Who Should Pay for Education?

October 20, 2011, 10:20 am

Recent student demonstrations in Chile and Colombia are a cause for major concern for their respective governments. At the center of the debate there is a very simple question for which there is not an easy answer: who is supposed to pay for the provision of education for the inhabitants of a country? The citizens themselves and their families, or the state? Is a direct subsidy to the students the best approach, or should institutions be subsidized in order to make education more affordable?

In both the Chilean and Colombian cases, there have been in somewhat different paths taken in matters related to the development of their respective higher-education systems, but both are experiencing similar situations in terms of strikes and public student demonstrations, which make not only their respective governments nervous but also those from neighboring countries.

In the case of Chile, massive liberalization of the higher-education system in recent years with limited public investment has led to impressive growth of the national higher-education infrastructure and to a significant increase in the number of Chileans having access to higher education (currently, 51 percent of college-age inhabitants), mostly due to the increased offerings by private institutions. In order to support such growth, the government has allowed higher-education institutions to charge high tuition and fees while establishing a public/private financial-aid mechanism in order to make education affordable to the majority of students. At the same time, the government kept a selective merit-based full tuition waiver scholarship for students having the highest scores in a national standardized admission test. In addition, the government maintained a subsidy scheme to a small group of public and private institutions who were members of the Council of Rectors (CRUCH for its acronym in Spanish).

Despite these efforts, growth in Chilean higher education has not been exempt from problems. A prominent issue that has emerged is that the great majority of Chileans having access to higher education finish their studies with significant debt, while the generous tuition-waiver scholarship tends to benefit students who come from better-off families who previously attended private high schools. In other words, it seems like taxpayer resources are used to subsidize those in less need, while the majority of Chileans assume a proportionally higher burden in order to pursue university studies. Finally, in recent years a variety of for-profit higher-education institutions have emerged. Although these institutions are properly accredited and offer an educational quality similar to other universities, they have become a natural target of demonstrators.

The Colombian case is somewhat different: a smaller and even more selective higher-education system has not grown at the same pace as the nation’s demographic trends, and every year there are about 600,000 students graduating high school out of which only a small portion advances to the higher-education system. Concerned with such a challenge, the government decided to embrace a major reform aimed at massively increasing the number of students in higher education from 37 percent to an ambitious 50 percent enrollment of college-age students by the year 2014. In order to finance such growth, the government of President Santos initially entertained the idea of allowing the presence of private, for-profit providers. However, due to pressure from different sectors concerned with the implications of privatization of higher education, the government decided to drop the idea from a proposed law being discussed by the national Congress.

For some sectors of our societies the answer is simple: education is a basic human right – therefore governments (and taxpayers) should bear the cost of the provision of higher education while offering it at minimum or no cost to students regardless of their socio-economic status. Also, many argue that admission policies should become more flexible and that massive public investment should be dedicated to finance infrastructure and operations in public higher-education institutions. On the contrary, other sectors consider that such an approach is just not sustainable in the long run, and that rather than directly subsidizing institutions, governments should make available scholarships and loans directly to the students based on a combination of economic need and academic merit. Also they argue that participation of private providers of education–including for-profit entities–should be permitted to foster competition and improve efficiency, assuming that they are properly regulated.

Those are some of the issues being debated not only in Chile and Colombia, but also in many other countries. As my colleague Dewayne Matthews of the Lumina Foundation tells me, the challenge faced by many countries is how to provide quality education to much larger numbers of students knowing that increasing institutional capacity is not something that can be achieved quickly, especially in a time of finite financial resources. In these cases, governments investing in education may be required to de-invest in other equally important priorities. Also, it is becoming clear that implementing reforms will necessarily affect the status-quo in higher education systems. In summary, we face a complex reality for which no simple solutions exist.

At the end of the day, the social unrest experienced in Chile and Colombia brings the discussion to the fundamental question that societies face in today’s world: Is higher education a public or a private good? Consequently, who should pay for it? La moneda está en el aire.

This entry was posted in International, Latin America. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

plinthic

How about respect for personal differences and beliefs? I interviewed for a job in the chemistry department of a secular private university where the members of the department just happened to be rather devout Christians. They kept turning the conversation around to the churches in town, who was a member of which church, whether I’d like to visit churches while in town, etc. I kept avoiding these questions until finally they decided I must be Jewish. Because if you aren’t a Christian well then you must be Jewish, right?

