Pearlstein: College Tuition

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein will be online Wednesday, Nov. 14 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss his observations on college tuition costs.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.

His column archive is online here.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Bethesda, Md.: Mr. Pearlstein: Excellent column today, and I am ever thankful that my kids have finished college.

The question I have (and I do ask this as a sports fan) is whether any college/university has done a serious, hard-nosed audit of the athletic program. It is my understanding (and this is more in the way of understood truth or possibly urban legend) that virtually every school with a "big time" athletic program, particularly a football program, loses money, in buckets, on those programs.

Comment? History? Valid or not?

washingtonpost.com: An Ivory Tower of Pricing

Steven Pearlstein: I suspect the successful big time sports programs are successful money makers. Indirectly, they also help goose up alumni giving and attract sought-after students. the reason everyone is doing it is because it is a good investment. That said, now that more and more schools have got in on the game, they are bidding up the price of talent (athletic scholarships, coaches) to the point that they are less profitable than they used to be. If it were professional sports, the athletes would eat up whatever profit was left. But since there is a limit on how much student athletes can be paid, the university gets to keep the surplus.

_______________________

Shippensburg, Pa.: I have been a stay-at-home mom for 15 years, after having been a mid-level manager. My son is a sophomore in high school, my daughter is in 7th grade. I'm finishing a master's degree and will re-enter the workforce primarily to pay for tuition for both of them. My husband is a math prof. making about $90,000. We have no debt but we also only have about $20,000 saved for college. In your opinion, am I simply replacing financial aid by going back to work, or does my husband make too much to have received any aid? Both kids are stellar students, planning on private universities, but unlikely to get scholarships to the types of schools they plan to apply to (Duke, Penn, CMU, Vanderbilt). I expect to make about $50,000-$60,000 in college administration starting next fall (same as what I was earning when I quit 15 years ago!). Thanks for your help.

Steven Pearlstein: I am reluctant to answer a question like this because they are very fact specific and I don't know the facts. I'd say in general you should always go to work and not worry about the marginal taxes so much (the scholarship penalty is like a marginal tax). First of all, lots of universities provide tuition aid to their employees. Also, you'd be surprised how high your household income can go at the elite schools before you don't qualify for aid. If your kids are really smart or have some other special talent, there is always the additional possibility of merit aid (not based on need). It seems to me there are so many variables and unknowns that the best thin is to make the money, save and it will probably come out fine in the end.

_______________________

Woburn, Mass.: At Univ of MA at Lowell there are 2.92 administrators per faculty member now. At Ohio State Univ there are 2.64 administrators per faculty member. At Univ of Ca (whole system) there are 0.57 administrators per faculty member. In 1954 there were 0.40 administrators per faculty member at Ohio State Univ! (A reasonable number) Is this bloated admin/faculty ratio the main cause of too-high tuition? Admin do no teaching and no research!

Steven Pearlstein: Administrative expenses are the fastest growing part of university budgets, according to Bill Poole, a Federal Reserve regional president and former Brown economics professor. What that category takes in is probably rather squishy--everything from administrator's salary to building maintenance I suspect. But you do identify an area where productivity has been going in the wrong direction.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: My oldest daughter is a freshman at the University of Maryland at College Park. The dorm in which she lives (Cambridge) seems like it hasn't been updated since the 1950s. Peeling paint all over the building. Old, outdated bathrooms. No air conditioning. The living areas are certainly are not conducive to the learning process. And the dining hall, though barely adequate, could have a more varied menu and high-quality food. Yet, the U of M appears to have spent millions on a state-of-the-art gymnasium and a cultural/theater building. Why are the Powers That Be so dismissive of the students' comfort? Are they so image-conscious that they have to have impressive public facilities while letting the kids live in relative squalor? I think it's disgusting and embarrassing.

Steven Pearlstein: In general, colleges have been spending quite lavishly on food and dorms in an effort to attract the full-paying (i.e. richer) students. Public universities are sometimes an exception. College Park has lots of students who live off campus, so the emphasis on dorm quality is probably a bit less than elsewhere. And while these are things parents notice a lot, they may be less important to students.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Why should I be forced to into debt up to my eyeballs for a basic college education and any hope of a non-dead end job? How in the heck are folks to "make it" when they graduate thousands and thousands of dollars in debt, and debt at a high rate of interest at that?

