Contemporary Authors

• Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities - 2017 Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
• The Fabulous Future?: America and the World in 2040 - 2015 Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL
• College Success: What It Means and How to Make It Happen. - 2008 College Board, New York, NY
• College Access: Opportunity or Privilege? - 2006 College Board, New York, NY
• The Student Aid Game - 1998 Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
• Paying the Piper: Productivity, Incentives, and Financing in U.S. Higher Education. - 1994 University of Michigan Press., Ann Arbor, MI
• Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity - 1991 Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
• Selective Admission and the Public Interest - 1990 College Board, New York, NY
• Filling Up America: An Economic-Demographic Model of Population Growth and Distribution in the 19th Century U.S. - 1986 JAI Press, Greenwich, CT

• Amazon -

  Morton Schapiro is the president of Northwestern University and a professor of economics. His many books include The Student Aid Game (Princeton). Morson and Schapiro are also the editors of The Fabulous Future?: America and the World in 2040.

• National Academy of Education Website - https://naeducation.org/morton-schapiro/

  Morton Schapiro began his term as the 16th president of Northwestern University on September 1, 2009. He is a Professor of Economics in Northwestern’s Judd A. and Marjorie Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and also holds appointments in Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and School of Education and Social Policy. He is among the nation’s leading authorities on the economics of higher education, with particular expertise in the area of college financing and affordability and on trends in educational costs and student aid. In 2010 he was elected as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. President Schapiro previously was president of Williams College from 2000 to 2009. Earlier he had served as a member of the Williams College faculty from 1980 to 1991, as Professor of Economics and as Assistant Provost. In 1991 he went to the University of Southern California where he served as Chair of the Department of Economics until 1994 and then as Dean of the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences until 2000. During his last two years as Dean, he also served as the University’s Vice President for Planning. He has written or co-authored more than 100 articles and nine books. These include: (with Michael McPherson) The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education (Princeton University Press 1998); and Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity (Brookings 1991). His newest book is Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn From the Humanities (with Gary Saul Morson, Princeton University Press 2017).

• Northwestern University Website - http://www.northwestern.edu/

  Biography

  Morton Schapiro began his term as the 16th president of Northwestern University on September 1, 2009. He is a professor of economics in Northwestern’s Judd A. and Marjorie Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and also holds appointments in the J. L. Kellogg School of Management and the School of Education and Social Policy.
  President Schapiro is among the nation’s leading authorities on the economics of higher education, with particular exper­tise in the area of college financing and affordability and on trends in educational costs and student aid. He has testified before US Senate and House committees on economic and educational issues and is widely quoted in the national media on those issues.
  Previously President Schapiro was president of Williams College from 2000 to 2009. Earlier he had served as a member of the Williams College faculty from 1980 to 1991 as professor of economics and assistant provost. In 1991 he went to the University of Southern California, where he served as chair of the Department of Economics until 1994 and then as dean of the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences until 2000. During his last two years as dean, he also served as the university’s vice president for planning.
  President Schapiro has written more than 100 articles and written or edited nine books. The books include: Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities (with Gary Saul Morson, Princeton University Press 2017); The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education (with Michael McPherson, Princeton University Press 1998); Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity (with Michael McPherson, Brookings Institution 1991); plus an edited volume: The Fabulous Future? America and the World in 2040 (with Gary Saul Morson, Northwestern University Press 2015).
  He has received research grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Education, the World Bank, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the College Board, the Organization for Economic Coopera­tion and Development, and other groups to study the economics of higher education and related topics. In 2010 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in 2017 he was elected to the National Academy of Education.
  He received his bachelor’s degree in economics from Hofstra University and his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania.
  President Schapiro and his wife Mimi have three children: Matt, Alissa and Rachel.

  Awards and Honors
  President Schapiro has received the following awards for his contributions to higher education:
  Member, National Academy of Education, Elected 2017
  2015 Posse Star: presented to a college president who has made a significant impact in the field of education (Posse Foundation)
  2015 Student Affairs Professionals in Higher Education (NASPA) President’s Award: presented to a college President who has, over a sustained period, advanced the quality of student life on campus by supporting the institution’s student affairs staff and initiatives
  Doctor of Laws, Honoris Causa, University of Notre Dame, 2013
  Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoris Causa, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, 2013
  Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Elected 2010
  Honorary Fellow, Exeter College, Oxford, 2009
  Doctor of Laws, Honoris Causa, Wesleyan University, 2008
  Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoris Causa, Hofstra University, 2006
  Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoris Causa, Amherst College, 2001
  Doctor of Laws, Honoris Causa, Williams College, 2000
  Recipient of the Association of Trojan Leagues Outstanding Service Award, University of Southern California, 2000
  Recipient of the Award for Alumni Achievement, Hofstra University, 1999
  Recipient of the Robert P. Huff Golden Quill Award, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, 1999
  Doctor of Humane Letters, Honoris Causa, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, 1997
  Recipient of the Albert S. Raubenheimer Senior Faculty Award for Excellence in Teaching, Research and Service, University of Southern California, 1994
  Recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award, University of Pennsylvania, 1978

  Morton Schapiro
  Professor and President, Northwestern University

  PhD, Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 1979
  Department Page
  Biography
  President of Northwestern University, economist Morton Schapiro is one of the nation's foremost experts on the economics of higher education, with a particular focus on college financing and affordability. He has published more than 100 articles in academic journals such as the American Economic Review, Science, and Demography. He is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
  Schapiro has also written five books and edited two others, including College Success: What It Means and How to Make it Happen (College Board, 2008). Co-edited with his longtime co-author and Spencer Foundation President Michael McPherson, this volume examines the issue of how to define and measure college success from various perspectives, including those of students, faculty, and the college itself.
  Schapiro was president of Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., one of the country’s leading liberal arts colleges, from 2000 until coming to Northwestern in fall 2009. At Williams, he also previously held positions as a professor of economics and assistant provost from 1980 to 1991. In 1991, he moved to the University of Southern California as a professor and later became dean of the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. During his last two years there, he also served as USC’s vice president for planning.
  Schapiro’s research has received support from the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education, World Bank, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Spencer Foundation, College Board, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and other organizations and foundations.
  Selected Publications
  Books
  Morson, G. S., and M. Schapiro, eds. Cents and Sensibility: What Economists Can Learn from the Humanities. Princeton University Press (2017).
  Morson, G. S., and M. Schapiro, eds. The Fabulous Future?: America and the World in 2040. Northwestern University Press (2015).
  McPherson, M., and M. Schapiro, eds. College Success: What It Means and How to Make It Happen. College Board (2008).
  McPherson, M., and M. Schapiro, eds. College Access: Opportunity or Privilege? College Board (2006).
  McPherson, M., and M. Schapiro. The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education. Princeton University Press (1998).
  McPherson, M., M. Schapiro, and G. Winston. Paying the Piper: Productivity, Incentives, and Financing in U.S. Higher Education. University of Michigan Press (1993).
  McPherson, M., and M. Schapiro. Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity. The Brookings Institution (1991).
  McPherson, M., and M. Schapiro. Selective Admission and the Public Interest. College Board (1990).
  Schapiro, M. Filling Up America: An Economic-Demographic Model of Population Growth and Distribution in the 19th-Century United States. JAI Press (1986).
  Journal Articles and Chapters
  Nurnberg, P., M. Schapiro, and D. Zimmerman. 2012. Students choosing colleges: Understanding the matriculation decision at a highly selective private institution. Economics of Education Review 31(1): 1–8.
  Schapiro, M., with M. McPherson. 2007. Assessment and accountability in higher education. Forum Futures 23–26.
  Schapiro, M., with M. McPherson. 2003. Funding roller coaster for public higher education. Science 302(5648): 1157.
  Schapiro, M., with M. McPherson. 2002. Changing patterns of institutional aid: Impact on access and educational policy. 2002. In Condition of Access: Higher Education for Lower Income Students, ed. D. Heller, 73–94. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.
  Behrman, J. R., L. Kletzer, M. McPherson, and M. Schapiro. 1998. Microeconomics of college choice, careers, and wages. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 559:12–23.