And then they gave the job to the inside candidate anyway.
vaillancourt_az

chemoderator: U rock
akprof

I never once did NOT pick up the candidate – and take them back to the airport. How rude!!
akprof

We’re not in a buyer’s market in every discipline. For nursing, it is definitely a seller’s market.
akprof

Aren’t you actually glad that they gave to job to someone else – save you from having to make a decision – though, for me, th edecision would have been made already!
missoularedhead

I agree. In applying for jobs, I had several instances where I found out who had been hired (not me!) via social media, etc. In some cases, I didn’t even get a ‘hey, we got your application materials’ email, which is simple enough to do.
tianan2011

Definitely add a separate category entitled “Communication Needs.” I’ve been in senior searches at prestigious R1s where the only communication ever received, start to finish, was a one-line email from the dept. secretary acknowledging receipt of the packet. No letter, nothing, just word on the grapevine of who got the job. Committees should agree on a timeline for communicating with ALL candidates, inform the candidates of the timeline, and stick to it. Even if the SC wants to keep a few people on a waitlist, if the first or second choices fall through, they can be upfront about it: “Given the way that searches can change, it is possible that we might contact you in [February, March, etc.], but at this time we do not anticipate doing so.” And END the search professionally, with prompt rejection letters–not never, not in July, but before the end of the semester if at all possible! For institutions accepting state funds, at the very least, this minimum level of professionalism should be required.
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.a.smith Doug Smith

There are fewer and fewer institutions paying and/or arranging travel. I had to find my way out to my most recent interview. Also, there seems to be a double standard where the communication shuts off. I know of a candidate that had a phone interview with two separate institutions, waited a month to request a status update, and still never heard back. Often candidates seem to find out more by logging into the employment system rather than through communication with the particular offices or HR departments.
Also I would add that it is obvious to tell someone on the search committee is checking his or her phone under the table, even in one of those larger group settings.
(The working lunch idea still haunts me from back to my grad school days.)
djhennessey2000

Travel payments are tough. For entry-level staff positions, we struggle over whether or not to invite candidates from a distance since we can’t pay for them. If someone is a lead candidate, we inform them of the number of finalists (without mentioning he or she is a favored one) and leave the decision to him or her about paying their own way. There are times we have not invited someone lower on the list because I don’t want to have them invest in a long shot when it seems like a candidate the committee is more interested will likely get the offer unless the campus interview is flubbed. But I’m not sure it’s fair not to give the person on the bubble a chance.
blue_state_academic

I’ve been through interviews for senior positions recently, and for the most part was treated very respectfully, with almost all of the things mentioned here being done. The one thing I wish the hiring institutions had done, but hadn’t, was the use of name tents for participants in meetings. I do my best to remember names, but when you’re moving every hour over the course of two days to a new group of anywhere from 5 to 20 people, it’s particularly difficult to do this. So name (and title) tents would have been a nice and helpful touch.

How you are treated as a candidate says a lot about the hiring institution. You can learn quite a bit about how people are valued in the organization, how relationships work among the many participants, from how they treat candidates.
maw57

Good article, Allison, and good suggestions for additions in comments. But can you explain what is to me the one enigmatic sentence: “Did we make sure not to cause embarrassment by talking to others about the candidate without permission?” Who are the “others” here?
vaillancourt_az

maw57: At some point, it becomes reasonable and necessary to seek information from people not on the candidate’s reference list. It’s good manners is to alert the candidate of your plans to do this so that he/she can alert others (like their department chair or president) or even pull out before the calls begin.
dpn33

Sellers’ market or buyers’ market, we’re talking about common courtesy and respect. This isn’t suggesting private planes, limos, or hand-delivered gilt-edged letters of response. Just reasonable consideration. Apparently, that’s too much to ask from many institutions. Hope SOME see part of this conversation and react appropriately.
richrobles

