webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Vedder, R

===

NO MERRI

CASH FOR ECON, SINGER TOBACCO INST

STEPHEN MOORE IMMIGR

omg aei invested in corinthian

COLLEGE NOT WORTH IT, STUDENT DEBT

===

GGL 6 26

AI Overview

Richard Vedder is a prominent free-market economist, author, and Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University. He frequently aligns his research with the Austrian School, championing the Charles Koch Foundation's academic initiatives and applying principles rooted in the legacies of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key Connections and Concepts

Intellectual and Academic Impact

Vedder has cited Austrian methodology as a powerful theoretical apparatus for interpreting economic history and making statistics tell an accurate story. Furthermore, he has pointed out that the Charles Koch Foundation's funding of universities serves as an important counterweight to the left-of-center orientation of most modern faculties, offering much-needed intellectual diversity. [1, 2]

Richard Vedder: A prominent scholar and Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Richard Vedder - Mises Institute, who often collaborates with and writes for free-market institutions. He has researched extensively on the unintended consequences of government regulation. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

wiki see srcwtch below

Richard K. Vedder is an American economist, historian, author, columnist, and currently distinguished professor of economics emeritus at Ohio University and senior fellow at The Independent Institute.

Contents

  [hide] 

Biography

Born in 1940, Vedder earned his B.A. in economics at Northwestern University in 1962 and his Ph.D in economics at the University of Illinois in 1965. He has since studied U.S. economic history, particularly as it relates to public policy. Some of his specific research has involved American immigration, economic issues in American education, and the interrelationship between labor and capital markets.[1][2]

Vedder serves as an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank known for mostly libertarian and conservative perspectives. He has served as an economist with Congress' Joint Economic Committee. In his role with the AEI, he later testified before the Committee on October 30, 2008.[2][3] He is also director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity[4] in Washington, D.C.[5]

Vedder's scholarly writings have appeared in journals such as Explorations in Economic History, The Journal of Economic History, and Agricultural History. He has written over two hundred such scholarly articles. Vedder's popular interest writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and the Christian Science Monitor.[2]

He has published the books The American Economy in Historical Perspective, Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America (with Lowell Gallaway),Can Teachers Own Their Own Schools?, Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much,[2] and The Wal-Mart Revolution: How Big-Box Stores Benefit Consumers, Workers, and the Economy (with Wendell Cox).[5]

Vedder is married to Karen Vedder, to whom he dedicated the book The Wal-Mart Revolution.

Media

On May 27, 2011, Vedder appeared on the long running news/public affairs TV program PBS NewsHour. He told host Jeffrey Brown that since "the cost of college is rising relative to the benefits of college" while "learning outcomes are stagnant or falling in this country", American society must "open up opportunities for people to consider a variety of different options after high school, one of which is college, but there are many others." Vedder also stated that "as many as one out of three college graduates today are in jobs that previously or historically have been filled by people with lesser educations, jobs that do not require higher-level learning skills, critical thinking skills, or writing skills or anything of that nature."[6]

On August 19, 2009, Vedder appeared on the webcast series ReasonTV. He discussed the same topic.[7]

Viewpoints

In the aftermath of the late-2000s financial crisis, Vedder stated:

I, somewhat reluctantly, supported the $700 billion bailout package... I also believe in perilous times that government has a role to play in restoring confidence. However, I am also convinced that the crisis itself largely reflects a series of public policy miscues. In the absence of these governmental mistakes, this financial crisis would never have happened... I am very concerned about attempts by an overly zealous Congress to attempt to craft an economic program that likely will have adverse effects. In particular, expansionary fiscal policy in the form of higher government spending is precisely the wrong thing to do at this time, aggravating an explosion in inflationary expectations that I already fear will erupt, having detrimental effects on labor and financial markets.[3]

Vedder wrote in his June 2004 book Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much that American universities have become less productive and less efficient in recent years as well as more likely to shift funds away their core mission of teaching. He also criticized rising tuition costs. He proposed as a broad solution moving state universities toward free market competition and privatization. He specifically recommended as well that colleges expand distance learning, cut out non-educational programs, modify tenure, raise teaching loads, and reduce administrative staffs.[2]

He wrote along with Wendell Cox in their December 2006 book The Wal-Mart Revolution that criticisms of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are factually unfounded. He argued that Walmart workers are paid fairly given their skill and experience, and he stated that they also receive side benefits such as health insurance that is fairly similar to competing firms. He wrote that communities with new Walmart stores actually have more total employment and higher incomes develop as a result.[5]

Vedder and fellow economist Stephen Moore wrote in the Wall Street Journal editorial page in March 2011 that every new dollar of new taxes leads to more than one dollar of new spending according to their research. Thus, they found evidence in favor of the "Feed the Beast" theory, which posits that increasing taxes for the purported purpose of balancing the budget only leads to the government spending those inflows.[8]

See also

References

  1. Jump up "Ohio University – Department of Economics – Richard Vedder". Ohio University. Retrieved March 24, 2011.
  2. ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ ^c^ ^d^ ^e^ "AEI – Going Broke by Degree". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved March 24, 2011.
  3. ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ "AEI – Speeches – Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved March 25, 2011.
  4. Jump up Center for College Affordability and Productivity
  5. ^ ^Jump up to:^a^ ^b^ ^c^ "AEI – The Wal-Mart Revolution". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved March 24, 2011.
  6. Jump up "Is a College Diploma Worth the Soaring Student Debt?". PBS NewsHour. May 27, 2011.
  7. Jump up"Economist Richard Vedder on Why College Costs So Much". ReasonTV. August 19, 2009.
  8. Jump up Stephen Moore; Richard Vedder (November 21, 2010). "Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 24, 2011.

