The Army updates but doesn't really upgrade its main rifle

In 1967, the ubiquitous M16 rifle, with its iconic built-in carrying handle, became a standard weapon of the US military. Astonishingly, 40 years later, the US military continues to rely on the same basic design for its main infantry weapon. Are the decisions -- some political, some based on physics, and some based on prevailing military viewpoints -- that led the Air Force and then the Army and Marines to adopt the M16 in the midst of the Vietnam conflict still relevant today?

In an era where Pentagon is retiring younger weapons systems, such as the F-117 Nighthawk (the stealth fighter), the M16 family of rifles continues on. Much like the B-52 bomber, which began active duty in 1954, the weapon is either too good to replace or there is simply nothing that can do its job better. For better or worse, the M16 -- particularly its shortened M4 variant -- will be the rifle of choice for most US soldiers for years to come.

An enduring icon of America's political and military aspirations

The M16 and its Soviet-designed counterpart, the AK-47, are iconic symbols of America and its enemies' political and military struggles. US soldiers armed with M16s faced the massive Red Army of the Soviet Union and its AK-47-equipped troops. In Vietnam, US soldiers with M16s fought Viet Cong insurgents and North Vietnamese forces who were often armed with AK variants. In numerous smaller proxy confrontations, US-backed and M16-equipped forces battled AK wielding forces supported by the Soviets.

While the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the iconic battle of rifles continues as US troops with M16s battled the AK-armed Iraq forces in the first and second Gulf War. Today, the various Iraq insurgent elements, the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan, and a variety of other terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah, most often aim their AKs at US forces who fire back with M16 and the increasingly-deployed M4 carbine version (a carbine is a shorter rifle that was originally designed for cavalry troops).


A rocky start that has never been entirely forgotten

In June of 1996, the New York Times published an article entitled "Army Seeks a Rifle to Replace the M-14, Found Erratic in Vietnam Fighting" that discussed how the US Army was attempting to deliver a more modern rifle to the bulk of its soldiers. The article noted that the decision "... could well shape the course of land battles for some time to come." While the M16 would in fact go on to replace the M14, its introduction into widespread service was not positive.


A PR disaster in its first year and still generating some bad press

The M16 began its long service mired in controversy. Initial batches were prone to jam during use in the jungles of Vietnam. In 1967 the M16 had become a standard Army weapon, but that same year frequent reports of the rifle malfunctioning -- and graphic anecdotes recounted in Congress and in the media of dead US soldiers with jammed and inoperable weapons in their hands -- led to a far-ranging discussion on the weapon's merits. A Congressional delegation was sent to Vietnam while military leaders defended its value to critical lawmakers.

While the kinks were largely worked out -- its internals were treated differently, better ammunition was issued, and soldiers were taught to clean it frequently -- the weapon has never been able to shake the reputation of a finicky rifle. In March, the Army Times published an article entitled "Better than M4, but you can’t have one." [Note: The M4 is a shorter version of the M16 but relies on mostly the same internal parts.] The article pointed out two recent and well-known examples of the M16/M4 failing in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Once behind cover, Self tried to fire again, but his weapon jammed ... The Rangers were fighting for their lives. Self left his covered position and ran under machine-gun fire to search for a working weapon. [2002 battle in Afghanistan] 

...  

Perhaps the most well-known incident of M16s failing in battle involves the 507th Maintenance Company in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq ... Several of the 507th soldiers later complained that their M16s, and other weapons, failed them during the March 23 ambush. [2003 ambush in Iraq] 

While those two high-profile reports of M16/M4 failures would seem to indicate the rifle is flawed and should be replaced or redesigned, the leadership in the Pentagon apparently does not agree. It is buying even more M16s/M4s today, despite decisions by US special force units that are already using or planning to move to a different and more reliable rifle (these small, elite units can choose their own weapons, unlike the majority of Army soldiers and Marines who are issued the standard rifle).

Rigorous scientific testing would undoubtedly prove whether or not these reliability stereotypes are accurate, but the Army Times article notes that multi-service analysis, reports, and leadership comments seem to argue both viewpoints. No matter what the experts say, the sand, grit, and dirt of Afghanistan and Iraq; the prolonged combat operations in these theaters; the use of M16/M4 rifles by less well trained support troops; and the ever-present comparison of the rifle's reliability to the very reliable AK-47 keeps fueling the debate about replacing the venerable and iconic M16 platform.