One other thing to remember is ensuring the candidate’s right to privacy. I remember long ago when my wife interviewed for a student affairs position at an institution she told me that copies of her resume and HR job application were spread around the table of the room she was interviewing in. As she watched people leave, some of the folks took her application packet or threw it in the conference room trash can. From that experience, I make it a practice whenever I coordinate interviews to collect and dispose copies of resumes and/or any private information about the candidate. Questions to consider are the following: Is the resume sufficient to provide interviewers? Who is collecting the resumes and evaluations after each interview session? If there a portfolio is being evaluated, who needs access to that piece and how is that secured?
carremi

when i lost my full time position at a reseach institutuion..i took an adjunct position during the spring semester while collecting partial UE benefits.and looking for a full time job…I thought I was doing a good thing.. when the term was over…Unemployment cut my benifits for 6 weeks while they invitigated if there was reasonable assurance of employment in the fall…which is ridiculus because as an adjunct I was only able to teach 2 courses and who the heck can survive on 12,000/year? moreover it was my full time employer who was responsible for my UE benifits….the whole thing was an ordeal …I regreted taking the teaching job….
MChag12

Maybe one answer is an on-going list of the most inconsiderate employers. Sort of like a censure from the AAUP. It is true that the way that candidates are treated has truly gotten out of hand. I have, at interviews that were going badly because of the way the search committee was acting, made it very clear what I thought: I figured there wasn’t much to lose anyway, and the thought of having to work with these people was frightening. I know that not many have had that freedom, but when you do, it should be used. Academia is worse than any industry I can think of except perhaps show-business. It truly is disgusting.
chicoleo

“Did we make the candidate feel valued and interesting?” Really?
While I agree with many of the suggestions, that one seems over the top. This is a job interview – we have a job, the candidate wants it or so one would hope. The candidate should prove himself or her self to be of value and interesting. That’s what the hiring process is about in large part.
wisemandm

And the NCAA will also get tough with Ohio State, banning it from conference championships in football, cutting football ‘scholarships’ by 20 for two years or give it something akin to the SMU penalty? Dare we hope?
http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

I’m certainly not a defender of Rep. Ryan (quite frankly I abhor Randian Objectivism), but it is interesting that this was a question of the fact he spent $700 on wine at the same restaurant Ms. Feinberg was dining (and she apparently knew enough about expensive wine to identify it). My question is, where is the line drawn? Clearly purchasing a Buaggatti Veyron on a whim is too far (the car costs more than double most people’s homes), but is dining out at a nice restaurant taboo? What about movies? What about McDonalds, particular when there are people around the world (scratch that, people in the US) who could scarcely afford such a luxury. Are we relegated to all eat Ramen Noodles until the population is fed, clothed, housed, and has access to adequate medical care? Where do we draw this line? It seems somewhat arbitrary. If Ryan hadn’t been proposing massive budget cuts to social programs, would he then be allowed his personal $700 wine tab? What if he personally gave away half his income? Would he be allowed a $350 wine tab then? Again, I can’t stand Ryan’s politics, and some of his statements lead to question him as a person (but as I don’t know him, I must stop myself). While I would never drop $700 on wine with friends (at least I don’t think I would, I’ve never been financially secure to consider such a thing), I don’t know if I necesarily begrudge him that.
hanks

I agree. Let the waiters and waitresses crawl around on the floor and and pick up loose change that falls out of politicians pockets. “Are there not prisons for the poor?”
pontificator

I think the most important thing to be gleened from this tempest in a teapot or wine bottle, is the fact that the Chairman of the House Finance Committee initially got the arithmetic wrong on his credit card receipt. Of course, he UNDERESTIMATED the total!
meshabob

So how come an associate prof. at a public university is living so high on the hog, hmmm?

—

Because she was celebrating her birthday? Everybody knows that for Ryan, this was just another night out on the town. For that matter, an $80 bottle of wine at a fancy restaurant is considered mid-range. This is not so much, btw, about spending $350 on a bottle of wine. It is much more about people like Ryan attacking SS, Medicare and Medicaid. If the Republicans were not so openly Marie Antoinette in their politics, people like the prof would not be so angry and willing to confront them.
panthernation

Funny that is the salary we pay Rand is considered “his own,” but the money a student pays to a university for tuition is seemingly not considered their own. IOKIYAR
panthernation

Apparently, you didn’t understand Feinberg’s argument. Thanks!
lucapacioli

Cwinton, would another example be Al Gore flying around in private jets to lectures to hector us that we should save fuel? Or perhaps Rep. Rangel, lover of the poor, while chairing the committee that writes the nation’s tax laws, omits reporting rental income from his Dominican Republic villa?

