When most people say that private colleges are too expensive, they’re making a claim that’s distinctly personal; they don’t have enough money to comfortably afford the sticker price. I’d like to make a different claim. In my opinion, the price of attending the vast majority of private colleges is actually overvalued—provided you are receiving little financial aid, your money would be better spent elsewhere.
What a claim! After all, students are viciously competing for the chance to pay $200,000 to spend four years out of the job market (and off payrolls), so how could it be possible that college is overpriced? In fact, it’s ostensibly underpriced; demand is so high that most colleges could significantly increase their prices and still fill the limited available seats. True enough. But when you’re dealing with investments whose returns are hard to predict, prices do not convey information so much about value but about demand, and there is often a difference. (Many economists equate market price with value. I think this argument is tenable only when you’re discussing goods as currency; a tulip bulb valued at $3,000 is almost completely useless except as money, while $3,000 worth of gold has a tremendous number of uses. On our planet, value is intrinsic. Why else is there a gold standard but not a tulip standard?) Housing prices skyrocketed in 2005, not because of an increase in the usefulness of a home—it was because of an increase in demand for homes, fueled by speculation and an awful lot of severely misplaced moral fervor about home ownership.
The question remains whether $200,000 is an appropriate sum to spend on education. Given this rather extraordinary amount of money, the burden of proof should not be on you, the student, but on the elite colleges of the country. In a famous 1999 study, economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger found that students who had been admitted to more selective schools earned no more than students who had applied to the same schools and had been rejected. So if we can safely eliminate earnings as part of the returns to an elite school, what else is there? There’s prestige, but many suggest (correctly, I think) that its returns are diminishing; if you’re smart and dedicated enough, you’ll rapidly distinguish yourself after college.
How much you learn is really what separates the wheat from the chaff among colleges. Indeed, many elite private schools, the U of C among them, score “A+” in the student-written university guidebook College Prowler’s “Academics” category. But quite a few “unknown” private and public schools are in the A range as well. I am not sure whether that modest educational advantage provides you with more opportunities than an academically strong, large state school would, especially since in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The very smart can be very greedy (educationally!) at such universities.
Some say that maybe places like the University of Chicago are essential to the functioning of a true democracy. I am extremely suspicious of such proclamations for several reasons. Their proponents are almost uniformly career academics, and if we did not subscribe to their ideas, they would not have jobs. Yet it’s not so much a money-making conspiracy as it is insurmountable cognitive dissonance—you cannot teach something as useless as Latin (let’s be honest here) without believing that you are upholding the righteous, classical mission of our forefathers. And this brings me to an even bigger problem with the idea, and that is that it has never been particularly old or widespread; higher education as we know it was nonexistent for the vast majority of people throughout history. Nor is the creation of classicism without precedent. Go way back to the Middle Ages; what was being studied in European universities? They must surely have been reading Plato and Homer, given the “centrality of these works to the human experience” (or something along those lines, depending on which professor you’re talking with). In fact, the “classicization” of these works began only in the Renaissance, when ancient Greek was essentially rediscovered by the rebellious proponents of humanism.
The vast majority of humans throughout history have only had vocational education at best. To suggest that democracy depends on the sliver of the population that reads Aristotle is really pushing it, and it is disgustingly elitist to suggest that the only way one can truly acquire a soul is by giving $200,000 to a very selective, private university. So don’t let the pious ramblings of misguided idealists make you do the wrong thing. Coming here is one thing, but attending any private school not in the top 10 or 20 on U.S. News and World is an unconscionable waste of money. You are not getting the (mostly useless) prestige or the (somewhat and in-certain-majors-only) better education, and you should instead be attending a public school studying something useful or at least interesting.
Arieh Smith is a first-year in the College.
wow. just wow. why are first-years allowed to write columns?
1. “students who had been admitted to more selective schools earned no more than students who had applied to the same schools and had been rejected” –that means what, exactly? did they go to ‘bad’ schools then, or just other schools?
2. bad schools often cost a ton of money, too. some public schools are good. our school, for instance, makes it more difficult for you to not learn anything as opposed to your standard free public school, though.
3. Latin isn’t useless. clearly you haven’t taken it.
4. clearly you haven’t taken much of anything, except maybe econ 198?
5. who ever said that the existence of the university of chicago was essential to a true democracy?
6. you fail to address the issue that people (like me) like learning and value the atmosphere of a place like this over money.