  Morton Schapiro
  STRATEGY
  President, Northwestern University
  Professor of Strategy
  Overview
  Vita
  Research

  Morton Schapiro was named the 16th president of Northwestern University on December 16, 2008 and began his term on September 1, 2009. He is a Professor of Economics in Northwestern’s Judd A. and Marjorie Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and also holds appointments in Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and School of Education and Social Policy.
  President Schapiro is among the nation’s leading authorities on the economics of higher education, with particular expertise in the area of college financing and affordability and on trends in educational costs and student aid. He has testified before U.S. Senate and House committees on economic and educational issues and is widely quoted in the national media on those issues.
  President Schapiro previously was president of Williams College from 2000 to 2009. Among the initiatives implemented during his presidency were a substantial reduction in average class size, a tripling of the number of courses offered in the college’s signature tutorial program and the completion of a number of major building projects.
  President Schapiro, 56, earlier had served as a member of the Williams College faculty from 1980 to 1991, as Professor of Economics and as Assistant Provost. In 1991 he went to the University of Southern California where he served as Chair of the Department of Economics until 1994 and then as Dean of the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences until 2000. During his last two years as Dean, he also served as the University’s Vice President for Planning.
  President Schapiro has written more than 100 articles and five books, and he has edited two others, most with his longtime co-author Michael McPherson. These include: The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education (Princeton University Press 1998); Paying the Piper: Productivity, Incentives and Financing in Higher Education (also with Gordon Winston, University of Michigan Press 1993) and Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity (Brookings 1991), plus two recent edited volumes College Success: What It Means and How to Make It Happen (College Board 2008) and College Access: Opportunity or Privilege? (College Board 2006).
  President Schapiro has received research grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the World Bank, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the College Board, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other groups to study the economics of higher education and related topics.
  He received his bachelor’s degree in economics from Hofstra University and his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania.
  President Schapiro and his wife Mimi have three children: Matt, Alissa and Rachel.

  Education
  PhD, 1979, Economics, University of Pennsylvania

  MA, 1976, Economics, University of Pennsylvania

  B.S., 1975, Economics, Hofstra University

  Academic Positions
  President, Northwestern University, 2009-present

  Professor, Economics, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2009-present

  Professor, Economics, Williams College, 2000-2009

  President, Williams College, 2000-2009

  Vice President for Planning, University of Southern California, 1998-2000

  Dean of the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California, 1994-2000

  Special Assistant to the Provost for Academic Budgets, University of Southern California, 1993-1993

  Professor, Economics, University of Southern California, 1991-2000

  Chairman, Economics, University of Southern California, 1991-1994

  Professor, Economics, Williams College, 1990-1991

  Associate Professor, Williams College, 1987-1990

  Assistant Provost, Williams College, 1986-1989

  Visiting Associate Professor, Economics, University of Southern California, 1986-1986

  Visiting Assistant Professor, Economics, University of Southern California, 1983-1985

  Assistant Professor, Williams College, 1980-1987

  Lecturer, University of Pennsylvania, 1979-1980

• Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/28/northwestern-university-president-morton-schapiro-embarrasses-himself-and-his-university-with-insulting-rant/?utm_term=.64d1eda20478

  Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro embarrasses himself and his university with insulting rant

  By David Bernstein September 28, 2016

  A graduation at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. (John Kelly/The Washington Post)
  These days, university presidents tend to have very few “academic” responsibilities. Academic functions are typically delegated to the provost and other university officials, while the president schmoozes and hobnobs with donors, politicians and other individuals who affect the university’s bottom line.
  Some university presidents like to speak out on current issues, especially those related to higher education. Here, it seems to me, they have one primary responsibility — to model the best values of a liberal (in the broad sense of the term) education by being honest, civil and respectful of dissent. Indeed, if university presidents can’t adhere to these values, they should either not be presidents or keep their mouths shut.
  [Watch: Harvard students protest for ‘safe spaces’ on campus]
  Unfortunately, in a recent convocation speech to new Northwestern University students, President Morton Schapiro utterly failed to meet even the minimum standards of appropriate discourse. According to a report in the Daily Northwestern, which a university representative tells me is “accurate from what I recall,” Schapiro called people who deny the existence of microaggressions “idiots.” He also stated that people who think students “shouldn’t be warned to prepare yourself psychologically” for “potentially traumatic content, such as the Holocaust or lynching of black people,” are “lunatics.”

  Volokh Conspiracy newsletter
  An independent voice on law and public policy.

  Sign up

  First, I don’t think anyone denies the existence of what have come to be known as “microaggressions.” But many reasonable people believe (a) that it’s disingenuous or harmful to call an unintentionally insensitive comment an “aggression” of any sort; (b) the concept of microaggression is being used not to encourage cross-cultural understanding, but to serve a particular, invariably left-wing political agenda; and (c) related to (b), the concept of microaggression is applied selectively so that it does not encompass even intentional hostility to Christians, conservatives, “Zionists” and others. Schapiro thus framed the debate dishonestly and then compounded that failure by calling those who dissent from left-wing campus orthodoxy “idiots.”
  [Watch: Wesleyan students need a class in free speech]
  Regarding trigger warnings, without getting into a detailed discussion of under what circumstances students should be warned of potentially traumatic course content, it’s hardly “lunacy” to expect adults (and college students are adults) to generally be able to confront the horrors of human history without constant warnings of traumatic content. After all, the United States, like other nations, sends 18-year-olds off to war to experience true horrors firsthand, so it’s a bit strange to think that merely hearing or reading about what other people experienced is too much for a typical college student to handle. Indeed, as a product of Jewish day schools, my education even in early elementary school was saturated with the traumas of Jewish history, including the Holocaust, pogroms, the Inquisition, the Judean revolts against Rome and Rome’s subsequent vengeance, and so on. I can’t say for sure how this affected our psyche (if at all), but my classmates and I managed to get through the school day without trigger warnings and without being “triggered.” That doesn’t mean trigger warnings for college students are always a bad idea. But “lunacy” to generally oppose them?

  Schapiro also addressed the issue of campus “safe spaces.” Once again, instead of addressing a legitimate concern — that the concept of “safe spaces” is being used to insulate ideologically driven students from opinions they disagree with — Schapiro chose to insult critics of safe spaces, suggesting they are simply rich and insensitive to racial injustice: “The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity — they do it from their country clubs,” Schapiro said. “It just drives me nuts.”
  As I said, university presidents who can’t be honest, civil and respectful of dissent either should keep their mouths shut or shouldn’t be presidents. At the very least, Schapiro should publicly apologize. A resignation would not be disproportionate.

  I’m Northwestern’s president. Here’s why safe spaces for students are important.

  Graduation day for the class of 2013 at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. (John Kelly/THE WASHINGTON POST)
  By Morton Schapiro January 15, 2016
  Morton Schapiro is president of Northwestern University.
  College presidents have always received a lot of mail. But these days we get more than ever. Much of it relates to student unrest, and most of the messages are unpleasant.
  Our usual practice is to thank the sender for writing and leave it at that. The combination of receiving more than 100 emails and letters a day and recognizing that the purpose of many writers is to rebuke, rather than discuss, leaves us little choice about how to respond.
  But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t think long and hard about the issues being raised. Some writers ask why our campus is so focused on how “black lives matter.” Others express a mixture of curiosity and rage about microaggressions and trigger warnings. And finally, what about those oft-criticized “safe spaces”? On this last topic, here are two stories. The first was told to me privately by another institution’s president, and the second takes place at my institution, Northwestern University.

  The story must be told.
  Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
  Try 1 month for $1
  A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?

  I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.
  First, the familiar question is “Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria?” I think I have some insight on this based on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marching band members; and so on.

  And that brings me to the second aspect: We all deserve safe spaces. Those black students had every right to enjoy their lunches in peace. There are plenty of times and places to engage in uncomfortable learning, but that wasn’t one of them. The white students, while well-meaning, didn’t have the right to unilaterally decide when uncomfortable learning would take place.
  Now for the story from Northwestern. For more than four decades, we have had a building on campus called the Black House, a space specifically meant to be a center for black student life. This summer some well-intentioned staff members suggested that we place one of our multicultural offices there. The pushback from students, and especially alumni, was immediate and powerful. It wasn’t until I attended a listening session that I fully understood why. One black alumna from the 1980s said that she and her peers had fought to keep a house of their own on campus. While the black community should always have an important voice in multicultural activities on campus, she said, we should put that office elsewhere, leaving a small house with a proud history as a safe space exclusively for blacks.
  A recent white graduate agreed. She argued that everyone needed a safe space and that for her, as a Jew, it had been the Hillel house. She knew that when she was there, she could relax and not worry about being interrogated by non-Jews about Israeli politics or other concerns. So why is the Black House an issue in the eyes of some alumni who write saying that we should integrate all of our students into a single community rather than isolate them into groups? I have never gotten a single note questioning the presence of Hillel, of our Catholic Center or any of the other safe spaces on campus.

