Why subsidize wealthy college kids?

[alienlovechild 75]

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- I mentor a student who is a senior in a low-performing high school. About 50 percent of the students at his school drop out, while less than 25 percent go to college. His parents didn't graduate from high school, and his father earns about $14,000 a year. His grade point average is good enough to qualify him for admission at a few University of California schools.

His parents clearly cannot afford to pay his way, so how much debt should he incur to get a college education? And how many tax dollars should go toward supporting that education?

Such questions were on the minds of the thousands of students who demonstrated last week against cuts in public education funding in California. As the state government has struggled to balance its budget -- it faces a shortfall of $20 billion over the next 18 months after having cut an even greater amount in the past two years -- student fees have continued to rise.

Last fall, UC regents approved a 32 percent fee increase for incoming UC freshmen. Tuition will be more than $10,000 next year. The cost of an education at a California State University campus or a community college has also jumped significantly.

The protesting students believe these budget-balancing attempts have harmed public education and made it even more difficult for students such as the one I mentor to get an education.

I'm not so sure.

Fifty years ago, when its coffers were flush, California devised a master plan for higher education that made it possible for anyone who wanted a college degree to obtain one, mostly at taxpayer expense. The assumption was that a college degree was not only beneficial for the individual who earned it (better job prospects) but also for the state that subsidized it (an educated work force that would ensure economic growth).

Fifty years later, the state is broke. Costs to operate California's higher education system have sharply risen. Some critics say this is because university and college administrations are too bloated and enjoy too many perks. Others, including last week's student protestors, aim their ire at the legislature and governor for not being more supportive of students and faculty.

What no one seems to accept, however, is that the whole system is broken. California's taxpayers don't want to pay higher taxes.

In the face of less revenue, the legislature will continue to cut the higher-education budget where it can. The result: declining enrollments, fewer class offerings, teacher furloughs, staff layoffs and a decline in quality.

President Obama has repeatedly remarked that the United States is no longer among the top industrialized nations in terms of college participation and graduation rates. To reverse the decline, he says the country needs to add 1 million more college graduates a year. For California, that translates into graduating about 100,000 more students a year over the next 10 years. But its public education system is projecting a 300,000-student cutback because of all the budget cuts.

So, how can California contribute its share of adding to the number of college graduates? If voters continue to resist higher taxes, then students fees and tuition will have to continue to go up.

Raising fees to match the real price of a UC or Cal State education is not necessarily bad if individuals who cannot afford to pay for college receive grants and loans.

Anyone who gains a college degree should be willing to accept some debt load, but not so much that he or she is forever burdened. The student I mentor will still get grants to attend a UC institution, but his loans are also going to increase. He is hesitant, but willing, to accept those debts. But how much more should he have to accept?

What seems crazy, however, is keeping the cost of college below market cost. That, in effect, gives discounts to those individuals who can afford to pay.

Most individuals, for example, assume that UC Berkeley and Stanford are equivalent institutions but the cost of tuition, room and board this year is roughly $25,000 at Berkeley and $50,000 at Stanford. Why should someone who can afford the cost of Stanford get a price reduction for going to school at Berkeley?

Californians can't have it both ways. If they want a system that effectively subsidizes a free college education for all who qualify for one, it needs a tax structure that pays for it.

If voters are unwilling to raise taxes, then those who can afford to pay for college should, and scarce tax dollars should go to those who would otherwise will be blocked from attending.

The student I mentor should receive financial help to attend college, and he will benefit from having a college education because he will earn higher earnings. The state will also benefit because he will pay higher taxes. That is a master plan for the 21st century.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...w_post&f=16

[Niels Bohr 72]

I totally agree. However, it's about subsidizing the entire student body not just the wealthy. Most federal loan program require the student maintain full attendance and maintain a certain designated GPA as indicated by the the accredited university. The cutoff is about 2.5 for most schools. Any less will result in the student to be kicked out of school and forced to repay the loan upon 6 months of leaving.

