Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Education United States

America's College Towns Go From Boom To Bust (msn.com) 193

Posted by msmash from the ripple-effect dept.
America's regional state universities are experiencing steep enrollment declines, triggering economic crises in the towns that depend on them, while flagship universities continue to thrive.

At Western Illinois University in Macomb, enrollment has plummeted 47% since 2010, driving the city's population down 23% to 14,765. Empty dorms have been repurposed or demolished, while local businesses struggle to survive. "It's almost like you're watching the town die," Kalib McGruder, a 28-year veteran of the campus police department, told WSJ.

An analysis of 748 public four-year institutions reveals enrollment at prestigious state universities increased 9% between 2015 and 2023, while regional state schools saw a 2% decline. The University of Tennessee Knoxville's enrollment jumped 30% as the state's regional colleges collectively fell 3%. With high school graduate numbers expected to decline starting next year after reaching a record high in 2024, the outlook for struggling college towns appears bleak.

America's College Towns Go From Boom To Bust More | Reply

America's College Towns Go From Boom To Bust

Comments Filter:

  • This is a good time to remind everyone (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:04PM (#65390615)
    That if you're over 40 when you went to college the government paid 80% of your tuition. When your kids go to college the government is now paying 30%.

    Us old folks had advantages to kids don't have. We took them away. Ladder pulling.

    • Nah - it's not as simple as that (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:11PM (#65390645)

      The actual amount that the taxpayer provides to support tertiary education is much the same. The problem is that the costs of four year colleges have risen ridiculously more than inflation; there's an interesting question to ask about 'why?' More broadly of course all those over 65 or so are expecting to be supported by the taxpayer and the number of taxpayers is falling, so there's not been a lot of 'ladder pulling away'.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's not that interesting a question. On one hand, you have people dedicated to their political mission and prejudices who will blame the relative inflation on government money, whether that be through direct support to the institution or loans to its students. They will further have no explanation for how the mere sources of these funds eliminate otherwise-rational economic behavior, other than the circular statement that it tampers with incentives. On the other hand, you have people who understand that pr

      • unlimited student loans drive costs up! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:29PM (#65390719)

        unlimited student loans drive costs up!

      • This is a myth (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        You are technically right in that the amounts in raw dollars are the same but the population has increased substantially and the number of people going to college has dramatically risen.

        If you have more students then you're going to have more cost because students are like it or not more or less a fixed cost.

        As for why there are more students no we aren't all getting degrees in basket weaving. You can look up degrees awarded by major and see that the vast majority of them fall into either stem, law

      • I think most people drawing social security would be happy enough to get back what they has personally paid in during their working years, preferably inflation adjusted, even if not with the investment gains that this enforced retirement "investing" scheme nominally promised.

        Of course the government squandered all the money retirees paid into the system, but that's not their fault - the government is still on the hook to provide the benefit they paid for, and of course their only source of money is taxes or

        • None of that is true. People who live to a ripe old age are almost always getting more back from social security than they paid in. If you are talking about the heirs to the people who died young, then you are right. They would have had a higher inheritance if the money had been left to them in a bank account. And, yes, the government is "squandering" that money to pay social security benefits.

      • Re: Nah - it's not as simple as that (Score:4, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @01:39PM (#65390965) Homepage Journal

        The why is that when the government made student loans available the schools started raising tuition because the students could get funding. Instead of building more schools we allowed them to keep raising prices to reduce the number of applicants. To justify their prices they spend the money on consulting. And the increased revenue then justifies ever-higher administrative salaries to manage all that money. Upward spiral for the administrators, downward spiral for education quality and availability.

        • we allowed them to keep raising prices to reduce the number of applicants.

          To the contrary, we allowed them to raise prices without reducing the number of applicants. Instead the applicants debt just increased and the "applicant" became much more valuable. So colleges now recruit students based on their life style amenities rather than the quality of their education. And the more they invest in those amenities, the higher the cost and the more students they attract. Its a business.

          • To the contrary, we allowed them to raise prices without reducing the number of applicants.

            Perhaps I should have said "control". I skipped college for a while when I was young because I didn't want to go into debt, and I was employable due to the dot com boom. Later on I went ahead and got those loans because I was having a hard time becoming employed. So while it didn't outright stop me, it did delay me, and it would have stopped me if I had kept working.

