Re-think the rhetoric on free college
This piece originally appeared in Politico's Morning Education on September 11, 2015.
By Kent Barnds
Presidential candidates and other politicians should stop talking as they are about college affordability. They are making political promises where practical solutions are needed, and they don't know what they are talking about.
I know my sentiment won't make me popular around public policy makers, affordability advocates and even some of my colleagues, but this is too important an issue for me to leave unchecked. First and foremost, I do believe college must be affordable and accessible to all. As a society, we should do all we can to make sure more students are able to attend their college of choice. Everyone in the mix should do his or her part.
I am not anti-affordability. I am against the popular political rhetoric about affordability and free college, which will do more damage than good. Consider the following:
"Affordability" is a problematic term— "Affordability" is a matter of perception, making it a perfect foil for a politician. Colleges and universities are tested every year on affordability, and seem to be doing OK as one considers enrollment trends. Furthermore, the blunt message that "college must be more affordable" seems to overlook any sense of market demand and takes another unhealthy step down the path of making a college education a commodity. I have yet to hear the affordability advocates describe at what threshold college is no longer affordable. Is it $5,000, $25,000 or $50,000? And, does the market have any voice in this? How about we begin to talk about "doability," rather than affordable?
Politicians have made promises about the affordability of The American Dream in the past, and the unintended consequences have been disastrous— Each time I hear a politician talk of free or affordable college, I hope for a detailed plan to back the idea. But what I hear is all-too-familiar rhetoric. We all know what happened several years ago when political rhetoric and promises started to shape the behavior of those who wished (or were mandated) to carry out policy that was out of reach financially for homebuyers and government agencies. Today we see similar follow-up public shaming, including threats—the "bad list" of colleges that increase tuition and fees too much.
While the ratings agencies may have overlooked things back then, don't think for a moment that many colleges are like Fanny and Freddy and considered too big to fail. When politicians make promises without offering any detailed proposals, we should know to be wary.
For some, paying for college is like paying taxes— The current rhetoric seems to be directed at everyone, rather than those who genuinely do not have access to a college education. And because the rhetoric is so heated, everyone believes higher education is no longer affordable for anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status. This is obviously not the case. It's an unfortunate development because it equips those who don't like what they are asked to pay to take comfort in the affordability messages. This is comparable to my own situation related to paying taxes; I sure don't like to pay what I am asked to pay, but I can and do pay my taxes, and I understand why. I see this attitude firsthand, across socio-economic strata, and it cannot be ignored in this discussion. Just because one doesn't like the cost of college does not mean it's unaffordable.
No one seems to have suggestions about who will pay for college— "High tech and high touch" is an apt phrase to describe college, because great teachers and the finest technology are expected. But high-quality professors, places and tools to do the work of higher education are not inexpensive. Someone has to pay for college- Will it be the government? Will it be the wealthy? Will it all be deferred to the next generation? Who will pay the faculty? Who will pay the electric bill? Who will pay for health insurance, the food in the dining hall, IT, tutoring, lab equipment, safety and security on campus? There are real costs to educating our students, and the market has largely rejected higher ed's attempts to become more affordable by becoming more efficient. Where will the resources come from if college is free?
After firing more administrators and eliminating climbing walls and dorms with pools, what are the solutions?— No politician or candidate should talk (let alone propose policy) about college affordability without identifying a specific list of things or processes a college should eliminate to become more affordable. The politicians who have proposed a list-eliminating liberal arts programs, or cocurriculars like athletics or music-have regretted it. As a senior administrator, I do spend plenty of time thinking about cuts and their impact on our students, value proposition, people and reputation. Seriously, what should colleges eliminate? I'd like to see that list from each one of these candidates championing free or more affordable college.
What I find most troubling about today's rhetoric is that it seems to overlook the good work colleges already are doing to make college affordable and accessible.
The College Board's 2014 Trends in College Pricing report found that "Despite increasing published prices, the average net tuition and fee prices students paid after taking grant aid and tax benefits into consideration declined between 2004-05 and 2009-2010 in public two-year and four-year institutions." The difference between price and net price cannot be overlooked in this discussion, yet it is frequently ignored.
NACUBO's 2014 Tuition Discounting Study also provides a pretty clear picture of how much colleges are doing to make college affordable. The report demonstrates the "discount rates" and financial aid offerings are at an all-time high, which suggests that colleges are doing their part.
This good work should not be overlooked by those looking for an applause line at a political rally. While our work is not done, I firmly believe, because of self-interest, our solutions will be far superior to anything any candidate has suggested.
I once attended a workshop during which a speaker said the true test of a college's value proposition is measured by asking, "How many students would enroll if we offered no financial aid?" This is a terrifying question for most colleges. But some could maintain their numbers, however homogenous that enrollment may be. There are always people who are willing and able to pay for college, which simply reinforces that affordability is not an issue for everyone and shouldn't be treated as such.
At the same time, a wise colleague of mine once reminded me, "Each time we increase our price and cost there are some students for whom we are no longer affordable; at the same time, with existing resources, there are some that are no longer affordable for us." We try to get the balance right so we can continue to deliver our mission, attract students and educate the next generation for our country and world. Colleges know more about affordability than do any of these candidates.
However, if these candidates continue on this path, perhaps we could suggest that they answer the right questions:
What does "doable" look like, compared with "affordable"?
For whom should college be made more doable?
What is the student's role in attaining a doable college education?
What is a college's role in becoming a doable option?
What is the role of public policy in the work of college, and in making college work?
Kent Barnds is executive vice president and vice president for enrollment, communication and planning at Augustana College.