John Richard Schrock: Students paying more, getting cheaper degrees

What are the major causes of exorbitant college tuition? Legislatures, visionaries and student customers.

State legislatures have switched from viewing education as a public good to viewing it as a private good. Some states cut all higher-education funding. When the 2007 recession dramatically trimmed many states’ tax revenues, their “public” universities were unaffected. They had already moved to being “state” in name only, and student tuition was underwriting all of the costs.

The guilty parties include the national and state “visionaries” that insist everyone is college-able. From President Obama and Gov. Sam Brownback wanting 60 percent of citizens to have higher-education degrees to the Kansas Board of Regents insisting on growth in retention and graduation, the myth that everyone should go to college is printed on banners hanging in many high school hallways.

In the mid-1980s, 42 percent of Kansas high school graduates went on to higher education. Today twice that percentage enter postsecondary schools. Most do not finish. Nationwide, about three-fourths of students who enter the private elite schools graduate, half who enter public universities graduate, and only one-fourth of those who enter community college graduate.

So even if the state legislatures supported higher education as a public good, there would be twice as many students to subsidize. Figures confirm this: In the 1980s, the state provided $2 for each $1 the student paid in tuition. Today the state pays 92 cents in instructional costs for each $1 the student pays. Every non-college-able student in college draws money away from the college-able. And now Board of Regents pressure to grow and retain and graduate merely pushes public universities to inflate grades and devalue degrees.

But there is another major factor contributing to the inflation in college costs: competition.

A feature article in the Aug. 1 Chronicle of Higher Education describes the growing competition to attract students by campus beautification. The title says it all: “Spending Shifts as Colleges Compete on Students’ Comfort.” Substantial amounts of money are going into remodeling classrooms and student unions and dormitories that were perfectly functional. Spending on these “student services” is going up faster than spending on instruction.

The problem is simple: You can’t spend your educational dollars twice. Any commonsense Kansas farmer knows that having that reliable and productive green-and-yellow tractor working behind the house is more important than having a nice entrance to the front driveway. But college presidents are not Kansas farmers.

Many universities are shifting money to housing frills and expensive renovations of the campus and grounds to the detriment of the teaching force. “Instructional technology” – using the latest fad equipment that will be obsolete in a few years – is becoming another money pit. Higher administrators feel that it is more important to look techie than to actually provide professors with the facilities that they request.

Where techie gadgets are required, it drives up student costs and distances students from the remaining good faculty. Every dollar spent on “campus enhancements” is a dollar diverted from academics. Low salaries for new faculty then fail to recruit the best academics. More and more faculty members are hired who are adjuncts. Fewer professor doors are open between classes.

It becomes a paradox: Students are paying more but getting cheaper faculty, cheaper courses and cheaper degrees.

Public universities are “lookin’ purty” and delivering less for more.

This story was originally published September 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM with the headline "John Richard Schrock: Students paying more, getting cheaper degrees."