Demand Value in Higher Education
[Editor's Note: A version of this post ran yesterday in the Albany Times Union]
The College Board reports tuition is up nine percent this year in inflation-adjusted terms, despite declining prices throughout the economy and stagnant median family income. Parents want to know why the sharp increase and why college costs so much in the first place.
The answer, in a word, is demand. Until we channel higher education demand in a more rational direction, tuition will continue to outpace inflation, grant aid, and family income.
Higher Ed Watch readers know that demand isn't the only factor driving tuition. College supply is relatively limited. Higher education is slow to embrace productivity gains seen elsewhere in the economy. Most important, states cut higher education funding to balance budgets, and colleges backfill those cuts by hiking tuition. Banks act as enablers, supplying big student loans to anyone willing to borrow.
But at its base, tuition rises because suppliers, including those who finance them, take advantage of high, under-informed, and often irrational consumer demand. As families shop colleges this fall, they would be well served to focus on value. The Department of Education can help by protecting consumers from the worst deals. We need a lemon law for colleges that cost too much and deliver too little.
Families are limited in their ability to assess the value of most colleges. Popular guides like US News & World Report rank only the top 10 percent of schools and focus on inputs like class size instead of outcomes like how much students learn. Families therefore rely on proxies, including the newness of non-academic facilities like residence halls and athletic fields, advertising, and price. It's the Neiman Marcus phenomenon. If it costs more, it must be better. Wrong.
It's not easy to compare colleges in terms of student learning because there isn't comparative testing at the post-secondary education level. But we can compare schools according to what consumers most want out of higher education: good jobs and financial security.
Congress recently required colleges to report average net price after financial aid. A private web site, www.payscale.com, lists average starting and mid-career salaries for graduates of more than 300 institutions of higher education. And the Education Department knows the percentage of students leaving each college who default on their student loans. With that information and more like it, Secretary Duncan can construct a "higher education p/e ratio," price of college to expected future earnings, for each school.
Consider SUNY Binghamton and Niagara University, for example, both in upstate New York. From a purely financial standpoint, Binghamton is a great deal. Its sticker price is approximately $17,000 a year, and graduates earn a median income of $52,000 within five years of separation, according to Payscale.com.
In contrast, Niagara's sticker price is $35,000 a year, and graduates earn a median starting income of less than $38,000 within five years of separation.
The lemons tend to be in the for-profit trade school sector. Not all trade schools are poor options, but we should make the really risky ones warn consumers in all marketing materials, just like politicians have to say they approve campaign commercials.
"Warning: One in three Acme College borrowers defaults on a student loan within three years of separation from Acme College. Acme graduates earn an average starting salary of $22,000 a year. Be careful before assuming substantial student loan debt to attend Acme College.''
True, higher education is about more than future income. Most music and art schools will have a worse higher education p/e ratio than science and engineering schools. That's fine. Students can and should still study music and art, and they should consider more than financial returns in choosing a college. But a well-publicized higher education p/e ratio will empower students who want to study music, art, or anything else to choose programs and institutions with a more informed eye.
Schools will want to be identified as good-value options and shudder at the prospect of being on a lemon list. To avoid it, they'll be less quick to raise tuition and more interested in making sure their students get good-paying jobs.
Until we nudge students toward good value options, tuition everywhere will march upward, unabated. We can slow that march though by helping families become better consumers in the higher education marketplace.
Michael Dannenberg, the founding Director of New America's Education Policy Program and Higher Ed Watch, is currently a Senior Fellow with the foundation.
- Login to post comments


















Sounds like a start, but expect push back....
In the late eighties and early nineties when I received acceptance letters to top tier law schools, I had a difficult decision to make. Do I go to the bottom tier state school for free. Or do I take on a mountain of student debt to get through one of the nations best. Anyway remember the late eighties? The economy was booming, mergers and acquisitions were explosive. The law school bragged that the median salary of its graduates in 1989 was $85,000. At the time, should a student fall on hard times, they could seek protections, as all businesses and consumers of other loans could, with bankruptcy protection.
I graduated from the top tier school in 93 amid a slow economy, and cut backs in the legal field. I could not get a job that might support my student loan payment of 800/month anywhere. My in-laws, two physicians, offered to support me in an effort to start my own independent practice, if we moved close by. Well to make a long story short, disease, death, depression, a local bust of a real estate bubble, and eventually divorce destroyed that effort. By then it was 1998 and bankruptcy protections was ripped away from the consumer by lobbying efforts by forces that eventually lead to the current student loan industry. As a result of compounding interest, lack of any meaningful consumer protection, un and under-employment for ten years, zero income for two years, and poverty level income from three, marginal income for the rest. I now have $300,000 in student debt at 53 with a two year old son. I am permanently insolvent and unless I can find a job doubling my salary in the next year or two, there is no way this interest will ever be paid in my life time. My result may be extreme, but there are many more just like me. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of lives that are marginalized, who completely give up, who are driven to the extremes of suicide. And we suffer from this because of lobbyists making up the existence of supposed legions of students that were trying to go to school and specifically get out of student debt via bankruptcy. I have never seen any legitimate evidence that this legion of American rip off artists ever existed, and no one ever names any.
Education is expensive because you have created a student loan system that destroys more than lives like mine; it destroys all of the free market forces that would lead to efficiency in higher education. College raises prices because they can, students can just borrow more money. And you absolutely have to have an education to get a job in this economy, so you really have no meaningful choice as a student. You are forced to agree to hocking all of your future for the slim chance that you will have a better future. Universities and colleges are turning hundreds of thousands of us into nothing more than indentured servants with little to no hope of ever having a viable economic solvency. It works because we are broke we have no way to have a voice in this political system that requires you to have millions to get the attention of policy makers, as the current stakeholders have. Further there has been a well orchestrated campaign by the industry stakeholders to characterize all defaulters as merely loser deadbeats trying to avoid their obligations. Well we are not, and given half a chance we would be buying new cars, houses and growing families, stimulating the economy and saving for our son’s and daughter’s education.
This is beyond punitive; if you made a person suffer this live long loss in a criminal proceeding I cannot imagine it would ever be called humane.
The problem is the availability of student loans and the lack of any cost of default being set against the school that takes in all the cash. I would like to see a return to bankruptcy protections, and that the cost of bankruptcy should be assessed against schools whose graduates are encouraged to take the loans, but are unable to get the lucrative jobs the degrees are suppose to generate. Thus, if the school does not see the prospective student as potentially employable, it will not take that student into its programs, and will only matriculate students it reasonably expects to be employable with the degree they are hawking. We need more accountability by the schools to the graduates. I could be a system where the school pays back the principal outstanding at the students bankruptcy. The school than holds a conditional potential lein that could be activated for principal only within seven years if the student has some windfall or unexpected recovery.
student loan default
My student loans originated from my associate's degree in liberal arts; and, like the abovementioned person in the article, due to unemployment, underemployment, depression, etc...have not been able to acquire an undergrad degree as well as viable employment to pay the debt which has more than doubled.
I am willing to help in attempting to get the government to listen to the plight of the many like me who have chronic debt issues like these. And who have been working and cannot get out of the deep chasm of this debt.