In this post I will be summarizing part of an article and then responding to the article. The article that I will be using is, Over Invested and Over Priced, American Higher Education Today. It can be found on the center for college affordability's website. The direct link is http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Over_Invested_Final.pdf. There are a few good signs of credibility in this article. One sign of credibility is the author. Richard Vedder is the director at the center for college affordability and productivity, as well as being a distinguished professor of economics at Ohio university. Richard Vedder is also a published author on the subject of college costs. Another sign of credibility is that his article appears on the site of a not for profit research center devoted to researching rising costs and the issue of stagnating efficiency in higher education. The final reason that I am using this article is that it contains current information. While I could not find the actual date that the article was written it cites surveys from within the past six or seven years frequently. I will only be using part of this article due to its length and depth. I will be using the sections entitled, Why are universities overpriced?, and, What should we do?. I am using these two sections because they are closest to my focus. These sections help answer my questions about whether or not colleges really are overpriced, and, if they are, what we should do.
One reason colleges are overpriced is that they are using more resources to produce graduates as time goes on. In most fields, the amount of resources being used is dropping due to technology, but not in college. University proponents will cite the Baumol effect as the reason for this. The Baumol effect is that in the fine arts the productivity of employees can not be increased, so the relative cost rises. The question is, is this a legitimate argument when it comes to college professors? After all, they are in many ways similar to an actor. They stand in front of a class and deliver their lesson, much as an actor delivers his lines. Couldn't the productivity be increased by using technology? By, for example, taping lectures to be used again. Even though these methods have been shown to have promise, colleges are still reluctant to use them. A final reason that colleges are overpriced is that the non-teaching staff has increased. Colleges are now hiring more people to do the same jobs, which causes a rise in price. What then should we do? According to Charles Koch "Market based management" needs to be introduced to colleges and universities. Part of this would be limiting government aid to colleges. Some useful reforms would be to increase the teaching loads on professors, eliminate low enrollment costly graduate programs, and use technology to lower costs. Unless costs are contained, our return on investment will drop.
I agree with much, but not all, of what Richard Vedder says. I think that he makes a very good point when he talks about the amount of resources being used to educate college students. Often colleges are investing in resources not even directly related to their students education, non-instructional staff for example. Not only does hiring more non-instructional staff drive the cost of college up, it could be taking away from student job opportunities. Also, while Richard Vedder does not say so directly, the same thinking could be applied to the extra amenities that colleges are now providing. Just as extra non-instructional staff is often not necessary, climbing walls, gyms, and over sized dorms are not necessary. I think that Richard Vedder brings up some interesting questions when he addresses technology in the classroom. I do not believe however, that you could replace professors with advanced technology. For certain lectures in certain classes it would be possible to use a taped lecture, but certainly not in all situations. While technology could help decrease costs in certain areas, I do not believe that the classroom is one of them. It can be a helpful teaching aid, but it could not replace a teacher. I think that Dr. Vedder also brings up a few good points when addressing what we should do. The amount of government aid provided to students is often too much. Students easily receive aid, which increases enrollment, which in turn continues to drive the price up. If we limit government aid, we will find the students that really want to be at college. It will decrease enrollment, and, in theory, limit the cost of college. I think that Dr. Vedder also suggests some good reforms. While not all college professors are only teaching one or two classes, some are. It would make sense to eliminate the teaching assistants in these cases, and have the professor teach the classes himself. Another reform that I think makes a lot of sense would be to eliminate a program that has a low enrollment rate. This would result in colleges with more specialized focuses, as well as driving the price down. It would then be possible to have professors more devoted to their subject, which would result in a better education, as well as a cheaper one. In closing, I definitely agree with Dr. Vedder that many colleges are overpriced. He identifies some of what we are really paying for, which is an important consideration when thinking about college. While I believe that college will never be for everyone, if some of these reforms are enacted, it could become a sensible option for more people.
I've got to admit that when you selected this topic, I was nervous about source selection. I was afraid that you'd have trouble diving below the mainstream news articles discussing this issue, but you continue to impress me with your ability to dig up solid sources written by credible authors. This source is another nice find.
ReplyDeleteIn your summary, you capture the main points. You have one minor slip where you slightly step over the line into interpretation. As you summarize the section that discusses the increase of non-instructional staff, you say that colleges are hiring the more people to do the same amount of jobs. The source does not specify that fact. And, I'd play devil's advocate and say that it's important to realize that some of those non-instructional staff are working in positions that didn't exist in 1976. To be sure, some of those positions might be tying into the issues raised by your other articles -- people are in place to maintain the fancy facilities and extra-curricular projects that colleges have rolled out to attract students. But, some of those positions have been created due to outside pressure. Increased educational accountability has created the need for universities to hire staff members to track massive amounts of institutional data required by accrediting boards, and since 1976, the federal government has required that colleges extend services that make college accessible to students with disabilities. Coordinating these services also required the hiring of additional staff. Again, it was a minor interpretational slip in the summary, but knowing what is behind some of those expanding positions may help you as you continue your exploration of the topic.
The summary is just a little light on explaining why Vedder recommends a market based management approach.
Now on to the response... I do think you bring up a great point when it comes to looking at where student employment opportunities fit into the non-instructional staff picture. And, you make a good connection to tie this source to others when you again raise the question about what types of amenities are really necessary. And, I thought it was very interesting to hear your reaction as a student to his suggestion about cutting back in the classroom. I think you came up with a balanced response there; don't get rid of profs, but look at prof's work load. Whew...so many angles to think about. It's going to be interesting to see which angle you choose for your editorial.