SB 2017-088: College for All Act (Passed)

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

     I like the idea of curbing public school tuition as part of the project of controlling the costs of higher education, but handing the universities a blank check just doesn't square with me, especially considering how they have handled influxes of taxpayer cash in the past (i.e., jacking up the costs of attendance).

     When I was in the South's government, I got tight controls on public school tuition passed. Unless we want this to inflate into an unsustainable boondoggle, I think some form of expenditure control also needs to be a part of this project.

That's generally what Section 3 attempts to accomplish. As I understand it, most of the increases in tuition costs are driven by administrative growth, new building, and spending on athletics. By excluding those from eligibility for funding under the bill, you exclude some of the primary sources of tuition growth.

The funding formula in 2.a. also works to prevent cost inflation—the sum given to the regions would be equivalent to whatever is necessary to eliminate tuition this year, adjusted annually to wage inflation and not to the cost of tuition as an incentive to keep costs low. I'm open to suggestions on the funding formula, but by making the calculation independent of anything under the control of college administrators I hoped to prevent any hazard that arises giving the universities a blank check.

     Those are good ideas to control some of the causal factors, but I would also posit that the fundamental issue is that the universities are the ones who determine what the cost to eliminate tuition is. The UC system charged about $13,000 a year when I went, but this was already doubled from a decade before. If they could get $15,000/pupil, or $20,000/pupil, why wouldn't they ask for it? Much of non-profit higher ed is already seized by rent-seeking, which makes me doubt that they can be trusted to make this determination fairly.

     Along those lines, I question how much we can actually control administrative salaries. Sure, we might stop the university from hiring more secretaries and clerks at $50k, but you have presidents, chancellors, and deans making as much as $500k who, as faculty, are free to vote increases to themselves and their buddies.

     My preference to implement a plan of this sort would be to simply cap the amount tightly (though it would probably need to be regions to do that, since they control the universities) with the opportunity to show good cause to have it raised and deny them the ability to charge tuition, at least beyond a nominal fee. The problem is that this would suppose that universities would cut the fat in a rational fashion, a supposition that my experience does not give me confidence in.

If my understanding of the bill is correct, administrators would not be free to raise their own pay at taxpayers' expense because administrative salaries are not covered by these grants.  Are you suggesting that administrators could increase their pay through tuition hikes so that it would be hidden from the government?  If administrators can't be trusted to make honest assessments about how much tuition costs, then perhaps the states or regions that run these schools should have the option to veto proposed increases if they are not in the interests of the university.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Aye.