Policy Discussion: College Tuition
I’m starting with this one because I’m most familiar with both candidates platforms. There are pros and cons to both. Before we get into the actual policy, here are both candidates positions from their Issues page:
Bernie Sanders Issues – College Tuition
Hillary Clinton Issues – College Tuition
FYI: I am sticking with the candidates’ issue page, because these are their policies in their own words and not from a biased source or publication. Fair?
First, I’ll point out that both candidates only address tuition, not room and board which can cost close to the actual tuition. The schools we looked into, the cost for room and board ran from 18,000.00 – 28,000.00 a year. Yikes!
Hillary offers free tuition at Community Colleges. She also applies this plan to not borrowing for an individual’s state college – which wouldn’t have worked for us because neither of my kids wanted to attend UD. Her plan addressing universities and colleges is limits students to their state schools. I don’t like that because I can easily see how it can be manipulated in student selection. More out of state students getting in? She says states will have to step up and invest in higher education – which, imo, is extremely doubtful. They’ve been cutting money to higher ed. Will this plan happen? Doubtful, but there may be inroads into Community Colleges which is good.
Bernie’s require states to fund his plan along with the federal government. Like I said above, are these the same states that are cutting higher education funding now? It also looks like this is a state-by-state opt in plan that will need support of Governors and State reps/senators? Sorta like the Medicaid expansion in the ACA (Don’t even get me started). This will probably play out as free tuition in extremely liberal states – like California – but not in most others. So he’s really not proposing tuition free college for all. Will this plan happen? Doubtful – I was going to end with the same sentence in the paragraph above, but I don’t see Community Colleges addressed on Bernie’s Issue page. Am I missing this? That’s a serious, snark-free question since I’m sure he’s addressed this.
In the end, I’m 100% on board for free community college, not so much for public colleges/universities – unless we’re talking about free tuition at every public college and university in every state – then sign me up! I do think we should increase the amount of Pell Grants issued and colleges be held responsible for lowering tuition.
I didn’t go into the parts of their plans they agree on, like having students work to contribute to their education and restructuring student loans (present and future), but if anyone sees a difference I missed, please point it out.
I don’t have strong feelings about the candidates views on this topic, but it got me wondering how college got so expensive so quickly. Turns out, it was the tax cut mania that the Democratic Party copied from the GOP.
I think (and correct me if I am wrong) Bernie includes community colleges with his ‘4 year public college’ tag. I can’t research it this minute, but I’m reasonably certain that’s accurate.
I don’t think either candidate’s plans go far enough, but realizing that incrementalism is the name of the game, subsidized tuition at public colleges and universities is a place to start. On the other side of the coin, not everyone needs to go to a 4 year college or university. Plenty of people will enter the skilled trade workforce either straight out of high school or with a 2 year degree. That should be 100% subsidized too.
There’s something bass ackwards in my mind about having to pay (in the form of college tuition) to enter the workforce. The existing workforce should be paying to bring in the next generation of workers.
Tuition should be subsidized by those very people who are currently complaining they can’t get enough skilled workers.
RE: Skyrocketing tuition costs. The federal gov’t and private lenders have pretty much created a J.G. Wentworth “It’s your money, use it when YOU want it” style loan system for higher education. Schools need more money? Jack the tuition up. Lenders fall over themselves to give students loans, and that guarantees a revenue river for universities and colleges. When you’re guaranteed payment, why wouldn’t you raise your prices as fast as you can without overtly advertising your price gouging tactics?
@puck, surely the “Masters degree and 7+ years experience” entry level job applicant pool hasn’t dried up completely?
I like the idea of free community college but I’m also in support of 2 years at community college then transfer to a 4 year college/university to complete the remaining 2 years for degrees that require coursework not offered at community college level.
The amount of Federal assistance currently available to colleges is also helping drive up the price. If you want to raise the price of a thing, give it a Federal subsidy. That’s why the whole thing has to be “free.” Free is not a great choice of words for Bernie’s plan; a better choice would be “Fully paid tuition at public colleges.” Then of course there will have to be price controls like Medicaid/care. But like Medicaid/care, providers will line up to get the payments.
