Most people are aware that the cost of higher education has dramatically escalated in recent years, for a variety of reasons. Some students do not enroll in college because they can’t afford it. Others graduate with crushing debt, based on student loans. It’s hard to believe that some European nations have made college either free or affordable.
President Biden has tried repeatedly to find ways to help students pay off their college debt. His most ambitious plan was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2023.
Biden devised a new plan, and yesterday the Supreme Court temporarily blocked that one today.
Adam Lipton and Abby VanSickle of The New York Times told the story:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked a new effort by President Biden to wipe out tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt.
The plan was part of the president’s piecemeal approach to forgiving debt after the Supreme Court rejected a more ambitious proposal last year that would have canceled more than $400 billion in loans. Mr. Biden has instead pursued more limited measures directed at certain types of borrowers, including people on disability and public service workers, and refined existing programs.
The decision leaves in limbo millions of borrowers enrolled in a new plan, called Saving on a Valuable Education, which ties monthly payments to household size and earnings.
The emergency application was one of two related to the program that the justices decided on Wednesday. The brief order did not give reasons, which is typical, and no public dissents were noted.
Republican-led states had filed a number of challenges to the plan, including a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, which earlier this summer issued a broad hold on the loan plan while it considers the merits of the case.
That case could soon make its way back to the justices, who indicated that they expected the lower court to act swiftly on the matter.
The Biden administration had argued the new program was authorized by a 1993 law that allowed the secretary of education to fashion “income contingent repayment” plans. The law authorizes the secretary to determine repayment schedules based on “the appropriate portion of the annual income of the borrower.”
Over the years, the secretary has invoked that law several times to relax repayment requirements. The latest plan, the subject of the Supreme Court’s order, was the most generous one.
It reduced the required payments for undergraduate loans to 5 percent from 10 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income, and it redefined discretionary income to be above 225 percent of the poverty line. People making less than that pay nothing. Loans of $12,000 or less are canceled after 10 years — down from 20 or 25 years — so long as the borrower made payments if required to do so.
The SAVE program, issued in June 2023, was challenged nine months later by the attorneys general of 11 Republican-led states, who said it was flawed in ways similar to the one the justices rejected last year. The 1993 law, they said, contemplates repayment rather than actual or effective forgiveness.
In the administration’s Supreme Court brief in response to one of the challenges, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote that the new plan “relies on a different statute with different language to provide a different set of borrowers with different assistance from the one-time loan forgiveness the court held invalid.”
The old plan invoked the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, often called the HEROES Act. That law, initially enacted after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gave the secretary of education the power to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” to protect borrowers affected by “a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
In its decision last year, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-to-3 vote that the 2003 law did not authorize forgiving the loans at issue there. That same day, President Biden vowed to find other ways to provide debt relief.
“Today’s decision has closed one path,” Mr. Biden said. “Now we’re going to pursue another.”
The new program was based on a federal law that contemplated reduced payments based on income.
In the Eighth Circuit lawsuit, filed in Missouri, the appeals court temporarily blocked the entire SAVE plan. The Biden administration had asked the justices earlier this month to clear the way for the plan to take effect.
The administration initially estimated that the SAVE plan would cost $156 billion over 10 years, but that amount assumed that the Supreme Court would uphold the earlier plan. The real cost of the new plan, the states challenging it said, is $475 billion over 10 years. The administration says the real number is smaller, particularly as parts of the SAVE plan have not been blocked.

The RePUGni-CONS don’t want “The OTHERS” to become educated, just themselves.
LikeLike
Dont take out a loan you can’t pay back. It’s one of the first things these college “children” need to learn as they enter the real world.😏
LikeLike
And I bet you’re the first person to tell minimum wage workers to go to college so they can get a better job, right?
LikeLike
Dirty. . . ?
. . . Is that you?
LikeLike
Price gouging
LikeLike
Lacking in this posting – no surprise – is the fact that the most recent SCOTUS decision on this issue was decided UNANIMOUSLY. Also not surprising is that this blog’s host has never criticized the college-industrial complex for the huge increase over the last 20 years in administrators and their associated costs. Higher ed is part of her tribe, so they are immune from criticism.
LikeLike
What? You are a conspiracist. Why would I defend higher education? Is the check in the mail?
LikeLike
I’m not a conspiracist. If you disagree with the massive administrative bloat in higher education – some liberals do – take this opportunity to for the first time ever express this disagreement on this forum.
