Since student debt, free tuition and debt-free higher education have emerged as presidential campaign-level issues, a narrative has begun to emerge among elite news media that the rising price of college and ever-increasing student debt are phantom problems given the overall lifetime benefits of a college degree. Unfortunately that narrative, which has been highlighted over the past few weeks to varying degrees by major media outlets, including NPR and Vox, rests on a pretty narrow set of assumptions about college and its benefits. And, in fact, it misunderstands the entire point behind the push for debt-free public college.
For instance, a recent editorial in The Washington Post titled “Democrats’ Loose Talk on Student Loans” makes the case that we have more of a nuisance than a crisis on our hands. It argues that bold reforms to address student debt -- including the plan offered up by Hillary Clinton’s campaign -- are overkill and that we should presumably make large investments in other areas (like paying down the national debt). Unfortunately, however, like other news media these days, the Post editorial board appears to have overlooked some crucial facts, many of which have been reported by its own newspaper.
It is absolutely true that some form of postsecondary education and training has become more important, and nearly essential, in today’s workforce. Unemployment rates for college graduates are consistently low, and the average lifetime earnings boost remains high relative to a high school degree. Anyone who argues that college “isn’t worth it” is doing so with anecdotal examples or bad data.
But the reason college is so important is not because earnings for college graduates keep rising. In fact, bachelor’s degree holders earn about the same amount as they did 30 years ago. Earnings for everyone else -- including those with only some college experience -- have gone down rapidly. In effect, a degree has become more a necessary insurance policy than an investment.
This matters because students are now on the hook for financing more and more of their own education than ever before. As a result, graduates are taking on rising levels of debt while contending with stagnant incomes and the rising cost of health care and child care, all while attempting to save for retirement or for their own child’s education.
And they are some of the best-off of the bunch -- they’re able to stretch and make their minimum monthly payments. The true crisis in student loans is among those who take on student debt but do not graduate, many of whom attend high-cost for-profit institutions. Those students are more likely to default or become delinquent on student loans, potentially setting themselves up for a lifetime of economic hardship. But while some argue that what we really have is a “completion crisis,” college completion is no better or worse than it’s been in decades.
The difference now is that, unlike the early 1990s, most students must borrow for a degree. In other words, we have increased the risk of attending college, simultaneously telling students that they must go to college to ensure financial security while dialing up the potential for financial catastrophe if they cannot complete.
Completion and debt are also not mutually exclusive, as some people might have you believe. Students drop out of college for many reasons, but the most common reasons cited are financial -- debt, high cost, the need to attend part-time while juggling a full-time job. That means if we care about increasing college attainment, we must first deal with the financial pressure facing students who either decide not to go or feel they cannot finish. Guaranteeing a debt-free pathway to a degree can lower the risk of not graduating and help more students graduate.
On a macro level, the Post and others have seized on a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisors, the key takeaway of which was that providing students with access to loans allowed many to go to college during the recession, leaving them much better off than had they not attended at all. This report tells us much of what we already know: 1) providing a financing mechanism for students is better than nothing at all, and 2) student loans make up a relatively small share of the overall economy, yet 3) for many students (including the seven million in default), it has become a crisis.
But those arguing that this means student debt is not a major policy problem have the counterfactual all wrong. Essentially, the report is arguing that providing students money to pay tuition bills and thus go to college is a good bet. But this is more true of need-based grant and scholarship aid than it is of loans. Grants have proven time and again to increase access, retention and completion, while research on loans is mixed. Further, grant aid, since it does not need to be paid off, does not carry with it the risk of student loans -- an extremely important difference in an era of stagnant college completion rates and stagnant incomes for graduates.
And unfortunately, the news media often misses that student debt is a problem with a color and class element. We know that black borrowers take on thousands more in debt for the same degree as white students and are more likely to drop out with debt. Four in 10 black borrowers drop out with debt and no degree, including two-thirds of those at four-year for-profit colleges.
Moreover, black and Latino students do not see the same benefits of a degree. Unemployment for black college graduates is the same as white high school graduates, average earnings are lower for black workers than white workers at every level of education, and the average wealth of a black college graduate equals that of a white high school dropout. Read that sentence again.
The fact that half of young black households have student debt, and are more likely to have student debt than young white households, means that even if they are better off going to college than not, white families will continue to have an unearned leg up in the economy. Regardless of the amount they have taken on, borrowers of color are the face of this crisis.
