Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Playing tag with tuition

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Will the governor's scholarships really make college more affordable?

That's the theory, of course. Gov. Bill Ritter is taking a plan to the ballot that would raise taxes on the energy industry in order to create a brand new entitlement program for two-thirds of Colorado's in-state undergraduates.

If you met the family-income guidelines, you'd qualify for a partial scholarship to help offset tuition.

It's possible, of course, that Ritter's scheme will work as planned. It is also possible - and I would say likely - that it won't work as planned because colleges and universities will change their behavior as a result of the new subsidies.

With some of the pressure off their most economically stressed consumers, higher education officials will feel emboldened to hike tuition at a faster rate than otherwise. Lawmakers and the governor will have less reason to resist them. The result: Within a few years the students with new scholarships could end up paying almost as much as they would have anyway to attend a state school; the other third of students would be paying a whole lot more than they would have; and the only actual winners would be the schools themselves.

It's not as if we haven't seen this film before. When federal college aid surges, for example, tuition at colleges and universities tends to rise at a suspiciously rapid clip, too. "As loan aid increases," writes Andrew Gillen of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, "so does tuition at four-year schools, especially public schools. . . ." The latest example of this phenomenon: "Federal loan aid began increasing rapidly in 2001 and roughly plateaued in real dollars from 2004 to 2006. . . . Not surprisingly, tuition at public schools started increasing rapidly around 2001, as well."

Higher ed officials in Colorado already argue that their tuition is lower than it should be compared to their "peer institutions" in other states. College remains a bargain, they say, and those who can pay more should do so.

Under Ritter's plan, we'll have what amounts to an official definition of those who should pay more: the roughly one-third of Colorado families excluded from the new entitlement.

More for less

When tuition rises much faster than inflation, at least it supports ever-improving classroom instruction, right?

What are you, some sort of dreamy idealist?

"Since 1998, instructional spending in both public and private institutions [of higher education] grew more slowly than nearly all other spending areas, and it also grew more slowly than in the prior decade."

So says a report issued last month by the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability.

Lest you harbor suspicions, the Delta Project is hardly some revolutionary outfit staffed by anti-intellectual riffraff. In fact, its board includes such establishment luminaries as the president emeritus of the American Council on Education, the president of the Education Trust and the president of the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities.

So where has the new revenue disproportionately gone? To financial aid (are we beginning to notice a pattern involving taking more from Peter to give more to Paul?) of course, but also to research, outreach and other university functions.

"Students at public institutions are paying for a higher proportion of costs, but their money is not translating into a higher level of service," according to the study.

It seems not everything in life has a silver lining after all.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • May 7, 2008

    8:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    boulderCitizen writes:

    interesting take

  • May 7, 2008

    1:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    Yes, interesting points.

    Meanwhile, these same universities crying poor are sitting on multibillion-dollar endowments. And they are somehow able to get gigantic private donations for stadiums, the most critical instruments of learning!

  • May 7, 2008

    1:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    a_watcher writes:

    Fourty years ago I graduated from a state insitution in another state. Student loans were unknown. It was possible to work one's way through school.

    It cost me $56/quarter to attend college. It would have been $40, but I had to pay for science labs.

    As soon as the student loan/student scholarship program came into existance, tuition at that school jumped to about $6500 a year.

    VC makes a great point, dead on.

  • May 8, 2008

    1:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    socrates writes:

    I would disagree - VC misses the point. Tuition will go up if we help low and middle income kids be able to afford college? What about the increases we've already had? Almost 10% at CU this year? The past two years have had similar increases. Tuition not only will go up - it IS going up, at a rapid rate.

    Will the scholarships make college more affordable for average kids - of course! You're "what if" scenarios are already happening - the increases in tuition aren't tied to scholarships, they're happening without them.

    Will the colleges then increase tuition even more with the scholarships? Not if the Legislature restricts them they won't. Colleges can only raise tuition to the extent they are allowed to spend the money they raise. That spending authority resides in the Legislature.

    This is an important measure that the people of Colorado would be wise to pass. Without it those "illiterate peasants" Doug Bruce likes to talk about will be our own kids.