The October 2011 issue of American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research’s (AEI) Education Outlook included an interesting analysis of the total cost of a bachelor’s degree titled, “Cheap for Whom?:   How Much Higher Education Costs Taxpayers.”  The authors, Mark Schneider and Jorge Klor de Alva, go beyond a surface analysis of tuition rates, student fees, and books.  Their analysis delves deeper into the overall financial cost model to consider and analyze taxpayer subsidies as part of the cost of a bachelor’s degree. 

Schneider and de Alva note that consumers are largely oblivious to the cost of an item, focusing almost solely on the price instead.  As long as the price seems reasonable (or, at least comparable to other similar products), the consumer is not likely to consider what the actual cost of the product is.  As the authors point out, nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in higher education.  Since the downturn of the economy in 2008, a deluge of articles have been published exploring the price of a college education (see the “Impact of the Economy on Higher Education” section of this blog) but little has been written for the American public about the true cost of a degree (that data is typically buried in academic policy and research reports that typically do not receive broad media coverage).  Schneider and de Alva have undertaken the daunting task of publishing the total cost of a bachelor’s degree for the American taxpayer.  Their findings are notable, assuming that those in a position to influence public policy and a broader national discussion read their paper.

The authors divided their sample into the following categories: public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit institutions.  Beyond that,  they used a variation of the well-known rankings reported in Barron’s Profiles in American Colleges which provides six categories for schools ranging from “noncompetitive” (open admissions schools) to “most competitive” (highly selective, elite institutions).  Interestingly, American taxpayers subsidize the least competitive schools far less than they do the most competitive.  The irony is that the largest and fastest growing sector of the college population includes low-income and non-traditional students who are attending the lesser competitive schools.  These schools tend to offer greater flexibility for part-time students, working adults, and other “nontraditional” student populations.  To provide perspective on the dramatic differences in taxpayer subsidies, consider that “among not-for-profit institutions, the amount of taxpayer subsidies hovers between $1,000 and $2,000 per student per year…”  Among the most selective institutions in the nation, “the taxpayer subsidy jumps substantially to more than $13,000 per student per year.”

Read the rest of this entry »

From the earliest days of the most recent presidential election, President Obama made it clear that one of his highest priorities if elected would be addressing climate change, energy consumption and the economy.  It seems that within the first several months of taking office, President Obama has remained dedicated to those priorities.  More recently, he maintains that he has found a single solution that will address all three problems: the development of a “green economy.” 

The green economy, according to the Administration, will “invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions [five million, to be exact] of new jobs.”  President Obama has stated his intention to invest $150 billion over the next ten years in efforts meant to encourage private efforts to establish and use clean energy.  Through this investment, the President expects to not only create jobs (developing, installing, and maintaining new green technologies) but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 through the use of clean and renewable energy sources.  Breaking the nation’s addiction to foreign oil is an obvious underpinning of the Obama plan. 

Read the rest of this entry »