about improving children's education.
Doesn't help the 50% drop out rate for hispanics in CA. Most of them don't attend college.
Funny how the "qualification" has devolved to "heartbeat"
Or, alternatively, you could look at it this way...
UC Cal, Berkeley, should reduce its tuition so that more of us can afford an education.
Typical liberal attitude - throw $$$ at a problem and hope it goes away. Geez.
No vested-interest bias here . . . nope, nope, none.
There's truth to the study, of course, but it's benefits may be exaggerated a bit. The question is simple though: If taxpayers spend $50,000 to send a kid to college, will his lifetime earnings increase enough to recoup that $50,000 in increased income taxes later on? Typically, the answer is yes. Add onto that the economic benefits from having a higher paid citizenry, and it actually does become worthwhile to subsidize higher ed.
Not a popular conservative position, but the numbers are fairly straightforward. So the real question that needs to be answered is this: Should the government be spending tax dollars today to improve the economic conditions of the country 20 years into the future? Does the government have a legitimate role in "investing" in future taxpayers, with the hope that the investment will pay tax bonus dividends later on?
Generally speaking, your theory is sound. However, there should be a real debate as to whether college graduates are earning to their potential. How many graduates are not employed in their fields, or under-employed because the market for their education went south (or overseas)? How much time and tuition is literally wasted in college taking "politically correct" required courses? How many professors are teaching next to no classes while collecting more than $100 grand a year and double that in private consulting fees? How much time do colleges and universities spend on analyzing the market for their degrees and then making adjustments?
I am college-educated and I don't regret getting the degrees (yes, plural), but I don't believe college is for everyone and I resent the fact that colleges are spending inordinate amounts of money dumbing themselves down to be for everyone, only to see most of the graduates head to unemployment lines or graduate schools. Let high schools become more rigorous, then let colleges become more responsive to the market. I long ago lost any faith in the idea that colleges are bastians against over-specialization or parochialism. They have become fortresses of ignorance lately.
Hey, look what we found! We need more money, now will you give it too us?
Sure we only let in rich kids that will add prestige to our crappy organization, but we occasionally let in a few tokens that we all like and know.
So F@#K ALL YOU POOR KIDS OUT THERE IN THE MIDWEST and keep voting Democrat. :)
Not much hope that the research done by the Campaign for College Opportunity would show that college was a waste of time and money.
"If taxpayers spend $50,000 to send a kid to college, will his lifetime earnings increase enough to recoup that $50,000 in increased income taxes later on?"
You are ignoring the time value of money.
Compare the net present value of the money spent now to send a kid to college to the higher taxes the educated kid will pay later in life.
Years ago I worked at a university. One academic vice president and I were working on a faculty discipline problem when he came out and said, "You have to understand. At the University the French Revolution never occurred." In other words, the class system is alive and well at the university.
Cheers. And remember that a significant number of the most wealthy Americans did it partly by avoiding college.
"and I resent the fact that colleges are spending inordinate amounts of money dumbing themselves down to be for everyone, only to see most of the graduates head to unemployment lines or graduate schools."
Putting some of these kids through college is like putting lipstick on a pig; the pig is still a pig and the kid is still an uneducated dullard.
I am reminded of the late Al Shankar, former president of one of the teachers' unions (NEA or CTA) who said something along the lines of when the children start paying dues they, the union, will start representing their interests.
UC Berkeley researchers come to the conclusion that higer ed should get more taxpayer money?
That's pretty earth-shattering research. Who would ever have imagined they could come to that conclusion? Wonder how many months and how many taxpayer $$$ it took them to do this research?
Even accounting for inflationary pressures, it's still a dramatic net positive. According to this study (http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/value.htm), the average kid with a high school diploma in the US can expect to earn about $1.2 million over the course of his lifetime. A four year degree increases that number to $2.1 million. At a 15%-20% tax rate, this means improved tax receipts of $135-180k over that persons lifetime. Unless inflationary pressures explode, that's a net gain for the country no matter how you look at it.
And again, keep in mind that the rest of that income increase will be spent buying goods and services that will boost the rest of the economy too.