Marvelous! I know this is a serious subject, but I chuckled at least once per paragraph.
I can maybe say something intelligible about price. Tuition has risen [apparently it has stopped rising recently] because the demand is there. When I was an older child, my factory worker father uttered that there's too much money around! This was before I started studying economics, but I immediately thought he was bonkers. But like Huck Finn's father, mine grew in wisdom as I aged.
On the supply side, I came across Bowen’s Laws:
1. The dominant goals of institutions are educational excellence, prestige, and influence.
2. In quest of excellence, prestige, and influence, there is virtually no limit to the amount of
money an institution could spend for seemingly fruitful educational ends.
3. Each institution raises all the money it can.
4. Each institution spends all it raises.
5. The cumulative effect of the preceding four laws is toward ever-increasing expenditure.
As for the other elephant in the room, administrative bloat, the money is there by all of the above, but that would best be for another comment.
Nevertheless, my feeling -- I can't prove this -- is that the heyday of higher education as country club is behind us. My guess is that it'll stay for the filthy rich, but no one else.
6. Since colleges now have a larger income existing ones expand, new ones are founded, supply increases, and competition pushes tuition back down. Many students would prefer an adequate education for ten thousand a year to a gold plated one for thirty.
Somehow the value of the gold-plated ones keep getting inflated. A high school teacher tried to tell us that it didn't matter much where we went, but no one believes that. I've heard that many colleges in rural areas have collapsed or are collapsing. This will undoubtedly accelerate. The Grumpy Economist has something to say on this today: "Cochrane explains how cheap federal borrowing expanded credit, sending student loans sharply higher while tuition climbed alongside it. As repayment rules weakened and forgiveness programs expanded, a system once expected to generate returns for taxpayers evolved into one producing hundreds of billions of dollars in federal losses." https://tinyurl.com/grumpy-tuition
New colleges are not founded. The biggest barrier to entry is you gotta be a going concern before you can get accredited. Without accreditation, it's hard to become a going concern. Without accreditation, you can't get government money, directly -- Pell grants -- or indirectly -- from student loans.
The wave of for profit foundings was a flash in the pan. They were accredited! The customers were veterans who had the dedicated government money to pay tuition. Who was chosen to study had no relationship with ability. Now they are a shadow of themselves. I put that up to government failure, not market failure.
Get rid of accreditors. It takes a couple of hundred years for an institution to build a reputation on its own. The sooner we get started, the better.
On administrative bloat, here are a few thoughts on why some people want to become college administrators and why there is demand for them. The first is for amusement, but it's nonetheless true:
[Robert] Conquest's Third Law of Politics [1980’s]: The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. [Recall MI6 actually was!]
In turn, that is explained by O'Sullivan's First Law [1989]: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. "I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world."
At which point Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy [1911] takes over. All organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, or political strategists for the organization. This leadership class, rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures.
The administrators are financed because there's too much money around and because of Bowen's Law. They are demanded on account of Michels' Iron Law. The leadership class makes the contact to government and the politicians -- the financiers -- and the cartels called accreditors.
Actual teachers are not so important. This means the adjuncting class, which works cheap, is used a lot.
I like all your points, but I think the main one is that it's a price the customers will bear. Somehow the value of college seems way off the charts and people are willing to pay almost anything for it, especially when tuition assistance is plentiful. When I was at USC, I heard that 75% of students were on scholarships. Great post though!
I am of your generation. In our day we frequently found mates in college. Many couples married shortly after graduation. Not so much any more. Median age of first marriage is 29 for women and 31 for men. I doubt if many of those are to college sweethearts.
That is a good point, although not quite so strong. My wife and I met in college but didn't start dating until years later when we happened to live in the same city and were the only other person our age we knew. Don't ask me how old we were when we married; she might see this and get angry, but it was mid-late 20's.
As a male, thinking back to my premarital days, I find it hard to believe that the fear of these "feminist" policies would have much of an effect on the willingness of males to engage in sexual activity with attractive females. And if the limiting factor for sex is the willingness of females, and if these policies make females more willing, these policies might, on the whole, result in more sex rather than less.
I think there are more pertinent factors for the decline in sexual relationships among college aged adults. That would include the way dating apps are rigged against the majority of men, porn addiction and technology addiction more broadly, and the ridiculous and arbitrary Gen Z dating conventions that Richard Hanania and others have written about. Punitive and invasive sex policies on campus falls more on the increasingly long list of ways the education system has become stacked against young males.
Marvelous! I know this is a serious subject, but I chuckled at least once per paragraph.
I can maybe say something intelligible about price. Tuition has risen [apparently it has stopped rising recently] because the demand is there. When I was an older child, my factory worker father uttered that there's too much money around! This was before I started studying economics, but I immediately thought he was bonkers. But like Huck Finn's father, mine grew in wisdom as I aged.
