My point is spending per student at Universities is way up, but the students are not the beneficiaries of that spending. Universities have dual roles, research and instruction; the money spent by Universities does not have to benefit student instruction. Public universities should not be raising tuition at rates higher than the CPI, period. As I said, the perfect storm of increased Federal aid combined with higher incomes in the top 20% of the income distribution has allowed public universities to raise costs well in excess of inflation. The extra cash does not appear to have been spent in any meaningful way to enhance the quality of the instruction. Places like UofM chase after the student from a wealthy family and spend more on research; but the quality of the instruction is little changed.
The argument that state aid did not keep up with costs is a red harring since the states should not have to subsidize corporate welfare in the form of research and the "arms race" in accomodations that cater to wealthy students you referred to in the article. Public universities say their costs have gone up and they need to raise tuition to balance their books; but why should they be allowed to pass on through whatever cost they say is a cost associated with instruction? At UofM, tenure track professors are paid mainly to do research, not teach; why should the time a research professor spends on research be attributed to a cost of instruction?
Mary Sue Coleman would have loved your article!
Chuck Loucks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Disappoint With #125
>
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Chuck Loucks wrote:
>
>> I have a simple question, since LBO #125 shows a graph showing the
>> inflation rate for tuition beats out even medical cost increases, why
>> should state aid be required to keep up with such a voracious appetite
>> for cash?
>
> Tuition in the CPI is the price paid by consumers, not states. States are
> paying relatively less, and consumers more. So I don't get your point.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk