 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Bob Zemsky describes himself as being old and round enough to be mistaken for a pooh-bah. He was a member of the Spellings Commission and, as an author and researcher, has focused on making colleges and universities mission-centered and market-smart. He has focused on what globalism might really mean for higher education, on what technology has not accomplished, and how to make learning important to the higher education market. Bob currently serves as professor and chair of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Lessons From the Cost-Quality Curve | Comment [2]
Quality -- Reform's Fourth Horseman | Comment [4]
Access to Success | Comment [2]
Is Access Still the Question? | Comment [3]
Affordability: Devil in the Details | Comment [2]
Featured Articles By the Author
Defining Affordability
One of my stranger assignments as a member of the Spellings Commission was to co-chair, with Rich Vedder, the Affordability Task Force. Here truly was a punishment to fit the crime, since I had already made clear that I was finding the Commission’s discussion of affordability both linguistically confusing and politically risky.
To begin with, the argument that an American college education was becoming more unaffordable rested on the assumption that students and families were still expected to pay for college out of current earnings and savings. In fact, a college education had long since become something that one purchased over time, most often at interest rates that were sufficiently attractive that even families that could afford to pay their “parental contribution” out of pocket chose instead to borrow. Savvy middle-class families had long since discovered that it was smarter to take out a PLUS loan while investing their savings at a more attractive interest rate. Only families culturally or ideologically adverse to debt were missing out on this modest opportunity at arbitrage. Students with demonstrated need substantial enough to qualify for a Pell Grant were also able to secure long-term financing at advantageous (i.e., subsidized) rates. The average indebtedness of students upon graduation from college was less than $20,000 — roughly the price of a low-end new car. Students and their families who wanted a more upscale product took on more debt, but again debt that was in line with their other longer-term purchases.
A second mistake made by those who pushed the affordability agenda was to apply an absolute standard to the problem. If a college education cost more than X, then by definition it was unaffordable even though students and their families continued to purchase it in ever-greater numbers. Had the affordability lobby chosen instead to ask higher education’s potential customers whether a college education remained affordable, a much different argument would have resulted.
I know, because we did just that in the fall of 2004 at the behest of the Rendell administration in Pennsylvania. As part of a general review of the state of higher education in Pennsylvania, The Learning Alliance commissioned a survey of young adults across the Commonwealth focusing on their attitudes toward higher education in general and its costs in particular. The survey was designed and administered by Berwood Yost of the Floyd Institute for Public Policy at Franklin and Marshall College, in collaboration with his colleague, Terry Madonna, the Director of the Keystone Poll, the standard benchmark for political polling in Pennsylvania.
What the survey found attests to the confusions that had already become an integral part of the affordability discussion. Eighty-six percent of the sample agreed with the statement “Regardless of the cost, tuition at Pennsylvania’s public universities is a worthwhile investment.” Just 9 percent disagreed. Sixty-three percent agreed with the statement “The cost to get an education at one of Pennsylvania’s public universities is affordable.” Twenty-five percent disagreed, and 12 percent said they didn’t know.
Yost and Madonna summed up their findings as follows: “The responses of young adults who wanted to attend college, but who did not, do not suggest that cost is a problem for a large majority of young adults. Cost (33 percent) was the most frequently mentioned problem among those who planned to attend college but did not; however, they mentioned many other reasons, too. Starting families (23 percent), having a job that did not require a degree (10 percent), a lack of motivation (8 percent), and planning to attend at a later time (5 percent) were other reasons that interested students never attended college. When these responses are calculated to reflect the total sample, it turns out that fewer than one in 20 (4 percent) of 18 to 30-year-olds in Pennsylvania did not attend a higher education institution because of concerns about cost, which is nearly the same proportion (3 percent) who did not attend because they were starting families.”
My own reading of the same data says the number of young people being excluded from higher education in Pennsylvania because it cost too could be as high as 8 percent. Two characteristics of this excluded population are worth noting. First, the respondents who said that costs were a primary reason for not attending college were more likely to report much higher tuitions for both public community colleges and state universities than those institutions actually charged. Second, they were twice as likely to be African-American or Hispanic or come from the largely rural part of the state.
Make no mistake — 8 percent is a substantial number. Its import, however, lies in telling us that making a higher education more affordable requires very targeted investments designed to assist the 8 percent who need immediate help rather than the 92 percent for whom a college education is expensive but still affordable.
Posted at 02:57:54 PM on May 16, 2008 | All postings by Bob ZemskyComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: What Does 'College Affordability' Mean?
Next: Affordability: Devil in the Details
A few questions for the Vice-Admiral of that Affordability Task Force (steaming into Higher Education Harbor, dollar-sign flags rippling in the wind, loan-powered ships bristling with 16-inch Pell Grant guns, awe-struck parents standing on the shore…):
1. If something doesn’t have to be paid for out of “current earnings and savings,” does that make it “affordable”? If I can take out a loan for 90 percent of the price of a yacht, does that mean I can “afford” it?
2. Is the average debt of $20,000 for a graduating student that negligible? (They have no bread? Let them eat “low-end new cars.”) The student has, say, a liberal arts degree, is starting an entry-level job, is setting up an apartment with three roomies to save money, and is twenty grand in hock from the git-go: that’s wave-o’-the hand stuff to the Vice-Admiral?
3. Was the sample of young adults in The Learning Alliance survey confined to those who wanted to go to college and could, in terms of academic preparation, reasonably expect to go to college? Or did it include (a sampling of) everybody within an age range? It matters. If you polled 100 young adults in a rural village someplace in the world, with only one of the 100 actually qualified to go to college, and that one was the only respondent to say unaffordability was the reason he or she couldn’t go, then the poll could claim that “only one percent of the young adults said that unaffordability would prevent them from attending college.” Lies, damned lies, and statistics, etc.
— LuckyJim · May 17, 08:33 AM · #
On the posting and Comment 1:
Did you enjoy that slippage from the 33 percent of the survey to the blog host’s own “reading” of only 8% involved? And his indication of the race and class factors – with yet another sleight of hand from Pennsylvania to the entire U.S.? (We all know that only 8% of the college-aged population is rural or African American or Hispanic in this country, of course.)
BZ’s University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League institution.
A good friend and colleague (all Ivy in her background, including Penn) once told me that, when looking at those “Ivy”-covered buildings, it is far more appropriate to imagine large cockroaches running up and down the walls, hidden by the luscious green ivy.
Indeed….
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · May 17, 06:48 PM · #
Did you mean to say “halls” instead of “walls”?
— Poisoned Ivy · May 19, 10:45 AM · #
On Comment 3: True, the cockroaches I have personally encountered at Ivy League institutions have been inside the buildings (and of amazing proportions), but my colleague insisted that the mental visualization be of the outdoor, ivy-covered walls.
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · May 19, 06:39 PM · #