Is there something better, and if so, why don't American mainstream troops -- not just special forces units -- get it right away? To understand the answer to that question, it's important to know just how the M16 came to be adopted in the first place.


The standard US rifle reflects the military's view of the state of modern conflict

Over the last century, US soldiers primarily relied on four rifle families. In World War I, troops used the .30 caliber Springfield M1903 rifle (caliber is the diameter of the inside of a rifle's barrel, measured in tenths of an inch or millimeters; rifling is the twisting grooves inside the barrel that spin the bullet as it is propelled forward to make it more accurate). The Springfield was very accurate at long distances. It fired a single shot with each trigger pull. To fire again, the soldier was required to manually reload the weapon from its internal magazine, just like with many common hunting rifles today (this system is usually described as "bolt-action").

In World War II, US forces transitioned to the .30 caliber M1 Garand rifle. It was also accurate, but it featured semi-automatic operation. It would automatically fire with each trigger pull (no need to manually operate its "action") until the internal magazine was empty. It enabled a single rifleman to deliver a much higher rate of fire than many enemy forces that were still relying on bolt-action rifles.

Following the war, the US and Soviets both examined data from infantry engagements to come to the same conclusion: The typical soldier would be better suited with an assault rifle, a lighter, shorter weapon that could fire at a much higher rate (automatic fire means the weapon will continue to fire until the soldier releases the trigger or the ammunition runs out). As a result, the Soviets developed the AK-47. It was not that accurate but was very durable, easy to produce, and easy to operate by less-well trained forces (these comments are all relative and somewhat subjective comparisons to the M16 and US troop training). The AK-47 is a .30 caliber weapon (but with a less powerful round than previous .30 caliber bolt-action rifles), though its caliber is usually noted by its metric measurement, 7.62mm.

In Korea, US troops still relied on WWII-era rifles, but the military was trying to field its own assault rifle. What resulted was the short-lived M14 (short-lived as a standard rifle; it lives on today as a sniper rifle). It looked like a Garand with a magazine box protruding out the bottom. However, it did not live up to expectations according to the reports of US troops using it in Vietnam. It was heavy, and its 7.62mm rounds (not the same as the Soviet version of the same caliber) were also heavy and therefore limited the amount of total ammunition a soldier could carry in the field. Another problem was that it was nearly uncontrollable in automatic mode.

As a result, some in the Pentagon were aggressively searching for a more radical, modern option. In research that is still hotly debated, many in the Pentagon concluded that a smaller caliber but high energy bullet would be as lethal as a larger diameter bullet. It's often a shock for many to realize that the caliber chosen for what would become the M16 was just .223 inches, just a tad bit larger than the .22 caliber bullets used in numerous low-power sport and hunting rifles in the US (the round is much more powerful, though). But while small in diameter, a major benefit of the smaller caliber ammunition was that it was lighter. Troops could carry more magazines.

The AR-15 design selected by the Pentagon in the 1960s as the future main US rifle also relied on lightweight materials for its stock (the rear of the weapon), pistol grip, and front hand guard, further reducing the overall weight a soldier was asked to bear. The integrated carrying handle and elevated front sight gave the weapon its distinctive profile. All of these design elements resulted in an automatic rifle -- which was designated the M16 when it was officially deployed --  that was light, accurate, and much more controllable in automatic mode than the M14.


The M4 is the preferred M16 variant today

Today, the Army is increasingly employing the M4. This version of the M16 is shorter and lighter and is more suited for the types of use the Army faces currently and envisions in the future. An Army postion statement from March noted that:

The M4 Carbine is the Army's primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces. Since its introduction in 1991, the M4 carbine has proven its worth on the battlefield because it is accurate, easy to shoot and maintain. The M4's collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for Soldiers operating in vehicles or within the confines associated with urban terrain.

The statement goes on to note that "The M4 is the highest-rated weapon by Soldiers in combat" and "The Army has approximately 225,000 M4/M4A1 carbines in the inventory, with more procurement programmed." This effort to acquire more M4s is part of the Army's multi-billion effort to equip and reset its troops.

While the Army is more aggressive in adopting the M4, even the Marines are using it in many activities. A 2004 Marine Corps News article highlighted this change:

Today's changing face of American war and the global war on terrorism have inspired the military to adapt its tactics, affecting the distribution of firearms to troops, including Marines serving in the Operating Forces. The effect has resulted in a trend to equip special operators, security forces and noninfantry service members with a more handy, versatile and compact weapon [the M4] without sacrificing firepower. 