  I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort. The irony, it seems, is that the best hope we have of creating an inclusive community is to first create spaces where members of each group feel safe.
  I suspect this commentary will generate even more mail than usual. Let me just say in advance, thanks for writing.

• Daily Northwestern - https://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/12/09/campus/university-president-morton-schapiro-among-nations-highest-paid-college-presidents/

  University President Morton Schapiro among nation’s highest-paid college presidents

  Daily file photo by Zack Laurence
  University President Morton Schapiro addresses new students in September. In 2014, Schapiro's annual salary was $2.35 million, according to a report from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
  Yvonne Kim, Assistant Campus Editor
  December 9, 2016

  University President Morton Schapiro ranked sixth in a national list of highest paid presidents at private and public colleges, according to data released Sunday by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
  Using private college data from 2014, the Chronicle reported Schapiro’s annual salary to be $2.35 million, with a base pay of nearly $1 million and bonuses worth a total of $100,000. The data includes presidents’ base pay, deferred compensation and bonuses.
  University spokesman Al Cubbage said Schapiro’s 2014 salary is accurate but declined to comment further.
  On the national list, Schapiro ranked the highest among university presidents in Illinois. University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer placed eighth with a salary of just over $2 million.
  Schapiro and Zimmer were among eight presidents who earned more than $2 million and 39 who earned more than $1 million.
  Email: yvonnekim2019@u.northwestern.edu
  Twitter: @yvonneekimm

QUOTED: "There's immense joy to be found throughout this work on thinking with creativity and passion."

Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities

264.14 (Apr. 3, 2017): p63.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities
Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro. Princeton Univ., $29.95 (344p) ISBN 978-0-691-17668-0
Morson (Narrative and Freedom) and Schapiro (The Student Aid Game) explore the benefits of building a stronger dialogue between economics and the humanities. The authors posit that the former, with its ambitions to scientific certainty, has become too focused on all-encompassing theories and rigidly explanatory models that underemphasize the complexity of human behavior and the influence of culture, resulting in a diminished moral perspective. Hoping to enrich the discipline, they propose a cross-disciplinary "humanomics" dialogue. Along with taking human considerations into economic theory and policy, they believe this dialogue will bolster the humanities and highlight its strengths in an era of identity crisis. Focusing mostly on integrating exposure to great realist novels (such as Anna Karenina, Middlemarch, and WarandPeace) into economics education, the authors use three case studies on, respectively, higher education, the family, and the economic development of nations to make an insightful and compelling argument. Morson and Schapiro succeed in finding new ways of thinking about big issues as well as new ways to read classic novels. The book employs a scholarly tone and pace, but the case studies read like popular nonfiction. There's immense joy to be found throughout this work on thinking with creativity and passion. (June)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities." Publishers Weekly, 3 Apr. 2017, p. 63. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A489813740/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=3fabf608. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A489813740

QUOTED: "This timely book appears amid a gathering storm of protest about college costs and how to meet them—a circumstance that finds admissions and financial-aid officers facing more anger and dismay than they can remember. ... The authors, distinguished economists who have specialized in higher education, clear up the confusion in a remarkably lucid and thorough analysis of an increasingly complicated system."
"Among the many splendid qualities of this book is how clearly it illuminates such policy questions."

The Student Aid Game

Donald Kennedy
281.3 (Mar. 1998): p112+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1998 Atlantic Media, Ltd.
http://www.theatlantic.com
by Michael S. McPherson and Morton O. Schapiro. Princeton University Press, 161 pages, $29.95.
Toward the end of the 1980s, as university budgets tightened, I found myself worrying about how long Stanford University, of which Iwas then the president, could hold to its stated (some would say actively touted) policy of "need-blind" admissions -- the practice whereby some private institutions admit undergraduate students without considering how much financial aid each will require. It is an expensive policy, supported by endowments that have been shrinking in real terms in many places. Thus a general retreat seemed probable, and that was causing concern among prospective applicants, their parents, and their college counselors. "Need-blind" had taken on symbolic value: it signaled that merit mattered more than means, that ability could guarantee access. Minority students in particular were distressed at the prospect that a trusted commitment might be withdrawn.
I'm glad to say that Stanford still has a need-blind policy. But, as Michael McPherson and Morton Schapiro demonstrate convincingly in The Student Aid Game, the policy looks a lot like an endangered species over most of its range. This timely book appears amid a gathering storm of protest about college costs and how to meet them -- a circumstance that finds admissions and financial-aid officers facing more anger and dismay than they can remember. But the colleges are adding to the problem: students deciding where to go -- and then trying to figure out, with their parents, how to pay for it -- now encounter a bewildering array of "enrollment strategies" and offers of discounted tuition. Elite institution A has a view of the family's financial need different from that of institution B; meanwhile, institution C, slightly less prestigious, is offering a free ride. The resulting confusion and apprehension often drive families into the arms of private counselors, who offer, for a price, to help them master the system. They would be well advised to save their money and consult McPherson and Schapiro instead.
The authors, distinguished economists who have specialized in higher education, clear up the confusion in a remarkably lucid and thorough analysis of an increasingly complicated system. Financial aid, they explain, is best understood as a price discount offered by colleges and universities to fulfill their own particular needs. An increasing number of institutions are just trying to meet enrollment goals: the marginal cost of adding one student is less than it costs the college to educate the average student; thus charging the extra student less makes perfect sense. But the wealthiest and most selective private schools want the very best students; their need-blind admissions policies are attractive to high-merit applicants who can choose among colleges on the basis of quality rather than price.
Need-blind admissions policies are based on another principle, less sharply delineated in the book. It is the value that diversity (not only racial and economic diversity but a range of interests and talents) brings to the university as an educational asset -- just like good laboratories and excellent teachers. This principle rests on the little secret, closely held in elite higher education, that students extract more value from their fellow students than from the faculty. Prestigious institutions offer their students bright, interesting, and diverse companions in learning -- and, not incidentally, valuable networks to carry into the rest of their lives. Financial-aid policies support this asset by allowing the institutions to compose, rather than merely admit, a first-year class. The linchpin of this strategy is to admit students without regard to need, and then to meet the full need of those admitted. Its practitioners argue that the policy supports another important principle: that higher education should be accessible to students of high aptitude and accomplishment without regard to their ability to pay. It reflects both the meritocratic conviction that society needs the best minds and the egalitarian view that the opportunity to be at the top of the merit heap should be open to all.
