Colleges and universities may have finally priced themselves out of the market. This fall, the average annual tuition for room, board, and other fees has soared toward a stratospheric $90,000 per year at Boston’s and the nation’s elite private institutions. We suddenly see a trend that would have been unthinkable as recently as a decade ago: Young Americans, with the support of their parents, are skipping a traditional college education, rather attending technical schools, or heading straight into the job market.
According to statistics recently released by the National Center for Education Statistics regarding the 2023 academic year, college attendance peaked in the 2010-2011 term and has trended steadily downward ever since. Opinions on the necessity of a college degree have also drastically shifted. In 2011, a Pew Research study on the worth of a college degree discovered that out of around 2,000 college students and graduates from across the country, 89% of respondents considered their degree worth the expense and effort. Now, Pew Research reports from 2024 indicate that only 22% of respondents consider their degrees worth the expense, while 47% responded their degrees would be worth the effort only if they had no student loans.
Focusing on New England, once prided for its plethora of elite and quality colleges and universities, these same institutions have lost the public’s trust. When Emerson College and The Boston Globe Magazine partnered on a survey of 6,000 adults in New England in August, they found that approximately 46% of respondents thought that a college degree is still worth the cost, while 44% did not. Similarly, 52% with college degrees regret their expensive educations and taking on their debts.
The heart of the problem, obviously, is the exorbitant expense. A cursory glance at the data suggests student loans and the resulting debt appear as a major concern of incoming college students and graduates. The situation has become particularly acute in the federal government’s student loan program, with 51% of all undergraduates obtaining federal loans, and constituting 92.8% of student debt. The Biden-Harris administration has remained strong on its goal of freezing and cancelling these federal debts, while the GOP and the Supreme Court have been making this process slow and arduous, concerned about the potential billions of public funds at stake.
More recently, the Biden administration is facing a lawsuit from seven Republican-led states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and Ohio — over a new plan to cancel up to $147 billion in federally-held student loans. The lawsuit claims this “mass cancellation” is an unlawful attempt to bypass previous court rulings that blocked student loan forgiveness efforts.
The lawsuit argues that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona is attempting to circumvent the judicial process by using a “cloak and dagger” approach through a proposed federal rulemaking process initiated in April. Under the proposed plan, up to $73 billion could be canceled virtually overnight, and $146.9 billion overall. The lawsuit also challenges the “Saving on a Valuable Education” (SAVE) Plan, which could cost up to $475 billion and has already been blocked by federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld rulings against Biden’s previous attempt to use the HEROES Act of 2003 to cancel $430 billion in student debt, deeming it unconstitutional.
Republican critics argue that Biden is using these forgiveness plans to “buy votes” for his party ahead of the 2024 election, particularly from young and educated voters. They contend that the administration lacks the legal authority for such actions. The Department of Education, however, maintains that it is following the law and is prepared to implement debt relief following the finalization of the proposed rules this fall.
While the new Biden-Harris debt-relief, “Plan B,” is being litigated, it remains important to take a step back and realize how the situation has gotten so dire: College administrators and marketing.
Despite student numbers decreasing, employment at colleges has remained consistent, with the number of employees peaking in 2004. Salaries for college presidents and board members, however, have increased substantially. In 2024, the president of Harvard made approximately $950k, the president of Boston University around $2 million, and the president of Northeastern University around $2.7 million. Simultaneously, board members at Harvard receive hourly compensation at 60% over the national average, on top of their lucrative private careers or inherited wealth.
It is common sense that board members and high-ranking college administrators would have a personal stake in their school’s ranking and reputation. However, when self-interest drives administrators’ decisions it can mean outrageous expenses for students. Northeastern University in particular has been championed for its 30-year plan to become “more selective, more expensive, and smaller,” as reported, to boost its reputation and national ranking. New student laboratories, state-of-the-art dormitories and recreation centers, mental health clinics, and online-flexible learning platforms are marketed to draw in future admissions, with the current students fronting the bill.
This situation has already taken hard effect on the landscape of college education in the United States. Economist Paul Weinstein, Jr., in an article in Forbes business journal, suggests that between 2025 and 2029, the number of undergraduates will drop by around 15%. Colleges across the country are already closing their doors, with 30 institutional closures recorded in 2023 and a few, such as Marymount Manhattan College, merging with wealthier institutions.
Eliminating administrative bloat is not as simple as merely firing board members and slashing payrolls. Academic leaders have been seriously co-opted, and most would be incapable of taking such a drastic step. Most college presidents come not from faculties but, rather, from administrative ranks. Boards of directors and trustees have little independent information about what is going on; they rely on memos and reports supplied to them by the college administrators and deans with vested interests.
The time is ripe for a donors to drastically cut back on funding this charade.
Harvey A. Silverglate is a lawyer and author