Society benefits from an educated population, which is why we invest in it. It’s why the GI Bill, warts and all, returned $7 for every $1 invested and is considered a massive success. It’s why public investment in a degree reaps tens of thousands of dollars in return.
When we individualize the benefits of college, we miss the forest for the trees. It’s striking that we do this for college and no other forms of education. We do not send 5-year-olds home from kindergarten with $20,000 tuition bills, justifying it by saying that the alternative of not going to school is worse. We do this because it’s in the public interest to send students to school without financial barriers and that the alternative would impose massive barriers based on race and class.
It is, of course, important that we provide relief to those who are most likely to struggle with debt and those who do not see the returns from college. The concept of debt-free college does just that, by asking students to work hard and maybe take on a part-time job, states to chip in like they did for previous generations, and the federal government to treat higher education as a public good again. It is progressive -- asking the wealthy to pay their fair share while eliminating unmet need that cripples the ability of low-income students to pay tuition bills. It reduces risk and expands opportunity.
Those of us concerned with student debt are not saying that students should avoid college, any more than we would complain about high rent and recommend homelessness instead. Instead, we want to remove the financial burden from those most afflicted and ensure that the next generation making college-going decisions doesn’t avoid it because their families can’t afford it.
Mark Huelsman is senior policy analyst at Demos, a nonprofit public policy organization focused on economic equality.
The most significant challenge facing higher education today is our growing economic segregation. College completion rates for those at the lowest socioeconomic rungs continue to lag far behind those of their wealthier peers, not only due to diminished financial resources but also because of a lack of social and cultural capital. Redressing this phenomenon will require offering an education that prepares each and every student for success in work and life, while inspiring them to take seriously their social responsibilities in a society plagued by persistent inequities.
In fact, the board of directors of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, where I serve as president, expanded the organization’s mission in 2012 to embrace both inclusive excellence and liberal education as the foundation for institutional purpose and educational practice. The addition of inclusive excellence as one of AAC&U’s foundational principles reflects the ideal that access to educational excellence for all students -- not just the privileged -- is essential not only for our nation’s economy but, more important, for our democracy. Democracy cannot flourish in a nation divided into haves and have nots.
The equity imperative as an essential component of educating for democracy has been at the forefront of my mind during the past few weeks of nonstop coverage of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. I have been particularly focused on the potential impact of various higher education policy proposals on AAC&U’s objective of advancing a public-spirited vision of inclusive excellence as inextricably linked to liberal education.
While higher education issues were pretty much absent from the Republican convention speeches, an earlier proposal by Donald Trump, developed by Sam Clovis, his educational policy adviser, to restrict eligibility for student loans in order to make it more difficult for those at “nonelite colleges” to major in the liberal arts previously caught my attention. Indeed, I am convinced that, if enacted, it would risk exacerbating what Thomas Jefferson termed an “unnatural aristocracy,” where only the wealthy gain the benefits of the kind of broad and engaged liberal education that Clovis himself insists is the absolute foundation for success in life.
Trump’s proposal makes at least two serious errors about the value of a college degree in today’s world. It assumes, first, that one’s undergraduate major is all that matters and, second, that only some majors will prepare students for success in the workplace. The evidence from AAC&U’s own surveys of employers, and from many economists, suggests that this is simply not the case. As noted in the title of our 2013 report of employers’ views, “It Takes More Than a Major,” more than 90 percent of employers agree that “a graduate’s ability to think critically, communicate clearly and solve complex problems is more important than their undergraduate major.” Students can develop such cross-cutting skills in a wide variety of chosen disciplines, if the courses are well designed and integrated within robust, problem-based general education programs.
A student’s undergraduate experience, and how well the experience advances critical learning outcomes, is what matters most, with 80 percent of employers agreeing that all students need a strong foundation in the liberal arts and sciences. A liberal education fosters the capacity to write, speak and think with precision, coherence and clarity; to propose, construct and evaluate arguments; and to anticipate and respond to objections. And it offers what employers value the most: the ability to apply knowledge in real-world settings, to engage in ethical decision making and to work in teams on solving unscripted problems with people whose views differ from one’s own. In a globally interdependent yet multicultural world, it is precisely because employers place a particular premium on innovation in response to rapid change that they emphasize students’ experiences with diverse populations, rather than narrow technical training.