“I like the idea of free community college but I’m also in support of 2 years at community college then transfer to a 4 year college/university”
That runs the risk if not the certainty of creating a two-tier education system. Students who would not ordinarily choose a community college will be forced to start in a community college. Also, community colleges will be falling over themselves to become four-year accredited colleges and universities.
Federal Goverment already offers free tuition through military service programs.
Military-paid tuition isn’t free; it is in return for a service, and it isn’t available to everyone.
““I like the idea of free community college but I’m also in support of 2 years at community college then transfer to a 4 year college/university”
I know people who did this (transfer after two years at CC). It works, sorta. They never receive full credit, so instead of entering college/university as a junior, most enter as a sophomore.
Here’s the thing I noticed during our many, many, many college tours. Those places have become like country clubs. The amenities (private gyms, fancy restaurants, Starbucks on the meal plan, etc.) are out of control. My son’s university has a gym in every dorm, plus a state-of-the-art work-out center on campus – He also has a simply gorgeous sushi restaurant included. It boggles the mind when a university has so much in common with a 5-star resort.
I’ll point out that Bernie’s free tuition plan seems to be based on states opting in. Hillary’s plan calls for states investing more in higher education. Both are a problem. Equally.
I have a request. Can we stop calling it “free tuition”? That is not what it is at all. It’s prepaid. Neither candidate is offering “free stuff”. They are just varying degrees of re-allocation of existing money to something that will actually benefit our society.
I know its nuance, but for all the “you bernie people just want free stuff” crap I hear, it would be refreshing to not deal with that jargon.. think ACA instead of Obamacare (before Obama owned that term like a boss)
” Military-paid tuition isn’t free; it is in return for a service, and it isn’t available to everyone.” More funding to Americorps, TFA, … any national service (that doesnt necessarily require joining the military) would be my personal socialist Utopia. Every student can go to some posy-high school education without having to pay extra or go into debt…. but if you give 10 months to national service, you are rewarded with access to a 4 year program of your choice at any school in the country….assuming you are admitted to the school, of course. Not even Sanders is willing to go there.
Um… Sanders’ Issue page calls it “It’s time to make college tuition free and debt free.” That’s his title. I’m not sure why that’s a problem.
Pandora….. Because there is no such thing as free.
I get that, but those aren’t my words above.
In most first world countries, tuition is basically free (except at a few private colleges). Look at Japan, France, Slovenia, and South Korea as prime examples.
College is basically free, but get into a university, you’ve got to be good. The enrollment is literally limited to the better half. There isn’t a spot for utter slackers. High school students truly scramble for those slots.
In America, enrollment is limited to the richer half (or those willing to take on the massive debt). Even the worst rich kids seem to go to college. Few people are scrambling. No one in the high school seems to really care except for maybe the Ivy League or MIT/Caltech bound.
As a result, the end product here is not nearly as strong as it should be.
Case in point: I have about a dozen people working for me (highly competitive positions demanding top-flight intelligence and technical skills), and I’ve only got two Americans in the bunch. I’d be happy to have more Americans working for me, but the bulk of them just aren’t competitive. I advertise a job, get about 100 qualified applicants, and sure enough, there are lots of Americans in that pool, but they just don’t rise to the top. In the last recruitment, only 1 in 5 that I selected for an interview was American.
It’s a real and very serious problem. Free tuition really would make a HUGE difference. It would make HUGE difference in our ability to compete worldwide. We really should try to improve our system along the lines of other first world countries.
Failure to do so, means we’ll need to continue to import true talent with more and more H1B visas. Failure to do so also means we’ll have trouble maintaining our status at the top, and qualified (but not exceptional) Americans will be relegated to lesser jobs.
The forces that oppose free tuition based on merit?
1. Wealthy people. …want a free pass for their brats.
2. Corporations. …foreign people are cheaper than Americans to hire.
3. Conservative rednecks. …can’t understand the importance of education.
Given those opponents, guess what’s going to happen??
You got it… Nothing.
“I advertise a job, get about 100 qualified applicants, and sure enough, there are lots of Americans in that pool, but they just don’t rise to the top.”
