Small Colleges Can Save Towns in Middle America (2017)(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Small Colleges Can Save Towns in Middle America (2017)
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14/small-colleges-can-save-towns-in-middle-america
51 comments
San Luis Obispo is a good case. Really expensive. None of the graduates can really live here. Also, very gentrified. The mayor recently said that she didn't want to be mayor of a town that's all old white people. Not sure how that's not incredibly racist-- but you get the point.
It's not racist to not want to drive away non-white and young people.
That's also not what they mayor said. You could interpret it charitably, but normally you have to take what public figures say and subtract some charity, because they are incentivized to hide what they're really thinking to avoid arousing opposition. After all, politicians are the ones that the phrase "being political about it" came from - their profession is to make everything they say as unobjectionable as possible while still indicating their position to their supporters.
I imagine no one would be offended had it been couched in different terms as desiring a more diverse and vibrant community with more of a future.
Agism or not, it's generally true that small towns with a lot of old people are typically towns in their death throes and white enclaves are typically practicing some form of racial exclusion.
Agism or not, it's generally true that small towns with a lot of old people are typically towns in their death throes and white enclaves are typically practicing some form of racial exclusion.
She shouldn't have to specify "I don't want to be the mayor of a town that's all any race" because the only race that has any chance of dominating her town is non-hispanic white.
Similarly, it's not heterophobic to say "I don't want to work someplace where they don't hire gay people".
Similarly, it's not heterophobic to say "I don't want to work someplace where they don't hire gay people".
It’s hardly racist to express personal preference.
It’s also not the same as saying “I don’t want any old white people in this town”.
It’s also not the same as saying “I don’t want any old white people in this town”.
I think most people would consider it racist if someone said that they don't want to be mayor of a town that's all old black people. If race determines whether or not you would like to govern a particular area, I think that is racist. Unless they were only worried about the age part, rather than the race part, in which case I guess it makes some sense.
> It’s hardly racist to express personal preference.
I mean, it's a racist personal preference. Caring about whether the expression of it is racist seems besides the point?
I mean, it's a racist personal preference. Caring about whether the expression of it is racist seems besides the point?
I am probably being too pedantic here, as it is certainly unethical to state that publicly as a mayor. I only mean to convey there’s no such thing as an unethical thought, only unethical actions.
Among other things, it is certainly socially acceptable to date or socialize mostly with people inside your own race, and I don’t know of many people who would hold this behavior to be racist.
EDITS: wording, clarity. Apologies.
Among other things, it is certainly socially acceptable to date or socialize mostly with people inside your own race, and I don’t know of many people who would hold this behavior to be racist.
EDITS: wording, clarity. Apologies.
>there’s no such thing as an unethical thought, only unethical actions
Gladly throwing myself in the pedantry to avoid the real discussion, the only reason we listen to other people at all is that their words are related to their thoughts and their actions. So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible, which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.
Gladly throwing myself in the pedantry to avoid the real discussion, the only reason we listen to other people at all is that their words are related to their thoughts and their actions. So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible, which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.
You’re right. If they had said something slightly different, I would be mad. It certainly isn’t behavior to condone. In a political context, it probably is racist.
That said, I still do not think I would call it racism. Most of us prefer to be around people our own age when given the opportunity—for shared culture, lifestyles, etc. Is that ageist? I really don’t think that bigotry really applies here. It’s much more useful to apply solely to actions, which are easier to reason about. Discriminatory personal preference can certainly be harmful, but it seems like a distinct social phenomenon to bigotry.
More pedantry...
> So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible
No, the reason would be fear that they would act on their thoughts, or because their speech did affect people, not that their thoughts are themselves immoral.
That said, I still do not think I would call it racism. Most of us prefer to be around people our own age when given the opportunity—for shared culture, lifestyles, etc. Is that ageist? I really don’t think that bigotry really applies here. It’s much more useful to apply solely to actions, which are easier to reason about. Discriminatory personal preference can certainly be harmful, but it seems like a distinct social phenomenon to bigotry.
More pedantry...
