Posted on 05/08/2015 9:31:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Over the last decade, states have made massive cuts to higher education, with average state support falling from $9,729 per student in 2001 to $6,815 in 2011. While a large share of the blame for these cuts can be pinned on the financial crisis and subsequent recession, some of the decline is due to a deliberate effort to eviscerate public higher education. For instance, Bobby Jindal plans to savage higher education spending in Louisiana to the tune of $141.3 million, or about 12 percent of the state’s higher education budget, to pay for tax cuts. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker is cutting $300 million over two years, again to pay for reckless tax cuts. Kansas is an even sadder story. Though the state had a large reserve fund in 2012, Governor Sam Brownback quickly depleted it with a massive tax giveaway to the rich. Now he’s cutting K-12 and university funding to the tune of $44.5 million. There’s a good reason our list of governors seeking deep cuts is shaded a uniform red: Both research and history shows that Republican-controlled states are more likely to cut higher education. One study found that when Republicans take over governors mansions they reduce spending on higher education by $0.23 per $1,000 in personal income (a measure of the state’s total tax base). Each 1 percent increase in the number of Republicans in the legislature leads to a $0.05 decrease. Given that the average spending on higher education across all states in 2014 was $5.47 per $1,000, the effect is large.
Nationwide, the total impact of these cutbacks is breathtaking. Between 2008 and 2013, states cut a total of $16 billion, adjusted for inflation, from their higher education budgets, even as enrollments rose more than 11 percent. Funding per student dropped even more dramatically, falling by more than 27 percent, or about $2,500 per student. These cutbacks, in turn, have translated nearly 1-to-1 into tuition increases, which averaged nearly $3,000 over the past decade. But the question is not simply deficits, but priorities: Just seven months of funding for the F-35 Fighter would be enough to fully restore higher education spending across the nation.
A new Demos study estimates that 78 percent of tuition increases at public universities in the past decade can be explained by decreased state spending on higher education (see chart). Commonly cited factors like “administrative bloat,” are far less important, accounting for only 5 percent of the increase in higher education costs.
These state cuts and resulting skyrocketing tuition prices are incredibly worrying for upward mobility in America, because they’ve forced young people seeking a college education to borrow unprecedented amounts just to earn a degree. Low-income students and students of color leave college with more debt than wealthy white students (see chart), and they bear the brunt of austerity.
Public universities and community colleges are important, because the top tier of private universities are very exclusionary, and few poor and middle class students are admitted. Further state cuts to higher education will create a world where only some, mostly wealthy Americans have a shot to better their life by completing higher education.
It’s not just progressives making this point; recently, Standard & Poor’s argued that inequality was slowing growth by reducing college graduation rates among low-income people, likely in part due to the effects of the debt necessary to finance low-income students’ educations. The analysts suggested that a way to bolster upward mobility and reduce inequality would be increased college attainment. Yet in recent years, many conservatives, who claim to support economic growth and business, have made savage cuts to education.
These cuts are particularly shortsighted because the benefits of higher education, both for individuals and society at large, pay for the cost of investment many times over. The body of research on the impacts of higher education is massive, but their consensus is that increased higher education impacts nearly every corner of society, from increased economic growth to lower crime, better health, greater civic participation, and even childhood development. A few highlights: One study found that 8.7 percent of all economic growth between 1959 and 1998 could be attributed to increased education. Other studies have found that increased higher education leads greater rates of voter participation, to the tune of 22 percent; a 15 percent reduction in crime, and better cognitive development among children of parents with college degrees.
On the flip side, the costs of state disinvestment in higher education are similarly staggering. Further state cuts will lead to even higher levels of student debt, which then leads to lower homeownership rates, less retirement savings, and fewer vehicle purchases, among other effects. Previous Demos work suggests that $53,000 in student debt will lead to lifetime wealth loss of $208,000, largely through lower retirement savings and home equity.
