Ensuring fairness

” .. students are the ultimate losers as college affordability declines and federal direct student aid dollars are increasingly rendered less effective ..”

Except that substantial questions have been raised about the authentic value of certain college majors. That high-demand areas (e.g., engineering, health care) have many funding sources. That 56.4% of incoming freshman do not graduate within six years. That according to Greene (U-Ark), everyone capable of doing college-level work, either is, or has gone to, college. That a majority of Americans decide that a four-year college degree is not for them.

Finally — why should that majority of Americans subsidize future millionaire lawyers, heart surgeons, and CEOs? Where are the objective, third-party studies — not paid for by the higher-ed lobby — that validate higher-ed funding?

L.L., at 9:10 am EDT on July 18, 2008

L.L., if you believe that people should have to pay 100% of the cost of their college educations, you believe that only those in the top 20% of the American income/wealth disparity should have access to schooling.

But more importantly—if you don’t have evidence that college is worth it, you don’t have evidence that high school is, either. College graduates make more money than high school graduates, just as high school graduates earn more money than dropouts. There are similar findings in terms of health outcomes and voting behavior/political knowledge. If you believe these findings, you ought to believe in government funding for higher ed. If not—well, high school dropouts can get jobs cleaning the streets (if all the jobs haven’t been lost in the economic downturn), so why should tax dollars go to high school education either?

Maritov, Assistant Professor of Sociology at New England, at 9:50 am EDT on July 18, 2008

Better yet, since the campus is now so politicized, let the Democratic party fund the “humanities". They can establish chairs in “anti-Bush studies","Regan was dumb","no blood for oil","Socialism now” and “Diversity", since these subjects are now taught instead of History, English and the other Humanities. We can also get money from the Arabs, who currently fund our “Middle East Studies” departments. Perhaps they’ll want to branch out...

mike, at 12:00 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

Omigod, It’s A Miracle!

I think I find myself agreeing will L.L. about once in a blue moon – if that often — but I certainly agree with much of what he has to say about college costs ... and I’m certainly on his team when it comes to underwriting the training of lawyers and CEOs.

But I assume his comment about millionaire heart surgeons is something of a placeholder for the wealth of most physicians. If so, I feel compelled to respond, because, as I type this, my daughter-in-law is looking over my shoulder, and, just last month, she completed her third year of medical school and has just begun her second year of rotations (this month she’s working in an emergency room).

There seems to be more than a little information “out there,” so I’ll let you get on-line and check it out yourself. But, suppose that, upon graduation, a medical student has combined undergraduate and medical school debt of $120,000 (which is less than the average). Using the data in an article by Glickman and Yock in “Academic Medicine” (1998) it would take an income of $334,700 in today’s dollars to “comfortably” pay off that much debt after graduation. Indeed, they claimed that with a sustained income of $162,400 (today’s dollars) it is essentially impossible to pay off that much debt. Yet today, the average starting salaries for physicians are General Practice = $117,000 ... Internal Medicine = $128,000 ... Pediatrics = $120,000 ... OB-GYN = $165,000 ... Endocrinology = $140,000 ... etc.

http://residency.valuemd.com/physiciansalary.htm

I’m not saying physicians are destined to live frugal lives – we all know better than that – it’s just that (1) the amount of debt many are accruing just to get through school is a potentially enormous burden and (2) the differences in incomes across specialties could “push” many off in directions we don’t want them to go. My daughter-in-law, for example is still mulling over her options, but it is much more likely that she will opt for either Family Practice = $125,000 or Emergency Care = $180,000 rather than Cardiovascular Surgery = $208,000. Oops, she just changed her mind.

Recently I flew cross-country with a senior at the U.S. Military Academy. He told me – and I have corroborated it – that the cost to us taxpayers for sending a young man or woman to the USMA is $441,000 ... to the USNA is 351,800 ... to the USAFA is $400,000 ... and, of course, they’re all getting a “free ride.”

I’m guessing, L.L., you think that’s a lot of money for the education of our future military elite ... but you, nevertheless, believe it’s in the best interest of the country to make that investment. Personally, I don’t begrudge those young men and women a penny of what we pay for their education ... but I feel the same way about training almost all physicians.

Frizbane Manley, at 1:05 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

Who can take this seriously?

“.. Who can take this seriously?”

That has to be one of the most-cogent points made in IHE in the last 12 months. To wit:

” ..why should tax dollars go to high school education either?”

Uh .. because U.S. K-12 has been funded by the public (both in public and private modes) for 300+ years? And not higher-ed?

” .. but I feel the same way about training almost all physicians ..”

So .. the point is? As the majority of MD students are from the upper-middle-class, anyway?

http://www.unmc.edu/Community/rur...medical_schools_and_rural_gradua.htm

Want more money? Look in the mirror. Start lobbying there.

L.L., at 4:05 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

Hmmm ... They Won’t Check That Anyway

Two Things:

First, L.L has a knack for sending Inside Higher Ed readers to URLs that don’t even come close to substantiating his claims.

In “Who Can Take This Seriously?” he writes ...

