Where Higher Education Went Wrong

A forum on the failures and future of the American university

Popping the Higher Education Bubble

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

The economist Herbert Stein once said that something that can’t go on forever, won’t. That observation, sometimes called Stein’s Law, could well turn out to be the theme for the current decade. But nowhere is it truer than in higher education. American higher education is first in the world, but it can’t go on forever on its current path.

Colleges are raising tuition and fees every year, at a rate of increase that far outpaces any reasonable expectation. One might think this is the kind of thing that couldn’t continue forever, but that’s precisely what has been happening over the past several decades. Prices have gone up, and buyers have poured in anyway, buoyed by a flood of seemingly cheap government money in the form of student loans.

As with any bubble, there are doomsayers who are mostly ignored and cheerleaders who say that this time it’s different. But—as with any bubble—reality is starting to intrude.

Though people have been talking about a bubble in higher education for a while, one major indicator that the swelling is approaching its limit was found in last year’s Occupy protests. While the protesters represented a diverse array of grievances, one common thread was that many had run up huge student loan debts for degrees that weren’t capable of generating sufficient income to make the payments.

At an annual growth rate of 7.45 percent, tuition has vastly outstripped both the consumer price index and health care inflation (see chart). The growth in home prices during the housing bubble looks like a mere bump in the road by comparison. For many years, parents could look to increased home values to make them feel better about paying Junior’s tuition—the so-called “wealth effect,” in which increases in asset values make people more comfortable about spending. Or at least they could borrow tuition costs against the equity in their homes. But that equity is gone now, and tuition marches on.

So where does that leave us? Even students who major in programs shown to increase earnings, such as engineering, face limits to how much debt they can sanely amass. With costs exceeding $60,000 a year for many private schools, and out-of-state costs at many state schools exceeding $40,000 (and often closing in on $30,000 for in-state students), some people are graduating with debt loads of $100,000 or more. Sometimes much more.

That’s dangerous. And the problem is not a small one: According to the Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the number of student-loan debtors now actually equals the number of people with college degrees. How is this possible? “First, huge numbers of those borrowing money never graduate from college,” Vedder explains. “Second, many who borrow are not in baccalaureate degree programs. Third, people take forever to pay their loans back.”

Total student loan debt in America has passed the trillion-dollar mark. That’s more than total credit card debt and more than total auto loan debt. Students graduating with heavy burdens of student loan debt must choose (if they can) jobs that pay enough money to cover the payments, often limiting their career choices to an extent they didn’t foresee in their undergraduate days.

Even students who can earn enough to service their debts may find themselves constrained in other ways: It’s hard to get a mortgage, for example, when you’re already effectively paying one in the form of student loans. And unlike other debt, there’s no “fresh start” available, since student loans generally aren’t dischargeable under bankruptcy. The whole thing looks a bit like the debt slavery schemes used by company stores and sharecropping operators during the 19th century.

Now the whole scheme is starting to break down. In my own world of legal education, applications have plummeted over the past few years. According to the ABA Journal, there has been a 22 percent drop this academic year alone, and they’re down almost half from 2007. Business schools, with declining pay and employment prospects for MBA graduates, are experiencing similar declines. Even in undergraduate admissions, colleges are losing the ability to set prices as applicants become more value-conscious. These trends have led the Moody’s rating service to downgrade the outlook for the entire higher education sector to “negative.”

Some in higher education are offended. College should be about improving your mind, they say, not about future salaries. But a recent study of more than 700 schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that many have virtually no requirements. Perhaps that’s why students, on average, are studying 50 percent less than they were a couple of decades ago.

When higher education was cheap enough that students could pay their own way by working part-time, “study what interests you” was reasonable advice. When the investment runs well into the six figures, students would be crazy not to worry about the return. If there’s no return, it’s not an investment; it’s a consumption item. A six-figure consumption item is well beyond the resources of most college-age Americans; nobody would advise an 18-year-old to purchase a Ferrari on borrowed money. But if a college education is a consumption item, not an investment, then they’re basically doing the same thing.

Higher education needs to be cheaper, more flexible, and better. It’s possible that technology will show the way: With the proliferation of online courses, some offered by major brand-name schools like Harvard, MIT, or Georgia Tech, there’s no reason why students should have to go into massive debt. And while an online degree from MIT (when such becomes available) probably won’t be worth as much as traditional MIT sheepskin, it may well outperform degrees from many less prestigious brick-and-mortar schools.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Where did the American higher education system go wrong?

    I just happen to have a back issue of my alma mater's alumni bulletin in the mound of random papers on my desk. It features an announcement of a great academic coup; landing a new "Assistant Professor of Feminist and Gender Studies".

    Elevating Grievance and Oppression Studies to department status definitely figures into that decline.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Colleges have always been prone to come up with ridiculous titles for people they wanted to hire. In the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries these titles tended to be vaguely theological. Now they are derived from the concerns of the dominant school of thought on campus; the Western Intellectual. It really isn't that different.

  • DarrenM||

    "Assistant Professor of Feminist and Gender Studies"

    What's so fantastic about getting a new 'assistant' anything?

  • Acosmist||

    It's fantastic because you don't have to pay them as much as associates.

  • AMP||

    "Assistant Professor" just means tenure-track. They aren't really "assistant" anything. If they gain tenure, then they become full Professors.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In a previous issue not on my desk, they bray excitedly about a new multi-million dollar fitness center currently under construction which would make any Beverly Hills kept woman weep with envy.

  • Professional Target||

    I remember one to that effect too. When I went the gym was on the bottom floor of one of the oldest buildings on campus. I don't remember ever walking in.

  • DarrenM||

    a new multi-million dollar fitness center

    And were students or faculty any more fit after this had been around for awhile? It would have been cheaper to give everyone memberships to the local gym. If there wasn't a local gym, I'm sure someone would have built one with the guaranteed memberships.

  • Professional Target||

    When I graduated with an unadjusted 3.96, the top of my class, I knew something was wrong. I was still uneducated. All it meant was that I was capable of conformative regurgitation.

  • Acosmist||

    Maybe major in something challenging then?

  • Taggart||

    You never had to write a paper or essay defending an original argument of your own? Where did you go to school? What was your major?

  • wareagle||

    the question posed by this article has so many answers it is hard to know where to begin:
    --tuition increased because it could be, largely because the feds became the guarantor of loans
    --treating grievance studies as legitimate scholarship
    --pretending that every high school grad had to get a four-year degree immediately after that
    --millions blown on student centers, health facilities, and other amenities that have nothing to do with learning
    --inflated salaries for professors whose actual instruction time is a fraction of their responsibilities

  • Brandybuck||

    I think the "pretending that every high school grad had to get a four-year degree immediately" bullet is a symptom, not a cause. Government financing of tuitions creates a glut of degrees out in the market, and the market responds accordingly by discounting the value of education, including that of diplomas.

    The other bullets are spot on though.

  • 21044||

    --pretending that every high school grad had to get a four-year degree

    I'd add another related item:

    --pretending that every high school grad has the intellectual capacity to earning a four-year degree
    (even if the HS grad is given enough support, however you want to define support)

  • trshmnstr||

    Then add the consequences of those two items:

    --pretending that those without the intellectual capacity were actually passing their classes through grade inflation

    which leads back to "discounting the value of education"

  • DarrenM||

    which leads back to "discounting the value of education"

    There is a difference between education and a credential claiming you are educated.

  • AMP||

    Many of the extra amenities are in place due to student demand. At the university where I work, it was the students who demanded a state-of-the-art recreation center and voted to increase their student fees to fund it.

    Colleges and universities are in active competition for students, and today's kids aren't willing to stay in dorms that don't have wi-fi. They won't eat the same slop we tolerated 30 years ago. They all have cars and want a place to park them. Offer them an outlying lot, and they demand a shuttle to drive them to their classes. Any university that doesn't offer these things will lose students to the schools that do, creating a conundrum for public institutions where state funds are allocated on the basis of FTE (full-time equivalent). Lose students, lose funding; gain students, gain expenses.

    It's an arms race, and these sorts of things always end badly for all concerned.

  • np||


    If somebody comes to work for us, and has an MBA, we look them and say, "What's going on in your head that you allocated another $100,000 and two years of your time to get more theory when you should've been out there 'doing'?"

    speaking of which, anyone remember the program Peter Theil setup to pay you $20,000 to drop out and do something entrepreneurial?

  • mr simple||

    speaking of which, anyone remember the program Peter Theil setup to pay you $20,000 to drop out and do something entrepreneurial?