Although public investment in higher education is broadly popular, the wealthy tend to be the least supportive. In their recent study of the wealthiest Americans, Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright find that 78 percent of the general public agree that “[t]he federal government should make sure that everyone who wants to go to college can do so,” compared to only 28 percent of the richest Americans.
There are bright spots in this sad story: President Obama’s plan for free community college is a welcome opportunity for the government to step in and fill this gap. Two weeks ago Senate and House Democrats introduced a resolution to create debt-free higher education. Hillary Clinton says she’ll be rolling out a comprehensive plan to tackle student debt. On the other side of the aisle, the House Republican budget would eliminate guaranteed funding for Pell Grants, which helped 9 million low income students attend college in 2013-2014 school year. One analysis suggests that some students using the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) program would end up with twice the debt under the Republican budget proposal. They would also As the national discussion about higher education proceeds it’s important to remember the government has an important role to play in supporting debt free higher education.
Go Walker! As soon as I saw the raw headline, I knew it would have come from Salon. They are a perfect reverse barometer, if they say anything, count on it being fallacious or corrupt.
Let's use typical leftist "logic" and talking points to criticize the Salon writer:
By using the word "savage" to describe Bobby Jindal's plans for higher education spending in Louisiana, Salon writer Sean McElwee is sending a coded message that clearly implies that Jindal, a person of color, is a savage.
McElwee is just another heteronormative, racist Democrat who is using his white privilege to dehumanize people of color. The billionaire Koch-brothers-financed Salon must immediately apologize profusely for their gross misconduct in publishing such racist garbage, and must make a sizable donation to Al Sharpton's National Action Network - No Justice, No Peace.
The rabid far-left scares normal people; their outlandish, brutish behavior (and headlines/article like this one) push people into the Republican party. Their overreach is also scaring the Left’s leadership - the 4 month siege on Walker and Wisconsin’s Capitol (and the Occupy Wall Street movement that sprang from it) are not the optics that the Democratic Party wants in the 2016 general election - but Walker attracts their attacks like bees to honey - and it draws people out of the shadows to stand up and vote R. (Obama has been very helpful in this regard too.)
It’s like in Blazing Saddles where the Sheriff takes himself hostage and threatens to kill himself.
Threaten to cut PBS’s funding and they cry about having to kill Big Bird. Despite Seasame St being a revenue generator for them.
Partially shut down the government and open air memorials get barricaded and guarded, despite it costing more than just leaving them open as normal.
Anything that threatens the Progressive funding conveyor belt is met with them treatening to go after and even going after the things that cause the most visible pain. Even though doing so is both illogical and unnecessary.
The purpose of Universities is to educate. Thats their core mission. A secondary mission is to advance the state of science and knowlege through research.
Sports programs are nice, but unnecessay. Bloated administrative bureaucracies that function as make-work welfare jobs are neither nice nor necessary. Departments, chairs, profesorships and _____-studies programs that leave graduates with massive chips on their shoulders but no decent job prospect beyond pouring coffee at Starbucks are outright destructive.
Good point.
One thing that stick in my mind is that since these are taxpayer-supported schools, there are a LOT of taxpayers who should have every right to ask why their $$$ is going to fund training kids in how to hate them.
This should help:
Governor Walker Statement on VE Day
"MADISON—Governor Scott Walker today released the following statement commemorating the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day (VE Day):
“Seventy years ago, the United States, together with our allies, ended World War II in Europe by resolutely defeating the evils of Nazism and fascism.
I encourage all Americans to pause, reflect, and thank our greatest generation for liberating Europe and ending the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust.
“VE Day is a celebration of transatlantic unity, our enduring commitment to peace in Europe, and a sobering reminder that freedom and liberty must never be taken for granted.
To America’s brave men and women who fought and gave their full measure of devotion for our liberty and that of Europe, we thank you on this seventieth anniversary of VE Day.
