Skip to main content

Bubbles, Bubbles, Bubbles

This graph from The Atlantic's Daniel Indiviglio is pretty astounding (click to enlarge).


A good deal has already been written about it. Particularly the fact that the growth in student debt exceeded the growth in other debt during what is now know to have been a massive housing bubble. I don't want to double up on too much of what others have written, but I had some thoughts.

The graph (and the article) (and current students) make a compelling case that we are in a student loan bubble. So, it might be sensible given the obviously high cost of the previous bubble to begin to at least draw down the growth in student debt. This likely means some combination of (a) reducing government support for student loans (removing guarantees, tightening lending standards, etc.), (b) providing grants to students, (c) instituting some sort of price controls on universities (tuition caps). All three of these measures are politically difficult:

Reducing Loan Support: Much of the increase in the cost of higher education and student debt can likely be attributed to government programs that allow students (especially grad student and undergrads' parents) to take out virtually unlimited loans. Removing support for this type of lending would decrease student's ability to pay high tuition. Hopefully, universities would have to respond by lowering fees. However, this has distributional consequences, especially in the short-term. Middle and lower income students will effectively be locked out of many universities. This will clearly be politically unpopular since university has become one of the few ways to try to ensure a stable and moderately high income.

Providing Grants: Given most state and federal budget realities, changing loans to grants would effectively be changing student debt to public debt. There is clearly little appetite for this right now.

However, it should be noted that if the student bubble bursts, like the housing bubble, explicit or implicit contingent liabilities have a way of hitting the budget directly anyways.

Tuition Caps: There are numerous political problems. Imagine any US politician these days advocating price controls. Furthermore, there would be difficulties getting universities to go along with such measures since they are the direct beneficiaries of tuition inflation.

(For my UK readers, the current government used a couple of these strategies when they raised university fees. Though we can discuss what you think about higher tuition fees in the UK, it is clear that the growth in UK student debt isn't going to grow at the same continuously massive rate as in the US.)

I'm not sure how this is going to turn out, but I do have one further thought as a budding academic. Though universities (including faculty) clearly benefit from a system that is rapidly allocating considerable resources to it, they have a long-term interest in taming this bubble. The clear analogy is the housing industry.

Sure when the bubble is building things are great. But when it crashes and crashes in such a way that demand sinks for a long time, the former winners become losers.



Comments

PinskVinsk said…
Interesting. I think this article from the Guardian makes a good point about another entity (besides banks/governments) getting in on the higher-education feeding frenzy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist?mobile-redirect=false

Popular posts from this blog

A Link Between topicmodels LDA and LDAvis

Carson Sievert and Kenny Shirley have put together the really nice LDAvis R package. It provides a Shiny-based interactive interface for exploring the output from Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic models. If you've never used it, I highly recommend checking out their XKCD example (this paper also has some nice background). LDAvis doesn't fit topic models, it just visualises the output. As such it is agnostic about what package you use to fit your LDA topic model. They have a useful example of how to use output from the lda package. I wanted to use LDAvis with output from the topicmodels package. It works really nicely with texts preprocessed using the tm package. The trick is extracting the information LDAvis requires from the model and placing it into a specifically structured JSON formatted object. To make the conversion from topicmodels output to LDAvis JSON input easier, I created a linking function called topicmodels_json_ldavis . The full function is below. To

Set up R/Stan on Amazon EC2

A few months ago I posted the script that I use to set up my R/JAGS working environment on an Amazon EC2 instance. Since then I've largely transitioned to using R/ Stan to estimate my models. So, I've updated my setup script (see below). There are a few other changes: I don't install/use RStudio on Amazon EC2. Instead, I just use R from the terminal. Don't get me wrong, I love RStudio. But since what I'm doing on EC2 is just running simulations (I handle the results on my local machine), RStudio is overkill. I don't install git anymore. Instead I use source_url (from devtools) and source_data (from repmis) to source scripts from GitHub. Again all of the manipulation I'm doing to these scripts is on my local machine.

Slide: one function for lag/lead variables in data frames, including time-series cross-sectional data

I often want to quickly create a lag or lead variable in an R data frame. Sometimes I also want to create the lag or lead variable for different groups in a data frame, for example, if I want to lag GDP for each country in a data frame. I've found the various R methods for doing this hard to remember and usually need to look at old blog posts . Any time we find ourselves using the same series of codes over and over, it's probably time to put them into a function. So, I added a new command– slide –to the DataCombine R package (v0.1.5). Building on the shift function TszKin Julian posted on his blog , slide allows you to slide a variable up by any time unit to create a lead or down to create a lag. It returns the lag/lead variable to a new column in your data frame. It works with both data that has one observed unit and with time-series cross-sectional data. Note: your data needs to be in ascending time order with equally spaced time increments. For example 1995, 1996