7. what’s disgusting about elitism? if you’ve got the goods, flaunt them.
I don’t understand…If prestige doesn’t count for anything then why should one attend a top 10 or 20 University? Also, I think you have your facts wrong about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance…You might want to take a few more useless classes beyond HUM if you are going to assert your opinion like that. After all, isn’t part of this overpriced education being able to back up what you claim…
First of all. People in the Middle Ages did study Latin. It was called the trivium. Anyway, your argument, “value is intrinsic” is based on a reductive line of logic that you probably lifted from pragmatism 101. And how might you better spend your money? Buying ponies? That’s probably what I would do. But it just so happens that I’m an expert on the breakdown of your tuition money. If you’re interested, I can send you this pie graph I made. We can talk about it. The process of soul acquiring actually only costs 3567$. The rest of it goes to fund things like the basic cost of maintaining administrative buildings, financial aid, and of course, consistent and quality newspaper writing.
@Jo
Of course they studied Latin; that was precisely my point. Either you did not read my article or are confused about the language in which Plato and Homer wrote, which I can assure you was ancient Greek. My point is that the reading of these authors did not come into vogue until the 16th century. The standard humanist curriculum has been steadily evolving, and it is a mistake to suggest that the careful study of Plato and Homer is somehow the backbone of global democracy.
Oh, and I copped that argument from where I cop most of my arguments: my head. In fact, I was debating with myself whether to keep it in the column or not; perhaps I am grievously mistaken, I thought to myself, as the most common definition of value, according to modern economists, is price. It was not intended to be an exhaustive rebuttal of the price-is-value theory, nor should it be taken as one.
@Sarah
I don’t think that prestige is entirely useless. It may not be monetarily rewarding, but at least it’s something. So that’s prestige + better (or slightly better) education at the University of Chicago and Yale and Harvard, which have no public counterparts in these respects. The calculus you use may differ from mine; perhaps you value prestige and that better education more than I do, which is certainly a respectable stance. However, there is fleetingly little justification for attending private universities (e.g., Georgetown) with equally prestigious and academically rigorous public peer schools, simply because there is not much difference in quality, while there obviously is between the University of Chicago and, say, the University of Maryland (not to knock the school!).
I do not have my facts wrong. Unlike you, apparently, I research my claims before I make them. This is a fascinating bit of history, and it would do you well to read up on it: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/195896/history-of-Europe/58328/Northern-humanism#ref=ref310318
@Michael
Because sometimes you guys are not so bright. To wit:
1. They went to the “bad” schools. You can read the study yourself if you’d like (seriously, it was what, 5 seconds of Googling away?): http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322. (Clincher: “We find that students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges.”) I admit that I could have been a lot clearer, but if you want to argue with the study yourself (and there are some good arguments), a good place to start is here: http://calnewport.com/blog/2008/08/15/does-where-you-go-to-school-matter-and-why-reporters-get-this-wrong/.
2. You summarize what I write awfully eloquently. Reread (or read) the last paragraph and my reply to Sarah.
3. As I said, I get my facts straight before I write about them. Not only have I studied Latin for seven years straight (and ancient Greek for four, though less intensively), but I was also a recipient the 2008 National Latin Exam Scholarship. You are eligible to apply if you receive a gold medal on the Latin III-IV Prose, III-IV Poetry, or the Latin V-VI exams. Of the 1,204 seniors in that category, 21 were given the scholarship (*only* about 170 applied, though). Clearly I have studied enough Latin to know that yes, it’s pretty much vocationally useless. It is for this reason that I am not continuing studying it. A bit of Googling would have made this easier for the both of us, but that’s a little more than I’ve come to expect from you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22arieh+smith%22+latin&l=1.
4. I have taken no economics classes, not in high school and not in college, and I do not plan on doing so. I have, however, placed out of every requirement I could possibly have placed out of and will have completed the entire core curriculum by the end of this year (with one art course to spare – hey, I like Chinese!). I’d say I’ve done quite a bit already.
5. Come on, man, this one’s easy. What have *you* learned at this school, exactly? Here, I’ll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom.
6. Atmosphere’s lovely, but it is really worth so much? This is another one of those tricky value judgments, my friend.
7. A lot, really, but the sort I discuss in my article is extremely pernicious. It says that to be a full human being you have to pony up cash for places like this. I can stand elitism in some forms, but not in this one.
