Higher Education Costs: What Could The Federal Government Do?

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Joey Fishkin says:

    The ending of this post reflects an awfully sanguine view of faculty governance (in comparison to law firm partners). I doubt very much that if you reversed the ADEA amendments of 1986 (putting back in place the exception allowing for mandatory retirement for tenured faculty), the result would be a lot of faculties deciding amongst themselves, with no pressure from their administrations, to re-institute mandatory retirement. I think instead what you would see would be faculties getting steamrolled as universities quickly re-institute mandatory retirement as a budget-cutting measure — and forget about the phased retirement arrangements and other such systems that some universities have begun to put into place in recent years. The tradeoffs here are complex, but I don’t think faculty governance provides much in the way of protection.

  2. Dave Hoffman says:


    I hear you, but I wonder if your comment reflects a similarly sanguine view of the power of individual law firm partners (in large firms).

  3. Arizonan says:

    Whatever the merits of mandatory retirement, the allocation of spending isn’t driving the cost of education. Whatever schools can raise, they will spend.

    While it may seem counter-intuitive, it is federal support for student loans that drives up the cost of education. Without credit, very few students could afford today’s tuition, even at a state school.

    We might prefer high-cost to low-cost education for many reasons, but we should understand why college costs more than it did before: students can afford to pay more because they can borrow more.