It’d Be One Thing if They Offered Four Times the Quality

Posted on by Justin Hauke

“Public, four-year colleges (possibly because of the restraints of taxpayer financing or larger student bodies) have not made the same effort to reduce the financial burden of higher education for low- to middle-income families.”

I don’t know what planet my colleague is from, but if he honestly thinks that public university tuition isn’t heavily subsidized by taxpayers already then he has spent way too many years in the ivory halls of Washington University.

A college education is just about the safest investment one can make. It essentially guarantees that you’ll recoup your initial costs through higher lifetime earnings.

Nick’s argument would be equivalent to claiming that Fannie Mae hasn’t done enough for middle-class home owners because it hasn’t "given away homes for free."

A Freer Free Ride

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

Maybe it’s because a wintry mix has shut down every major St. Louis roadway, or maybe it’s because I’m still disappointed by a scholarship offer from a legal institution I’m going to elect not to identify, but yesterday seemed like the single biggest day of collegiate financial news in years, and it would be remiss of me not to comment.

We start, as all things should, with the alma mater: Washington University announced yesterday that it would be eliminating loan programs for students whose families annually earn less than $60,000. Financial aid for these students will instead come in the form of University-sponsored grants that will not have to be repaid.

However, this news was upstaged later in the day as the little junior college that could, Stanford University, announced that it would eliminate tuition entirely for all students whose families earned less than $100,000 a year (students would, however, still have to contribute on their own behalf through work-study programs).

Both of these programs are designed to ease the financial burden of a top-tier education so that such an education is accessible for all those who desire it and have proved themselves worthy. While tuition breaks and loan forgiveness may not reach the benefit of Yale’s financial aid extension to undergraduates whose families make up to $200,000 annually, they do make college considerably more affordable to the middle and lower classes of American society. However, one glaring truth comes to light when I look at these programs from an objective standpoint: All of these universities are private and exorbitantly wealthy (Wash U’s endowment is $4.4 billion, Stanford’s is $12.4 billion, and Yale’s hovers around $15 billion).

So why can’t public universities compete?

Public, four-year colleges (possibly because of the restraints of taxpayer financing or larger student bodies) have not made the same effort to reduce the financial burden of higher education for low- to middle-income families. Granted, resident tuition at the University of Missouri is a quarter of that at Wash U, but that doesn’t mean that Mizzou isn’t competing to attract the same bright students in every round of the admissions process. Why can’t state educational institutions, which don’t exactly have measly endowments themselves (MU’s stands at $511 million), offer breaks on loans?

The immediate answer seems to be that the money just isn’t there when taxpayers are involved, but I’m not entirely sure I believe that. Even if public universities simply replaced loans with grants, as Wash U did, there is significant research to suggest that such an investment in human capital eventually yields higher returns for the state economy itself. After all, both loans and grants eventually have to get paid back somehow, and students with "scholarships" have been shown to be more likely to complete degrees and contribute to boosting the economy of the states where their universities were located.

If nothing else, there is a hope that the competition of the free market could help advance this claim. The sooner that state institutions realize they are losing elite middle- and lower-class students to private universities, the sooner they will adapt their financial aid packages to extend offers that turn out better for all those involved.

Competitive Begging

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

Every major city that has any problem with homelessness (which, I think, is all of them) realizes that steps must be taken to curb the burden of panhandlers. However, as reported through the Post-Dispatch this morning, St. Louis government officials are taking an unusual approach to correcting the problem in the city’s Central West End.

The St. Louis Treasurer and "parking czar" has donated a decommissioned and refurbished parking meter to the area in an effort to reduce begging. The idea is that rather than give change to the homeless, visitors to one of the fine establishments surrounding the intersection of Maryland and Euclid will drop their change into a meter (if for no other reason to remind themselves that they just waited 35 minutes to find a meter they were required to throw change into).

The funds are intended to help aid homeless service agencies, but more importantly, the presence of the meter will "discourage panhandling by providing some competition for change, while
at the same time giving folks on [sic] alternative route for their altruism."

Really? Competition is going to make beggars go away? I’m aware of the fact that the meter will be an alternative target for quarters, but I really hope no one at city hall thinks that its presence will reduce panhandling. As a matter of fact, if I were a beggar, I’d be even more obnoxious because I’d know if I didn’t annoy you enough, you’d give those coins to an inanimate object. Better yet, I’d do it while standing right next to the meter, so that any joy you get from giving is canceled out by the guilt of not giving to me.

I can see it now: an anti-panhandling meter surrounded by 15 panhandlers. Great idea.

Make Way for Segways

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Look at these people wreaking havoc in Forest Park with their Segways:

The aldermen would probably be concerned, but I think the Segway riders are just having a good time. You can see that the pedestrian is unharmed.

And over at Urban Review St. Louis, there’s a discussion of the proposed license. In the comments people link to statistics about Segways’ impact on the environment. It turns out they’re much more fuel-efficient than lots of other vehicles people drive around.

Coors-Miller HQ: Kansas City?

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Maybe I’m a little late in getting this out, but last week the Miller-Coors merger talks focused on a neutral headquarters for the new conglomerate as the company hopes to take on St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch, which controls just under half of the domestic beer market.

