Home > Students > Should We Scrap Higher Education As We Know It?

Comments 0 Comments

Tim Pawlenty appears to have given a lot of thought to the problem of the high cost of higher education.

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, the former governor of Minnesota sets forth a number of cost-cutting recommendations, which he urges the nation’s colleges and universities to adopt posthaste.

In particular, Pawlenty challenges institutions to reduce the number of administrators on staff, induce faculty to teach more courses and mentor more students than they do now, revamp compensation programs so they are more performance-based, upgrade outdated technologies so educational content may be delivered more effectively, and eliminate superfluous programs and ineffective courses. He also wants the schools to make financial literacy a core course requirement.

All reasonable, well-intentioned suggestions that are unlikely to move the needle in a meaningful way anytime soon.

Sure, vast organizational excesses exist within higher educational institutions, as anyone who works in that environment knows. So too are they likely to exist between schools, when one considers the 12 dozen postsecondary Title IV institutions within each of these United States on average.

In my own state, there are a half dozen private, nonprofit schools teaching roughly the same number of students (5,000 to 7,000). That means there are also at least six presidents, six provosts, six chief financial and legal officers, and God knows how many deans, associate deans, assistant deans, department chairs, accounting and payroll clerks, procurement and facilities personnel, administrative assistants, and on and on and on.

Not only does this represent a ridiculously long employee roster, but the list is, for all purposes, also immutable because few employees would voluntarily surrender their positions, even if their institution were to combine operations with another’s.

Indeed, we are naïve to think that any private school would choose to do more than tread water in the hope of better days to come when each is controlled by an executive administration with too much compensation at stake and governed by boards with too much loyalty in place.

That is, unless the game were to change.

For example, what if Congress decided to modify the IRS code so tax-exempt status is denied to schools with outsize endowments, or for those that fail to annually set aside a minimum percentage of their non-operating revenues (specifically, donations plus endowment-generated investment income) for tuition-reduction purposes?

Not enough to make a difference?

Then what if lawmakers directed the Department of Education to take every dollar of the $164 billion it spends annually on higher-education grants, loans and program administration, and allocate a pro rata share of that money for tuition and fees to the 17 million undergraduates who are currently enrolled in degree-granting programs?

It would go a long way toward covering the current average cost of college at the nation’s public four-year schools.

According to the College Board’s Annual Survey of Colleges, average in-state tuition and fees for the 2014 to 2015 school year totaled $9,139. Out-of-state residents paid $22,958. As for the in- versus out-of-state mix, nonresidents account for as much as 30% at certain high-profile schools such as the University of Virginia and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

Assuming that in-state/out-of-state mix to be the case across the board, the weighted average tuition paid by students attending the nation’s public colleges and universities is $13,284, versus the roughly $9,650 that would result from re-apportioning the Department of Education’s current rate of spending.

That $3,634 difference in value is really what would be in play if every collegiate aspirant were allocated $9,650 per year to attend the public school of his or her choice—even more if the prospective student opted for a private education, where the average price of tuition is $31,231.

Clearly, this substantial variance between what the government has the means to bankroll for higher education set against what the schools have until now been accustomed to earning (thanks to a virtually unlimited supply of credit that has resulted in the second-highest level of consumer debt behind residential mortgages), may finally inspire executive management teams and the boards that govern these to undertake today what they should have commenced long ago: wringing out systemic excesses through consolidation.

Rather than thinking incrementally—how we might tweak what we all know is a broken system—as former Gov. Pawlenty and other, similarly well-intentioned thought leaders seem to be inclined to do, why not muster the courage to take it apart and construct something better?

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Student Loans:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team