How Colleges Have Made Students Poorer and Undereducated

There is general agreement among higher education observers and reformers that tuition and fees at public universities have increased at an unsustainable pace. It’s equally uncontroversial to note that financial aid hasn’t kept up with unrelenting tuition increases, leaving students in the lurch.

In his new book, “The Impoverishment of the American College Student,” James V. Koch lays out exactly how bad it has been—and how we got to this point. The book is extremely detailed and heavy on data. Koch brings together the latest and most relevant academic research on college costs. It’s a welcome new tool to help make informed policy decisions that address the real problem of college costs.

Koch starts by describing the dismal landscape of college costs. He cites some alarming statistics. Published tuition and fees for in-state students increased from $7,470 in 1997-1998 to $20,770 in 2017-2018. From June 2000 to June 2016, the increase was 184 percent—almost double the increase in the cost of medical care.

Those increases in tuition and fees have far outpaced increases in wages, making it more difficult for low-income and middle-income families to afford college. (I think “impoverishment” is perhaps too strong a word, but the problem is certainly a serious one.)

Koch uses the sad mismatch between the cost of college and families’ resources to segue into an examination of price discrimination, how student loans work, and universities’ reliance on out-of-state students to bolster their revenues. His analysis underlines the point that while university finances are messy (and vary considerably between institutions) current trends are not sustainable.

Koch meticulously catalogs the many hypothesized explanations for ever-increasing tuition, including those that are often cited by university administrators and higher ed “insiders.” Higher education is labor-intensive, they say. States have divested of public colleges and universities. Higher education can’t increase productivity with technology in the same way that other businesses do. What those explanations have in common is that they excuse colleges themselves from addressing the problem. Ever-increasing tuition is beyond their control.

Koch gives these explanations the attention they merit, examines the evidence, and admits there is some truth to these familiar justifications for ever-increasing costs. But he is quick to note that they account for only a small part of the story. And he isn’t afraid to lay blame where it belongs: primarily at the feet of the institutions themselves.

He says, forthrightly, that “[t]oo many institutions of higher education have become grasping enterprises that operate primarily to further the interests of faculty and administrators…rather than those of students and citizens.” Tuition increases, for example, are a choice. Faculty and administrators keep demanding larger budgets, trustees vote for them, and students pay the price.

Some of the ways in which universities enrich themselves are easy to see and Koch highlights them in his analysis: an amenities “arms race,” rapid administrative growth, curricular bloat, and almost ubiquitous mission creep.

He dedicates an entire chapter to illustrating how universities use price discrimination to produce net revenues in excess of what they need for student aid. The availability of generous federal financial aid, although well-intentioned, makes this enrichment easier to accomplish.

His chapter on the competing theories of William Baumol and Howard Bowen is particularly enlightening. Put succinctly, Bowen’s law posits that, in the pursuit of prestige, universities raise as much money as they can from as many sources as they can—including tuition—and then have an incentive to spend it all. Baumol’s cost disease explains that in professions where there are no (or low) increases in labor productivity (like teaching), salaries will increase in response to rising salaries elsewhere in the labor market. In the end, he concludes that Bowen’s law explains more than Baumol’s cost disease.

Koch’s insistence that universities shoulder considerable blame for soaring prices might come as a surprise since Koch himself was a college president for many years. He is the Board of Visitors Professor of Economics emeritus and president emeritus of Old Dominion University in Virginia. He also served as president of the University of Montana for four years.

But he is also part of a new effort to make college more affordable, especially for undergraduate students. He is the chairman of Partners for College Affordability and Public Trust, which wants to make “high-quality, affordable college education a reality for all Americans.” They worked in Virginia to promote a tuition freeze at public universities.

And in the last chapter of his book, Koch offers some other modest solutions to the problem of increasing costs, but warns, “it is not clear that many viable, politically acceptable solutions exist.” There are a few ideas he thinks show promise. He suggests that governing boards be restructured and strengthened and that board members be well-trained. Like other reformers, Koch recommends more transparency in university spending. And he wants the actions of public university foundations to be transparent and easily accessible.

He is skeptical of using the legislature to rein in costs, saying, “new laws and rules can work, but in most cases only if boards, presidents, and administrators want them to work.” He warns that wily administrators will surely subvert any new laws they don’t like.

Because of this sober and practical view of higher education, Koch’s new book and the work he’s doing with Partners are valuable additions to the higher education policy discussion. More former college presidents should follow Koch’s example.

SOURCE 





Leftist Activism Is A Requirement Of New Elementary School Curriculum

Last week we discussed the dangers of the new elementary school "Racial Literacy Curriculum" that is being instituted in Grades K-8 in various schools spanning eight states. This week, we will examine the activism requirements of this curriculum.

Beginning in Grade 3, the Pollyanna "Racial Literacy Curriculum" asks students to become activists in order to achieve leftist goals. The 3rd Grade chapter is entitled "Stories of Activism – How One Voice Can Change a Community." The expected result is for students to understand "how we can be agents of communal, social, political, and environmental change."

Does an 8-year-old need to decide on activism at such a young age? What if a student doesn't agree with being an "agent" of "communal, social, political, and environmental change"? Does the student fail? Does a conservative or capitalist or individualist student learn that his/her ideas are inherently wrong because the curriculum says so? What kind of negligent school puts such pressure on young children?

Most importantly, what is the opportunity cost of this curriculum? Instead of bettering the individual student through mathematics or science lessons, precious time is wasted on leftist conditioning.

