_ ± 
."•-W 
V%S* 
44 A Study of Student Loa ns 
Cost of Building 
Comparing the same curves as in Chart 3A with the cost of building, 
Chart 3B, we observe practically the same relationship. The only 
difference is that the cost of building reaches a higher peak, has a gradual 
rise after 1921, and keeps above all the tuition lines, except from 1921 
to 1923, whereas the cost of living line falls below one cf the tuition lines 
in 1921 and remains in that position up to the present. 
Sources of Income versus Benefits 
Keeping in mind that Statistical information is very inadequate and 
unreliable, we may nevertheless formulate certain postulates. First, that 
the income from the Student body has not risen proportionately to that 
of the income from other sources. This is a matter which needs serious 
consideration. Second, that the educational charges in the various schools 
within the institutions, both public and private, have not been apportioned 
with due consideration given to the differences in the economic value of 
the training to the Student as among the various branches of leärning. A 
few institutions have approached such an arrangement, but there is no 
reason to believe that this has been done in a calculated way. Third, that 
the financial policies of institutions have not been remodeled in accordance 
with the changing economic conditions and the new purposes for which 
higher education exists. Fourth, that the general argument or conten- 
tion that higher education justifies large state appropriations from the 
subsequent value it renders to society, is equally applicable to any 
form of training, physical, moral, or for the trades. The bricklayer (on 
the average) is potentially as useful to society as the average writer, poet, 
artist, musician, or even lawyer or business man, as well as a large Pro 
portion of those engaged in the many forms of so-called scientific work. 
Not all College graduates contribute more to society than the average indi 
vidual. It is only the exceptional man in the exceptional position who 
contributes more to society. Fifth, that an attempt should be made to 
allocate costs of higher education among the various sources of revenue 
in proportion to the benefits which institutions of higher leärning have 
to offer to these different individuals, groups, and organizations which 
constitute the sources of income. In order to do this, it would be necessary 
to measure both the benefits of higher education which the different 
parties receive and also the cost to the Institution to make these benefits 
available.