In general, society is not in much danger when politicians are spending their own money. It’s when they spend the public’s money that abuse, waste and corruption can take place on a grand scale.
jnwoye

Ms Feinberg should be proud for having the courage to confront the congressman. The congressman’s action with the hedge fund cliques epitomizes hypocritical behavior of our politicians and how their relationship with business cliques tends to undermine our democracy.
Really, spending $350 for a couple of hours with two people while aggressively working to devastate the lives of our most venerable old and young by attempting to cut them out from the little support they need to exist as humans while providing tax cuts for the billionaires and millionaire; that’s outrageous. The congressman should be ashamed of himself while Ms. Feinberg should be applauded for her courage to speak the truth to the powerful. We certainly need more people like Ms. Feinberg if we are serious about attacking our national problems that are mostly driven by greed.
lewandowski

I do not sense here that reviewers see Congressman Ryan is simply a pontificator. This is not a liberal or conservative issue but another politican who: “Do not do as I do, but do as I say!” This fiscal congressman does not even know how much he was paid for his wine until questioned??? How about that 1st class seat flight ticket back to his district so he does not have to mix with his common constiuants.
I am sorry here but we have here another pompus politican who wants to make his mark and more personal millions on the government dole. He whines and walks out of meetings like a child instead of being an adult who must learn to compromise for the good of his district and the country.
We do not need anymore zealots in congress who are either liberal or conservative but americans who are open-minded to change for the greater good not for a hedge-fund manager who is trying to buy his vote.
jimislew

I mean no disrespect toward tenured professors here (in fact I have great respect for those who have nabbed an increasingly rare post, I’m a bit jealous), or politicians for that matter, but I love the dichotomy in this situation. A politician, whose survival depends upon public opinion is verbally attacked by a tenured professor whose own survival is utterly protected by the vicissitudes of the same.
wmartin46

And what argument did I not understand? Thanks!
tgroleau

“There is something tragic about powerful legislators consuming $700 of any quite discretionary product”

Is it equally tragic that the Whitehouse served $400 bottles of wine at a state dinner in January?
kozirice

It is difficult to think of a hedge-fund manager as not a lobbyist, in fact if not in name. And I agree that Mr Ryan probably had no thought of paying for wine and/or dinner until called out by Professor Feinberg. I have no problem with Mr Ryan spending his own money anyway he wishes, including his public salary; however, I think his personal priorities do not mesh well with his priorities for the rest of us.
skolpan

Far more troubling than the wine Ryan drinks is the company that Ryan keeps. Dinner with a “prominent hedge fund manager” is code (at least to me) for the caste of Ryan’s politics, and who supports his positions. If Ryan wants to blow a lot of money on wine, so be it, but the political context – a society for the wealthy and to hell with the poor and struggling – cannot be ignored.
murdo004

Did they? How do you know?
tgroleau

This site says the wine was $250 a bottle: http://www.drvino.com/2011/01/19/state-dinner-menu-hu-jintao-quilceda-creek/ (note: this also shows a $50 wine on the menu)

This site shows the wine at $400 a bottle: http://www.raederswine.com/sku056956.html
mxb22

I’m on Ryan’s side here, but the argument that the production of luxury provides opportunity for the poor was probably made by Louis XVI too.
badger74

Ridiculous. Waiting tables has probably kept more college students, single moms and future actors fed and housed than any other job in the US. The hours are flexible, the money very good per hour at the right place, and co-workers can be a blast. When any work is beneath you, you have the problem.
midtownlabgeek

She “showed [her] courage” when “the manager and a waiter came over and Feinberg decided she had said her piece and it was time to leave”. She “showed courage” when she crowed to a blog about her “confrontation” – selecting one that would applaud her, of course.
“Courage” suggests that she expected to face disapproval (or worse) from those whose opinions matter to her, or those who are in a position to do her harm. From the reactions here, she certainly doesn’t face the mass disapproval of the academy, and any potential backlash on her professional career will cause an outcry over “academic freedom”.
maw57