Perhaps one of the most important reasons the M16 family remains viable today has nothing to do with its core design, but rather the recent adoption of a standardized attachment method called the Picatinny rail system. Named after the military R&D center that created it, the NATO-standard, grooved system enables soldiers to adapt the latest generation M16s and M4s to mission needs (and their personal preferences when applicable). The vertical handles, modern sights, and flashlights (tactical lights) that are common on most rifles in use -- and pictured above -- are all attached using Picatinny rails.

Choosing a rifle: The best doesn't always win

Deploying a new rifle is not a simple matter of finding and buying the best weapon available. The history of US military small arms is littered with fascinating stories of how various weapons eventually made their way into and out of the arsenal. Interesting enough, the M4 carbine is replacing a variety of weapons including the World War II vintage M3 "grease guns" that have deployed with US soldiers since the early 1940s. When compared to an M3, even a B-52 bomber is a youngster!


Time to replace the M16/M4? 

Should the M16 family of weapons be replaced before its 50th anniversary? As mentioned previously, there is not a consensus within the Pentagon. For those who want to replace the weapon, the two main reasons for ditching the M16/M4 are:

• It is not as reliable as it could be. The AK is often the yardstick used to measure the reliability of the M16/M4, but other modern firearms are also believed to be more reliable. As we have seen, the perception of jam issues never goes away. While the most obvious problems were ironed out in the late 1960s, the fine sands of Iraq demonstrate that the M16 internal design will malfunction. The malfunctions stem from the basic design of the weapon -- gas from each round fired is sent back into the weapon to operate its action, leading to corrosion. Competing systems, such as the AK family, rely on the gas to push a piston rod that interacts with the action, reducing direct exposure to the gas and therefore corrosion.
• Its caliber is too small. A hotly debated topic among actual and arm chair soldiers is the .223 (5.56mm) caliber bullets used by the M16 family of rifles. Detractors say it does not have enough stopping power at close range (it won't knock an enemy down like a bigger, more powerful bullet) and that it is not accurate at longer ranges.

But those who want to retain the M16 family counter that:

• The weapon is reliable when cared for properly. The Pentagon leadership claims that the M16 is not prone to failure if kept clean. The Army Times article noted a variety of reports and data that said the weapon was, in fact, reliable.
• The caliber is effective and would be too much trouble to change. There are still plenty who believe that a small caliber, high velocity bullet is effective. In addition, others argue that changing the caliber would be a massive logistical nightmare as there are huge quantities of the ammunition in active, reserve, and National Guard, as well as NATO, arsenals. Related to this, many say that NATO allies will not be eager to change caliber after being pressured to adopt it in the first place (NATO had standardized on 7.62mm rifle ammunition previously).
• Replacing the rifle would cost too much, particularly in the current environment. Replacing the rifle would require buying new weapons (and perhaps new ammunition if the caliber is changed). But that would not be the only cost. Armorers would have to become proficient in the new and old weapons, and soldiers would be required to master both the M16 and new rifles during the transition. The Army Times article noted that while M4 packages cost on average about $1,300 currently, the cost of replacing M16/M4 weapons would be very expensive: "Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an 'off-the-shelf' weapon ..."

 Other political issues would almost certainly come in to play, although they may not be officially discussed by military leaders. For example, the AR-15, the basis for the M16, was an American design. Already, the military is using weapons designed in other nations, including the M249 Squad Assault Weapon and the M9 pistol. If a foreign design is chosen, it would be another blow to US design and manufacturing even in the likelihood that the winning vendor would manufacture the new rifle in the US. The history of weapons procurement is riddled with Congressional and industry interference, and the choice of a new rifle would be no different.

Close, but no cigar for the XM8

The most recent threat to the M16 family came from the XM8 rifle. Originally a modular piece of a complicated smart weapons system, the XM8 was close to being fielded as a replacement for M16-type rifles. However, at the last minute (in military procurement time), the project was canceled in late 2005. Speculation is that competing weapons vendors and politicians in states with either existing or potential rifle plants scuttled the project just as it was about to enter large-scale testing with active duty troops.

Other options, such as replacing the core gas tube mechanism that is blamed for limiting the M16/M4's reliability with a piston-based system, such as with the HK416 system preferred by some US special forces units, have gained little traction.


Happy 50th ... most likely

While the American soldier may have a simple need -- the best and most effective rifle -- the reality is that whatever eventually replaces the M16/M4 will have to clear many hurdles that are not about what is best for the person who will rely on it, but what makes sense to Congressmen, global arms vendors, and others with millions of lobbying dollars.

