About 25 years ago, when my first child was a little kid, I predicted to a friend that by the time that boy was an adult, higher education in the United States would be in crisis—both financially and culturally. It was clear then that the rate of increase in costs implied a level of borrowing that the market could not sustain, even for students from middle- and higher-income families. Combined with various cultural factors, trends in education, and changes in the workforce, it seemed inevitable that we would soon have a generation of new graduates, carrying heavy debt burdens, looking at a market with radically shifting prospects, and wondering why they got degrees in the first place. (See McKinsey report.)
I mention all that by way of saying that while I endorse the spirit of the Biden administration’s intent to lower the cost of higher education, I am baffled by the Department of Education’s proposed rule change to a cost-saving program that appears to be working. Because one expense that has been trending downward over the last decade is the cost of course materials, thanks to an Obama-Biden administration initiative generally known as Inclusive Access or Affordable Access.
Today, more than 1,900 schools participate in access programs whereby Title IV funds (grants and loans) are used to pay for required course materials as part of a student’s tuition. This enables colleges and universities to bulk-buy digital versions of the materials and lower costs overall, and it enables students receiving financial aid to access the materials on day one rather than wait for funds to be processed a week or more after the start of the term.
Academic researcher Michael Moore, in a letter urging the department not to “gut” the program, writes that overall cost of materials has declined as much as 57%, and his research further shows both grade increases and higher rates of course completions across the student body since Inclusive Access was implemented in 2015. Not surprisingly, the increases in success rates are more dramatic among students likely to be at higher risk due to materials affordability.
But now, in what may be described as a scramble into the couch cushions to find savings, the Department of Education appears to be treating the inclusive access program as one of the “junk fees,” which the administration has promised to root out of rising costs in various sectors. The basis for the criticism is the opt-out model whereby the funds for course materials are automatically rolled into the cost of tuition, but switching to the opt-in approach proposed by the rule change could end the program altogether and drive materials prices back up for millions of students.
I do not have the specialized knowledge to comment on school procurement or to fully unpack the numbers, but if the research data generally indicate that the program is succeeding as intended, it is natural to wonder whether the Dept. of Ed’s rationale is well-founded. This is perhaps acutely concerning in light of the department’s ongoing FAFSA debacle. Seeking to make that process “easier,” the department has created what NBC News calls “a bureaucratic purgatory,” and so it seems more than fair to question the department’s thinking vis-a-vis Inclusive Access.
According to one committee memo that appears to sum up the department’s reasoning, the savings numbers are allegedly inflated by the publishers et al. because the lower cost of the digital materials is contrasted against the retail cost of new printed textbooks. Hence, the memo accuses the publishers, and parties like Barnes & Noble facilitating the program, of exaggerating the savings by “comparing apples to oranges.” But given the generalities presented, and lack of rigorous data cited, in the memo, it’s not clear that the department isn’t trying to compare apples to a whole fruit stand.
For instance, the memo alludes anecdotally to cost-saving strategies like buying used print books, sharing books, reselling books, etc., and on that basis, predicts that an opt-in approach would enable student’s more choices to spend even less on required materials. But even from a cursory glance, the department has not—indeed it probably could not—examine the question at the level of granularity that would be necessary to conclude that it needs to put the program at risk. For example, not only is the supply of used printed books limited, but the memo seems to imply without reason that those books are superior to the digital materials obtained through the access programs.
In fact, the digital course materials include features like interactive engagement between student and teacher that foster communication and performance tracking. (My books never did any of that, and we bitched about prices then, too.) On that topic, one report cited by the above-mentioned memo shows that about 50% of students currently spend between $100 and $300 per semester on textbooks. More compellingly, College Board reports that the average cost overall for required materials is just $310/year, which is no more (and may even be less) than we paid in 1984 when I started college, if we factor for inflation.
Naturally, students majoring in highly technical fields or getting advanced degrees are acquiring more costly materials, but even at the upper end of ~ $500 per semester, that’s about 3% of the average total cost for a year of college in the United States. It’s not nothing. But given that the primary purpose of college is to study and learn from the materials, it does not seem like 3% of the overall cost is wildly out of proportion. Moreover, government programs can never address every individual’s need, nor certainly satisfy every individual’s perception of costs. At best, most beneficiaries of a program will be in the median, and this rule of thumb appears to be borne out by the data on Inclusive Access. As such, the Dept. of Ed, in naively claiming it can accommodate all students could end up reversing the progress made for many students.
Finally, the copyright nerd in me wonders whether there are any whispers inside the department from the folks at organizations like SPARC, which promotes open educational resources (OER) as low-cost or free substitutes for materials from traditional publishers. Notably, the quality-control on OER materials is inconsistent and, therefore, risks lowering costs by lowering standards. I cannot say whether SPARC et al. are influencing the department’s thinking, but the lack of rigor in the argument for the rule change does resemble the kind of generalized talking points made by the free-culture, anti-copyright crowd.
We all know the adage you get what you pay for, and in fairness, this is not always true. In Biden’s State of the Union, he referred to food companies putting fewer “chips in the bag” for the same retail price, which I sincerely hope was meant as an example of a broader problem. Regardless, college course materials are not potato chips, mass produced for pennies a pound, and funding that supports the creation of high-quality course materials for America’s college students should not be characterized as “junk fees’”
Quality course materials must be written, edited, illustrated, produced, and (if digital) coded by professionals with expertise and skill. The cost of all that work is not zero, and the optimal price for these materials must be derived from analysis of data, not purely driven by anecdote and perception. For now, if the data all indicate that costs are trending down while student success is trending up, the Department of Education should be wary of rashly upending one initiative that happens to be working.
Photo by: Milkos
