Sanders free college plan: Some Thoughts

[kennetha]

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:30 PM - Edit history (3)

The US is unlike other countries that have free college in many different ways. One way is having both a 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, how this plan works and what are its consequences in the peculiar setting of higher education that you find in America.
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 last year -- 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/?inline=file


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. 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/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/

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 increased. 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.

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 do and if we lack the capacity, we must then develop the capacity to educate all students. 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." (although some students no doubt still will, but you can worry about whether this will drive many especially lesser and financially precarious private schools out of business -- is that the plan, perhaps?).

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? To every qualified student? How will we determine who is qualified and who is not or 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 this.

One thing to note is that Sanders proposal only requires that states guarantees free tuition to In State students. 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 will make staying in state a 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 not 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 under-capacity. But California clearly has an under capacity. California exports lots of its students to public and private universities around the country. Ohio 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. Restrict access seems to be against the spirit of the proposal. We could go down the European route -- indeed there seems to build in pressure to go down that route from this proposal. Students are heavily tracked into college vs. vocational options. Mandatory entrance exams basically determine their entire fate. A high degree of government control over access is the cost 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
24 that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;

(5) ensure public institutions of higher edu- cation 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 max- imum 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 stu- dent financial aid in an amount equal to 100 percent of the difference between—

(A) the cost of attendance at such institu- tion (as determined in accordance with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll)), and
(B) the sum of the amount of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award; and
(ii) the student’s expected family con- tribution; 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 one. 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 costly sea change. And by the way, those adjuncts are much more likely to teach at underfunded state universities. Perhaps 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's 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 Social Democrat of European vintage though. The dude has a serious case of Europe envy, I'd say.

[Live and Learn]

1. Meh... We can't have nice things like other countries do.

[kennetha]

2. Do you know

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

that the American University system is the single most dynamic university system in the world? Do you realize how many people from abroad are clamoring to be admitted to an American University? Did you know that a place like, say Stanford, could fill its classes with foreign students if it wanted. It doesn't because for foreign students they are not need blind. Its graduate schools -- especially in science and engineering -- are already filled with mostly foreign students. It could easily do the same with undergraduates but it chooses not to.

That's because our university system, not just the private system, but the total university system, is vastly better than Europe's. We educate a wider array of students of all classes and colors than Europe does by far. And it's partly because of the open and diverse nature of our system. Nothing like it exists anywhere in Europe.

It would be folly to try to remake our system in the image of Europe's.

[frazzled]

4. May I confirm this?

My husband, who is a college professor, has been spending the week reading applications and going over work samples of graduate students applying to the program in which he teaches. The entire department will meet in full to put discuss and choose the most promising few students from among hundreds.

The number of foreign students who apply is astounding, and increases each year. The pedigree of an American degree is still much sought after in many parts of the world.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Foreign student body percentage

trends: What are they and how would they change?

In your long but brilliant and well-informed OP, you hint at a big tuition rate differential for out-of-state versus in-state residents. But you interpret the proposed law as cutting drastically the proportion of out-of-state students, who will be incentivized to stay in their home states.

IMO, to maintain their budgets, universities will have to replace out-of-state students with "out-of-country" students to avoid revenue losses. IMO such a development would tend to make student bodies more insular, perhaps destroying the quality of highest-quality public universities such as Berkeley, UVa, and UMich.

And with Federal funding always eventually come Federal strings, further incentivizng universities to reserve more of their scarce spaces for foreign students.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. Oops! Replied to wrong post

[Live and Learn]

5. Do you know it was that way even when California had free college? nt

[kennetha]

14. And the reason California doesn't have free tuition now is because .....

Oh, I know, Sanders answer to everything explains it.....


roll drum

bang gong

speak really loud....


"The Billionaire Class" and the "rigged" economy.

[Live and Learn]

15. Reagan! Well known fact. nt

[kennetha]

22. And what drove Reagan to do that?

Just couldn't stand the idea?

[Ed Suspicious]

26. Billionaire class? Rigged economy?

[Live and Learn]

29. Seriously?? nt

[xocet]

38. You defend Reagan's actions with respect to California's university system?

From Master Plan to No Plan: The Slow Death of Public Higher Education
Aaron Bady and Mike Konczal ▪ Fall 2012


The California student movement has a slogan that goes, “Behind every fee hike, a line of riot cops.” And no one embodies that connection more than the Ronald Reagan of the 1960s. Elected governor of California in 1966 after running a scorched-earth campaign against the University of California, Reagan vowed to “clean up that mess in Berkeley,” warned audiences of “sexual orgies so vile that I cannot describe them to you,” complained that outside agitators were bringing left-wing subversion into the university, and railed against spoiled children of privilege skipping their classes to go to protests. He also ran on an anti-tax platform and promised to put the state’s finances in order by “throw[ing] the bums off welfare.” But it was the University of California at Berkeley that provided the most useful political foil, crystallizing all of his ideological themes into a single figure for disorder, a subversive menace of sexual, social, generational, and even communist deviance.

