One of the things that annoyed me about state Representatives Deb Wallace and Glenn Anderson’s interview regarding higher education funding was their instant dismissal of proposals to move to a high tuition/high financial aid model.
At least Anderson was ideologically honest, objecting to wealthy families paying full fare by saying that “we’re not a class society.” Okay. Wrong. But fair enough.
Wallace on the other hand, brushed off the suggestion by saying that the math doesn’t work… implying that the state would have to come up with more financial aid dollars to offset the higher tuition costs, and that ultimately it would make college less affordable for low and middle income families.
First of all, that’s just plain dumb. Let’s say you’re a low to middle income student currently receiving financial aid in the form of $3,000 in grants, and the UW suddenly jacks up its $6,800/year in tuition and fees to $17,800. Now let’s say the UW (ie, the state) increases your grant by another $11,000 to offset the hike. How much extra money did this cost the state? Zilch. You were paying $3,800/year and you’re still paying $3,800. It’s a zero sum game.
But if you’re a student from a wealthy family, who does not need financial aid, and thus does not qualify for it, you’re suddenly paying an extra $11,000 into the system… money that can be spent to increase the quality of education at the UW, or expand the number of seats, or even lower the costs for truly needy students.
That’s how this model works, and at many of our nation’s most prestigious private universities, it generally works damn well.
For example, I just received an email to alumni from University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann, in which she explains how the economic downturn has impacted the university’s finances, and what it is doing to lessen the impact on students. In fact, despite its endowment suffering a 19-percent loss over the previous six months…
Given the new economic hardships many Americans are facing, I want to focus on the steps we are taking to strengthen Penn’s commitment to access. We can reassure prospective and current students alike that our financial aid packages will continue to meet the full need of every Penn undergraduate. We are moving forward to substitute grants for loans for all undergraduate financial aid packages beginning in September 2009. As previously outlined, typical students from families with income less than $40,000 will pay no tuition, fees, room or board. Students from typical families with incomes less than $90,000 will pay no tuition and fees. All undergraduates eligible for financial aid will receive grants rather than loans in their aid packages.
Tuition and fees at Penn for the 2008-09 academic year come to a stunning $37,526, compared to only $6,800 for in-state students at the UW. And yet, students from families with incomes less than $90,000 will typically pay no tuition and fees at all.
As you can see, for those who pay full fare, the UW would be an absolute bargain when compared to much pricier private schools, even if tuition were to rise to $17,800. That’s why the university can still attract so many students paying the $23,000 out-of-state costs. Yet for those students coming from families on the middle and lower end of the income scale… well… not so much. The problem is, we’re subsidizing all of our students, instead of just those who need it, while those supposedly elitist Ivy League schools come across as downright socialist.
So don’t tell me the math doesn’t work. The math works damn well at Penn, and hundreds of other schools. On this particular issue, it’s our legislature that isn’t working.
Heck, with all the money Harvard has in its endowment funds it could buy a country or two. Maybe they’d be willing to help pay for tuitions at the U-Dub??
Maybe not…
Goldy,
Look on the bright side: if those students can’t get degrees, it makes those currently with degrees more valuable and probably those with degrees can get higher salaries and better jobs.
Glenn Anderson is an ass. Even so, I would rather see tuition go up than access go down. Hand in hand with this though, you would have to up the access to and level of financial aid while also backfilling the GET program so it stays solvent. By the time you do all of the right things along with exceeding the year to year tuition increase limit, you really don’t gain that much.
But then, where will the money come from? Should we close prisons and release all the non violent folks behind bars? What would this do to parole case loads that are already high?
Do you charge $500 for a fishing license and $2,000 for an elk tag? How would that effect the rural economy and the sporting goods business?
Do you up the sales tax by five cents amplifying our regressive tax structure in hard times? Their are no easy answers but once even the hard cuts are made we will still be Five billion in the red and another five cents won’t even fill that gap.
Particle Man @3,
The impact on GET is the only valid argument I’ve seen thus far, though other states have managed to deal with similar shifts from flat subsidy to financial aid. As much as I’m a fan of GET (I’m happily invested in it) it would be a shame to allow this program to scuttle needed reforms that would benefit many more students.
@1 “Heck, with all the money Harvard has in its endowment funds”
Still, Harvard doesn’t have quite as much money as they used to have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....76023.html
Hey, Goldy, whatever happened to your new and improved comment section? Glitches?
Goldy, some things a state just should not and cannot do and going back on a guarantee is one of them. And yes, I am invested in GET. This is the one thing that has not gone to hell over the past six months. Toughest money we ever saved but also the best investment.
Well then, Goldy; feel free to pack up and move back to Pennsylvania. We’ll even help you pack.
@8 Speak of remedial and look who shows up. Remedial Mark, the BIAW lapdog.
@9 Let’s help him pack and send him back to wherever he came from. Naaah … wait … forget about helping him pack, let’s just push him into a box, tape it shut, and call UPS Pickup. Anybody know where he came from?
Goldy wrote:
Check out the other thread and didn’t Puddy say Anderson’s constituents thought he was level headed just following the “leader”?
Hey Particle Man, Wallace is a moron! Somehow your ideology blinds you to the facts.
I’m from WA., sorry douche-bags. And bring it on old man….ahem, I mean Roger “O.C.D.” Rodent. I did hear that second foot of yours was slightly poking into the grave; please have someone notify me when that is complete so I can stick a fork in you and make sure you’re done. And Stevie-boy, with his beastiality obsession is hardly one to use the word “lap-dog”. :) Now that all the negativity is out, goodnight gentlemen.
Goldy gets an A for his math.
Actually he does better than that because the increase would presumably also cover out of state students.
Of course if we really wanted to make money we would demolish Husky Stadium, move the SeaHuskers to SeaHawker stadium, build an awesome high rise condo complex and live off the rent.
Particle Man @7,
Oh, the state can’t renege on GET… they’d have to backfill it to meet the obligations of the existing account holders. That’s a real expense that would have to be dealt with.
Goldy,
State Sen. Ken Jacobsen has brought up this idea a number of times in the past. The first time I remember was during the early 90’s recession.
You really should have a word with him about it if you can.
Wealthy families (unconstrained by tuition concerns) tend not to send their children to state universities.
So, this proposal would wind up targeting the middle class, not the wealthy, pushing a lot of people who cannot qualify for need-based financial aid but also cannot pay the dramatically escalated tuition rates you’re advocating out of the system entirely.
That doesn’t do anything to help the educational system’s financial woes (actually, it makes them worse, since the wealthy will have more incentive to go private…why pay elite tuition rates for a non-elite education?…and the middle class will be forced out, leaving only the heavily subsidized students as a majority of the population).
Not only that, it basically piles on to the middle class, who are already so squeezed that they’re mostly moving into downward-mobility mode.
@16 .. It would be very interesting to see the accounting.
Another way of looking at Goldy’s idea is to note that elite private schools are all a lot smaller than elite public schools. Why is this? One reason may be that the resources of the elite private schools are being used more fficiently ebcause of tuition. Few kids choose to put up with MIT of they don’t want to aim very high. In contrast the pool at UW/WSU is much bigger.
My belief, w/o data, is that the pool that needs UW/WSU resources is a lot smaller than the current student body and that many of these kids would be as well or better served at less expensive state colleges.