We need to get back to the idea that a good education at a state school won't cripple the graduate with so much debt that he cannot save for a house or put away money for retirement.

Right now, 20 years down the road, I'm finding out my then affordable bachelor's degree won't get me far as I thought as employers now demand advanced degrees for basic jobs. So this issue is weighing heavily on my mind.

Steven Pearlstein: Generally speaking, going to a state university won't require students to pile up excessive debt. The tutions, while higher than before, just aren't that high, particularly relative to the economic value of the diploma. And why do you assume the graduates will get a dead end job? That said, the University of Virginia is something of an outlier because it is now almost a private school in terms of where its money comes from and what it charges, even in state residents. But even so, there is a line line of Virginians anxious to go there. If you are concerned about this, you should be hammering your state representative and senator to increase state aid to University of Virginia and expand the number of places in the University system. In general, public universities get much more bang for the buck than privates.

_______________________

Accokeek, Md.: Soaring tuition has another impact on economy. Because of our family's income, we will not qualify for ANY aid based on income. However, saving and paying college tuition will be a major sacrifice for us. To save for college, we drive cars that are 10+ years old, we don't take vacations, we don't buy new furniture, we don't buy new tvs, we don't have cable, we don't go out to eat dinner, we rarely buy new clothes, we don't have a lawn service, we don't have an alarm system for our home, we don't shop at high end grocery stores, we don't buy Starbucks coffee, we don't go to the theater, etc. The bottom line is that based on our income we should be spending more money on goods and services that help the economy. However, rising tuition costs keeps our wallets closed.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, this is the problem, isn't it. As I said above, you might be surprised that you do qualify for some institutional aid at some schools. And there are public universities and colleges that offer pretty good value. It's also not the worse thing for kids to carry some of their own college loans that they pay off after graduation, if only because it tends to concentrate their minds while they are at school, to make their future sacrifices worthwhile. But there is no doubt it is a problem, particularly for the middle class.

_______________________

Carlisle, Pa.: It is very frustrating to see elite colleges and universities championing needs-based aid, while pulling back on merit scholarships. If you are poor or working class, you get a free ride. If you are rich, you just write a check for full payment. If you are middle class, you either take on huge debt (college loans) or ruin your family finances, or both. What ever happened to the idea that the United States valued a true meritocracy?

Steven Pearlstein: Well, I think you are misinformed. Schools are not pulling back on merit scholarships, which still account for one third of all institutional aid, according to the college board. That said, alot of that goes to athletes and debaters and others with non-academic skills.

What this should tell us all is that it is time for parents like you to start talking back to colleges and saying that you won't let your kid apply because they charge too much. If enough people did this at enough schools, they'd get the message. Unfortunately, the message they get from over-eager parents is that they'll do anything to get their kids into good schools. And so the schools internalize this message as , "They'll pay whatever we tell them to pay." You need to push back and begin to tell schools that they are pricing themselves out of the market--and then acting to find schools for your kids that offer a better value proposition. They are out there -- you just have to look.

_______________________

Oviedo, Fla.: Parents may be interested to know that some states - such as Florida and Georgia - offer free or subsidized tuition at in-state colleges to kids with good grades. I am not talking about competing for a small pot of money - lotto funds in Fla. fund Bright Futures, a comprehensive scholarship program available to all who meet the rules (see state web site.) If your student qualifies, participation is automatic. UF's flagship campus at Gainesville has had the second or third highest enrollment of National Merit scholar for years, usually right behind Harvard. My teens are already qualified. There are dozens of state schools and community college to consider, and trade skills programs for those less academic. If you're mobile, move on down. Georgia Hope offers similar perks for those residents. My kids will hit grad school loan-free. Go Gators...

Steven Pearlstein: Okay, a little marketing from the sunbelt.

_______________________

Cleveland, Ohio: What do you feel is the best measure that can be taken by smaller private institutions to reduce costs and avoid having to raise tuition a substantial amount annually?