And yet, as McPherson and Schapiro show, all but a few private colleges and universities have found the need-blind, full-need policy too costly, as the gap between tuitions and family income has widened, and as discretionary institutional resources have shrunk. In the struggle to attract students (the term "game" would not be out of place) financial-aid and admissions strategies are formulated against a background of vital economic necessity: the need to fill classrooms and dormitories. Financial aid may be directed, as "merit aid," to attract good students, while applicants who have indicated an especially intense desire to attend are denied aid on the presumption that they will enroll anyhow.
The authors are understanding about the financial exigencies that lead to such strategies, pointing out sensibly that "there is nothing ethical about keeping a policy that drives the school to financial insolvency, forcing it to sacrifice instruction, basic student services, and other essentials." They are less forgiving, however, toward those institutions whose resources and distinction place them just on the fringe of the need-blind sector. Knowing that it is an important label to keep, these places often practice a kind of technical virginity -- either creating a category at the margin in which students are admitted but denied aid, or "gapping" by offering some students less aid than the standardized federal means tests say they need. Sadly, this hypocrisy is driven in part by the ranking systems employed by certain popular newsmagazines and some college guides. These lists, much criticized but closely watched in the higher-education community, include "selectivity criteria" that allow an institution to improve its ranking if it can show improvements in the proportion of admitted students who actually enroll. Student aid has become a device for manipulating these yield statistics.
Much of The Student Aid Game is devoted to private institutions, where both authors have spent most of their careers and where relatively high tuitions make financial-aid policy an especially compelling matter. But of course the majority of enrolled students are in public (that is, state-supported) institutions. The behavior of the public universities and colleges in many respects resembles that of the private: they compete for the same students and are ranked in the same popular guides. But there is an important difference: most state-university tuitions are held far below the cost of education by policies formulated in an era when "higher education for all" had universal political appeal.
The authors present new data on student choices between private and public institutions. These indicate that 38 percent of first-year students from families with annual incomes over $200,000 attended public institutions in 1994, whereas 31 percent of the equivalent income group did so in 1980. The New York Times, in an article that preceded the book's publication, described this finding in a story headlined "Affluent Turning to Public Colleges." Whether one views that shift as significant probably doesn't matter much; the important question, on which McPherson and Schapiro touch only lightly, is whether the huge subsidy thus offered to wealthy undergraduate students represents a sound public investment.
In California a magnificent state university system serves more than 120,000 students, of whom more than a third come from families whose incomes are too high to qualify for financial aid at most of the state's many private institutions. The gap between the nominal tuition charged by the University of California (always labeled "fees" -- "tuition" is a politically incorrect term in that system) and the real cost of undergraduate education cannot be calculated precisely, because UC has never revealed the latter figure. But it is surely not less than $10,000 annually. That amounts to a $400 million annual subsidy, with no means test whatsoever. It is small wonder that a bargain of this quality is being snapped up by students; they love it, and their association defends it with a paid lobby in Sacramento that vigorously opposes any increase in fees. One does wonder, though, how long free rides for wealthy kids could survive serious scrutiny against competing social needs.
Among the many splendid qualities of this book is how clearly it illuminates such policy questions. When they turn to the role of the national government, the authors have some pointed advice. First of all, don't scrap federal aid programs for the wrong reasons. William Bennett, when he was Secretary of Education, claimed loudly (though without evidence) that government student-aid programs caused private colleges to capture the revenue by raising tuition. McPherson and Schapiro devastate this claim -- first by showing that the structure of the existing Pell-grant programs gave colleges no incentive to raise tuition, and then by reporting an empirical study in which multiple financial variables were compared. The study demonstrated that there was no relationship between the federal student aid an institution received and the tuition it charged.
The authors argue that some current proposals by the Clinton Administration -- especially the tax-deduction feature -- could provide incentives to raise tuition. They are not particularly kind, either, to the Hope and Honors scholarship initiatives, which are directed at helping students of relatively high achievement. Their analysis shows clearly that these students are being well taken care of in the present scholarship "market." Federal programs should therefore focus on the issues of need and access -- areas in which the present student-aid game has left significant voids.
Perhaps the authors' sharpest advice is reserved for the private colleges and universities. There are clearly have and have-not institutions in terms of financial security, and further declines in public and private financial support will, McPherson and Schapiro believe, tend to increase the gap between them. No one should expect that all institutions will deploy financial aid or practice admissions in the same way. But, the authors emphasize, we have every right to expect that each institution will disclose its policies and discuss them openly. The authors set a good example in confessing a quandary of their own having to do with "merit aid" -- scholarship assistance given entirely without regard to need. They are plainly uncomfortable about it, having a predilection for equity and recognizing that it is the high-prestige places that offer the largest subsidies for each student's education. Yet they point out that merit aid spreads good students among more places, raising the quality of some less highly regarded institutions, and placing students in colleges that will care more about them. They don't supply a ready-made answer, thereby reminding the reader that this is, after all, a tough, complex challenge in educational policy -- one that engages that old and difficult balance between quality and access. S
Donald Kennedy ("How to Pay for a Good College") is the president emeritus of Stanford University, where he is the Bing Professor of Environmental Science. His most recent book is Academic Duty (1997).
Copyright 1998 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Kennedy, Donald. "The Student Aid Game." The Atlantic, Mar. 1998, p. 112+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A20474870/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=f5a200a4. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A20474870