When Reagan assumed office, he immediately set about doing exactly what he had promised. He cut state funding for higher education, laid the foundations for a shift to a tuition-based funding model, and called in the National Guard to crush student protest, which it did with unprecedented severity. But he was only able to do this because he had already successfully shifted the political debate over the meaning and purpose of public higher education in America. The first “bums” he threw off welfare were California university students. Instead of seeing the education of the state’s youth as a patriotic duty and a vital weapon in the Cold War, he cast universities as a problem in and of themselves—both an expensive welfare program and dangerously close to socialism. He even argued for the importance of tuition-based funding by suggesting that if students had to pay, they’d value their education too much to protest.

It’s important to remember this chapter in California history because it may, in retrospect, have signaled the beginning of the end of public higher education in the United States as we’d known it. It’s true that when the Great Recession began in 2008, state budgets crumbled under a crippling new fiscal reality and tuition and debt levels began to skyrocket. It was also in the context of the California student movement that the slogan “Occupy Everything, Demand Nothing” first emerged, in 2009, when students occupied campus buildings in protest against budget cuts, tuition hikes, and staff cutbacks, and were crushed by the same kind of overwhelming police force that was later mobilized against Occupy encampments across the country. But while university administrators have blamed budgetary problems on state legislatures—and scapegoated individual police officers, like the now-notorious (and former) UC-Davis “pepper spray cop,” for “overreactions”—these scenarios are déjà vu all over again for those with long memories. When Mitt Romney urges Americans to “get as much education as they can afford,” or when university administrators call the police as their first response to student protest, it’s Ronald Reagan’s playbook they’re working from.

Books such as Christopher Newfield’s Unmaking the Public University connect the dots between the post-’64 cultural politics of neoconservative backlash and the rise of Reagan as its standard bearer, but advocates of public education have been playing defense for so long that the vision animating the first century of American public education can be difficult to recall, much less recover or put forward persuasively. Thanks to the Reagan revolution, in short, we’ve forgotten that the United States was building public schools and universities for a lot longer than it has been letting them crumble. If we want to tell a different story than the decline of public education—and especially if we want to see it rise again—it behooves us to move past Reagan and the backlash, and to think more clearly about what they destroyed, and what we’ve lost.

...

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

[xocet]

39. Still no reply? You really do not know what you are talking about. n/t

[frazzled]

3. I've thought about these issues a fair amount

And have asked many of the same questions:

How will it affect admissions of students (and diversity on campuses). Not EVERYONE can attend a state university system (and, as you mentioned, the ability to attend a first-tier state university in most European countries is highly restricted). There simply does not exist the physical infrastructure to do admit everyone (without massive expansion of campuses and buildings; have these costs been accounted for?). There is not enough faculty.

How, further, will it affect the hiring and tenuring of faculty, or the quality of faculty? How will it affect research resources such?

How will it affect the ability of states to run their university systems?

You've covered all these aspects. And I agree: the plan (as appears typical of the Sanders plan) is underconceived and half-baked. Not to mention impossible to legislate on this scale. I see it as--what do we call it here?--gross pandering to a voting constituency that is for the most part, not thinking about the details.

I have a huge amount of respect for (the majority) of the country's state university systems. Some (like the Land Grant schools of the Midwest) are better than others. While it is true that costs are increasing, and that use of a disproportionate number of adjuncts is not good, the more rational approach is to put the pressure on to fix these issues. Promising ponies, and failing, will fix nothing.

[hedda_foil]

13. Red Herring Alert! Nobody is proposing that every kid be admitted to a 4 year state university.

Nobody is proposing that every kid should attend a 4 year state university, much less requiring state colleges and universities to accept unqualified applicants.

Sen. Sanders is proposing to make all public colleges and universities from community college thru top tier state universitiestuition free for academically qualified students to attend.

I assume that the OP is posting a campaign white paper to test whether it flies with college educated adults. It doesn't, and it's lazy argumentation.

[frazzled]

30. Obama already sent a bill to Congress for free community college tuition

It's called America's College Promise. It's been stalled there for a year. The Democrats in both the House and Senate then proposed similar free-tuition for community college bills in their respective Houses. They haven't even gotten a committee hearing. Bernie Sanders knows this.

If we take back the Senate, there's a possibility at least discussions could move forward. But since there's no chance we're taking back the House, it still has no chance.

So if this "first-step" plan to provide no-cost tuition at community colleges, which are much cheaper, faces insurmountable obstacles, how do you think a plan that is magnitudes larger in its ambitions would have any chance at all? The answer is, it doesn't. Over time--much beyond the lifetime of Bernie Sanders--if we could get the community college aspect passed, then there might be a chance to expand it. Short of that, the Sanders plan is nothing but an empty promise, a lure to rally young voters to his side, but one that he knows is unachievable.

