Response to Andrew Martin's article

In the article Andrew Martin sheds light on an 'amenities arms race' between colleges and universities across the country that has driven up education costs for much of the past 15 years.  In an attempt to attract the best student athletes and high performing students, colleges and universities have invested heavily to upgrade dorms, student unions, fitness centers, and other visible amenities.  Unfortunately, these upgrades cost a lot of money that traditionally has been paid for by increasing tuition. For many young bachelor’s degree recipients, the real cost of their education comes as a surprise.  Second only to a home mortgage and possibly an expensive car, a student’s education debt load is the next most significant debt that they will carry.  Yet unlike a home mortgage or a new vehicle purchase, the conditions of repayment and the real cost of the purchase are often not presented in a straightforward way.  Students often receive financial aid letters that blur the lines between grants and loans thereby making the awarding institution appear to be a greater value than it may actually be. This editorial explores the notable absence of standardized, above board information available to borrowers and why such information is so critical to borrowers and their parents in order to make informed decisions about the true costs of education. So bottom line the cost of an undergraduate education is rising higher than the salaries of borrowers and their parents, higher than inflation, and assuming that current annual tuition increases remain constant through 2016, the cost of an undergraduate education will have doubled in just 15 years.