Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mushpuppy t1_j8fh62v wrote

The early 80s were when the US govt under Reagan switched its emphasis from grants to loans. Suddenly colleges didn't have to look to the US govt for funds anymore; they could get students desperate for a better life on the hook.

Before Reagan, states covered approximately 65% of the cost of college, and the fed govt covered another approximately 15%. Now, though, those numbers are reversed, as students cover approximately 80%.

123

ButterflyCatastrophe t1_j8fosu8 wrote

The state component is really important. The schools I've been able to find the data, the actual cost of instruction per student has risen very close to inflation since the 1980s. States have all increased their education budgets every year, because you can't decrease education spending, but not nearly as fast as inflation and increasing enrollment. Schools have to raise tuition to make up the difference.

Somewhere along the way, the political view of college changed from 'a well educated and highly skilled population benefits the whole state' to 'college education is a personal privilege.'

37

mushpuppy t1_j8ftf30 wrote

I remember that time. Reagan was surrounded by people who thought that way. They viewed anyone who needed help to become educated as a drain on the system. It was amazingly myopic.

18

broshrugged t1_j8hv1ac wrote

I wonder how much upward pressure on price the increase in enrollment causes. I imagine the percentage of women going to college has shot through the roof since 1980.

2

ButterflyCatastrophe t1_j8i3d3s wrote

As late as 2000, there was a note posted on the women's room of my uni's chemistry building reminding men that it's a co-ed campus (for 40 years) and men's rooms were 1 floor up or down - they'd swapped alternate floor restrooms rather than add women's rooms. The costs of increased enrollment and diversity don't show up in instruction, but in physical plant, construction, and elsewhere. So does the increasing luxury of campus accommodations. Compared to the 80s, every building now seems to have its own coffee shop; quad dorm rooms are virtually unheard of; exercise facilities; crafting/maker spaces; etc.

Those things definitely go into tuition, fees, and residence costs, which is why (I think) it's important to separate the actual cost of instruction. One might imagine, as powerpoint and smart boards have replaced overheads and chalk, that instructional costs would inflate to accommodate all the new technology, but that doesn't seem to be so. At least in the few places I could find instruction itemized. Faculty salaries (broadly) have just kept pace with inflation.

Growing enrollment has really allowed state governments to mask their slow but steady per capita defunding of higher education.

6

DijonDeLaPorte t1_j8i1kw4 wrote

Agreed. I live to see public funding in comparison to tuition increase.

2

not_a_droid t1_j8glqy8 wrote

started actually before that, with Nixon, if you can believe that

30

mushpuppy t1_j8gpd34 wrote

I was too young to remember. But I have no reason to doubt you. I just remember what Reagan did.

These self-focused people. Sacrificing us all at the altar of the rich.

9

semi-anon-in-Oly t1_j8i4jkk wrote

If you look at the number/ percentage of people that pursue a post secondary education it has increased dramatically since 1960. I’d be curious to see if the grants would have been sustainable as they were.

6

70monocle t1_j8hcds3 wrote

The more I learn about Nixon and Reagan, the more I hate them

7

rand0m_g1rl t1_j8hy5o6 wrote

“They could get students desperate for a better life on the hook.”

Replace students with homeowners and life with house, and this is what I think is happening in the real estate industry. Agents selling buyers a pipe dream of being able to afford more expensive homes than they truly comfortably can.

3

LuciusAurelian t1_j8jz2yj wrote

Its moreso that housing production has dropped significantly since the great recession, its on the way back up but not nearly fast enough.

1

theMonkeyTrap t1_j8k4bz6 wrote

whatever you subsidize you get more of that, they subsidize loans so loans balloon. earlier they used to subsidize education so we got more of that. it really is that simple.

1