Here's Exactly How Much the Government Would Have to Spend to Make Public College Tuition-Free

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/heres-exactly-how-much-the-government-would-have-to-spend-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/


A mere $62.6 billion dollars!

According to new Department of Education data, that's how much tuition public colleges collected from undergraduates in 2012 across the entire United States. And I'm not being facetious with the word mere, either. The New America Foundation says that the federal government spent a whole $69 billion in 2013 on its hodgepodge of financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants for low-income students, tax breaks, work study funding. And that doesn't even include loans.




If we were we scrapping our current system and starting from scratch, Washington could make public college tuition free with the money it sets aside its scattershot attempts to make college affordable today.

Of course, we're not going to start from scratch (and I'm not even sure we should want to make state schools totally free). But I like to make this point every so often because I think it underscores what a confused mess higher education finance is in this country. On the whole, Americans seem to want affordable colleges that are accessible to all. But rather than simply using our resources to maintain a cheap public system (and remember, public schools educate 75 percent of undergrads), we spill them into a fairly wasteful and expensive private sector. At one point, a Senate investigation found that the for-profit sector alone was chowing down on 25 percent of all federal aid dollars.

If that story sounds awfully similar the problems the U.S. faces with healthcare costs, well, that's because it is similar. Americans have an allergy to straightforward policy solutions involving the public sector. And for that, we pay a price.

[Starry Messenger]

1. K&R

But massive student loans build character! Or something. I'm sure someone will be along soon to tell us why this is a terrible idea.

[xchrom]

2. oh you can bet on it.

can't have things be better than they are,

[yeoman6987]

6. College

I am not sure if having the government pay for tuition is the best option for everyone. I think the best option is to have the colleges cut the cost of tuition by a third. Sure students are paying back loans for 10 years, but if it is taken out of taxes, we all will pay for life. I went through the whole paying back loans and it sucks but once they are paid off, you are done. It did take about 10 years. Heck even the Obamas took about 10 years for each of them to pay theirs off (total 20 years). They paid their last payment a few years ago.

[Starry Messenger]

14. DU never fails to disappoint.

You'll note that this program wouldn't be for "everyone", hopefully you read the article before firing off your patella.

[niyad]

16. and you don't think having an educated populace is worth our tax dollars? seriously?

[yeoman6987]

23. Well it depends

With everyone having a college degree. Who is going to work at McDonald's? And don't you think that paying 50 percent of taxes (local, state, federal) already is pretty high? What are you going to leave me with when we are done? Can I at least take 200 dollars out of my paycheck every other week???? Please!

[tkmorris]

24. Why I am bothering I don't know, but...

Everyone would not have a college degree firstly. The idea that if college education was funded through taxes everyone would go to college is just plain silly. Not everyone is really suited for advanced education for starters, and furthermore do you actually KNOW any high school seniors? The portion of them that WANT to continue going to school for 4 more years is small already, much smaller than ideal.

Secondly, I just plain don't believe you are paying anywhere near 50% in taxes on your paycheck. Making shit up does not equal an argument.

Go read the article before posting again. The ARTICLE, not Ayn Rand.

[yeoman6987]

33. Taxes

Secondly, I just plain don't believe you are paying anywhere near 50% in taxes on your paycheck.



Well ok let's see:
28 percent federal
10 persent to the state of Maryland
3 percent to the county of Anne Arundel
7.5 percent to Social Security

And that is not even counting property taxes every year.


Oh you are right. 48.5 percent…..you got me.

[panader0]

27. College was a waste of time for me.

I was an honors student, I had no problem getting good grades, but I couldn't bear the idea of working indoors.
I am a tradesman, and the government should fund trade schools too. I learned to be an excellent bricklayer and don't regret it.

[L0oniX]

26. Yea ...we're already "paying for life" for the military but that's our national priority...

and that really sucks!