External links

Categories: 

---

---

GGL 6 26

[### A Passion for Economics: An Interview with Richard K. ...

Mises Institute

https://mises.org › austrian-economics-newsletter › passio...](https://mises.org/austrian-economics-newsletter/passion-economics-interview-richard-k-vedder)

He has taught at the Mises Institute's summer Austrian economics seminar, the Mises University. AEN: It's obvious that you love teaching. VEDDER: It's true. I ...Read more

Missing: KOCH ‎| Show results with: KOCH

[### What Austrian Economics Can Teach Historians

Mises Institute

https://mises.org › quarterly-journal-austrian-economics](https://mises.org/quarterly-journal-austrian-economics/what-austrian-economics-can-teach-historians)

Abstract: Austrian economics is a valuable resource for historians. Scholars informed by Austrian insights can make better sense of historical phenomena, and ...Read more

Missing: KOCH ‎| Show results with: KOCH

[### Vienna and Chicago: A Tale of Two Schools

Foundation for Economic Education

https://fee.org › articles › vienna-and-chicago-a-tale-of-...](https://fee.org/articles/vienna-and-chicago-a-tale-of-two-schools/)

Feb 1, 1998 — ... Austrian school of Ludwig von Mises and, to a lesser extent, the Chicago school of Milton Friedman. Mises, after leaving Vienna for New York ...Read more

Missing: KOCH ‎| Show results with: KOCH

[### UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENT ...

Cato Institute

https://www.cato.org › serials › files › cato-journal](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2016/2/cato-journal-v36n1.pdf)

PDF

Richard Vedder is a good economist. Richard K. Vedder: Scholar. Richard Vedder earned his B.A. in economics with honors from. Northwestern University in 1962 ...Read more

229 pages

---

vedder covers for pvt:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/for-profit-colleges-are-t_n_1764186.html

no links

Joanne Jacobs

This piece comes to us courtesy of The Hechinger Report’s Community College Spotlight blog.

The Harkin report on the evils of for-profit higher education lacks context, writes economist Richard Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/Contents.pdf

"It is true that many of the for-profits have high drop-out rates, but are they really any worse than some of our public universities, like the University of Texas at San Antonio or Chicago State University, schools with thousands of students but very low graduation rates? Should we impose some sort of selective admission standards on all schools wanting government handouts? I suspect that if one compiled a list of all institutions where the six-year graduation rate was below, say, 40 percent, a larger number of students would attend public as opposed to for-profit institutions.

The attack on the for-profits is an attack based on ideology, a dislike of capitalism, more than on a comprehensive and objective concern for students. The clearly one-sided nature of Harkin’s criticism may be one reason that his report was not issued by all the Democrats on the Senate education committee—my guess is some did not want to be associated with this unbalanced attack."

All open-admissions colleges and universities have high drop-out rates. For-profits’ two-year programs graduate more students than community colleges, which recruit from a similar demographic.

Students pay much more at a for-profit than at a community college or state university, the Harkin report stresses. That’s because tuition at for-profit colleges isn’t subsidized by taxpayers. But while for-profit higher ed may be costly for students — it depends on how much time they save relative to enrolling at a crowded public alternative - for-profit higher ed can be a bargain for taxpayers, according to a 2010 analysis funded by the for-profit sector. Factoring in student loan subsidies and grants flowing to the for-profit sector, then subtracting taxes paid, the taxpayers are spending less on for-profit higher ed than they spend to subsidize public higher education, the study concludes.

I’d like to see an independent analysis of the question.

If federal loans were linked to community college tuition, many for-profit colleges would go out of business, as would many non-elite private non-profit colleges. That would force public higher education to expand dramatically — perhaps with a huge expansion of online courses — or stop trying to educate high-risk students with high failure rates. Even the Harkin report doesn’t want that, acknowledging that the for-profit colleges are needed.

==

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/10/1079441/-This-is-the-future-Republicans-want-for-education

2012

...ing in Wisconsin I have been quite aware of the painful cuts to education. These cuts are not only impacting our local schools but our institutes of higher learning. Technical colleges across the state are reeling from cuts at a time of increased demand. The University of Wisconsin system has been pounded with cut after cut. Tuition is skyrocketing. For a student to attend the University of Wisconsin - Madison as an undergrad for one year it will now cost them just under $25,000 for tuition, fees, room and board. For any of the smaller campuses across the state like the University of Wisconsin - Stout, where I am enrolled, it will cost you $15,000 a year to attend as an undergrad for tuition, fees, room and board.

The costs of higher education are not rising because there are too many grants, scholarships or loans. Tuition is not rising because professors and staff are being paid too much. No, the reason tuition is going up at public schools is because Republican governors and legislators across the country are starving our public institutions of higher education.

One needs to look no further than Richard Vedder, the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. His statements in a recent article in The Capital Times are shocking to me. He starts out by stating,

“I’m increasingly thinking the government should get out of the business of higher education.”

Really? So he wants to basically revoke the Morrill Land-Grant of 1862 whose purpose was to,

[W]ithout excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.

The Land-grant colleges, like the University of Wisconsin - Madison, paved the way for a new middle class. No longer was college just for the wealthy. It was for everyone and it was funded in part with tax dollars. In 1904 Charles Van Hise spoke of the *"Wisconsin Idea"*

The Wisconsin Idea holds that the boundaries of the university should be the boundaries of the state, and that the research conducted at [the university] should be applied to solve problems and improve health, quality of life, the environment, and agriculture for all citizens of the state.

That is the purpose of public education! To improve the lives of not only those who attend the university and receive a degree, but to also improve the lives of those within the state. Of course Vedder does not get it,

Vedder says he wouldn’t mind seeing public higher education disappear completely [...] “I do think we need to re-examine why the government is involved in the higher education business. They’re not involved in the automobile business. They’re not involved in the furniture business.

Vedder goes on to make some other outrageous statements about the state of public education, including a statement where he says, "we already have too many people with college degrees," which makes me doubt the veracity of his research abilities as an economist. The final statement he makes is the most telling as to where the Republican party wants to go with our education system:

Vedder believes elite private universities and highly regarded public flagship institutions such as the University of Wisconsin - Madison will likely thrive into the future because there will be no shortage of people willing to pay for the overall college experience and the ability to earn a degree with a name brand on the diploma.

But he suggests lesser-known liberal arts colleges and less highly regarded state universities face an uncertain future.

“The possibility of low-cost, Internet-based instruction by English-speaking, low-paid professors in, say, India, is real. It could impact the traditional education markets. Low-cost, online education based on open-source materials is coming. Wikipedia University will be here before you know it.”

Basically, those that have the money will get a first rate American education. Everyone else...well your education is going to be farmed out to the lowest bidder. This is NOT what I want for my child's future. I want him to be able to attend his hometown university. If not that then one of the other state schools where he will receive a quality education from dedicated professors like the ones I have in my graduate program. Privatization of our children's future is not the answer to any of our problems.

For disclosure purposes I did attend a "for profit" university for my Bachelor's degree. While the quality of the education was on par with what I would have received at a public institution the cost was far to high and I am saddled with student loan debt that I would not have had I attended a public institution.

==

New Source of 'Tough Love' for Colleges

Richard K. Vedder has a lot to say about higher education, and he hasn't exactly had a problem getting heard: He writes regularly for The Wall Street Journal, has published a book about college costs and prices, and has testified before Congress on several occasions.

May 23, 2006

:{Doug Lederman

https://www.insidehighered.com/users/doug-lederman

}:

Richard K. Vedder has a lot to say about higher education, and he hasn't exactly had a problem getting heard: He writes regularly forThe Wall Street Journal, has published a book about college costs and prices, and has testified before Congress on several occasions. Last fall, Vedder got a major bump in visibility when Education Secretary Margaret Spellingsincluded him among 19 members of a federal commission to study the future of higher education, and he has taken full advantage, becoming (arguably) the panel's most outspoken and (inarguably) most entertaining member.

Vedder, a Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University, is about to have another platform for his work: a new research center to study issues such as cost, efficiencty and productivity in higher education. The as-yet unnamed institute -- Vedder said he recognizes that his initial idea for a title, the Center for Higher Education Accountability and Productivity (CHEAP), was "a little cheesy"-- will be financed ($200,000 in the first year) by the Searle Freedom Trust. The trust was founded by Daniel G. Searle and funds public policy research on U.S. domestic policy with what its executive director, Kimberly O. Dennis, calls a "disposition toward policy solutions that have a free-market focus."

Searle largely funded Vedder's 2004 book, Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much,through a program at the American Enterprise Institute, and the attention that book garnered "got us thinking that there's really a lot more work to be done," says Dennis. "No one's looking into these issues, especially from the conservative side, and we wanted to support Rich's interest in trying to figure out why higher education is so expensive, and what kind of policy mechanisms we could adopt that might make it more affordable."

Vedder's book and much of his other work has focused on perceived flaws in higher education and on what he argues are the at times deleterious effects of public support for higher education -- like this passage from the introduction to Going Broke by Degree."The arguments for public subsidies of higher education are, at the very least, highly debatable. A better than decent case can be made that perhaps government should, in general, largely get out of the higher education business, ending state subsidies and tax advantages for private donations. Moreover, the evidence is pretty persuasive that massive governmental infusions of funds, along with tax-sheltered private contributions, have contributed to the upsurge in higher education costs."

Passages like that have earned Vedder criticism in some quarters as an enemy of higher education, particularly public higher education. In a 2005 review of Vedder's book in the Journal of Labor Economics, for instance, Ronald G. Ehrenberg, an economist at Cornell University's Higher Education Research Institute, praised some of Vedder's conclusions about colleges' inefficiency and their failure to hold costs down, but essentially argued that in other places Vedder put ideology ahead of facts. "If you do read Going Broke, be careful to separate out in your own mind what is hard analysis from what is Vedder’s preconceived view on the proper role of government," he concluded. "As I have tried to indicate, many of the policy recommendations in Going Broke are based on the latter; not on the former."

Vedder bristles at that charge. "I'm not any more ideological than most of the people writing about higher ed," he says. "Most of them start with the conviction that higher education has an inherent noble good, a higher purpose, and that it should just assumed that expenditures on higher education serve a good purpose. I start with the view that traditional colleges are relatively isolated from market accountability, and I am skeptical of whether a lot of the public funding of higher education has had a good payoff.

