Bernie on "Tuition Free" (in-State College, for in-State students)

[kennetha]

Here are some old thoughts, from back in 2016, on Bernie’s free tuition plan, at least as it stood circa 2016.

Don’t know if it has changed much since then.

Background thought. The US is unlike other countries that have “free” college in many different ways. One way is having both private and state Universities. Another is having a highly federal system, in which state colleges and universities are run not by the federal governments, but by the individual states, with individual states setting admissions policies, expenditure rates, etc so that universities in different states are funded at very different levels.

So you have to ask, if you're going to take this plan seriously, how it works and what are its consequences in the peculiar setting of higher education that you find in America. The problem is that once you start thinking about how this actually works and its actual effects and then you take a look at the actual proposal -- at least to the extent it reflects the legislation he introduced earlier -- you get the feeling that he has thought through very little of this.

Here is his actual bill.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/…

I don't pretend to know the answers to all the questions I raise below. But it does seem that Sanders proposal would be highly disruptive and would vastly alter the landscape of American Higher education in ways that he does not seem to fully anticipate or think through. Perhaps for the good, perhaps not. It's much more than a "free tuition" plan. It's a plan to radically alter the educational landscape in America.

First, start with the fact that it's a plan for public Colleges and Universities only. Here's a chart that shows the relative number of students who attend public and private Universities and Colleges both historically and projected out to 2024.
http://www.statista.com/…/us-college-enrollment-and-projec…/

Obvious point, since Sanders program applies to PUBLIC universities and colleges only, the cost (to students) gap between public and private universities is bound to significantly increase. And that suggest that the DEMAND for spaces in public universities will significantly increase. Unless SPACES in public universities increase as well, that means COMPETITION for spaces in public universities will become more intense.

How will that competition be managed?

Will admission standards go up?

Will we become like European countries in which you have very restricted choices as to where you go to school?

Part of the "bargain" that you get in Europe from free college is often that a single test determines if you go to college and where you go to college. America, by the way, has a MUCH more free and open University system than any country in Europe.

Sometimes people make an analogy with public secondary education. But the analogy with public secondary education is a false one. We GUARANTEE places in a public school (supposedly an equally good public school, but that's a fantasy we all know) to every single child. Will we really guarantee a place in a public University to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT OF AGE?

Doubt it.

But if we make such a guarantee and if we lack the capacity, we must then develop the capacity to educate all students in state schools. States won't be able to ship excess students off to another state. And won't be able to say to some -- out of luck you have to "pay for a private school."

Of course some students may still be willing to pay for private schools, but you can worry about whether the decreased demand for spots in private universities and colleges will drive many especially lesser and financially precarious private schools out of business.

Perhaps that is part of the plan ... to shift the balance of students away from private colleges and universities and into the public colleges and universities?

We don't currently make such guarantees for colleges and universities -- though with the multi-faceted but highly tiered system in America (elite research universities, public and private, large state U systems that are multitiered, junior colleges, etc) most people can find a place.

Here in California, though, many, many, campuses in the Cal State system are "impacted." That is, they MUST turn away many many eligible students. So that's a big question, how do we manage the likely to be much increased competition for spaces in public colleges and universities?

Will we guarantee a place to every qualified student?

How will we determine who is qualified and who is not?

Who among the qualified gets in?

Is that to be left to the states?

Will the be federal constraints on how states manage the increased competition?

Sanders “bill” is silent on all of this.

One thing to note is that Sanders proposal only requires that states guarantees free tuition to in-State students at in-state Universities. States must, according to bullet point (2) of the legislation:

(2) ensure that tuition and required fees for in- State undergraduate students in the State’s public higher education system are eliminated

I suppose that they are free to do the same for out of state students. But the proposal doesn't require them to do so and doesn't really incentivize them to do so either, as far as I can tell.