[Jenoch]

34. I think 'big education' is as big of a problem as 'big healthcare'.

Costs at higher ed are out of control. I wonder what the collective endowments are at universities in the U.S. I think Harvard's is about $30,000,000,000.00. That's billion with a 'B'.

[yeoman6987]

35. Endowments

You are right about the 30B at Harvard. It would be nice if they would use some of that to give each student a 20 percent break (at least) for awhile. When I heard about the 30B, I did wonder what they were waiting on to spend the money. I mean I understand a "rainy day" fund, but 30 billion???

[Jenoch]

36. College tuition has risen at a rate that

far surpasses the inflation rate. I still do not believe that tuition has been too low, spending has been too high in other areas for too long. I don't have any data to back up my statement.

[hfojvt]

40. the number is certainly not accurate

it ignores the law of demand.

The $63 billion number is - the amount of tuition that state universities collect.

That is with their current student population. But if tuition was free, that would very likely increase demand. More students would increase costs for the universities.

So they would either have to restrict access in some way, or they would need more money.

[surrealAmerican]

3. That number can't be right.

There must be large numbers of people who are currently priced out of college completely. If tuition were not a barrier, we should have many more students.

It would still be a good idea, but it will cost more than that.

[hfojvt]

43. see, I was late to the party

You said the same thing many hours before I did.

Another thing I thought of is - what about people who have just finished their junior year, or people who graduated two or three years ago?

How are they gonna feel to hear "That thing you just paid many thousands of dollars for, is now gonna be free for other people."

I bet most of them will not be happy about that at all.

[Mass]

4. I totally agree with the notion, but does that include fees.

As somebody from MA, we have learned that tuition free is not the whole story, far from it. Here, the tuition part of the bill is about 5% of the bill (as numerous recipients of the free tuition scholarship have learned), and fees, housing and food make the rest, with often a mandatory provision that at least freshman have to live on campus.

So, it would be interesting to know whether the study includes this or just plain "tuition".

[Thor_MN]

11. Housing and food are not part of the cost of attending college.

The people that do not go to college have those costs as well. If you are going to include housing and food, you may as well include clothing, grooming, and entertainment costs as well.

You have a point of tuition not covering books (made outrageous by "New" editions with only spelling and grammar corrections) and fees for things like the athletic facilities, but the costs of the necessities of life are borne by all, not just college students.

[Mass]

12. Not when housing is mandatory.

Some students could live at home or rent an apartment for less than the cost of housing in some universities (including public ones), but some universities make it mandatory to live on campus and have a meal plan for at least the first year, sometimes two.

As for what is fees, in some colleges, it goes much further than athletic fees. In some colleges, it is most of what must be paid. Here for MA UMass Amherst university, Tuition and fees include a tuition of $800.

http://www.umass.edu/bursar/tuition/undergraduate-ma-resident-full-time (per semester)
Tuition $857.00
Curriculum Fee $4707.00
Service Fee $675.50
Activities Fee $62.50
Basic Health Fee $327.00
Honors College Fee * $300.00
Engineering Fee ** $160.00

Even if MA is extreme, they are hardly the only one. Hence my question about fees vs tuition.

[Thor_MN]

13. Unless you are living on the streets, housing is manditory.

The cost of a room on campus may be a bit higher than living off campus, but saves on the cost of transportation. For me, it was cheaper and easier to live on campus. YMMV, but everyone, excepting the homeless, has housing costs.

[hfojvt]

42. point is, even if tuition is free

college is still going to have the expense of four years of room and board, which may even be higher than tuition.

People who aren't going to college usually have a full time job to pay for their housing. College students could, in theory, do that too, but then they'd be full time workers and full time students. Which would be kinda tough. Or, they would still be carrying many student loans to cover that cost.

[Thor_MN]

44. The point is, everyone has housing costs. College students and people that don't go to college.

Therefore, housing and food are NOT college costs. Unless you want to make the argument that everyone who doesn't go to college gets room and board free for four years, room and board are costs that EVERYONE has to pay.