Student aid game

281.3 (Mar. 1998): p112-16.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1998 Atlantic Media, Ltd.
http://www.theatlantic.com
by Michael S. McPherson and
Morton O. Schapiro.
Princeton University Press,
161 pages, $29.95.
TOWARD the end of the 1980s, as university budgets tightened, I found myself worrying about how long Stanford University, of which I was then the president, could hold to its stated (some would say actively touted) policy of "need-blind" admissions--the practice whereby some private institutions admit undergraduate students without considering how much financial aid each will require. It is an expensive policy, supported by endowments that have been shrinking in real terms in many places. Thus a general retreat seemed probable, and that was causing concern among prospective applicants, their parents, and their college counselors. "Need-blind" had taken on symbolic value: it signaled that merit mattered more than means, that ability could guarantee access. Minority students in particular were distressed at the prospect that a trusted commitment might be withdrawn.
I'm glad to say that Stanford still has a need-blind policy. But, as Michael McPherson and Morton Schapiro demonstrate convincingly in The Student Aid Game, the policy looks a lot like an endangered species over most of its range. This timely book appears amid a gathering storm of protest about college costs and how to meet them--a circumstance that finds admissions and financial-aid officers facing more anger and dismay than they can remember. But the colleges are adding to the problem: students deciding where to go--and then trying to figure out, with their parents, how to pay for it--now encounter a bewildering array of "enrollment strategies" and offers of discounted tuition. Elite institution A has a view of the family's financial need different from that of institution B; meanwhile, institution C, slightly less prestigious, is offering a free ride. The resulting confusion and apprehension often drive families into the arms of private counselors, who offer, for a price, to help them master the system. They would be well advised to save their money and consult McPherson and Schapiro instead.
The authors, distinguished economists who have specialized in higher education, clear up the confusion in a remarkably lucid and thorough analysis of an increasingly complicated system. Financial aid, they explain, is best understood as a price discount offered by colleges and universities to fulfill their own particular needs. An increasing number of institutions are just trying to meet enrollment goals: the marginal cost of adding one student is less than it costs the college to educate the average student; thus charging the extra student less makes perfect sense. But the wealthiest and most selective private schools want the very best students; their need-blind admissions policies are attractive to high-merit applicants who can choose among colleges on the basis of quality rather than price.
Need-blind admissions policies are based on another principle, less sharply delineated in the book. It is the value that diversity (not only racial and economic diversity but a range of interests and talents) brings to the university as an educational asset--just like good laboratories and excellent teachers. This principle rests on the little secret, closely held in elite higher education, that students extract more value from their fellow students than from the faculty. Prestigious institutions offer their students bright, interesting, and diverse companions in learning--and, not incidentally, valuable networks to carry into the rest of their lives. Financial-aid policies support this asset by allowing the institutions to compose, rather than merely admit, a first-year class. The linchpin of this strategy is to admit students without regard to need, and then to meet the full need of those admitted. Its practitioners argue that the policy supports another important principle: that higher education should be accessible to students of high aptitude and accomplishment without regard to their ability to pay. It reflects both the meritocratic conviction that society needs the best minds and the egalitarian view that the opportunity to be at the top of the merit heap should be open to all.
And yet, as McPherson and Schapiro show, all but a few private colleges and universities have found the need-blind, full-need policy too costly, as the gap between tuitions and family income has widened, and as discretionary institutional resources have shrunk. In the struggle to attract students (the term "game" would not be out of place) financial-aid and admissions strategies are formulated against a background of vital economic necessity: the need to fill classrooms and dormitories. Financial aid may be directed, as "merit aid," to attract good students, while applicants who have indicated an especially intense desire to attend are denied aid on the presumption that they will enroll anyhow.
The authors are understanding about the financial exigencies that lead to such strategies, pointing out sensibly that "there is nothing ethical about keeping a policy that drives the school to financial insolvency, forcing it to sacrifice instruction, basic student services, and other essentials." They are less forgiving, however, toward those institutions whose resources and distinction place them just on the fringe of the need-blind sector. Knowing that it is an important label to keep, these places often practice a kind of technical virginity--either creating a category at the margin in which students are admitted but denied aid, or "gapping" by offering some students less aid than the standardized federal means tests say they need. Sadly, this hypocrisy is driven in part by the ranking systems employed by certain popular newsmagazines and some college guides. These lists, much criticized but closely watched in the higher-education community, include "selectivity criteria" that allow an institution to improve its ranking if it can show improvements in the proportion of admitted students who actually enroll. Student aid has become a device for manipulating these yield statistics.
MUCH of The Student Aid Game is devoted to private institutions, where both authors have spent most of their careers and where relatively high tuitions make financial-aid policy an especially compelling matter. But of course the majority of enrolled students are in public (that is, state-supported) institutions. The behavior of the public universities and colleges in many respects resembles that of the private: they compete for the same students and are ranked in the same popular guides. But there is an important difference: most state-university tuitions are held far below the cost of education by policies formulated in an era when "higher education for all" had universal political appeal.
The authors present new data on student choices between private and public institutions. These indicate that 38 percent of first-year students from families with annual incomes over $200,000 attended public institutions in 1994, whereas 31 percent of the equivalent income group did so in 1980. The New York Times, in an article that preceded the book's publication, described this finding in a story headlined "AFFLUENT TURNING TO PUBLIC COLLEGES." Whether one views that shift as significant probably doesn't matter much; the important question, on which McPherson and Schapiro touch only lightly, is whether the huge subsidy thus offered to wealthy undergraduate students represents a sound public investment.
In California a magnificent state university system serves more than 120,000 students, of whom more than a third come from families whose incomes are too high to qualify for financial aid at most of the state's many private institutions. The gap between the nominal tuition charged by the University of California (always labeled "fees"--"tuition" is a politically incorrect term in that system) and the real cost of undergraduate education cannot be calculated precisely, because UC has never revealed the latter figure. But it is surely not less than $10,000 annually. That amounts to a $400 million annual subsidy, with no means test whatsoever. It is small wonder that a bargain of this quality is being snapped up by students; they love it, and their association defends it with a paid lobby in Sacramento that vigorously opposes any increase in fees. One does wonder, though, how long free rides for wealthy kids could survive serious scrutiny against competing social needs.
AMONG the many splendid qualities of this book is how clearly it illuminates such policy questions. When they turn to the role of the national government, the authors have some pointed advice. First of all, don't scrap federal aid programs for the wrong reasons. William Bennett, when he was Secretary of Education, claimed loudly (though without evidence) that government student-aid programs caused private colleges to capture the revenue by raising tuition. McPherson and Schapiro devastate this claim--first by showing that the structure of the existing Pell-grant programs gave colleges no incentive to raise tuition, and then by reporting an empirical study in which multiple financial variables were compared. The study demonstrated that there was no relationship between the federal student aid an institution received and the tuition it charged.
The authors argue that some current proposals by the Clinton Administration--especially the tax-deduction feature--could provide incentives to raise tuition. They are not particularly kind, either, to the Hope and Honors scholarship initiatives, which are directed at helping students of relatively high achievement. Their analysis shows clearly that these students are being well taken care of in the present scholarship "market." Federal programs should therefore focus on the issues of need and access--areas in which the present student-aid game has left significant voids.
Perhaps the authors' sharpest advice is reserved for the private colleges and universities. There are clearly have and havenot institutions in terms of financial security, and further declines in public and private financial support will, McPherson and Schapiro believe, tend to increase the gap between them. No one should expect that all institutions will deploy financial aid or practice admissions in the same way. But, the authors emphasize, we have every right to expect that each institution will disclose its policies and discuss them openly. The authors set a good example in confessing a quandary of their own having to do with "merit aid"--scholarship assistance given entirely without regard to need. They are plainly uncomfortable about it, having a predilection for equity and recognizing that it is the highprestige places that offer the largest subsidies for each student's education. Yet they point out that merit aid spreads good students among more places, raising the quality of some less highly regarded institutions, and placing students in colleges that will care more about them. They don't supply a ready-made answer, thereby reminding the reader that this is, after all, a tough, complex challenge in educational policy--one that engages that old and difficult balance between quality and access.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Student aid game." The Atlantic, Mar. 1998, pp. 112-16. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A30261670/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=1a55c4f4. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A30261670