Yes, I acknowledge that the price tag attached to a liberal arts education is expensive but there are some pretty reasonable explanations for this. For one thing, tuition is affixed at such a high price because of the basic assumption that those who can afford it are willing to pay for it (basic supply and demand) while those who can’t afford it can receive financial aid packages from the university. I also think you need to keep in mind that the purpose of a university isn’t solely to prepare you for some kind of vocational career in the near future. Yes, that’s one aspect but universities are also important in that they open up a forum in which collective research can take place. At public universities the cost of this is subsidized by the state, whereas that’s not the case at a private university.
Arieh,
1. You claim that you are disgusted by elitism, but in your response to Michael you seem to espouse an especially “pernicious” brand of elitism (to use your own words): “Not only have I studied Latin for seven years straight (and ancient Greek for four, though less intensively), but I was also a recipient the 2008 National Latin Exam Scholarship. You are eligible to apply if you receive a gold medal on the Latin III-IV Prose, III-IV Poetry, or the Latin V-VI exams. Of the 1,204 seniors in that category, 21 were given the scholarship (*only* about 170 applied, though). Clearly I have studied enough Latin to know that yes, it’s pretty much vocationally useless.”
2. As an example of a private university “with equally prestigious and academically rigorous public peer schools,” you use Georgetown. This is a bad example. Georgetown is ranked #23 for National Universities in US News and World Report, with UC-Berkeley being the only public school ranked above it. Georgetown is also ranked #14 for Law, and its foreign service school is widely recognized as the best of its kind in the country. For an expensive no-name school, try something like Goucher College in Baltimore, MD, which I had never heard of until now, when I looked at it’s #111 ranking and tuition of over $32,000 on US News.
forgive me for not googling you, arieh. I didn’t realize you were such an incredible scholar. Finishing the core in one year?!?!? placing out of every requirement possible?!?? Henry Hitchcock Williams would be proud. I actually gave out the 2008 National Latin Exam Scholarship, and it completely slipped my mind that you were one of the recipients. I gotta ask: Why do you go here and not Harvard? It’s more prestigious AND the A’s are cheaper, so I hear.
Although I’m still skeptical that you got anything out of those 7 years of Latin if you don’t find it useful. Surely you can at least tell me what word “clarinet” is derived from, but I bet you can moreover fully appreciate Erasmus’ allusions in their original language without the brutality of translation.
Oh, and Jo is right about the whole medieval business. my guess is that you’re confusing Latin authors and Greek authors? Abelard (12th century) is one of the reasons people care about Aristotle. I’ll let that slide considering how learned you are (Varro [Reatinus] better watch out).
p.s. the point of this seemed to be that “it is disgustingly elitist to suggest that the only way one can truly acquire a soul is by giving $200,000 to a very selective, private university” but you still haven’t addressed the issue that no one ever said that. you made it up. i’d like to quote billy madison right now to finish this response, but i’m sure the allusion would be lost on you.
I actually did Google the study. You were right that the selectivity of the schools did not matter, but the direct quote from the abstract states:
“However, the average tuition charged by the school is significantly related to the students’ subsequent earnings. Indeed, we find a substantial internal rate of return from attending a more costly college.”
What was your article about again? Don’t worry about it though, this study was only about one graduating class from 1972. I’m sure it’s not accurate anyway.
Usually when journalists skew facts from studies, they don’t actually post the links to them. But you are right, no one ever does check. Also, I only acquired my soul for $2724. Jo got ripped off.
In fact, Latin translations and/or epitomes of many Greek works were both available and extremely important parts of the curriculum in medieval Europe. I don’t really have the energy to point out your further stupidity, but you really are a moron. Honestly, the fact that you were accepted to the University of Chicago is probably the most compelling argument that the school isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Michael, if you’re going to make baseless ad hominem attacks (“clearly you haven’t taken much of anything”, “Latin isn’t useless. clearly you haven’t taken it”), I’m going to have to get pretentious on you. At least Jo and Emily and Liz don’t attack my credentials.
Then why do you go here?
I’m sure your parents would love to read this article. You are an ungrateful, narcissistic brat.
Item: The LMGTY link Arieh posted earlier ( http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22arieh+smith%22+latin&l=1 ) no long works. It originally took you to a page about some latin scholarship. But it uses the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button, and this article is now the top hit, so the link just comes right back here.
Good article!
