j.r. leonard

Not to mention if you made a graph that was only red states it would be wildly different. Because the cuts have been far more severe in red states.

Whether funding has grown or been cut will depend on what years you pick. My point is that funding has stayed about the same, while tuition has increased substantially. And that means the funding isn’t the main driver of higher tuition

If the schools are not raising tuition because of their funding cuts then why are they? Why does every article I see discuss the massive funding cuts as the man driver? What’s the main driver to you? Do you think it’s adjunct salaries?

You can look at the numbers yourself. If funding fell by, let’s say 10%, and tuition rose by, lets say 30%, then we should be able to agree that there are other potentially larger factors driving up the sticker price. My guess is admin costs and larger federal subsidies

As to why the media only seems to focus on the state funding story... well, I find myself asking the same question

Maybe it’s because the cuts have been so drastic

A 25% cut is different than staying the same or increasing. If the funding had increased over time students wouldn’t be paying as high of tuition. Because it would be paid by the state. For every dollar you cut in funding they have to at least add a dollar in tuition.