Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

'Times' gives it the old college try

11.12.2003

Though Congress will not complete (nor the Senate even commence) reauthorization of the Higher Education Act until next year, the debate is in full swing. This week's New York Times education supplement had a gaggle of articles dealing with the price of college, need- and merit-based financial aid, and tuition discounting (offering the most qualified or appealing students lower tuition). The implicit message: tuition is high (though not as high as most people think) and is rising at twice the rate of inflation in many schools (in part, some argue, because of federal student aid programs); elite private universities get more than their fair share of government aid for students despite having far larger endowments; and financial aid is not always being directed to the neediest students, in part because colleges discount tuition to serve their own needs, e.g., "to lure students who raise their stature in U.S. News & World Report rankings, to round out a basketball team or orchestra, or simply to even out an imbalance between men and women." There is some movement on Capitol Hill to reform federal student aid programs, including one proposal to withhold aid from schools that raise their tuition by more than twice the rate of inflation, and to introduce accountability into the higher ed system - think NCLB for higher ed. However, it remains to be seen whether any meaningful proposal can make it past the higher ed lobby, which over the years has killed off many cost containment plans. According to David Longanecker, who headed the Education Department's higher education office under President Clinton, it's a good bet that "'not much will happen' when Congress finally passes a bill."

"Five truths about tuition," by Christopher Shea, New York Times, November 9, 2003

"Rich colleges receiving richest share of U.S. aid," by Greg Winter, New York Times, November 9, 2003

"What a deal!," by Kate Zernike, New York Times, November 9, 2003

"I'm NOT going to pay a lot for this education," by James Schembari, New York Times, November 9, 2003

"Where does it go?," by Greg Winter, New York Times, November 9, 2003,

"Colleges face veritable SAT of challenges," by June Kronholz, Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2003 (subscription required)

Tags: Bill Clinton Higher Education Act of 1965 United States Congress United States Senate
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]