The Real Life Of President Obama's "Julia"
In Real Life: Increasing Pell Grants Sets Off Increases In College Costs

All college students and their families are affected by these high and escalating college costs. In order to make colleges more affordable for all students, it’s vital to analyze the reasons why colleges have become so expensive within recent years. In a Cato Institute’s published policy analysis “Making Colleges More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Aid” Gary Wolfram states:
 One result of federal government’s student aid programs is higher tuition costs at our nation colleges and universities… the empirical evidence is consistent with that- federal loans, Pell grants and other assistance programs result in higher tuition for students.
Dr. Wolfram explains that the unintended consequences of Pell Grants are hurting college students:
 The federal government’s financial aid programs cause higher tuition costs, reducing the ability of some students to go to college and causing others to attend a college that is not their first choice. Basic economic theory suggests that the increase in demand for higher education brought about by the system of grants and loans will increase the price of higher education.
Judith Lee of Harvard University found that the Pell Grants are responsible for skyrocketing tuition costs:
 private four year college increased listed tuition prices by more than two dollars for each dollar increase in Pell Grants, and public four-year colleges increased tuition by 97 cent for every dollar increase.

In real life, helping college students means keeping costs under control, not simply increasing aid that will not keep pace with ever increasing costs.
A simple and obvious step would be to prioritze teaching over research (often funded by government).

There was a time, back in the early 1960s, when my academic career began, when many — if not most — colleges had their faculty teaching 12 semester hours and a few had teaching loads of 15 semester hours.
Spending even 15 hours a week in a classroom may not seem like a lot to people who spend 35 or 40 hours a week on the job. However, there is also the time required to prepare lectures, grade tests and do other miscellaneous campus chores.
Even so, 12 hours a week in a classroom is not a killing pace, especially for professors who have taught a few years and have their lecture notes from previous years to help prepare for the current year’s classes.
But that was then and this is now. Today, a teaching load of more than 6 semester hours is considered sweatshop labor on many campuses.
Incidentally, since academic class hours are 50 minutes long, 6 semester hours mean actually 5 hours a week in the classroom.
Why was it considered necessary to cut the teaching load in half? Mainly because professors were expected to do more research.
Why was more research considered necessary? Because research brings in more money from the government, from foundations and from other sources.
On many campuses, a beginning faculty member cannot expect to be promoted to a tenure position unless he or she brings research money into the campus coffers.

Throwing more money at colleges may benefit administrators and professors but it does nothing to help “Julia”.

In Real Life: Increasing Pell Grants Sets Off Increases In College Costs

All college students and their families are affected by these high and escalating college costs. In order to make colleges more affordable for all students, it’s vital to analyze the reasons why colleges have become so expensive within recent years. In a Cato Institute’s published policy analysis “Making Colleges More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Aid” Gary Wolfram states:

 One result of federal government’s student aid programs is higher tuition costs at our nation colleges and universities… the empirical evidence is consistent with that- federal loans, Pell grants and other assistance programs result in higher tuition for students.

Dr. Wolfram explains that the unintended consequences of Pell Grants are hurting college students:

 The federal government’s financial aid programs cause higher tuition costs, reducing the ability of some students to go to college and causing others to attend a college that is not their first choice. Basic economic theory suggests that the increase in demand for higher education brought about by the system of grants and loans will increase the price of higher education.

Judith Lee of Harvard University found that the Pell Grants are responsible for skyrocketing tuition costs:

 private four year college increased listed tuition prices by more than two dollars for each dollar increase in Pell Grants, and public four-year colleges increased tuition by 97 cent for every dollar increase.

In real life, helping college students means keeping costs under control, not simply increasing aid that will not keep pace with ever increasing costs.

A simple and obvious step would be to prioritze teaching over research (often funded by government).

There was a time, back in the early 1960s, when my academic career began, when many — if not most — colleges had their faculty teaching 12 semester hours and a few had teaching loads of 15 semester hours.

Spending even 15 hours a week in a classroom may not seem like a lot to people who spend 35 or 40 hours a week on the job. However, there is also the time required to prepare lectures, grade tests and do other miscellaneous campus chores.

Even so, 12 hours a week in a classroom is not a killing pace, especially for professors who have taught a few years and have their lecture notes from previous years to help prepare for the current year’s classes.

But that was then and this is now. Today, a teaching load of more than 6 semester hours is considered sweatshop labor on many campuses.

Incidentally, since academic class hours are 50 minutes long, 6 semester hours mean actually 5 hours a week in the classroom.

Why was it considered necessary to cut the teaching load in half? Mainly because professors were expected to do more research.

Why was more research considered necessary? Because research brings in more money from the government, from foundations and from other sources.

On many campuses, a beginning faculty member cannot expect to be promoted to a tenure position unless he or she brings research money into the campus coffers.

Throwing more money at colleges may benefit administrators and professors but it does nothing to help “Julia”.

In Real Life: Obama Cares More About Supporting Teacher Unions Than Educating Students.
"Julia" might be lucky enough to go to a good school or she might live a place like Washington, D.C. If she does and her family doesn’t have enough money to send her to a private school, "Julia" will be stuck in a failing public school thanks to President Obama.

The Opportunity Scholarship Program offers vouchers to low-income students to attend private schools. A 2010 study published by Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas found that the scholarship recipients had graduation rates of 91%. The graduation rate for D.C. public schools was 56%, and it was 70% for students who entered the lottery for a voucher but didn’t win.
Because the president’s teachers union allies are opposed to school choice for poor people, Mr. Obama ignores or downplays these findings. He repeatedly has tried to shutter the program, even though it is clearly advancing his stated goal of increasing graduation rates and closing the black-white achievement gap.

In Real Life: Obama Cares More About Supporting Teacher Unions Than Educating Students.

"Julia" might be lucky enough to go to a good school or she might live a place like Washington, D.C. If she does and her family doesn’t have enough money to send her to a private school, "Julia" will be stuck in a failing public school thanks to President Obama.

The Opportunity Scholarship Program offers vouchers to low-income students to attend private schools. A 2010 study published by Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas found that the scholarship recipients had graduation rates of 91%. The graduation rate for D.C. public schools was 56%, and it was 70% for students who entered the lottery for a voucher but didn’t win.

Because the president’s teachers union allies are opposed to school choice for poor people, Mr. Obama ignores or downplays these findings. He repeatedly has tried to shutter the program, even though it is clearly advancing his stated goal of increasing graduation rates and closing the black-white achievement gap.

In Real Life: “Julia At 3” Gets Very Little Or Nothing From Head Start:

Unfortunately, a new (long overdue) report published by the Department of Health and Human found that the $150 billion that taxpayers have “invested” in Head Start since 1965 is yielding zero lasting benefits for participating children. According to the Head Start Impact Study: “the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole.” The Heritage Foundation reviews the findings of the new evaluation in a forthcoming Backgrounder report concluding: “Head Start has little to no effect on cognitive, socio-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes of children participating in the program.”

In Real Life: “Julia At 3” Gets Very Little Or Nothing From Head Start:

Unfortunately, a new (long overdue) report published by the Department of Health and Human found that the $150 billion that taxpayers have “invested” in Head Start since 1965 is yielding zero lasting benefits for participating children. According to the Head Start Impact Study: “the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole.” The Heritage Foundation reviews the findings of the new evaluation in a forthcoming Backgrounder report concluding: “Head Start has little to no effect on cognitive, socio-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes of children participating in the program.”