    Read the Michael Gibson piece on page 6.

  • DarrenM||

    something entrepreneurial

    This needs to be taught in all high schools. It would be great if there was a legitimate online program that would teach this kind of thing.

  • Doctor Whom||

    If public high schools taught anything about entrepreneurship except how evil it is, that would be a good first step.

  • Taggart||

    Our public high school has Entrepreneurship 1 and Entrepreneurship 2 classes.

  • trshmnstr||

    Though people have been talking about a bubble in higher education for a while, one major indicator that the swelling is approaching its limit was found in last year’s Occupy protests. While the protesters represented a diverse array of grievances, one common thread was that many had run up huge student loan debts for degrees that weren’t capable of generating sufficient income to make the payments.

    This kinda irritates me. Do these folks not even do the most rudimentary research before choosing a college major? There are exactly 3 things that you need to know about your major to not fall into this trap. 1) Cost of tuition, 2) median starting salary, 3) the GPA you need to shoot for to get a job.

    Unless one has been actively misled and lied to by their college, I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who choose an expensive education in a major that is a glorified "Barista 101."

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    The Occupier I remember the most was an idiot who had a good teaching job, but wanted to be a puppeteer, so spent two years and $xx,000 on a masters in puppetry, then found he couldn't get a job teaching elementary school kids about puppets. Naturally he blamed it on Wall Street.

  • DarrenM||

    There are people who are good at getting a degree, but have absolutely no common sense. (The version of myself at age 20 was one of them.)

  • AzD||

    "Unless one has been actively misled and lied to by their college..."

    People ARE being lied to and misled by colleges. Lied to about the true costs - books, "fees", "surcharges" etc. - misled about future job prospects, and essentially lied to and misled about the value of this ever-more expensive education, one that is increasing several times the rate of inflation.

  • GregMax||

    College is a racket. Not an absolute racket. It does produce significant education and ultimate productivity. But it's also another cash cow promoted by liars and benefiting collectivists way beyond the benefits of their contribution.
    The extension of this logic is the "public education for-all" lunacy. If college is a racket as described in the article and mentioned in these comments . . . isn't most of the mandated participation in "education" after 13 years old?
    I had a grandmother who came to the US at 17 escaping genocide, and she spent the next 77 years working her ass off, making great business decisions and ended up with 2 million worth of savings, income properties and a house - ZERO debt. She had been educated up until the age of 12. We've become a culture that perpetuates the myth that every child should grow up to become a lawyer, doctor or politician. Do we need bus drivers, and store owners with BAs?
    I doubt it has much to do with "education" making our society a better place when you consider the general state of ignorance in basic economic reality amongst the population as a whole - at least the 60 mil who voted for Obama.

  • Mr. Soul||

    is it still true that college INCREASES human capital? My experience as a tuition paying parent is the opposite.

  • DarrenM||

    Require your kid to get minimum grades or you don't pay the tuition. That's how many companies handle tuition reimbursements for employees. The most important thing is learning how to study, which is probably something that needs to be learned *before* college. If a kid is unable to buckle down and study in college, he should not be going yet.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Nick, I think you're wrong about half. I don't have any problem with a classical liberal arts education, humanities, social sciences, etc, except when the degree is paid for by my taxes for a student who isn't there to learn. I've known too many students who purposely took the easiest courses, or ones their friends had taken the year before, because college was nothing more than a paid vacation between high school and settling down. They would have learned more by joining the navy or hiking around Europe.

    You worked your way through college, so it had significant value to you. It's obvious these massive student loans are going to be paid off by taxpayers one way or the other, and I resent that. If those students had actually learned something other than how to binge drink, it might be arguable that society benefited from their four year frat party. But they didn't, society didn't, and that is why so many people sneer at liberal arts and humanities degrees.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I read the first two pieces but had to stop because I became too angry to continue. I now have the overwhelming desire to punch someone in the face.

    This is just education. Too many other public policy issues-like healthcare-are just as wasteful, nonsensical and corrupt.

    The upside? We're doomed.

  • Brubaker||

    "It’s not clear that such measures would do much to stem the tide of students pursuing useless degrees. After all, the market already sends strong signals to students that engineering is worthwhile. But kids are idealistic and impractical."

