Colleges, or Country Clubs?
December 1, 2011
As student debt increases, costs rise for everything but actual education
Anna Petkovich SC ‘14 estimates that she will be approximately $50,000 in debt at the end of her four years at the Claremont Colleges. Without her CalGrant, that figure would be closer to $90,000.
“I’m still just a child,” she says. “That’s just a number on a piece of paper to me. How am I supposed to know what that kind of money means?”
Over the past thirty years, the cost of at- tending college has risen steadily at a rate of about six percent each year. College tuition costs have outpaced inflation and health care spending, even in periods of recession. The Claremont Colleges are no exception, ranking as some of the most expensive schools in the country. But as student debt grows, the money that many colleges spend on administration has risen faster than the amount that goes directly to education, and colleges – including the Claremonts – continue to spend money on unnecessary amenities.
In October, college loan debt reached $1 trillion, surpassing America’s credit card debt. College debt is one of the major grievances for participants in the Occupy protests launched in September, as many of the occupiers are out-of-luck college graduates drowning in debt. Students are so serious about challenging current student loan trends that they have pushed the federal government to step in. President Obama recently signed an executive order to cap required payments for some college loan borrowers at a lower percentage of their income; and Congress passed legislation to forgive payments for many after 20 years, or ten years for those who enter public service.
Scripps Assistant Professor of Economics Sean Flynn thinks that the increasing costs are a result of simple economics. “What I think happened is the actual costs of delivering education – the real costs like time of teachers in the classroom and renting square footage of space – really haven’t gone up that much over time. What has really gone up is the demand,” Flynn explains. A college education has become increasingly important for success, so more people are demanding seats in the nation’s classrooms.
This extreme demand creates a system in which colleges have zero incentive to de- crease costs to students. Last year, Scripps underwent an extensive “Economic Sustainability Project” to try to decrease the costs of running the college. President Lori Bettison-Varga approved about $185,000 in savings. This may sound significant, but compared to Scripps’ overall budget of $52 million, it is pocket change, culminating in a total reduction of 0.35 percent of the budget. With budget measures like “eliminating fruit juices from lunch and dinner” and “combin[ing] the annual donor honor roll publication with the fall issue of Scripps Magazine,” actually reducing the overall budget by a serious amount is clearly not a priority.
Investing in expensive perks like fruit juices, fancy gyms, and photogenic architecture (Kravis Center, anyone?) rewards colleges with interested students. We all remember opening up Fiske Guide to Colleges and trying to weed down the hundreds of schools to a list of a ten or so that stood out. And, when you’re a seven- teen year old about to live on your own for the first time, maid service is appealing.
Additionally, Flynn thinks that the competition engendered by the extra high demand for a college education creates an incentive to inundate a campus with what he calls “massive layers of bureaucracy.”
“The scariest number I’ve seen is that in the Cal State system between 1970 and 2008…the number of faculty only went up three percent, but the number of administrators went up 237 percent,” Flynn explains. “The entire educational system has had massive amounts of money thrown at it and most of it has gone to things that have not improved the actual educational outcomes.”
While more bureaucracy could perhaps improve the quality of life for students at an institution, it carries a high price tag. Luckily, America is full of students with enough desire to do five hours of homework a night that they will pick up extra costs by taking out a loan or a second mortgage on their family’s home. The fancy extras give any school a competitive edge. But while bells and whistles are certainly nice, they are by no means necessary for an education. CMC students got by just fine before the $75 million Kravis Center and Scripps students were by no means living poorly before the installment of the state-of-the-art fitness center.
In September 2010, President Obama criticized colleges for this phenomenon, saying, “You’re not going to a university to join a spa – you’re going there to learn so that you can have a fulfilling career. And if all the amenities of a public university start jacking up the cost of tuition significantly, that’s a problem.” President Obama, it’s a problem at private liberal arts colleges, too.
The high-cost system has created an environment in which high levels of loans and debt are the norm. This debt brings with it two problems: First, it traps those most interested in improving their standard of living and working hard with mountains of debt. Being tied to a loan that must be repaid makes it hard for students to take jobs at non-profit organizations or go to graduate school. Instead, students are locked into unfulfilling jobs that help to pay the bills, if they can find a job at all. Petkovich, for example, believes that debt will force her into the “real world” prematurely. With $50,000 of debt weighing you down, she ex- plained, getting a “serious” job right out of college becomes incredibly important.