Is pay part of your criteria? In other words, do you screen them first by asking “What is your rate” or “What salary are you looking for” or “What is your salary history?”
“Is pay part of your criteria?”
No. Pay is not a factor. They know the salary before applying. I get the very best I can. The screening is based on accomplishments and competence. I don’t really care what they’ve been paid in the past.
“They know the salary before applying. ”
I think I see why your applicant pool does not include the best Americans.
College will never be free. Get over it.
@p “I think I see why your applicant pool does not include the best Americans.”
Yes. Not the best Americans, but not for the reason you may think. These are elite STEM jobs, highly sought after. Starting package is worth about $120k/year. Typical applicant just finishing education.
“free tuition based on merit“
Yep, merit becomes the focus. And I’m not sure I’m really okay with that. I think merit should matter, but in many of these European countries there’s no room for a child to clean up their act and start working hard after a certain age. So if a kid slacks off freshman year of HS (and in some places earlier), in a lot of these countries, the door to college closes.
And, boy, would there be testing!
To some extent we already have free/partially free college in the US. They’re called scholarships – so colleges are already choosing who they want to attend based on merit. That’s what I’m beginning to think free college tuition would lead to here, and I’m not entirely happy about that model given our K-12 schools struggles.
In the end, free college tuition could very easily result in far less Americans going to college. If colleges become free then that also frees them from worrying about money – accepting rich kids wouldn’t be necessary (yeah, it would still exist) just like accepting kids who need loans wouldn’t be necessary. If you don’t need money then you get to pick who you want, not who you need.
I am not against this. I’m just trying to figure out how it would work, and the one thing I’m pretty sure of is that the population attending free college would look very different from the population attending today. That worries me.
“That runs the risk if not the certainty of creating a two-tier education system. Students who would not ordinarily choose a community college will be forced to start in a community college. Also, community colleges will be falling over themselves to become four-year accredited colleges and universities.”
This already happens. DelTech for example has been offering 4 year degrees for quite a while now, and had been partnering with UD on a 2+2 program for years. Also note the re-designation of Wilmington College to Wilmington University a few years back, without fully subsidized tuition or a 2+2 program
“…the one thing I’m pretty sure of is that the population attending free college would look very different from the population attending today. That worries me.” can you expand on that?
Belushi made Animal house in my senior year of high school.
I’ll give it a try, Brian. I’m still working through my thoughts on how this would look.
We already have a tiered college/university system. I guess I worry that free college, if not carefully implemented, could end up looking like “successful” charter and private K-12 schools. If colleges become free of financial concerns and we’re going toward a European model, then less kids will be attending college – and we’d probably see some colleges close. Right now the US has a high percentage of kids entering into post secondary education. Countries like France, Sweden and Germany have significantly less. Finland is the exception. Obviously, decisions are being made as to who can attend these colleges. So there are details to be worked out here. It’s complicated.
I guess I’m left wondering if free college would mean free for everyone, or if it would become more like most of Europe – where it’s free, but not everyone can attend.
I’m sorta thinking out loud and would welcome other people’s thoughts on this! Am I completely off base?
I think it comes down to… Is college a privlege or should it be a right? If it is necessary to earn the type living that can support a family, then some degree program needs to be a right.
…
“The one thing I’m pretty sure of is that the population attending free college would look very different from the population attending today.”
That bothers me too. I see the population attending college now as mostly upper middle class, somewhat privleged, and mostly white.
Now, traditional college isn’t for everyone. I think the main purpose of this discussion is how to better prepare young people to earn a living. To do that I think we also need to consider more trade schools and technical education. That’s a whole other can of worms.
Here’s my 2 cents. Unless you’re from an upper middle class backround.. Or attended a low cost community college, going to school is turning into a liability… Or at least a burden. A degree never guaranteed a job, but it used to be a pretty good bet. Consider the insanity of pushing 30k in loans on a 17 year old and you see our current system is a disaster.
But, Ben, your comment doesn’t address how it would work. If you look at most European countries you will see that while college is free it is not a right available to everyone. So, if we want to increase higher-ed participation/access in the US (I believe students going on for higher-ed in the US is approx. 90+%) how do we do that with free tuition. I am not saying it can’t be done. I am saying that I’m not sure how it’s done and what the end result would look like.