    Well, yes, that's true, but you're missing the elephant in the room: Those useless degrees, generally in the social sciences, are quite simply far easier to complete. Degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics require solid work, and a lot of it. Students who lack the intellectual tools or the drive to compete in more difficult disciplines self-select into easier programs.

  • Taggart||

    Yep. I couldn't hack it as a Math major, so I switched to double majoring in English and Economics instead. But I wouldn't call either of those "useless" degrees. It's not like you can't get a job with a good GPA and an English degree. Or an Economics degree. Or both. Granted, the job may end up having nothing to do with English and Economics, but they like to see you have the B.A. when they hire you.

  • Wind Rider||

    Hmm. Maybe it wouldn't be such a mess if they just got some college graduates to run things.

  • Alan Collinge||

    Interesting that only academics were asked to diagnose the problem, violating Hume's advice that one should proceed from experience when seeking good knowledge.

    There are, in fact, non-academics who, proceeding from their firsthand experience as students (or more accurately-student borrowers) have done significant research,and exposed important critical elements of this problem. These laymen have, in fact, put forth rational explanations admitting simple solutions for the current crisis that have withstood serious, repeated criticism, and continue to gain credibility over the years.

    But just as these citizens weren't at the design table as higher education finance policy was(evidently) so poorly crafted, so too is their presence at the failure analysis table not required. Funny that many of the same characters at the first are also, now, at the second.


  • ||

    Speaking as someone who attended an online school, I can tell you that the world's hiring managers mostly attended brick and mortar colleges, and until that changes, don't bother wasting your time and resources unless you just need a credential for a guaranteed promotion within your company, or you are truly pursuing your education entirely for its own sake. On the bright side, you'll be no worse educated than somebody coming out of a typical state school and have accumulated significantly less debt. My entire degree, for example, cost the VA $21,000. I'm only out my time.

  • ||

    But to more clearly state my point, do not believe what you read from the idealists about the coming online education revolution. There isn't one, and there probably isn't going to be one. At least not now or in the immediate future. Even if you really did get a good education from a school that isn't a diploma mill, the rest of the world thinks you attended Hamburger University. And that's really all that matters in terms of employment.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Hmmm, I'm not sure about this. Thomas Edison- a state univeristy in NJ - is an all online degree issuing school. It also has a transfer agreement with all other state universities in NJ. So, one could get an associates from TE and then transfer (depending on major) all or most of their credits to Rutgers or The College of NJ to pursue a B.A or B.S. Much money and time can be saved if the student seeks out ways to play the system and is willing to take a nontraditional path.

  • Boehm Houle||

    The article doesn't mention that students learn much less in K-12 than they used to learn, so a high school diploma is significantly devalued from what it once was. Because so many more students go on to a university or college degree (of dubious value in many cases), the value of an undergraduate degree is also devalued. So any kind of intellectual filtering now might only happen at a graduate degree level, and then only in the hard sciences or business. Fix K-12 and you have a good start on fixing the rest of the problem...

  • Debbie Ruston||

    Parents and students must do their research and recognize they have choice. No longer do we have to settle for what the educational system is offering. There has been dramatic change happening, and so much being offered outside of the traditional classroom. If a student's course choice is out of reach for them because of tuition costs, or the course they want is not offered in the area they want to study, they can access online options that will give them exactly what they require. All at much less cost and in many cases, much more effective.

  • Tussah1||

    People need college degrees to get a job, because employers require them.

    Employers require a college degree, because they are no longer allowed to test applicants to determine whether they can read/write/follow instructions. (3 guesses who has forbidden this)

    In other words, the college degree serves as an extremely expensive employment test.

    Just another example of government screwing up the system.

  • Kirk McDermid||

    Tussah - got a link to share to support your claim that interviewers aren't allowed to ask questions?

    Must make it hard on employers if they can't test applicants' ability to follow instructions! Even scheduling an interview time & place would violate this law, eh?

  • Misfit410||

    You mean there is no legitimate reason why I should have to take a Microbiology course to get a Business degree?

  • Kirk McDermid||

    Yes, please just view university baccalaureates as job training. There are no downsides to treating this as a pure revenue-optimization problem - trust the above economists on that.

  • mollyblixtegelind||

    my roomate's ex-wife makes $62/hr on the internet. She has been without work for ten months but last month her pay was $20049 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.jump30.com

  • Rapparree||

    As economic reality evolves, undergraduate education should focus on developing the "love of learning" in students. Then they can take their technical training to earn a living and participate in "remote" (internet) learning in their leisure time. On-campus education will become a minor sector of higher education when the competition heats up in "remote" learning.