Second, because student loans are implicitly required to for many middle class students to attend expensive schools, students from backgrounds or cultures that admonish debt are less likely to attend the most expensive — and sometimes best – schools. “The debt is definitely discouraging a lot of people from goin to college,” explains Flynn. “People in society – even if they know nothing else about college – now think of it as hideously expensive. That’s got to discourage kids [who are considering college].”
But if the student loan crisis isn’t affecting you, why should you care? As the cost of college rises and more and more students from middle class, poor, and minority back- grounds choose not to attend elite and expensive universities, we lose out on an important part of a liberal arts education. Class diversity decreases with the rising costs of college, and students sacrifice a variety of opinions and worldviews in the classroom that can provide invaluable perspectives on class material. As we allow costs to rise and take out loans to support the extravagant luxury resorts we call schools, we simultaneously exclude huge portions of the United States from participating in our discussions, from living in our dorms, and from reaping the benefits of education.
Students at the Claremont Colleges already attend some of the most expensive schools in the nation. The phenomenon of high college costs carries implications for everyone on campus. We have seen student fees, tuition, and housing costs rise. We watch as ad- ministrations pay for lavish new conference rooms, Jetsons-style glass cubes, and gym equipment while we take out more loans and pay more out of pocket to fund the impossible race to the top. We’ve reached the point where school is no longer about education; it’s about a lifestyle. And with that four-year lifestyle locking us into unfulfilling jobs and years of paying off loans, how much longer are we willing to pay for it?
Related Posts
19 Responses to “Colleges, or Country Clubs?”
Leave a Reply
Claremont Port Side (CmontPortSide)
Claremont, CA
553 followers
803 tweets
Tweeting since July 27, 2009
Latest Articles
CMC Financial Aid Changes
CMC has changed its financial aid policy to allow up to $4,000 in loans in its financial aid packages starting with the class of 2018. The Port Side takes a look into the reasoning and ramifications behind this policy change.
Tenure at the Claremont Colleges
The Port Side published an infographic spread on tenure at the 5Cs in our last print issue. Here, we go in-depth into who gets tenure at the Claremont Colleges.
Pomona Dining Hall Workers Vote to Unionize
This past Tuesday, Pomona College's 83 dining hall workers voted in favor of union representation. They now look to work out a new contract with the college administration. What do the workers hope to gain from this new contract, and how is national organization UNITE HERE involved? We've got all the details after the jump.
Exploring Online Education
Over the past decade, technological advancements have opened up new possibilities for the future of education. Maryl Evans explains some of the pros and cons of bringing the internet into the classroom.
Prof. Segal on SJP Incident: An Open Letter to CMC Faculty
In this open letter sent to CMC faculty, Prof. Segal weighs in on the administration's report on the confrontation between Najib Hamideh PZ '15 and CMC Professor Yaron Raviv. He claims the report ignores key facts and blames the incident's victims, the SJP demonstrators.
CMC Campus Climate Report
The CMC Campus Climate Task Force recently released a report of its findings and detailed a series of affirmations and recommendations for CMC.
Is that why Mallott got rid of fruit juices at lunch and dinner? What bitches. I love juice.
Do you hear that noise? It’s the sound of the Wahhhh-mbulance in the distance. You should ask Anna why her debt is so high – it’s because she can most likely afford it (or her parents can). As a recent CMC grad, where the Kravis Center was built, my financial aid was great enough where I only graduated about 3-6 grand in debt, and paid it off.
Plus, the debt is mitigated if you go into different jobs, such as Teach for America, or if you go back into school. I know many people at CMC that, without massive and generous aid, could never afford to go here. And yet, here they are.
Basically, as a private college, none of us really have any right to bitch about this. Especially when the Claremont Colleges had announced that their first priority was to keep financial aid for students as high and consistent as possible before everything else when the scare about tuition raises was first floated around.
While there are some great financial aid programs that help many low-income families afford the cost of education, they do not meet all need. Financial aid is largely based on a federal formula that you fill out with your parents’ income and assets and based on that formula your financial aid is determined. More often than not, that formula does a great job at helping many low-income families yet not middle-class. Most middle-class families cannot afford to shell out $58,000 and therefore the highest student debt is actually coming from middle class family students. I’m happy for you that you did not have that situation happen to you, but I think it’s unfair for you to assume that the individual portrayed in the article can cover the costs. I understand that financial aid programs are pressed for resources especially during these times, but it doesn’t discount the fact that many students are definitely graduating with more than 3-6 grand of debt.