The data confirm what we already know: students in all undergraduate majors can and should gain the outcomes of a broad liberal education. Therefore, we need to be vigilant in rebutting accusations of irrelevance and illegitimacy leveled specifically at the liberal arts and sciences and to recognize those charges for what they are: collusion in the growth of an intellectual oligarchy in which only the very richest and most prestigious institutions preserve access to the liberal arts traditions. Trump’s ostensible presumption that college is only about workforce training is dangerous to our democratic future.
Of course, it is unclear whether a proposal to use student loans to steer students away from certain majors could be implemented, given the challenges of predicting career trajectories based on majors and types of institutions. (After all, I was a philosophy major who began at a community college under funds from the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, Pell Grants and Perkins Loans.)
Still, in order to restore public trust in higher education and destabilize the cultural attitudes at the basis of Trump’s policy proposal, we need to demonstrate in a more compelling way to those outside of the academy, Democrats and Republicans alike, the extent to which we actually are teaching students 21st-century skills, preparing them to solve our most pressing global, national and local problems within the context of the workforce, not apart from it. To do so, our institutions of higher education must come together to engage in an honest assessment of our effectiveness and undertake a collaborative exchange of best practices. Our shared commitments to equity, democratic and economic vitality, and inclusive excellence demand nothing less.
Lynn Pasquerella is president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
We usually think of college as providing a boost up the class ladder. That is what it did for a generation or more of Americans, particularly from the 1950s through the 1970s. But since around 1980, college has actually calcified class in America.
That’s one upshot of Tamara Draut’s new book, Sleeping Giant: How the New Working Class Will Transform America (Doubleday, 2016). She explains how the central divide between the working class and the middle class now is college. Not that things are entirely rosy for those with bachelor’s degrees, but those without degrees have experienced a more severe pinch, with proportionately shrinking wages, degraded conditions, few job protections and general insecurity.
Moreover, contrary to college standing as an open thoroughfare for Americans wanting to rise, it has become a gated toll road primarily available to those from middle-class and upper-class families. Those who have gone to college beget those who go to college: if your parents didn’t go to college, you are much more likely to work at or near minimum wage. Only about 9 percent of those from the lowest quartile of wealth complete college degrees, whereas about three-quarters from the top quartile do.
A key impediment has been the exponential rise of tuition prices since the 1970s, at several times the rate of inflation, correlated with the reduction of public support, which in turn has brought the steep increase in student debt and student work hours.
This has produced what Draut called in an earlier essay “The Growing College Gap,” in Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide in America and Its Poisonous Consequences. We usually think that we have seen great progress if not solved the problem of racial inequality, but the enrollment gap between white students and black students was about 5 percent in 1970, whereas it had more than doubled, to 11 percent, in 2000. Similarly, Hispanic students have seen the gap widen from 5 to 13 percent. Affirmative action gets headlines, but we have actually gone backward in attaining racial equality in higher education.
One of Draut’s key insights is that the class divide is not just a matter of money but also one of culture. As she remarks, “When once a steelworker and an accountant could live on the same block, drive the same car, vacation at the same place and eat at the same restaurants, over the course of the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s” those from higher classes have little substantive contact with those from the working class except when they ring up their groceries or take care of their elderly relatives.
That has precipitated a public and political blindness to the new working class, even though it constitutes 60 percent of Americans. Rather than a silent majority, it is an invisible majority.
The cultural divide has two daunting consequences. Because those who work in journalism and other news media come from the upper, college-degreed cohort -- as Draut adduces, in 1971 only about half of journalists had B.A.s, whereas 92 percent do now -- they have little direct sense of the working class. Nor is there a strong interest to represent it in the main news organs, like The New York Times or The Washington Post, whose audiences are largely college educated.
In Draut’s analysis, after the 2008 crash, about half of the news focused on the banks, a third on the federal response, a fifth on businesses and only a smattering on working-class people who might have lost jobs or their houses. Rather, the Post ran a feature on a banker getting by on a reduction of her salary -- to $300,000 a year. Hard times indeed.
Similarly, those who work as congressional staffers come almost entirely from college backgrounds. Of high-level staffers, about half “attended private colleges for their undergraduate degree, including 10 percent who went to an Ivy League school.” They are typically the ones who get the internships inside the D.C. beltway, as well as can afford to carry the expenses of internships.