      • It's even more nuanced than that. For state colleges and universities, the government support question is very true - states have been reducing subsidies for in-state tuition, creating tuitions in some state that rival private schools. For private schools - there is a legitimate question on rapidly growing administrative costs. Some is driven by the government due to reporting requirements for various regulations. Some is due to new technologies - things like having to stand up IT departments to support wif

    • MAGA will tell you the government should pay 0% of college tuition. That there's no such thing as a free lunch.

    • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )
      I'm over 40. I paid for every cent of my tuition out of pocket.

      • Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:56PM (#65390805)

        I'm over 40. I paid for every cent of my STATE SUBSIDIZED tuition out of pocket.

        ftfy.

        • Tuition (Score:5, Informative)

          by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @01:07PM (#65390859)
          Since I was at university, state subsidies have decreased 30% adjusted for inflation. Tuition has increased 400% adjusted for inflation. University expenditures have increased 2x-3x since I left. When I started, the school had four or five new buildings that had been built in the previous decade. In the intervening 20 years, they built 30 new buildings along with two satellite campuses and a few incubator buildings, along with all the new administration and staff to fill those new buildings. It's endowment is as large as a decent sized Caribbean country's GDP.

      • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by maladroit ( 71511 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:58PM (#65390811) Homepage

        I paid for all of my college tuition and expenses with a part-time job.

        Nobody can do that today.

        • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @01:41PM (#65390985) Journal

          I paid for all of my college tuition and expenses with a part-time job.

          Nobody can do that today.

          20 years ago I had the pleasure of working with gentlemen that came out of retirement in construction management to consult on a construction project we had going. They were great men and despite our age differences, we became fast friends. I was stunned when they told me what college was like for them "back in the day". They both worked their way through college in the mid 50's by doing construction work in the summers. They were able to make enough for tuition, books, room and board for the whole academic year. This was at a major state university in the southern US.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
        How much of the tuition was subsidized though?

        I'm also over 40, had a partial scholarship but paid everything else myself. Doesn't mean my education wasn't partially subsidized through the Federal Gov't.
    • 30 percent. I think thats being generous. Last time I checked it was under 20 percent and sinking. You pay nearly full cost even if you go to a state school nowadays.

    • Re:This is a good time to remind everyone (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CubicleZombie ( 2590497 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:43PM (#65390759)

      That if you're over 40 when you went to college the government paid 80% of your tuition. When your kids go to college the government is now paying 30%.

      When I went to college, student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy, so there was a limit as to how much banks were willing to loan. Tuition reflected that. Today, all the buildings have been replaced with sprawling modern megastructures and the campus streets are paved with marble.

    • That if you're over 40 when you went to college the government paid 80% of your tuition. When your kids go to college the government is now paying 30%.

      Went I went to college, it was at a community college for the first two years before transferring to a local university while living at home to save money.

      I didn't choose to finance an education mortgage where 80% of that cost is extraneous unnecessary for-profit bullshit defined today as The College Experience.

      Prove me wrong by auditing the average students spend for four years. Let's see how much of that debt was actually necessary.

      • "Prove me wrong by auditing the average students spend for four years. Let's see how much of that debt was actually necessary."

        Necessary for what purpose? Being a good worker drone, or being a good citizen?

      • Went I went to college, it was at a community college for the first two years before transferring to a local university while living at home to save money.

        And when I went to college for my degree, going for 2 years at a community college first would set my graduation back at least a year. Some credits did not transfer and many required degree courses started in freshman year so transferring in 2 years later meant I was behind everyone else. I would have loved to save money by doing community college first but that would have cost me more ironically as the increase in tuition and fees every year meant the last 2 years were the most expensive. And yes I went to

    • Making it a generational war won't help (Score:5, Insightful)

      by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @01:36PM (#65390955) Journal

      Making this a generational war isn't going to help. It deflects from the real culprits: The financial industry and the colleges themselves. The incentive for the finance biz was obvious. It's another payment stream, and they got the cherry on top of it not being discharged in bankruptcy. The incentive for colleges is that when education is financed, it now makes it possible for them to raise tuition and other expenses. When you pay out of pocket, you're cost conscious. When something is financed, you're tempted to price it according to whatever payment you think you can afford in the future. Even if you don't, other people do and that will allow prices to rise. You're a price-taker in the market. You have no choice, except to turn away or maybe go with something cheaper and perhaps less prestigious; but that's going up too because everything is financed.

