The True Cost of Higher Education
Recently the George Washington University surpassed $50,000 per year for undergraduate tuition, making the DC school the nation's most expensive. A cover story in the Washington City Paper attributed the hefty price tag to GW's lavish spending on new facilities and "student life":
Now, GW wholeheartedly embraces the maxim that you need to spend money to make money—and to rise in the all-important U.S. News rankings. “That should be No. 1 on the list of anyone at a university, and you do whatever it takes,” says Nicole Capp, president of the Student Association, which governs all student groups at GW. “Paying money for extra professors, having some more adjunct professors…having Division I teams that are doing spectacular—whatever it takes to build the prestige of the university and provide a better education, you do it.”Capp's Student Association is a big believer in spending money--so much so that the SA asked the students for more money to subsidize student organizations throughout the university. GW students currently pay a one dollar per credit hour fee that goes directly to the SA, which in turn allocates the money to various student organizations. Student government, like any government, can never have enough money, so last month the SA held a referendum that would have approximately doubled the current fee. The voters said no, prompting outcries not just from the SA but also the university's two student newspapers, which argued that the benefits of more student organization programming outweighed the extra fees.
It's worth noting that the two biggest beneficiaries of the SA's allocations--and the two most vocal advocates of raising fees--are the College Democrats and College Republicans. Even when I attended GW a decade ago, these two groups consumed by far the greatest amount of individual group allocations. (Some umbrella groups, like the Student Bar Association, receive large allocations that are then re-allocated to smaller organizations.) You would think two groups affiliated with national political parties wouldn't need to beg the local student government for pizza money, but of course rampant welfarism is the primary objective of the Democratic and Republican parties.
When I used to cover the SA for a now-defunct student paper, the same pattern always emerged in the allocations process. Groups would march in one by one and insist they were "entitled" to funds for a variety of reasons. It helped if your group had some sort of ethnic, religious or gender identification. For example, if you represented the Klingon Student Association, you would say, "10% of the campus is Klingon, so we deserve 10% of the SA's allocation budget." It didn't matter if every Klingon on campus actually participated in your group, or even what your intended programming was, the money was vital to keeping your organization alive, thus improving the quality of overall student life.
Eventually the process would break down when the SA president--who for some strange reason was given veto power over the Student Senate--would take up the cause of one or two groups that insisted--INSISTED--that they'd been screwed by the heartless Senate Finance Committee. The president would then veto or threaten to veto the entire allocations bill until his or her favored group was given more money. Then there's be a lot of speechifying over how the allocations process needed reform, which always ended with the same conclusion--if the SA just had more money, there's be enough to go around and no group would feel gipped. It's never occurred to anyone that maybe the best way to promote "student life" is to get rid of the SA and the student fee altogether and force student groups to compete for student dollars and support.
The same can be said for GW's overall business model. Fifty thousand dollars in tuition doesn't buy you a better education (or even a better credential) than, say, a community college, but it buys you access to a lot of stuff. GW has its own fitness center, student union, posh dorms, and other non-academic amenities. Of course, in a large city like Washington, these things can easily be obtained off-campus. And most of the time you get better quality at lower prices outside GW's campus.
But as the SA's Capp explained, spending money builds "prestige" and helps increase the "all-important" college ranking. The primary value of these things, however, is to the high school student comparing colleges. Once you leave college, with or without a diploma, all of the money spent on Division I sports teams and student organizations is irrelevant. It says nothing about whether you've mastered a particular subject or hold a useful credential to get you a job. "Student life" is pure consumption. That's not a bad thing--economics is value-free--but it helps explain the ever-increasing cost of attending top schools.
Interestingly, the politicians who rail about higher education costs never consider this. Perhaps that's because they were members of the College Democrats and College Republicans and though nothing of demanding higher subsidies from their student governments--all in the name of promoting a better education.
Comments (6)
Ryan Taylor
College was never for me. I attended junior college for a few years simply because the college had a very good recording studio. But I did get enough credits to earn an AA and it did whet my appetite for economics. That said, I received one hell of an education simply by reading LewRockwell.com and Mises.org every day since they came online. For that, I am eternally grateful.
Published: October 4, 2007 10:41 PM
Anthony
It's not too different in the UK, only we call them "Labour" and "Tories/Conservatives" instead.
Published: October 4, 2007 11:45 PM
IMHO
Once you leave college, with or without a diploma, all of the money spent on Division I sports teams and student organizations is irrelevant. It says nothing about whether you've mastered a particular subject or hold a useful credential to get you a job.
Unfortunately, that not's entirely true. There are many companies that will ask you about your extracurricular activities while you were in college. For example, someone who participated in sports has the potential for being a team player. The captain of the team, a team leader.
And since a lot of deals are made out on the fairway, it doesn't hurt to have a good backswing.
Working your way through college (a/k/a being a grunt) does not carry as much weight as being a member of a fraternity or a sorority.
