Tennessee Governor William E. Haslam recently proposed a bold new policy: to provide two years of free community or technical college for all the state’s high-school graduates. A February 4 editorial expressed support for this policy and described the plan as a “step towards alleviating the cycle of poverty that low-income Americans face.” To take the argument a step further, I believe Tennessee’s progressive new education policy should represent a step towards a free public four-year college. There are several arguments — economic as well as ideological — for this “radical” policy.
Free public higher education is exactly what it sounds like: high school graduates (from any socio-economic background) would apply to various public colleges and universities throughout the country and, if accepted, they would pack their bags and enter the college community in the typical fashion, except without paying the various fees. This could be accomplished through government subsidies.
The types of expenses subsidized would likely depend on the state. Haslam’s community college proposal, for example, covers all tuition and fees. In order to most fully realize the fundamental goal — i.e. to ensure financial background is no longer a barrier to attaining a college degree — then all the living essentials (housing, food and — dare I say? — a student health care plan) should be provided alongside tuition and textbook expenses. Clearly free public higher education would not be inexpensive for taxpayers, though as we will see, it is less expensive than commonly believed.
At this point in the argument, it is easy to picture some generic congressperson passionately denouncing free public higher education as “un-American.” Interestingly, such a policy is highly consistent with the “American dream” (i.e. equality of opportunity). Let us take a look at the educational system we currently subsidize: K-12 public schooling. Granted, this does not provide room and board, but its purpose undoubtedly serves to advance equality of opportunity. We decided that basic education was important enough — because it creates a more informed, responsible society and provides all citizens with the basic competencies to pursue success — to warrant people making an economic investment in their neighbors.
As a recent Pew Research study describes, “on virtually every measure of economic well-being and career attainment — from personal earnings to job satisfaction to the share of employed full time — young college graduates are outperforming their peers with less education.” The study goes on to describe how the disparity of economic outcomes between those with a college degree versus a high school diploma continues to increase. All this suggests that America not only has good reason to subsidize higher education — it has an obligation to its own national ethos.
If the angry congressperson who earlier denounced free public college as “un-American” now decides to sit down, then surely another would take the floor. This next politician might decide to focus on economic cost — the plan is irresponsible, he argues, because it would require either the government to add to its debt or increase taxes, both of which would be considered unacceptable. In response to this congressperson, might it be the time to discuss the intrinsic value of a more educated society? Of free intellectual inquiry? Of a liberal arts education? Probably not, considering our House of Representatives is on track to cut National Science Foundation funding for social and behavioral research by 22 percent in order to promote “areas of science and research that are crucial to economic growth.”
In our current political climate, the language of economics seems more persuasive. And as Josh Freedman details in a recent Forbes article, “we also have to consider the cost of our current semi-private, semi-public system.” Free public higher education, he observes, pools the risk across the population, making schools less susceptible to turbulence in the economy. He also details how publicly funded college is actually one of the most direct ways of capping the rising costs of higher education — a college cannot keep raising the cost of tuition if tuition doesn’t exist.
For any large-scale public policy, there is the risk of unintended consequences. Could free public higher education reduce the pressure on private universities to provide financial aid? If so, the net result could be that the poor go to public schools while the well-to-do go private. To combat this effect, the government could uphold certain financial aid standards for private institutions (whether by economic incentive or by law).
To be sure, fully subsidized public higher education is politically implausible (one might even say impossible) in our current political climate. But as we are seeing in Tennessee — a solid red state adopting an essentially “progressive” policy — attitudes may be changing. Perhaps this “radical” idea is better understood as a pragmatic one.
George Knaysi is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.knaysi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 11 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | YesterdayMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
