Education has long been regarded as an avenue for upward mobility, touted as a surefire way of breaking cycles of poverty. But as access to education, particularly higher education, becomes out of the reach of many, the question inevitably arises, "Should education be a civil right?"
Several months ago, the Pew Research Center released a report titled, Is College Worth It? College Presidents, Public Assess, Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education. According to the report:
- A record share of students are leaving college with a substantial debt burden, and among those who do, about half 48%) say that paying off debt made it harder to pay other bills; a quarter say it has made it harder to buy a home (25%); and about a quarter say it has had an impact on their career choices (24%).
- A majority of American (57%) say the higher education system in the United States fails to provide students with good value for the money they and their families spend. An even larger majority -- 75% -- says college is too expensive for most Americans to afford.
- Nearly two-thirds of college presidents (63%) say students and their families should pay the largest share of the cost of a college education. Just 48% of the public agrees. An equal share of the public would prefer that the bulk of the cost of a college education be borne by the federal government, state governments, private endowments or some combination.
Moreover the patterns in student borrowing, which have spiked in recent years, will most likely continue. Another Pew Research Center publication notes that, in 2008, "60% of all graduates had borrowed compared with about half (52%) in 1996." Second, among 2008 graduates who borrowed, the average loan for bachelor degree holders was more than $23,000; in 1996 the amount was slightly more than $17,000. Third, more students are enrolling in private for-profit schools, where both the levels and rates of borrowing are highest.
Yesterday WNYC hosted a panel at the Brooklyn Museum. When moderator Brian Lehrer posed the question of whether education should be a civil right, the panelists responded overwhelmingly in the affirmative. Professor Frederick Harris of Columbia University pointed out that City University of New York (CUNY) was virtually free for most of its history, until recently. Professor Harris also compared tuition at University of California, Berkeley in the 1960s with prevailing fees. Both public institutions have historically served communities of color.
Rachel Moran, Dean at UCLA School of Law weighed in saying, "Trends in privatization treat education the same as buying a toothbrush." Dean Moran ended on a cautionary, warning that if these trends are not rolled back, we'll see a significant drop off in intergenerational mobility.
Follow Arlene M. Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/arlenemroberts
The UC is supposed to be free, hence use of the word "fees" rather than "tuition"... "Fees" have increased 70% in last decade, to the point at which fees more closely resemble a private colle tuition. Students on the margins are being forced out (as apparently, are students in the middle class), valued academic programs and student services are being permanently cut, professors and staff laid off.
Meanwhile, the Regents and executives- CEOs and executives of the private, corporate sector- write their own paychecks and create superfluous positions in the administration for their friends. In the UC, there is more than one administrator per every faculty and staff.
A student at UC Riverside said to the Board of Regents today, "We didn't create this economic and public education crisis... you did!" Hopefully people will begin to understand what UC students have known for the past few years: Its not a crisis; Its a scam.
In the 2010-2011 academic year, based on financial need, nearly six of ten full-time students received a tuition-free college education at CUNY. This financial-need, tuition-free policy has been in effect since 1976. Many more students benefit from scholarships or other merit-based support. A relatively small number of students who do not qualify for financial aid or scholarship support pay the full tuition of $5,100, about one-tenth of the tuition charged by the private institutions referenced above.
Finally, CUNY today serves more full-time students than at any time in nearly two centuries of service to New York, and overall enrollment is at a record 271,000 students for Fall 2011.
For a brief history of the University’s need-based free tuition policy, please visit http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2011/10/12/when-tuition-at-cuny-was-free-sort-of/
Please contact me should you have further questions. Thank you for your time and attention.
Best regards,
Michael Arena
University Director of Communications and Marketing
The City University of New York
Dear Ms. Roberts:
I read with interest your January 17, 2012 Huffington Post article, “Rethinking Education: Should It Be a Civil Right?” As a public university offering affordable tuition and high-quality academic programs to a record number of students, The City University of New York is particularly concerned with the timely issue explored in your article--value in higher education.
However, I wish to share with you one important clarification concerning CUNY and free tuition, and University policy. The article quotes Professor Fredrick Harris of Columbia University as noting, inaccurately, that CUNY “was virtually free for most of its history, until recently.” In fact, when CUNY was “free,” there were many students who paid to attend, and now that CUNY charges tuition, there are many students who attend for free.
Beginning with its founding in 1847 and continuing till 1970, the University maintained a merit-based free tuition policy. However, students whose grades were not sufficient for the full-time day programs, or who otherwise could not attend during the day, enrolled in CUNY’s night schools of general studies, and paid tuition. In 1957, for example, four out of ten students paid tuition, known then as “instructional fees.” Those “fees” averaged about $350, about a third of what students paid at private universities such as Columbia or New York University. (Continued...)
Paying more is not a better education. UC tuition increases exceed the national average rate of increase. Birgeneau has doubled instate tuition/fees. Birgeneau jeopardizes access to Cal by making it the most expensive public university.
UC President Mark Yudof uses tuition increases to pay for faculty & administrator salary increases. Payoffs like these point to higher operating costs and still higher tuition and taxes. Instate tuition consumes 14% of Cal. Median Family Income. President Yudof is hijacking our families’ and kids’ futures: student debt.
I agree that Yudof and Birgeneau should consider the students' welfare & put it high on their values. Deeds unfortunately do not bear out the students' welfare values of Birgeneau, Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof.
We must act. Birgeneau’s campus police deployed violent baton jabs on students protesting Birgeneau’s tuition increases. The sky will not fall when Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) ‘honorably’ retires.
Opinions to UC Board of Regents, email marsha.kelman@ucop.edu
Well, the UC system has been such a good deal (relative to other schools) for so long that it's larger tuition increases (relative to other schools) represent the fact that it's playing "catch-up".
**(Kind of like a person who arrives late to drinking party and takes 5 shots of liquor while people who have been there for a while are sipping beer; the fact that the late person is getting drunker at a faster rate than the party average doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is the drunkest person there).
So UC is still a good deal...just to a lesser extent now.
Schooling through community / technical college should be free.
Schooling past community college should be paid by a long-term incremental value tax - A small increase of the student's income tax on income earned above average income levels. Thus schools would have incentives to provide educations that increase the incomes of their graduates and/or provide more job hunting support.
If you look at the countries that provide free, or heavily subsidized tertiary education, the birth rate is below replacement levels, thus a highly educated workforce is a net positive.
The situation in countries with growing populations, regardless if it's natural or via immigration, is quite different, educating more people results in lower wages for what are currently high paying proffesions, making it harder for students or governments, to recoup their investment.