      So it's not inter-generational conflict. That's deflection, and before some young socialist yells "class war!" that's not it either. Everybody is greedy. Socialism is just an alternative marketing plan developed by another bunch of suits, with an aim of going straight for power and relying less on money to get there.

      So what's the answer? Rooting out corruption and greed, without regard for the cynical fronts of "generational war" or "class war", or whatever "war" is being pitched to accrue power to yet another bad actor.

      • Making this a generational war isn't going to help. It deflects from the real culprits: The financial industry and the colleges themselves.

        We can't fix it while the people who benefited from the prior situation vote against fixing it. It IS a generational war, and the aggressors are the ones who got the good deal and don't want anyone else to get the same.

      • Making this a generational war isn't going to help. It deflects from the real culprits: The financial industry and the colleges themselves. The incentive for the finance biz was obvious. It's another payment stream, and they got the cherry on top of it not being discharged in bankruptcy. The incentive for colleges is that when education is financed, it now makes it possible for them to raise tuition and other expenses.

        That is an almost perfect summary. You missed one point, that "cherry on top" forces students to pay off their "low interest student loan" instead of their high interest credit card debt. Student loans permanently hook a lot of people on credit.

    • f you're over 40 when you went to college the government paid 80% of your tuition.

      I doubt that is true. Are you talking about tuition students paid or the total cost of the education? And are you including people who went to private colleges? In fact, more people are graduating from college than forty years ago. So the ladder is not only there but being used more. Its a lot more crowded when you get off at the top. And most of the people have a heavy backpack of debt to carry around along with their degree.

      Low interest government backed loans are pitched as a benefit to help students. B

    • College wasn't cheaper because the government paid more, college was cheaper because the staffing level of the institution was 1/10th what it is today. Colleges are fundamentally bureaucracies. Student loan money was handed to colleges without an overhead rate cap being defined. So colleges spent the money and raised tuition. The U.S. government obliging backed ever larger loans and so the cost of college was allowed to mushroom to fund the cancerous bureaucracies of our colleges. Today tenured faculty

  • Just thinking (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:09PM (#65390637)
    This is pretty much a natural spinoff of the era of people believing that if you didn't have a degree - and any degree at all, you are a superior human who will get richly rewarded with a lucrative career, likewise with any degree in any field.

    So the Universities got a lot of students willing to take out loans for Books, classes and living expenses, and that demand had universities adding layer upon layer of middle managers and accountants.

    Then upon graduating, so many young people found themselves with the same skillset as the guy that dropped out of high school in 10th grade.

    So these kids who probably shouldn't have been in University in the first place, ended up in a payback mess, and later groups of kids have stopped.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      This is the US we are talking about, I think the reason is dumber than you think. The universities that are gaining are also in the big name athletic conferences. It's brand recognition

      There are some other reasons. Affordability, more going to trade schools, some disillusionment with higher education. Honestly, I believe the biggest factor is kids want the big name school affiliation and if that doesn't happen, they either settle for a smaller school or go a different route.

    • I don't want to deprive anyone of an opportunity for an education, but our current college system is bloated and ineffective. We need better options that do not require a lifetime of indentured servitude to repay your debt. Colleges have turned into for-profit diploma mills. Students enroll because it is expected of them. Most are not there because they want to learn something or to pursue an advanced career. It is just what you do after high-school.

      The reality is we do not all need a college degree.

  • No dating.
    No marriage.
    No kids.
    =
    Empty schools.

    • Empty schools also because of No immigration.
      But more troubling is,

      No prospects for the future.
      No economic growth.
      No practical individual libertry
      =
      Exodus of young and intelligent that have the flexibility to find leave.

      • Empty schools also because of No immigration.
        But more troubling is,
        No prospects for the future.
        No economic growth.
        No practical individual liberty

        So assuming this stacked deck, you think the immigrants will somehow overcome, better than the locals?

        • immigrants are a labor resource. if you leaders want to leave resources that increase GDP on the table, then they aren't serious about economic growth.