"So I'm probably going to ask different questions than the traditional academics ask: Are we getting our money's worth out of our public investment? Despite huge growth in federal financial aid, do we have greater access among lower income students to the best universities than we did 25 years ago? Are there things traditional higher education should be learning from for-profit colleges?"

As "someone who has spent almost all the last 48 years of my life" either studying or working in higher education, Vedder also disputes the idea that he has it out for higher education.

"I'm a friend of higher education, but one who believes in tough love," says Vedder. "I love higher education, and I want to foster its vitality. But sometimes with one's own children, you have to criticize them, attack them, scream at them, discipline them. I look at higher education like a loved but sometimes troublesome child."

It's not hard to imagine that Vedder's new research center, whatever it is eventually called, might have a few spankings in store for America's colleges.

==-

==

https://web.archive.org/web/20120918215407/http://www.aei.org/events/2008/06/06/new-approaches-to-higher-education-solutions-or-fads-event/

New Approaches to Higher Education: Solutions or Fads?

Friday, June 06,2008 | 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

With the cost of college rising every year, higher education alternatives such as for-profit providers have grown exponentially in recent years, offering a low-cost alternative to the traditional college model. These approaches, however, face numerous unique higher education challenges, such as persistent questions about their accreditation, the ability to transport

a corporate model into this usually nonprofit sector, and the academic performance of their students. Even with these questions, for-profits still play a key role in higher education today and might offer important lessons on how to contain costs and improve productivity for their nonprofit peers.

Panelists at this event will closely examine the reality of for-profit higher education and look at future opportunities in this realm. During the first panel, Jane McAuliffe, vice president of academic affairs at Bridgepoint Education; Mark Pelesh, executive vice president of Corinthian Colleges; and Andrew Rosen, president of Kaplan, Inc.,will review the current state of for-profit higher education and higher education alternatives.

During the second panel, Daniel Levy, director of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education at SUNY-Albany; Vance Fried, a professor at Oklahoma State University; and AEI’s Richard Vedder will discuss the theoretical possibilities of higher education alternatives. Doug Lederman of Inside Higher Ed will moderate.

Agenda

9:00

Panel I: The Current State of Higher Education Alternatives

Panelists:

Jane McAuliffe, Bridgepoint Education

Andrew Rosen, Kaplan, Inc.

Mark Pelesh, Corinthian Colleges

Moderator:

Paul Fain, Chronicle of Higher Education

10:30

Panel II: Theoretical Possibilities and Opportunities for Tomorrow

Panelists:

Daniel Levy, University at Albany, State University of New York

Vance Fried, Oklahoma State University

Richard Vedder, AEI and Center for College Affordability and Productivity

Moderator:

Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Ed

==

spate of is college worth it stories spakred by?

huffpo:

A college degree might not be worth the hassle and expense, according to a new study.

Almost half of four-year college graduates are working jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study by McKinsey & Co. that asked 4,900 graduates about their careers after college. Furthermore, around a third of college graduates said they did not feel that college had fully prepared them for the working world. Over half said they’d choose a different school or a different major if they could do it again.

The study comes amid pressure for schools to be more open about their graduates’ employment opportunities and as youth unemployment stands at its highest level since World War II, according to CNBC. For those who have jobs, nearly 300,000 college graduates were earning only minimum wage in 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported.

A separate study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivityfrom earlier this year also found that around half of degree holders worked jobs that didn’t require one shortly after graduating. Meanwhile, only slightly over half of those who graduated college in 2006 have a full-time job at all, according to a Rutgers University study from last year.

However, other statistics still point to the value of a college education. Earnings of those who attend college are 84 percent higher over their lifetime on average when compared to earners with just a high school diploma, the Los Angeles Times reports. Likewise, a college degree is linked with better health, as well as greaterupward economic mobility.

==

oops 2x

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/10/1079441/-This-is-the-future-Republicans-want-for-education

Living in Wisconsin I have been quite aware of the painful cuts to education. These cuts are not only impacting our local schools but our institutes of higher learning. Technical colleges across the state are reeling from cuts at a time of increased demand. The University of Wisconsin system has been pounded with cut after cut. Tuition is skyrocketing. For a student to attend the University of Wisconsin - Madison as an undergrad for one year it will now cost them just under $25,000 for tuition, fees, room and board. For any of the smaller campuses across the state like the University of Wisconsin - Stout, where I am enrolled, it will cost you $15,000 a year to attend as an undergrad for tuition, fees, room and board.

The costs of higher education are not rising because there are too many grants, scholarships or loans. Tuition is not rising because professors and staff are being paid too much. No, the reason tuition is going up at public schools is because Republican governors and legislators across the country are starving our public institutions of higher education.

One needs to look no further than Richard Vedder, the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.His statements in a recent article in The Capital Times are shocking to me. He starts out by stating,

“I’m increasingly thinking the government should get out of the business of higher education.”

Really? So he wants to basically revoke the Morrill Land-Grant of 1862 whose purpose was to,

[W]ithout excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.

The Land-grant colleges, like the University of Wisconsin - Madison, paved the way for a new middle class. No longer was college just for the wealthy. It was for everyone and it was funded in part with tax dollars. In 1904 Charles Van Hise spoke of the *"Wisconsin Idea"*

The Wisconsin Idea holds that the boundaries of the university should be the boundaries of the state, and that the research conducted at [the university] should be applied to solve problems and improve health, quality of life, the environment, and agriculture for all citizens of the state.