Steven Pearlstein: The first step is the easiest: get rid of the leisurely academic calendar and use your facilities and staff 12 months of the year. Use technology to increase teaching loads and teacher productivity. Don't require students to pay for faculty research time. Pay teachers more, but require them to teach more. Cut the number of administrators by 25 percent. Cut out some departments that you don't specialize in or for which there is not great demand. Don't get into arms race competition for students or faculty. That's just for starters.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: Do you have data or or information about what percentage of college students (or their parents) pay the full list price of their college's tuition, and what percentage pay less, either through scholarships or other grants (not loans.)

Steven Pearlstein: I don't, unfortunately. That doesn't seem to be in the College Board data in front of me. At elite schools, I think the figure is about half of the students pay the full freight. At less elite schools, the number of probably a bit higher, since they don't have the endowment resources and may not be able to charge as much. But I suspect that data is easy enough to find out from the Department of Education or Sallie Mae, if not the College Board.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Steve - I think there is a lot of snobbishness around this topic.

Not every college costs $40K a year. Montgomery College is one of the top rated community colleges in the nation, and it's fees are much lower. While a name-brand degree may get you a first interview after that it is what you know, who you know and what you can do for an employer that move you along.

Steven Pearlstein: I couldn't agree more: there is good education to be had at a lesser price. But don't kid yourself. The basic value of a Harvard of Johns Hopkins degree isn't in the learning that goes on. It is in the credentialling -- the signal that the labor market takes from a degree from an elite school. Employers figure the schools have done a good first job at screening kids and take that as a signal of quality. Also, attending an elite school gives a student a network of fellow students and alumni who might serve him or her well after graduation. So we can all agree that, in educational terms, you get better value for your dollar at Montgomery College. But it is still true that a degree from Hopkins has a much greater economic value, at least in the first years out of college, than a degree from Montgomery. Sad, but true.

_______________________

Boston: Would I be better off finding a job at a local university which offered dependent tuition benefits given the runaway train that is college tuition costs? A relative is a college professor who has reciprocal tuition benefits at a number of other schools.

Steven Pearlstein: It is a very valuable fringe benefit. So valuable, in fact, that is is one of the things that drive up tuitions for everyone else.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Thank you for the most insightful look at college costs and prices I've ever read in the mainstream media. I appreciate the way you've brought together consumer demand for prestige and the difficulties that this labor-intensive industry has with reducing costs.

I have two separate questions:

1. Economist Ronald Ehrenberg has argued that colleges have no incentive to reduce costs, because everything that is good for colleges comes from higher quality students and teachers, all of which costs money. Do you think that makes sense?

2. The Higher Education Act reauthorization that just came out of committee in the House would require colleges to provide more information on costs and create a federal watch list for prices. But your column suggests that, even if it survives to become law, this legislation wouldn't do anything to achieve real reductions and in fact would probably increase them by adding to the reporting burden. Is that right?

Steven Pearlstein: You are right that colleges compete not to offer the best value or the lowest price, as in other industries, but to offer what is perceived as the best product. And this is what gets them into these arms races of spending to improve their relative position (vis a vis their competition) which, in the end, is counterproductive once everyone else plays the same game. And they do this because their customers, so far, have encouraged them to do so, rather than looking for better overall value, which would put downward pressure on pricing.

The legislation going through Congress is a first, crude attempt to put better information in the hands of parents and students so they can shop for the best value. I'm not sure its perfect, but its moving in the right direction. The colleges, of course, complain it is overburdensome regulation. They also complain that since there is no good way to measure educational output or quality, nobody should even try to. But this is what you'd expect from a self-interested industry and trade guild: don't hold us accountable but just give us more money. This is the constrant refrain from the higher education lobby. And what's really disappointing is that too many politicians buy into it rather than challenging schools to start delivering better value at lower costs.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: I went to a top 20 college and graduated in 2005. I paid 32,000 tuition room and board, but by the time I left it was 39,000 or so. Now my younger brother started school this fall and got accepted at a few top 20 universities. The tuition room and board at these universities is 50,000 a year. My parents do not qualify for ANY financial aid and said enough is enough you need to go to state school (on an academic scholarship no less!). The bar of who can afford these schools keeps being raised. Only the ultra wealthy and lower class will be able to afford them.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, your parents may be right. There is better value at Umass Amherst unless you can qualify for some sort of aid at the elite schools. Again, don't assume your brother won't qualify. That said, if your brother is going to become a corporate lawyer or doctor or management consultant -- if he has the drive and the smarts and can use his degree to get him into a good graduate school -- then in the long run it will be worth it for your brother to take on the additional loans. But we should all be clear about what is going on here:

The elite schools know about these economics and have decided they are going to try to capture as much of that future wealth as they can now by charging alot now and then begging for endowment money if and when your brother becomes a big success. This is economic model for the money machines that the elite schools have turned themselves into. In economic terms, it is a game of capture the rents.