QUOTED: "This is an important book for everyone interested in higher education policy and finance, including faculty who are extensively involved in academic governance. McPherson and Schapiro untangle complex issues that have implications for the entire academic community. The book is remarkably easy to read and understand for a text that deals with the econometrics of higher education, which is why it should be widely read and pondered."
"The Student Aid Game raises issues that merit serious consideration among those debating the future of the college affordability: faculty and administrators, informed citizens, and students and their families."

The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education

Edward P. St. John
69.5 (September-October 1998): p577+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1998 Ohio State University Press
http://www.ohiostatepress.org
By Michael S. McPherson and Morton Owen Schapiro. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. 143+ pp. $29.95
REVIEWED BY EDWARD P. ST. JOHN, Indiana University
College affordability, along with other issues related to the public investment in education, has become a major public policy concern. Indeed, growing middle-class concern about college affordability set the stage for the new tax credits promoted by President Clinton and passed by Congress in 1997 (Burd, 1997b). Concern about the expense of college also lead to the creation of a national panel on college costs, which has recently become the center of controversy: its draft report was criticized by Congressional conservatives for not being sufficiently critical of excessive spending in colleges and universities (Burd, 1997a).
Among the policy studies that initially focused public attention on affordability was Michael S. McPherson and Morton Owen Schapiro's Keeping Colleges Affordable (1991), a carefully crafted study that documented how the declines in federal grants in the 1980s had reduced access for the poor. In fact, their earlier book had ushered the term "affordability" into common usage among higher education policy analysts. However, the common meaning of the term in the policy arena became more of a middle-class issue than this earlier text had indicated, an irony, given the new issues addressed by McPherson and Schapiro in their new book. Indeed, in their rush to keep colleges affordable for the middle class, federal policymakers overlooked the historic role federal student grants played in equalizing opportunity to attain a post-secondary education for potential students from poor families.
In their new book, The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education, McPherson and Schapiro not only reexamine the question of opportunity but also address other critical policy issues. They broaden this new study to include merit aid, what they characterize as "rewarding talent," as a dual purpose of student aid. They also identify the strategic use of student aid by institutions as an important policy issue. They warn that the newest institutional approach, strategic maximization, "can be a pretty ruthless business" (p. 17). Hopefully this warning is heeded as the concept of "rewarding talent" as an aid strategy works its way into common usage among financial and policy analysts in higher education.
This is an important book for everyone interested in higher education policy and finance, including faculty who are extensively involved in academic governance. McPherson and Schapiro untangle complex issues that have implications for the entire academic community. The book is remarkably easy to read and understand for a text that deals with the econometrics of higher education, which is why it should be widely read and pondered. In this review I focus on three aspects of McPherson and Schapiro's new study: the continuing need to deal with affordability in the policy arena (discussed by the authors in Part 2), the new complexities of institutional finance (Part 3), and the importance of merit aid (Part 4). In addition to highlighting the authors' arguments on these topics, this review provides readers with additional food for thought as they read McPherson and Schapiro's new book.
First, McPherson and Schapiro again focus their attention on educational opportunity, raising the question "are we keeping college affordable?" (p. 23). They document the growing burden for families in paying college costs, demonstrating that affordability has become even more problematic for students from low-income families. However, they observe that tuition increases did not deter enrollment by students from middle-income families; instead, they argue, the returns to education attracted middle-income students into college in spite of the increased cost of attending. These conclusions provide a possible answer for a question that has perplexed many financial and policy analysts: why were enrollments higher than expected during a period when need-based grants declined? By separately examining students from low-, middle-, and upper-income families, these authors are able to distinguish between the effects of costs on the poor and on the middle class. This distinction has been overlooked in the past by analysts who assumed that a standardized measure of price response applied to all students and raised questions about higher than expected enrollment rates for middle-income families (Hansen, 1983; Kane, 1995). Thus, consistent with their earlier book, McPherson and Schapiro make an important distinction between low-income and middle-income students, which gives visibility into the affordability problem, at least for the poor.
However, because McPherson and Schapiro do not abandon the concept of net-price, they may have underestimated the financial problems facing middle-class students. Their method involves estimating the cost to the government of subsidized loans (about fifty cents on the dollar) and adding this subsidy to the aid side of the net price equation, rather than separately estimating the direct effects of loans on enrollment. Given this vantage, they conclude: "All these trends point to the urgency of using increasingly scarce public dollars for higher education well. As we have argued here, recent experience confirms the prediction based on theory and econometric evidence that rising prices for middle- and upper-income students in public higher education will not discourage enrollment" (p. 50). I agree with their arguments about using scarce dollars well and the reality that access for low-income students is the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, the perpetuation of net-price logic limits their ability to estimate the effects of loans on keeping colleges affordable for middle-income students. We need to use an alternative lens to untangle why the middle class is concerned about affordability.
The alternative approach is to examine how students with different financial background means (low-income, lower-middle-income, etc.), respond to different types of prices and price subsidies, an approach to the study of price effects advocated by Stephen P. Dresch (1975) more than two decades ago. When we take this step we find that low-income students are more responsive to grants than to tuition, whereas middle-income students are about as responsive to loans as to tuition (St. John, 1990). When these more complex price-response measures are taken into account, the pattern of enrollment redistribution in the 1980s (St. John, 1993) and the 1990s (St. John & Asker, forthcoming) are better explained by actual changes in tuition and student aid (grants and loans): the declines in grants in relation to tuition have been most problematic for low-income students, whereas the expansion in loans has kept colleges affordable for middle-income students.
When we take these more complex forces into account, we can explain enrollment change without resorting to the "other forces" (e.g., earnings) as an explanation for enrollment increases by middle-income students. Thus, McPherson and Schapiro make sufficient adaptation to the net-price concept to discern that the poor continue to have the most serious problem with affordability, a fact overlooked by some analysts who adhered more strictly to net-price assumptions (e.g., Hansen 1983, Kane 1995). But this partial reconstruction of net-price logic does not sufficiently denote the crucial role of loans in maintaining affordability for the middle class and, by extension, the influence that the debt burden had on the silent majority's support for the new tax credit option.
Second, McPherson and Schapiro turn to the complex intervening issue of institutional financial strategy. Their exploration of this topic, which they had not addressed in their previous book, provides visibility into the role of financial strategy within colleges and universities. The decline in federal need-based grants has made it more difficult for colleges to maintain need-blind admissions, forcing many of them either to stretch their aid dollars, making more strategic use of grants, or to move toward a maximization strategy. Both of these strategies increased the impact of institutional funds for student aid, but these methods raised even more questions about fairness. McPherson and Schapiro are particularly concerned about the increasing use of "second reviews" of college applications: using financial need as a criterion for wait-listing students who might otherwise be admitted, a feature of the maximization approach. They point out: "The moral dilemma these schools must face: Do they tell their wait-listed students (or, for increasing numbers of schools, their transfer applicants) that the failure to withdraw their financial aid applications means that their chances for admissions will be slim or none?" (p. 102).
Their analysis and discussion of institutional strategies raise questions that should be debated on most campuses. When does adherence to need-blind admissions cause too much of a stretch in aid budgets? When does the targeting of aid on students who can help the institution the most financially cause students and the public to lose their respect for higher education? These authors not only do a particularly good job of raising the questions, but they also hold a position that there are boundaries that should not be crossed. Indeed they seem to hold fairly conventional notions about finding ways through the puzzle, as was evident in their treatment of merit aid.
Next McPherson and Schapiro explore the exceedingly complex terrain of how various colleges use merit-based aid to reward talent. They explore ways colleges make strategic use of merit aid to attract students with better scores than they could attract without taking this market-competitive approach. From their conclusions we can gain insight into what they think is a proper course of action on the use of merit aid:
The American system of selective admissions to a competitive set of institutions tends to sort students with the highest academic qualifications and promise into the institutions with the most ample resources with which to subsidize the students' education. This is the right kind of pattern of resource allocation to wish for in higher education - society surely gains more from investing more in the education of the most talented - although no one really knows how close we are to right in the relative amounts of resources we devote to the education of the more and less talented. (p. 143)
Thus, McPherson and Schapiro seem more comfortable with elite institutions allocating their own resources to talented students with financial need than with more marginal institutions trying to leverage their student-aid dollars to attract students with higher test scores than they might otherwise attract. However, they also close with a plea that should not be overlooked: "[It] is of the utmost importance that we not lose sight of the role that student financial aid must play in keeping opportunities in American higher education broadly available" (p. 143). So, in their efforts to address their newfound concern about rewarding talent, they did not lose sight of the issue of providing access.
The Student Aid Game raises issues that merit serious consideration among those debating the future of the college affordability: faculty and administrators, informed citizens, and students and their families. If we could harken back to the middle 1970s, a period before most institutions had developed a strategic approach to student aid, then I would agree fundamentally with the two moral boundaries these authors come up to the edge of defining: (1) states and federal government have a crucial role to play in promoting equal opportunity and (2) institutions need to adhere to standards of fairness as they use their scarce aid dollars to shape their student body and maintain financial viability.
Unfortunately, it has become more difficult for many colleges to adhere to the second moral boundary - fairness in aid administration - because the federal government has backed off its commitment to the first boundary, the basic standard of ensuring affordability for those with the greatest need. Adhering to a historical standard of admission without considering the financial implications of sticking to those standards can cause problems for all but the best endowed private colleges and universities or public institutions in states with well-funded grant programs. The alternatives, once available student aid dollars have been stretched to their limit, are to find more economical ways of delivering education or to reduce tuition and grants. Both of these alternatives also merit debate.
References
Burd, S. (1997a, October 31). Treasury Department explains requirements for colleges on new tax credits. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A46.
Burd, S. (1997b, November 28). Federal Commission on the cost of college says it isn't so expensive after all. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A33-A34.
Dresch, S. P. (1975). A critique of planning models for post-secondary education: Current feasibility, potential relevance and, a prospectus for further research. Journal of Higher Education, 46(3), 246-286.
Hansen, W. L. (1983). The impact of financial aid on access. In J. Froomkin (Ed.), The crisis in higher education. New York: Academy of Political Science.
Kane, T. J. (1995). Rising public tuition levels and access to college. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1991). Keeping colleges affordable: Government and educational opportunity. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
St. John, E. P. (1990). Price response in enrollment decisions. Research in Higher Education, 31, 387-403.
St. John, E. P. (1993, November/December). Untangling the web: Using price-response measures in enrollment projections. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 676-695.
St. John, E. P., & Asker, E. H. (in press). Refinancing the college dream: Contending with complexities of affordability, productivity, and employability. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
St. John, Edward P. "The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education, vol. 69, no. 5, 1998, p. 577+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A21150314/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=fbc0a748. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A21150314

QUOTED: "McPherson and Schapiro have produced a book that is at once authoritative and highly readable. They cover financial aid from the demand side, the supply side and the viewpoint of public policy. Their analysis is penetrating and clear, [and] their policy recommendations—though bound to provoke controversy—are cogent and worthy of serious consideration."
"It is enough to say that their recommendations are as perceptive and well-reasoned as the rest of the book, and that they should be considered seriously by the new administration. Regardless of the policy outcomes, however, this book represents a 'must read' for anyone interested in the problem of college affordability."

