Colleges in the United States are in an arms race. Each year they are spending more and more money to improve their facilities, faculty, and equipment. Why? So they can be the best. So they can offer their students the newest and best resources.
What also comes along with being the best? High college
rankings.
 |
The Price Of College Tuition, In 1 Graphic (Source) |
Every year U.S. News publishes college rankings and there is
a general trend that when a college receives higher rankings, they have an
increase in the amount of individuals that want to attend the school.
But these high rankings come hand in hand with higher
tuition prices for students. The price of colleges has risen quite a bit over
the last few years.
This trend of colleges spending more money and therefore
students spending more money poses a question: Does this price increase
correspond to an increase in receiving a better education?
The answer is yes. With a higher price comes a higher payoff. The United States has one of the highest college price tags in the world, but also has the highest payoff benefit.
 |
College Costs More In America, But The Payoff Is Bigger (Source) |
Is it possible for the quality of education in the United States to continue to rise but the price stay more finically attainable?
Right now President Obama is trying to make this change by changing the criteria for high college rankings.
President Obama just finished his education themed
bus tour. During this tour he emphasized the need for his College Affordability Plan. This plan emphasizes ranking colleges based on those that are actually
graduating students and charging the students a fair price. Encouraging colleges to keep their prices low.
The President says, “Colleges
that keep their tuition down and are providing high-quality education are the
ones that are going to see their taxpayer funding go up. It is time to stop
subsidizing schools that are not producing good results and reward schools that
deliver for American students and our future.”
In changing the criteria on which colleges are ranked (with the incentive of more government aid) hopefully will encourage colleges to maintain education quality by different means other than just spending more and more money while still maintaining education quality.
In changing the criteria on which colleges are ranked (with the incentive of more government aid) hopefully will encourage colleges to maintain education quality by different means other than just spending more and more money while still maintaining education quality.
As a current college student, I am all for lowering tuition. I completely agree with your argument. I can only wonder, at what cost will colleges be able to lower tuition while still upholding the best education. Would this be the loss of college athletics? A stop in replacing outdated technology with new supplies? An end to all school clubs and organizations (Student Councils, service groups, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteI really would not want to lose any of these services, but if the government was offering tax breaks to schools that spend less money on “unimportant” things, then what’s stopping them? I personally believe that these are all huge factors in bettering my education. Being more well-rounded.
What if the college experience were to evolve into something much worse rather than better.
Would it really be worth the saved money on tuition?
I completely agree with you. Your concern about the college experience getting worse is a valid one. While writing this blog post one of my main concerns was maintaining quality education while decreasing the cost. I actually found a lot of information about how this can be done (information I am planning on putting in my full paper). Some people think that instead of colleges competing against each other they can work together, sharing the cost.That way students can have access to the newest and best technologies, etc.
DeleteI am not saying this is absolutely going to work, but I thought it was a very interesting idea. I will also continue researching to see if any other solutions to this problem have been thought up. Thank you for your comments!
I think it’s such an interesting idea that ranking systems could influence college tuition rates. Do you know who ranks these colleges? Because Obama is trying to change these ranking systems, I would assume that the government has some part in it, but it might also be conducted by an outside organization. I always feel so blessed to go to BYU where the tuition rates are still low but the quality of education is excellent. I wonder though, is it really possible for schools other than BYU, which is funded by the church in addition to student tuition, to keep up high educational standards without spending more money? As you mentioned, good facilities, faculty, and equipment cost money. I’ll have to look more into Obama’s plan to see how he hopes to determine which colleges will get federal aid.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple organizations that rank colleges but the one that I talk about in my article is from US News (I created a link in the article if you want to take a look at the site more). So, it is not run by the government. From what I understood from Obama's plan is that by changing how colleges gets money from the government, the ranking system will adjust itself. The government will create new guidelines for those who it thinks deserves the money (colleges that give a great education for a low cost) and therefore, the ranking system (systems that are used by organizations like US New) will adjust itself to match the governments guidelines.
DeleteYour concern about other colleges being able to provide a quality education like BYU's without funding from a source like the church is a valid one. From the research I have done on this topic, it appears that many of the top colleges get a lot of funding from the government and tuition subsidization from the government and other sources. The graph I have in my article shows this to some degree. For example, BYU's tuition is cut in half with the use of tithing funds if the student is a member of the church. For many other students attending other schools, there tuition and cost to attend school is almost cut in half as well from other funding (sticker price vs net price graph). But those cut in price still aren't quite as low as BYU's.
In regards to choosing a college, I have heard so many people say “you pay for the name.” Obviously, schools like Harvard and Princeton have the high rankings they do for a reason, which can be displayed in the output accomplished by the students, but I am still curious to see truly how much of that output is a direct result of the higher amount of money these students paid for tuition. I wonder if government involvement would really be an effective way to determine whether colleges are currently at equilibrium in this aspect, or if would merely restrict high prices of tuition before considering any benefits they might have for the school as a whole. Do you think government regulation is the best route? How would you propose the ranking system better reflect educational quality?
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your comments. Your questions are good ones.
DeleteI do not think that government regulation is the best route, but I am not sure what a better one would be. It would have to involve something giving colleges the motivation to be innovative and efficient in how they are run and teach their students. Right now there is nothing making colleges care about this. Students are complaining about prices but still choosing to attend and going into massive amounts of debt.
I think that all depends on how people want to define what a "quality education" is. If a quality education is measured on how much money a person will make in a future career, then I think the rankings should be based more on colleges with higher amounts of graduates with higher paying jobs and lower amounts of graduates with large amounts of debt. But if a quality education is measured on how well a person is able to be a mature, rational, logical, problem solving thinker, I am not sure how to go about ranking schools on that.
The links you posted were very helpful and I tried to gather all the pertinent information I could from them as I prepared this response. I'm all for lower tuition costs; every semester I grumble when I have to pay more than the previous semester, but there is something dangerous I see in Obama's plan. According to his quote, “Colleges that keep their tuition down and are providing high-quality education are the ones that are going to see their taxpayer funding go up." Taxpayer funding is what is going to cover the decrease in tuition according to Obama's plan. What that means to me is maybe public colleges’ tuition (which excludes BYU) drops a few thousand dollars a semester, but I will be paying that money for everyone else to have lower tuition costs for the rest of my life in increased taxes. According to this reasoning, costs aren't decreasing; the sources of funding are shifting. Is this really what we want?
ReplyDeleteYou have a really good point, one that I had not thought through all the way.
DeleteI guess after doing all the research and writing this blog post, I am not sure government regulation is possibly the best way to go. But I am sure that something needs to be done before the price of college is so high that it is just silly. I am not sure though what other kind of program or institution would be able to force colleges into caring about lowering costs, unless people just stop going to college because they are so pricy. Right now, they have no motivation to be more innovative or efficient.