It's Back to School Season, and Congress Finally Passes a Student Aid Bill That Matters

Last week, buried in the headlines below David Petraeus and "Return on Success" (whatever that means), Congressman George Miller and his Democratic colleagues on the House Labor and Education committee won a quiet victory for students like me across this country. Alongside Sen. Kennedy, they steered the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 through the House and Senate -- securing $18 billion over the next five years for student aid. Rep. Miller has been fighting for this sort of measure for years against stubborn Republican roadblocks, but finally, Congress has put forth a bill with students in mind on the desk of President Bush -- who is expected to sign the bill today.

What does all of this mean? So, say you're in our shoes. You're 18 years old and you're looking at financial options for college. You know that the average college graduate earns nearly $1 million more over a lifetime than a comparable high school graduate. But the average cost of a four-year private college is $22,000 a year and rising (up 6 percent from 2006). For many aspiring undergrads, that's just not an option. So you turn towards public universities -- that bastion of the American Dream where the word "public" should mean equal access to higher education. And then you find out that the cost of a public four-year degree has increased by almost 40 percent over the past few years.

So whether it's a private or public institution, most students who want a mobile career path take this deep, debt-ridden plunge. Since his tenure began, George W. Bush has made this plunge even worse. In 2005, his administration reworked the eligibility requirements for Pell Grants and knocked 90,000 students off the list. Instead of funding federal student aid, he gave more than $20 billion in subsidies to private student loan providers. The truth is -- students now dread, not anticipate, the day they receive their degrees. They know that the second they turn their tassels, they'd be caught in the unfortunate narrative of overwhelming student loans that practically define the American college experience today.

This bill, hailed as the largest increase in student relief since the GI Bill, will break some of these troubling trends and make college costs more bearable. Without raising taxes, the College Cost Reduction Act will cut interest rates in half on subsidized student loans -- saving the average student $4,400. It reclaims $20 billion from the hands of private student loan providers and secures that money for federal student relief. And starting in 2009, students with Stafford Loans won't have to devote 15 percent of their discretionary incomes to the loan and after 25 years income-based repayments will be completely forgiven.

But what's most encouraging about this bill is that it opens a door to college for low-income students. Also, it will change the face of who is traditionally allowed to attend college. Currently, 47 percent of African-American students receive Pell Grant scholarships annually and with the increase in eligibility, more students will be able to receive these loans. Additionally, the bill will provide 170 million in grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities which enroll 14 percent of all African-American college students. In addition to providing financial aid, the bill also tackles the problem of where the nation's young college students have been kept from so far due to debt -- highly-needed public service jobs. The bill provides upfront tuition assistance to students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities and provides loan forgiveness after 10 years for military service members, first responders, nurses and firefighters.

This is the kind of legislative action students have been waiting for. When Republicans controlled the purse for student aid, they rolled back their promise to students and made affording college more of a privilege than a reality for many students and their families. Rather than pushing for more Pell Grants, Republicans in Congress were pushing for 18-year olds to enlist in the military upon the promise of "money for college," and many young people took it -- exposing another sad chapter in what underprivileged young people are willing to do to get themselves into a classroom. With the passage of this bill, money for college won't be a shrinking dream anymore -- it'll reach those who need it most, and that's the right thing to do.

Now in case you didn't believe me about how hard George Miller fights for students, here he is in action:

Comments

[oleanna]

As a current middle-class student enrolled at a four-year bachelor's program, I've been extremely troubled by the high interest rates that I will soon be paying off on my massive loan debts. The passage of this bill is really helping to ease my stress level regarding my enormous debt, and is allowing me to concentrate on what I should be worried about: my academic studies.

[jumperpin]

(para)phrasing Mark Twain:

"I never let formal schooling interfere my education"

[Kansas Evans]

I, too, think we need to look at 'college costs' from a societal perspective. It's better for the society when we can have more people with college degrees. Like Wolfe says, higher education should be a right, not a privilege. If you disagree about it being a right, we can at least agree that it should be accessible. Making it more accessible isn't a bad thing.

This is a great thing for college students and all citizens alike! It's things like this that make our country great. This is why some many people wish to migrate (lots of them legally) here! And giving more money to HBCUs is especially great. And the stat about Pell Grants should show people that while the same traditional media you bag when it comes to Iraq would have you think differently, most poor and most blacks WANT an education, a COLLEGE education.

Opening the door for more people to be educated is a good thing, a very good thing.

[jumperpin]

You just answered your own question. College degreeism will remain a seller's market - especially as such increasingly assumes universal "necessity".

Has anyone noticed that our prosperity (and posterity) keep falling further behind as matriculation assumes required normalcy?

[MaciasJ]

I don't think college matriculation is normal or approaching normalcy.

* 21% of Americans had taken some college courses but had not earned a degree in 2000, compared with 18.7% 10 years earlier.
* 15.5% had earned a bachelor's degree but no higher, compared with 13.1% in 1990.
* 8.9% earned graduate or professional degrees, compared with 7.2% earlier.

"http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-06-05-education-census.htm"

This is from which is based off the 2000 census.

I think the fact that we are falling behind in the world is that we aren't investing in education enough to keep up with the developing world. It used to be that if you had any brains at all you would come to the United States to materialize your oppertunities. The more other countries develop, the less we can depend on the brightest brains from India and China.

I also don't think American prosperity is declining... any numerical proof or persuasion for that?

[Mormondude]

Our educational system should focus on QUALITY, not QUANTITY. The two are mutually exclusive in practice.

We don't need 300 million rocket scientists. But the 10k or so that we do have should be the best on the planet. We shouldn't try to educate 300 million mediocre rocket scientists, then have to import all the well trained people from around the world to fill the gap. That's how our current system works. 80% of the college graduates are practically unemployable in their field of study because they didn't get properly trained in how to actually make a professional contribution in that area and pursue a career.

[Kansas Evans]

They aren't employable cause there's not a lot of jobs. The economy expanded mostly in lower-wage jobs.

I agree we should focus on quality, but not enough people have college educations. Take a look at our political system.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Good joke!

I've read numerous articles in Business Week Magazine over the last several years stating that merely by graduating larger numbers of engineers than we do means that India and China have guaranteed that they will experience faster economic growth.

But what do the experts know?

[jvarga]

"The truth is -- students now dread, not anticipate, the day they receive their degrees."

Not for me. I dreaded the next 25 (24 now!) years of my life in which I'll be paying back the loans. :P

[oldpotsmuggler]

No longer a "do nothing Congress". I can only hope that this bill is as represented because if it gets folks to a degree who would have been left behind without it, it is not a good thing, it's GREAT.

I had my grants, I had my work study money, and I had manageable student loans to make up the difference. I also lived frugally and did without, but my undergraduate years qualify as the best of my life. It had been with sorrow that I saw reports that people like me would not be able to make it now the way I did. For everyone who has been left behind, our world has been made a little poorer.

To whatever extent we have reversed that, it's wonderful. To whatever extent we may still have work to do in this area, we better get it done. Believe me, the people we want to make sure get educated are those who must, can, and will work their asses off because they understand what a special opportunity they are being given.

[Mormondude]

You don't get it, do you? This bill does exactly the opposite of what's needed.

The liberal mindset looks at 'college costs' from only one perspective, that of a student in college. This is a big mistake. They should be looking at 'college costs' from a societal perspective. The result of looking at it in the liberal way is that college costs actually continue to rise unchecked. In fact, this type of financial aid almost encourages colleges to raise their tuitions.

So, you end up in an 'arms race' type mentality where ever increasing college tuition must be matched by ever increasing financial aid. As one rockets into the stratosphere the other must keep up.

The end result is harmful both to the students and to society. Since the vast majority of this financial aid is in the form of student loans, that means that the average student will graduate with MORE debt than they would have if reducing tuition costs had been the goal instead.

There was a blog post here on HuffPo in the last two weeks talking about this very fact. It was called 'the fleecing of our students' or something to that effect, and it was spot on.

The Dems just handed you more debt and you're thanking them! How messed up is that?

[MaciasJ]

This is a very interesting comment.
As a student who owes about 25K, (and parents owing 45K), I definitely feel the burn from loans. I am actually in professional school now and will end up owing 180K in total. I certainly would welcome more money now and would have in the past as well.

The interesting question is... what is causing tuition to increase? You state that more state allocation for students cause it to increase, but tuition has been increasing (at least in the UC system), for the past 5 years without any additional funding. I don't think you have a persuasive argument that more state funding will cause tuition to increase...

that leaves the question... what is causing tuition to increase...

[jumperpin]

The edubiz lobby long ago displaced labor as the leading bloc/interest group for professional Dems.

Pretty friggin sad, really, as todays "higher" education is mostly an exhorbitant farm system for corporate shills.

[IMD]

The mentality of college as a cost, rather than an investment is what is wrong with any argument against this bill. The most prosperous time in our nation was when more people were able to get a higher eduction, graduated to high paying jobs, and rather than have their own kids rely on government grants, could pay for their college themselves or through private loans.

Plus, it's plain supply and demand economics. The more students there are attending a school, the more money the school gets, and tuition stays reasonable. We have repeatedly given the Republican version of "helping" students a chance, and every time it makes things worse. If this bill does what it is meant to do (and since it is much like the GI Bill, history shows the success of that program) the reliance on government assistance of all types will go down, not up.

College is not a panacea for poverty, but it sure as hell helps. Knowledge is power, and we need a better educated, better informed, and curious population. At least that's what the founders thought when they created our form of democracy.