In the end, if you know how to network and are a social animal, you can end up in a position of authority and your grunts will carry you through; provided, of course, that you take good care of them; otherwise they will bury you. :)
Published: October 5, 2007 9:11 AM
Brad
While I was in college at a minor Wisconsin State University campus I was part of the Student Association and was on the SUFAC (Segregated University Fees Allocation Committee) and chaired it for one year. It was invaluable experience in that I, too, saw endless groups of people of differing wants come in with a sense of entitlement, with the knowledge that there were finite resources. THEIR needs were superior and they were entitled. They seemed to even resent the process that they even had to ask and show up to a hearing. One specific entry (and I'm not trying to be provocative) was the Black Student Union, who, suffice it to say, got already generous allocations relative to their membership compared to other groups, wanted new robes for their choir. The money wasn't there. My roommate (himself a major player in Student Government at the campus and systemwide level) and I were labeled racists and we had KKK garb hanging in our closet. It wasn't just a simple epithet, many of the members of the BSU came to believe it was true. It was another lesson that those who believe that they are being prejudged are so quick to do the exact same thing when they think they've been slighted when they in no way have been. I recall being called into the WSA's advisor who cautioned me in advance on how we needed to proceed with the likes of the BSU. I, being a fairly strong libertarian with republican leanings tried to assure him that my objective was to keep the SUF's low regardless of specific characteristics. I remember that such a rationale didn't seem to compute with his bureaucratic mind.
I took the SUFAC committee very seriously. A lot of money was assessed to students to fund what we decided to fund. And this was for things purely outside of the academic function of why they were there in the first place. Many college students were there on Mommy and Daddy's dime (including myself to some extent). But I knew many people who were busting their asses to put themselves through, waiting tables, paying for their own cars and insurance, doing whatever it took. And an extra $50 or $100, above what was already assessed for SUFAC, was a lot of money to them. I felt I had a responsibility to keep fees as low as possible. If I was called names or a racist by small minded people so be it, I'll continue to wear it as a badge of honor.
Also, the SUFAC fee process I oversaw was the ALLOCABLE portion of such fees. Of course there were UNALLOCABLE non-academic assessments that they University assessed and spent as they saw fit. And there was also the episode that fell outside either.
The University wanted to build a new Auditorium. The funding was scarce. The Chancellor got the bright idea to "ask" the students to back a bond issue to the tune of $1,000,000 to get it built (of course he wanted the Auditorium named after himself). This was the first case in the State of Wisconsin at any State school that the students were asked to pay for an "academic" building (that is a non-housing building). Not only was it not fair to hard-working students, it set a bad precedent for the rest of the UW System. Oddly enough the Joint Student Association of all the campuses in the system were in favor of it. They were, of course, liberal. There was a referendum and we lost. The squeeky wheel of the College of the Arts won out (with no small help from the Chancellor). To make matters worse, they still didn't get enough to get it going (even after the bulk of the money was supplied by a private local pocket, who the auditorium was eventually named after) they came back and asked (and got) another $500,000. Hopefully the bonds are about to retire. I have refused to send one dime to the campus in general until the bonds are paid off. I have sent money to my particular college. All the students over the last 20 years have been assessed to pay for that building.
Even more irritating is this vain Chancellor once stated that all Wisconsin students should get free tuition. Of course this was at a luncheon for the Board of Regents and out little table was graced with Ex-Governor Dreyfus. It was easy to toss out such positions over some quiche. But just a short while later, this same person had no problems calculating an assessment on the students and then have the gaul to want to name the building after himself. As if I needed any more proof, I knew for certain the world was filled with grade a hypocrites.
Published: October 5, 2007 9:21 AM
Scott Friday
College was never for me. I attended junior college for a few years simply because the college had a very good recording studio. But I did get enough credits to earn an AA and it did whet my appetite for economics. That said, I received one hell of an education simply by reading LewRockwell.com and Mises.org every day since they came online. For that, I am eternally grateful.
Ryan, I obtained a Bachelors in Aerospace Eng from Tex A&M and a law degree from Southwestern University School of Law. So what...? There were a LOT of idiots in college, and especially in law school! I would agree with your sentiment. Finding Mises.org and LRC opened up my world like nothing else. This is not to say those degrees are worthless, but neither are they everything ;-) After learning so much at these websites, much of what I learned in law school now makes MUCH more sense. Ironically, Butler Shaffer was my property law professor. Imagine my surprise over 10 years later to find him posting articles on LRC!! NOW I get what he was trying to say. Back then we just all thought he was a bit off the wall... hehe.
Published: October 5, 2007 4:45 PM
Henry Miller
When going to the U of MN I was forced to pay $1.34/quarter (I think that was the amount, might have been $.30, not more than $4) to the Gay/bi/lesbian/transgender student organization. As a christian I object to the aims of that group (as a freedom loving person I don't object to their right to exist). They got me for trivial amounts back then when I had no money. No I have plenty of money (in no small part thanks to the degree), but the university isn't getting a penny of it.
They don't care, plenty of students don't see the connection and give. (Though they always moan about how little we give)
Published: October 7, 2007 7:46 PM