It's absolutely true that college graduate contribute 7% more of their income to the community as compared to a recent high school grad. And, the state get more money from them because they pay more taxes as well.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...w_post&f=16

?

Good article.

Thanks for sharing.

[Peikko 1,575]

I saw that but didn't click on it -

It's good.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The assumption was that a college degree was not only beneficial for the individual who earned it (better job prospects) but also for the state that subsidized it (an educated work force that would ensure economic growth).

Fifty years later, the state is broke.

It should be pointed out here that California's "the state is broke" problem is primarily a spending problem. Nobody thinks California is like Michigan. California is still a hub of innovation, an engine of growth for the rest of the country. The problem is even though they do so much, they spend even more...

[alienlovechild 75]

?

Good article.

Thanks for sharing.

Here's the link, quibbler.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/08/tierney.college.costs/

[Peikko 1,575]

Quibbler? The link was wrong, that's not a quibble.

[SMR 368]

Once a child reaches 18 years of age, his parents are not legally obligated to support him or her. I don't see why there is such an outcry against the "wealthy" students.

That said, I agree with the author's conclusion, but for a different reason. The problem with the way our government funds many things is that at the point where you make enough money to pay a significant amount of taxes, you also make enough money to not qualify for a huge number of services. Thus, you pay for a service through taxes but have to pay for it individually any time you want to use it.

Stop taxing people and then make each person individually deal with paying for his or her college. If someone wants to make an organization and give grants based on need, that is their prerogative.

Edited March 8, 2010 by SMR

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... you pay for a service through taxes but have to pay for it individually any time you want to use it.

I realize you don't agree with this way of doing things, but the rationale of that works something like this: through our taxes, we pay not for ourselves but for society as a whole. The idea here is that if more of our underclass ends up getting an education, the larger societal benefits will benefit us all collectively.

Now I realize I used the word "society" and "collectively" and you're probably breaking out into hives right now. Got any Zyrtec lying around?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If poor students can't afford higher education and are put off from applying you end up with a two tier society.

Incidentally correcting that kind of inequality is the reality of so called Affirmative Action.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If poor students can't afford higher education and are put off from applying you end up with a two tier society.

The libertarians will tell you there is no society.

Just like there is no spoon.

[Peikko 1,575]

The libertarians will tell you there is no society.

Just like there is no spoon.

Yeah, I've heard Matt say that. Presumably we are all single units that are randomly settling in close proximity to each other and that any co-operative action is fortuitous happenstance? Lucky us, eh?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Libertarians are selfish and naïve.

[SMR 368]

I realize you don't agree with this way of doing things, but the rationale of that works something like this: through our taxes, we pay not for ourselves but for society as a whole. The idea here is that if more of our underclass ends up getting an education, the larger societal benefits will benefit us all collectively.

Now I realize I used the word "society" and "collectively" and you're probably breaking out into hives right now. Got any Zyrtec lying around?

When a service for everyone is paid for by tax dollars, that is justifiable under the claims of helping "society" "collectively." What I am talking about is when a service paid for by general tax dollars is only available to those who have so little income that they don't pay any appreciable taxes.

Are people that have large incomes still part of "society" "collectively?" Or when you say that taxes should benefit society, does society only refer to people that essentially don't pay taxes?

I realize that under the present system, universities are heavily subsidized and that those subsidies are available to everyone equally. However, I disagree with the author's premise that the reason we should get rid of this system is that we are subsidizing "wealthy college kids." "Wealthy college kids" are part of society, too.

Edited March 8, 2010 by SMR

[Ali G. 37]

What percentage of these kids are anchor babies or illegal aliens? It's the old skeleton in the closet that few want to ever discuss.

So when people bring up the Irish immigrants and a totally different era, they also need to keep in mind that diddly-squat was provided to these immigrants. Certainly not that thousands of dollars of services they now have access to.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Booyah