For now, it looks like the US military, as well as graphic artists, Hollywood directors, and the media will continue to rely on the M16/M4 as the main rifle and primary image of the American military.

A wide surveillance net lands many non-threats

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration and US federal, state, and local law enforcement have been extremely aggressive in going after any and all perceived terrorist threats. Having missed or not acted on the plethora of warning signs of the 2001 attacks, American security and intelligence organizations do not want to overlook, misplace, or fail to share potentially crucial evidence of a future attack.

However, the result has been that in some cases ordinary Americans have been placed under surveillance or had their personal records searched without due cause. While some would say that the overreaching of surveillance activities is simply an unavoidable result of the modern "war on terror," others would argue that the US has gone overboard in allowing surveillance and eavesdropping activities to a level that many Americans should find alarming.

Am I paranoid or is someone watching me? And who's watching them?

While many of the drivers for changing the processes and policies of law enforcement personnel may have begun with good intentions, it is clear that there is often inadequate oversight. The potential for abuse is often articulated in two well-known, if often misquoted, statements:

• Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The quote, from a letter written in 1887, is from the British historian Lord Acton. According to the Wikipedia entry, the actual quote is: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
  
  
• Who's watching the watchers? This statement is a translation of writings from a Roman poet from the first or second century AD. The phrase was written in Latin as, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Here's the Wikipedia entry on the phrase.

We will highlight three instances where post 9/11 policies may be going too far. The point is not to argue that the US does not need to follow polices that may infringe what Americans traditionally consider their right to privacy, but rather to demonstrate that without proper oversight, unchecked powers have and will undoubtedly continue to lead to various misuses.

1. The FBI failed to police itself on rampant NSL use

In a story that was well publicized by the mainstream media earlier this month, an internal audit of the FBI practices around National Security Letters (NSLs) showed many cases of inappropriate use. According to a Los Angeles Times article from March 9:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III accepted responsibility today for abuses documented by the inspector general's office over the FBI's use of its Patriot Act authority to subpoena telephone, e-mail and financial records of thousands of persons with suspected terrorist ties.

...

The inspector general found that the FBI used its authority, expanded by the Patriot Act, to issue national security letters 143,074 times in three years -- 2003 through 2005. In 2000, with narrower authority, it made only 8,500 requests for national security letters ... In those four [sample] offices, the FBI identified 26 possible violations of national security letter procedures. The inspector general, examining 77 cases, found possible violations in 17 of them -- 22%.

It should be noted that allegations of misuse for personal or political gain have not been made. Rather, the lack of effective oversight and detailed record keeping have created a situation where the proper procedures have not been followed. The FBI has vowed to improve its NSL practices -- a positive step that will be watched by the media and political opponents of the aggressive surveillance policies of the Bush Administration.

2. A massive catch-all federal database ingests facts and rumors

An article in the Washington Post today reported on a federal terrorist database called TIDE (Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment). The articles describes the databases as a "storehouse for data about individuals that the intelligence community believes might harm the United States." About eighty TIDE analysts are charged with populating the database. The database has grown to 435,000 files today -- up from 100,00 in 2003.

What's in the database? All sorts of information about potential threats. What's worrisome about the database? It contains a mix of facts and rumors on foreigners as well as American citizens. As the article notes:

The bar for inclusion is low, and once someone is on the list, it is virtually impossible to get off it. At any stage, the process can lead to "horror stories" of mixed-up names and unconfirmed information, [Russ Travers, in charge of TIDE at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean] acknowledged.

...

TIDE is a vacuum cleaner for both proven and unproven information, and its managers disclaim responsibility for how other agencies use the data. "What's the alternative?" Travers said. "I work under the assumption that we're never going to have perfect information -- fingerprints, DNA -- on 6 billion people across the planet. . . . If someone actually has a better idea, I'm all ears."

Is TIDE a bad idea? Not really. The important issue is how the data is analyzed and used. For example, if an American is found to be wrongly associated with a terrorist threat, will the erroneous entry be annotated or removed, or will the individual continually have to fight the system to get off various no-fly lists and other security alert programs?

3. The NYPD infiltrated and reported on all sort of groups in 2004

A recent New York Times article documented how the New York City Police Department (NYPD) approached issues around security for the 2004 Republican National Convention:

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.

...