That being said, a reality for students graduating with high debt is that they need to be realistic and find jobs that will allow them to cover that debt. It may not be ideal, but it is a realistic option.
Average debt on graduation from CMC is about $15,000, the price of a cheap car, not $50,000+. Do your homework.
Or maybe you can’t trust the statistics that colleges publish about the average debt of their graduating students. ahem. there’s also the increasingly disturbing trend that college graduates can’t find jobs in their field of study and have to work as waiters or baristas or the like, or work at unpaid internships to ‘build their resumes.’ meanwhile, they still have to make payments on the student loans that haven’t even started to pay off as an investment, and can’t be forgiven through bankruptcy.
Just so you know, the Kravis Center was an $85 million, not $75 million project and was almost fully funded by a $75 million donation from alum Henry Kravis. Additionally, less than 10% of CMC students graduate with any debt due to our no packaged-loan policy.
While I completely agree with much of what you said in this piece, please note the misleading nature of your inclusion of CMC in this article.
Thank you for the correction about the cost of the Kravis Center. However, I have to disagree with your claim that including CMC in this article is misleading.
First, 49% of CMC students are on no financial aid at all, meaning that nearly half of the student body at CMC has enough wealth to pay for an extremely expensive institution out of pocket. The same statistics do not hold for the general high school population in the US, which means some sort of selection is happening to misrepresent wealthy students at CMC. Whether they are selected by the institution because of their ability to pay or other students without as much wealth chose not to go to CMC because they couldn’t afford it unclear, but either way something is happening in the admissions and financial offices that doesn’t provide for a representation of all incomes at their expected ratio at CMC.
Even when looking at the number of students receiving financial aid, it becomes clear that there are simply more wealthy students than lower or middle class. This is either because lower/middle class applicants chose not to go to CMC because of the price tag or because CMC admissions quietly selects students with the ability to pay.
Check out the ratios here. http://www.cmc.edu/finanaid/package_aid.php#
Furthermore, the fact that 75 million dollar donation was provided and used for something that is not focused on actual teacher/student education is still telling. The Kravis Center is pretty, but it doesn’t do much to lower class sizes or get students textbooks. CMC stil invested their own money and time, as well as donor’s money that could be used more effectively, for a building that essentially make the campus look high tech and interesting on a brochure.
Even without a high level of loans, CMC is still part of the larger trend and the problems associated with it. As an institution, it has not avoided the “race to the top” and does not provide a financial environment that welcomes a variety of students.
The assertion that the Kravis Center was built to “essentially make the campus look high tech and interesting on a brochure” is a bit snide and, more importantly, incorrect. Its primary purpose was to provide badly needed classroom, faculty office, research institute, and admission/financial aid space – which make this academic building extremely “focused on actual teacher/student education.” Moreover, its $500/square foot cost is reasonable and, as a point of reference, almost half of what was spent per square foot on Pomona’s new dorms. Finally, CMC needs donors interested in construction just as it needs donors interested in scholarship, financial aid, research, athletics, student life, and other areas. CMC can not simply redirect a donor’s particular interest in one area of need to another some may deem more “effective.”
That all being said, more tuition relieving donations should be raised in order to make CMC more accessible and help the student population more closely resemble the general college-aged pool. There just is no need to use to the construction of the Kravis Center as an example of a misplaced priority to make that point.
Exactly, Guest.
Also, Author – I really resent your suggestion that CMC is “secretly” considering financial status in admission.
Please don’t make assumptions in matters you know absolutely nothing about.
You really should have left CMC out of your article – your only reference to the school was a jab at the Kravis Center, which, as Guest pointed out, was a much needed addition to campus. I think that your article is both strong and informative, but your lack of research beyond Scripps is concerning.
I certainly agree that CMC succeeds within the structure of college culture today and I want to make it clear that I regard it as an excellent institution overall. They offer lots of scholarships and financial aid to students and the Kravis Center does contribute to education at CMC. However, that doesn’t mean that the culture in which CMC operates is right or good for most students.
CMC is good now, but it could certainly be better. A wider diversity of students from different economic classes and an even stronger focus on education are good places to start.
I agree with your sentiment that CMC should work to foster greater economic diversity, but then you layer in a gratuitous dig at the strength of CMC’s focus on education unsupported by any facts. It really hampers what otherwise would be a very persuasive article and comments.
