I believe the decision to provide free, post-secondary
education or training should be left to the individual states without federal government
oversight, grants or subsidies. Let the
voters in each state decide how they want their tax dollars apportioned among
essential services and social programs.
I see a big difference between subsidizing the basic needs
of qualified and deserving recipients and providing a free, post-secondary
education to our high school graduates. However,
both have worthy ideals – compassion and investment. Nevertheless, this discussion raises a number
of questions and issues. Some of these
are as follows:
1. Before we start giving away so-called free
stuff, let’s ask the student how their free elementary and high school
educations worked for them. I mean did
they really appreciate the education they received courtesy of their parents
hard-earned tax dollars or direct payments, and if they did, how did they show
their appreciation? Did they do their
best to get the best possible education by choosing the most challenging
academic courses or those courses which will prepare them to compete in a
global market? What was it they wanted –
a high school diploma or a real education?
2. Let’s also consider what aspects of the
education are free? Are we talking
tuition only or do we include books, tools and materials, housing, meals,
transportation, modest living expenses, and entertainment?
3. If a post-secondary education is free, what
academic requirements do we place on the student for admission to the
school? I mean, if it’s free, shouldn’t
we just forget admission requirements and allow entrance to everyone who wants
to attend? Will this have any impact on
the quality of the education received?
And if the educational institutions are compensated according to the
number of students attending, won’t the institutions do their best to recruit
as many students as possible?
4. In return for a free education, should the
state have some requirements of the graduate, e.g., must remain in the state
for a specified period of time following graduation, or must work in some
capacity for any state entity or municipality for a minimum period of
time? After all, we don’t want to be
handing out free educations only to have the recipients relocate to another
state. This is a possibility if some states
don’t offer free post-secondary education.
5. Should there be an avenue for those who are
able and desire to pay for their education so they are free to make employment
and lifestyle choices following graduation?
6. What obligation do we have, if any, to
protect those private institutions of higher-learning that do not directly
receive any federal or state funds? In
other words, do we subsidize students who choose to attend these private
institutions? And if we do, are
admission requirements waived for these students? Or, do we say you must attend a state-sponsored
institution if you want a free education?
What happens then to some of the most prestigious, respected and leading
institutions of higher learning?
7. Should we establish performance standards for
students receiving a free education? For
example, you must maintain a 3.0 grade point average (on a 4.0 scale) in order
to continue receiving your education subsidy.
8. Should we require students to take a minimum
number of credit hours per semester in order to qualify for an education
subsidy?
9. What should be the state’s recourse should a
subsidy recipient drop out of school before graduation or fail to maintain the
required performance standard? Should
they be required to repay what they received or should they be required to
perform community service until the debt is repaid?
10. What should be the qualifications for a
graduate to pursue a post-graduate degree?
What should be the deciding factors for continuing to receive an
education subsidy?
11. If the states are looking for a return on
their investment, should there be an age limit to such subsidies? Obviously, the older you are when you
graduate, the less time you will have to repay your education expenses through
your earned-income tax payments.
12. Should the institutions be allowed to sustain
non-academic activities and programs which are unable to generate sufficient
revenue to cover their costs and expenses?
Is it fair to the taxpayer to fund such programs and activities?
13. Should we envision a change in the manner in
which state-subsidized institutions are governed? Should taxpayers have a greater role in
hiring and curriculum?
14. How will we measure the performance of the
institution? Shouldn’t they be held
accountable to produce meaningful and measurable results?
15. Clearly, the institutions will not be able to
accept an unlimited number of students.
How do we determine who gets in and who does not? Is it first-come, first-served? Or some other standard?
16. And if the taxpayers are picking up the
education bill, shouldn’t they expect maximum utilization of physical
assets? In other words, no summer
vacations and extended Christmas or spring breaks. School will be in session year round. Let’s educate these young people as fast as
we can and get them back into the workforce where they can start paying taxes. (See item #8.)
17. And of course, we will have to address the
matter of the outstanding student loans.
After all, if education is going to be free, it has to be free for
everyone – not just those with an advantageous birthdate.
18. Should the taxpayers have the right to govern
the behavior of the students receiving a free education? For example, a student who smokes a pack a
day (one-third of college students smoke), who uses one ounce of marijuana per
month (25% of students use regularly), and who drinks a case of beer per month,
will spend between $350 and $500 per month, on average, on these items. Eliminate tobacco and we’re still at $200 to
$250 per month.
19. And we can’t finish this discussion without
asking why a post-secondary education is so expensive. One reason is that students and their parents
don’t shop around for the best educational value. They are more apt to succumb to loyalty,
emotion, tradition and prestige over practicality and value. Does anyone still believe, in this day and
age, the school name on a diploma is worth what it cost? It’s high time we take a serious look at
quality two-year institutions for the core requirements of a four-year
degree. And there are a number of small,
private four-year institutions which have done a masterful job of constraining
costs and prices while delivering a superb education. A second reason has been the prolonged and
consistent failure of academic institutions to control their costs and
expenses. Instead, they pass on these increases
to the students knowing the students will simply borrow the funds through the
government’s guaranteed student loan program.
Without this program, schools would have been forced to address their
rising costs if they wished to remain a competitive option.
In summary, the process of dismantling a system which has
endured successfully for centuries is no simple matter. In our country, it is further complicated by
the fact the marketplace of education has been and remains highly competitive
which has put our institutions of higher learning on the leading edge of
discovery and innovation. America’s
leading role on the global stage owes much of its stature to the research and
development flowing from academia.
Whatever we decide to do, let’s be certain to protect, sustain and
nurture this remarkable national treasure.