  • mauboy_j||

    Aaliyah. I can see what your saying... Joan`s story is inconceivable, on thursday I bought Mercedes from having made $4571 thiss month and-over, 10k last-munth. it's by-far the most-rewarding Ive had. I began this 5 months ago and pretty much straight away started to make at least $77 per/hr. I use the details on this web-site,, http://www.jump30.com

  • Barrett70||

    my classmate's aunt makes $79/hr on the computer. She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her pay check was $15402 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here http://www.wow92.com

  • Tired_Libertarian||

    I find it absolutely amazing how tuition has skyrocketed. Government grants and student loans is a good idea but what happened to students attending a college or university for knowledge and skills to be productive members of society? Instead we have French art majors studying for their future career at...Starbucks. A local Cal State university spent 214 MILLION dollars on a performing arts center while facing budget cutbacks on other departments like the sciences and engineering departments. Mind boggling!

  • Xylem||

    This article surely misses the point. I note that all of the commentators attended college and yet are not sufficiently well trained to study the true economics of public higher education. If they would have examined the state government disinvestment over the past two decades, they would know why tuition has gone up. It is a falsehood to claim that there is a higher education bubble. It is quite simply the fact that as state governments decrease their support of public education, students and their families will have to pick up the tab.

    Consider the case of one regional university in Illinois. In 2010, the university received 60% of its budget from state appropriations. In 2014, it is expected that the university will only receive 40% of its budget from state appropriations. The university is not laying off faculty or staff. However, it is leaving many position unfilled. Maintenance is being deferred. Yes, there are shiny new buildings on some campuses. But this is cherry picking. Most universities in the state of Illinois have millions of dollars worth of deferred maintenance. This article is just so wrong. More facts please, less grandstanding. Where are the Reason Magazine editors?

  • Kirk McDermid||

    I have some concerns about a couple of Vedder's key numbers...

    "This academic arms race is largely financed by taxpayers. In 1970, the federal government’s student financial assistance programs totaled..." ignores the very real and massive *decrease* in funding (by state and federal governments) directly to colleges. It's not that colleges suddenly have become massive drains on federal coffers; it's that the flow of money has shifted from direct support of the institution by (primarily) state governments, to individual *loans* to students. Surely, this is a non-negligible point. (How could government hold colleges accountable when it doesn't hold the purse strings anymore, and instead relies on students to do so? Do students have the same incentives for a robust and responsible academia, or might they busily be grazing the Commons bare by looking for the cheapest place to get their sheepskin?)

  • Kirk McDermid||

    In addition:

    "Meanwhile, professors have been given reduced teaching loads—the proportion of instructors who teach four hours or less per week has more than doubled since 2000" apparently ignores the very great difference between tenured faculty and adjuncts. If Vedder is lumping all of them together, that's very deceptive: adjuncts typically will teach less than four hours a week (at any particular institution) because they typically only get hired for one course (hiring them for more than 2-3 usually means the university is on the hook for benefits.) Sure, adjuncts teach at more than one place, but no statistics currently aggregate that - they double or triple count an adjunct as teaching staff (with a light load!!) at multiple institutions. I wonder if a significant increase in the proportion of adjuncts since the 70's could explain Vedder's numbers... nah. (And, curiously, no accompanying data on the average salary for these slackers. Missed opportunity?)

    These cavalier uses of numbers makes me suspicious of his conclusions in the extreme, though I do have some sympathy with them. You can do better, Prof. Vedder.

  • AMP||

    We're living in an arms race. Employers have been requiring degrees for jobs that don't involve degreed work since the early 90s. Unless one is naturally suited to entrepreneurship or has a family business to move into, some form of higher ed is going to be required. However hard it may be to find a job with a BA in philosophy or something equally wishy-washy, the odds are still better than with only a HS diploma.

    Where we do young people a disservice is in promoting the idea that the traditional 4-year degree is the only option. Electrician, HVAC tech, respiratory therapist and radiology tech are just a few of the jobs one can get with a community college degree. If one still hankers for a BA after that, it's much easier to pay for it on the $45K average salary of a respiratory tech than a barista's pay.