> So, the reason you'd admonish someone for saying something horrible is that they indicated they were thinking something horrible
No, the reason would be fear that they would act on their thoughts, or because their speech did affect people, not that their thoughts are themselves immoral.
Archie Bunker has a lot of leeway in his social life and armchair social theorizing, but that's mainly because it has little chance of impacting anything (although there are some who would debate that on the grounds that your social life can support your professional life). In this thread, people are upset because it was said to have come from a person who was in power, someone who might be able to realize an unsavory ideal they were harboring.
Edit: To complete the pedantry, note that the end of my sentence brings it in line with the content your objection to the start of the sentence: >which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.
Edit: To complete the pedantry, note that the end of my sentence brings it in line with the content your objection to the start of the sentence: >which gains status as horrible because it congruent with a mind that would do something horrible.
Punching up vs. punching down. Still a pretty mean thing to think or say.
The mayor recently said that she didn't want to be mayor of a town that's all old white people. Not sure how that's not incredibly racist
Perhaps the assertion of racism isn't quite true, because to be really complete, you'd have to add ageism.
Perhaps the assertion of racism isn't quite true, because to be really complete, you'd have to add ageism.
Also, the economy in college towns is very seasonal, plus if they are located in geographies with harsh weather, retail businesses are going to see a lot of peaks and troughs in foot traffic. Not all businesses are equipped to handle this type of fluctuation. Inventory forecasting becomes really hard, and business risks are increased.
Restaurants that serve cheap-eats (e.g. Chinese restaurants) tend to be ok since they have low overheads and are designed to handle peaking volumes easily (stir fries are easy, and most are family owned). But shoe, book retailers etc. will suffer in the summer when school's out, and in the winter when nobody's out and about.
Restaurants that serve cheap-eats (e.g. Chinese restaurants) tend to be ok since they have low overheads and are designed to handle peaking volumes easily (stir fries are easy, and most are family owned). But shoe, book retailers etc. will suffer in the summer when school's out, and in the winter when nobody's out and about.
Of course it can't scale. Traditional universities by definition are expensive. People like to think of education as being a quality problem but the real issue is education is too expensive for most. We are better off with lower quality education that is affordable by all.
I mean, not everywhere. Minnesota has plenty of small colleges and housing near by can be very cheap.
Currently in Pittsburgh, PA and I'm seeing this happen on the daily.
I was born in Pittsburgh. Are you saying it's becoming a gentrified college themepark surrounded by hovels?
Sorry, to clarify... The article implies that a town of 7000 was better off because it had an additional 3000 residents, this is entirely unsustainable and for a small town in middle america to "be saved" a bunch of other failing small towns would need to continue to feed that one working small town. In the long view those other small towns would slowly evaporate into the town with the college (turning it into not-a-small-town) or would evaporate into an existing urban center, and the article specifically notes that the college is notable only to locals, so we can assume (possibly wrongly, I admit) that the majority of the student base isn't composed of people moving from cities for a rural education (which is the only sort of scenario I'd see this working in and actually does work in a number of small towns in new england that are essentially propped up by money flowing in via the university)
I wonder if the student loan/debt bubble will hit these towns hard (if it turns out to be a bubble). Spending on higher education seems like its gains are unsustainable.
It is unsustainable. US higher education costs have risen faster than health care. The fraction of graduates who are behind or deferring their student loan payments has been rising. Queue Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!
Students and their parents need to have some difficult conversations: 1) How well prepared is the student for a given major? Remedial classes add cost but not credits toward the degree. 2) Does the student have a track record of finishing what they start? 3) Will the starting salary for graduates with that degree permit the student to pay their living expenses and their loan debt? 4) Are the time-to-finish estimates realistic? IIRC, the majority of students in 4 year programs actually take 5-6 years.
Students and their parents need to have some difficult conversations: 1) How well prepared is the student for a given major? Remedial classes add cost but not credits toward the degree. 2) Does the student have a track record of finishing what they start? 3) Will the starting salary for graduates with that degree permit the student to pay their living expenses and their loan debt? 4) Are the time-to-finish estimates realistic? IIRC, the majority of students in 4 year programs actually take 5-6 years.
*cue ?