That is the purpose of public education! To improve the lives of not only those who attend the university and receive a degree, but to also improve the lives of those within the state. Of course Vedder does not get it,

Vedder says he wouldn’t mind seeing public higher education disappear completely [...] “I do think we need to re-examine why the government is involved in the higher education business. They’re not involved in the automobile business. They’re not involved in the furniture business.

Vedder goes on to make some other outrageous statements about the state of public education, including a statement where he says, "we already have too many people with college degrees," which makes me doubt the veracity of his research abilities as an economist. The final statement he makes is the most telling as to where the Republican party wants to go with our education system:

Vedder believes elite private universities and highly regarded public flagship institutions such as the University of Wisconsin - Madison will likely thrive into the future because there will be no shortage of people willing to pay for the overall college experience and the ability to earn a degree with a name brand on the diploma.

But he suggests lesser-known liberal arts colleges and less highly regarded state universities face an uncertain future.

“The possibility of low-cost, Internet-based instruction by English-speaking, low-paid professors in, say, India, is real. It could impact the traditional education markets. Low-cost, online education based on open-source materials is coming. Wikipedia University will be here before you know it.”

Basically, those that have the money will get a first rate American education. Everyone else...well your education is going to be farmed out to the lowest bidder. This is NOT what I want for my child's future. I want him to be able to attend his hometown university. If not that then one of the other state schools where he will receive a quality education from dedicated professors like the ones I have in my graduate program. Privatization of our children's future is not the answer to any of our problems. For disclosure purposes I did attend a "for profit" university for my Bachelor's degree. While the quality of the education was on par with what I would have received at a public institution the cost was far to high and I am saddled with student loan debt that I would not have had I attended a public institution.

==

Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) is dedicated to researching the rising costs and stagnant efficiency in higher education, with special emphasis on the United States. CCAP seeks to facilitate a broader dialogue on the issues and problems facing the institutions of higher education with the public, policy makers, and the higher education community.

1150 17th St., N.W., Ste. 910

Washington, DC 200364655

2023757831

Issue Area(s):

Athletics and Sports

Education and Literacy

Welfare and Public Assistance

Related Author(s):

Bennett, Daniel

Coleman, James

Denhart, Matthew

Fried, Vance H.

Gillen, Andrew

Meyers, Luke

O'Keefe, Bryan

Robe, Jonathan

Ruchti, Thomas

Vedder, Richard

Villwock, Robert

Zhong, Hans

http://www.issuelab.org/resource/for_profit_education_in_the_united_states_a_primer

For-Profit Education in the United States: A Primer

May 1, 2008

Author(s): Coleman, James; Vedder, Richard

Publisher(s): Center for College Affordability and Productivity

Issue Area(s): Education and Literacy

Download now

Higher education during the twentieth century underwent drastic changes as reformers forcefully argued education was the business of the state, and society could be improved by strong, publicly backed schools (Coulson 1999). Often proponents of state-sponsored education on the left argued the government should use education as a way to shape the minds of the nation's citizens, who were not responsible enough to take care of their own education properly (Coulson 1999). On the right, similar arguments were used as special interest groups saw the government as a means to influence what went on in the classroom. Consequently, the government stepped into the higher education arena, in part, by arguing people were not competent enough to oversee their own education. While the data for this period are scarce, it is safe to say for the period 1890 -- 1972, for-profit colleges were increasingly marginalized by the growth of highly subsidized public institutions (Breneman et al. 2006; Kinser 2006; Ruch 2001).

Starting in the mid-1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s, for-profit education underwent a renaissance, due in large part to the 1972 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which increased the amount of government student aid available to for-profit schools (Kinser 2006; Turner 2006). During this era, the broadened scope of Pell Grants gave rise to an increasing number of for-profit universities offering associates, bachelors, and graduate degrees (Turner 2006). Since 1976, for-profit enrollment has grown at an annualized growth rate of about 11 percent, increasing by a factor of nearly twenty-three. For-profits'market share of higher education has gone from 0.4 percent to nearly 6 percent (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2006a). The robust resurgence of for-profit schools suggests America's nonprofit colleges are failing to meet fully the people's needs. As a result, for-profits are stepping in to meet market demands their highly subsidized counterparts have chronically failed to satisfy. These recent and rapid developments have once again brought for-profit education national visibility.

==

Forgiving Student Loans for Shady Colleges Would Be a Mistake

Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, teaches at Ohio University.

Updated May 7, 2015, 6:46 AM

Many students suffered from the closing of Corinthian Colleges — just as others have from the recent closure of other schools, such as Virginia’s Sweetbriar College. While I sympathize with the students, forgiving their federal student loans would be a big mistake.

Loan forgiveness would set a precedent triggering a chain reaction. How can you forgive loans to students at one school (Corinthian), but not others that close, or that discontinue programs in which students are studying? Where do you draw the line?

Loan forgiveness would set a precedent and encourage excessive borrowing.

It would be unfair to forgive loans to Corinthian students, some of whom have made no attempt to reduce their debt, when other students have dutifully sacrificed to repay their obligation. Those with student loan debt will say: Why should I have to repay my loans when those at Corinthian, who received course credit transferable towards a degree, did not?