This is another thing, then, that seems to have the potential to significantly alter the incentive structure for students. It will incentivize more students to stay in State. Not only will it make staying in state a much more attractive option to both parents and students, but it will make it harder for state Universities to attract the much desired "out of state student" unless they can afford to make tuition free to out of state students too. But since the taxpayers of each state are still asked to kick in much of the cost of this, it is not clear that they will want to do this. In California, those already impacted Cal State campuses -- which accept almost no out of state students anyway (indeed, they accept almost no students from outside of what's called their local service area) -- will perhaps be even more impacted, as competition to get in them is only intensified.

Currently, some states, like probably Ohio, which was many, many more Universities than California, with many fewer students to attend them, may have a relative overcapacity. But California clearly has an under capacity. California exports lots of its students to public and private universities around the country. Ohio probably imports lots of students from other states. What will happen to this flow of students from state to state? Will Ohio have to cut capacity, while California grows capacity?

And what, more generally, about controlling costs? With greater demand and increased competition, you either have to grow capacity or restrict access. Growing capacity costs money. Sanders proposal makes no mention of this. Restricting access seems to be against the spirit of the proposal.
We could go down the European route -- indeed there seems to built in pressure to go down that route in this proposal.

That sort of pressure may lead to students being heavily tracked into college vs. vocational options. Mandatory entrance exams may come to determine a student’s entire educational fate.The point is that a high degree of government control over access is the price you pay for having the government foot the entire bill.

Notice that what Sanders actual bill requires states to do along the line is the following:

(1) ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State maintain per-pupil expenditures on instruction at levels that meet or exceed the expenditures for the previous fiscal year;

(2) ensure that tuition and required fees for in-State undergraduate students in the State’s public higher education system are eliminated;

(3) maintain State operating expenditures for public institutions of higher education, excluding the amount of funds provided for a fiscal year under this section, at a level that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;

(4) maintain State expenditures on need-based financial aid programs for enrollment in public institutions of higher education in the State at a level that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;

(5) ensure public institutions of higher education in the State maintain funding for institutional need-based student financial aid in an amount that is equal to or exceeds the level of such funding for the previous fiscal year;

(6) provide an assurance that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institu- tions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty;

(7) require that public institutions of higher education in the State provide, for each student en- rolled at the institution who receives for the maximum Federal Pell Grant award under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), institutional student financial aid in an amount equal to 100 percent of the difference between—

(A) the cost of attendance at such institution (as determined in accordance with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll)),
and (B) (i) the sum of the amount of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award; and (ii) the student’s expected family contribution; and

(8) ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State not adopt policies to reduce enrollment.

Nowhere are the tradeoffs -- which are many and I have highlighted just a few of them -- addressed.

Here's another undiscussed tradeoff. . Administrative cost in universities keep increasing -- and not just to pay for presidents salaries. Think of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title IX and whole host of mostly FEDERAL regulations that impose significant administrative costs on Universities and colleges.

Sanders proposal doesn't allow states to use federal money to meet any such costs. Will his proposals make administrative costs go up? Not clear. But I'd be surprised if not.

One way that public universities have tried to control cost is by the use of part-time and adjunct faculty. Sanders proposal requires that at least 75% of teaching faculty at state universities be tenure and tenure track. Currently about 41% of faculty at all American Universities combined are adjuncts (i.e. not tenure or tenure track.) So this would be a major and potentially costly sea change.

And by the way, those adjuncts are much more likely to teach at underfunded state universities. Perhaps reducing adjuncts is for the best, that's not what I am saying. But it's an increased cost. How will that cost be paid? By putting downward pressure on regular faculty wages, perhaps? Again, that IS one of things that happens in Europe. European academic salaries are SIGNIFICANTLY lower, on average than American Academic Salaries.

All in all, not really sure what to make of this bill. It seems like a sort of half-baked, half thought-out proposal to remake the American Higher educational landscape in the image of Europe.

It's kind of what you’d expect from a dude with a serious case of Europe envy, I guess.

[mr_lebowski]

1. Great post, lots to ponder here ... and regardless, "Free College" is a crappy slogan

Because everyone knows that nothing is 'free'. It's also easily spun into an 'everybody gets to go to some College, no matter what', even though that's not really what it means. But if it DOESN'T mean that, then it means a buncha kids are getting hosed out of a major FREE opportunity for a better life.