_______________________

Maryland: Thanks Steven for a great article (as always). Wanted to share with you my experience - I worked for the University of Maryland for 10 years in a non-academic job (IT). You mentioned that part of the reason for tuition hikes was to pay salaries for professors - well, you'd be surprised at how high they pay non-academic people as well. My salary at MD was at least as high as that paid for similar jobs in private industry, and a good 50 percent higher than that paid to other State employees. And it was like that across the board, in all support departments at the school. They also give extremely generous pensions at an early age, and have top-notch benefits (including free tuition for family members). No wonder it costs so much to go there. And I agree with your statement that they charge a lot because they can. As long as there is a market, why should they lower their tuition (unless you buy into the argument that they are providing a needed public service that average citizens should be able to afford).

Steven Pearlstein: Thank you for your candor.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: You say that students from lower income families are shielded from the price increases, and students from the wealthy families are falling over themselves for the chance to make the payments. The problem, though, lies at some spot between the two. There is some level of income, which I presume to be in the upper middle class range, at which financial aid is unavailable. But for the family that is just above that threshold, I imagine (I have no children, so I'm speculating) that these tuition prices are extremely difficult to meet. If you're making $150,000, I imagine that you don't qualify for financial aid, but college costs are going to eat 1/3 of your gross pay.

It's difficult to get yourself too exercised about the plight of the upper middle class, but I suspect they bear the brunt of this situation. And if I put myself in those parents' shoes, I'm not happy that a huge chunk of my hard-earned salary is going toward building dorms that are comparable to four-star hotels and athletic centers that could pass as spas.

Even if I put myself in the shoes of the parents that fall just below that threshold -- meaning a middle class family that qualifies for some aid -- I think the model is unfortunate. If I've worked hard and been successful all my life, I would prefer to be able to pay for my children's education. There is something to be said for self-reliance, and it would be with some resignation that I would accept the loans and grants.

Steven Pearlstein: If you look at who, among high achieving students, go to elite colleges, it is disproportionately kids from very rich and relatively low income households. And the reasons are as you suggest. The education establishment's answer to this problem is that they want to charge the really rich families even more to provide even more subsidy for this middle class that doesn't not get much aid. But it is getting to the point where they are chasing their tails -- that every time they raise tuitions to soak the rich, they have to increase the aid for everyone else. The other approach -- doing something about costs and prices -- isn't in their toolbox.

_______________________

Great Falls, Va.: I have to register a limited objection to an otherwise good column. Your final point is that colleges raise tuition because they can, and so far that's been true. But I think there's a failure in the Ivory Tower to acknowledge that the American domination of academia is not written in stone. If prices continue rising at the same rate, at some point the prospective students of the world will begin exploring options in other countries, many of which do in fact have some (though fewer) comparable schools. And once that starts happening, the resources will get re-allocated accordingly so that American schools could quickly lose many of their present advantages.

Steven Pearlstein: That makes sense in theory. In practice, American higher education is so much better than almost everywhere else that it will take a long time to make up the gap. And the reason, interestingly, is that we have a much more competitive system which has really improved quality even as it has driven up costs.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.:1. As probably a zillion people have already said, Beethoven did not write a 'Cell concerto.

2. I think an important point you left out is that the brightest people in our culture are faculty. They are paid less than physicians, lawyers, and middle level executives. My friend Jim, who happens to be a great mathematician, now earns over 4 times as much in a day as a hedge fund manger than he did in any year as a mathematician. People whose work will last centuries, who represent the highest accomplishments of our civilization, receive less than your local GP.

3. In our society most basic research and important scholarship is done at colleges and universities. To only look at the educational function of these institutions is to pander to popular prejudices, but it is wrong.