Perhaps Blog KC says it best when they comment that “such a move would give Missouri a monopoly on sh[!#$@] yellow beer.”

Not to mention one more thing to fight about.

A Tale of Two Subways

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

Sunday’s Post-Dispatch featured an article reporting that Metro, with the aid of its newly contracted security firm The Wackenhut Corp., will be increasing security on St. Louis’ MetroLink light-rail system. The expanded security force will not just be manpower-based, though, because Wackenhut plans to arm 80 percent of its security personnel in order to better protect the recent influx of riders the Highway 40 shutdown has brought to the 37-station system.

Although MetroLink has had a better security record than other similar transit systems around the country, trains do pass through areas where crime has been a problem, and a number of incidents have been reported since the line expanded in 2006. Metro’s response to the security concerns of citizens could be seen as a reaction to the crime concerns that were first mentioned by Randal O’Toole (and then  were later grossly overexamined by members of the news media).

Without a doubt, a larger and better-armed security force will make riders feel safer, but will this feeling of security be worth $13.1 million in taxpayer money?

On a lighter note, the New York Times has a fun piece up on the unexpectedly correct use of the semicolon in recent subway advertisements. The grammarian in me couldn’t help but share and silently wish that I had a mastery of that most elusive part of punctuation.

Is 800 Years Old Enough?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Class Notes links to a post by Kevin Horner about the math wars in Columbia Public Schools. He includes a YouTube video that criticizes Everyday Math for, among other things, teaching the lattice multiplication method. Horner writes:

The methodologies of traditional mathematics remain the most efficient algorithms for solving mathematical problems. Advanced math and science are based on these very methods.

This is a great example of why we shouldn’t just say "No new math." Horner is assuming that the way he learned to multiply is the "traditional" and "most efficient" way. But as you can learn from a little research on Wikipedia, lattice multiplication has been around since 1202. It’s hard to be more traditional than that. Furthermore, lattice multiplication is algorithmically equivalent to long multiplication. That’s a mathy way of saying that you’re doing exactly the same thing and you’ll get exactly the same answer. Lattice multiplication is not a less efficient algorithm than long multiplication; it’s the same algorithm, written out in a way that looks different. (And in a way that might be easier to understand for some students.)

So if a method that was invented around the year 1200 is too new, how are kids supposed to learn math? With only the most ancient Chinese abacuses?

Parents should be able to choose new math — even if just for the simple reason that we can’t agree on which kinds of math are really "new."

Should St. Charles Councilmembers Get a Pay Raise?

Posted on by David Stokes

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Saint Charles County Council is considering giving itself a pay raise. Now, those of you expecting or hoping for some populist diatribe against those damn politicians will be sorely disappointed, but I doubt many people fitting that description read this blog. (Point in fact: Nobody reads this blog.) For the sake of comparison, here is the chart copied from the article:

Proposed new pay for St. Charles County Council — $14,375

CURRENT AREA SALARIES:

St. Louis County Council $20,000 or $12,500*

St. Peters aldermen $14,525

St. Charles County Council $12,500

St. Charles City Council $10,200

O’Fallon City Council $7,600

Wentzville aldermen $5,500

Lake Saint Louis aldermen $5,500 or $2,400*

* Amount depends on when term began.

Two additions: St. Louis city aldermen, of which there are a lot (28), make a little more than $30,000 a year. Jackson County (aka, Kansas City area) councilmembers have a neat little trick, in that they earn 24 percent of whatever circuit judges earn, so in order to find out their salary you have to look up what judges make — which I don’t feel like doing. Circuit judges probably make right around $100,000, so for the sake of argument Jackson County councilmembers probably make around $24,000. Please remember that these are all part-time positions.

For the positions above that have two salaries listed, it is because pay raises can’t go into effect during one’s current term. So, for example, on the St. Louis County Council, which raised its own salary in 2005, you have people who joined the council in 2007 (Colleen Wasinger and Barbara Fraser) making a higher salary than people who have been on the council since 2001 (John Campisi and Michael O’Mara). That’s not a criticism of the law. I’m just pointing out how it works.

I don’t think any of the county council salaries discussed here are too high, nor is the proposed St. Charles raise inappropriate. I do think Saint Louis city pays too much, on the whole, for its Board of Aldermen salaries, but I would recommend lowering the number of aldermen rather than cutting their salaries. If salaries are too low, you limit the number of people who can consider serving — even among the already limited number of people interested in public service. Those who can serve for little or no money are limited to the retired, the independently wealthy, those whose spouses are the main breadwinners (no jokes, please), and those whose jobs work seamlessly into the position (such as a union business agent). You have to pay enough that it is worth the time for the majority of people to be able to do the job if they so choose — or, more exactly, if the voters so choose.

You also have to be careful not to pay too much. This is taxpayer money, after all, and these jobs are defined as part-time. With too high of a salary, you also get people interested in the position whose main goal — how do I put this nicely? — may not be public service. I will refrain from listing any examples of this for fear of a lawsuit … which assumes that someone is still reading this post. Over and out.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging