Democratic presidential candidate and junior Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a popular candidate among students, has pushed for universal free tuition at the nation’s public colleges and universities.
We applaud Sanders for bringing the issue of escalating tuition costs to the forefront of the political agenda, which other candidates from both parties have failed to do. We support his pledge to lower interest rates on college loans and to allow students currently in debt to refinance their loans at lower rates. But when it comes to free public college tuition for all income levels, we ask students (and voters) to look past the sweeping rhetoric and question the unintended consequences of such an action before “feeling the Bern.”
First and foremost, this proposal would subsidize tuition for upper-class students, for whom college is relatively affordable, while having little effect on those who already receive need-based aid. There is a reason for selective pricing at American universities and for the “expected family contribution” component of financial aid applications. Wealthier students cover the costs of the lower income students. Families who can afford to pay for college ought to.
Sanders’ plan also doesn’t focus on some of the most burdensome collegiate costs: room, board, textbooks, food and other necessities. Why would we give wealthier families a break while ignoring the basic yet unattainable needs of others?
Instead, the government should increase the volume of state and federal grants for lower- and middle-income students instead of buttressing those who never need to worry about making ends meet.
On top of that, universities have plenty of areas to cut costs and increase their own need-based aid offerings. The number of non-academic administrative and professional employees at colleges and universities in the U.S. has more than doubled in the past 25 years, according to an analysis of federal figures conducted by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and the nonprofit American Institutes for Research. (Emory, though a private institution to which Sanders’ policy wouldn’t apply, has seen a 180 percent increase in administrative employees and a 135 percent increase in professional staff but only a 129 percent increase in enrollment, according to the analysis).
In addition, free tuition at public schools would likely increase the volume of applications to those schools. This would be, for the most part, a positive effect. As economics students can tell you, the Law of Demand states that as the price of the good decreases, the quantity demanded increases. In this case, a higher influx of applications to free public institutions would make those institutions more competitive, as they could only afford to accept a set number of students with free tuition.
But what would this mean for private colleges? Like private high schools or college preparatory schools, they would likely become enclaves for those who can afford to attend. Students complain today about the prevalence of obvious wealth on our campus. Would a large portion of Emory’s economically, socially, ethnically and racially diverse character be drawn away by the lesser financial hardships of free tuition? Who would still pay the $45,700 (not including housing, fees, textbooks and food) it costs to attend our university? How would this new average (skewed wealthy) “expected family contribution” affect tuition rates?
These are the questions that remain to be seen and we hope to have answered during the ongoing national discussions about college tuition.
On top of providing additional grants for students who need them, we propose that federal and state governments use measures of academic performance, such as GPA, to ensure that students take full advantage of need-based aid. While many regard a bachelor’s degree as the modern iteration of a high school diploma, it should remain as challenging and achievement-oriented as it is now — at any price. So let’s bring the price down for those who could use the financial help. Education is not a right, but an obstacle in the pursuit of a higher quality of life. Money should not be an obstacle.
The above staff editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheel‘s editorial board.
Update (1/28 at 11:02 a.m.): Bernie Sanders’ position as a junior senator from Vermont was corrected. It previously referred to him as the former Vermont Senator.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
If you tag an achievement metric such as GPA to need-based aid eligibility, I promise that students will certainly avoid challenging themselves and “taking full advantage” of it in order to remain eligible. The same applies to merit aid (Sadly, even a few Emory Scholars are known for this behavior). The threshold would have to be reasonable so as to not scare the desire or willingness of the student to be challenged academically.
This article should define what is “middle income.” 100k at NYC won’t go that far in NYC but will go really far in South Dakota.
They should also adjust for the standard of living.
A weird article. First of all, Sander’s proposal is funded by a tax on wall street speculation. So it’s still rich people paying for others. Second, yes, less people would be willing to pay Emory’s outrageous tuition. Emory and other private universities would be forced to lower their prices. That would be a good thing. Giving poor and minority students *more choice* can’t hurt them, unless you want to force them to go into crazy debt at Emory just to keep the student body diverse.
I wonder: does the wheel think high schools should be privatized? That’s the natural extension of the argument of this article.
Honestly, while I didn’t comment on it, this piece seemed to express a desperation to keep private schools relevant more so than diverse. If public schools including flagships and top STEM publics were made free, then top talent would most certainly bleed to them, especially those in that “middle income” grey area for elite private schools with good financial aid. It could result in a paradigm shift that makes the American system look a little more like European systems where public universities are much more elite than privates. The already top public schools would probably start to soar in terms of undergraduate student body quality and the burden of financing those students would also be removed such that more resources could be redirected to undergraduate education at those places. Even at elite privates like Emory, the financial aid budget, because of the high costs being covered or reduced, can strain and take away from other other priorities.
Well, you are wrong about the article’s desperation, which is clearly concerned with diversity:
“[private schools] they would likely become enclaves for those who can afford to attend. …Would a large portion of Emory’s economically, socially, ethnically and racially diverse character be drawn away by the lesser financial hardships of free tuition? Who would still pay the $45,700 (not including housing, fees, textbooks and food) it costs to attend our university?”
