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.
There has been much attention paid to higher education in the current Democratic debates, but most people still do not know how Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’s policies differ. This lack of information is important because the two candidates have very different proposals. Not only is Clinton talking about debt-free public higher education and not tuition-free education like Sanders, but Sanders is offering a much more comprehensive approach to fixing many higher education issues.
Besides proposing to eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities, Sanders is also focusing on reducing administrative costs, increasing full-time faculty and dedicating more funds for instruction. Like Clinton, he proposes reducing student debt through refinancing at lower interest rates, and he acknowledges that free tuition will only deal with part of the high costs of higher education.
As I argued in Why Public Higher Education Should Be Free, we can substantially reduce tuition costs and improve educational quality if colleges and universities are given an incentive to reduce administrative spending and other nonessential activities. The plan Sanders proposed in Congress calls for providing “an assurance that not later than five years after the date of enactment of this act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the state is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty.” This use of federal funds to restore tenure represents one of the many policies that one does not find in Clinton’s proposal.
Sanders’s bill also calls for funding all expenses for low-income students and requiring states to maintain their support for public higher education by mandating “that public institutions of higher education in the state provide, for each student enrolled at the institution who receives for the maximum federal Pell Grant award … institutional student financial aid in an amount equal to 100 percent of the difference between (A) the cost of attendance at such institution … and (B) the sum of (i) the amount of the maximum federal Pell Grant award; and (ii) the student’s expected family contribution.” It also calls on states to “ensure that public institutions of higher education in the state not adopt policies to reduce enrollment.” The push here is to maintain state support for higher education while significantly increasing the federal contributions.
Sanders also wants to make sure that more money ends up in the classroom: “a state that receives a grant under this section shall use any remaining grant funds and matching funds required under this section to increase the quality of instruction and student support services by carrying out the following: A) Expanding academic course offerings to students. (B) Increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty. (C) Providing all faculty with professional supports to help students succeed, such as professional development opportunities, office space and shared governance in the institution. (D) Compensating part-time faculty for work done outside of the classroom relating to instruction, such as holding office hours. (E) Strengthening and ensuring all students have access to student support services such as academic advising, counseling and tutoring. (F) Any other additional activities that improve instructional quality and academic outcomes for students as approved by the secretary through a peer-review process.”
These policy proposals are far-reaching and focus on improving the quality of instruction and supporting the faculty members who work at colleges and universities. The plan not only aims to increase the number of tenured faculty but also looks to improve the pay and professional development of non-tenure-track faculty. It is a shame that most of the news media has not covered these aspects of Sanders’s plan.
In perhaps his most radical and needed proposal, Sanders pushes these institutions to return to their core missions: “A state that receives a grant under this section may not use grant funds or matching funds required under this section (A) for the construction of nonacademic facilities, such as student centers or stadiums; (B) for merit-based student financial aid; or (C) to pay the salaries or benefits of school administrators.” Sanders’s plan would thus decrease the cost of making public higher education free by decreasing the costs associated with administration, athletics and merit-based aid that goes mostly to the wealthiest students.
Sanders wants to pay for the increase in federal funding for higher education by a tax on financial transactions. At first glance, there appears to be little relationship between Wall Street and public colleges and universities. But if we look at the economic history of the last 30 years, we find that, each time a Wall Street crash occurs, tuition costs and student debt go up. The reason for that correlation is that market crashes cause decreases in state revenue, which in turn cause reductions in appropriations for higher education, which are then followed by increases in tuition and student debt. It is also important to stress that at the very moment the federal government was giving banks and financial institutions trillions of dollars of interest-free loans, it was making a profit off student debt.
Clinton’s plan on her website states that her proposal will “ensure no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state. Enable Americans with existing student loan debt to refinance at current rates. Hold colleges and universities accountable for controlling costs and making tuition affordable.” Instead of eliminating all tuition at public universities and colleges, she wants to make sure that no student has to go into debt, but that requires a family contribution. She also is calling for an increase in public support for private universities and colleges, especially historically black colleges and universities.
Some of the more troubling aspects of her plan are a push for high-quality online education and increasing tax cuts for higher education, which mainly serve upper-class and upper-middle-class families. Clinton also wants to penalize colleges and universities when their students do not graduate or cannot repay their loans. This policy is a conservative idea that has been promoted by President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unlike Sanders, Clinton says nothing about increasing the number of tenure-track faculty, improving the compensation and development of non-tenure-track faculty, reducing administrative costs, or controlling the costs of noninstructional expenditures.
The devil is clearly in the details of these proposals, but few people appear to know what these details entail.
Robert Samuels is president of UC-AFT and teaches writing at the University of California at Santa Barbara.