We are already seeing the results of older students conditioned by leftist politics. Oregon students walked out of class to protest the right of a Chick-fil-A food truck to sell on campus. These students felt "unsafe" by the Christian politics of the company behind the food truck. School officials indulged them and stated that they will consider "all potential safety concerns. That includes bullying or cyberbullying" — as if Christian political positions are a type of unsafe harassment or bullying.

But Pollyanna takes leftist activism to new heights, fabricating an image of a racist America that children are taught to rebel against.

In Grade 4, students are programmed with "the ability to critique and dispel Eurocentric perspectives that favor a myopic appearance of race." In translation, the indisputable fact that European countries contributed most to the development of civilization as we know it — from engineering to medicine to architecture to law — is taught as racist history because Europeans had white skin. The activism learned in Grade 3 is used to critique the exceptional accomplishments of Europeans in Grade 4. Quite honestly, this is indeed the most racist chapter of the curriculum, teaching students to minimize the achievements of whites based on their skin color.

By Grade 8, after nine years of acute indoctrination, the children are ready to fight on behalf of leftists in America. "[S]tudents will set commitments for rectifying current social ills, such as learning and planning how to carry out anti-racist activism and/or social advocacy in their communities and/or to improve their everyday lives." The 8th Grade chapter is entitled "Racism as a Primary 'Institution' of the U.S. – How We May Combat Systemic Inequality."

Recall the history surrounding the cessation of the horrors of slavery, segregation, and racism in the United States. Who stopped it? White Americans, the same people who this curriculum colors as evil. The Civil War was primarily fought by white Americans, and they fought side-by-side with black Americans. White Americans observed the evils of slavery and couldn't bear the inequity of segregation. White people, the largest demographic at the time, chose to live in equality with countrymen of all colors. But their sacrifice for freedom is effaced by the "Racism as a Primary 'Institution' of the U.S." lesson plans.

More enraging, "social advocacy" of the leftist politics shoved down these children's throats is a scholastic goal of this curriculum. "Anti-racist activism" of this made-up "systematic American racism" is what our children must work towards. An academic goal! Take a moment to pause and ponder on the meaning of this end-goal.

Greta Thunberg's personality is a model for such a curriculum. She skips school, foregoing the opportunity cost of self-betterment, for the betterment of a liberal lie. Indeed, a socialist, selfless act. This is a child that is hailed by leftists as ideal. This is a child that leftists seek to replicate. After ingraining emotional "America is Racist" propaganda into our children, we can expect more and more Greta-like kids to skip school and carry out leftist dirty work, simply concentrating on the subject of race after Pollyanna.

Questions must be asked of the ethical standard of schools that allow activism in lieu of education and leftist curriculum in place of regular social studies. Do the administrators favor political activism over scholarship? Do these educators drink the Kool-Aid and believe that a classic curriculum is racist?

Just a month ago, Seattle public schools declared math racist. The pure objectivity of mathematics, the curriculum that deals with figures, not people, was deemed inconceivably racist. Those schools are now teaching social justice instead of math.

Is the Scientific Revolution racist? Is the Industrial Revolution racist? How about the Agricultural Revolution? Those were all in Europe. Remember how evil "Eurocentric" studies can be.

What value will our children add to society after undergoing leftist brainwashing in elementary school, where they are most vulnerable to suggestion? Which medicines will they invent to save lives? Will they engineer? Will they build? No. You need math for that. But will they fight on behalf of the unoppressed oppressed? Oh, yes, that they will do. Will they shun white races and the gifts to humanity that European races have given us? Apparently. After all, they will need to — in order to pass the 4th Grade.

What will happen in 24 years, in 2043, when white races are officially a minority group in the United States?

SOURCE 






Children who start school later gain advantage, new Australian study shows (?)

The paper underlying this report does not yet appear to be online but the Centre seems very Leftist so the research is unlikely to be very rigorous.

Even the report below does however reveal a lack of rigour.  It is apparently based on the nonsensical "all men are equal" dogma.  No attempt is made to take account of student IQ. High IQ students have often been shown to thrive when enrolled early and the usual squawk about their social fitness has been shown to be a snark.  Smart kids are in general better socially as well as academically

So the study tells us nothing certain.  There were presumably a number of low IQ students in the sample who would benefit from a late start.  So the finding of an overall benefit from a late start could be entirely a product of the low IQ element in the sample.  How students of around average IQ fare is simply not addressed


Children who are held back and start school later than their peers gain an advantage that is still felt up to six decades later, a new study shows.

They are more self-confident, resilient, competitive and trusting, which tends to be associated with economic success.

The analysis of 1007 adults aged between 24 and 60 illustrates the “potential adverse effect of school entry rules,” lead author Lionel Page from the University of Technology, Sydney said.

“Our findings indicate that school entry rules influence the formation of behavioural traits, creating long-lasting disparities between individuals born on different sides of the cut-off date,” he said.

School starting ages vary between Australian states. In Victoria, children starting school must turn five by April 30 in the year they start school, whereas in Queensland and Western Australia the cut-off is June 30. In South Australia,, they must be five by May 1 and in Tasmania they must be five by January 1.

Dr Page said the study’s findings suggested the relative age at school had an impact on people’s success in adulthood.

“We find that participants who were relatively old in school exhibit higher self-confidence about their performance at an effort task compared to those who were relatively young,” he said.

“Moreover, they declare being more tolerant to risk in a range of real-life situations and trusting of other people in social interactions.

“Taken together, this set of results offers important insights on the long-term effects of relative age at school on behavioural traits.”

The new study was published by the Life Course Centre, a joint research project between the federal government and the University of Queensland, the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne and the University of Western Australia.

It involved adults from Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

The findings come as a UNSW study found a quarter of students are held back so they start school when turning six, not when they turn five.

SOURCE