Steven Pearlstein: Yours is the second, but only the second, note today informing me of my musical illiteracy. Bad example. Sorry about that.

You are right that college professors are underpaid. I would add there is a reason for that -- that long ago, a deal was struck that said faculty would be underpaid relative to what people with similar skills make in business, in exchange for a leisurely academic schedule and having to teach only a couple of classes a week. So they are underpaid and underemployed, with the idea that they use their free time either to enjoy themselves, pursue less numerative pursuits, write books that generate money or presige, or do funded research.

I think this is not a particularly good arrangement any more. Costs have changed such that it is not right to expect tuition paying students to essentially subsidize research -- research should be paid for by the society that benefits from it. What we should do is pay good money for good teaching, so that if you do it full time, it should pay. And if you want to do it half time and research the other half, the research part should be paid by someone else -- the government, private industry, non-profits, university endowments. But now the paying students. That model is broken.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: A real problem is tenure. Professors over the hill, pulling in 100,000s to teach an intro class and bringing in no research money for the university.

Steven Pearlstein: Tenure is a bigger problem in that it makes it hard for universities to respond to changing tastes and preferences of students, and because it protects too much mediocrity from market competition.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: I think you are misinformed about state schools not forcing kids to load up on debt. True, the tuition isn't has high as private schools, but I know plenty of kids who graduate from the U. Florida, FSU, USF, and other state schools here in Florida that are up to their ears in debt.They have to borrow not only to pay tuition, but also all the "service charges" schools pile up on their customers, dorm fees or rent, living expenses, cars, etc. And students who don't graduate at the top of their class don't get the good jobs that let they pay off their debts. Teachers, in particular, are paid nowhere near enough to comfortably pay off their student loans. The interest on which, BTW, is not fully deductible.

I see this as the main problem facing higher education in this country. We're moving to a 2-tier system: one for those who can afford it, and a lesser one for those who can't afford not only the tuition, but the private tutors, etc, needed to get their grades up so they can get into a prestigious school.

And feeding into this is the disparity in high schools. Here in Tampa, one high school, Plant, serves the wealthiest part of town. It's parents donate money to the school. Plant has the best facilities of any HS around here. It offers the most extra-curricular activities. More of its students have private tutors than other HS. Parents beg, borrow, lie, cheat, and steal to get their kids into Plant because they know the quality is so much higher than that of other schools.

So what happens to the kids who can't get into Plant? They start the race to get into prestigious schools behind the Plant kids. The kids from Plant have parents that can afford to pay the tuition at Ivy League, but go for and get merit scholarships.

I see this disturbing trend as part of our society turning into a "winner take all" culture. The lack of concern for students who have to bulk up on debt is just one facet of this.

What to do? Holding down tuition should be the goal of federal aid to higher education. I'm not sure precisely how this should be done, but I think it must. The arms race for prestige needs to take a back seat to the broader societal need for equal access to higher education.

Steven Pearlstein: I agree. The government should spend its limited resources where it gets the best bang for the buck. But figuring that out isn't as easy as it sounds. For instance: community college looks to be a place of high social value, except that the graduation rates are appallingly low. And while it sounds like a good idea to give a poor kid a Pell grant to go to Yale, why should the government do that when Yale is taking only 5 percent out of its multi-billion dollar endowment in years when it earns double digit returns?

As a starting point, I'd say the best use of taxpayer dollars in terms of educational output is in supporting quality state universities that don't get themselves into silly competitions for "world class" anything. That's not that we don't need some world class universities. But in terms of educating large number of Americans, that is too expensive a model.

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you have any comparative sense about whether the expenses of a collegiate education are outstripping the rate of increase of K-12 education? If so, why?

Do you have a sense that teaching at all levels (and medicine) will always be the most resistant to economies of scale and will be limited beneficiaries of technology to increase productivity?

Steven Pearlstein: As a general matter, we are probably spending too much on higher education and too little on K-12. But there, too, there are big questions about whether we'd get better results from additional spending.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Here in D.C., sending your child to a private school for K-12 can cost 15K - 30K a year, even DC taxes support the horrible public school system at 13K a year per pupil. Education is a tremendously expensive undertaking. Colleges offer so much more in terms of services, facilities, and educators, how is it that they would not be even more expensive than the K-12 system? Tuition revenue can not even cover the cost of educating an undergraduate.

