The Dangerous Delusion of Free Tuition, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its study of the free tuition concept with a review of why tuition is so expensive,

Largely ignored is the question of why college tuition has become so unaffordable.

In a CNN study, Julia Freeland Fisher “Rather than ratcheting up aid to meet ever-increasing price tags, we must get at the root of the affordability crisis by addressing the most fundamental component of any organization: the business model. … a closer look at the traditional business model of higher education reveals a stockpile of embedded inefficiencies and warped incentives… Troubling inefficiencies have also arisen out of a subset of colleges’ attempts to compete on the basis of infamously indulgent non-academic offerings — rock climbing walls, lazy rivers and extravagant student housing facilities, to name a few — intended to lure students, …In 2012, there were at least 157 recreational projects in progress at 92 U.S. colleges, representing more than $1.7 billion in new construction and renovation. These costs are inevitably passed along to students…”

A Business Insider report found that the average annual increase in college tuition from 1980-2014 grew by nearly 260% compared to the nearly 120% increase in all consumer items. A Brookings study revealed that: “Education costs have soared…College tuition, net of subsidies, is 11.1 times higher in 2015 than in 1980, dramatically higher than the 2.5 increase in overall personal consumption over the period.

The Brookings analysis also revealed one key reason why those costs have gone up: the extraordinary growth in the number of high-paid, non-teaching positions within universities. Brookings found that “In 1988, for every 100 full-time equivalent students, there were on average 23 college employees. By 2012, that number had increased to 31 employees, with a shift toward the highest paying non-teaching occupations. Managers and professionals now outnumber faculty, who comprise just a third of the higher education workforce.”

Physicians often prescribe this drug from six months to one year to elicit out the tadalafil wholesale best results of the medicine. It has become a favorite of several couples who want to improve their overall sex life. viagra sildenafil buy Give the aspiring students tadalafil uk cheap a great help considering that results maybe different from each individuals. Shankhpushpi is one among the common herbal remedies suggested for improving the brain power and memory of This pharmacy store order cheap levitra person. In a 2014 study, Lawrence S. Wittner, writing for The History News Network, asks Why Are Campus Administrators Making So Much Money?

“In 2011, the last year for which figures are available, 42 private college and university presidents received more than a million dollars each for their work. Robert Zimmer (University of Chicago) was the best-paid, at $3,358,723. At public colleges and universities, nine top administrators garnered more than $1 million each in 2012-2013, with the best-paid, E. Gordon Gee (Ohio State University), receiving $6,057,615…In addition to their formal compensation, college and university presidents receive some very lavish perks. These include not only free luxury cars and country club memberships, but free university housing.

“The soaring incomes of campus administrators are paralleled by their soaring numbers. Between 1993 and 2009, their numbers reportedly increased by 60 percent, to 230,000―ten times the rate of growth of the faculty. According to a February 2014 report by the American Institutes for Research, between 1987 and 2012 the number of administrators at private universities doubled, while their numbers in central university system offices rose by a factor of 34.

While those nonteaching positions are a burden on tuition payers, they are good for the same politicians who push for more people to go to college. Sara Swann, writing for Open Secrets reports “For the 2016 election cycle, the education industry had a record-high contribution total of almost $81 million. Nearly all of this money is donated by school employees… Democrats received 86 percent … Since 1990, the education industry has never given less than 58 percent of its contributions to Democrats, with an overall average of 77 percent going to the left.” The two most prominent presidential candidates advocating for college for all received extensive support from the education industry. Published sources reveal that Hillary Clinton took in about $23.7 million, while Bernie Sanders Her primary challenger pulled in $5.5 million. By contrast, Donald Trump only received $778,000.

Photo: State University of New York at Albany (NY Analysis photo)

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/