Loan forgiveness would aggravate an already severe “moral hazard” problem. The Obama Administration has pushed several student loan relief measures in some cases leading to loan forgiveness. That encourages students to borrow excessively, thinking they will not need to repay loans. We need to reduce, not increase, student loan borrowing and debt.

Our nation cannot afford to assuage every citizen’s pain. We are running large federal budget deficits more than five years into an economic expansion, and federal unfunded obligations (Medicare, Social Security, the national debt, etc.) approach one hundred trillion dollars, more than the net worth of all households in the nation. All of this will ultimately burden our children.

Although Corinthian apparently used shady consumer practices, a case can be made that the Obama Administration’s punitive regulation hounded it out of business. Corinthian was fined $30 million by the Education Department for using false job placement data.

Unlike general loan forgiveness, using that $30 million to provide some partial relief to students hurt by Corinthian’s demise would not burden taxpayers or set dangerous precedents.

==

https://www.aei.org/scholar/richard-vedder/

 Richard Vedder,

    Christopher Denhart

January 8, 2014 | :{The Wall Street Journal

How the college bubble will pop}:

The American political class has long held that higher education is vital to individual and national success. The Obama administration has dubbed college “the ticket to the middle class,” and political leaders from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have hailed higher education as the best way to improve economic opportunity.

Education, Higher Education

    Richard Vedder

October 30, 2013 | Bloomberg

Stop subsidizing colleges’ 100-year debt binge

The Barack Obama administration and Congress purport to care about the rising costs of college. Yet the government’s policies are only fueling the higher-education arms race.

Higher Education

    Richard Vedder

August 22, 2013 | Bloomberg

College costs will keep rising under Obama plan

Colleges’ exploitation of young Americans through rapidly rising and increasingly exorbitant fees is a national scandal that can no longer be ignored. In his college tour this week, President Barack Obama is speaking at length about what he intends to do about it, after promising “tough love” on higher education for the last two years.

Economics of Education, Education, Higher Education

US President Barack Obama speaks to students gathered at Knox College on July 24, 2013

    Richard Vedder

August 8, 2013 | Bloomberg

Obama needs push to shake up higher education

President Barack Obama keeps declaring war on rising college costs. In a speech at Knox College last month, he vowed to unveil an “aggressive strategy to shake up the system, tackle rising costs and improve value.” He said something similar in his 2012 State of the Union address, so I’m a little skeptical that much will happen.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano speaks to reporters during the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit in Washington, May 14, 2013.

    Richard Vedder

July 15, 2013 | Bloomberg

What do 2,358 college administrators do?

For at least a half-century, the University of California has been considered the premier system in U.S. public higher education. The Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses always rank among the top 10 state schools, with several other UC campuses close behind.

Higher Education

    Richard Vedder

July 9, 2013 | The New York Times

Study now, pay later: It could work with some adjustments

No financial scheme — no matter how innovative — can overcome the ultimate reality that this is not an economically sustainable long-term trend. We are currently overinvested in higher education.

Higher Education

Share

Mark as favorite

    Alex J. Pollock,

    Richard Vedder

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 | 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm

Is college worth it?

At this event, Bennett and Wilezol will present their book, higher education finance experts Richard George and Richard Vedder will provide discussion, and a coffee reception and book signing will follow.

Economics of Education, Higher Education

    Richard Vedder

May 13, 2013 | The New York Times

Academic merit is most important

The ending of overt racial preferences in college admissions is overdue.

Education, Higher Education, Race and Gender

Share

Mark as favorite

Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee (R) speaks during a news conference as head football coach Jim Tressel (L) listens in Columbus, Ohio, March 8, 2011.

    Richard Vedder

May 12, 2013 | Bloomberg

How to tell if college presidents are overpaid

University presidents aren’t corporate executives. If higher education wishes to maintain its privileged position in American society, it needs to contain its spending. A good place to start is at the top.

Higher Education

Share

Mark as favorite

College_graduation_shutterstock-680

    Richard Vedder

February 13, 2013 | Bloomberg

Obama lags as states lead college reform

The federal government can do more for our college attendees by doing less, not more.

Higher Education

Share

Mark as favorite

Job seekers stand in line to meet with prospective employers at a career fair in New York City, October 24, 2012.

    Richard Vedder

January 15, 2013 | The Wall Street Journal

The wages of unemployment

Why are Americans working less? While there are a number of factors, the phenomenon is due mainly to a variety of public policies that have reduced the incentives to be employed.

Economics

No more entries available.

==

:{

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/07/07/3677543/marco-rubios-economic-plan-calls-students-sell-private-investors/}:

Florida Senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio described his economic platform in a speech Tuesday in Chicago, touching on well-worn GOP priorities including slashing corporate taxes from 35 to 25 percent, further deregulating the private sector, restricting family immigration, and resisting calls to raise the minimum wage. Taking several specific shots at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Rubio said his plan would avoid “pumping more of today’s money into yesterday’s programs,” and bring the U.S. into the future.

In the speech, Rubio also called for a “revolutionized” higher education system. If elected president, he promised to “bust…the cartel of existing colleges and universities” by loosening the rules for accreditation so that “innovative, low-cost competitors” can court students. But critics say the government accreditation process is already far too loose, allowing predatory for-profit chains like Corinthian Colleges to win federal approval and funding even as they mislead students into paying for essentially worthless degrees.

He also touted the “Student Right to Know Before You Go Act” he co-sponsored with Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden — a plan extremely similar to one President Obama pushed for last year that ranks colleges by how much their tuition costs and how much money their graduates make.