LikeLike
Read my book “Reign of Error.” I have never defended the administrative costs of higher education or salaries of executives. Why should I care? I don’t.
LikeLike
Colleges will stop raising the prices when the government decides to regulate the banking industry in regards to student loans. Sallie Mae was restructured under Obama banking policies and Colleges are now free to charge what they want because banks are free to loan. The housing market crash certainly didn’t teach the banks a lesson on predatory lending practices.
LikeLike
College tuition has been increasing at multiples of the inflation rate since the 80s, and it really started accelerating under Bush, so this isn’t a problem that started under Obama.
LikeLike
Yes, the costs have risen since the 80’s, but the dramatic increase was due to the restructuring of Sallie Mae….under Obama….due to the restructuring of the loan industry. Wish I could find the documentation/explanations that I used to reference, but they have made it to the end of the Google lists, I guess?
LikeLike
The bankruptcy laws also changed and student loans were not allowed to be discharged or combined with other debt to be discharged. It ALL happened under Obama in response to the Big Recession…caused by the big Banks.
LikeLike
“It ALL happened under Obama in response to the Big Recession…caused by the big Banks.”
Not true.
“Student loans first became nondischargeable in bankruptcy in 1976 due to an amendment in the Higher Education Act. Section 439A of this act made student loan debt non-dischargeable until five years after the start of the repayment period, except in cases of undue hardship. Over time, laws were tweaked and widened to reinforce this limitation.”
“Allen Ertel, a Congressman from Pennsylvania, pushed to make student loans hard to discharge. Ertel was in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1977 to 1983. Despite stats showing less than 1% of federal student loans were ever wiped clean in bankruptcy, Ertel argued student loan defaults were jumping up. His convincing talk changed the rules, making student loans stick around after bankruptcy unless the borrower faced severe hardship.”
Over the years, starting with the Carter Administration, it became harder and harder to discharge student loans.
It seemed to get consecutive harder once the idea that there were “unscrupulous students” who would just not not repay their loans became the norm.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were trying to do some things — often blocked by Republicans — to stop predatory lending by unscrupulous for-profit colleges.
While Republicans were cutting budgets of the public colleges, which drove their tuitions up.
But the fact is that at least in blue states like New York and California, it is possible to get a college education without going into huge debt. Many first generation kids in NYC live at home and attend CUNYs. In California, lots of middle class students will attend a community college for 2 years and transfer to a state university.
There are two different reasons for tuition increases in private and public colleges. Rather than bloated administrations, it is bloated FACILITIES. Bloated attempts to lure students. With the most desirable private colleges, it is colleges knowing the very rich will pay anything for their above average student to be assumed to be as meritorious as the students who need to be truly amazing to get in. Those very high tuitions allow colleges to offer financial aid to students from families who by many measures would be considered relatively affluent, and to give full rides to students who are low income.
It is still possible to get a college education for a reasonable cost in many places.
LikeLike
You’re not wrong.
This was an excellent overview of the problem:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-university-tuition-increase-spending-41a58100
“Public university leaders often blame stingier state funding for the need to raise tuition revenue. And three-fourths of states did cut their support, undermining a longstanding principle that schools educated the populace with government backing. But universities generally didn’t tighten their belts as a result. Rather, they raised prices far beyond what was needed to fill the hole.
For every $1 lost in state support at those universities over the two decades, the median school increased tuition and fee revenue by nearly $2.40, more than covering the cuts, the Journal found.
Through it all, schools operated in a culture that valued unrelenting growth and prioritized raising revenue over cutting costs. Administrators established ambitious strategic plans and tried to lure wealthy students with luxurious amenities. Influential college rankings rewarded those that spent more.
Many university officials struggled to understand their own budgets and simply increased spending every year. Trustees demanded little accountability and often rubber-stamped what came before them. And schools inconsistently disclose what they spend, making it nearly impossible for the public to review how their tuition and tax dollars are being used.
“These places are just devouring money,” said Holden Thorp, who was chancellor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 2008 to 2013 and is now editor in chief of Science. Offering everything to everyone all at once is unsustainable, he said. “Universities need to focus on what their true priorities are and what they were created to do,” he said.
Colleges invested money inside and outside the classroom, including to improve technology, expand counseling and intramural sports, and build facilities such as modern dorms and new stadiums.
