One of the primary vagaries of modern capitalism is that bare necessities are provided under the rules of supply and demands. If there is a scarcity of food, for example, food prices will increase despite the fact that some people will starve. The same concept has been applied to modern higher education, a fact that can be established by evaluating its history. Traditionally, higher education was just a choice as vocational opportunities were readily available, even to those without a higher education. As the 20 th century progressed, a higher education gradually transformed into a bear necessity. The increase in the value of education also led to an increase in the cost of education. In the current times, higher education is a bare necessity as it is almost impossible to get a decent job without it. Contemporaneously, the cost of higher education is inordinately high, and this has affected the rate of enrollment in school, and also what students and their guardians have to go through in order to attain a college degree. In this research paper, an evaluation of the historical trends in the costs of a college education will be made, followed by an assessment of what students and parents undergo in the pursuit of education, and finally some solutions to this crisis.
Historical Trends in Education Costs
The historical progression of the cost of education has been the subject of a lot of research and commentary, with the consensus being that the costs of a college education have been on an inordinate rise. In the web article by Thompson (2017), a careful evaluation and synthesis of available research from the main media houses in America paints a grim picture about the cost of college education. While citing a Bloomberg News, Thompson indicates that there has been a 1200% increase in college tuition fees in the less than half a century between 1978 and 2017. From a more definitive perspective, CNN news as quoted by Thompson, estimate the cost of a college education to be US$. 15,000 and US$ 6,000 in a public and private college respectively (Thompson, 2017). In all fairness, it can be argued that more people are going through college in 2018 than in 1978, forty years ago. It must, however, be considered that in 1978, the need for a college education was exponentially lower than it is today. In 1978, many people wanted to go to college while today, going to college is a bare necessity. Without the massive cost implications, there is a chance that everyone would want to go to college.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Available research also shows that the increase in college education has adversely affected college enrolment. According to a primary study reported in Hemelt and Marcotte (2011) , every US$ 100 increase in tuition creates a 0.25 decrease in college enrollment. The ground for the decrease in college enrollment is augmented by the fact that the increase in tuition costs at the college level has been accompanied by a reduction in state-funded subsidization of education. As college education costs increase, government investment in paying tuition for students has reduced. With these two components at play, the result is a heightened burden on the guardians of students who persist to take a college education in spite of the massive cost implications. The second possible implication is that students who could have benefited from a college education will not be able to get it. The final implication is the placing of an inordinate burden on students who have to find alternative means of raising tuition money, including working multiple jobs and taking loans.
Sustainability of the Increases in College Rates
A casual perusal of the numbers representing the increase in the cost of education may attribute it to the normal rise in prices associated with inflation, a fact that has been proven to be false. According to a research and statistical analysis carried out and reported in Kantrowitz (2018), the rate of increase in the cost of education in recent history is exponentially higher than inflation rates. Indeed, Kantrowitz argues that the rate of increase in the cost of education has been higher than double the rate of inflation in America. For example, in 2006, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics placed the rate at 3.23%. On the same year, the cost of a college education increased by 6.71%, thus reflecting a ratio of 2.08%, which is more than double. Between 1979 and 2006, the said ratio has been fluctuating but gradually rising. In 1979, general inflation was higher than the increase in the cost of education while in 2002, college education costs rose at over 4% the rate of general inflation (Kantrowitz, 2018). These figures are extremely important since education is an investment like any other. If the increase in the cost of education does not match normal inflation, it is not possible for students to get a return on the investment they make in education.
Recommendations for Solving the College Cost Impasse
Available research provides two primary recommendations for solving the high cost of education problem, with one recommendation being targeted at the students and their guardians while the other targeted at the colleges themselves. In Wang (2003), a recommendation based on strategic planning have been made to parents on how to invest in the future education of their children. The first recommendation is the College Bond Fund, a system where parents can invest in the present for the future college fees of their children. A very interesting statistic emanates from combining the analysis made by Wang (2003) with the one made by Kantrowitz (2018). When the data from the two statistics are combined, they reveal that in the year 2002, college fees rose by almost 10% while contemporaneously, College Bond costs dropped by 9%. Paying for college education in advance can, therefore, exponentially limit the costs. The failure by the parent to invest early in education will most probably place the burden for a college education on the students themselves. For example, Wang (2003) cites the student-loan company Nellie Mae to indicate that by 2002, college students were amassing loans of up to US$ 16,500. When compared to 1997, the new levels of student loan borrowing had increased by 74% with the trends showing continued increases. This means that a parent who invests early in the college education of children can save as much as 74% in just a few years.
The second recommendation relates to the colleges themselves, more so those that cater for older students who are already working. According to Stocker (2014), such colleges can find innovative ways of ensuring that the needier students get more affordable education while the less needy students subsidize the need of the needier students. It is important to note that most students who attend college at an older age do so because they were denied that chance in their younger years, by a variety of reasons. Giving such students an opportunity to get an education is thus a fundamental aspect of a good society. However, those who may have missed out on a college education and wish to do so at a later date will have found different fortunes in life. For example, some may have invested and become affluent while others may still be struggling. In Stocker (2014), it is argued that colleges should find a way to charge the two different sets of students disparately under the concept of dynamic tuition pricing (DTP) model. Under the concept, instead of colleges having a singular tuition fee value, every student can be charged according to their circumstances, with incentives being provided for those who can pay more, as is done in the car hire or plane ticketing industry. The approach suggested by Stocker (2014) can be manipulated to enable affluent students to subsidize tuition for needier students.
Summary and Conclusion
It is definitively clear that there is a crisis in America as far as college tuition rates are concerned. On the one part, the need for college education has been on the rise with the labor market demanding that every person attend higher education. On the other hand, college education tuition has been on the rise at an inordinate level. The term inordinate is used herein because the rate of increase in college education tuition is exponentially higher than the respective rates of inflation. From the combination of the above facts, at the time when a college education is needed the most, it costs more than most students can afford. Conversely, the higher costs mean that even for those students who can afford it, the returns from college education may not be commensurate with the investment made. The outcome of the combination of the facts above is that Americans who stand in dire need of a college education find themselves missing out in the opportunity. To remedy the situation, a number of recommendations have been made. Among the recommendations is making an early investment through students bond where future college fees are paid in advance. Conversely, recommendations have also been made for a more reasonable approach towards the setting of college tuition fees. It is, however, clear that the historical increases in college tuition fees have precipitated a crisis that need to be resolved urgently.
References
Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2011). The impact of tuition increases on enrollment at public colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 33 (4), 435-457
Kantrowitz, M. (2018). FinAid | Tuition inflation. Retrieved from http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml
Stocker, G. (2014, December 10). Five questions to ask about dynamic tuition pricing for adult students. Retrieved from https://evolllution.com/opinions/questions-dynamic-tuition-pricing-adult-students/
Thompson, V. (2017, September 26). How tuition increases affect college students. Retrieved from https://classroom.synonym.com/tuition-increases-affect-college-students-7007.html
Wang P. (2003). Future Plans. Money , 32(5), 100. Retrieved from http://libproxy.saumag.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9518827&site=ehost-live&scope=site
