HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Economy & Education » Economy (Group) » STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Fri... » Reply #9

Response to Tansy_Gold (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:48 AM

9. No, Public Spending on Higher Education Isn't Regressive

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/no-public-spending-on-higher-education-isnt-regressive/281683/

To a certain kind of liberal, it's self-evident that the government should spend more money on universities. Cheap higher education for all has been a standard item on the left's wish list for decades. Since a degree is the only sure ticket to the middle class, the thinking goes, the government should do its best to make education accessible to all.

But is it possible that the left has gotten things upside down? Could it be that by more heavily subsidizing public colleges, we would inadvertently be taking state tax money from the poor and giving it to the rich? A few writers say that's the case. Our own Conor Friedersdorf called the idea of universal free college a "regressive scandal." Atlantic contributor Matt Bruenig has essentially argued the same.

This line of argument rests largely (though not entirely) on the idea that students who attend four-year state colleges skew wealthy. This sounds like a common sense point. Affluent children fare better in high school, are more likely to graduate, and usually have parents who themselves pursued higher education. And if we look at the population we typically think of as traditional college students (as Bruenig does in his analysis), it seems true enough. Just under a third of dependent college studentsódependent meaning that their parents are technically expected to help pay for schoolócome from families earning more than $104,096 a year, putting them in the richest 20 percent of U.S. households. Barely more than a third come from the bottom half of all households.



So is that case closed? Is State U. overfull of upper-income kids? Well, not quite.

The trouble is that a huge chunk of college goers aren't actually 18-year-olds living off an allowance from mom and dad. At four-year public institutions, about 36 percent of students are considered financially "independent," which is a catch-all category for people who break the typical undergraduate mold. How so? You can qualify as independent a few ways, including if you're married, over the age of 24, an orphan, are a military veteran, or have your own children. But the key part is this: Everyone assumes you'll be paying your own way through school (and as a result, you might receive more financial aid).

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Tansy_Gold Nov 2013 OP
mrdmk Nov 2013 #1
Ghost Dog Nov 2013 #2
xchrom Nov 2013 #3
xchrom Nov 2013 #4
xchrom Nov 2013 #5
xchrom Nov 2013 #6
xchrom Nov 2013 #7
antigop Nov 2013 #24
Demeter Nov 2013 #28
antigop Nov 2013 #30
Ghost Dog Nov 2013 #8
LineReply No, Public Spending on Higher Education Isn't Regressive
xchrom Nov 2013 #9
xchrom Nov 2013 #10
Demeter Nov 2013 #11
xchrom Nov 2013 #12
Demeter Nov 2013 #13
xchrom Nov 2013 #14
xchrom Nov 2013 #15
xchrom Nov 2013 #16
Demeter Nov 2013 #29
xchrom Nov 2013 #17
xchrom Nov 2013 #18
xchrom Nov 2013 #19
DemReadingDU Nov 2013 #21
Demeter Nov 2013 #31
xchrom Nov 2013 #20
Fuddnik Nov 2013 #22
Demeter Nov 2013 #32
antigop Nov 2013 #23
Warpy Nov 2013 #25
antigop Nov 2013 #26
antigop Nov 2013 #27
Please login to view edit histories.