You also incorrectly interpreted the Dale / Krueger study when you wrote:
“In a famous 1999 study, economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger found that students who had been admitted to more selective schools earned no more than students who had applied to the same schools and had been rejected.”
Actually this study showed similar earnings between students who had attended top schools and students that had been ACCEPTED at top schools but chose to attend lower-ranked colleges.
This distinction makes a BIG difference in the interpretation of the study, and furthermore, shows how much time you put into your research.
I welcome Arieh Smith’s article against the value of expensive private colleges. The education is incredibly expensive, and grows more so every year, especially compared to the real value of most families’ incomes. What justifies such high costs is an important topic of discussion, one that I think most universities prefer to ignore behind the excuse of “our budgets are too complicated to represent for the public how their money contributes to their education.” Also, I embrace skepticism of easy promises from those who ask for a lot of money and make vague claims about the future dependent on your own achievement.
However, I am concerned at the bitter anger below the surface of Smith’s argument. It seems to me he has written in order to attack instead of critically examine, and this has weakened his argument. The primary concern of his article is a dominant interest in economic value or usefulness, embodied in issues of education’s return on investment, the value of social prestige, and the merit of being useful to society. A secondary concern, it seems, is whether high-minded universities such as Chicago contribute to the political stability of our nation. Since these two arguments are essentially separate, I will treat them in order.
Smith’s primary concern about the price of education is whether it reflects the true value of the good being purchased: he wants the universities to justify themselves. I would agree with him on this point, although for reasons that have little to do with the exchange value of an education, which in fact constitute the primary flaw of his argument. The only people who would be convinced the education isn’t worth it are those who would only bother to become more educated because it earns them more money. Suffice it to say that for many people, the meaning of an education exceeds the means-end calculations of wealth. The opportunity to learn and reflect supports a happier life, the ability to help others, and the achievement of excellence in the arts or politics. While these goals can certainly be hampered or helped by money, they are not defined in terms of it.
This brings me to Smith’s second argument about the democratic importance of universities. He claims first that the beliefs of academics about the meaning of their work is a self-deception because it is self-justifying, and second that since most people have not had a higher education, it is not necessary for democracy. The first is unconvincing because justifying oneself should do nothing other than bring in line the benefits of one’s work with its necessary resources — as such, it undermines nothing. The second depends both on the historical elitism of education as well as its claimed brevity of influence over time. The elitism argument fails historically (as another has commented online) because the institution of constitional democracies and republics depended heavily on the wisdom and human knowledge found in philosophy (e.g. Locke for the American Revolution). The brevity argument also fails because it misses the historical continuity of Greek and Roman influence. Take Galen, for example, the 2nd century A.D. Roman doctor and anatomist whose influence continued into the 19th century and who was guided formatively by Aristotle’s philosophy of causes and study of animals. In other words, the Romans read the Greeks, the early Christians were Romans, and the modern era began as a reaction to Catholic scholasticism (especially of Aristotle).
In sum, we can see that it is not necessary to “study something useful or at least interesting” at a public or private school. One need not put the meaning of life into the language of utility and monetary value, even understanding that any such other goals require some kind of wage for survival. And simply because most people have never understood nor cared to understand ancient philosophy does not mean it has made no difference: its place in history is secured by all the pivotal figures whose actions depended on their reflections about the traditions they had inherited. Neither of these facts rule out living one’s life for monetary gain or for more worldly ends; instead, they point to a basic pluralism where one answer to life cannot truly exclude the others.
“shallow and pedantic”
-Peter Griffin
Arieh, as a graduate of the U of C, I can tell you from experience that when you look back on this your fourth year or maybe even your third, you’ll realize how stupid and naive you were. Why don’t you try to prove to someone else that you’re smart, because clearly this audience doesn’t care one bit. Your attitude about higher education and classism will get you nowhere. Your last paragraph was a disgrace to the world of academics.
Arieh, do you think you are a humble or earnest person for writing this?
Arieh. You’re in for a rude awakening when you try to apply for a job in the future. UofC and other elite private colleges open up doors. They might not automatically get you the job, but it gets you the interview and instant credibility. Read any of the major news publications talking about the current job situation. I couldn’t imagine graduating from a college that didn’t have the connections, alumni network and prestige. In time you’ll understand, I was immature my first year at the UofC, thinking that I was king of the castle.
To tack onto MaoMao’s point, like in high-school, you’ll look back and realize this article was pretty immature and naive.