BTW…
http://portal.kiplinger.com/slideshow/lowest-debt-private-colleges/1.html#top
Summer, in response to your suggestion that “CMC admissions quietly selects students with the ability to pay,” I would like to remind you that CMC is a need-blind institution. According to the financial aid website, “CMC’s need-blind admission policy simply means that a family’s financial resources will not influence a student’s admission decision. This policy encourages students from all socioeconomic backgrounds to apply to CMC since their admission decision is based solely on their academic record.” (https://www.claremontmckenna.edu/finanaid/)
Realistically, do all families, especially middle class families receive 100% of the aid that they need? Probably not, and there is certainly room for improvement. However, CMC, as one of just a handful of truly “need-blind” private colleges, is on the cutting edge of promoting socioeconomic diversity in college admissions.
Jesus Christ. Do some research behind Scripps. I too, highly resent the implication that CMC admits based on financial status. I know many in my class that could never afford to have gone here on their own dime. CMC is need-blind admission, maybe if you did a little research you’d know that before you started making slanderous accusations.
I’m an alum, I came from a middle-class family, and I received almost $40,000 a year in aid, BEFORE CMC started the no-loan, all grant financial aid policy. I’m sorry the author is unhappy with Scripps, but that has literally no bearing on CMC or its policies.
I would have to agree with “interesting” on this one. CMC’s financial aid is extremely generous, helpful, and concerned about making CMC accessible to everyone. I would not be attending this wonderful institution if it were not for our AMAZING financial aid. Scripps known to have much higher student debt than CMC.
PC: on the Scripps vs. CMC debt note
Scripps Average Debt at Graduation: $9,435
Students Who Borrow: 36%
CMC Average Debt at Graduation: $10,280
Students Who Borrow: 35%
This article is pointing out the fact that a lot of people fall in the awkward category of not qualifying for enough aid to really cover their need. I know I didn’t get enough financial aid to make most of the colleges I applied to a reality, a very generous merit scholarship is the only reason I can afford to be here.
Source (http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/lowest-debt-private-colleges/8.html#ixzz1g4PiYBh0)
I have to admit that I chose to come to CMC in large part because of the school’s generous financial aid package. Still, I think we are getting too caught up in defending CMC and not looking at the larger issue that this article is about. Even with CMC’s generous aid package, I still have to take out $5,000 of loans each year to cover the difference between what CMC offers in financial aid and what my family can actually pay, meaning I will graduate with $20,000 of debt (no small sum).
Even at CMC, which does better than most at trying to recruit economically diverse students, it is hard to find many middle class or lower class students. Coming from an inner city public high school full of students on free or reduced lunch, CMC sure seems like a country club to me. Need-blind admissions do not make up for the large discrepancy between the nation’s income distribution and the income distribution of the families of CMC students (or the student bodies of any private liberal arts college).
Here is an article I wrote freshman year on CMC’s recruitment of affluent students: http://www.claremontportside.com/?page_id=1977 CMC is doing an overall good job providing for its students and trying to attract socioeconomic diversity, at least compared to most of its peer institutions. But there is still plenty left to be desired.
I think Summer’s questioning of skyrocketing tuition fees and the spending on amenities over academics is valid. CMC might be doing better than some of its peer institutions, but it is ridiculous to claim that this problem is not present to some degree here, or at any of the other Claremont Colleges. Our CMC pride should not prevent us from addressing this large problem facing college students across the country.
Why can a college increase its spending and tuition 10% a year?
Colleges operate on a cost-plus basis – there is no real sense of fiscal control in colleges. Spend what you want so long as you can raise the money to afford to do it – and at the end there is not college students union to act as a negotiating weapon with the colleges.
Should progressives like the majority of the Colleges student bodies form a union to negotiate tuition with their colleges?
At $50k a year you guys are getting reamed. And no one is pushing back against it.
All you English majors and comparative Celtic literature or Medieval Cultures or Lord knows what useless majors many of your have – what are you getting for your money that you could not get for 1/5th the price at Kansas State? Or the University of South Carolina Beaufort?
If everyone joined a student body organization once accepted that acted as a negotiating organization with the CUC for tuition for colleges – do you think for a moment that you would have to pay [or your parents would have to pay] even half of what you are paying now?
For the most part a college education now is what a really good high school education was in the 1970′s – and that is a shame becaue not only do you pay a fortune for it – but the taxpayers also fund the public school systems that teach less and less every year.