I am interested by your post, but also confused. Who cares if private schools become less relevant if public schools can serve more students more cheaply, and become more ‘elite’ (i.e. better schools) in the process? Either private schools will be able to compete or not, and either way it seems to be a win for presently disadvantaged kids.
Well, that is exactly my point. Just because they stated an interest in diversity DOES NOT mean that that is indeed the primary interest. I personally do not care (I generally respect many public schools more), but I’m saying that I suspect an undertone that they of course express interest in keeping privates and Emory relevant. I’m just a cynic in that regard and don’t trust everything I read as face value. This seems to have been an editorial staff often extremely worried about the status and prestige of Emory, going as far to make slight negative reports when Emory would see marginal increases in application numbers.
I am confused as to why they would worry about the diversity cost if they truly think that public schools becoming more selective is generally positive.
Seems like they’re concern is that others would lose interest in privates (because I really doubt that places like Emory and peers would suddenly revise financial aid structures to stop supporting some lower income and first generational students which are often the focus of most of the socioeconomic diversity efforts).The fact is, like you said, the private schools will then actually have to compete on actual quality to attract those (perhaps those middle incomes students not benefiting as much from financial aid but would still have to pay a significant chunk at a state flagship and state schools outside of their own state that they would actually have otherwise attended. Schools like UC Berkeley, and Virginia come to mind) who would otherwise go to other public (especially flagship and elites) instead of buying the students like they do today.
Also, except for elites offering packages similar to Emory, most privates have always been and still are enclaves for the wealthy. The concern should become more so with the more elite and wealthy privates becoming more stratified socioeconomically; as in, those in the “middle income” (which to me, are generally actually upper middle class, just not in comparison to the cost of private schools) category becoming a smaller percentage than those in lower brackets and certainly lower than higher brackets.
Sweden tried something similar several decades ago.
The volume of bond trading fell by 85%, even though the tax rate on five-year bonds was only 0.003%. The volume of futures trading fell by 98% and the options trading market disappeared. 60% of the trading volume of the eleven most actively traded Swedish share classes moved to the UK after the announcement. 30% of all Swedish equity trading moved offshore. By 1990, more than 50% of all Swedish trading had moved to London. Foreign investors reacted to the tax by moving their trading offshore while domestic investors reacted by reducing the number of their equity trades.
So his ‘speculation tax’ would destroy American capital markets.
An education is a privilege not a right. If you want an education, get out there and work for it. I paid my way by working while attending school. As a result, I appreciated my education because it was my dream and goal, not someone else’s. If you want something bad enough, you will find a way to achieve your endeavor honestly. America is the land of opportunity not the land of handouts because we are too lazy to creatively figure out a way to accomplish our tasks. We have the right to pursue and education, not have it handed to us. Stop whining., and get working.
Here is a reality today for those residents of states that force universities to give in-state tuition to undocumented “illegal” students or the students of undocumented parents. Parents who have been paying state taxes for years to these institutions must send their children to colleges out of state. The reason; there are fewer places for them in their state schools because to cover the financial institution’s costs, they are taking in more out-of-state students and fewer in-state students. There are always unintentional consequences of forced compassion (the stealing from some to give to others or redistribution of wealth). Maybe those parents were counting on sending their children to a school in state because they couldn’t afford to send them elsewhere. Is this fair to them? I am sorry that these “dreamer” kids feel that it is unfair that they have to pay a higher tuition because they cannot prove they are citizens. This is a consequence for their parent’s choice to enter America illegally instead of respecting the laws of this country. This is also a slap in the face to all immigrants who come to this country legally.
Socialistic handouts are not FREE. They cost us all either directly or indirectly. As Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism is great until you run out of someone else’s money.” Wealthy people always know how to shelter their money. So the idea of punishing the wealthy never works. The burden always falls on the middle-class making them increasingly poor. It is the increasing desire for socialism in this country that has made this country’s GNP so low and increased joblessness. The United States has the highest corporate taxes in the world and the demands for high wages makes the cost of doing business impossible. So they move to other countries causing joblessness and recession. If people want to escape the hopelessness of recession, stop electing socialist to office that promise to punish the wealthy and give their money to you. Eventually, you end up with no one producing and too many people needing. With capitalism, you give wealthy people and companies the opportunity to invest in you, give you a job. The government doesn’t have money. They take from others to give to you. When people start getting tired of being taxed to death, the government runs out of money.
Whenever I hear someone describe capitalism being evil by recounting an incident, what they are really describing is greed and greedy people, not capitalism. Capitalism is the idea of just rewards (privately owned) for creating a product or service that you create. You own it. Don’t you think that if you created a business, you should be able to own it and be in control of your business. Socialism says that the government should be in charge of your business, your creation. Really, why? I fail to see how your industriousness belongs to someone else. Capitalism always increases the wealth and well being of a country. That is why many socialist countries are now becoming more capitalistic. They are tired of socialism. Some of you should read the warnings from the stories “The Little Red Hen” and “Animal Farm.”