Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
Commentary

A Better Plan for Debt-Free College: Give Money Straight to Students

By David P. Haney September 21, 2015
A Better Plan for Debt-Free College:  Give Money Straight to Students 1
Doug Paulin for The Chronicle

The presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have each proposed plans during their campaigns to funnel federal and state funds to public institutions so that needy students (under Clinton’s plan) or all students (under Sanders’s plan) could receive a free or very-low-cost college education. If these plans gain serious traction, both public and private colleges below the top tier should be alarmed.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

The presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have each proposed plans during their campaigns to funnel federal and state funds to public institutions so that needy students (under Clinton’s plan) or all students (under Sanders’s plan) could receive a free or very-low-cost college education. If these plans gain serious traction, both public and private colleges below the top tier should be alarmed.

Having spent most of my career in state universities, I firmly believe that states need to support public universities as an incontrovertible public good and that the devastating cuts of recent years should be restored. However, if state institutions become free or close to free through federal subsidies, many small private colleges will have to close their doors.

That’s because they will simply not be able to compete with the nearly free education offered at a state university down the road. My own institution, Emory & Henry College, in central Appalachia, like many small private colleges in economically challenged regions, vies directly with regional state universities for students who can barely afford any kind of college. The high sticker price of private colleges in our region is discounted so heavily that the true cost is not much different from what regional state universities charge, which is of course an unsustainable funding model for colleges that do not benefit from state subsidies.

These same concerns don’t affect elite private colleges, which can attract students who pay near the sticker price, or have relatively unlimited endowments to subsidize costs. The closing of small private colleges like mine, however, would greatly reduce choices for students, destroy centuries of tradition, and cause economic harm to already stressed regions.

The Clinton plan offers some acknowledgment of this problem by proposing grants to private colleges with modest endowments that serve a majority of Pell-eligible students. But her plan, Sanders’s plan, and related ones proposed by others focus mostly on debt-free education at public universities.

This may appear to be a protectionist argument from a private-college point of view, but public institutions should be equally wary of the Clinton and Sanders plans. Further federalizing higher-education accountability — which is an inevitable corollary of either plan — would very likely lead to more of the gross formulae for college rankings that the Obama administration originally failed to impose, as well as requirements for short-term work-force development and a neglect of basic research, humanities, the arts, and other learning that does not have an obvious short-term return on investment.

If anyone needs evidence for what happens when our government fully controls free education, just look at the public-school system in this country, with the emphasis on short-term memory tested constantly, the neglect of long-term project-based education, and the devaluing of the arts and physical education, despite all the research (and the intuition of any good teacher) on what works. Those consequences for public colleges might actually help institutions like mine, since we could provide an alternative somewhat less hampered by federal oversight (though we are still subject to the federal financial-aid carrot and stick). But they would be bad for the country.

The obvious solution is to give more federal money to the students, not the institutions. If the Pell Grant program were restored to a funding level that would allow it to fulfill its original purpose — to provide a realistic foundation for financial aid — then the educational marketplace could respond to students’ and families’ choices and the diversity and vitality of our great regional public and private colleges could be preserved. (The maximum Pell Grant has not increased appreciably in dollars adjusted for inflation since it first became widely available, in 1976.)

The fact that this is not the obvious solution is a testament to our partisan divide. The Republicans won’t propose it because it would require raising taxes in order to give money to poor people — that looks too much like welfare. The Democrats won’t propose it because, although they have no problem with raising taxes, they don’t want to give up federal control over the educational marketplace.

This is not an indictment of government-controlled education — it works fairly well in some European countries — just of how our government has handled accountability in education under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Our government tends to invest in systems (No Child Left Behind, federal regulations, and ratings systems), not people, despite our founding tenets based on Enlightenment principles of individuality.

Why not be true to our founding principles and invest in students themselves, giving them choices among a diverse array of institutions, while holding all institutions — public and private — accountable for transparency in how we present ourselves, so that families can put their government-subsidized dollars where they serve students the best?

A version of this article appeared in the September 25, 2015, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin