Rising housing costs could be pricing people out of college in Wisconsin
Education has long been one of the most direct paths to achieving the American Dream. It is how generations have climbed the ladder, by learning, earning degrees and opening doors to opportunity. But what happens when the ground beneath that ladder starts to shift?
In Wisconsin, the cost of housing has been climbing steadily over the past decade, outpacing incomes in many counties. At the same time, enrollment in colleges and technical schools has been falling. At first glance, these might seem like two separate problems. But our recent research at the Northwestern Mutual Data Science Institute suggests they are more connected than we think.
We studied data from 29 Wisconsin counties over 11 years, looking at how changes in housing prices relate to post-secondary enrollment. What we found was both troubling and revealing. When housing prices go up, enrollment often goes down, especially in places where economic opportunities are already limited. In fact, for every 1% increase in housing costs, overall enrollment dropped by about 0.36% the following year.
Letters: Former Gov. Tommy Thompson omits real reason for rough Supreme Court race
Our data review covers the years 2012 to 2023 for the following counties: Ashland, Barron, Brown, Dane, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Fond Du Lac, Grant, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Crosse, Manitowoc, Marathon, Menominee, Milwaukee, Oneida, Outagamie, Ozaukee, Pierce, Portage, Racine, Rock, Sawyer, Sheboygan, Walworth, Waukesha, Winnebago and Wood. The higher education enrollment figures include public and private colleges in the 29 counties.
This trend is not just a statistical curiosity. It reflects real families making tough choices. When rent or mortgage payments take up more of the household budget, there is often less left for college tuition, transportation or even just the time to attend classes. In places with fewer local schools or higher unemployment, those trade-offs become even harder.
We also found something we did not expect: a gender gap in how students respond to rising housing prices. University enrollment among male students drops sharply as housing costs rise. For female students, the pattern is different. In some cases, female enrollment actually increases, perhaps because women see education as a long-term investment worth making, even in tough times. But when tuition and housing costs rise together, even that resilience begins to falter.
Technical colleges show a different picture. At first glance, they seem less affected by rising housing prices. But when we looked closer, we saw that in more urban counties, where housing costs tend to spike, male enrollment in technical colleges also drops. It is a reminder that even the most flexible or affordable education options are not immune to broader economic pressures.
Our findings echo broader national concerns. In 2019, Fannie Mae launched the Sustainable Communities Innovation Challenge, emphasizing that stable and affordable housing provides families with greater opportunities for educational and economic attainment. The connection is clear: when housing becomes unaffordable, families are forced to make trade-offs that affect not just where they live, but how they plan for the future.
Opinion: Here's what readers had to say about wake-enhanced boating on Wisconsin lakes
These findings raise important questions: Are we quietly pricing people out of education and pushing the American Dream further out of reach?
When housing costs rise faster than wages, it does not just strain family budgets. It shapes how people think about the future. If young people start to feel like homeownership and financial stability are out of reach, they may begin to wonder whether education is still worth the investment. And that could have serious consequences for Wisconsin's economy and workforce in the years to come.
Our hope is that these insights can help inform how we think about policy. Housing and education are often treated as separate issues, but our research suggests they are deeply intertwined. To make education more accessible, we also need to make housing more affordable. It is not just about buildings and classrooms, it is about building futures.
Joseph Ogunlade is an analyst and Student Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Pallav Routh is an Assistant Professor at UW-Milwaukee and Principal Investigator on this research, funded by the Northwestern Mutual Data Science Institute. Together, they study how housing affordability influences educational access and outcomes in Wisconsin.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin housing costs mean less money for college, future | Opinion
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
President Donald Trump on Sunday said if the courts rule against the administration's sweeping tariffs, it would mean the "economic ruination" of the country. The post comes after the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled unanimously on Wednesday to block the use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. Members of the three-judge panel, who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, said Trump has overstepped and does not have "unbounded authority" to impose the tariffs. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders "If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us," Trump wrote on Truth Social Sunday afternoon. "This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!" Trump administration lawyers have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response. Read On The Fox Business App Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Following the court decision, a federal appeals court on Thursday ruled in favor of the Trump administration, delaying a lower court's ruling blocking the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact a 10% baseline tariff and "reciprocal tariffs." The reciprocal taxes, announced by the White House on April 2, were being used by the Trump administration as a negotiating tactic with other countries prior to the court battles. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave the plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response, and the Trump administration until June 9. Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this article source: Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US


Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump aides insist that tariffs will remain, even after court ruling
Asked about the future of the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs, first announced and quickly suspended in April, Lutnick added, 'I don't see today that an extension is coming.' Advertisement The president's tariff strategy entered uncharted political and legal territory last week after a federal trade court ruled that Trump had misused an emergency economic powers law in trying to wage a global trade war. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The decision would have put a quick halt to those duties, which form the centerpiece of the president's strategy of pressuring other countries into trade talks. But an appeals court soon granted the government a brief administrative pause to sort out arguments in the case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court. The administration has said that a ruling against its tariffs would harm negotiations and undercut the president, a point Trump repeated Sunday. In a social media post that projected confidence he would ultimately prevail in court, he wrote that any ruling against his tariffs would allow other countries to 'hold our Nation hostage' and result in 'Economic ruination' for the United States. Advertisement Top White House officials once promised to strike 90 deals in 90 days, but they have since managed to announce only one framework for a possible deal, with Britain. On Sunday, though, the commerce secretary dismissed the notion that Trump had suffered a new setback, saying it 'cost us a week, maybe.' He said the White House would ultimately reach 'first-class deals.' The decision has not slowed down Trump, who attacked China on Friday for failing to adhere to an agreement brokered between Washington and Beijing in which the two nations lowered their once-withering tariff rates, pending a longer-term deal. The president also announced that day that he would double tariffs applied to imported steel, which would now be set at 50 percent, in a move that could result in higher prices for American consumers. Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told ABC's 'This Week' that he expected Trump and China's leader, Xi Jinping, could speak about trade as soon as this week, though he later said that a conversation had not been scheduled or finalized. Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, separately reiterated that talks with China had stalled, citing the fact that Beijing is holding back its exports of rare earth minerals, which are critical for global industrial supply chains. 'Maybe it's a glitch in the Chinese system; maybe it's intentional,' Bessent said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' Bessent also defended the steel tariffs as a means of protecting American steel jobs. He acknowledged that it was unclear how the new rates could affect the construction industry, which he characterized as a 'very complicated ecosystem.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in

Wall Street Journal
15 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Mexico's Judicial-Election Farce
Mexico held elections Sunday to fill nine seats on its new Supreme Court, five seats on its new judicial disciplinary tribunal, half the seats on federal circuit and district courts, and two vacancies on the Federal Electoral Tribunal. Learning the full results could take a week or more. The rest of the circuit and lower-court bench will be elected in 2027. Government critics and independent analysts warned that the sweeping overhaul of the judiciary through popular elections would politicize the courts, putting them under the thumb of the Morena Party's corporatist populism. They aren't wrong. It's the goal of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who pushed through the constitutional change as he was leaving office last year. This way when the state wants to discriminate against private investors in favor of its own interests, property rights and contracts won't get in the way. AMLO, as the former president is known, wants Mexico to look more like it did in the 1970s. This is a leap in that direction. The number of open judicial seats varied across the country with 19 states also electing nearly 1,800 local judges. The average voter in Mexico City was given nine ballots and asked to choose 51 judges out of 293 candidates, according to Mexico City-based Integralia, a political-risk consultancy. Most citizens would have found it almost impossible to be well-informed about their decisions.