Keeping College Affordable: Government and the Educational Opportunity

William F. Massy
65.2 (March-April 1994): p226+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1994 Ohio State University Press
http://www.ohiostatepress.org
McPherson and Schapiro have produced a book that is at once authoritative and highly readable. They cover financial aid from the demand side, the supply side and the viewpoint of public policy. Their analysis is penetrating and clear, an their policy recommendations -- though bound to provoke controversy -- are cogent and worthy of serious consideration.
The book begins with an overview of college financing, an assessment of the United States student finance system, and a review of federal policy choices. T summarize briefly, the authors believe that: (1) using student aid to reduce th price facing lower-income students causes more of them to enroll in college; (2 federal student aid and accompanying institution-based aid improve the distribution of educational opportunity and the fairness of financial burden-sharing; and (3) federal student aid does not appear to affect college prices perversely.
Chapters 2 and 3 review the literature on college financing trends, college costs, and enrollment. The overall share of tuition paid by families declined steadily between World War II and 1979, when the trend reversed due to the increased reliance on tuition by both public and private institutions. Further increases in the real average subsidy per student are unlikely because today's large postsecondary student base would make this a very expensive proposition.
Little evidence can be found that federal student aid improved access for disadvantaged students, a result best interpreted in light of the redistributio of aid dollars toward middle-income and upper-income students beginning in the late 1970s. However, survey evidence does indicate that financial aid affects student access as well as the student choice.
The apparent inconsistency between the historical record and micro-research led the authors to construct their own econometric model. Based on Current Population Survey data, the model examines the relation between enrollment rate and net prices for various gender and income groups between 1974 and 1984. The results show that increases in net price (that is, tuition minus financial aid) exert a significant negative effect on the enrollment behavior of lower-income students. (Interestingly, the effect is positive for upper-income students and neutral for middle-income students.) An appendix presents the details of this and subsequent models, and the details demonstrate that the models are of high quality and should be taken seriously.
Chapter 4 deals with supply-side effects: that is, whether increases in student aid and government support for institutions tend to trigger compensating increases in tuition. Once again, the authors construct an econometric model to aid in their analysis. The conclusions are: (1) increases in SEOG and Pell expenditures do not cause private institutions to raise tuitions, although the reverse is true at public institutions; (2) cuts in federal research funding would lead to higher tuitions at private institutions and lower campus-based ai at both public and private institutions; and (3) increases in state and local appropriations increase instructional expenditures in all institutional types.
Chapters 5 and 6 address choice and affordability. The authors conclude that except for families with incomes over $90,000, income makes little difference i the enrollment decisions of high-achieving students. That is, differences in achievement (or advantages in preparation) make more of a difference than incom by itself. Furthermore, the relative success of high-priced private institution in attracting middle- and lower-income students depends heavily on institutionally financed aid -- which represents a concern given the financial pressures confronting institutions. Lower- and middle-income, high-achieving students continue to enjoy access to well-endowed "elite" schools, but they run the risk of being shut out elsewhere. The resulting "middle-income melt" increases enrollment pressure in public flagship institutions, and less-advantaged students tend to lose out in the resulting competition.
McPherson and Schapiro develop a simulation model (chapter 5) to project trends in college affordability. Recent data provide growth-rate estimates and initial conditions, and a variety of scenarios are examined. Though the authors do not envision an immediate affordability crisis, they do see some ominous trends. Fo example, future college affordability depends strongly on the growth performanc of the economy as a whole. A number of scenarios suggest that private institutions will raise tuition faster than public ones, which would threaten the nation's dual higher education system. Analysis of affordability trends for students who receive aid demonstrates the critical role of federal support. Increasing the federal role relative to that of the states will improve afford-ability and narrow the gap between public and private tuitions.
Do government financial aid programs reach the right people and do they support an appropriate set of institutions and activities? Chapter 7 identifies the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the United States student aid system. Fo example, the federal philosophy of apportioning aid according to family ability to pay is sound. Many of the problems arise from the efforts to extend concepts developed for family-dependent traditional students to other groups, such as vocational and adult students.
The returns to be expected from private and public investments in higher education are examined in chapter 8. Both the net social and private returns appear to be positive, which suggests that public programs to improve participation can be justified economically. Another question is whether our present system of combined government-parent responsibility for higher educatio should be replaced with one that puts the principal burden on the student -- as with income-contingent loans, for example. The authors conclude that such a program would undermine parental influence in college choice, and that the implications of such a step would extend far beyond the financial issues involved. Finally, they conclude that the present system of guaranteed student loans makes it difficult to target the programs effectively, and that current federal accounting practices greatly understate real investment costs.
The authors devote their final chapter to developing recommendations for government policy reform. Their proposals are built around the proposition that student aid works. They seek to bolster the role of income-tested aid, focusing it better and making it more effective. This could be accomplished by forging a new division of labor between the states and the federal government in providin and paying for higher education. The maximum federal grant should be set at the approximate cost of providing education at a typical public two-year institution, less a need-based student contribution. In effect, this dramatic expansion of the Pell Program would transfer the responsibility for low-income students from state and private funds to the federal government. Quite possibly this would induce tuition increases at public institutions. As part of the new division of labor, states would put some of the money saved into expanding institutional need-based aid, and in the process ventilate and rationalize thei system of subsidies. Private institutions would not be nearly as likely to rais prices, and institutional funds displaced by the new federal grants could be used to maintain need-blind admission and need-based aid.
Space limitations prevent my doing justice to McPherson's and Schapiro's recommendations, or indeed even addressing their shorter-term "incremental" suggestions for change. It is enough to say that their recommendations are as perceptive and well-reasoned as the rest of the book, and that they should be considered seriously by the new administration. Regardless of the policy outcomes, however, this book represents a "must read" for anyone interested in the problem of college affordability.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Massy, William F. "Keeping College Affordable: Government and the Educational Opportunity." Journal of Higher Education, vol. 65, no. 2, 1994, p. 226+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A15329311/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=ac163842. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A15329311

QUOTED: "The authors make a persuasive case for their recommendation, given their goals."
"The arguments used in this book seem also to favor the [Bushes'] program for giving parents tuition money to increase their choices among schools for their children's pre-college education—an interesting outcome."

"Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity."

Robert A. Hedges
28.3 (Dec. 1992): p284+.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1992 Stillman School of Business
https://www.shu.edu/academics/business
In the author' "Introduction," this book's scope is stated (accurately) as, "Our purpose ... is to analyze the role of governmental subsidies for higher education--especially though not exclusively the role of federal student aid subsidies--in keeping college affordable for Americans of all economic and social backgrounds. This notion of affordability means more than simply keeping tuition low; affordability must also concern the income available to pay for tuition." |Emphasis added.~ Also addressed are these questions: "... have government financing efforts made higher education institutions ... more secure and financially more effective? ... have |they~ made the distribution of benefits of higher education, and the sharing of its costs, fairer?"
The authors' conclusion, as summarized in the "Foreword" by Bruce K. MacLaury (president of Bookings): "... student aid works," so "they propose reforms that would bolster the role of income-tested aid in student financing. They recommend a number of incremental reforms that could improve the effectiveness of existing federal aid programs and present a bold proposal to replace a large part of current operating subsidies to college and universities with expanded federal student aid." The main proposal is that federal grants-in-aid based on lowness of family income should become the principal form of governmental aid with respect to the cost of college education. In particular, this aid should partially supplant state support of public colleges and universities.
The authors say, "Our proposal for the long run would make the federal government responsible for financing the educational costs of lower-income students, thus expanding the role of income-tested federal student aid while permitting states to raise tuition and thus reduce the magnitude of state operating subsidies without adverse effects on access. Such a 'swap' of federal for state funding of the educational costs of lower-income students could, we believe, broaden opportunity, increase fairness, and raise the quality of higher education without increasing the nation's public investment."
By "broaden opportunity" they mean, principally, get more students who have low incomes but less than "exceptionally high ability" into "elite" and "prestigious" institutions (i.e., such places as Harvard and Stanford, and the Universities of Michigan and California). (There is evidence that those with "exceptionally high ability" are already attending those schools.)
By "increase fairness" they mean make college costs less unequal as a fraction of the income of different students' families.
They believe the quality of higher education would be raised because private institutions would have and use more money for expenditure on "teaching resources." (They anticipate that the total income of public institutions would be unchanged, the net result of increased tuition charges and lower state subsidies.)
The analytic methodology is (1) to study changes that have actually occurred over time, and (2) to construct and apply models of behavioral response (student and institutional) to changes in conditions (notably, federal spending on student aid). As is standard with Brookings studies, sophisticated statistical techniques were used to try to cope with various undesirable characteristics in the data. Two deficiencies that had to be lived with were (1) the data used in regressions were for whites only, as the other samples were too small. Naturally, this affects the applicability to non-whites of such estimates as the extent to which larger subsidies would affect decisions as to whether to go to college, and which college. (2) Error at the Bureau of Census made 1980 figures useless for distinguishing between private and public institutions. Naturally this prevented detection of any recent changes in relative performance or behavior of these two types by the regression analyses.
The authors make a persuasive case for their recommendation, given their goals. However, as they say "... different observers might well use the accumulated evidence to draw different conclusions about the appropriate direction for policy .... * * * Our proposal would increase the role of 'ability-to-pay' financing of educational costs, by expanding the role of income-tested federal student aid. At the same time, it would reduce the size of the 'across-the-board' subsidies that states now provide to public colleges and universities by increasing these institution' reliance on tuition." But there are important arguments in favors of all kinds of "across the board" social subsidies (e.g., "social welfare" and income-based student aid programs). There are also people who favor getting more "highly qualified" students into institutions other than the few most "elite" and "prestigious" ones; and while their reasoning includes the goal, "Increase the quality |and lower the overall cost~ of higher education," it does not aim at getting more low income people into Harvard or evening out different students' relative cost of college.
A final observation: the arguments used in this book seem also to favor the bush's program for giving parents tuition money to increase their choices among schools for their children's pre-college education--an interesting outcome.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Hedges, Robert A. "Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity." Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Dec. 1992, p. 284+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A13522286/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=79001711. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A13522286