          • So assuming this stacked deck, you think the immigrants will somehow overcome, better than the locals?

            immigrants are a labor resource. if you leaders want to leave resources that increase GDP on the table, then they aren't serious about economic growth.

            So the answer to my question is no, the immigrants will not do better.
            And it makes sense, since adding more "resources" without curing the underlying problems, does not make things better.

            I'd like to remind you that both internal (state-to-state) and external (international) immigration still occur in the USA. It is illegal international immigration that is being prevented.

      • Exodus? Where? 4 years of Trump withstanding, the US as always has the cleanest dirty shirt. Everyone else has bigger problems or is only interesting for early retirees.

        • Asia, Europe, Australia, etc. The usual places where ex pats end up.

          The is a weird growth of Westerners working in the Middle East. I think it's crazy, but the numbers are growing there too. I guess the money must be good.

          The average American fascism-enthusiast is going to get a rude awakening when they find out the US isn't the only game in town. The 20th century was a peak influence in the world, and there's no guarantee that we will be on top through the 21st century. Especially given our performance so

          • Middle East throwing oil money at for instance AI isn't really organic, Americans are directly recruited for elite paying jobs and keeping their US passport. Less emigrants, more temporary mercenaries. Give an average Indian emigrant a choice between a Dubai and an US passport and they will pick the US one in a heartbeat.

      • Empty schools also because of No immigration.

        The United States issues visas for legal immigrants at over 1 million per year (including applicant children). And the US has been generous in visas for half a century now. There's no shortage of people legally immigrating here [americanim...ouncil.org]:

        The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of U.S. citizens’ spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21.

        The problem is native reproduction. All first world countries are seeing demographic collapse because their kids have stopped marrying and mating. From Switzerland to Sweden, it's a problem for all advanced nations. No one wants to settle down. It's not every really a matter of mone

        • "The problem is native reproduction"

          Which is only a problem if you are trying to promote nationalistic racism.

        • The United States issues visas for legal immigrants at over 1 million per year (including applicant children). And the US has been generous in visas for half a century now. There's no shortage of people legally immigrating here [americanim...ouncil.org]:

          Past performance is not a predictor of future results. I would argue that 100 years of behavior is no basis for assuming the next 3 3/4 years. The deal has been altered.

          The problem is native reproduction.

          Poppycock and balderdash. The conclusion you make about a stable birthrate is completely ridiculous and not based on any evidence. And it completely ignores technology progress multiplying productivity. It ignores the contribution of education to economic growth.

          Young women want their so-called "Ho Phase", and young men would rather buy the latest playstation than put money away for investments like retirement and home buying.

          " I find by sad Experience how the Towns and Streets are filled with lewd wicked

  • Very sad for the workers who make a living from it.

    We need to ask far harder questions about what tertiary education - especially four year residential colleges - are for. To the extent they are merely a positional good that gives the degree holder a better starting position in the race to get a job, their value must be questioned. To the extent they replace apprenticeships in scientific and engineering firms who've stopped bothering to offer them, we need to face that fact.

    But ultimately the questions are: What should we teach at high school so that employers will want to employ high school graduates? What's missing that employers think they want? Do they really need these skills?

    • What's missing that employers think they want?

      Do you really think high schools could adequately prepare someone to be a nurse? A pharmacist? An engineer? A lawyer? A counselor? A teacher?

      You are also starting with the biggest assumption, which is that college is about preparing people for employment. This is a rather modern (last 30 years or so) take on college. For much of history, college was about preparing people to be good neighbors and have a good life, and getting a "good job" was only a part of that purpose.

  • Good. Maybe we can demolish the giant shell game of subsidized college education that's driving massive student debt and crushing young peoples' opportunities to have families, buy houses, get on with life.

    To wit:
    - Democrat congress passes massive educational subsidies for college education in the 1980s.
    - concurrently (or shortly later) college tuitions climb at 5x the rate of inflation
    - $billions of US taxpayer funds go to colleges and ultimately expand the most reliably-leftist-voting-bloc in the US for

    • Maybe we can demolish the giant shell game of subsidized college education that's driving massive student debt and crushing young peoples' opportunities to have families, buy houses, get on with life

      Interestingly, the regional public institutions are the best financial bargain for a 4-year degree; but students are voting with their feet and showing they are not interested.

      concurrently (or shortly later) college tuitions climb at 5x the rate of inflation

      States have massively cut their support for public higher education, leading to colleges passing those costs on to students. And the dramatic rise in health insurance costs have also driven price increases as the largest proportion of expenditures are in personnel.

