April 5, 2008

College Board Responds to Charles Miller's Criticism of the Group

A News Blog item about a letter Charles Miller, the former chairman of the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education, sent to the College Board — accusing it of acting like a “cheerleader” for higher education — got plenty of comments from readers.

In response to the letter, Sandy Baum, a senior policy analyst at the College Board and an economics professor at Skidmore College, wrote:

The College Board’s 2007 report, “Education Pays,” carefully documents both the monetary and the non-monetary returns to the investment in higher education for individuals, as well as for society as a whole.

Charles Miller’s letter to Gaston Caperton correctly points out that many observers exaggerate reality when they claim that college graduates earn a million dollars more than high-school graduates over their work lives. Our report does not make that error. Using assumptions that are much more reasonable than those Mr. Miller suggests, we estimate that the earnings advantage of the typical four-year public-college graduate has covered the cost of tuition and fees, interest on loans to cover those charges, and four years out of the labor force within approximately 11 years after graduation. The higher tuition at private colleges adds about seven years to the break-even time. These calculations would be even more favorable if they took into account the reality that most students receive grant aid to defray part of their tuition costs.

Mr. Miller makes a serious error in suggesting that a college degree is not worth the price for the typical student. The careful calculations in our publication, in addition to extensive analytical work by numerous highly respected academic economists, indicate a very high rate of return on average — both monetary and non-monetary — to both individuals and society as a whole from investment in higher education.

We share Mr. Miller’s concern over increasing access to college for low- and moderate-income students. We agree that both more-effective action by institutions of higher education in reducing the cost of providing quality education and reform of the student-aid system to make it simpler, more efficient, and more equitable are vital to reducing the financial barriers to college opportunity, which are also described in the “Education Pays” report.

Comments

1. Judging from this reply to Miller and the comments on his letter from other academics, it looks as if most commentators still could not pass the first year social science course at most universities. College students have the advantages of coming from families with higher incomes and better social contacts for entry to higher paying jobs, and I don’t see how these alternative explanations of their higher life incomes are being discounted by those rejecting Miller’s criticisms of the usual arguments. The failure to address these counter-explanations makes most comments simply self-serving.

   — michael scriven    Apr 7, 07:32 AM    #

2. The social value of education is highlighted in an article in this morning’s New York Times. It reports that a $360 million experimental federal program to save Medicare expenses has failed. The program hired nurses to call patients with chronic conditions, make sure they were taking meds properly, and intervene if necessary to prevent visits to emergency rooms. The program failed to save Medicare dollars primarily because so many patients did not understand what medications they were taking or how to take them, so they consumed the nurses’ time understanding the most basic information. In other words, preventable visits to the emergency ward are less expensive than informing folks with a poor education about how to manage their illnesses.

   This story illustrates one of the indirect costs of ignorance. Higher levels of education are necessary not only for earning power, but for basic survival in this century. Those lacking lacking basic knowledge and good communication skills will inevitably become a drag on the nation’s economy. That, more than the earning power argument, points to the necessity of educating everyone well.

   — Lee Griffin    Apr 7, 09:11 AM    #

3. While the argument of the value of a college education still holds valuable water, the argument of $1M is getting a tad bit stale; suggesting that the repayment of so many years is “OK” with escalating college prices (not costs) while incomes continue to stagnate in relation to inflationary pressures in other sectors, negates the point that we have a very serious issue with regard to controlling college costs (thus prices) that no one is taking seriously. Policymakers and analysts need to stop protecting higher education, make the entire process more transparent, and hold those same policymakers, especially at the state level, to a higher standard. We are covering up a huge issue that will only get much more dramatic over the next few decades, by saying: “it’s still a good deal.” Well, it’s not as good a deal as it used to be, and it will be less of a good thing next year and the year after. We have NO public policy at institutional, state, or federal level to bring to contain this trend.

   — Watson Scott Swail    Apr 7, 09:52 AM    #

4. The value of a higher education to the market place is to filter or label students for potential employers. This is especially true of the most prestigious schools, who go to great lengths to skim off the top and perpetuate the myth that somehow their educational process is far superior to other schools. If we let the top 1% of students every year read their text books at home rather than attend class, they would likely go on to become productive, well paid members of society. Smart, ambitious people tend to do well, regardless if they attend college. Acting as an employment filter for higher salaries says little about the quality of the education provided. Perpetuating this myth puts a large burden on our economy as the filtering process becomes ever more expensive and our productivity in providing a higher education continues its freefall.

   — smcdonald    Apr 7, 01:20 PM    #

5. Although this discussion is about the benefits of a four year college, my argument is that the payoff of a college degree is insignificant, and the situation is worse for those who go on to do PhDs in some fields. Even though the college costs are going up every year the salaries of faculty with PhDs who teach at universities do not reflect the gain that is portrayed. Starting salaries for assistant professor at some universities/colleges are way lower than those of professions that require a 4 year college degree. I am glad that Miller raised this issue because the reality is that earning a college degree surely gives prestige, but no significant financial gains.

   — Nancy    Apr 7, 01:33 PM    #

6. The College Board is not what it once was. This begain when it was taken over by a group of ex-West Virginia politicians. Gaston Caperton who inherited millions of dollars from his father was out of work for a few years after serving as a controversial governor of WV then somehow took over the College Board and brought in his friends. To read about Caperton read his former wife’s story in a book by Bob Woodward’s wife in the 1990s. Just read it.
   He hired journeyman -gadfly college president with WV experience and put him at Columbia as a “Professor” to write things Caperton wants him to. Then another WV governor who was marked by sex scandals with little experience in education was drummed out of office and then got a job as an “education association” head. Who would have had the influence to get Bob Wise that job? Someone needs to do a full newspaper review of the Collge Board as it has become less of an education institution and more of a crony hiring place.

   — james smith    Apr 7, 04:37 PM    #

Previous: Colleges' Acceptance Rates Alone Might Not Convey Change in Selectivity
Next: Report Grades Colleges on Hiring of Minority Coaches in Women's Basketball