I guess I’m wondering… if college were free what would the criteria be for accessing it? Because I’m thinking there would be criteria. Now the point of entrance is money. Remove the financial considerations and they’ll be replaced with…
I’m not so sure the barrier to entrance *is* money. At least, not any more. If it were, we wouldn’t have all these mid 20-somethings with student loan payments that rival mortgage payments. From a financial point of view, it’s easier than ever to get IN to college. (like it used to be easier than ever to get a mortgage with shoddy/no credit). Graduating and finding a job that affords you the necessities while paying off the loans that got you through school is another story.
There’s something to be said about choice of major. Engineering (all flavors), Comp Sci, Nursing, Medicine, Law, business, and plenty more are good choices for careers post-grad (and that require a higher education). Not all degrees and majors line up graduates for jobs post-grad. When I was in high school, the overwhelming sentiment was “You HAVE to go to college, it’s the only way you’ll survive! Doesn’t matter what your major is, you can always change it!”
That’s the wrong attitude, 100%. I don’t think every career requires college in order to someone to secure a good job with good wages and a comfortable life. That’s not the prevailing mindset now though. Bachelor’s degrees (and in some cases Master’s) are the high-school diplomas of post-WWII American economic glory. There are professions that require a university-level education and above of course, but not everything needs a BS, MS, PhD, etc.
I agree the subsidized college student demographic would look much different than what we see today.
“I am not against this. I’m just trying to figure out how it would work”
Exactly! Ideally I’m for a lot of stuff as well. Pragmatically though, I’m hampered by the need to know how it will work.
Dreams are not achieved by dreaming. They are achieved by planning and action. When everyone is singing “We shall overcome,” I’m usually thinking about how. Until I see the how, it is difficult for me to by the what.
Merit. When the way you get into college is money, you tell people who don’t have it that they don’t deserve education. Past that I don’t know how you implement it. I feel like the costs of school are so high because everyone gets loans. Its been artificially inflated to bolster the credit industry. That aspect needs to be removed.
Im going train of thought here as well. I see lots of problems and have lots of end goals, and if I knew how to bridge the 2….. Well thats why we have discussions.
Brian, so much of this leads us right back to K-12 education! I agree with what you’ve said – not every job needs a degree and the “You have to go to college!” still exists. And while many kids start out in college, many end up dropping out – or switching out of those majors you listed – and when that happens we don’t have a lot of alternatives for them to go to.
Ben, thinking out loud makes my head hurt. All I know is that this proposal is far more complicated that “Free college!” Not saying you’re saying that. There would be different criteria for acceptance. Right now that criteria is: If you can pay or borrow (and have halfway decent grades) you can pretty much go. Remove the financials and what’s the new criteria? There would have to be one, wouldn’t there? And even if we said, “Everyone who wants to go to college gets to go” there’s no guarantee that 1) there’s enough space, and I don’t want more junk schools sprouting up, and 2) most accepted students would stay in the school – consider drop out/flunk out. Which leads us back to alternative schools/solutions.
“Remove the financials and what’s the new criteria? There would have to be one, wouldn’t there?”
Why? We were able to do away with the “pre-existing condition” for health care; why not for college?
To address the space issue… Your typical 4 year academic school isnt for everyone. Im thinking more in terms of a total overhaul in how we train/educate people. Some people will be trained in the trades, some people will be trained in “traditional” fields. I know this isnt a part of this discussion per-se… but guaranteeing everyone a “living wage” would be a part of that “overhaul”.
I also dont think you should be able to get into EVERY college for free. Competition does drive excellence…. like private schools, some colleges would cater to families with more money to spend… or grant scholarships.. and would specialize as leaders in certain educational fields.
But say you wanted a degree in high school education (for example). THAT should be free. You shouldn’t have to go deeply into debt to get a low-paying under-appreciated job.
Again, this is all abstract thinking for me. I know Im a smart person who …. to quote another smart person, was often a fish judged on his ability to climb a tree…. so when we talk about access to education or job training, I urge people to think beyond Greek life and the Ultimate at the Quad and running to Mid terms.
@p “And, boy, would there be testing!”
Why do you think that there are so many “underperforming” wealthy foreign students in American private colleges? Should I call out a few schools…?
The systems in other countries have problems too. Ours are just unique.
The University of Georgia has an interesting program. All students start out with free tuition, and those who can average an A- or better get to keep that scholarship. But those who’ve come to party have to explain to Daddy why he has to start paying for them to be there.
As a result, UGa is perhaps the best public school in the South (excepting UNC). It works. I could get behind something like that on a national level.
@puck
If that were the case I’d expect our tiered college/university system to become more tiered. I’d expect what we see happening with charter and voucher systems. That worries me.
It’s a lot more complicated than “college is a right” or “pre-existing conditions”. I can agree with the sentiment, but, at some point, we have to discuss how it would actually work, right?
Ben, are you saying that only certain college majors should be free? Whoa… I hadn’t thought about that one. This just keeps getting more complicated.
I like the University of Georgia’s plan, but STEM majors would have a tougher time maintaining an A- than other majors. Which is fine, I guess.
@p “Which is fine, I guess.”
Yes. I generally recruit in the 3.6 to 3.9 GPA range. If you’re going to be a STEM major and you want a good follow-on position, then you’d better be above 3.5 or you’ll be seen as either stupid or lazy. It’s competitive out there…
BTW, Every 4.0 GPA person I’ve ever hired was a nutcase (except for one HS girl). It’s better to not be too perfect (read “obsessive”).
I occasionally bend my rule and hire a 3.0 student (for various reasons). It’s never worked out well.
I get that. I have two engineering majors (my oldest graduates in May!) and both need to maintain a high GPA (3.5) to keep their scholarships. They are definitely not “enjoying” the college scene.
“Ben, are you saying that only certain college majors should be free? Whoa… I hadn’t thought about that one. This just keeps getting more complicated.”
I’m not saying that, but I’m not NOT saying that.
Perhaps something like public service is fully subsidized… and define public service as educators, social workers, first responders, etc….. Right now, people who join the military get a free ride. Not saying that should change…. but why are the people who fight the wars the only public servants we laud in such a way? It goes back to the Americoprs point I made somewhere. If a young person wants to make their career and life about improving the community, the community should invest in them fully and prepare them for success.. that person’s success is good for everyone. Honestly, I don’t understand the objection to better educating the entire public. Does it somehow cheapen the accomplishments of others?
Good luck to them both. I hope they go on to really good graduate school programs.
But remember. For every engineering PhD granted in the US, China grants 7 and India grants 5. In China and India, they mainly focus on mechanical and civil engineering. It’s probably best to not be in a particular sub-discipline that is dominated by the Chinese. Some crappy company (e.g. Disney) will get a bunch of H1B visas and hire foreigners at below market wages, leaving well trained Americans out in the cold.
I’m not sure why you think people are objecting to educating the entire public. This is a policy discussion.
@p “I’m not sure why you think people are objecting to educating the entire public. This is a policy discussion.”
If it’s a choice between educating the top 25% really really well, or educating everyone at a fairly mediocre level, then guess which one will lead to building a great nation??
The problem is that it IS a choice, and we’ve made the wrong choice.
And on top of that, we’re sending our best students into the service industry (doctors, lawyers, brokers,…). You can’t build a great nation doing that!
Is there any actual policy currently being discussed? Or is this just a mental exercise? I still don’t understand this “different demographics” point. I’m not challenging it… but I just dont get it. What do you see it changing from, what do you see it changing to? It seems like you asked for the case to be made that it should happen at all.
“If it’s a choice between educating the top 25% really really well, or educating everyone at a fairly mediocre level, then guess which one will lead to building a great nation??”
^there we go!
Yeah, I’m not completely on board with LE’s philosophy. There are things I like and things I don’t.
Ben, I haven’t asked if free college is good or bad; I’ve asked for ideas on how it could work. Your idea of free college for certain majors (providing they work in those majors for several years after graduation – like the military requires) is interesting. But… it isn’t free college for all.
And no, your idea isn’t carved in stone. I get that.
