Economic progress is created when multiple inputs are combined in such a way that the output that they create is more valuable than the inputs themselves. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For example, if I were to combine flour, sugar, butter, eggs, vanilla and chocolate chips, I could produce chocolate chip cookies. If the cookies are more valuable to me than the ingredients by themselves, this could be considered economic progress. If the cookies are less valuable, I should not have decided to combine them in this way. I should have found an alternate use for them.

Education is another example.

Education can be very valuable, especially in regards to its ability to allow you to pursue a more desirable job or a job that pays better. If you combine professors, classrooms, desks and books, you can create an education – which you can buy at Iowa State – for a certain price known as tuition.

If this education is more valuable to you than the cost of tuition, it would be wise to purchase it. If not, you should find an alternative use for your money that you would consider to be more valuable.

As you have probably heard by now, state appropriations to Iowa State University were cut by 22 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. The state of Iowa can no longer afford to fund Iowa State University at the levels that it would prefer.

Being a public university, Iowa State gets money from the state of Iowa, which it can use to lower the price of education.

This enables more students to afford a college education.

The problem with this is that it encourages people who value this education at less than the cost of the inputs to purchase education anyway.

For example, it costs $71,484 to purchase an education at the price of the 2009-’10 out-of-state tuition paid for four years. If, for example, the education is only worth $40,000 to you, then you should not buy it. Under normal circumstances you wouldn’t. But if you only have to pay $26,604  for that education (2009-’10 in-state tuition paid for four years), you will. This leaves $44,880 to be paid by the taxpayers for an education that isn’t even worth what it costs. In less prosperous times such as now, an extra $44,880 per student may be hard for Iowa to come by.

Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the education of those who value their education at more than the cost of its inputs, but often times must pay for the education of those who value it less.

This is the opposite of economic progress, and it is subsidized by our government.

Having made this argument before, I am somewhat familiar with the common responses and will take the time to address them now:

“But Blake, if capitalism is allowed to rule then profits, not quality education, will become the focus of universities.”

As long as students demand a quality education, the two will go hand in hand.

If Ford started selling tricycles to people who demanded quality transportation in order to increase their profits they wouldn’t last long, just like a school who didn’t offer the education that students wanted.

“But Blake, without government funding, poor people won’t be able to afford a college education.”

They won’t be able to afford to go to Disney World either, but that’s no reason to get my tax dollars involved. If people with less money could afford everything that people with more money could, what would be the incentive to be productive and make money in the first place?

“Then how will poor people ever get out of poverty? Wouldn’t a college education be the best way to combat this?”

This all comes back to the input/output argument. If the value of the inputs [time and money spent to go to college] costs less than the college education is worth to you, then yes, you should go to college.

That’s not the case for everyone.

For some people, that time and money could be more valuable to them if it was spent elsewhere. Therefore, they should not go to college.

The government screws this up by artificially decreasing the cost of college, thereby leading people who should be doing something else with their resources to use them to attend a state-sponsored university. Money that could be allocated toward other things must now be spent making up the difference between what people pay for college and what it actually costs. This is the opposite of the economic progress that I was talking about.

“But Blake, doesn’t everyone benefit from an educated population? After all, an educated workforce is more productive and pays more taxes.”

Again, inputs vs. outputs. If it costs more to educate the workforce than you get in increased productivity from educating the workforce, it’s not worth it.

“Studies have shown that an educated population leads to less crime.”

Does a lack of education cause people to commit crimes or are the types of people who are not inclined to pursue an education also the types of people who are inclined to commit crimes? Correlation does not imply causation.

“Well, what about all the research that universities do? That has to be worth something.”

Then let the people who benefit from the research pay for it, rather than the entire state. If the research is valuable, someone will pay for it.

“You dirty hypocrite, Blake! Don’t you realize that you’re attending a public university right now? You should go to a private university if you have such a problem with it.”

If the state of Iowa paid me to bake cookies, I’d do that more often, too. Believe it or not, I respond to financial incentives just like everyone else.

I don’t have thousands of dollars just sitting around that I can use solely for moral indignation. Either way, I have to pay for this education through taxes for the rest of my life, so I might as well take advantage of it.

Blake Hasenmiller is a senior in industrial engineering and ecomonics from DeWitt.