Do loans make college affordable?

In the President's radio address this week he announced or called for changes to make student loans available to cover the cost of college. Seems the credit crunch is causing some lenders to leave federal and private programs. The President says these loans will make college more accessible and affordable. Really?

If you can't afford something, does borrowing money make it more affordable? Forgive me if something has change since I graduated from the UW Business school, but in the old days interest was charged in addition to the principal. That means the cost of your education with loans will be larger than without loans. It may give you access that you might not otherwise have, with the expectation of future income streams that would cover the loan payments. Michelle Singletary, personal finance columnist, makes the point better than I ever could (she hates debt - I like her).

If you're going to treat college as a financial investment that pays off in the long, thereby justifying the costs of borrowing, then you need to treat it that way. Study in a program that offers a likely payback in terms of high paying jobs, don't waste time on stuff you don't need and don't screw around and take classes over again. Just use the same good judgment you exercised when you used margin borrowing to buy tech stocks in the late 90's and second mortgaged your home in '06. So how's that working for you?

Instead of student loan programs and new branch campuses we could use that money to reduce the cost of education, making it truly more affordable. Students at state colleges and universities have been hit from two sides. First, the cost of education has grown at rates exceeding both the per capita income and inflation. The Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board published figures showing tuition and fees growing at over 6% a year since 1996 while Washington per capita income grew at just over 4% a year and inflation averaged just 2% a year.

The second factor is the percentage of the cost of instruction that is covered by tuition has also grown over the same time period. (cost of instruction = tuition + state general fund subsidy.) If you were at the UW in 1995, your tuition cover 33.3% of the cost of instruction (with the State paying the remaining two thirds). Students attending last year had to pay tuition to cover almost 53% of the cost of instruction. (The preceding statistics come from the 2006/2007 Washington State Tuition and Fee report, starting on page 21.)

Which leaves with two options to make college more affordable, either cut the cost of instruction or increase the percentage the State funds. In my opinion, the $1 billion we are going to spend on a UW branch campus would go along way to reducing the out of pocket costs for students today and for years to come.

Tags: President Bush, Student Loans, Michelle Singletary, HEC Board, Cost of Education

Review Rep. Loomis Wrap Newsletter

Liz Loomis is a Representative from the 44th district, my district, and one of the representative that I sent an email regarding the UW North Sound. While I did not agree with her response, I did appreciate that she took a few minutes out of her busy day to send me a reply (no, serious, I did appreciate it).

I just received her 2008 Session Wrap newsletter in the mail and was pleased with some of her comments on education.

We need to give more people the opportunity to earn a college degree. The state budget includes funding for 10,000 more spaces at our colleges and universities, including more spaces dedicated to high-demand degrees in math, science, engineering and health care.

But that doesn't fully address the reality of our workforce. One out of three high schoolers will drop out. Part of the problem is that we send students the message that a college degree is the only option to get a good paying job.

Only 25 percent of high school graduates will earn a college degree. We need to focus on the other 75 percent, especially now when our state has such a shortage in the skilled trades that we're forced to hire folks from other states.

Rep. Loomis is right on target with that second paragraph. We have dismissed and demeaned the value of high school, through our perverse preoccupation with the bachelor degree. One extremely passionate speaker on the value of the high school education is Dr. Susan Quatrrociocchi, or Dr. Q as she is known. I've had the pleasure of listening to her twice, most recently being this past Fall at the Everett school district advisory board kick-off meeting. Her analysis of the income data would seem to confirm Rep. Loomis' statements. If you have a Sno-Isle library account you can access the WOIS/The Career Information System database and see Dr. Q's reports including "The Earning Value of that High School Diploma".

At the same time, the demand in the skilled trades for educated people is growing. Part of the problem is the aging workforce but lack of interest in younger people is also a problem, as noted in this Herald article from last September. Again, Rep. Loomis' comments are on the mark and her support of apprenticeship programs is appreciated.

Unfortunately, not everything in the newsletter was quite as insightful as the above. On page 2 she writes:

It isn't just Microsoft and Boeing who worry about the shortage of skilled workers. Every small business owner I know says that they have a hard time getting people with the right skills and training. It's a problem with out higher education system which doesn't have enough space to train people in high demand fields.

Sorry Liz, I was with you until the last sentence. I know that several of the high-demand programs at the local community colleges are still struggling for enrollment and that UW Bothell is still below its allowable limit, regardless of the off-ramp status. The problem with high-demand STEM programs isn't that we are turning people away, but we can't get them to show up. Our focus must remain on encouraging participation and preparation by students in their middle school and high school years. Maybe then we can "build" more space.

