Why does it take students six years to complete a four-year degree?

 In the early 90s, I was program director for a specially-designed higher education institute at Louisiana State University. I designed the program for senior-level Chinese college administrators. In my hubris, I wanted to introduce my Asian audience to American higher education--the envy of the world.

One of the LSU presenters, an enrollment-management specialist, said that LSU's six-year graduation rate for bachelor's degrees was about fifty percent. The university had a plan, the speaker told the audience, to get the six-year rate up to 60 percent.

I'll never forget the collective gasp that came from the Chinese administrators. One of them spoke up. In China, he said, the four-year graduation rate was 95 percent--about twice as high as LSU's four-year rate. I realized right then that LSU had nothing valuable to teach the Chinese. And I also knew that the Chinese had discovered that too. 

Why the hell does it take so many American college students six years to get a four-year college degree? After all, that's not their expectation. As a Hechinger Report article pointed out, ninety percent of college freshmen believe they will finish college in four years. The reality, however, is that less than half of college students will get their bachelor's degree in four years.

Some commentators speculate that colleges are moving the finish line for graduation to collect more tuition. There may be some truth to that. After all, American universities now measure their completion rates based on six years of enrollment, not four. By adding more course requirements and bureaucratic red tape, the colleges have made it more difficult for students to plan a schedule that will get them a bachelor's degree in four years.

Nevertheless, other factors are in play that help explain why it takes millions of Americans six years to get a bachelor's degree. Thanks to the federal student-loan program, students can finance not only their tuition with borrowed money but they can also pay their living expenses as well.

Low-income students qualify for Pell grants--up to almost $6,500 a year.  Louisiana also doles out so-called TOPS awards to students with good high school GPAs and ACT scores. However, the qualifications are meager; a kid with a 2.5 GPA and an ACT score of only 20 qualifies for a TOPS scholarship.

And a college student may pick up additional scholarships or grant money. In case you haven't heard, universities are emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion, and students of color and students from disadvantaged backgrounds might qualify for targeted financial assistance.

In fact, many young people can put together financial packages that allow them to live quite comfortably as college students--perhaps better than they lived at home when they were in high school.  

Using student-loan funds, Pell Grant money, and other financial aid, students can move into luxury student apartments, dine out in restaurants, and maybe even put a downpayment down on a car.

In short, many students are "living their best lives" while in college. If so, why would they want to leave a campus environment, go to work, and start paying off their student loans? Why not stretch out their college career from four years to six?

Luxury student housing: Why graduate and go to work?

Bernie Sanders' proposal for free tutiiton at public universities could actually save taxpayers money. So why don't we do that?

Bernie Sanders has proposed free tuition at all American public universities. Let's look at that proposal and also examine the reasons why Bernie's scheme will never be implemented, even though it would cost taxpayers less money than they are spending now on student financial aid.

According to Catharine Hill, president of Vassar College, free tuition at the nation's public universities would cost about $70 billion, which is a lot of money.

But the federal government will distribute almost $35 billion  this year in Pell Grant funding to low-income students. If Congress closed the Pell Grant program and simply provided free tuition at public universities, half of the estimated cost of Sanders' plan would be covered by the switch.

Where would the other $35 billion come from?

In addition to Pell Grants, the federal government operates the federal student loan program, which will distribute more than $100 billion a year in college-loan money. About a third of that sum will be lost due to defaults It would actually be cheaper to provide every American with free tuition at a public university than to operate the federal student-loan program at $100 billion a year and the Pell Grant programs at $35 billion.  In fact, this change would save the federal government about $65 billion a year.

Why then don't we adopt Bernie Sanders' proposal?  Three reasons:

1) The for-profit college industry would collapse. Currently, the for-profit colleges get about 25 percent of all federal student-aid money. If the government stopped subsidizing the for-profit college sector, the for-profits would be forced to close because they get 80 to 90 percent of their operating revenues from federal funds. In fact, offering free tuition at public universities in lieu of the current student-aid system would shut down the for-profit college industry almost overnight.

This sleazy sector of higher education will never allow Bernie Sanders' plan to be operationalized. The for-profit colleges have made strategic political contributions to key congresspeople, and they own most of the lobbyists in Washington. For this reason, Bernie's free-tuition program is already dead.

2) Nonselective private colleges would collapse.  Bernie's free-tuition plan would also kill the nondescript private colleges. Why would anyone attend Malloy University on Long Island, Cabrini College in Philadelphia, or Pine Manor College in Boston if they could go to a state university for free? This sector of higher education will surely do everything it can to make sure Bernie's pipe dream never  becomes a reality.

3) Elite colleges and universities would suffer. Free tuition to attend a public university would not mean the death of Harvard, Yale, Vassar, Dartmouth, and the other elite private colleges. Most of them have large endowments that would keep them afloat even if the federal student-aid program was closed. Moreover, there will always be wealthy families willing to pay almost any amount of money for their children to attend an Ivy League school, even if the public universities were free.

Nevertheless, the Harvards and the Yales do quite well under the status quo. They certainly get a hefty financial boost from Pell Grant money and federal student-loan revenues.  Having a federal cash infusion allows then to jack up their tuition, because they know students will simply borrow more money to cover tuition hikes. When Catharine Hill of Vassar spoke out against Bernie Sanders' free-college plan in the New York Times yesterday, she was speaking not just for Vassar but for all the elite colleges.

Conclusion: Bernie's Free-Tuition plan is Dead On Arrival

In short, Bernie Sander's proposal to give everyone a free undergraduate education at a public college or university is DOA.  The for-profit college industry  and the non-profit private universities simply will not allow it.  These two groups own Congress, and they like the status quo.

Bernie's College-For-All plan: DOA

References

American Council on Education. The Status of Federal Student Aid Programs. Washington, DC: Author, 2015. Accessible at: https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/The-Status-of-Federal-Student-Aid-Programs.pdf

David Halperin. The Perfect Lobby: How One Industry Captured Washington, DC. The Nation, April 3, 2014. Accessible at:  https://www.thenation.com/article/perfect-lobby-how-one-industry-captured-washington-dc/

Catharine Hill. Free Tuition Is Not the Answer. New York Times, November 30, 2015, p. A23. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/free-tuition-is-not-the-answer.html?_r=0