POSTED BY HANK REICHMAN
Temple University professor Sara Goldrick-Rab probably knows and understands more about how real students today pay for — or are financially incapable of paying for — higher education than anyone else. Her book, Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream, is one of the most important books on higher education to appear in recent years. It demonstrates, through both comprehensive data and often heart-wrenching personal stories, how U.S. students have been left behind by soaring costs combined with a financial aid system that is both inadequate and unfair. Goldrick-Rab has also turned her scholarship into activism by founding the Faculty and Students Together (FAST) Fund, which she has personally helped finance by donating the entire $100,000 she was awarded by winning a prestigious Grawemeyer Award in Education by the University of Louisville.
Goldrick-Rab is also active on Twitter (@saragoldrickrab) and today she posted a thread on the Free College debate that deserves wide readership. I had the threadreader app create a single link for the thread, which you can access here. I’m also posting the text of the entire thread below (minus the cute embedded videos), since it’s really a must-read.
The #1 thing the debate over #FreeCollege reveals is that most Americans know very little about college today.
They think they do. Maybe they went to one or sent their kid to one.
Or they work at one.
Key word: ONE.
Let’s talk #RealCollege …
1. #FreeCollege is about PUBLIC higher education.
There are over 4K colleges in the U.S. Of those about 1600 are public.
That 1600 includes:~1100 community colleges
~450 regional comprehensives
~50 research & flagship unisYet most people think about those 50!This leads to statements like:
“Low income students can’t get in anyway.”
“They don’t have capacity.”
“Capping their tuition will starve them.”Actually…
2. The vast majority of public higher ed is broadly accessible! These institutions admit *most* of the students who apply.
The biggest problem that low-income students face at those colleges is that they do not apply, or cannot afford to attend.Where admissions rates are lower at comprehensives, it’s usually in the few places where capacity is a major problem.
Namely, California.
CA simply hasn’t expanded public higher ed fast enough to meet demand & its financial aid system is upside down.
But CA isn’t normal.When CA has expanded access at publics, enrollment at private colleges falls. This includes #4profits. So guess what— private colleges actively work against expanding support for public higher ed.
That’s politics- not a “lack of capacity.” It must be dealt with.Community colleges admit 100% of the students who apply.
Public regionals accept 75-85% of those who apply and would happily take more.
Public flagships like to turn down students TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATES in U.S. News!
3. Now, let’s talk tuition. I dunno what people claiming “free college will starve public colleges by disallowing tuition” are reading.
What’s starving public colleges are the STATES who refuse to fund them. Free college is about stepping in to right that wrong.The 95% of public higher ed that isn’t flagships HATES raising tuition. They know it hurts their students. But those students also need support which costs money, if they are to graduate.
Replacing tuition with federal $ is key. Ensuring states stay in the boat is also key.
4. It’s profoundly disingenuous for DC wonks to suggest the #FreeCollege proposal is about lowering prices without increasing quality.
The *entire* point of #FreeCollege is to increase the quality of public education across the board. There are at least 10 ways that happens…1. Establishing once and for all that all of public education is a universal public good.
2. Building cross-class investment in public higher education.
3. Hitting “reboot” on a broken federal financing system that does far too little on quality and accountability.4. Improving k12 education by removing college as a blocked opportunity, which right now drives down commitment and performance especially in high school.
5. Improving early childhood outcomes as more parents are themselves more able to obtain more education.6. Increasing affordability at private colleges with far more robust competition.
7. Reducing the damage done by #LowerEd by putting many for-profits out of business.
8. Improving quality of life for all at publics by decreasing stress from CREAM. Students who are awake!9. Improving learning in higher ed with far greater heterogeneity among students.
10. Widespread spillover benefits for communities locally and nationally from a well-educated populace.Do all the current plans achieve those goals? Heck no.
But who among us thinks the policies that have improved our lives were passed on the first draft?
Let’s get real. Good policy involves iteration.Next up, let’s tackle a fan favorite:
5. Financial aid targeted based on need – like Pell- is doing an awesome job of helping low-income students and we should simply double or triple Pell.
Heard that one? Usually from the left?There are dozens of problems with this argument, so I wrote a whole book about it (Paying the Price). I will hit the highlights here, but lemme first just say- it took me a long time to realize these problems were so significant. And it’s painful. Because Pell *is* a good thing.But reality is:
1. Programs for poor people are poor programs. Pell is a pale shadow of what it was supposed to be. We just celebrated a $150 increase while the grant’s value continued to fall! It was supposed to cover 100% of the cost of attending any public.