Steven Pearlstein: I suspect you are an educator. That's because you can't talk to one without them reminding us that the tuition doesn't even cover the full cost, so rather than complaining about it, we should think of it as a great deal, good value. Well, let me look at the same "fact" through the other end of of the telscope. What the market is saying is that while it costs $75,000 to educate a student at an elite school, the customers are only willing to pay $45,000 for it, and complain about it at that. So what does is the market telling you about how much value you are delivering for your $75,000 in expenditures?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I was lucky enough to attend a fantastic- both in rankings and real life- public university. My husband attended a small, private university. I paid for most of college on my own and my husband's parents paid for his, however when our children reach college age, they will be in the same boat I was. As a fire fighter and teacher the sheer thought of college tuition scares us thanks to the middle class status and the squeeze you mentioned. We make too much for large amounts of financial aid, but not enough to afford full tuition by a long shot. Do you see universities recognizing this or continuing down the same path?

Steven Pearlstein: Everyone professes to care about your plight but nobody is willing to restrain their competitive behavior to do something about it. Instead, they beg for more government aid, which only encourages them to raise tuitions more over the long run. The best way to put downward pressure on tuitions is to have states continue to provide lower-cost, better value alternatives to the expensive, elite private schools that set the pricing structure for higher education in this country. It simply drives these schools nuts when they see great students who've they accepted chose to go into honors programs at lower cost state universities. And as more of these talented students vote with their feet, the expensive private (and some public) schools that have been pushing these tuition increases will begin to get serious about cost containment. Up to now, its just been lip service.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: I think all these poor little "middle class" families making over 100K should not be so quick to assume ALL poor kids can go to any college for free. If that were true, we'd have a real people's revolt and the world would be markedly different in 20 years. The facts are one's ability to get superior education and suceed financially in this world is directly proportionate to the family income, with very few bubbles for poor kids. There are a very few exceptional poor kids and they do get good scholarships, but generally poor kids never go to any college and suffer the rest of their lives because of it. I can't stand to hear these families making 3 times the average national income cry that poor kids have it made wiht a free Harvard education. Just not true; be senstive to the real realities of poverty in America.

Steven Pearlstein: I think you're being unfair, actually. Colleges and universities have been fabulous about opening their doors to poor kids and they deserve a lot of credit for that. The problem is that there just aren't enough poor kids who get a good enough k-12 education to be ready to go to college. This is the biggest problem in America right now, but let's not blame that one on the higher education system.

_______________________

Laurel: Is it possible that the easy availability of loans has inflated both the amount and cost of education?

Since schools get to set their own graduation requirements, they can provide employment for professors in lesser-demanded programs by requiring courses not really necessary for future employment. Many grads come out with degrees of little market value, except as a certification of having gotten through a program.

We all know the value of a college degree on lifetime earnings (although studies often show it doesn't matter WHICH college you attend), but how much of that really comes from the learning that occurred there?

Steven Pearlstein: Yes, it is logical that subsidy has pushed up the price, although the economic literature on that is inconclusive. I suspect there is a strong effect in for-profit higher education, no effect at the Ivy League level, and modest effect in between.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: After reading your article, I feel better about my decision a few years ago to invest in Maryland's Prepaid College Trust (which guarantees tuition in an MD public university) rather than the College Investment Plan. Both programs are operating by the College Savings Plans of Maryland, and contributions are tax-deductible for MD taxes (but not Federal). What's your take on this choice?

Steven Pearlstein: That sounds like it was a smart choice.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Steve, I know many people are worried about college tuition costs. However, I've seen too many families sacrifice quite a bit to pay for the kid's college tuition - meanwhile, the kid has no responsibility. Coming from a middle class family, my parents told me that I (and my brother) would be responsible for the majority of our college finances. Therefore, my brother and I had to make adult decisions about college. Due to this reason, I chose VT over Carnegie Mellon because of the lower cost and I've never regretted it. My brother chose George Mason (on a scholarship) over UVA (no scholarship), and he doesn't regret that either. Bottom line, I think families need to make the kids (or young adults) bear some of the responsibility for college costs.

Steven Pearlstein: This is what we need to hear more of, because it is the only thing that will eventually restrain the higher end tuitions.