Here’s the thing saying free college (Bernie) or free community college (Hillary) are just bumper stickers right now. How this happens/how this can’t happen/how this evolves is a policy discussion. It’s complicated and messy.
It’s a goal. You set your goal and figure out how to structure the path to get there…not structure the path and figure out what goals are attainable. Yeah it’s complicated and messy…. thats why we have huge brains, and opposable thumbs, and sweat glands all over. We go to the moon because it’s hard… to paraphrase. It’s not just free college… it’s getting away from fossil fuels, it’s providing health care for everyone…. when did this country stop doing the difficult things in favor of the pragmatic things?
Sorry. Nope. Goals aren’t policy. When a candidate puts forth their policy platform, how it will be implemented and what it will cost are 100% necessary. How else are voters supposed to understand what they’re voting for?
“when did this country stop doing the difficult things in favor of the pragmatic things?”
When we lost the national collective will. Surely, I can’t be the only one that has noticed the balkanization of America?
As someone who was involved in getting to moon, I can assure you there were no us or them, the liberal way or the conservative way, Democrats, or Republicans. There was only – do what it ever it takes to get there. The collective will. Everyone wanted to be a part of it.
We can do just about anything in this nation, when we decide to do it. You want to tackle the difficult things? Start trying to find some shared values and common goals. Stop labeling everyone as “the other” and begin remembering that we are all Americans.
Coming late to this discussion, and like pandora I’ve got two in college now (Computer Science/Math and Math/Technical Writing) and watching what happens.
But I think there’s something missing from this discussion, which is that regardless of Clinton, Sanders, Trump, or Cruz, higher education is getting ready to implode with the same intensity as the housing bubble did, and the entire game itself is going to look extremely different over the next decade. Almost so different that it becomes a paradigm shift in education after high school.
First, the implosion–thanks in part to the defunding of public education which has gone hand in hand with exploding student loan debt and the excess accumulation of debt by colleges across the us, many middle-tier colleges are in danger of going under, and many top-tier institutions are going to be dramatically curtailed. Berkeley has an annual structural deficit of $150 million that it can no longer sustain; it announced last week it is cutting 500 of 8,500 positions (no faculty yet) and will be pruning back programs offered and services provided. They expect to reduce the faculty permanently by some 15% via attrition. Louisiana State University is facing the choice between shutting down its two training hospitals or shutting down one of the more profitable Division I football programs. University of Wisconsin just announced deep cuts in staff and services. The North Carolina public higher ed system (probably the best in the country overall) has just been informed by the State legislature that it will be taking something like a $45 million cut this year and $115 million next year. UNC has been forced to shut down something like 14 of its 37 statewide satellite campuses and academic centers, while the legislature there is proposing a voucher system rather than support for public ed. These are all Tier 1 institutions.
At the lower tiers (even high Tier 2) things are getting desperate. Howard University has already furloughed staff. Many smaller, second-tier state universities are now regularly taking out short-term bridge loans at the end of each fiscal year to make payroll. I know of at least two dozen that have either ended semesters early, furloughed employees, or simply discontinued entire colleges within their universities without notice to anyone.
In the meantime the Feds have become much stickier about dispensing loan money. In a Fall semester if a student with a Federal loan drops below 12 credit hours for any reason prior to October 31, universities have to send as much as 45% of their loan back, even if it has already been dispersed to the students. So universities are no longer dispersing loan proceeds the same way they used to.
For obvious reasons I know the HBCU niche better than most people do. There are now 112 HBCUs still in existence, although the last two dozen are down to less than 1,000 students each and barely staving off bankruptcy. You all will have seen that DSU cut 23 programs this spring in order to get our house in order. What you probably don’t know is that of the 90 or so viable HCBUs, only DSU (that’s right ONLY DSU) has seen significant enrollment growth over the past five years. And our enrollment growth has been primarily driven by negotiating agreements for hundreds of exchange students from China and South Korea.
So in one sense we can jaw all we want to about “free tuition,” but the reality is that the system is currently so broken it is rapidly falling to pieces, and both “free universities” and the “unschooling” of higher education are on the way. I will retire in two or three years as one of the last generations of professors to get to spend an entire career in traditional higher ed.