'Tuition Reform' or 'Returning to the government subsidy levels of our parents for college tuitions' would be much better, IMHO.

Somehow when I went to a prestigious Cal State school in the early 1990's, my tuition was in the neighborhood of $315/quarter for full-time. Now it's about 10X that amount (12 units = 264 x 12 = $3168), and I'd guess the expenses have gone up by about 3-4X at most, and incomes in CA on average probably only 3X since 1990.

Yet it's 10X more to go there. Reason being?

Not nearly as much is being subsidized by the government as it was when I attended. The burden has been shifted, massively.

[Voltaire2]

2. Best to stick with the current rotten system.

Perhaps that should be our campaign theme.

[kennetha]

3. Engage in False Dichotomies Much?

[Uncle Joe]

4. Supply and demand will level out he field.

But if we make such a guarantee and if we lack the capacity, we must then develop the capacity to educate all students in state schools. States won't be able to ship excess students off to another state. And won't be able to say to some -- out of luck you have to "pay for a private school."

Of course some students may still be willing to pay for private schools, but you can worry about whether the decreased demand for spots in private universities and colleges will drive many especially lesser and financially precarious private schools out of business.

Should those private universities lose too many students, while public schools face increased enrollment they need not go out of business, the private institutions could become public. If Ohio has too much capacity and California too little, exchanges could be worked out to alleviate the situation. I also believe that over/under capacity will smooth it self out as the nation adjusts to the new system.

That sort of pressure may lead to students being heavily tracked into college vs. vocational options. Mandatory entrance exams may come to determine a student’s entire educational fate.The point is that a high degree of government control over access is the price you pay for having the government foot the entire bill.

Bernie is also proposing that vocational or trade schools be tuition free as well, whether you wish to be a carpenter, plumber, mechanic, electrician, etc. etc.

Thanks for the thread kennetha.

[kennetha]

5. In other words Bernie's "plan" may lead

to a massive takeover of private colleges by states and/or the Feds.

Is that what you are suggesting here;

"the private institutions could become public. If Ohio has too much capacity and California too little, exchanges could be worked out to alleviate the situation. I also believe that over/under capacity will smooth it self out as the nation adjusts to the new system."

So as I said this isn't really just about "free college" is about redesigning the entire US higher education system after the model of Europe.

No thanks

[Uncle Joe]

7. Not all of them, the most exclusive ones supported by the 1% will no doubt still remain private.

I suspect their tuition rates will decrease as a result though.

If a private school gives exceptional value for the tuition cost, then I believe they will remain private as students will still enroll with them.

It is about investing in education over incarceration and endless wars.

We spend 60 billion dollars a year just on housing the largest prison population in the world and more on the military industrial complex than the next ten nations combined.

If we seriously commit to investing in our young people instead of turning them into cannon fodder or a 21st century version of slavery, we can find the money.

[BlueFlorida]

6. From your post

All in all, not really sure what to make of this bill. It seems like a sort of half-baked, half thought-out proposal to remake the American Higher educational landscape in the image of Europe.

It's kind of what you’d expect from a dude with a serious case of Europe envy, I guess.

That was a precise description. It is also a campaign stunt because most states don't have the money for this and if enacted, the money will come from cutting several other social programs including some safety-net ones.

There is no requirements that states enact an eligibility requirement so that only deserving students would get the benefit by creating standards. Otherwise the states will be inundated with candidates who won't be able to hack college and drop out in a year or two.

In my opinion it is a political stunt timed for the election. Sanders did nothing but name two post offices (and a veterans bill) during his decades in congress and suddenly there is a farrago of bills introduced. I find that suspicious.

[kennetha]

8. agreed

[peggysue2]

9. Great Post, Kennetha

Thanks for that. Lots to consider and think about before we fall for the political memes and promises.

[kennetha]

10. thanks!