    For most young people, going to college straight out of high school is a waste of time. Few have clear goals, and what they think they want to do in life is usually not where they want to be once they've got a little life experience under their belt.

    Unless a young person is one of those rare birds who was born knowing his or her direction in life, we should be encouraging gap years and community college for our graduating high school seniors. Let them gain a little wisdom about the world and themselves before selling them on a four-year degree. Many universities are very accommodating of working adults, and the ones that aren't will change to suit the new market.

  • ||

    The whole problem is system .
    Today USA is not a normal capitalist coun try which I highly appreciate, but it is wild capitalism killing everything including education.
    To American marketers the price is " whatever the customer is willing to pay "
    To me " price is cost + a reasonable profit "
    In USA education is priced like that. Since there is demand and Government loans wild capitalist educators will enjoy their profits.

    Loook up last MOOCs solutions.
    Wild capitalists made it for money immediately.
    Thanks to MIT + Harvar+ Berkeley
    I support MIT+Harvard+berkeley

  • DaveTh||

    This could be a multi-volume series. In 2001, I went back to the campus directories for 1985 and 2000 and broke down the employees is a Q&D which did not bother with openings where I taught econ. I also pulled the enrollment and budget books. I found student enrollment was up by 40%, with full-time having risen faster than part-time. Faculty increased by 15%, administrators and staff increased by 48%.
    I proposed, based on my consulting MBA, that the budget be prioritized. The budget have two categories: the items in the top 80% as a block and the bottom 20% in prioitized line item. It should be made public, so anyone whose job or project was in the bottom 20% would know as simply being fare. When the money runs short by say 10%, start from the bottom and when 10% has been added up, draw a line. What is above the line stays, what is below the line is gone. It was met with shock.
    I would add that those who have taken all or virutally all online courses most often lack social interaction skills compared to tradional with some seat time and agree with the line in this article that employers will look for deficiencies in all online graduates.

  • Overtaxed||

    There is a very simple problem with higher education in this country, and it's not just the cost of college. Employers typically use college degrees not as a "job training" qualification but rather as a proxy IQ test. If you have a college degree it's very likely that your IQ is 2 SDs above the norm (about 120 or so). Any employers who are recruiting for "brain work" know that higher IQ people do better in those positions. A BA/BS is a proxy, in many cases, for a simple IQ test. Why not just ask for IQ, or administer an IQ test you ask? Simple answer; it's illegal (for all employers with the exception of the military and a few other government positions).

    Now, there's a fundamental problem here. If we really did send every high school student to college, the value of a college degree as an IQ proxy would disappear. The college degree would be nothing more than a high school degree (which, BTW, does have an IQ component as well, you're very unlikely to have a seriously low IQ if you graduate high school).

    The other problem is that there are a shocking number of people who graduate college with a degree (thereby proving their 120 IQ) but with no useful job skills at all. Yes, they are better off than if they didn't go; but, why waste that much time?? Rick Scott was right to attach an immediate financial incentive to STEM majors; we need more "science" and less "navel gazing" coming out of college.

  • Dhecker||

    another issue is the way in which colleges and universities are increasingly relying on a small percentage of parents to pay a disproportionate amount of the costs. at most of the private colleges that everyone focuses on, 2 out of 5 parents pay the full stated rate. The rest pay tens of thousands of dollars less, receiving discounts to the retail rape called "financial aid." The same issue exists with state schools where in-state students pay a tiny fraction of the total cost even considering the state aid that is provided and a subset of the minority of out of state parents pay the full rate. Leaving aside the fairness and perhaps illegality charging a minority of people $150,000 more over or years for the same educational service,the number of people who every year can pay tuition that increases at a greater rate than their income must someday become so small that the business model of those colleges becomes untenable.

  • Dhecker||

    Meant "retail rate" of course. Tablet typo.

  • Audrey||

    Lots of young people across the world set the education as a main priority in life. They think that getting a good job and making a career is impossible without a higher degree. But it’s so wrong that college tuition is so expensive. How low and middle income families can send their students to college? If they want to avoid a loan then it’s necessary to start saving money for college from the early childhood. And the next frustrating thing is a weak job market. Some people who even have good recommendations and marks often can’t get a job and should apply to Canadian online pay day loan store to stay afloat. I think that college education should be affordable for everyone because our future depends on young educated people.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.