To examine public university spending, the Journal collected data from audits, archived budget websites and documents received through public-records requests covering expenses in fiscal 2002, 2012 and 2022.
Much of the increase in outlays showed up in the hiring process, for administrators, faculty, coaches and finance experts, the Journal’s analysis found. Salaries and benefits, which usually eat up more than half of operating budgets, rose by roughly 40% at the median flagship since 2002.
The University of Florida in 2022 had more than 50 employees with titles of director, associate director or assistant director of communications, roughly double the number it had in 2017. The school also employed more than 160 assistant, associate, executive and other types of deans last year, up from about 130 in 2017.
Spokesman Steve Orlando said the university is decentralized and different departments have the freedom to hire as they need.
Inflation-adjusted spending on athletic coaches rose by about half between 2010 and 2022 at the median flagship, the Journal’s analysis of data from the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database found. The Journal used data from the period with the most complete figures.
Though a handful of powerhouse sports departments pay for themselves, most can break even only with student fees and university subsidies.
Across all flagships with available data, that additional funding totaled $632 million in 2022. That’s a jump of 27% from 12 years prior.
The University of Connecticut won the national championship this spring in men’s basketball, and its women’s team has been a near-constant presence in the Final Four. Yet since 2016, Connecticut’s athletic department has received more than $35 million annually in student fees and university subsidies to stay afloat. In 2022, it took in $55 million in such funds, making up more than half its total athletics budget.
The school said more than $13 million of that subsidy covered a payout to a former men’s basketball coach as part of a legal settlement over his employment contract, and that it faces unique challenges in having to pay rent and other fees for basketball and hockey games, which are played off campus.
Overall, the University of Connecticut’s spending rose by 73% between 2002 and 2022, far faster than enrollment grew. Much of that was driven by personnel costs, with spending on benefits more than tripling.
Reka Wrynn, associate vice president of budget, planning and institutional research, said that was in part because the school was on the hook for a growing share of the state’s unfunded pension liability. Connecticut was also obligated to pay for raises that unionized employees negotiated with the state, she said.
. . . .
In some cases, colleges spent more as the student body grew, with the typical flagship increasing enrollment by about 20% over the past two decades. Adding students may in some cases be expensive—requiring new dorms and classroom space—or relatively inexpensive, especially for online students. Nonetheless, spending per student rose, by a median 15% over the past two decades.
The schools have passed the tab on to students even in the nation’s poorest states. Most of these schools increased financial aid for low-income students, but that hasn’t fully offset rising tuition for many families.
Kentucky has among the country’s lowest median household income. What in-state students paid in 2021-22 put Kentucky in the top half of flagship schools ranked by cost. Those figures, from the Education Department, cover what the average freshman paid in tuition, fees, room and board after scholarships.
Kentucky on its website touts the total of $3.66 billion spent on its Lexington campus overhaul over the past dozen years. That included new homes for the law, business and visual-arts schools, state-of-the-art hospital facilities, a student center, a 900-spot parking garage, a theater for videogame competitions and dorms sporting full-size Tempur-Pedic mattresses, granite countertops and in-unit washer-dryers.
. . . .
Some college rankings, including U.S. News & World Report, reward spending in those categories as well as student services such as clubs and cultural events. They don’t necessarily credit moves that make schools more efficient. The Journal’s college rankings also took spending into consideration, though it is dropping that measure in coming reports.
For all Kentucky’s effort, U.S. News ranked the school No. 64 among public universities in 2022, actually dropping a few spots from where it had been a decade earlier.
But the bill for students grew. Kentucky took in about 70% more in tuition and fee revenue per student than it did 20 years ago.
. . . .
Schools loaded their campuses with state-of-the-art recreation centers and dorms to appeal to students with top test scores and minimal need for financial aid. The price for these amenities was then baked into the bills for all students, including with fees students paid to cover construction debt.
Tuition and fee revenue per student climbed by double digits in the past 20 years at every school in the Journal’s analysis. The average student paid more because many schools both upped prices and increased the percentage of higher-paying students from out of state.
At the University of Oklahoma, per-student tuition and fees rose 166%, the most of any flagship. The school also borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to perform building upgrades and erect new dormitories.
“We levered up the balance sheet to avoid dealing with [financial] reality,” said Oklahoma President Joseph Harroz Jr., who took the helm in 2019. Across higher education, he said, “there was an arms race.””
LikeLike
Sallie Mae stopped issuing federal student loans in 2010 but serviced them through 2014. Sallie Mae now only services private loans. Banking is the issue.