Tags: Liz Loomis, Susan Quatrrociocchi, UW North Sound, STEM, UW Bothell, Edmonds CC, Everett CC

HEC Board to clear logjam

The Everett Herald reports on plans for Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board executive Director Ann Daley to work to end the standoff between Everett and Marysville as the site for the UW North Sound branch campus. The state has allocated $100,000 that could have otherwise gone to education for the task. The article is an interesting read in general, but here's my favorite part:

Ideas that might prove easier to unite around are popping up. These included expanding classes of the University Center run by Everett Community College and setting up learning centers for upper-division coursework in places such as Oak Harbor and Arlington.

I wish I had though of that. ;-)

Tags: HEC Board, Ann Daley, UW North Sound Branch

Movin on up to a deluxe apartment in the sky

Lisa Albers over at crosscut.com questions our priority in higher education (Washington's Higher Ed Priority: Posh Dorms) given the announcement by Washington State University (WSU) that they would spend $26 million on dorm renovations and expansions. This comes on the heels of a University of Washington (UW) plan to spend $850 million on the same. I understand the value in rethinking living and education spaces based upon changes in the education environment that include online classes, online library resources and team-oriented, project-based class activities. In the end, however, I have to side with Lisa that we are doing a bad job of prioritizing the expenditures we make in higher ed. We seem to be spending more and more money on fewer and fewer students, even as we lament the lack of college graduates in our state.

If form follows function, and function is fundamentally altered, then that form should change too. Thirty years ago when I was in college classes were held in lecture halls, work was largely individual and the materials were at the library. Now classes can be online, even for residential students, and all of your study materials are too. I'm guessing that the average student now needs an internet connection, conference room and white board as much as I once needed a roll of nickels for the copier and a bottle of Liquid Paper.

So redesigning living quarters with that in mind seems like a good idea, no? Glen Hiemstra goes further and suggests in a recent post at the Futurist.com that "students will continue to seek out learning communities including residential ones. But, while in residence on one campus or in one community, students may obtain a third or half off their credits via the global information network. This means that colleges will need to adjust to providing high-end IT facilities, such as true telepresence (HP version, Cisco version), and change their credit granting and financial policies to enable locally enrolled students to get much of their education 'off campus' as it were." [watch his Beyond 2020 talk at the UW in 2000 where he talks about this and other ideas on the changing nature of higher ed.]

That, unfortunately, isn't what I hear from the university mouthpieces. It seems that the main concern is that students might have to share a bathroom. You can read the two pieces for yourself, but my first reaction was "well at least the tax payer won't have to foot the bill". That's the wrong attitude for me to take. If they push these costs out to the students - the only other option - you just make it more difficult for students to attend. Consistently, costs are the biggest barrier to education and we so desperately want more college graduates.

So is it possible to find a cost effective way to reshape spaces to fit current needs without cutting off access to educational opportunities. Probably, but I don't trust our civic, governmental and educational leaders to find the balance between better spaces and opulence. Let's face it, they are addicted to concrete - Portland Gray - and the name plates affixed to the buildings.

Tags: Lisa Albers, University of Washington, Washington State University, Dorms

The reply: Rep. Sells (part 2)

In part 1 of my reply to Rep. Mike Sells letter to the editor response to my March 14th letter to the editor I argue that a failure to fund full time equivalent (FTE) student positions, not lack of physical space, is causing our universities to refuse admission to some qualified students. Funding was a problem that could have been fixed in the last session if education was a paramount concern to the legislature.

In part 2 I would like to address Rep. Sells concern over the lack of graduates in high-demand areas of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). In his letter he states that "We have Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates in Washington, D.C., requesting a lift on the lid of H1B visas to bring more people with degrees from outside the country into Washington state for work". [The full text of Mr. Gates' testimony is available here and a NPR interview with him is available here.]

Rep. Sells implies that a new tech-focused university will solve the tech storage without actually demonstrating how that would happen. Unfortuately, we do not have enough students interested and prepared for these areas study (listen to a recent NPR report here about low computer science enrollment and read this article on declining results on the Science section of the WASL here) and it is unclear to me how a new campus would change that. STEM maybe high-demand for employers, but not for students.

