the cost of college and the preparedness of enrollees

College tuition and related costs are becoming about 20% more expensive in California this year. For the first time ever, tuition paid by students will exceed that paid by the state of California. An official of the American Council on Education is quoted in California Cuts Weigh Heavily on Its Colleges as saying, "What we are seeing is the abandonment of the state's commitment to make California's education available to all its citizens."

Beyond California, and out of necessity, meaningful tuition increases are taking place in many other states as well, including Georgia and Illinois. For a discussion of the severity of the problem as well as a list of those states which will likely reduce funding to their public colleges and universities, please refer to Last-Minute Tuition Hikes Hit Students and The 36 States Where College Costs Could Rise.


In any event, the federal "stimulus" monies (monies which in reality the federal government didn't have available to lend, but that's another story for another time) of a few years ago have now all been spent, and the states have no excess funds to spend. In addition to the shortage of available funds for public education, states (local governments, too) are struggling with other costs such as public employee payrolls, pension funding, medicaid and unemployment compensation. Unfortunately, there's nothing temporary about any of this.


As a result, public educational institutions are going to have to change permanently the way things are done in this "new normal" environment. Since there is no easy or obvious short term nor, for that matter, long term fix on the horizon, let's consider a new approach to address this issue successfully and over the long haul.


More than 30% of state spending goes to public education. One third of that one third, or ~10% of the total, is spent on colleges while the other two thirds, or ~20%, is spent on K-12 education. That leads to one inescapable conclusion. Since the biggest piece of taxpayer money at the state level is allocated to public schools and colleges, that's where the bulk of an individual state's savings will have to be found.


By the time each student enters college, we've already spent ~$150,000 of taxpayer money on that student. We've also spent roughly that same amount on those students who choose not to go to college. (NOTE: The ~$150,000 total used herein assumes 13 years of taxpayer financed schooling at ~$11,500 per student per year, inclusive of instruction, overhead, facilities, debt service, transportation, meals and such. The actual number is likely to be considerably higher than the $150,000 total assumed herein.)


A recent study concluded that only one fourth of those students entering college are prepared to do satisfactory college work. Obviously this is not a good return on the ~$150,000 in "sunk cost" taxpayer money already spent, nor was it necessarily time well spent by the student while "preparing" for college. Spending too little on K-12 education is not the cause of sending unprepared students off to college. Thus, spending even more money than the ~$150,000 per student already being spent isn't the answer either.


All that said, we need better results educationally at all levels, including the attained quality of university graduates. And we need to face squarely the fact that college tuition and related costs are going to be continuously increasing unless we find a way to reduce per student costs.


Here's another related fact to consider. In the new normal world of public education, as tuition goes up, the financial burden thereof will fall disproportionately on the middle class. Even though higher tuition will also burden students coming from higher income families, those at the high end are better able to pay, especially if we factor in the existing average state subsidy of ~50% per student. As for those at the lower end of the income scale, they will pay very little, if any, of any tuition increase as they are eligible for federally funded Pell Grants and such.


So why don't we eliminate this entire issue and simply limit access to college to those students, regardless of family income, who are ready, able and willing to perform satisfactorily in the college classroom? In adopting an outcome oriented approach to entry, we could simply limit college taxpayer supported grants to those with the demonstrated ability to do the work. After all, the taxpayers have supported those who can't perform, for whatever reason, for thirteen years already and at a per person cost of ~$150,000. That's enough time and money for a fair trial.


The representative of the American Council of Education quoted earlier is wrong when he says that California is abandoning "the state's commitment to make California's education available to all its citizens." The first thirteen years in K-12, paid for by the state's taxpayers, serve as ample evidence of that commitment to public education. Let's stop separating K-12 from college when considering taxpayer support and student achievement. Maybe we should call it K-16 or some such thing.


The real questions to be asked by all state taxpayers are these, "As taxpayers, what do we have a right to expect in terms of student or school performance in return for the money we're spending? Is it reasonable to ask us to support financially everyone who applies for college, regardless of whether after thirteen years that student is prepared to do the work academically?"


It's perfectly appropriate to have equal educational opportunity for everybody. That's the way we like to do things. But when thirteen years have passed, and ~$150,000 of taxpayer funds have been spent, isn't it time to check out how things have been going before writing any more taxpayer checks?


Let's employ some much needed common sense where some reasonable prediction of academic success is a prerequisite to college funding for students. Continuing to spend an ever shrinking pool of taxpayer money carelessly and without using relevant predictive metrics is pure nonsense.


Thanks. Bob.