And of course, under Obama/Arne Duncan/Bill Gates/Common Core….every student needed to be College and Career ready….meaning the colleges were salivating at the thought of all those tuition $$$ to compete for.
LikeLike
flerp!, thanks for the link to the interesting WSJ article.
The U. of Kentucky information is a good example of the problem.
And the WSJ highlighted a good example of the detrimental influence of the media:
In my opinion, one of the worst things to happen to higher education was when the least popular of the 3 weekly news magazines of the early 1980s (after Time and Newsweek) US News and World Report Magazine had the brilliant idea to do an annual ranking of universities and colleges — I was a college student who applied and chose a college just a few years before the “helpful” knowledge of whether the college I was considering was a few rankings higher or lower than a different college. Imagine how terrible it would be if seniors today were forced to make choice between Princeton and Yale or U. of Michigan and UCLA without the extremely valuable knowledge that Princeton and UCLA were the “higher ranked” schools!
Over the decades, US News morphed from a weekly news magazine to an “educational rating magazine”, influencing colleges, universities, grad schools, law schools, to do whatever it required to climb the rankings. All to the bad.
Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that the price of college exploded at the same time US News rankings became more and more important to “consumers” (i.e. students and their parents and possibly the legislators who fund public colleges) and less and less meaningful at all.
In fact, it might explain why the tuition at the SUNY and CUNY colleges is relatively inexpensive. It seems as if the SUNYs have never fell for the hype — the flagship SUNY Binghamton is quite low-ranked and yet very popular with good students who want to stay in-state. Stony Brook (which is, according to US News, “superior” to Bing by 20+ spots), is popular with many science-oriented students, despite still not being on the “top 50”.
How much damage did the US News ranking system (and the hype it got) do to US colleges and incentivize them to spend money where it shouldn’t be spent? And it was usually the have nots competing against the have nots — the richest Ivy League and Dukes and MITs were always going to come out on top.
Back before rankings, there was a vague notion of “good” colleges, but this idea that they could be ranked or that having them “compete” for higher rankings would make them all improve and get better has, in my opinion, been proven wrong.
(US News now ranks U. Kentucky 100 spots below SUNY Stony Brook, but its’ basketball team is definitely way better! Kentucky’s tuition is higher than both Binghamton and Stony Brook.)
LikeLike
The rankings haven’t helped, for sure. Not sure what can be done about that, though. Or what can be done about any of it. Perhaps colleges and universities should be subject to price controls?
LikeLike
NYCPSP, I totally agree with your assessment of the U.S. News rankings. They are really ridiculous and they encourage gaming the system.
LikeLike
State and community colleges ARE subjected to price controls. The President of a state college can’t simply raise the price if they figure out there is more demand than seats. No doubt a popular state university like U. of Michigan could “sell” even more seats to rich out of state and out of country students and reject more qualified poor in-state students who would need financial aid, or just pay the in-state tuition, but while the percentage has become quite high, it isn’t unlimited. Same with Berkeley. The legislature would react, as it did in California when big donors had too much admissions influence.
It seems odd to suggest a price control on a luxury item, like a very expensive private college that charges $80,000/year, which would be like putting price controls on yachts and caviar.
Those colleges are always free to charge whatever the market would bear, but they are constrained by their own need to pretend that admissions is based only on merit and not the size of a parent’s bank account and donation. I think Harvard and Yale could just auction off 30 or 50 seats a year to the highest bidder whose kid meets the most minimum standards of “his private says he is above average” and the highest bidders get the seats — I am sure they could raise hundreds of millions IF they promise never to reveal who it is. But instead they essentially do the same thing based on an unwritten promise that a big donation will surely be coming their way.
In other words, I haven’t heard anyone saying that private schools can’t charge what they want. However, lots of private colleges that don’t have the imprimatur of a high US News rankings are essentially having one tuition price and give virtually every student a “merit” scholarship as a reward for attending the university. Not sure who pays the full price at those lower tier privates but many of them seem to be going bankrupt.
I assume the low tuitions at SUNY have a lot to do with how high the state legislature will allow tuition to be raised. Bing could probably charge a bit more and still fill their seats, but they don’t.
LikeLike
Different price controls.
LikeLike
“The legislature[s] would react”
Perhaps they will. Perhaps they should.
