Home > Student Loans > The Real Reason Behind Skyrocketing College Tuition

Comments 1 Comment

Sara Goldrick-Rab is among the loudest critics of America’s structures designed to fund college education. She’s a professor of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, working for a state school that is squarely in the cross-hairs of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s plans to cut funding and eliminate tenure. Her writings include “Reinventing Financial Aid: Charting a New Course to College Affordability,” with Andrew Kelly, for Harvard Education Press. When a recent Federal Reserve study found that increased student loan aid fueled tuition inflation but may not have helped students, Goldrick-Rab told Credit.com that the reality is a lot more nuanced than that. The real reason college costs have risen far faster than inflation is that low-cost options, like inexpensive state schools, are disappearing, she says. Here’s our interview with her.

You believe the entire structure of American college financial aid should be changed. Why?

Higher education doesn’t work like a normal business. It’s much harder to get the results you want out of the investments you make. In my book with Andrew Kelly, Reinventing Financial Aid, I have a chapter where I go back to the inception of the financial aid system and I work through the set of decisions that were made and put in place at the beginning. (There was the question) “Should you send aid directly to students or to schools?” The thinking at the time was – led by economists, including Milton Friedman — we should not send the money to schools, but to students. They argued that doing this would exert control over schools the way we think vouchers do today.

But the thing is (it doesn’t) end up working in the way vouchers were intended. The customers (college students) have a very hard time extracting accountability. Institutions don’t seem constrained at all. I argued in that chapter that we made a critical mistake. By not sending money to the schools we (state and government agencies) gave up the ability to hold schools accountable. But I don’t think we can back our way into that now by attaching a bunch of new rules to existing programs. I think we have to create financial aid version 2.0.

Despite all the criticism of high student loan balances, you think part of the problem is that students aren’t allowed to borrow enough. Why?

One of our biggest issues is the many students who start school but don’t finish. There are people so constrained by lack of credit that they aren’t finishing school. For them, I’m worried about an under-borrowing problem, not an over-borrowing problem. 

A recent study suggests student loans merely help colleges raise tuition, that it doesn’t help students at all. You think the truth is more nuanced. Why?

There’s this idea that maybe if we lower federal loan limits, prices would come down, but it’s not really clear. These things only seem to hold true in private schools. At private, not-for-profit schools, it’s clear that they look to those loans as a source of revenue. But the publics don’t do that in the same way. All the rising prices we see in publics, the vast majority comes from the removal of government subsidies. Public and private schools act extremely differently. The 2-year and 4-year schools act differently. The land grant schools and community colleges are not acting like the other entities, but the public gets completely lost in the conversation about college tuition inflation.

You reserve some of your biggest criticism for private schools that rank in the middle of the pack and big state “flagship” universities. What is it?

They are never happy. They cannot just see themselves as doing a job and doing it well. They have to constantly compete. Instead of constantly looking to do more to measure up to the “Ivies,” they could just be good at being what they are. But the truth is, students at those schools are not the ones defaulting on loans at high rates. The tuition-dependent, nonprofit private institutions, you could go after (the way they are funded), but that’s not going to change the (student loan) default rate. To really reduce the default rates, you’d have to go after the for-profits.

Many people look at resort-like dorms and dining halls and blame tuition inflation on that.

Yes, the amenities race. People think that. But if you look at the data to see how much of this (increase in tuition) is due to amenities, it’s going to be relatively small. At community colleges, there is no amenities race. I wish this were the problem; then we would know what to do.

So what do you think it is the solution to skyrocketing tuition?

The No. 1 driver of the rising price is that we stopped providing lower-cost public options to students. Even going to community college now requires going into debt. If we go back to a situation in which states do pay (for public options), that would be a cost-effective change. The state is going to end up having to pay for services for people who don’t get jobs anyway — they will pay on the back end for the lack of investment now. I am deeply in favor of the free community college movement.

More on Student Loans:

Image: University of Wisconsin-Madison

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.

  • AlanCollinge

    While planning the next higher education financing is good and well, what is not discussed, here- and the 800 lb gorilla in the room- is how to solve the $1.4 Trillion in debt that is currently strapped onto the backs of 40 million citizens. This is the urgent problem that must be addressed before any alternative college financing scheme is debated.

    The absence of bankruptcy protections, statutes of limitations, and other fundamental consumer protections is the driver of college prices. In the absence of these protections, the federal government is actually making money on defaults, and this perverts the good faith of the lending agreement, and makes it predatory at its core.

    This is what must be fixed before any alternatives should be looked at. By my best estimate, 26 million of the 40 million student loan holders are unable to repay their debt (ie they are in deferment, forbearance, in delinquency, or default). 26 million citizens, and their families are far too many people to leave in the dust.

    Returning bankruptcy protections is the conversation that is needed NOW. We can worry about all else later, because until the good faith is returned to this lending instrument, all other debates will come to NOTHING, the problem will perpetuate ad infinitum.

    Soon, the public will reject the validity of ALL student loans, and so the “experts” had better clue into this instead of clogging the public discourse with unconstructive, unhelpful noise.

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