Robert Kelchen Calcuates Debt-to-Earnings Ratio For 45,000 Post-Secondary Programs: A Treasure Trove of Data

 As Education Secretary Miguel Cardona observed recently, college graduates, on average, make about one million dollars more over their working careers than people who only have high school credentials. 

I'm sure that's true, but that fact doesn't mean that all college programs lead to higher incomes or that all programs are reasonably priced.

Robert Kelchen, a professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, performed a valuable service by creating a dataset that compares program-level debt with earnings outcomes for more than 45,000 postsecondary programs. This dataset calculates the debt-to-earnings ratio for students one year after they leave their respective institutions.

Obviously, this enormous dataset can be analyzed in many different ways. My brief analysis examined programs with the highest debt-to-earnings ratios--those that left former students with three times as much debt as their first-year earnings.

Forty programs are in this category, and all but six are graduate programs. Five Branches University, a private institution in California, tops the list with a debt-to-earnings ratio for its master's degree in Alternative and Complementary Medicine of more than nine to one. Its students leave the program with an average debt load of $144,276  and an average salary one year after leaving the school of only $16,011.

Second on the list, with a debt-to-earnings ratio of almost eight to one, is Bastyr University's program in Alternative and Complementary Medicine. One year after leaving the program, its former students have a median income of $22,411 and an average debt load of $175,690.

In fact, of the 40 programs with debt-to-earnings ratios of more than three to one, eleven are programs in alternative medicine, complementary medicine, or acupuncture.  

Film, fine arts, and drama are also well-represented among programs with high debt-to-earnings ratios. Of the 40 programs with debt-to-earnings ratios of more than three to one, thirteen are fine arts, film, or drama programs.

Professor Kelchen's database prompts this question.  How much should students borrow to fund their education? 

Camilo Maldonado, writing for Forbes, recommends a borrowing limit of no more than two-thirds of a graduate's expected starting salary. Thus, if you expect your starting salary to be $50,000, you should borrow at most about $33,000. 

Applying that formula to Professor Kelchen's database, students graduating from almost 4,000 academic programs are leaving school owing more money than they can comfortably pay back.

As Maldonado pointed out, the federal student loan system is designed to lend students potentially more money than they can repay. The colleges don't care how much debt their students amass to finance their studies.

On the contrary, students must decide for themselves how much college debt is prudent to accrue. Unfortunately, as Professor Kelchen's database makes clear, a great many students are not making that calculation. 

In his commentary, Maldonado reminds us that the price of a college education is increasing almost eight times faster than wages. Thus, Maldonado warns, "This means that overpaying for an education is becoming increasingly disastrous." 

Higher education leaders oppose Democrats' proposal for free college: Why?

College tuition has risen faster than the rate of inflation for the past quarter-century. While wages have remained stagnant, the cost of going to college has shot through the roof. According to Forbes writer Camilo Maldonado, tuition rose 8 times faster than wage growth during the years 1989 to 2016. Eight times faster!

Why? The colleges say they are forced to raise tuition rates because the states are providing less support for higher education. But this lame explanation--repeated ad nauseam--is mostly bullshit. The colleges don't mention the explosion in administrative positions-the profusion of assistant vice presidents, executive associate deans, etc. It is not uncommon for senior administrators at public and private universities to draw salaries that exceed a quarter-million dollars a year.

In any event, everyone agrees that rising tuition costs have forced millions of American students to take out student loans, which now total $1.6 trillion. Something must be done to alleviate the distress.

Several Democratic candidates for the presidency have proposed making college education free at all public colleges and universities. You would think the higher education community would love that idea. But it doesn't. Vassar president Catharine Hill criticized Bernie Sanders's free-college idea when he ran for president in 2016. Her lame-brained solution was to expand long-term income-based repayment plans. And that's basically what we've done--creating repayment plans deliberately structured so that students can never pay off their college loans.

Now we are in the early stages of the 2020 presidential election season, and more Democratic hopefuls have joined Bernie in proposing a free college education for everyone. Senators  Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand (who recently dropped out of the presidential race) have all endorsed a free-college proposal.

But the higher education community still opposes the idea. Just a few days ago, Brian Rosenberg, president of Macalester College, published an op-ed essay in Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he cited a couple of liberal tropes to justify his opposition to free college.

A free college education would hurt low-income students, Rosenberg argues, because they would be "squeezed out" in the application process that would become more competitive if tuition were free. And he also contends that free college would exacerbate the nation's already low graduation rate.

Huh? How could free college be bad for low-income students? How could it make graduation rates go down?

Mr. Rosenberg is the president of Macalester College, a very good liberal-arts school in Minnesota, but he does not mention that free college at public institutions would severely disadvantage the private colleges. Who would pay $54,000 a year in tuition and fees to attend Macalester College if they could enroll at the University of Minnesota tuition-free?

 I'm sure Mr. Rosenberg's arguments against free college are sincere and his commitment to private liberal-arts education is genuine. But a great many university presidents and higher-education policy wonks simply don't care about the student-loan crisis, which has motivated political leaders to propose a free college education.  They want to preserve the status quo in higher education, with the federal government spewing more than a $100 billion a year to support the present system.

How many elite-college presidents have come out in favor of a free college education? I don't think any of them have. Unlike Mr. Rosenberg, most college leaders are keeping silent about their qualms, but rest assured they will fight tooth and nail if a Democrat is elected President and tries to get a free-college plan through Congress.

Meanwhile, I don't think any of these arrogant college presidents have lifted a finger to ease the student-debt crisis.  The status quo works just fine for them.

Macalester College: $54,000 in tuition and fees
(the bagpipe music is complimentary)