I grew up in one of these towns in the Midwest, and this is exactly what I fear for its future. The college tuition costs nearly as much as Harvard but the educational value is worse than that of a public university in many ways.
Valid counter to the article's premise, and leads me to a dumb question: why haven't more colleges attempted to cut costs in recent years, as tuitions and student debt continue to spiral?
Because there’s no incentive to.
First, the market clearly does not reward cheap education. A lot of prospective students and their parents are enamored with pricey colleges either for the status or for the perceived value. This is probably a result of cultural expectations lagging behind actual reality by a few decades.
Second, all the intermediary parties have no incentives to control cost. Student debt cannot be discharged under bankruptcy, so why would the lenders ever say no to any debt? They don’t care that the college is overpriced by a factor of 10 and the student will never pay off their debt fully, they’ll still pay 6-11% interest for the rest of their lives, which is highly lucrative for the lender.
First, the market clearly does not reward cheap education. A lot of prospective students and their parents are enamored with pricey colleges either for the status or for the perceived value. This is probably a result of cultural expectations lagging behind actual reality by a few decades.
Second, all the intermediary parties have no incentives to control cost. Student debt cannot be discharged under bankruptcy, so why would the lenders ever say no to any debt? They don’t care that the college is overpriced by a factor of 10 and the student will never pay off their debt fully, they’ll still pay 6-11% interest for the rest of their lives, which is highly lucrative for the lender.
Because the cost reduction attempts are likely to reduce the paychecks of those in a position to make such decisions.
Count me skeptical. The two industries that a smalltown college supports are landlording and beer bars. Neither offer skilled employment for the townsfolk, and there's an incentive for the local politicians to be "business-friendly", i.e. anti-student and pro-landowner. Not a good combination, especially if the landowner lives out of town.
If you live in most college towns you should know it goes beyond that.
A dumb example would be a video game store. College kids have a lot of time and unlike most old people might want to pick up some games. Sure, there’s Amazon but second hand stuff is cheaper.
On a different level, you have stuff like auto repair shops, grocery stores, even gas stations that get benefits from a student population in an area. We all gotta eat after all. Stuff like parks can get use as well
And if even 1% stay and start a business in the area afterwards that’s still something that likely wouldn’t exist otherwise because people tend to start businesses wherever they are.
There is a bit of a risk of simply feeding the students into the nearest large city but even then you’re looking at 4 years of student loan money spent on various consumables in the area.
The biggest worry is indeed for real estate pricing.... which is why it seems very reasonable to force schools to build appropriate housing for their students instead of just relying on local stock.
A dumb example would be a video game store. College kids have a lot of time and unlike most old people might want to pick up some games. Sure, there’s Amazon but second hand stuff is cheaper.
On a different level, you have stuff like auto repair shops, grocery stores, even gas stations that get benefits from a student population in an area. We all gotta eat after all. Stuff like parks can get use as well
And if even 1% stay and start a business in the area afterwards that’s still something that likely wouldn’t exist otherwise because people tend to start businesses wherever they are.
There is a bit of a risk of simply feeding the students into the nearest large city but even then you’re looking at 4 years of student loan money spent on various consumables in the area.
The biggest worry is indeed for real estate pricing.... which is why it seems very reasonable to force schools to build appropriate housing for their students instead of just relying on local stock.
There's gonna be more educational staff than bartenders. By a fair bit.
A good number of faculty at smalltown private colleges are adjuncts, with a salary of USD 600 per month and course, or thereabouts. They aren't going to spread the wealth. New faculty are often hired at non-tenure-track level, with a salary around 40-50 kUSD.
Higher education is in crisis. The State University of New York is talking layoffs. They are reasonably sound, if they feel the stress, what is it like at the Catholic College of Our Lady of the High Desert in northeastern New Mexico?
Many small colleges are going to go down in the next 5 - 10 years, and good riddance. They aren't providing a better education than the state school nearby, and they are more expensive. What's the point of Paine College when you can attend Augusta State University for less?
Higher education is in crisis. The State University of New York is talking layoffs. They are reasonably sound, if they feel the stress, what is it like at the Catholic College of Our Lady of the High Desert in northeastern New Mexico?