Lamenting the “shadow of debt hovering over millions of graduates,” Rubio then proposed a model already suggested by his rival Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ): allowing rich individuals or hedge funds to pay a students tuition and collect their investment back post-graduation.

“It may result in a profit for the investor or it may not – but unlike with loans, none of the risk lies with the student,” Rubio said.

He expanded on this idea in a speech last year:

Let’s say you are a student who needs $10,000 to pay for your last year of school. Instead of taking this money out in the form of a loan, you could apply for a “Student Investment Plan” from an approved and certified private investment group. In short, these investors would pay your $10,000 tuition in return for a percentage of your income for a set period of time after graduation – let’s say, for example, 4% a year for 10 years.

This group would look at factors such as your major, the institution you’re attending, your record in school – and use this to make a determination about the likelihood of you finding a good job and paying them back.

Unlike with loans, you would be under no legal obligation to pay back that entire $10,000. Your only obligation would be to pay that 4% of your income per year for 10 years, regardless of whether that ends up amounting to more or less than $10,000.

But these “Student Investment Plans,” which also have the Orwellian name “human capital contracts,” raise many serious concerns. For one, investors may refuse to cover entire fields of students not likely to bring in the big bucks after graduation, or would charge them a staggeringly high percentage of their income. For those backing this plan, such as the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), this poses no problem.

“Isn’t this ‘unfair’ to those wanting to be librarians, teachers, social workers, etc., since they would have to forego more of their incomes to satisfy the human capital contract? Not really,” writes AEI Adjunct Scholar Richard Vedder.“Society puts a relatively low value on those jobs.”

Additionally, following Rubio’s math of 4 percent over 10 years, a graduate would have to earn an extremely low salary for the investor not to make a profit. Vedder and other advocates of the plan are less cautious, and have voiced support for plans that take as high as 25 percent of a graduates salary for multiple decades after they enter the workforce.

The National College Access Network and other groups have warned that such a plan could cost students even more than high-interest federal loan programs, diverting away money those graduates could have used to save for retirement or buy a house.

Rubio’s proposal is similar to the “Pay It Forward, Pay It Back” model currently being explored by the state of Oregon — with one crucial difference. In Oregon’s plan, the investor is the democratically-elected state government, so when graduates repay their loans that money can go back into public education. Under Rubio’s version, the money would go into the pockets of investors.

Tags

===

A ‘free market’ solution to college debt?

:{In order to address the problem of many students graduating from college with huge debts, Bernie Sanders has proposed that all state universities provide free education as an investment in the nation’s future by enabling the creation of a more educated work force. The idea is that freed from such debt, graduates will be able to choose worthwhile careers rather than ones that pay a lot so that they can retire their debt. Sanders points out that many developed countries provide free higher education to their students. Even some developing countries do so. For example, my own university education in Sri Lanka was completely free.

}:

Of course the idea of providing anything free, however worthwhile it may be (such as health care), is anathema to our ruling oligarchs, and free-market devotees have come up with their own capitalist solution to college debt, one that has been seized on by New Jersey governor Chris Christie as his presidential campaign flounders.

The idea is that students incorporate themselves somehow into a kind of company and sell stock in themselves to investors in return for giving them a portion of their future earnings. While on the surface this has disturbing similarities to the practice of sharecropping, with education replacing land, with all the problems that can happen in such a system, its supporters say that it is not that different from the student loan systems we currently have.

Economist Richard Vedder explains how the system would work:

:{Students currently do the equivalent of selling bonds – they borrow money with the promise to repay the funds. Why not issue stock (equity) in themselves – give investors partial, temporary ownership of a college graduate’s “human capital,” in return for a share of his or her earnings. Call these contracts between investors and future students “income share agreements” or “human capital contracts.”

…}:

There are lots of advantages to having voluntary arrangements made between individual students and financial service companies financing human capital construction. A contract might go like this: “if you pay one-half of my tuition to go four years to XYZ University, I will give you 15 percent of my earnings beyond $15,000 a year for the next 18 years.” Sometimes the investor will hit a jackpot: the college student becomes highly successful, making a big six digit income. In other instances, the student either flounders in college or secures a low paying job after graduation and, on net, the investor loses. The trick is to have a pool of contracts that collectively provide a good return. The risk, however, passes from a young student with no experience in financial markets to a savvy investor.

One problem with this system can be seen immediately. Investors are more likely to back students who go into areas that promise high earnings (like investment banking, medicine, engineering) and avoid careers that serve the needs of people (like teaching and social work and other forms of public service oriented jobs). But Vedder see no problem with this. In his eyes, the reason some jobs pay poorly is because those jobs have no value in the eyes of society.

Isn’t this “unfair” to those wanting to be librarians, teachers, social workers, etc., since they would have to forego more of their incomes to satisfy the human capital contract? Not really. Society puts a relatively low value on those jobs.If a market-based financing system is in place and, say, fewer kids want to be teachers, in time salaries of teachers would rise to eliminate potential shortages. If lots of kids flee to high paying STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] disciplines to lower the proportion of equity that has to be paid to human capital investors, in time this will lead to some flattening of salaries in those disciplines – supply will rise to meet high demand.

