True.

Glen Reynolds writes:

DAN PRIMACK: They Should Be Marching On Universities, Not Wall Street: “Take a look at We Are the 99 Percent – a website on which protest sympathizers share their tales of economic hardship. Very few of them mention banks, or even bank bailouts. The vast majority of them, however, do mention college debt.” Universities are major Democratic constituencies, and as such unlikely to be targeted.

But Wall Street is also a Democratic constituency these days.

Here is the base article:

According to The College Board, average annual in-state tuition and fees at four-year public universities increased by 72% over the past decade. Four-year private college tuition is up by more than 34% over the same time period, during which inflation rose only around 25%.


Where is the university's responsibility to its customers? Hell, where is its responsibility to America?

Isn't college designed to enhance a student's future well-being and, in turn, that of society at-large? How did it get corrupted to the point where higher education is the cause, rather than the solution, to so many of our collective ills?

Carnegie Mellon recently announced the receipt of the largest gift in the school's 111-year history: A $265 million donation from trustee William Dietrich. In a press release, CMU discussed how the money will be used to "support interdisciplinary education and research initiatives across the university and across the globe."

No mention, of course, of using some of Dietrich's generosity to reduce average tuition at CMU, which rose 4% over just the past year to a whopping $43,160 (not including fees, room or board). Or even to keep it static. Instead, it's all about build, expand, rinse and repeat. After all, U.S. News & World Report doesn't reward affordability.

I know that every school president in America will tell you that tuition and fees alone doesn't cover a student's actual cost, even for those students who pay a full boat. But part of the reason is that those same presidents have not felt compelled to keep those average costs from rising faster than inflation. Imagine a school announcing a tuition price freeze for one decade, in tandem with a freeze on non-vital building construction. My guess is that it could become a model for others, and a magnet for talented students who see someone finally taking their futures seriously.

We often hear politicians lament the rising cost of education, and see programs intended to help make college more affordable (usually in the form of loans or scholarships). But why so much emphasis on coupons rather than on the underlying product price? Particularly when that product is produced by tax-exempt entities that, in many cases, earn additional taxpayer subsidies in the form of research matching grants? I'm not necessarily advocating for price controls, but could we at least let some rhetorical pressure?

This is why I recommend going to community college for lower division...

it is cheaper and the teachers actually teach.

People are shocked - shocked! - learn that half of all students are not learning anything during their first two years of college.

We have to sit through lectures by our incomparable elected officials and our distinguished administrators telling us how many people the state needs by such and such a year with college degrees. We know how to give degrees. We’re good at that. But an education? Even God could not compensate for the lack of skills, the lack of interest, and the lack of raw talent your son brought to us. Social promotion is not restricted to high schools any more. After all, somehow we have to pay for all those buildings, athletic facilities, and shopping malls that so impressed you.


Now your son is carrying a load of debt that he can’t pay off, and he can’t find a meaningful job because he really has no skills that translate into the marketplace. He never committed himself to the discipline, rigor, and fortitude it takes to get a meaningful education. He didn’t know what to do with himself; you didn’t know what to do with him, and you thought he should have a college experience. He did, in the sense that four years of recreational sex, hard drugs, and bars that are open late into the night provided him with a college experience.

You would have been better off giving him the cash to invest and sending him to the Caribbean or Vegas for several weeks every year where he could have indulged his sexual appetites and legally smoked ganja. Financially you would have both been ahead. So too would we.

This graph in this article showing that 50% of a college student's time is spent socializing confirms this insight.

For a "when I walked to school the snow was up to my neck" observation, when I was in college taking 18 to 20 units regularly and operating an appliance repair business, I could never figure out what the people taking 12 units were doing with their time.

Well, apart from smoking ganja and spending their parents' money, that is.