Many small colleges are going to go down in the next 5 - 10 years, and good riddance. They aren't providing a better education than the state school nearby, and they are more expensive. What's the point of Paine College when you can attend Augusta State University for less?
It certainly does work for the reservations that have community colleges. People forget the colleges aren't just students, teachers, and buildings. It does drive jobs, but they also provide a focal point for programs, grant funding, social services, and events that would otherwise not visit the community. Most of the community colleges on reservations are also vocational schools. This combination of activities has a positive effect on a community as a whole.
Small to mid-size college towns are among the best places to live in the US, and there are a lot of them to choose from coast to coast.
They have an economic base - and often tax support - that keeps them from eroding as other small towns without colleges tend to. Their infrastructure tends to be reasonably maintained, whereas most non-college towns always struggle to upkeep even basic infrastructure. Crime and murder rates are typically between very low and moderate (and almost universally below what you see in large cities). Housing is extremely affordable. Connectivity is usually solid, another perk of the town having more resources and consistent economic activity.
Pikeville, KY is too small imo at just 7,000 people, however you can find a lot of other college towns / cities at more like 15,000 to 30,000 that have better lifestyle amenities.
They have an economic base - and often tax support - that keeps them from eroding as other small towns without colleges tend to. Their infrastructure tends to be reasonably maintained, whereas most non-college towns always struggle to upkeep even basic infrastructure. Crime and murder rates are typically between very low and moderate (and almost universally below what you see in large cities). Housing is extremely affordable. Connectivity is usually solid, another perk of the town having more resources and consistent economic activity.
Pikeville, KY is too small imo at just 7,000 people, however you can find a lot of other college towns / cities at more like 15,000 to 30,000 that have better lifestyle amenities.
> Housing is extremely affordable.
Is there data for this? I spent a good chunk of my life in a mid-sized college town in the south, and last I checked the average home values there are eclipsing $400K.
Just some data points, pulling median home values in some college towns across the US off the top of my head:
Davis, CA: $641,500
Charlottesville, VA: $412,700
Chapel Hill, NC: $449,980
State College, PA: $316,600
Williamsburg, VA: $303,400
Berkeley, CA: $1,281,900
Wellesley, MA: $1,267,600
Davidson, NC: $360,000
Ann Arbor, MI: $360,300
Some of these aren't too bad, but I don't think they fall into the category of extremely affordable. Professors and doctors and all the folks associated with Colleges and Universities make enough money to drive up home prices!
Is there data for this? I spent a good chunk of my life in a mid-sized college town in the south, and last I checked the average home values there are eclipsing $400K.
Just some data points, pulling median home values in some college towns across the US off the top of my head:
Davis, CA: $641,500
Charlottesville, VA: $412,700
Chapel Hill, NC: $449,980
State College, PA: $316,600
Williamsburg, VA: $303,400
Berkeley, CA: $1,281,900
Wellesley, MA: $1,267,600
Davidson, NC: $360,000
Ann Arbor, MI: $360,300
Some of these aren't too bad, but I don't think they fall into the category of extremely affordable. Professors and doctors and all the folks associated with Colleges and Universities make enough money to drive up home prices!
Among all the middle sized cities you could choose, you included Berkeley? One of the most expensive cities in the whole US. Since Berkeley is a college town, most people (i.e. students) are ok living in very, very shitty conditions. When I lived in Berkeley as a student my rent was something like $700 plus utilities and I was sharing a tiny house with 5 other people and my room was a triple. Living comfortably (i.e. single with acceptable personal space) costs you >$1300. I'm living in Boston currently and my rent is $900 for a large single. Am I crazy to guess that Berkeley housing market is even more expensive than Boston? There are definitely better places to live in US than Berkeley, ime most people who live there are either students or engineers working in the Valley making 6 figures. So imho GP comment can still be right if you exclude edge cases.
Amusing, in Burlington VT the housing costs have risen to the point where professors can't afford to live in Burlington, it's all the student money that drives things up, this is due in a large part to the fact that most students only dorm 2 years of their degree and senior year housing isn't actually guaranteed by the university, it's a lottery of whatever units are left over after allocating the more junior years.