“Today, at a time of Russian aggression in Ukraine, we must intensify our efforts to help foster a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.”
You’re darn right!!
The nation needs to shake off the cobwebs.
Interestingly, increased spending has not been going into the pockets of the typical professor. Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. Moreover, while 45 years ago 78 percent of college and university professors were full time, today half of postsecondary faculty members are lower-paid part-time employees, meaning that the average salaries of the people who do the teaching in American higher education are actually quite a bit lower than they were in 1970.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html?_r=0By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.
The rapid increase in college enrollment can be defended by intellectually respectable arguments. Even the explosion in administrative personnel is, at least in theory, defensible. On the other hand, there are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.
What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.
Paul F. Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the author of “Don’t Go to Law School Unless"
Hehehe... HOHOHO... LOL... ROTFLMAO...
Sorry, I couldn't even make it past the headline.
Are you a professor? A researcher?
I taught in a grad student only program at an R1 school. In addition to my ‘2 classes a term,’ I wrote articles, presented at conferences, developed and held local conferences, performed research, advised students (including thesis students, which takes a lot of work), and sat on several committees a year. I also wrote and graded grad level exam questions for students outside my department, but in my area of expertise and sat on several grad student exam or thesis committees each year. I did not make 6 figures.
Those who teach in undergrad programs generally teach 3-5 classes a term. The amount of extra time they put in for research, etc. depends upon the type of school they are in, an R1 or a liberal arts college. What they don’t do in research, they do in advising student organizations, grading, advising, faculty & university committee membership, etc. Especially in the humanities, 6 figures would be a dream.
The academic world is not what you think it is. I know professors at all types of institutions in a diversity of fields. They work hard for their money. Some have developed marvelous computing tools and applications. Some ‘just’ bring the wonderful worlds of art and literature to their students, broadening their minds and horizons. No one is sitting at home eating bon bons.
When I think of Salon, I think brothel...
Fun with statistics. I want to see any agency, state, city, or district that is actually disbursing fewer dollars - that is, SPENDING LESS - on schooling at any level.
The academic world is absolutely what I think it is. I have several close friends who are college professors, and to a man (or woman) they say it would not be a bad life except... for the bureaucracy which interferes in their lives and work. I, myself, spent several years in grad school, and saw it all up close and personal, thank you.
I did NOT say that anyone is sitting at home eating bonbons. What I said is that a six-figure salary should be adequate for anyone in such a position, and no one should complain about being asked to forfeit a few bucks when business is bad, as it manifestly is. In any other loine of work, when business is bad, everyone takes a hit. People get let go, something about which tenured professors do not worry.
Moreover, tuition figures should be set at actual cost, not foisted off on the public, which gets no benefit whatsoever from Little Junior spending four years studying Renaissance Literature.
The professors I know have a tough time bringing benefit to their students, inasmuch as they are forced to file countless reports; waste endless hours seeking approval for trivial changes in lesson plans, which have to be filed in elaborate and pointless detail; waste more time in ‘self-evaluations’ and other pointless, modern, PC crap, and all of it just to give an army of college bureaucrats some way to justify the expense of hiring those bureaucrats, keeping them on, and wasting time and money that would be far better spent elsewhere.
Communism has not only infested our government, it’s weighting down and screwing up America’s colleges, too. You want to keep paying professors top salaries? Get rid of the commissars and bureaucrats!
If Walker is the nominee then watch the Democrats paint him as anti-education. No degree. Cutting funding to schools. Anti-teacher. Doesn’t believe in global warming or evolution. The press will eat it up.
Someone should tell the Wisconsin legislature then. They spend about 31% - Link
Where did you get the graphic?
My oldest son is starting college this coming fall. I thank God he scored a scholarship tuition because of his ACT score. The room and board itself is stretching our budget to the point of breaking.
I cannot imagine paying Tuition AND room and board for him this coming fall. We'd be broke.
Less free money for leftist loons is unequivocally a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.