“So .. the point is? As the majority of MD students are from the upper-middle-class, anyway?

http://www.unmc.edu/Community/rur...medical_schools_and_rural_gradua.htm”

Of course if you follow that URL you will find a multiple regression model – and not a very good one at that — that “predicts” a medical school’s production of graduates who take jobs in rural communities ... and get this, without a hint that “the majority of MD students are from the upper-middle-class ....” The independent variables are “rurality,” public medical schools, NIH funding, and rural mission. There is no discussion of L.L.’s conjecture.

In that article we learn ...

“The main factor that contributes to the successful rural graduation rate for a medical school is global and environmental, the rurality of the state,”

and the author supplies enough cautions and disclaimers about his data to make you wonder if his analysis even confirms that seemingly obvious result.

Second, I apologize for suggesting that L.L would assume $441,000 is a lot of money for the education of our military elite. I have been teaching for a long time, and, in my experience, I can’t think of any other colleges or universities where a student would be expected to pay more than that amount for four years of education, not even for most professional degrees. I mentioned the cost of educating students at our military academies in the same sentence with the debt accrued by medical students only because (1) both are at the high end of the cost-of-education spectrum and (2) in my opinion, we come very close to getting our money’s worth from both. Personally, I am more than happy that a goodly number of our youngsters make those choices.

Finally, I agree ... I should know better than to make any assumptions about L.L.’ thought processes.

Frizbane Manley, at 10:00 am EDT on July 19, 2008

How big was the decline in support, really?

If figured based on the fraction of tuition and state dollars coming from the state to support instruction, research, and service — there has been a huge decline in state support.

If figured based on real dollars, corrected for inflation with the CPI, the decline is more modest — maybe $1500 of a $7000 rise in tuition is the fault of the state.

Details can be read in the bottom third of http://doctorpion.blogspot.com/2008/07/inflated-inflation.html

One could, perhaps, look at the doubling of tuition beyond what was needed to cover state cuts as value added to that university’s education at the expense of the student and the federal government, well beyond what the state paid for about forty years ago.

Note that a 40 year doubling time only requires an increase of less than 2% above inflation. Not easy to notice in the short run.

CCPhysicist, at 4:20 am EDT on July 21, 2008

On Learning To Use The Internet

Thanks L.L. I went to the (second) site your recommended – another Robert C. Bowman article – and learned that amongst students at allopathic medical schools who choose either a Family Care practice or setting up shop in a rural community more come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact ...

“The key to selection of family physicians and physicians who will distribute [to rural communities] is socioeconomics. Those of lower SES distribute to rural and poverty locations better also. Cooter found 13% choice of family medicine for the highest quartile of income compared to 22% for the lowest student income origins. Rural, older, instate born, instate determined, and lower income students all share strong positive correlations with choice of family medicine and negative correlations with the Medical College Admission Test in studies at the medical school level.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Bowman is still not addressing what you claimed to be true way up there in “Who Can Take This Seriously?”

Look, L.L., if you want to “prove” your point, go to ...

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/2/527

That’s a fairly interesting article based on reliable data ... and it almost makes your point.

Or if you don’t mind unsubstantiated and unreferenced statements – and I think that’s right up your alley – go to ...

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/73774

where the much-published Maggie Mahar writes ...

“This helps explain why 60 percent of all medical students come from the wealthiest one-fifth of all U.S. families. Another 20 percent come from families lucky enough to be on the fourth step of a five step ladder.”

If you work at it a bit, I think you will discover that accurate and effective use of the Internet is not all that difficult. And, truth be known, if one is sufficiently persistent, s/he can find substantiation of almost any conjecture s/he’s inclined to make; e.g., “the better informed Republicans are about global warming the less they’re concerned about it.”

http://environment.newscientist.c...ans-less-concerned-over-climate.html

Frizbane Manley, at 9:10 am EDT on July 21, 2008

Final Remark To L.L.

Sorry, but I never disputed the fact that a large number of American medical students come from the upper and upper-middle classes (but certainly not my daughter-in-law). I was merely registering a complaint about the “accuracy” of your cited URLs.

Check back to verify that.

Berea (and Warren Wilson College) are amongst my favorite places. And Berea was doing that long before its endowment reached $1.1 billion. On several occasions I’ve sent application to both of those fine colleges.

http://www.warren-wilson.edu/external_index.php

Frizbane Manley, at 3:05 pm EDT on July 21, 2008

Constitutional limits? Separation of powers?

How about just holding the federal legislatures accountable to the fact that they spend the lion’s share of the nation’s public revenues?

Forget it. We’ve got a few bucks to chase. Forget the law, forget who actually taxes us and spends the money — because the Feds say its time for the states to pony up.

Is this a clever way of the federal Congress informing us that only bank bailouts and new financial regulations are worth their time and our money? A clever way to divest itself of any obligation to actual public services as opposed to corporate cronyism?

I have a proposal — let’s get our state leaders to pass a bill requiring Washington D.C. to spend its share on education rather than corporate welfare.

edulinks, at 5:05 pm EDT on July 22, 2008