Boston actually has a similar issue with students inflating housing, but it's diffused over a much larger population so it's less directly impactful. I think a large part of this is that since, as a parent, you're mortgaging your house to send your child to university anyways a few extra thousand for a nice apartment for them isn't too bad.
Boston actually has a similar issue with students inflating housing, but it's diffused over a much larger population so it's less directly impactful. I think a large part of this is that since, as a parent, you're mortgaging your house to send your child to university anyways a few extra thousand for a nice apartment for them isn't too bad.
About half (the expensive ones) of those listed are suburbs or exurbs of major cities, not really what the article is talking about, and they are all pretty large.
It’s probably fair to say that university towns see prices go up relative to their surrounding towns, but fundamentally almost any piece of real estate in rural Kansas is cheaper than coastal California.
It’s probably fair to say that university towns see prices go up relative to their surrounding towns, but fundamentally almost any piece of real estate in rural Kansas is cheaper than coastal California.
I’ve lived in two “college towns,” one with 2 small liberal arts colleges an a community college; and the other with an R1 university, a small liberal arts college, and a community college. All of the liberal arts colleges are private and expensive. Both towns were and are shitholes. The only source of culture, and the main source of jobs in both cases was the schools. That doesn’t work well for people past college age.
Granted, this is merely anecdata, but I think it’s at least enough to challenge you to present actual data.
Granted, this is merely anecdata, but I think it’s at least enough to challenge you to present actual data.
Sort of, but if you live in one of these towns and something expensive that the university can opt out of is wrong then the city can end up subsidizing the university as the local populace is held hostage by monied interests. Assume that the city water quality is poor and there are 5k students and 7k residents, if the residents can be sated safely off of wells but to support 12k people the city would need a desalination plant then will the university shoulder that full cost? What portion should they be on the hook for?
It's a complicated question but in today's world likely the answer is that the university will threaten to remove all their tax paying and the city will shoulder the burden entirely themselves.
It's a complicated question but in today's world likely the answer is that the university will threaten to remove all their tax paying and the city will shoulder the burden entirely themselves.
Factories do this all the time. The paper companies are all lining up for state subsidies in Wisconsin.
How often have you known a (non-diploma mill) college or university to just pick up and move? Or, how else would they “remove all their tax paying “?
For middle america I'm a bit out of my depth here, but on the east coast a lot of universities pay taxes voluntarily so they can just cease paying taxes altogether, it's pretty terrible and much of their payments end up being less obligations and more good will expressions... https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/18/city-asks-for-p...
Land-grant colleges on the east coast tend to be a bit of a raw deal for their communities, since they don't pay taxes and require additional services and policing.
UNH is particularly bad.
UNH is particularly bad.
Honestly, I don’t know if anything can save little towns, at least most of them.
At this point it’s a question of which 5% of towns will consume the population of the remainder of their peers.
At this point it’s a question of which 5% of towns will consume the population of the remainder of their peers.
The overall economics of small mid-tier universities is getting drastically worse--a few exceptions notwithstanding.
I expect a lot more closures and consolidations as tuition competition increases and students become more hesitant to take on debt.
I expect a lot more closures and consolidations as tuition competition increases and students become more hesitant to take on debt.
I think it is more unsustainable to build infrastructure for small towns sized 7000.
We should want more consolidation so as to spend less on infrastructure creation and maintenance. 7000 is too small.
We should want more consolidation so as to spend less on infrastructure creation and maintenance. 7000 is too small.
Lexington Kentucky could be a good example of this, though I dont know if UK would be considered small.
At 30,000 students, UK is definitely not small.
Also, it’s a land grant university. Those are big, old, and typically have great endowments.
Also, it’s a land grant university. Those are big, old, and typically have great endowments.
That will work out great when the middle tier of colleges implodes.
And besides, the towns that do get/have these institutions become gentrified and all of the the original residents get pushed to nearby small towns by professionals from more affluent regions.
In the end you end up with an upscale, expensive small town and surrounding depressed blue collar towns.
Source: I’m from a small town with a university.