LikeLike
Somehow omitted from the discussion of this matter is the way we used to value and subsidize education directly with state taxes. I went to a state school for tuition that never exceeded $220 a semester in 1973-78. Conservatives during that time did not like this, and state support for education eroded quickly. Just eight years later, students began to leave school with debt. Increases in cost were increasingly absorbed by individuals rather than taxes.
Now the bill is due. These debts put a massive burden on the economy, shifting money from potential purchasing power to paying financial institutions, some of which received bailouts in the 2008 debacle. If we don’t do something, all of us will suffer. Republicans only blame individual borrowers in a Dickenenisn bit of logic worthy of Scrooge himself. Are there no debtors prisons?
Thom Hartman is right. The Republicans are reduced to cruelty, not being able to offer policy.
LikeLike
From the reading I’ve done, reductions of state subsidies is one of several factors but not the major factor.
LikeLike
What’s the major factor?
I assume the major reasons for rising tuitions in state colleges is not the same as the reasons for rising tuitions in private colleges. Although they both have the cost of facilities.
I also think that colleges now spend a lot more money on things that the public actually supports.
In the mid-seventies, lots of universities had barely any sports facilities for women’s sports. After Title IX, and the explosion of young women athletes, a significant expansion of athletic budgets (including facilities) occurred. (There is a myth that men’s sports’ revenue justifies the huge stadiums and athletic administrations, but that is true only for a very small percentage of all the colleges competing in “big time” college sports, most of whom run deficits.)
It is now necessary for colleges to make their facilities accessible to people with disabilities. We expect colleges to offer mental health services to students.
Everyone complains about this until they hear a story about an overlooked kid who hurts themselves, and then they complain that the college let them fall through the cracks
I cannot imagine the expense that it took as colleges were adapting to the internet era. From building “computer centers” with terminals connected to a huge mainframe computer with lots of dot matrix printers, to rewiring every dorm room so each desktop computer could be plugged in to the “ethernet”, to providing free wifi access in every area. Colleges had to change with the times, not realizing that what they were building one year could become obsolete 7 or 10 years later.
LikeLike
I have another comment in moderation. Basically, it’s no single factor, but your comment elsewhere in this thread gets closer to it. The biggest drivers seem to be facilities, personnel costs, and a generally drunken-sailor approach to spending that is enabled by free availability of student loans.
LikeLike
Thank you.
But the other thing I mentioned is that it isn’t public university “tuition” that seems to be the issue – at least in New York.
A year of tuition at a CUNY college is less than $7,000. Tuition is not all that much more at the most coveted NY state universities, but the HOUSING expenses are twice as high as the tuition!
The cost of the education, which includes administration, does not seem too bloated, but the cost of living is high.
Since the tuition costs at a CUNYs and SUNYs are even lower than what it costs to educate elementary school students in public schools, and the tuition costs at NYC K-12 private are 5 or 6 or even 7 times the cost of tuition at a CUNY or SUNY college, it doesn’t seem like personnel costs are too high. It seems like public colleges and universities are trying to do more with less all the time.
LikeLike
I don’t know. Also could mean the SUNYs pay personnel less, or have fewer personnel, or are more subsidized by the state. Hard to infer from just the price tag.
LikeLike
All true. Price tag alone only tells part of the story.
LikeLike
The price tag does not tell anyone very much at all. Perdue famously did not increase tuition for over a decade. Net tuition, tuition less institutional financial aid, went up every year as Perdue enrolled fewer and fewer low income students.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Republicans would lose votes if all those affected learned what happened. The challenge is reaching all of those voters, and keeping their attention long enough, so they’d learn what’s happened and who is being it.
Far too many voters are not well informed. When they are struggling to make ends meet, can’t afford rent, can’t afford enough food, don’t have health care, carry too much credit card debt, that keeps them awake at night, et al.
They have other concerns that consume their day thoughts and night demons.
They do not have time to sit down, and fact check political stuff to find the best people to vote for, if they even think about doing that.
Poverty affects a child’s ability to learn.
Struggling to keep your family afloat also affects a parent’s ability to think when it comes to who to vote for.
How many US voters know what Project 2025 is and what it means for their future?
How many US voters know Traitor Trump as well as New Yorkers do?
Most of the population has been plagued by this Orange Toddler for about eight years. New Yorkers have had to put up with this shit-stain for almost 80.
In 2016, about 17% of voters in New York City voted for Traitor Trump.
In 2020, about 23% did.
LikeLike