"Cents and Sensibility: What Economics Can Learn from the Humanities." Publishers Weekly, 3 Apr. 2017, p. 63. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A489813740/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=3fabf608. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. Kennedy, Donald. "The Student Aid Game." The Atlantic, Mar. 1998, p. 112+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A20474870/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=f5a200a4. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. "Student aid game." The Atlantic, Mar. 1998, pp. 112-16. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A30261670/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=1a55c4f4. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. St. John, Edward P. "The Student Aid Game: Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education, vol. 69, no. 5, 1998, p. 577+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A21150314/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=fbc0a748. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. Massy, William F. "Keeping College Affordable: Government and the Educational Opportunity." Journal of Higher Education, vol. 65, no. 2, 1994, p. 226+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A15329311/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=ac163842. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. Hedges, Robert A. "Keeping College Affordable: Government and Educational Opportunity." Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Dec. 1992, p. 284+. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A13522286/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=79001711. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.

• Washington Post Book World
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-economists-need-tolstoy/2017/11/10/1630d6bc-bff5-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.77b935ed1cf4
  Word count: 1407

  QUOTED: "This is a bracing, original work, reminding us that economics was never supposed to be about the math but rather about the stories it tells about our lives."

  Why economists need Tolstoy

  Economics generally should be a softer science, not even a science, with less precision but more wisdom. Even with more insight, argue Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro in “Cents and Sensibility.” (Princeton University Press/Princeton University Press)
  By Roger Lowenstein November 10
  “Value investing” has lately become a whipping boy. Based on a formulaic way (low price to earnings) of classifying “value” stocks, pundits have decided the strategy is wanting. What I find wanting is the robotic, one-
  dimensional definition. Done properly, value investing is not a prescription but an approach. Its methods can be studied and applied, but they do not lead to precise agreement on all stocks all the time.
  That same sort of nuance is missing from economics generally. It should be a softer science, not even a science, with less precision but more wisdom. Even with more insight.
  This is the thesis of the cleverly titled “Cents and Sensibility,” by Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro. Morson and Schapiro do not exactly say that mathematics ruined economics, but they think it. They want economists to talk to people in the humanities. They think public policy could he improved by Tolstoy, infused with an ethical sensibility.
  Economy & Business Alerts
  Breaking news about economic and business issues.

  Sign up

  This sounds mushy, the sort of the thing your relative who doesn’t get markets is apt to say over dinner. But Morson and Schapiro get markets.

  So did Larry Summers. Long ago, as chief economist at the World Bank, Summers endorsed the idea that polluting industries should be re­located to poorer countries, where the value of lost lives, measured in unrealized future earnings, would be less. A Brazilian minister rejoined that such reasoning was “logical but totally insane.” (Summers apologized).

  The same brutal logic led a World Bank team to question whether a program with spectacular success at curing blindness in West Africa was worth it.
  Economists can tell you that sanctioning a market for kidneys would raise the supply — maybe save lives — but someone else has to weigh the moral implications of auctioning body parts to the highest bidder.
  And why practice economics if not to try to improve people’s lives? Morson and Schapiro’s point is that the standard tools of economics, while powerful, are not necessarily sufficient.
  This may sound self-evident — aren’t university catalogues stuffed with courses in every subject from anthropology to zoology? — but economists regard other disciplines with scorn. They are intellectual imperialists. They read “The Road Not Taken” and smirk that Robert Frost was discovering opportunity cost. But they scarcely ask what they might learn from poets.

  Like old-style imperialists, economists assume that other people resemble themselves, regardless of their culture, class or background. Thus, they assume that other people will respond in ways that economists consider rational. They subscribe to the fallacy of an abstract “economic man” — “pre­cultural” person. But, the authors write, people are not organisms first created “and then dipped in some culture, like Achilles in the River Styx. They are cultural from the outset.”
  Many of the questions that economists study, such as why birthrates are higher in some places, or why some countries developed earlier, or why some high school students do not apply to the best college they could get into, could be better understood through a cultural lens.
  What the authors are targeting is the arrogance of economics monotheists. They skewer Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winner, for postulating that all human behavior is “maximizing” — that is, the product of a rational, self-interested calculation. And that, therefore, economics is “a valuable unified framework for understanding all human behavior,” including whom to marry and divorce, whether to have kids, whom to befriend.

  Rubbish. In the first place, as Adam Smith, who wrote “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” prior to “The Wealth of Nations,” recognized, people are far from exclusively selfish; indeed, they feel for others. It’s worth listening to Smith’s memorable description of the process of feeling for another: “We enter as it were into his body, and become in some measure the same person.” This is, the authors note, what happens when you read a good novel. You develop empathy.

  Literature develops a feeling for how people will behave in ways that economic models cannot. Becker’s rational man has stable preferences. If he bought chicken yesterday and fish today, it must tell us something about the relative price of chicken and fish. Whereas, from literature, we learn that, over time, people change. (Correction: from good literature. James Bond never changes.)
  It is surely happy news that while Morson teaches language and literature at Northwestern, Schapiro, who is the president of Northwestern, is an economist. Better still, the authors subject the humanities to the same savage scalpel as they do economics.
  Economics, they note, is afflicted with physics envy. For all its pretensions, the proof that it is not a hard science is its need for narrative. You don’t need a narrative to explain the orbit of Mars (Newton’s laws will do just fine), whereas to assert that a shortage of bread caused the French Revolution, you do.
  But if economics suffers physics envy, literature and history suffer “humanities embarrassment.” At Stanford, about 45 percent of the main undergraduate faculty are in humanities, but only 15 percent of the students.

  Borrowing a leaf from economists — yes, the authors salute economics for wonderful achievements — Morson and Schapiro surmise that the humanities’ product is faulty. It is largely a case of self-depreciation. Today university faculties preach that the great novels are merely “words on a page” — cultural artifacts akin to the writing on cereal boxes. To quote the influential “Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism,” “Literary texts, like other artworks, are neither more nor less important than any other cultural artifacts or practice.”
  Then why read Shakespeare? If the reason (as the academy espouses) is simply to deconstruct the authorial “message,” why not just teach the message? Thus, “Les Miserables” could be reduced to “Help the Unfortunate.” And “Hamlet”: Stop moping and do something! No, the reason we read novels is for the experience that the words inspire.
  History sadly mimics economics in an attempt to systemize, to discover immutable laws. Explanations must be scientific and universal. Contingency or chance — a famine, the timely arrival of a genius or madman, a scientific discovery — are presumed irrelevant. Humanities, ideally, should wrestle with uncertainty. It is a discipline of contingent truths, of “on the whole.” No one ever said the Pythagorean theorem was correct “on the whole.” The authors prepare some very hot coals for Jared Diamond, author of the best-selling “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” for presuming to explain human history according to the single factor of geography — neither culture, nor chance, nor great individuals entering into it. Indeed, they assert that Diamond “accounts for history by removing everything historical.”
  The authors target absolutists (Marx, for the single explanation of the class struggle, and many others) in the hope that economists may recognize the dubious wisdom of absolutism in their own discipline. Economics is also a field of “on the whole.”
  I have one gripe, and it concerns the authors’ sullen takedown of behavioral economics as being all impression, no substance — poorly timed, given the Nobel recognition of Richard Thaler — and wrong on the merits. Behavioral economics didn’t enrich the field in the way the authors propose; no matter, it did enrich it.
  “Cents and Sensibility” is less a critique of economics than a critique of using “only” economics. It is especially relevant in the presence of ethical doubt. Should there be a limit to prescription drug prices? Is it right for universities to mislead the public about SAT scores, or about why they give financial aid? Such questions indeed require sensibility as well as cents. This is a bracing, original work, reminding us that economics was never supposed to be about the math but rather about the stories it tells about our lives.

Word Count