2. To get Pell or any “need-based grant” you have to ensure the “means-test.”
That means Administrative Burden. Read @pamela_herd and @donmoyn ‘s excellent book by that name and you’ll see the consequences. Quick overview:
– Burden of learning about how to apply and how to do the means-test; aka FAFSA
– Burden of complying with all the damn rules. So many rules. Do you even know what SAP is???
– Burden of stress of trying to qualify and game the system when you don’t!
Those are just the burdens on the prospective students. Think about all the Administrative Burden on the frontline workers — think about @nasfaa !! All of those people dealing with all of that paperwork and rules and regs every damn day.
To sort the “deserving” from the rest.3. Now let’s talk about what it’s like to perform your poverty to get a “need-based” grant.
Do y’all remember when a senator compared Pell recipients to welfare recipients? Cuz I do.4. And let’s talk about cliff effects.
Hey middle class, how do you love being told you can afford college and don’t need any help? How’s that working for ya right now?
Ever made an extra dollar and had it all taken away?
Except none of that is unintentional. The thing about means-testing is that liberals fall for it because “we give the most money to the poor” while the conservatives snicker because the real effect is to divide and conquer. This is all about class warfare.Guess who loses?
6. Let’s talk more about how “middle class people are gonna take low income peoples seats” …
Earlier I disabused you of the notion that the capacity issue isn’t resolvable. It is- with money. Public higher education isn’t going “PLEASE NO, DON’T MAJE ME GROW!”
That’s HarvardFace facts: Public higher ed is segregated right now. I’ll pick on community colleges for illustration.
Segregated community colleges? YES.
What you call “diverse” I’ve shown is actually segregated.25% of community colleges are predominantly minority (at least 65% non-white)
25% are predominantly white (avg % minority is just 8%)
The rest can hardly be called integrated.
s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/production.tcf…Right now geography and price barriers drive segregation among institutions in public higher ed. We can do something about that.
We can reduce the price barriers. And we can tackle those catchments for community colleges.
7. Living expenses
Have you heard the one about how free college isn’t really free?People tell me: we are lying to students! It’s wrong!
Let’s think about it: Free college might not be free for two reasons.
A. Students who think they qualify actually don’t.
B. There are still expenses beyond tuition.A is a problem in state programs w/ lotsa rules.
States are making up all sorts of rules to ration in their free college programs, the same way colleges make up all kinds of rules to ration scholarships.
You there- the kid from Utah who plays violin and wants to be a vet and whose parents didn’t attend college! Yes YOU!But they aren’t always doing this because they want to. Many are rationing because without federal help they can’t afford a universal program.
That was the case in Oregon and RI and MI.
Others ration because it makes them feel powerful.Under federal free college, this isn’t an issue. The Feds set the terms for universality.
Do you see anyone being told they can’t attend public high school because they make too much or not enough or want to take too few courses or have kids or are undocumented???
So then there is B- yes there are costs beyond tuition.
First, most Americans say “duh!”
There are fees at free libraries, tolls on public highways, and supplies to buy at public high schools. No one says “then it’s not free.”Second, we don’t have to address living expenses via free college legislation. There are plenty of alternative ways to support those with complementary policies.
Or, we can. And most are proposing we do.
I suggest both.
To summarize: There is a lot of bad info out there about what is college now, what free college means, and most of it is aimed at scaring you off from the thing that could truly transform the next century!
Many thanks to Professor Goldrick-Rab for this vigorous defense! And while we’re at it, don’t miss the excellent new review article, “Higher Ed on Autopilot,” by the estimable Chris Newfield. Also very much worth reading.
It may seem hypocritical for me to say this but I am opposed to most proposals for free tuition (or even more than just tuition) for all, despite the fact that I graduated from a division of CUNY several decades ago and paid no tuition. The difference is that I EARNED the free tuition on the basis of my high school GPA (one needed a 90% average fro admission to a senior college) + my SAT scores (790, 780) and Chemistry Achievement Test (800!).
Health care is a human right that should be provided by society, but higher education is NOT.
Besides, from the statistics I’ve seen, the average individual student debt is $30,000-$32,000. If some people have accumulated more than that (esp. in professional schools), their expected (almost guaranteed) high income should suffice to pay off that extra obligation.
Drop-outs and those who choose especially expensive colleges, etc., may have made poor life choices but that is no reason why taxpayers should subsidize their life choices.
I may sound like a Republican troglodyte but I’m actually a Marxist who happens to believe that highly qualified students should receive free tuition, based on their past academic record, and that others should attend community colleges to prove their scholarly bona fides before taxpayers’ funds are donated to them.
As Jesus Christ said, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”