[niyad]

17. what is the difference between "tuition" and "curriculum fee" and "service fee"?

[Mass]

18. Purely semantic, the tuition part is the same in any MA state college, from CCs to UMass.

The fees vary, even though they are high in any case compared to other states.

One of the way it impacts people is that the state gives a tuition free ride for high MCAS scorers, but this is only limited to the tuition part and is therefore a very small part of the bill.

I think the MA case is fairly extreme, but a lot of colleges have mandatory fees and these fees can be high. I was simply asking if this article included the fees in their calculation, because it may make a huge difference.

[niyad]

20. thank you. when I was in college, it was all called "tuition", wasn't quite the game being played

now.

given this lovely little trick, your question is an important one.

[karynnj]

29. I have never seen curriculum fee split out

That really seems almost dishonest as it seems it should be part of tuition. I'm surprised by the honors and engineering fee.

(We have three daughters - one went to Holy Cross in MA, another to New School in NY and the third to a public Idaho college.)

[dionysus]

22. it is when you're required to buy both at inflated prices. nt

[Demo_Chris]

5. No, that's not free college...

That's free college for the comparatively affluent who are privileged enough to currently attend.

[daleanime]

7. K&R....

[Laelth]

8. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[lastlib]

9. hell, just cancel an aircraft carrier or two, and make the Navy hold bake sales.

oh, waaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitt.............................

[canoeist52]

10. A small step - because tuition is often the smallest percentage of the total college cost.

[niyad]

15. k and r

[truebluegreen]

19. imo a civilized society would provide free tuition to any and all

students who qualify.

CA was doing this for residents until St Ronnie of the Raygun put a stop to it; he didn't want to do anything for students who protested his policies.

[randome]

21. With fee limits for other costs, I could go for this. More people would attend college.

We would all benefit from that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[L0oniX]

25. Iraq used to have free higher education ...that's why we destroyed it.

We can't be having good examples of free higher education ...people here might actually begin to want that if they found out about Iraq. Oh and maybe Iraq wasn't the only one doing that. I mean WTF do they expect us to do to pay for it ...reduce the military budget by a fraction??? Hey maybe we can starve granny for the money ...yea that would get the repuke vote for sure ...and some Dinos too.

Sorry.

[polichick]

28. Problem: an educated population is dangerous to the ptb.

[mike_c]

31. no, that is incorrect....

What most people apparently don't realize is that public higher education is PUBLIC because it is supported by state legislatures and tax payers. The tuition that students pay-- that $62 billion you cited-- is not the full cost of a free education. It's only the unsubsidized tip of the iceberg. For example, students at my university, the Califorinia State University, pay a bit more than 40% of the cost of attendance and the legislature appropriates the rest from the state general fund.

So if that number were ballpark correct for the entire nation, $62 billion would be about 40% or so of the cost of free public education. It would STILL be a bargain, and could probably be extracted from the military budget for one or two days, but still-- the cost of student tuition is only the smaller part of the cost of public higher ed.

That said, I want to be clear that I wouldn't hesitate to commit the funds necessary to provide free public higher ed, along with free medical care, etc. And let the military have a bake sale instead.

edit-- spelling. No one wants to know my thoughts about pubic education, LOL.

[Sirveri]

37. that missed the point of the article

The points were:

If we ignore the rise of for profit universities (Phoenix, SNHU, Devry, etc etc etc), and instead funnel federal tax dollars only to public institutions, we could make public higher education free for students.

We could accomplish this using only grant money and tax breaks and work study money while leaving all other budget items AND the student loan program intact.

What the state pays isn't relevant, the goal is to reduce the burden on the students, not the states. For the red states we'd likely have to take steps to insure they don't proceed to gut their higher ed budgets and pocket the new federal dollars.

Not discussed in the article is the reason that young people GO to places like Phoenix, Devry, and SNHU. That issue is TIME, they don't want to wait, they're eager to get out and get to work, not to sit contemplating their navel. That's a separate issue that needs to be addressed in my view.

