Should universites charge the full cost to their students?

Universities want to raise fees because of the economic crisis. Their endowment funds and other sources of income are down. They either get more from the government or they will have to charge more in fees. In most countries the fees for public universities are a fraction of the true cost of going to university. I wonder, if students had to pay the full cost, let us say, over $25,000 per year, how many students would still attend universities, especially if they could achieve the same educational results for less money.

I know there are issues of credentials, but I think these issues can be dealt with separately and more cheaply.

Many of the courses offered at university, especially in the Arts and Humanities, are of little practical use. Much of the knowledge contained in these courses can be acquired by reading books. iTunes University is offering more and more courses online. A recent report points out that students get more out of spending time on their iPods than in lecture halls. If it is language learning, there is LingQ, and other online resources.

It is unfair that governments take tax-payers' money and give it to these institutions, where a majority of professors are more interested in publishing obscure articles and papers for their peers, rather than in teaching. The universities are inefficiently run, and there is no incentive to improve their efficiency. Their true costs are not reflected in what their users, the students, actually pay.

Governments privilege those people between the ages of 18 and 25 who go to university, to the disadvantage of people who do not go to university, or who want to learn later in life. What should happen is that everyone receive an allotment of money at age 18 to be used for education, sort of like education certificates. They should be valid for the person's life. There needs to be some definition of the kind of expenditures that are acceptable for these certificates, but the definiton should not be too narrow. Then let the universities, with their real costs, try to compete for these certificates with other educational resources, such as books, CDs, websites, coaches and others.

Of course there would have to be some kind of testing industry to provide the degrees and tickets that our society requires.

This is just a rough idea and I will be getting back to it. Now I am going back to the Russian video I rented yesterday, to see the ending.

Comments

[Cesar M.]

Mr. Steve,

Universities should, I belive, charge the full cost of tuition -- and raise it. Universities should be for those people serious about education and learning. Basically, the scholar type. Keeping costs high will simply weed out those that don't belong. You only need to google "girls gone wild" and see the quality of students that universities put out. Fact is that people go to university because they are set to believe (based on economic realities) that it is the next logical step. On the contrary, I believe that the next logical step for the overwhelming majority of college-age students is vocational schools. Vocational schools and the like will most likely be the next paradigm for education as the global economy seeks out specialized knowledge and skills. Podcasts and internet schools will pick up the slack.

[Will Conner]

I agree with you, Steve. I am hoping to go into the field of international politics , and unfortunately, the future job I want with the government requires attending one of the top universities in the US and getting great grades. It will probably put my parents and me in debt for the majority of the rest of their lives, which I really don't want to do. I also have one sister who ha already gone through college, and two more that are about to go.

If Universities cost less, Caesar, yes there may be some kids there who are better off doing something else, but it would also allow people like myself and my sisters who are serious about it, to not cause great financial stress to our parents and ourselves for who knows how many years.

[Valina Eckley]

Since you are on the subject of higher education, I figured i would give my two cents. First of all, I loved my university life. I learned so much in my university it was crazy, of course I got my degree in communication, which is considered the rebellious teenager of academic fields. One of my profs, who was a second generation prof, always used to say "never trust anybody who insists on being called doctor. Having a Ph.D. does not denote intelligence, it denotes perseverance. " And all but one of my profs were very anti-ivory tower.

Anyway, I found some interesting articles about the value, or lack there of, of the studies of humanities at universities. You might be interested in reading them

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/the-last-professor/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/books/25human.html

[Bas]

Hi Steve,

I only agree with you with regard to the Arts and Humanities science.

In Holland education is heavily subsidized. However, we have got also 6 different levels on our high schools.

Our shifting takes place in the last year of the elementary school. Then children will be divided into the 6 different levels.

When people have got their degree they pursue their carreer at the universities. We have got three different levels at universities.

The statistics show that our system works. We have got a huge GDP compared to the amount of inhabitants. Are in the top 4 of countries with the highest output of patents and have got the highest labour productivity per capita in the world.

I think you have to compare the Dutch system and the US system in more detail.

In the US they let scholars bear the full costs of education. As a result, only the top of society is able to study in one of the top 20 top universities.

I also do not believe that the ability to provide diploma's can be effectively shifted from the universities to independent organizations. I think that would enhance shirking and bribing.

Best regards,

Bas

[Ana]

I guess Will Corner had already pointed out the basic flaw of your proposal: it lets the right of choice only for the wealthy people, while serious, dedicated poor people would not be able to attend to any University...

Because of this, and because educational level can determine so deeply future perspectives for a person, I believe education should be publicly funded. But at the same time, courses should be more demanding on their students, in terms of dedication and real achievements.

[Matthew Fisher]

Hi Steve,
I understand and agree with what you are saying. I live in England and the system is slightly different. We all have to pay £3,145 tuition fees a year but we can place them onto student loans, operated by the government, which we do not have to start paying back until we have a job that pays over £15,000 a year (and then only at £5 a week with low interest). In addition, all universities offer grants and that same company provides a living allowance - which, although it does need to be paid back, is at a ridiculously low interest rate. Maybe the U.S.A. should adopt something similar. It seems to be working well enough here!

As for your point about humanities and arts courses, I agree there too. In the UK, most people who take those courses (excepting languages and law) end up doing something which is completley unrelated to what they studied (ie a history graduate goes to work in a large buisness corporation). Apparantly, degree courses give people "transferrable skills" (according to our government!). However, in the sciences (especially natural sciences), university is essential as most of those degress require large amounts of guidance , specialist facilities and knowlegeable people to teach them.

[Luke Gedeon]

Unfortunately, "should" does not matter in America anymore.

Government funded universities and government funded projects of all sorts give the government more power because that way the government is the customer, and "the customer is always right", right?

So, the government will continue to fund projects as long as it can get money to fund them with. And, thanks wise investments in "projects" as far back as the New Deal, the government now has enough power to get all the money they need to fund the projects that will give them more power.

This self-perpetuating cycle has passed the tipping point. As soon as the boomers pass-away leaving their wealth to the government via inheritance and other taxes, this country is going to be state-owned.

[hiroshi]

As Valina said, if Having a Ph.D. does not denote intelligence, then what is intelligence?

and is a university or college ( for liberal art majors) helpful in making us intelligent?
I, as the one who has received libral arts education at two universities, in retrospect question that.

then, I remembered what my professor lamented while discussing things in his office: " there are very few, if any, intellectuals at a university. the majority of the professors are nothing but specialists"