_______________________

Northwest DC: Why not make your kid pay for his/her own college? Every college is not an Ivy League that costs $50,000+ per year. State colleges are a lot cheaper and the education is just as good. I worked two jobs to put myself through night school, not a cent from parents. They couldn't afford it anyway.

Spend your kids' inheritance and make them work for what they want. You'd be surprised how they shape up once you close the Bank of Dad.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks, Dad. You make a good point -- up to a point!

_______________________

Clifton, Va.: GWU unless things have changed has always had more financial aid then they knew what to do with.

BTW BMW, Lexus and Mercedes all need auto techs. I believe the program is for about two years. In many cases they cover the tuition costs. After you graduate you are guaranteed a job. Starting salary about $50k. When you hit the journeyman level in 3-5 years you split the labor rate with the dealer. A good auto tech at a BMW or Mercedes dealer makes $110k+ year plus bonus. No outsourcing ever.

Good job mobility want to got to Miami they have jobs. And best part is no student loans.

Steven Pearlstein: Yeah, but you have to deal with BMW owners all day! (Just kidding!)

_______________________

re: Annandale: I don't think it was the thrust of his comment, but Annandale's post got me to thinking about another angle to all this. That is: not everyone should be going to college. For some reason, our society refuses to acknowledge this truth. But while your comment about the economic value of a degree is surely true for the top two thirds of colleges, I doubt that it remains true toward the bottom. Not everyone is college material, and encouraging those people to sit in a classroom surrounded by others like them and getting taught be lesser professors is probably unhelpful. We ought to be more honest with the lower echelon of each high school class, and perhaps do more to establish better technical training for them. For them, I sincerely doubt that the rising tuition rates are worth it.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, that's the same point as the previous correspondent, isn't it. And it is a good one. That said, we shouldn't use what you just said as an excuse to provide a lousy K-12 education to kids, which unfortunately is too often the case once we've decided that a kid is not college bound. In that regard, I think we went way too far in eliminating vocational education as part of the K-12 curriculum, particularly in the inner cities.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I don't think it's fair to call everyone who chooses something besides a community college snobbish. There are lots of benefits from the college experience, beyond just the classes you take. Living on campus, which often does not happen at more "affordable" schools, was probably what taught me the most during my time in college.

Steven Pearlstein: I don't think anyone made the argument that community college is the answer for everyone. That's a straw man. But I think one thing many of us are saying is that there are much better value to be had at many state universities, which can charge lower tuition because of taxpayer subsidies. But from a system-wide perspective, that mixed model (some tuition, some subsidy) looks to be more efficient one than the private university model. And if that is true, we might want to redirect our reserouces toward expanding the state university system rather than, as a society, redirecting billions of additional dollars to the endowments of Princeton and Hopkins.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: Excellent article. I will give you examples from the university environment. First, there are more professors now but less of them actually teach. Course loads per professors that do teach are way down. Yet, universities will always say that professors are a reason for cost increases. It is bogus, and generally university manufactured. For example, a certain university said that they had a professor shortage when the lowered the max classes per tenure track professor.

Second, state lotteries have not supplemented - they have supplanted. Meaning, that universities that are in a state with a scholarship supported by the government (SC, GA, etc) will raise tuition because of the feeling that students can better afford it.

Third, colleges are a luxury good. There is a sense that if you pay more it must be better. Thus, colleges can raise tuition and people may complain, but they pay.

Steven Pearlstein: All interesting points.

_______________________

Athens, Ga.: To correct your answer to Cleveland, students do not pay faculty to do research. Faculty members at major universities are compelled to seek research funding from external sources, such as National Science Foundation,to support their research. These funds, in turn, support the large majority of graduate students. Amount of external funding and publications resulting therefrom constitute the basis for promotion and tenure. This is a sad fact of academia.

Steven Pearlstein: What you say is right except the first thing: tuition paying students do pay for a lot of research. The way they pay is to pay for full-time salaries for professors who, in teaching terms only, don't work full time. Yes, there are some professors in some specialties who also get research grants. But there aren't too many outside sources of funding for research by sociologists and art historians.

_______________________

Steven Pearlstein: That's all for today folks. Good discussion. "See" you next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.