[mike_c]

38. I don't think so....

The OP makes a clear statement: an annual federal investment of $62 billion can make public higher education "tuition free." In fact it would not. That amount accounts only for the portion of tuition paid directly by students, which is most often a relatively small proportion of the total tuition or cost of attendance.

What you're proposing is simply unworkable on its face. And likely illegal-- as in constitutionally so. Let's use my state's example once again, and attendance at the California State University in particular. It's the largest university system in the country, so it's a pretty representative example.

Suppose the federal government paid the student's portion of tuition so that attendance would be "tuition free" from the perspective of students. Not the entire tuition, just the students' portion, as the OP proposes. What is the average state legislator's perspective going to be?

State Assembly persons will say "hmmm, we're paying roughly 60% of the tuition for everyone who attends the CSU, but both the federal government AND the students have already demonstrated their willingness to absorb part of that burden. Why should we kick in the majority of the tuition?"

In short order they'll reduce the state's tuition contribution further, and one of two things will happen. Either students will have to pay tuition again to make up the balance, or the federal government will have to raise its contribution to cover the shortfall, which means that $62 billion won't be enough.

I don't believe there is any constitutional way for Congress to tell state legislatures that they MUST fund X proportion of the cost of attending state public universities, so there will ALWAYS be more incentive for legislatures to reduce their investment in public higher ed if congress or the students will contribute the rest, so the cost of attendance will either rise for students or the federal contribution will rise well beyond the $62 billion the OP cites.

The solution is to cut right to the end game and skip the middle. Nationalize public universities unless states pay the full cost of attendance, i.e. give states a choice of whether they want to run their own institutions-- and fully pay for them-- or whether they want to be supported by Congress, at the cost of relinquishing control of their public university systems. My point is that $62 billion is not nearly enough to accomplish what the OP suggests, but that the only way to achieve the objective of free public higher ed is to pay the rest and fully fund students out of federal pockets.

[Sirveri]

45. yes... students are the ones who pay tuition, so it would be tuition free.

I've always considered tuition to only be what the student pays, not the cost per pupil. That might be a semantic argument that is also lost on the author and the public at large however. I think we can both agree that he's only talking about the student portion of the bill.

Of course there is a way, simply tie the increase in funding such that they must maintain their current spending ratio. Then if they cut funding they lose the additional federal benefits. The federal government does this ALL the time. They routinely do it with highway funding by mandating speed limits and minimum age to purchase alcohol. The ACA does it with the medicare expansion. Both are constitutional. You however, can not force the states to accept the additional funding (and only an idiot would refuse it, so we'd once again see the red states on the outside looking in).

The point of the OP, is that 62 Billion is enough to do it, right now, without considering a likely increase in student attendance, and only using funds that the DoEdu is already spending by shutting out private for profits that are currently eating 25% of the federal funding. Would more students attempt college if the price burden was lifted and they weren't forced into debt slavery. Most certainly, and so the price would likely increase and the difference would need to come from somewhere, military is a nice fat target for that (though I personally lean towards the CIA and the NSA currently).

[Jefferson23]

32. It's the best thing to do when you want to invest in your country. Instead we fund

the defense dept> All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon's underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

[gulliver]

39. It incredibly stupid to make people pay for college.

We see college as a privilege and a college education as a valuable asset, and so it is. But then our inner cave man misses the whole rest of the equation. The youth, vigor, and talents of our young people are vastly more valuable assets. Those assets are the whole basis of our wealth and security.

The cave man doesn't see that. He looks at the kid who wants to get into college as a customer who wants to consume an asset. If that kid wants to go to college, get a better paying job, pay more taxes, strengthen Social Security, and generally increase the net wealth and intellect of the country, well, we need to make that kid pay. It's obvious. To idiots.

Republicanism is blind.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. About $180 per person per year, or about $400-500 per taxpayer

So affordable, but not chicken feed.