But this misses the point that there already exists a scarcity of teachers as can be seen in the increasingly large class sizes they are called upon to teach and yet their salaries and benefits are being cut, not raised. This is because schools (and libraries and social service agencies) are funded by taxpayers, and states are cutting those budgets in order to give tax cuts for the wealthy.Furthermore, the number of teachers the nation requires is vastly greater than the number of investment bankers and engineers. There is no way that the salaries of all or nearly all of these teachers will ever approach that of the currently high-paying occupations.

The logical end point of this free-market model for teachers (and one that is ardently sought by conservatives) is for publicly funded schools to disappear and be replaced by entirely private schools that would then compete for teachers and students. But that does not mean that the salaries of all teachers would rise. What would be the more likely result is a further separation of rich and poor, with a few schools catering to the elite and paying higher salaries to their teachers and attracting the children of the wealthy who will then go to elite universities and jobs in high-paying fields, while the majority of people will have to send their students to schools that pay their teachers much less because they cannot afford more. Teachers will take low-paying jobs in such schools simply because they need to earn a living.

This system already partially exists in the US where schools are largely funded by local property taxes. People who can afford to, live in school districts that have high property values that generate higher taxes that can support schools that provide excellent resources. But these are relatively few. In Vedder’s proposed system, the current inequality will likely accelerate.

==

Richard Kent Vedder is an economics professor at Ohio University.[1] He is listed as a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute [2] and the American Enterprise Institute[3] and has also worked with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy on such issues as spending on public schools.[4] He has written about immigration and labor for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. He has also written articles about taxation and tobacco and other issues related to taxes. He is on the board of the National Taxpayers Union.[5]

TIes to the American Legislative Exchange Council

Vedder is also listed as a "scholar" at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).[6] In 2008, he won ALEC's Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award.[7]

:{

ALEC, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, The Independent Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the National Taxpayers Union have all received money from Koch foundations.}:

Background

Education:

Vedder previously served as an economist with the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, with which, according to the ALEC Annual Meeting Program, "he maintains a consulting relationship." He also has previously served as the John M.:{ Olin:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: Visiting Professor of Labor Economics and Public Policy at the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis.[8]

Affiliations

Tobacco, Taxes, and Immigration

In 1993 Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway did a study for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI) about the impact of immigration on the American economy.[9] In March 1994, AdTI published the report "Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence" written by Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway and Stephen Moore, who is also affiliated with ALEC.[10][11]

Later that year, Vedder served as "peer-reviewer" for a pro-tobacco junk science report titled Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination, also published by AdTI. There are many documents in the Tobacco Institute documents online mentioning Richard Vedder. Many of them are confidental reports listing allied economists and academics who were willing to provide expert testimony for tobacco companies. One such document states,

Professor Richard Vedder (Ohio University) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform that appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer in April (newspaper in home district of Ways & Means Member Gradison). Copies were sent to Gradison and Ways & Means Member Pease.[12]

Richard Vedder also worked for some time together with Prof. Dwight R. Lee:

Member of the Tobacco Institute's Economists Network

Vedder was a member of the Tobacco Institute's clandestine Economists' network -- a group of academics that the tobacco industry recruited who worked behind the scenes to fight proposed tax increases on cigarettes and the declining acceptability of public and workplace smoking by generating favorable research for publication, presenting favorable papers at academic conferences and symposia, and being ready to challenge the "social costs" economic arguments employed by anti-smoking activist at public and legislative forums. Members of the Institute's Economists Network also assisted by writing letters-to-the-editor and lecturing to journalists on behalf of the industry.[13][14][15]

:

Affiliations

Related SourceWatch Resources

Related Links

References

  1. ↑ Mackinac Center for Public Policy Dr. Richard Vedder, organizational biography, accessed June 6, 2011
  2. ↑ The Independent Institute Richard K. Vedder, organizational biography, accessed June 6, 2011
  3. ↑ American Enterprise Institute Richard Vedder, organizational biography, accessed June 6, 2011
  4. ↑ Mackinac Center for Public Policy Dr. Richard Vedder, organizational biography, accessed June 6, 2011
  5. ↑ National Taxpayers Union NTU's Board of Directors, organizational website, accessed June 6, 2011
  6. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council Board of Scholars, organizational web page, accessed July 9, 2011
  7. ↑ Independent Institute About Us/Awards, organizational website, accessed July 9, 2011
  8. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, 2011 Conference Program -- Board of Scholars, conference brochure on file with CMD, August 11, 2011
  9. ↑ Ohio University Curriculum Vita, Lowell E. Galloway, organizational website, staff biosketch, accessed July 9, 2011
  10. ↑ Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, Virginia (March 1994)
  11. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council Board of Scholars, organizational web page, accessed July 9, 2011
  12. ↑ Tobacco Institute Federal Markets, Confidential report on allies and academics in Ohio], 1985, 27 pp at page 20, (or TIFL 0512986), Tobacco Institute Bates No. TIFL0512967/2993
  13. ↑ James Savarese Memorandum to Fred Panzer, Jeff Ross and Susan Stuntz, Tobacco Institute documents collection, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, January 6, 1987, Bates No. TI18230621 at page -0626
  14. ↑ Tobacco Institute Taxes/Witnesses, Confidential list, January, 1986, 13 pp, Bates No. TIFL0507522/7534
  15. ↑ Tobacco Institute PR Division Public Relations Resource Catalog, Tobacco Institute confidential list, 132 pp. Bates No.TIMN0272132/226 at (TIMN272146) or Page 15, January 1986