Bernie’s Free College Plan Is Neither Cheap nor Fair. There Is a Better Way
Free college would help better-off families more than poor ones and would be very expensive. There is a way to ensure more equitable access to college that would not cost taxpayers a dime, however.
Much has
been made of Bernie Sanders’s proposals to provide federal funding to states
wishing to make state universities tuition-free. A recent article in the Globe concluded that his plan
would raise American taxes to a level on a par with much of Europe, while
highlighting the benefits that free tuition would bring. While many people even
in America might support higher taxes in exchange for a more equitable
education system, there is no doubt raising taxes to the levels needed would be
extraordinarily difficult in today’s political climate—regardless of who wins
the coming elections. What’s more, making college free for everyone is actually
not that fair. There is a way to make college far more equitable and affordable
to the country’s poorest students without costing taxpayers a dime.
A bill
hiking taxes by a whopping 8% of GDP to pay for free public university
tuition (which would only be the case if all or most public universities actually did become free, which is doubtful) seems extraordinarily unlikely to pass the Congress of today or one in
the conceivable near-term future. This need not be a worry, however, because
free tuition for all is actually not that desirable if the goal is to make the
process of getting a degree fairer. The most basic reason is that students from
wealthy backgrounds are more likely to do well in school and get into college.
Free tuition for all therefore means most of the spending would go on students in
the top half of the household income spectrum. As an article last autumn in The Economist showed, this can end up happening at
the expense of the poor if the increased costs are made up for, even in part, by cuts
elsewhere. Evidence from Scotland, where tuition fees were abolished in 2007,
suggests free college there actually led to a smaller increase in the enrollment of poor students than occurred in England, where tuition fees still exist. Free college is also one of the most expensive ways to improve access.
A mandatory sliding scale for tuition fees, with the
poorest 10-20% of the student body exempt from fees altogether, would do more
to further economic opportunity and would cost taxpayers nothing. As such, it
would also be easier to get passed, especially if it only applied to public
universities. Let’s say a state university with a student body of 10,000
requires $100 million in tuition fees to operate. The rule above would mean
that, instead of charging every student $10,000, the university would charge
the top 80% between $2 and $25,000 annually, with the median student paying
$9,375. $25,000 is still a bargain compared to most private colleges
and the university would now offer a free degree to the poorest 20% of its
student body. While this plan wouldn’t require any new government spending, it
certainly wouldn’t preclude it: Combined with Hillary Clinton’s proposals
and/or increased state funding, it could be a fundamentally fairer way to fix
higher education in America—without breaking the bank.
Comments
Post a Comment