The average college tuition at a four-year private university last year was $31,231 per annum, or about enough to pay for a few months here at NYU. As rates continue to rise, current students and indebted graduates are looking to our government for assistance. Presidential candidates, in order to appeal to young and indebted voters like NYU students, can either propose sweeping changes to the system or avoid the subject entirely. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that such a change is possible. As it turns out, affordable higher education may not be in America’s best interests.
Many studies have even concluded that skyrocketing tuition rates are due to the easy availability of student loans and simple supply and demand economics. Some, including President Obama, would argue that two years of free community college is doable and that an educated society benefits everyone. But 13 years of mandatory schooling is plenty, and this misguided idea would merely result in richer kids going to school longer to once again outperform others. In a few years, we may be discussing universal bachelor’s programs, then master’s.
Others argue that such programs can reduce the correlation between family wealth and education prospects. It may be troubling that the rich boy from the suburbs who had private tutors and got mediocre scores has a better chance of getting into and paying for college immediately, while a bright but poor girl cannot. Already we see the effects—incredibly low acceptance rates—of affirmative action and need-based financial aid instituted by universities. I support those measures, but if the government stepped in and did the same, suddenly Harvard would need to choose between its five percent acceptance rate and a watered-down reputation.
Critics will point to countries like Germany, which has tuition-free colleges for its higher-achieving students, but take a look at any world ranking of universities and it is evident how these German schools fare against their American counterparts. The United States kept its schools on top with the system that we have in place today, a system that needs higher tuition in order to differentiate between deserving students and undeserving. Higher tuition offers selectivity and is money well spent on facilities, professors and more. Plus, these outspoken advocates fall quiet when someone suggests instituting a meritocratic system—such as in Germany—where the government decides if a student can attend college based on students’ high school performance.
We attend college to acquire qualifications necessary for better jobs. Part of the prestige of a bachelor’s degree is its exclusivity, and the elimination of that would simply kill one more standard of measurement used in the job field. The government simply does not have the resources to foot such a tall bill for plumbers, waitresses and mechanics to attend university, and it certainly should not reshuffle billions of dollars to do so. A better way to spend that money would be on job-specific training programs, as many employers say a college degree isn’t that valuable, especially when it’s a degree in the ever-popular fine arts or similar industries. If the government is to begin earnestly addressing the problem of higher education in this country, it must focus first and foremost on keeping its universities competitive, on making sure that our colleges maintain their international renown.
Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.
Email Akshay Prabhushankar at [email protected]