Over the summer, Hillary Clinton updated her plan for higher education affordability. The new proposal would invest $500 billion into a program that would allow students with families earning under $125,000 to attend public colleges without spending a dime. In addition to promoting a more educated populace, the proposal will put pressure on private colleges, particularly for-profit schools such as University of Phoenix.
Not only does this program address economic need; it could help alleviate an existing racial gap in student debt. A new Brookings Institution study found black college graduates are burdened with higher levels of student debt than their white counterparts, in part due to higher rates of black enrollment at for-profit institution graduate programs. As a result, they have a default rate of 7.6 percent within four years, which is three times the rate of white graduates. For many low-income and middle-class black students to have the option of attending a public university for free would limit these socioeconomic consequences. In addition to expanding access to education, a plan that provides debt relief is clearly necessary given the $1.2 trillion of total outstanding student loan debt — the second-highest level consumer debt after mortgages.
We should welcome Clinton’s plan for easing the cost of public universities such as our own. Only 66 colleges met full financial need in the 2015-16 school year; among these, only two are public colleges, including the University. Elite private colleges have outperformed public ones in attracting talented students with low family incomes. Clinton’s proposal doesn’t only address the crisis of affordability in higher education; it could quell the racially disparate impact of student loans and strengthen our economy, all in one fell swoop.
Read More
CULLEN: Let's not make the U. like it used to be
By Robert B. Cullen | 4 hours agoFortunately, there is a remedy for this that can produce a diverse student body without resorting to affirmative action based on race or gender. It is affirmative action based on socioeconomic status.
5 U.Va. COMMUNITY MEMBERS: Gerber has it wrong — our U.Va. is better
By 5 U.Va. Community Members | YesterdayIt seems clear to us that expanding the available pool of faculty and students has heightened the School of Law’s standards and dramatically improved the University.
RASHID: The time to expand the students’ role at the administrative level is now
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 4 days agoSo long as students’ power is limited to an advisory role in the administration, governance at the University will remain fragile.
