Obama’s college aid plan has been stalking me for the past
week. I don’t know yet whether I feel optimistic about it, though I won’t be
affected personally. But behind it there is a great intention, in my opinion. Obama
is trying to fix college education from the supply side, that is becoming more
and more unaffordable, yet more and more important at the same time. I always
said it’s the ticket to taking a few steps up the socioeconomic ladder.
Experiencing U.S. colleges is what brought me to start Sarjana.co.id,
as I wanted to go outside of the box and get the best value of education with
what I have. Sarjana.co.id is a reflection of both what I wish I had (guidance
and critical information for selecting colleges) and what was available for me
only because I was looking in the United States where information is abundant. But
I realized feeding information to high school dreamers is one thing; talking to
them about how they are going to pay for college is another. I also think that
passing out information about scholarships is no way near enough, noting that college
scholarships are scarce in Indonesia.
There has been a crisis in the UK in the last year in
college enrolment. Though poor students benefit from significantly lower
tuition fees or full exemption, enrolment this year dropped by 40 percent after
tuition fee cap was raised from a little over £3,000 in 2010/11 to £9,000 in
2012/2013.[1][2]
Now, tuition fees at the two colleges where I have been to
truly have shown the fact that they work against students. The University of
Texas system, in 2013, is budgeted to spend around 21.8% on faculty members, as
opposed to only 3% on scholarships and fellowships. American University in DC
consistently increases their faculty and staff salaries by 7%, 9%, and 4% per
year between 2011 and 2014; with insignificant increases for adjunct faculty
and part-time staff. Though increases in financial aid exceed these figures, it
is obvious that the increases in financial aid are to cover faculty salary
increases that are passed on to students. Plus, in AU’s case, faculty salaries
only (excluding adjunct faculty) constitute over 30% of the annual expenditure
budget.
Of course, one can say that an organization’s greatest asset
is people. But when the increase in their salary is way over the inflation rate
and then it is passed on to the students, only universities can get away with that.
Tuition hikes are accepted by students and parents because education is perceived
as private and public good, which has been easily ‘commoditized’ with the ever
increasing demand for it as the majority of the world are moving up into the
middle and upper class.
So Obama’s plan is trying to tackle this by holding
accountable the suppliers of higher education which have thrived, thanks to financial
aid, the involvement of wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations. Higher
education is an important building block to bridging the widening social divide
in the United States, especially with the peril of primary and secondary
education, and elsewhere.
But of course with partisan politics and the objection from
the defendants in question, there are criticisms:
Politicians have lashed out and accuse the plan as
unconstitutional. There are also worries around how inexperience will lead to
failures.
My comment is simple. Why can’t the administrator of a massive
fund like federal aid regulate the distribution?
2.
Hindering universities’ growth and innovation
“This is a slippery slope, and one that ends with the
private sector inevitably giving up more of its freedom to innovate and take
risks,” said Marco Rubio.[4]
This is, to me, just another elitist comment similar to
criticism that higher taxes will hinder growth and innovation in the private
sector. Universities will not stop receiving gifts from alumni and generous
individuals or corporations who need research capacity. Obama’s plan does not
imply the reduction of financial aid overall; it is just redistribution. If a
college’s net tuition is not suppressed, that is, the annual increase of a
given year is high, a portion of its previous financial aid will go to others.
It sounds very sensible to me, because the high increase should finance what
the increases in their spending (except of course colleges want increasing net
return). And to my knowledge, the academic world is the most risk-averse sector:
the most resistant to change.
3.
College ranking will widen gap
I see the devil in the details of ranking universities. The
plan so far is very result-oriented.
With graduation rate one of the main factors in the
soon-to-be-invented college ranking system as grounds for aid distribution, universities
are expected to take less poor students, because their academic capabilities
would risk their graduation rate. “Students at top-performing colleges could
receive larger federal grants and more affordable student loans.”[5]
This is food for thought for Part 2.
But so far, I do not buy the political criticisms against
this plan. It’s attacking the root of the problem: ever-rising tuition fees. Everyday
I see user after user signing up on Sarjana.co.id, and I cannot help but
imagine where each of them falls into, whether the small box of those who can
afford college (less than 25 percent) or the big box of those who will be excluded
by tuition fees.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265027/Rise-tuition-fees-leads-40-drop-university-admissions.html
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/may/17/university-guide-2010-tuition-fees
[3] http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16395-obama-targets-colleges-for-more-federal-control
[4] http://www.nyacknewsandviews.com/2013/08/mcea_obamacollegecosts/
[5] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579028911262193186.html