That has effectively shut the working class out of public representation or political power, even though it constitutes a majority. For Draut, the key is to change the narrative, popping what she calls the “class bubble.” One corrective is simply that we are not all middle class: most Americans are working class.
In addition, Sleeping Giant shows that the present working class no longer fits the iconic image of the construction worker in hard hat who had a union to speak for him. Instead, it is largely female, about half Latino and African-American, usually nonunionized, and struggling to make ends meet at or near minimum wage while laboring in home health care, fast food and retail, which have gained the bulk of new jobs.
Since college is a key class marker, it’s easy to blame higher education itself as the problem. But for Draut the problem lies in the policies that have drained equal opportunity from it and segregated it, and in turn she advocates policies to enhance public higher education, notably reducing tuition fees and eliminating student debt. In this, she differs from the diagnosis of John Marsh, who argues in Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way Out of Inequality(Monthly Review, 2011), that college has been overemphasized and offers a false solution, so we should pare back college attendance.
Draut herself was a working-class beneficiary of higher education: the daughter of a steelworker, she went to a public university near home in Ohio, which sent her on her way to a job in advertising, then with Planned Parenthood, and since 2001 with Demos, a progressive think tank, where she started as a researcher and is currently a vice president.
Demos was founded in the 1990s as a counterweight to the many conservative think tanks, and it has produced reports such as “The Great Cost Shift,” about the draining of public support for higher education, and “The College Compact,” about enhancing public support. Draut first worked on studies of credit-card and student loan debt, which spurred her earlier exposé, Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead (Doubleday, 2006).
She learned a lesson from the battle over credit cards. In seeking reform, as she recalled in an interview with me, “there’s a beltway mentality, ‘Well, that’s never going to happen; we’re never going to regulate the credit-card companies.’” But she proudly attended the 2009 signing of the Credit Card Act, which regulates rates and fees and has helped those in debt. As she quipped, “I got the last laugh on that one,” and she sees the same possibility for higher education: “Debt-free college is now a real idea and part of the political debate.”
That’s one salutary reminder we can take from Draut: it might be a long road, but good ideas that seem unrealistic at one moment can win their day. In academic scholarship, we typically focus on conceptual problems, commenting on one and moving onto the next, and in fact we are continually looking for what’s new or next. But in politics, change sometimes seems glacial, and one has to be dogged. It’s useful to keep in mind that massive student debt is only a recent development, arising since the 1980s, and 10 years ago, the idea of abolishing it or enacting free public higher education were considered pie-in-the-sky proposals. But they’re on the agenda now, and we have to keep working to accrue the data, build the narratives and devise policies that aim toward more equality.
Jeffrey J. Williams is a professor of English and of literary and cultural studies at Carnegie Mellon University. His most recent book is How to Be an Intellectual: Essays on Criticism, Culture, and the University (Fordham University Press, 2014).
Temple makes a sudden change after $22 million in overspending on financial aid. But faculty members object to what they see as a lack of information and disrespect for an academic leader many respect.
Submitted by Sandy Baum on March 31, 2016 - 3:00am
Contrary to Robert Samuels’s argument in Inside Higher Ed on March 24,Bernie Sanders does not have it right when it comes to the question of increasing college opportunities. His attention-getting idea of making public colleges and universities free for all students would not be the best approach for students in the United States, even if it were a realistic possibility. And his ideas about the federal government dictating how colleges and universities should structure and finance their operations threaten the independence of these institutions.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders recognize that rapidly rising college tuition interferes with the ability of many students to access the postsecondary opportunities they need in order to develop the personal, intellectual and economic security to which they aspire. In a very different world, where America had a centralized system of higher education financed through higher and more progressive taxes than this nation imposes, tuition-free public colleges might well make sense. But that is not our reality.
As Clinton’s proposal for debt-free tuition recognizes, tuition revenues are a critical source of revenue for public higher education. Without these funds, colleges would almost certainly have to turn away some students and/or significantly reduce the quality of the education they offer. Clinton’s plan would use tuition revenues from students and families who can afford to pay to ensure that colleges can keep their doors open to qualified students, including those without the ability to pay.
