Speaking about UofM which is probably a top poster child when it comes to outrageous tuition hikes over the last 30 years; the loss of state funding is a dog that just does not hut when it comes to explaining those increases in tuition. First off, if UofM is a research institution, why should the undergrads have to shoulder the complete burden of state funding cuts? The U can always higher fewer tenure track profs and hire more adjuncts and TA's who will teach more classes than professors (and often times do a better job of it too if my experience is any guide.) In other words, the U can cut back on research funding if the state cuts back (tell me "research" is not a euphemism for corporate welfare.)
I'm surprised you missed the effective gentrification going on in higher education. The families in the top of the income distribution are bidding up the cost of higher education; the families in the top 5% of the income distribution have way more money today than they did in 1980. There are no effective controls on how public universities can allocate their money, so they just raise tuition at twice the rate of inflation. There is no valid justification for why a college education at a public institution should cost what it does today. The demand for a college education is inelastic and universities take full advantage of that fact. Increasing state aid will result in more research funding, not lower tuition costs at places like UofM.
The arms race is certainly going on at UofM ($485/sq-ft for North Quad is testament to that!) and Mary Sue Coleman really would like your article.
ChuckL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Disappoint With #125
>
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Chuck Loucks wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> They have no choice if state aid is cut back, which it has been for the
> last couple of decades.
>
>> 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.
>
> The arms race referred to private universities, which have plenty of
> resources available to provide aid - not that they always do, of course.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk