New York City provided it during the Great Depression. America offered it to veterans after World War II. We need it today: Free College. Yes, I mean a tuition free college education for all qualified students. And there's a way to do it without a government bailout or corporate control. So politicians and pundits on the left and right should love it. Best of all, an existing model persuasively says the plan can work. But first, here's why free college is a must.
Our nation is facing a crisis--with vast domestic and worldwide implications--that can only be addressed by thinking out of the box about education. Just look at the disturbing figures. The U.S., once the leader in the percentage of college graduates between the ages of 25-34, has dropped to number 12 out of the 36 developed nations. Here's what a report from the National Commission on Adult Literacy says: "The U.S. is the only country among 30 OECD free-market countries where the current generation is less well educated than the previous one. The U.S. is also losing ground in international comparisons in terms of high school diplomas and college degrees awarded."
More dismal news: 30 percent of our college freshmen drop out in the first year and more than 40 percent don't graduate--and not primarily because they can't keep up academically. The runaway cost of higher education is pushing students out of the halls of learning. Add to that the crippling student loans that will burden students and their families for decades. Student debt is now greater than total credit card debt for the entire nation. Outstanding student loans total more than a staggering $979 billion and that figure is growing at the rate of $2,854 a second, with the average student debt now exceeding $25,000.
These outrageous costs hurt us now and will continue to hurt us well into the future. They deprive qualified students of the education and skills they need to participate successfully in the 21st century knowledge-based economy. And student debt is certain to reduce discretionary spending for decades ahead--not good news for a spending-starved economy.
Shouldn't we be concerned about this alarming trend?. U.S. companies like Apple are moving their manufacturing operations to Asia where qualified workers are more abundant. Some commentators claim that we don't' have an educational crisis and insist that America has enough trained technologically literate workers to produce products like the iPhone-- or a big enough pool of workers who can be trained to do the job.
While Apple and other companies may not be totally truthful about whether it's skills or salaries that impels them to look abroad, there is substantial evidence that many companies genuinely can't find trained workers on our shores--a trend that has been building over the last decade. Punctuating that point, businesses that currently hire American workers complain about how hard it is to find adequately skilled employees; often they face the uncomfortable choice of either hiring unqualified local workers or recruiting workers from outside their areas and even from overseas.. They worry about the future of the American workforce as our educational system continues to deteriorate.
How can we educate our young people to meet the needs of American business? The federal government is aware of the problem, but doesn't have a strong solution. Addressing the crisis in higher education, President Obama threatened to withdraw federal funding to colleges that jack up tuition. He also proposed lowering interest rates and repayment schedules on student loans. The President wants to put a lid on college tuition to make it "affordable." In his latest statement--"Race to the Top"-- he offers to help states reduce the soaring cost of higher education and to bolster campus based funds for students through programs like Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, low interest loans (Perkins Loans) and an increase in the Work-Study program.
In the face of our "crisis" aren't these measures more like a sluggish march than a race to the top--a small bandage for a massive wound?
If we are to compete successfully with countries like China and India bolder action is called for. We must stop tweaking the machinery when a major overhaul is needed. There is an answer: Free college education.
I can hear the uproar: "That's crazy. Don't you know we are barely climbing out of a recession? Haven't you heard about the $15 trillion dollar national debt? "No we can't," will ring out across the land.
Sociologist Theodore Roszak once observed in an address to the American Society of Aging (ASA) that when the automobile was invented, it was a leisure class plaything. There weren't many paved roads, so you couldn't comfortably travel very far. A Commentary in Harpers Weekly in 1902 didn't see that changing anytime soon: "The actual building of roads devoted to motor cars is not for the near future, in spite of many rumors to that effect." Yet there were visionaries who saw that the automobile would be the way that goods would move quickly throughout the country. And they knew that this would call for the construction of a national highway system. Naysayers rose up: "That's crazy, we can't afford it. You're talking hundreds of millions of dollars" (at a time when millions actually counted). But we did it. Why? Because, as Roszak explained, we valued commerce and recognized that a national highway system was essential for economic development and leadership in the 20th century.
What about the 21st century?
Education is the driving vehicle for economic success in the 21st century. If we want to retain economic leadership, we better make sure that our workforce is up to speed. And the best way to accomplish that is to offer higher education at no cost. And yes we can do it and here's why I know it can work. For the last 20 years I have been associated with a program I helped found--and was Executive Director of for three years-- that is a model for a free college education. As you will see in my next article, this remarkable educational enterprise turned out to be a perfect model for free college education. Stay tuned for details.
Follow Bernard Starr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/starrprobe
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_dem_edu.asp
The average literacy score of a high school graduate, whether they've just recently graduated or just never received any additional schooling falls in the Basic category, which when you review the sample questions is around a 5th grade reading level, which just borders on functional illiteracy. How can these people compete in a global environment that expects them to continually adapt to changes in the market and technology when they can barely read the local newspaper?
You want to fix the problem of education in America? Try graduating more high school students who can actually read first. Then focus on college.
We have tens of millions who understand no English, they send there children to school and the schools have to spend valuable resources teaching English to children who should already know English when they go to school.
I am all for free college education. We can first cut the pay of all college officials and professors. Make professors teach classes. Students can work at the college so schools do not need to employee workers. Instead of having Cadillac healthcare plans university and college employees can get the public option. If colleges didn't charge so much money for an education then more people could afford to go to school.