Her argument that the taxpayers should not foot the bill for Donald Trump’s kids to go to college is shorthand for the perverse distributional impact of eliminating tuition. It may sound convincing to say that no one should have to pay because finances should not prevent people from getting a college education and because society as a whole benefits when more people have more (and better) education. But, in fact, individual students enjoy a significant portion of the benefits of their education -- usually in the form of a large earnings premium relative to people without a college education. Paying user fees -- another name for tuition -- for a service that brings such a large individual return is fair.
But it’s not just where college students end up that is the issue. It is where they come from.
The college-going rate for high school graduates from high-income families is more than 30 percentage points higher than the rate for those from low-income families.
Moreover, when they do go to college, students from lower-income families tend to go to community colleges and other institutions with lower levels of public funding, lower expenditures per student -- and lower tuition levels -- than the research universities where higher-income students are more concentrated. Students from more affluent backgrounds also stay in college for more years and earn higher-level degrees. More than twice as many from the highest-income families as from the lowest-income families persist to earn bachelor’s degrees.
In other words, free tuition would save students from affluent families a lot of money. It would save those from lower-income families and adults returning to college much less. This is the exact opposite of the strategies we need to accomplish the goal of reducing inequality.
Spending so much on subsidies to people who start out better off than average and end up, after their education, even more concentrated in the upper reaches of income distribution is not just a problem because it is skewed in the wrong direction. Even more serious is the likely increased strain on the resources available to provide high-quality educational experiences to the disadvantaged students who are so dependent on public higher education as a route to upward mobility.
Starving public institutions will make it more difficult for them to provide the support systems that low-income students need to achieve their goals. Depriving them of tuition as a source of revenue, when many of their students have significant capacity to pay both out of current resources and out of their future earnings, would diminish meaningful educational opportunities. Clinton’s focus on ensuring that students with financial need get all the support they require to cover their tuition at public colleges without having to borrow -- and maintain the use of their Pell Grants to help them cover living expenses -- is a much more progressive approach.
Unfortunately, equalizing opportunities in our society is much more complicated than reducing or eliminating tuition. Even though it is compulsory, free K-12 education has not come close to solving the problem of unequal educational opportunities. Students from low-income families attend underresourced schools, while affluent parents subsidize their children in a myriad of ways that supplement what they get in school. Inequality of outcomes continues to grow.
Similarly, free tuition in some countries around the world has not proved to be a silver bullet. Some countries with the highest levels of education among young people charge high tuition. Conversely, some countries that don’t charge tuition have relatively low attainment levels.
Hillary Clinton is right that eliminating college tuition is not the most promising route to a more equal society.
The Federal Role in Institutional Policies and Practices
Another contrast between the proposals of the two candidates concerns how to maintain and improve the quality of education that colleges and universities provide. Clinton advocates increasing accountability for the performance of public colleges and universities, holding them responsible for ensuring that their students actually benefit from the time, effort and money they invest in higher education. But Sanders, instead of addressing the effectiveness of colleges in meeting their educational goals, supposes that Congress has the wisdom to judge that every public college and university in the country needs to have at least 75 percent of its faculty tenured or on the tenure track.
Besides adding substantially to college costs, especially at the community colleges that serve the majority of low-income students and are already strapped for funds, this proposed regulation flies in the face of the longstanding principle that states -- and not the federal government -- carry primary responsibility for colleges and universities. And they have a history of successfully leaving most educational decisions to the campuses themselves. Sanders’s idea about changing the federal role in how colleges are run should raise real concerns in both the higher education community and state governments.
Clinton’s approach is built on the idea of a partnership. Students, parents, institutions, states and the federal government must all work together to build a strong higher education system for the nation. That takes a lot of resources -- more resources than we are currently devoting to the effort. Someone has to pay. And it is right that this should include the students who benefit and parents with available resources. The federal government also has a big role to play. But it should not attempt to run colleges and universities from a distance. It should instead support and facilitate higher-quality educational opportunities for all who can benefit.
College affordability, especially for students from low-income families, is an important issue. But it is at least as important to ensure that the colleges students attend are effective as that they are free or low in price. The focus on free diverts attention from the reality that low-income students tend to come to college with weak academic preparation and the resources available to give them quality education are expensive. Hillary Clinton’s plan will both make college more affordable and make it more worth paying for.
Sandy Baum is a higher education economist and a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. She has advised the Clinton campaign and this article reflects her personal opinions.