My argument is that $1,000,000,000 Rep. Sells wants the State to spend on a new campus would be better spent encouraging participation in STEM and funding positions at existing campuses. Instead of a new campus we must:

1. fund changes to secondary education that encourage and prepare students into STEM areas of study (see Gates' testimony starting on page 4).
   
2. fund STEM positions at existing institutions. Dan Voelpel of the News Tribune reports that the UW Tacoma was suppose to be the State's independent technology institute and it should be funded before UW North Sound. Why build a new tech-focused campus if the first one isn't full.
   
3. aggressively recruit into STEM programs, including lowering tuition for students entering these areas of study. In particular, we must address the underrepresentation of women and most minority groups in STEM fields.
   
4. come to terms with the participation of foreign nationals in STEM education and employment (Mr. Gates notes that 60% of students at top computer science schools are non-US citizens). A new polytechnic university will have a high percentage of foreign students. For us to benefit from the massive investment in a new campus won't we need to keep those students here, working and paying taxes, at least for a few years after graduation?

I'm a hiring IT manager, so good IT education and pool of talented candidates is of particular interest to me. Nevertheless, no one has clearly stated how a new campus will encourage participation in STEM of high school students or career changers. Do that and I will be on board with the campus. Otherwise, stop wasting my money......

Tags: Mike Sells, UW North, STEM, UW Tacoma

The reply: Rep. Sells response (part 1)

Today the Herald published a letter to the editor from Representative Mike Sells of Everett, which is a response to my letter to the editor published March 15th. I'm glad to see a response, any response, just so that it appears there is some debate going on (maybe that will interest the average citizen).

I can't tell you how excited I was that he trotted out the old classic half-truth "We already have our four-year institutions in the state turning away eligible students". I never get tired of that chestnut. Okay, let's review how funding works (as I the average citizen understands it):

1. The legislature funds a certain number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students at each institution
2. Once the institution reaches that enrollment level, they are free to do one of the following:

• continue enrolling students if they can find other sources of funding and it doesn't hurt the quality of instruction.
• stop enrolling students
  

Each year the Office of Financial Management does a budget drivers report that looks at Budget vs. Actual/Projected Actual FTEs at each school. The 2007/2008 report shows that all the schools have taken in everyone they are budgeted for, with the exception of UW Bothell and UW Tacoma (isn't that interesting). As best as I can figure - and I am not an expert in education funding - the report indicates that the qualified students have been turned away because the legislature failed to fund enough positions and the schools decided to stop over-enrolling. I see nothing that says physical space was the issue (please let me know if you find it).

We really need to be watching the funding of FTEs, not the construction of colleges. Reports from the Higher Education Coordinating (HEC) Board on higher education trends and the Office of Financial Management on enrollment suggest that increased FTE funding is essential to just keep pace with current growth. If the legislature can pay for a new campus why can't it afford to fund the current shortfall in FTEs? What will guarantee that they will fully fund the FTEs in addition to the new campus?

The report of qualified students being turned away comes from another report from the Office of Financial Management called A Perspective on Unmet Demand. Once you get past all the definitions and sampling logic you come across this little quote:

The "waiting line" as indicated by unserved applicants should not be interpreted as a measure of total unmet need for higher education. Persons who may lack the resources to attend a four year institution, for example, and those who do not submit a complete application, are not counted among the unserved.

Like an unemployment report that shows false signs of improvement because some job seekers just give up and stop looking, this report would indicate that our problem is much bigger than even they estimate. Their waiting line is people who could attend if accepted, but doesn't include those who don't apply because they know they can't afford to go.

Want to be really depressed? Try reading the HEC Board's 2008 Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education. Start on page 5, the section called "How did we fall behind".

Oh, and if you see Mike, tell him Corey delved a little deeper.

Tags: Mike Sells, UW North, HEC Board

Added UW North Links

In a previous post I mentioned that I am using Google Alerts to find other sources of information about the branch campus (other than just the Snohomish County based Herald). When I find these articles I save the link to my del.icio.us account. I thought I would share these with you as well. In the left-hand column you will find my link roll showing the 10 most current links. You can see the whole list at any time by clicking of the title "MY DEL.ICIO.US - UW NORTH".

If you aren't familiar with del.icio.us, it is a social bookmarking site that lets you save your favorite links for easy access from anywhere. More important, it allows you to share your links with other and to search for other people linked to similar topics. It's a way to find out what other folks with similar interests are reading. If you like to know a little more about social bookmarking you might want to check out this short video clip from the Common Craft Show.