      $billions of US taxpayer funds go to colleges and ultimately expand the most reliably-leftist-voting-bloc in the US for the past 60 years: teachers

      We need teachers, and nurses, and social workers...this is why the publ

    • Now talk about the GI bill.

  • Admitting tons of students that used to get rejected and thus went to the mid-tier unis. This is happening all over the country. The good universities are caniballizing the mid ones. I cant really blame them. Its just a hard fact of reality.

    • Admitting tons of students that used to get rejected and thus went to the mid-tier unis. This is happening all over the country. The good universities are caniballizing the mid ones. I cant really blame them. Its just a hard fact of reality.

      When you realize you misspelled customers you'll understand why that for-profit industry buried deep in the United States of Capitalism is being so "generous" with admissions.

      We can stop pretending the "top" universities aren't also dying businesses. They absolutely are, and the lowering of standards shows.

  • America's Innovation Goes from Boom to Bust (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nickovs ( 115935 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2025 @12:46PM (#65390773)
    Scientific innovation in the USA since 1950 has been primarily driven by the long term investments made by successive governments (on both sides of the aisle) in primary research. The short term investment strategies that drive Wall Street don't allow for companies to make long term plays that will benefit the whole of America, rather than this quarter's investors. As such it seems highly unlikely that "the market" is going to take up the slack in primary research investment. American innovation is going to suffer, and America will suffer in the long run. Meanwhile China is investing in primary research like America did in the 1960s. What a way to Make America Irrelevant Again.

    • China has vast industries to apply research which simply can not be applied in the US any more ... what's the point in researching stuff to be applied in China?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nickovs ( 115935 )

        China has vast industries to apply research which simply can not be applied in the US any more ... what's the point in researching stuff to be applied in China?

        America has vast industries that can apply research too, and they're very good at it. The idea that US manufacturing production is in decline is a total myth. US manufacturing output has been trending consistently upwards (with the exception of 2020) for decades. It has declined as a fraction of GDP, but it has still grown in real terms. The reason that so many people think that it has declined (aside from propaganda from populist politicians telling them so) is that manufacturing productivity has been grow

  • The article is advancing a narrative that is not actually supported by any evidence. Enrollment may be down, but not for the reasons they say.

  • Moved from out West back to a midwest state where the "college" in this public college town has lost almost 50% of its enrollment. The locals at the U act like this is no big deal, but the effects are pretty clear - many of the technical majors are now taught by adjunct faculty who are on semester contracts and get no benefits, and many dorms sit empty and mothballed. Meanwhile we have 17 legal cannabis despensaries in a town (without the students) of 20K. I guess this tells where everyone's priorities a

  • So many college towns were already trashy and disgusting to begin with.

  • Are there less jobs requiring them, and turning away thoae with degrees who would demand a higher pay?

    • Are there less jobs requiring them...?

      We can hope. Employers unnecessarily requiring college degrees was no doubt responsible for the massive explosion of degree-seeking students. If employers based their hiring on ability rather than degree credentials, we will see the degree complex crumble from disuse.

      • I made myself laugh. I meant massive explosion in the number of degree-seeking students. Not the degree-seeking students were exploding.

  • Unfortunately, a lot of these schools will end up going bankrupt over the next few years. Enrollment is already down and they are on the threshold of a demographic crisis [youtube.com].

  • The price of a UC education tripled from when I was a kid. Inflation overall only doubled. Housing costs/cost of living went up way, way more. Maybe quadrupled. I had my own apartment for 500 bucks, and now that apartment is well over 2k.

  • I see some already talking about how it was easier/cheaper when the state paid 80% of the costs. This is true. We also saw colleges and universities being told to run themselves as businesses, that was to grow and focus on the dollar rather than the product.

    I watched as my expenses grew every year. I was able to keep up but only because I took a few hours ever year until I was done.
    At the same time, I watched how international students filled the graduate programs and that became the more important progr

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger

Close