You really don’t care how Ryan is spending his money? Burning it is really OK when he’s considering cutting support for the needy? The more general context for this is that most politicians at the national level these days *must* be wealthy in order to finance out-of-control campaign spending, a necessity created by the Supreme Court with the Citizens United decision. And of course that decision was made possible by George Bush, whose two terms permitted him to appoint so many rightist judges. (I have to give it to Bush: that was my biggest fear after his “re-election,” the power he would have over the court for years to come, and he managed to pack the court with some effective ideologues.) So yes, we have rich politicians (on the right and left) who are increasingly out of touch with the middle class, let along with those less fortunate, downing expensive bottles of wine without really grasping the effect of their policies on those who can’t live a similar lifestyle, even though Republican ideology persuades many income-strapped citizens that someday perhaps they will.
minnesotan

You’re just buying the name with the Coppola, though. Get a Kendall-Jackson Grand Reserve, if you have @25 to blow.
minnesotan

So much for sacrifices. The least they could do is drink generic booze! Worse yet, they double up on their expensive gins: Bombay Sapphire *AND* Beefeater? Who needs virgins when heaven is stocked with this much high-price toddy?
minnesotan

Get drunk and make an ass of oneself? Better we start avoiding seizing those opportunities in this profession. We already have a reputation.
jbfjbf

“People who live in glass houses….”
Rutger Stats:
Average salary for a Professor II: $175,229
President $550,000 plus an annual bonus of $100,000
Soon to be former president turned history professor: $335,000
Coach: A little over $2 million

Dear Ms. Feinberg: How much do you earn, how much did your bottle of wine cost, and how can you afford to dine at the same restaurants as hedge fund mangers? Oh, I forgot, I just quoted some basic salaries.

PS: Did you have the courage to stand up at the Faculty Senate meeting and ask your president the same question. Guess not, drinking is not allowed on campus.

SOURCE: NJ.com
http://twitter.com/GerardHarbison Gerard Harbison

‘Everyone knows’! ha ha. Must have been left off the cc list on that one.

$80 is mid range? And $350 is what?

You, sir, are clearly a capitalist pig. I have never in my life spent $80 on a bottle of wine. Shame on you.
22097984

I can’t imagine why Ayn Rand is coming back into style with the young. Geez, Rep. Ryan goes out with some friends and a drunk prof. honestly thinks it is any of her business what they do with their money.

Guess what? When Un. of Chicago finance profs go to a bar, they drink expensive alcohol. Guess what? When hedge fund managers go to a bar, they drink expensive alcohol. Guess what? When Representatives in Congress go out with their Finance Professor and Hedge Fund Manager friends they drink expensive alcohol. Guess what? It is none of my business. It is none of your business. It is none of the amazingly arrogant Ms. Feinberg’s business. I especially love the fact that she is allowed to go this bar and drink a bottle of $80 wine but $350 is too much. Where, exactly, is the line? $140, $169?

All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal.
http://twitter.com/GerardHarbison Gerard Harbison

“The politician was not hanging out with ordinary citizens (and probably wasn’t going to buy his drinks until after the fact).”

Gosh, I sure hope President Obama hasn’t been hanging out with the CEOs of Google or GE!
http://www.cuttingedgehistory.com Steve Griffin

I think there is a strong argument to be made that college educations are not for the student, they’re for the society. In that case, they should be subsidized. California has long had a three tiered model that allowed enormous access based on choice (community colleges) and subsidized four year teaching, and research universities (CSU and UC respectively). Part of the problem here is that as demand has grown, the subsidy has not grown with it and the financial burden of higher demand chasing a smaller supply has been placed on the students. It doesn’t help that the loans that students take on are nearly zero risk for lenders since these debts can’t be discharged. Clearly the social unrest taking place in Chile and Columbia needs to be examined by an American society increasingly saying that education isn’t about the society, but the individual.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Joymalya-Chakraborty/1608338673 Joymalya Chakraborty

It’s the examiners rate papers , if that’s extended on networking the point rating on education forums may change the educational system and enhance the networking reach . Please read I posted one blog in the Green TV on simulations .
namedhead

I hope everything will be ok for this world.
jacquicav

This is, indeed, a difficult question – however, I could not agree with you more that higher education (and all having equal access to it) benefits the entire society, not just the individual. An educated society is a healthy society and, it is my opinion that everyone deserves and equal opportunity for the socioeconomic mobility that is afforded through education. Governments (federal, state, and local) must make investment in education a priority instead of cutting education funding at every given opportunity. Clearly, I do not have an answer to the question of who should pay for it, as I believe it requires a great deal of “thinking outside of the box” and coming up with an innovative plan to pay for it – however, I strongly believe it is, indeed, a public good.