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

Certainly some of those the NYPD were watching -- in person and online -- were planning unlawful activities. But according to the article, there were plenty of Americans whose activities were documented in police files that were no threat:

A vast majority of several hundred reports reviewed by The Times, including field reports and the digests, described groups that gave no obvious sign of wrongdoing.

Boston, always a rival to New York, was also aggressive that year

That same year, Boston hosted the Democratic nominating convention. According to a Boston Globe report, many aspects of that city's security efforts were overhauled. Changes included:

... Boston police installing some 30 cameras near the FleetCenter, the Coast Guard using infrared devices and night-vision cameras in the harbor, and dozens of pieces of surveillance equipment mounted on downtown buildings to monitor crowds for terrorists, unruly demonstrators, and ordinary street crime.

The same article noted that even after the convention was over, the new surveillance tools were not going away:

While video surveillance has become a common tool for police and private security personnel, Boston police and federal officials concede that the additional cameras and new technology represent another chapter in Boston. And it's here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over.

Perhaps Americans shouldn't whine, though. Those Boston cameras are nothing compared to what Britons live with. According to a BusinessWeek Online article from just after 9/11 in 2003, London and its inhabitants are always under surveillance.

Britain has 4,500 speed cams. The country’s more than 2.5 million CCTV cameras catch each British resident as many as 300 times each day.

The demands of modern policing must meet minimum requirements

There is no doubt that authorities need to be aggressive in the post-9/11 world. However, the Bush Administration has continually given security and intelligence organizations and the military more power without also ensuring reasonable oversight.

Perhaps the most famous over-extension was the administration's effort to circumvent the secret, eleven judge FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court system for keeping secret and fast-tracking surveillance programs. In December 2005, the New York Times broke the story of how the administration was ignoring the FISA court and conducting surveillance without warrants. Almost one year later, this January, the administration finally backed down and said it would abandon the program (see this New York Times story).

Another example that made headlines was the interception and analysis of SWIFT financial information (see this post). As with the FISA disclosure, when the public -- in this case, the Europeans were most directly impacted -- found out, the Administration found itself fighting a losing PR war.

Reasonable expectations for surveillance

The key in a post-9/11 world is balance. Balance of increased surveillance with responsible oversight. What is the minimum bar? Here's a potential list:

• Create a legal foundation for each effort. While Vice President Cheney clearly believes that the president can act independently of Congress and many laws, most Americans still believe in the "checks and balances" of the US government system (read this post for more insight on Cheney's view on the power of the executive). Even if a program is kept secret, it must have a defensible legal foundation. And the lack of secrecy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most terrorists should assume that all of the world's major financial and communication systems are being monitored by various global law enforcement agencies. Simply stating the obvious will not reduce the impact of most of these programs.
  
  
• Develop a way to investigate and clear an individual's name. With such a wide surveillance net, there are bound to be errors and other mistakes that implicate innocent Americans (and foreigners). Just as financial institutions have developed aggressive programs to combat consumer identity theft in order to safeguard and rehabilitate the financial health of individuals, the government and police department must develop processes for investigating and addressing mistakes that have tangible, negative impact on US citizens.
  
  
• Invest in cutting edge database and analysis tools. In 2006, the FBI closed the book on its $170 million Virtual Case File system failure. Despite access to nearly unlimited funds -- or perhaps in part because of this access -- surveillance-related technology solutions are not always the most effective. The government should look to success stories in private industry. For example, Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil both capture and analyze huge amounts of data for their businesses and could provide valuable expertise.

Rising costs of college: Blame yourself in part for the $50K bill

Just how much does a typical four-year private college education cost? How much is it worth? The cost of college tuition continues to rise each year -- partly driven up by the students and their families -- but the US government reports that those degrees are still worth the effort and expense.


GWU sets the pace

Last weekend, a New York Times article reported that George Washington University (GWU) was raising its undergraduate tuition to more than $39,000 a year. The university, located in Washington DC, breaks down the costs for incoming students in the admissions section of the school site. Here's how much you would expect to pay each year for the next four years as an incoming freshman (some of the costs, such as Room & Board, Books & Supplies, and Personal are averages intended to reflect the actual costs a typical student will face; others are one-time fees):

• Tuition -- $ 37,790
• Room & Board -- $11,500
• Personal -- $1,350
• Books and Supplies -- $850
• Orientation Fee -- $250
• Student Association Fee -- $30
• TOTAL for first year at GWU: $51,770

Can its students afford to attend the university? From the article:

Lamar Thorpe, the Student Association president, said tuition is not a big issue at GWU, in part because parents often pay for it and in part because students think they're getting a great education.

