Home > News > The College Cost Blame Game Has a New Twist

Comments 0 Comments

A new narrative is beginning to take shape on the higher education front.

At a recent meeting of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, its chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and the chancellors of the University System of Maryland and Vanderbilt University talked about the financial toll that regulatory compliance is taking on the schools—$14 million per year, or $1,100 per student, in Vanderbilt’s case.

“No one has taken time to ‘weed the garden,’” Alexander said. “The result of this piling up of regulations is that one of the greatest obstacles to innovation and cost consciousness in higher education has become us, the federal government.”

Yet when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked whether the schools would commit to a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tuition if all Higher Education Act regulations were repealed, neither of the chancellors was willing to sign up for trickle-down. Instead, they talked about using surplus cash for research grants and study-abroad programs because these and other academic initiatives are underinvested.

Are things really that tight?

Well, if one were to review the financial statements for a representative sampling of private, nonprofit schools (Form 990 filings are a good source for that), one would likely find that the gap between revenues and expenses is widening, in a bad way. Consequently, schools that are fortunate enough to report profitable bottom lines are probably relying on investment income and the proceeds from annual fundraising drives to pull that off. When that’s not enough, tapping into endowments may become necessary.

It would seem, then, that every dollar counts for college operations, which brings us back to the matter of regulation and its cost.

No doubt the garden does indeed need a bit of weeding, to paraphrase Sen. Alexander’s metaphor. Still, it’s unlikely the schools will be able to landscape their way to profitability. Nor will the elimination of these regulations—which are, in a sense, quid pro quo for the river of taxpayer-funded support that annually flows to higher education—result in better outcomes.

Nearly half of all those who embark on a college degree fail to attain one, even after six years’ time. And that doesn’t even take into effect the financial burdens that are borne by those who are at opposite ends of that spectrum: college graduates who are struggling to pay for the six years it took for them to earn their diplomas and former students who cannot earn enough to pay for the studies they were unable to complete.

Whether we attribute that to the high cost of attending or a deliberate relaxation of standards to maintain high levels of attendance, all fingers point in the schools’ direction. And if there is indeed a financial toll that higher education institutions are forced to endure, it is more the result of a business model that’s become a melting ice cube—as fewer students and families are able to afford the product—than it is excessive regulation. So when legislators, institutional spokespersons and lobbyists talk about paring these as a means for lowering costs, it’s hard to take at face value an argument that feels as if it’s ideologically inspired.

A more productive tack would be for colleges and universities to look inwardly.

For example, institutional mergers hold the potential for cutting costs and the price of tuition to boot. Schools can also find the capital that’s urgently needed for upgraded educational content by divesting non-core activities.

The point is: Beyond a little regulatory horticulture, there’s a whole lot more to be gained by tending the entire landscape.

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: Stockbyte

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.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

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.

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