On the supply side, I came across Bowen’s Laws:
1. The dominant goals of institutions are educational excellence, prestige, and influence.
2. In quest of excellence, prestige, and influence, there is virtually no limit to the amount of
money an institution could spend for seemingly fruitful educational ends.
3. Each institution raises all the money it can.
4. Each institution spends all it raises.
5. The cumulative effect of the preceding four laws is toward ever-increasing expenditure.
As for the other elephant in the room, administrative bloat, the money is there by all of the above, but that would best be for another comment.
Nevertheless, my feeling -- I can't prove this -- is that the heyday of higher education as country club is behind us. My guess is that it'll stay for the filthy rich, but no one else.
6. Since colleges now have a larger income existing ones expand, new ones are founded, supply increases, and competition pushes tuition back down. Many students would prefer an adequate education for ten thousand a year to a gold plated one for thirty.
Why doesn't that happen?
Somehow the value of the gold-plated ones keep getting inflated. A high school teacher tried to tell us that it didn't matter much where we went, but no one believes that. I've heard that many colleges in rural areas have collapsed or are collapsing. This will undoubtedly accelerate. The Grumpy Economist has something to say on this today: "Cochrane explains how cheap federal borrowing expanded credit, sending student loans sharply higher while tuition climbed alongside it. As repayment rules weakened and forgiveness programs expanded, a system once expected to generate returns for taxpayers evolved into one producing hundreds of billions of dollars in federal losses." https://tinyurl.com/grumpy-tuition
New colleges are not founded. The biggest barrier to entry is you gotta be a going concern before you can get accredited. Without accreditation, it's hard to become a going concern. Without accreditation, you can't get government money, directly -- Pell grants -- or indirectly -- from student loans.
The wave of for profit foundings was a flash in the pan. They were accredited! The customers were veterans who had the dedicated government money to pay tuition. Who was chosen to study had no relationship with ability. Now they are a shadow of themselves. I put that up to government failure, not market failure.
Get rid of accreditors. It takes a couple of hundred years for an institution to build a reputation on its own. The sooner we get started, the better.
Make student loans private
Absolutely! Commercial terms, which include bankruptcy.
On administrative bloat, here are a few thoughts on why some people want to become college administrators and why there is demand for them. The first is for amusement, but it's nonetheless true:
[Robert] Conquest's Third Law of Politics [1980’s]: The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. [Recall MI6 actually was!]
In turn, that is explained by O'Sullivan's First Law [1989]: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. "I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world."
At which point Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy [1911] takes over. All organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, or political strategists for the organization. This leadership class, rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures.
The administrators are financed because there's too much money around and because of Bowen's Law. They are demanded on account of Michels' Iron Law. The leadership class makes the contact to government and the politicians -- the financiers -- and the cartels called accreditors.
Actual teachers are not so important. This means the adjuncting class, which works cheap, is used a lot.
Prof. Friedman - Considering opportunity costs, has your child found a superior alternative to these luxury learning environments?
The increased ratio of admins to students must be due at least in part to increased govt reporting requirements.
I like all your points, but I think the main one is that it's a price the customers will bear. Somehow the value of college seems way off the charts and people are willing to pay almost anything for it, especially when tuition assistance is plentiful. When I was at USC, I heard that 75% of students were on scholarships. Great post though!
I am of your generation. In our day we frequently found mates in college. Many couples married shortly after graduation. Not so much any more. Median age of first marriage is 29 for women and 31 for men. I doubt if many of those are to college sweethearts.
That is a good point, although not quite so strong. My wife and I met in college but didn't start dating until years later when we happened to live in the same city and were the only other person our age we knew. Don't ask me how old we were when we married; she might see this and get angry, but it was mid-late 20's.
As a male, thinking back to my premarital days, I find it hard to believe that the fear of these "feminist" policies would have much of an effect on the willingness of males to engage in sexual activity with attractive females. And if the limiting factor for sex is the willingness of females, and if these policies make females more willing, these policies might, on the whole, result in more sex rather than less.
I think there are more pertinent factors for the decline in sexual relationships among college aged adults. That would include the way dating apps are rigged against the majority of men, porn addiction and technology addiction more broadly, and the ridiculous and arbitrary Gen Z dating conventions that Richard Hanania and others have written about. Punitive and invasive sex policies on campus falls more on the increasingly long list of ways the education system has become stacked against young males.
Parietal rules?
See! Wimps.
Parietal rules were the rules regulating women visiting male dorm rooms — or, I assume, men visiting women's.
Google's AI tells me that "They are designed to maintain a quiet, academic environment, ensure safety, and manage noise."
That might have been part of their purpose.