I’ve been saying for years that we need to have a national debate about whether we want to have a public higher education system in this country, and that our failure to have that debate is killing public higher ed. I believe that to be true. With taxpayer support for many public colleges sliding toward single-digit percentages, with out-of-state tuition at some public universities approaching Harvard’s, with in-state applicants losing seats to make room for those out-of-state revenue streams in students’ clothing, we’re abandoning the idea of public higher education without giving that idea the respect of saying so.
And yet something curious is happening as a result. Slowly, haltingly, but with growing confidence, voices are beginning to rise in support of the concept of a higher education that is not merely public, but actually free. Economist Jeffrey Sachs claimed in a 2011 book that we could eliminate tuition at public colleges and universities nationwide for an investment of little as $15 billion a year, and since then the idea has been popping up more and more frequently in public discussion.
It’s not a new idea, of course. As a delegate to the US Student Association’s congresses in the early 1990s I remember ritually endorsing an end to tuition in resolutions every summer. But in those days the idea felt more than a little pro forma. Of course college should be free, we’d say, and then we’d go back to fighting tuition hikes and lobbying against Pell Grant cuts.
Back then, however, tuition was close enough to free that keeping prices down, or rolling them back a bit, seemed like a reasonable enough compromise. When I graduated, the average annual tuition at a four-year college in the United States — in 2013 dollars — was $3,614. (Ten years earlier it’d been just $2,318.) Today it stands at $8,893.
When the status quo becomes unbearable, the quixotic can start to feel prudent.
The latest commentator to make an extended case for free public higher education is Aaron Bady, who published an essay on Al Jazeera America this week arguing that public education that isn’t free isn’t actually “public” at all. “A university that thinks and behaves like a private-sector corporation,” he writes, “charging its consumers what the market will bear, cutting costs wherever it can and using competition with its peers as its measure of success … is a public university in name only.”
Bady framed his argument as a brief for public higher education as a public good. But some have risen to claim that such a vision is elitism in disguise, a giveaway for the wealthy masquerading as public-spiritedness. The most vociferous of these is Matt Bruenig, who argued yesterday (at his site and on Twitter) that eliminating tuition at public colleges would have no effect on the class composition of the American student body, and would in fact “overwhelmingly benefit rich kids.”
Bruenig is right that the lowest income quartile has seen smaller increases in college costs than the rest of the student body in recent decades (though his data only take us up to 2007, well before the current recession’s massive tuition hikes). There’s a sad irony to the fact that public higher ed pricing was less regressive, in relative terms, a generation ago than it is today. But Bruenig’s own charts show that even the poorest students have seen their costs rise since the 1990s, and that increases in costs for the middle class have been steep.
There are other problems with Bruenig’s analysis. He leaves independent students out of his calculations, and as Jordan Weissmann writes at The Atlantic this morning, those students represent a huge, growing, and disproportionately poor segment of the student body. He neglects the changing mission of the American college, and the effect that college costs may be having on perpetuating a skewed status quo. He ignores the fact that a dollar “spent” on college via the accumulation of debt has a different impact on a student’s prospects than a dollar spent out of savings. He has a disturbing tendency to conflate the struggling middle class with “the rich.”
The core of Bruenig’s complaint with free public higher ed, however, is that it isn’t primarily a social welfare program for the poor. And though Bruenig’s eagerness to prove that point leads him to overstate it, the fact is that he’s right. Universal free public higher education, in the short run, would provide a greater economic boost, in raw numbers, to the middle class and the rich than it would to those in poverty.
But so do libraries. So do roads. So do fire departments. So do high schools. The argument for free public higher education isn’t that it’s a targeted income redistribution program, it’s that it’s a universal, communal project, a powerful concrete statement of our values and priorities as a society.
By happy coincidence, as Bady was posting his essay I was putting the finishing touches on the design of the tee shirt you see above. The ideal of “free education” expressed in that shirt is broader than that expressed in Bady’s piece, just as SDS’s 1960s slogan “A Free University in a Free Society” was. But the core of each argument is, I think, the same — that the mission of the public university, the mission of the truly public university, has profound merit.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 21, 2013 at 11:41 am
Matt Bruenig
Weissman made a serious error in the way he represented independent students. http://mattbruenig.com/2013/11/20/what-about-the-independent-students/
You can’t add personal incomes to family background incomes and then divide. What is the unit of the resulting figure? It is stats 101 fail.
November 21, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Tim C
Nice summary. Here’s hoping it becomes reality!
Two questions: Are you advocating simply for free tuition or also for the subsidizing of student fees for buildings, programs, clubs, services, and the like?
If higher education were completely subsidized by public funds, I suspect that we would see a greater eagerness among legislatures and gubernatorial offices to influence instruction. Boards of Regents are supposed to act as firewalls and buffers from lawmaker and corporate influences, but I think that free eduction would exacerbate the situation.
November 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Angus Johnston
I’m not precisely sure what error you’re referring to, Matt, but it seems to me that the core of your argument with Weissmann centers on whether independent students tend to be more or less wealthy than their dependent peers.
What Weissmann showed is that whatever the weaknesses are in various mechanisms for measuring their income and wealth, we have demographic data that strongly suggest that they tend to be disproportionately poor — they’re more likely, according to his numbers, to have spouses and children, more likely to have GEDs, less likely to have parents who graduated from college, more likely to be black or Latino.
None of this proves that they’re clustered on the low-income end of the curve, but it does, as I say, suggest it strongly.
November 21, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Angus Johnston
Tim, I think we can look back to the history of free public higher education in the United States to answer both of your questions.
The University of California charged no tuition for most of the 20th century, though it did impose fees to cover non-instructional costs. In 1957, those fees amounted to $42 a semester — something like $350 in today’s money. From the perspective of either the student or the university, I’d consider that kind of a fee close enough to “free” as to make very little difference.
As for the question of political interference, I don’t think history supports such a link. The City University of New York, where I teach, charged no tuition until the early 1970s, but I don’t think many in CUNY would suggest that there was dramatically more political meddling with the university in the first half of the 20th century than there is today.
November 21, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Arizona Universities Increased In-State Tuition More Than Any Other State | Backslash Scott Thoughts
[…] is supposed to be as free as possible. Just this week, friends of the blog Aaron Bady and Angus Johnston both wrote about the prospect of free higher education. This shouldn’t be a fantasy – […]
November 23, 2013 at 3:12 am
Student Activism (Blog) | Social Justice Library
[…] “I’ve been saying for years that we need to have a national debate about whether we want to have a public higher education system in this country, and that our failure to have that debate is killing public higher ed. I believe that to be true. With taxpayer support for many public colleges sliding toward single-digit percentages, with out-of-state tuition at some public universities approaching Harvard’s, with in-state applicants losing seats to make room for those out-of-state revenue streams in students’ clothing, we’re abandoning the idea of public higher education without giving that idea the respect of saying so.” (continue reading) […]
November 23, 2013 at 9:02 am
Weekend Reading | Backslash Scott Thoughts
[…] Free Education For All? […]
November 23, 2013 at 9:33 am
Saturday Links | Gerry Canavan
[…] College Isn’t Just for Rich Kids. Free Education for All. Here’s The 5-Sentence Personal Essay That Helped JFK Get Into […]
November 24, 2013 at 4:40 pm
The Crisis of State Disinvestment in Higher Education |
[…] As historian Angus Johnston so aptly points out: […]
December 1, 2013 at 9:31 pm
Around the Web Digest | Savage Minds Backup
[…] RT @studentactivism: Free Education For All: a response to @zunguzungu and @MattBruenig. […]