College tuition has risen faster than the rate of inflation for the past quarter-century. While wages have remained stagnant, the cost of going to college has shot through the roof. According to
Forbes writer
Camilo Maldonado, tuition rose 8 times faster than wage growth during the years 1989 to 2016. Eight times faster!
Why? The colleges say they are forced to raise tuition rates because the states are providing less support for higher education. But this lame explanation--repeated
ad nauseam--is mostly bullshit. The colleges don't mention the explosion in administrative positions-the profusion of assistant vice presidents, executive associate deans, etc. It is not uncommon for senior administrators at public and private universities to draw salaries that exceed a quarter-million dollars a year.
In any event, everyone agrees that rising tuition costs have forced millions of American students to take out student loans, which now total $1.6 trillion. Something must be done to alleviate the distress.
Several Democratic candidates for the presidency have proposed making college education free at all public colleges and universities. You would think the higher education community would love that idea. But it doesn't. Vassar president
Catharine Hill criticized Bernie Sanders's free-college idea when he ran for president in 2016. Her lame-brained solution was to expand long-term income-based repayment plans. And that's basically what we've done--creating repayment plans deliberately structured so that students can never pay off their college loans.
Now we are in the early stages of the 2020 presidential election season, and more
Democratic hopefuls have joined Bernie in proposing a free college education for everyone. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand (who recently dropped out of the presidential race) have all endorsed a free-college proposal.
But the higher education community still opposes the idea. Just a few days ago,
Brian Rosenberg, president of Macalester College, published an op-ed essay in
Chronicle of Higher Education, in which he cited a couple of liberal tropes to justify his opposition to free college.
A free college education would hurt low-income students, Rosenberg argues, because they would be "squeezed out" in the application process that would become more competitive if tuition were free. And he also contends that free college would exacerbate the nation's already low graduation rate.
Huh? How could free college be bad for low-income students? How could it make graduation rates go down?
Mr. Rosenberg is the president of Macalester College, a very good liberal-arts school in Minnesota, but he does not mention that free college at public institutions would severely disadvantage the private colleges. Who would pay
$54,000 a year in tuition and fees to attend Macalester College if they could enroll at the University of Minnesota tuition-free?
I'm sure Mr. Rosenberg's arguments against free college are sincere and his commitment to private liberal-arts education is genuine. But a great many university presidents and higher-education policy wonks simply don't care about the student-loan crisis, which has motivated political leaders to propose a free college education. They want to preserve the status quo in higher education, with the federal government spewing more than a $100 billion a year to support the present system.
How many elite-college presidents have come out in favor of a free college education?
I don't think any of them have. Unlike Mr. Rosenberg, most college leaders are keeping silent about their qualms, but rest assured they will fight tooth and nail if a Democrat is elected President and tries to get a free-college plan through Congress.
Meanwhile, I don't think any of these arrogant college presidents have lifted a finger to ease the student-debt crisis. The status quo works just fine for them.
 |
Macalester College: $54,000 in tuition and fees
(the bagpipe music is complimentary) |