Tuition is outrageously high. Where is that money going? Certainly not in the pockets of the adjuncts who in fact make up the majority of faculty on most campuses.
But this is the general trend, not confined to higher education: professional/skilled jobs at menial wages, no bennies, classify everything as part-time. In fact, this is the Walmart biz model. Wait when the adjunct system is adopted for K-12. Surprised it hasn't happened yet. Unions would stop that, but unions bad.
The problem is not that young people in America are under-educated, its that they are OVER-educated. 40 years ago, College degrees were not the norm. Students were expected to graduate high school and enter the workforce. Today, most high schools focus on preparing their students for college. This priority shift has resulted in a surge of qualified applicants, all scrambling for a piece of a relatively small pie.
The problem doesn't stop there; it causes a domino effect that works its way all the way down the ladder. Individuals who cannot get jobs to which they are qualified are forced to apply for jobs to which they are OVER qualified. These jobs usually pay less and, thus, it becomes harder for the individual to pay back his or her educational debt. When they land a position, they force a person, who would normally be adequately qualified for THAT position, to look for jobs beneath their level, and so the cycle continues.
You see this in nearly every field across the board. In my own area of specialization (architecture), the standard level of education for the practicing architect is quickly shifting from a 5 year baccalaureate degree to a 4+2 year master's degree. Think about it. When was the last time you saw the minimum level of education required to hold a position go down? Probably never.
1) We can attempt to stimulate job growth in white collar fields. In other words, the government needs to stop spending taxpayer money creating road building and oil pipeline jobs and start investing that money in the private sector. In addition, laws need to be passed to protect small businesses from being absorbed or outpaced by inefficient mega-corporations.
2) We can try to reverse the trend by making non-specialized jobs more attractive. This would probably also involve shifting peoples' standards by convincing young individuals that it is OK to choose not to go to college. It seems these days that the measure of a man is whether or not his level of education/success is greater than that of his predecessor(s). While perhaps a noble goal, it is clearly an unsustainable one.
Making college free will only exacerbate the problem. It may temporarily alleviate financial problems, but what about 10 years down the line? What then?
Paying for a college education is making an investment in oneself and the rewards of that investment are directly proportional to what one invests. If college becomes free, that investment will be worth nothing and the rewards will be proportional. A generation of literary scholars will find themselves starting their careers at burger king wondering why they couldn't land a job at HarperCollins.
Um - I think you've missed the whole point. We're talking about FREE post secondary education.
Hence: NO EDUCATIONAL DEBT.
If the idea is to provide everyone with a well rounded liberal arts education so that they may participate in discussions on de Tocqueville's social observations of early America, great. However, that essentially makes college an extension of high school. If it is intended to prepare individuals to enter the white collar work force, you'd still have the same problem: too many qualified applicants for too few jobs.
There are two possible results from this situation:
1) Graduates are forced to enter into the workforce 4-6 years later than they normally would, thus missing out on $130,000 - $200,000 in lifetime income (based on the median income of individuals age 25+ in the US).
2) Wealthy graduates pursue further qualification/education in an alternative system that will give them a leg up on the competition.
Option 1 makes absolutely no sense at all, and Option 2 is essentially the same thing as what we have going on today (except with 4-6 years of additional education tacked on).
The real reason a college education has any value at all is because you have made a significant investment in yourself in order to obtain a degree. If degrees are given out for free, what incentive do employers have to pay you more than anyone else?
As such, you need to target yourself and associated skills at some related industrial / commercial area if possible. My brother-in-law, who has a Ph.D. in American Literature from Berkeley, taught for a few years before going into the video game field. I have a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering - Materials (metallurgy and thermodynamics). I initially went into microelectronics and reliability physics. I eventually moved into computer security - a field in which I am entirely self-taught. My brother, who has a Ph.D. in Botany teaches horticulture and landscape architecture. He also has a consulting business in landscape architecture.None of us is doing what we trained in.
In my opinion, the specialty skills you acquire during your Ph.D. study are very time sensitive. What the Ph.D. really shows is that you can move into an area, master it in a reasonable time to the point that you can make publishable advances in it.
So clearly it IS sustainable.
The key is only accepting students who have the ability TO graduate !
TANSTAFL (Robert A. Heinlein, as far as I know)
There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
This happens to be a personal pet peeve of mine. I am not a well educated man, I couldn't afford it.
Why is education publicly financed to grade 12? What makes 12 a magic number?
If the purpose of a publicly funded education is provide enough knowledge to obtain a reasonably good job, then it is apparently no longer enough. It was 50 years ago, but no more.
If the purpose of a publicly funded education is to provide a minimum ability to function......why 12?
Why not 10? or 8?
IMPO America would be a whole lot better off if people were educated on their ability to LEARN, rather than their (or their parents) ability to PAY.
When only the wealthy can afford a good education, only the wealthy get ahead, generation after generation.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Our system of financing secondary education comes at a very high price, for those who can't afford it, and our society as a whole.
http://kaarme.com/colleges_free
The contributions from a highly educated population, along with the ability to pay higher taxes (as these folks are not sentenced to debt servitude) pays for itself.
I guess it depends on what sort of society you prefer to live in: A highly educated social democracy with opportunity and wealth for all, or an ill educated 'winner take all' society, with opportunity limited to only those who can afford it.