Thorpe is certainly putting a positive spin on the subject. The article notes that he will be $60,000 in debt after graduating, despite having received financial aid, working a part-time job, and being a member of the Navy Reserve.

What is causing this cost escalation? There are a variety of drivers, but three in particular are worth noting.


1. Ironically, parents are partially to blame

In another New York Times article from December, the blame for the high cost of tuition was placed partly on the families that struggle to pay it.

So early in 2000 the board voted to raise [Ursinus College] tuition and fees 17.6 percent, to $23,460 ... Within four years the size of the freshman class had risen 35 percent, to 454 students. Applicants had apparently concluded that if the college cost more, it must be better.

*** 

The recognition that families associate price with quality, and that a tuition rise, accompanied by discounts, can lure more applicants and revenue, has helped produce an economy in academe something like that in the health care system, with prices rising faster than inflation but with many consumers paying less than full price.

But this is only partially responsible for rising college costs. At the GWU Web site, there are financial details that give some deeper insight into why costs are rising (the numbers are from from the 2001 time frame). Student fees generated over $286 million in the 2000-2001 academic year. That, along with other revenue sources, resulted in a total revenue infusion for that year of $481 million. As for costs, the university reported that "Instruction and departmental programs" cost about $252 million. Student aid was reported as $5.7 million, while "Administration and general" was around $69 million. Total expenses were roughly $550 million. The result? A net loss at the end of the 2001 academic year of $68 million. Why the loss? Read on.


2. More financial aid to cover the high tuition

Schools are losing money, mainly because the cost of delivering an education is so high and because most students aren't paying full price. The December Times article noted that, "73 percent of undergraduates attending private four-year institutions received [financial aid] in the school year that ended in 2004, not even counting loans." The specific case of Swarthmore College was highlighted.
''The half of our student body whose families are paying the full sticker price are paying $41,000 for something that costs $73,000,'' said Suzanne P. Welsh, the treasurer. ''So they're getting a great discount.''



3. Higher staff and president salaries

Besides absorbing the loss on student tuition, where else are schools bleeding money? A significant monetary drain is the result of escalating staff and president salaries. The December Times article noted that:

The biggest expenditure at liberal arts colleges is for salaries and benefits. With competition for big-name professors becoming more intense, faculty salaries have increased. So has the pay of college and university presidents, more than 100 of whom now receive at least $500,000 a year. 

An endowment is key to survival 

With so much red ink, what keeps the colleges and universities open? The key for schools is an endowment. GWU reported its endowment was $690 million in 2001, while Swarthmore has a $1.3 billion endowment of its own (presumably this is an up-to-date figure from the recent interview of Ms. Welsh). Harvard University has a massive $29 billion endowment, according to a Harvard Gazette article from last fall (this same article notes that "Tuition from Harvard College, for instance, covers only about two-thirds of the total cost of a Harvard education.").

A great deal at public colleges?

What about public colleges and universities versus private institutions? In Massachusetts, for example, there is a major difference between the costs of a private school like Harvard University and a public school, such as the University of Massachusetts. The 2006-2007 tuition cost for Harvard College is listed as $30,275, with the expected total cost being $46,450. The University of Massachusetts (Amherst) says its education is "a great deal," with in-state UMass tuition fees of $9,883 and a total expected annual cost of $17,221 (out of state is $19,897 and $27,235, respectively). The December Times article made note of this discrepancy:

The average cost of tuition, fees, room and board at those [private] colleges is now $30,367 ... tuition and fees at public colleges and universities -- though growing recently at a faster pace than those at private institutions -- remain vastly lower, at an average of $5,836, the College Board says.

Government data shows that more degrees = more dollars

Is a college degree -- one that can cost more than $50,000 a year -- worth the investment? The US Census Bureau offers data that suggests that the effort and expense to attain an undergraduate degree are worth it. In a press release last October, the Census Bureau noted that Americans with college degrees make significantly more money on average:

Adults age 18 and older with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $51,554 in 2004, while those with a high school diploma earned $28,645.

At some point, despite the increase in financial aid, this cost escalation will have to be reined in in order for the majority of Americans to send their children to college. However, in the meantime, parents can look forward to forking over tens of thousands of dollars for every year that just one of their offspring is in college.

It probably won't work, but it certainly won't hurt to do some math and point out just how much your child is blowing when they skip that class or register for Introduction to Basket Weaving 101. Good luck.