I paid for 2 sons to go to 4 year private colleges and they did well. I did not qualify for aid at the time today I would due to the conditions.. I believe the dollars I paid were partially shared to students who received tuition aid in some form.. It's Robin Hood College financing take from the rich and give to the poor.. ..There must be a better way than $50,000 per year for tuition room and board JD

It is a difficult area to research, because while two trends may be happening at the same time, this does not always guarantee a causal relationship. For instance, open umbrellas occur while it is raining, but they do not cause the rain. My feeling is that federal aid did allow schools to raise tuition in the '80's and '90's. These hikes were not motivated solely by greed at that time, but by the perceived need to engage in wasteful competition- public universities tried to compete with private schools for students by offering the same types of goodies- deluxe housing, state-of-the-art gym facilities, etc. Many campuses within the same systems competed with each other by offering the same majors and concentrations. Instead of carving out unique value propositions, they offered "me too". And private schools were busy one-upping each other at the same time. The for-profits that sprang up after that (which did and still do fulfill legitimate needs- some better than others) simply cannot not stay in business without federal aid. They are completely dependent on this financial model. Their tuition usually exceeds federal aid limits, and students have to borrow from the schools themselves, or from their private loan partners. Most for-profit schools are willing to accept a 50% or higher default rate on the private loans, because they know that the federal money is guaranteed- and they know how to cut their costs to the bone to make a profit on this federal money alone- something that not-for-profits and public schools will not and cannot do. But to say that the tuition increases in the last decade, at private, not-for-profits and public schools are caused by federal aid, seems to not be the case. Why? Because federal aid does not pay anywhere near what tuition, fees and housing cost at these schools. Every year students scramble to find funding to make up their tuition gaps, and schools cannot count on the fact that they will find it. Schools have been increasing their tuition prices for years, while federal loan limits have not increased. So, while there might have been a causal relationship at one time, it seems unlikely that that is still the case.

Unfortunately, we are now beginning to realize that the stuffing-cheese-in-a-rathole approach the government used to try to make housing affordable also has unintented long term effects in the education market.

Readily available drugs leads to addicts. Readily available mortgages leads to higher housing prices. Readily available antibiotics leads to resistent strains. Readily availabe college money leads to higher college costs. Readily available anything is never good.

Rolling1 has it right, they use the "robin Hood Principal"--- take from the rich. But they don't limit giving to students. Educators spend a lot on many things that have little to do with actual teaching. Some is "research", some can be considered frills or good will, some is marketing, etc. Frankly it makes no sense for outsiders to attempt to control how they spend their money, that will never do much good. A better idea is for government to foster competition to the high priced gougers. We live in a system where products best serve us when there is adequate competition to keep prices in check. Both Federal and State funds are critical sources of cash. If government awards its aid, grants, and contracts on a basis that is inverse to tuition, this would be a powerful incentive for the high priced schools to cut costs and tuition prices. Government shouldn't run schools, but they should not reward poor value to students & inefficiency.

Dear Mr. Kix, I read with interest your article in the Ideas Section of the Boston Globe on 25 March 2012 entitled "Why is college so expensive?" I have prposed a plan that unfortunately has fallen on "deaf ears." I would truly appreciate your comments. Sincerely, Ed Altshuler Newton (617) 332-2071 e.altshuler@ieee.org A Plan to Reduce College Tuition I would like to propose a plan that would reduce the cost of tuition in the following way. Let us assume that there are three categories of family incomes - low, medium and high. Let me first present a hypothetical case for how they should pay off an interest free loan. Although the students were needy when they entered college, this does not mean that they will be needy forever. If we assume that with a college degree, for one the low-income families, I use only qualitative numbers to illustrate this plan. Let us assume that we have 10,000 students and the tuition for UMASS is $25,000/year. Let us further assume that about 20% of the tuition from the student class is from low-income families and they receive either free or subsidized tuition. (From what I have been told, this is a conservative estimate since most people believe it is higher.) Thus the total amount of revenue to UMASS is now $200 M. Now suppose that all students who are unable to afford full tuition are required to take out interest free loans. The tuition would then drop from $25,000 per student to $20,000. Upon graduation, the ex-students who had to take out the full loan, now owe UMASS $80,000. If the student is now gainfully employed, then the payback time for the loan should be based on the student's net taxable income. Once again, for illustration only, let us assume that the graduate starts out with a net taxable income of $40,000. If one had to pay 10% of this income toward one's loan, the worst-case scenario would be that it would take 20 years. However, it is safe to assume that one's salary would increase in time so the payback time would be shorter and those with higher paying salaries would pay off their loans in an even shorter period of time. A similar approach could be used for middle-income families, however for them, the amount of tuition that should loaned up front should be based on their net taxable income. On a sliding scale, those with incomes close to the low-income families would pay a relatively low tuition up front with the rest deferred as an interest-free loan after graduation. Those families on the higher end of the middle-income scale would have to pay close to the full tuition up front, which all high-income families would pay. This approach could also be used for Graduate School. Granted those students would incur even more debt, however when they graduate their salary would likely be higher and they should still be able to pay off the loan. It is understood that some of the students may have to default on the loan, for various reasons, but with proper safeguards, this could

This is a good argument, irrefutable logic that also has application in housing tax, motrgage and other subsidies driving up housing costs so the entire benefit goes to the sellers. There is another force at work, not mentioned here. Colleges give about a third of their tuition and costs away to highly qualified applicants. They increase the cost for full-pay students to pay for the breaks given to the scholarship students. An examination of any college's income statements proves this to be true. When on college tours, several colleges literally posted a discount schedule for various levels of grades and SAT scores, irrespective of need. Why they do this is obvious; median SAT scores are an important element of their ranking, whichnthey are all focused upon improving. So when you're writing a $54,000 check to your chil's college, you should understand that the true cost is $36,000, the other $18,000 is given in the form of a discount to another student with a higher HS class rank or SAT scores

Your article provides much support for the "Bennett Hypothesis", but neglects one often-overlooked fact; namely, that the "cost" of a college education is NOT the same as the "price" of a college education, as Henry Riggs, a former college president himself, pointed out last year in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/education/edlife/edl-17notebook-t.html?_r=1). The pricing of tuition by a college is ultimately a MARKETING decision, and - as with all other consumer goods - a high price is perceived by the public, prospective students and their families as a reflection of quality, prestige, and exclusivity. Indeed, tuition price is one of the factors that go into the all-important US News & World Report annual ranking of colleges. An article in the Wall Street Journal several years ago profiled Ursinus College and other colleges, where the board and administrators asked themselves the question: "If tuition price helps drive our ratings, why not raise our tuition, while raising financial aid commensurately"? These colleges raised their tuitions steeply, and presto! their US News & World Report rankings went up. Thus, the perception that high tuition prices equate with high educational quality has had perverse consequences, including the inexorable rise of federal student aid dollars that go to the colleges.

Of course this makes sense. Did cheap home loans and insufficient underwriting lead to unsustainable growth in home prices? Of course, we know that. The same thing has happened to education, and it's a disaster in the making. Right in front of our eyes. A lot of these kids will NEVER be able to pay back the loans, and the responsible kids will have to do it for them. This is what happens when you believe government should do everything for everyone, and everything is free.