And please don't give me the "millions of people will demand it" argument. That might happen with social issues that don't cost money, but when it comes to hugely expensive government programs that expand the reach of the government, the Republicans will fight it tooth and nail. And if the numbers don't work out (which they most likely will not), many Democrats won't buy it in full either.

Let's shoot for something difficult but potentially achievable, such as the community college effort. If we win that battle, someday we' might be able to win the war.

It still has unanswered questions that the OP outlined: how will it affect admissions, faculty numbers and quality, research facilities, etc.

[kristopher]

31. Right, let's further institutionalize the opportunity disparity between rich and poor.

The first step to policy is to agree on what VALUES are to guide planning.

What values are guiding your analysis? What is the fundamental guiding principle you believe we should be following?

[bettyellen]

6. Interesting stuff in light of the pat "Europe can" answer we have been seeing. I like the plan for

community colleges Hillary has. I know it doesn't play well to the Sanders idealism, but I think that it is smarter.

[thesquanderer]

7. re: "We will guarantee a place in a public University to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT OF AGE"

I don't believe that is true. I am not aware of there being any requirement for colleges to alter their scholastic admission requirements. Even on his site, he says:

As President, Bernie Sanders will fight to make sure that every American who studies hard in school can go to college regardless of how much money their parents make and without going deeply into debt.

(emphasis added)

It's about making sure that cost is not what keeps qualified students from going to college. There would still be a certain academic requirement to qualify.

You ask a good question, though, which is, where will all these extra students go? Initially, they will need to go to schools which are not already operating at 100% capacity. Many schools may be able to accommodate the hiring of more professors, using the money that the government will provide for educating the additional students. But at a certain point, additional buildings may be needed. But if a school is essentially assured of having a pool of paid students to fill those new classrooms, that's not a bad thing. The fact that there may not be sufficient facilities for 100% implementation on day one would be a poor excuse to not start.

[kennetha]

9. That was a typo

should be a question. "Will we..." not "We will...."

sorry about that.

[kristopher]

32. We should invest in creating a network of universities under our national laboratories.

http://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/national-federal-laboratories-research-centers

[libtodeath]

8. How about we work out the logistics and problems rather then throwing up our hands

and saying we cant?

[kennetha]

10. trying to have a realistic conversation about real costs and benefits

is impossible with some Sanders supporters, I see.

[libtodeath]

11. Bull,did I say that it was a wave of a magic wand?

No,I said it would need working out and effort.
You dont believe it can be or dont think it should so just be honest about it.

[kennetha]

12. Try saying something constructive.

Try adding some insight about how to deal with the many tradeoffs.

I suspect you won't. I suspect like many Sanders supporters you're afraid of an honest discussion of real costs and benefits. You just want to hurl ad hominem insults and shut down conversation so that your man and his ideas don't have to face any real scrutiny.

I understand. Live that way if you like. Fine with me.

[libtodeath]

19. Boo hoo with your crocodile tears.

I answered your post honestly and you were the one that tried to make it into an attack.

You are not honest but oh so transparent in your baiting.

[kristopher]

33. Address the question in post 31

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511224269#post31

And we can have a starting point for discussion.

[99Forever]

17. Another NO WE CAN'T op from Camp Weathervane.

Isn't that special?


Bless your heart.

[libtodeath]

20. Now now,you are going to be accused of being mean

[kennetha]

23. jeez, you love your

Head in the Sanders politics, don't you?

[99Forever]

24. Why in the world would EVER support a candidate that already said...

... that those things that are truly important to me and my family will NEVER, EVER HAPPEN and furthermore, that that candidate will not even TRY to change that dynamic?

I will not now or ever vote or support a Surrender Monkey.

In fact, I will do everything in my power to see to it that that sort of person never sets foot in OUR government again.

[mgmaggiemg]

18. all plans are for public education

because private universities discriminate they can't accept public money

[kennetha]

25. where'd you get that idea?

private universities accept TONS of public money. Ever hear of NSF, NIH, NEH? They make HUGE grants to private universities regularly.

[mgmaggiemg]

28. yes but

they must agree not to discriminate etc etc.....they have to meet the same criteria of public universities....

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. Thanks for a brilliant though

somewhat long OP on the potential damage to universities from the SBS 4YC tuition plan I have bookmarked it and plan to return here often.

Have you read Claudia Goldin's "Race between education and technology"? She argues that extending the length of time government guarantees free public education canbe the sures path to both enhanced economic growth and reduced income inequality. I focus on those issues in another GDP thread I plan to edit and repeat by a couple of weeks from now. I'd very interested to hear you opinion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511201335

[kennetha]

34. Thanks for the link. Will read and comment

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. Europe envy? Holy fuckin' shit you've never seen threads about high-speed rail on DU? Really?

[kennetha]

36. lots of good things in Europe

No doubt. Some we should emulate.

But not their University system. Not even close.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. In aviation, this post is what's known as a smokin' hole.

It simply crashed and burned. Better than 48 hours and only three of your fellow Hillary supporters bothered to rec it. You're doing it wrong.