College For Everyone

John Edwards recently released his two-part "college for everyone" plan and it didn't seem like a very good idea to me, but I sort of wanted to see what people who knew what they were talking about thought. Erin Dillon from Education Sector thinks it doesn't seem like a very good idea: "I worry that this program would end up leaving out the students who need the most help, and inadvertently shift grant aid to students who tend to receive more in other forms of financial aid, like tax credits, loans, and merit-based institutional aid."

I worry, too. Edwards' other thing, about helping people apply for existing financial aid channels, seems to be clearly a good plan. One of the hallmarks of Edwards' 2004 campaign was this kind of low-hanging policy fruit, delivering progressive results through better technocracy. It's been good to see him move toward embrace of more dramatic policy shifts, but also good to see that that hasn't involved ditching one of the worthier aspects of his earlier political persona.

Comments

"John Edwards recently released his two-part "college for everyone" plan and it didn't seem like a very good idea to me"

Well, given your past writing, I'd expect that's because you have some wrongheaded ideas that make expansion of college aid seem like a bad idea to you...

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 12:29 PM

Ugh. I hate the premise. By allowing everyone into school that "works hard and stays out of trouble" doesn't this severely devalue the worth of a college degree?

How about simply focusing efforts on improving the public schooling of disadvantaged students, expanding public aid for college tuition to the disadvantaged, and capping tuition hikes. I'm not really interested in seeing the Democratic Party offer a free year of college the rich kids.

Posted by JayhawkDem | May 15, 2007 12:53 PM

Although I like Edwards, I tend to agree that this proposal seems a bit lame. Personally I'd like to see college combined with some sort of national service as is the case in many other countries. For example, my wife is from Chile and had her medical school education entirely financed by the Chilean government on the condition that she serve for 2 years in the rural health service after graduation. Or if she did not want to serve, pay back the entire cost of her education to the government.

We seem to do things backwards in this country. You are expected to work first to save up for college through low paying service jobs, when really, you are going to be far more useful and productive in most cases if you do your work service after college.

Posted by Kent | May 15, 2007 12:53 PM

When did higher education become a right? Is this in the constitution somewhere and I have missed it? College is not for everyone, and if we mandated college for all, it would dumb it down just like the public education system (Check out the stats, public vs private).

Petey's comments about the expansion of college aid being a bad idea is correct. Where does the money come from for the "aid"? It is taken away from working people and handed out by the benevolent dictators in government. Bow to your gods, they will take care of you. None of you would have survived during the founding of this country, with your current mindset you would be at Plymouth waiting for hand outs.

Posted by TampaJoe | May 15, 2007 12:59 PM

"How about simply focusing efforts on improving the public schooling of disadvantaged students, expanding public aid for college tuition to the disadvantaged, and capping tuition hikes. I'm not really interested in seeing the Democratic Party offer a free year of college the rich kids."

One of the great insights of FDR is that when you make social programs universal, they have a political hardiness and longevity that doesn't exist in social programs that only deal with the disadvantaged.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 1:00 PM

When did higher education become a right? Is this in the constitution somewhere and I have missed it? College is not for everyone, and if we mandated college for all, it would dumb it down just like the public education system (Check out the stats, public vs private).

Were you attempting to respond to something actually said in this post?

Posted by blah | May 15, 2007 1:01 PM

From a professional level I'm all for it -- having more people go to college means more colleges which means having to hire more professors/teachers. All of which makes it a good job market for those with PhDs and teaching experience.

From a policy level, I'm not so sure its as good an idea as it could be. Only funding the first year of college seems to be underfunding if you want to promote college eduction for all (why not make sure everyone can get an associates degree and get two years worth out of it), and so you would end up with a number of folks with one year of education who still can't get a degree because they can't get the money to finish it. And again, folks who can already get money for education end up getting their first year paid for regardless of whether they need it paid for or not -- it never hurts to have some kind of assistance regardless of your income level, but it's kind of a costly thing to do across the board.

I'd be more impressed with someone coming up with a way to improve our public secondary education system to where there's enough trust in High School diplomas that High School graduates can get work. Too many jobs in this country require a college degree just because employers can't be assured that high school graduates will actually have the ability to do the work. A policy like that would hurt my personal long-term job market, but would probably be better for education overall.

Posted by NonyNony | May 15, 2007 1:02 PM

"Petey's comments about the expansion of college aid being a bad idea is correct."

Given your inability to parse a rather simple sentence, I'd suggest that college might do you some good, TampaJoe.

I'd like to see the federal government make sure you can pay for it. It'll do wonders for your reading comprehension if you work hard on your assignments and in class.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 1:02 PM

That should read "...too many jobs in this country ONLY require a college degree...".

Grrr.

Posted by NonyNony | May 15, 2007 1:06 PM

As someone soon to be entering into the college-level academic job market, I'm all for it.

As for the central complaint-- "I worry that this program would end up leaving out the students who need the most help, and inadvertently shift grant aid to students who tend to receive more in other forms of financial aid, like tax credits, loans, and merit-based institutional aid."-- so don't let that happen. I mean that seems to me to be more of an objection of a hypothetical failure in process rather than an objection to a plan to make college universally accesible. And while it's true, that would be a problem... I can't see why you would devote a blog post to it. Do you think there is some specific reason why any such program would necessarily develop that problem?

Posted by Freddie | May 15, 2007 1:18 PM

Kent:

Such programs do exist in the US. Below is a link to the National Health Service Corps.
http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/join_us/clinicians.asp
Not quite sure of the penetration as compared to Chile.

Posted by Klug | May 15, 2007 1:22 PM

"I can't see why you would devote a blog post to it."

I could be wrong, but if memory serves, Matthew has some wrongheaded ideas that lead him to be opposed to expansion of universal college aid programs.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 1:23 PM

Although he can certainly speak for himself on this, I don't think Matt's opposed to expansion of universal college aid programs per se, but rather, he believes that such an expansion should take a back seat to more help in earlier years, like pre-school.

Posted by Clark | May 15, 2007 1:34 PM

Petey,

Have you noticed any correlation between the expansion of college aid programs so far and the inflation of college tuitions? Do you think it's possible there might be a touch of causation there?

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 1:36 PM

This plan resembles a crack dealer's method for getting clients: the first one is free. As it stands, it seems like a very nice subsidy for four year colleges. They get a bunch of extra first year students, get their money and then weed them out in the second year. Tra la, a bunch of extra tuition and no issues with pesky graduates or anything. I am particularly struck by what he cited as his inspiration: "The initiative is based on the College for Everyone pilot program in Greene County, North Carolina, that helps pay for the first year of college for young people who agree to work at least 10 hours a week."

That ten hours a week is time that doesn't go towards studying, which is the point. This seems more like midnight basketball than a program aimed at getting more poor kids through college. (Dumbing down would be aside from that.)

I was already thinking about this due to this post by CC Dean about high school principals deliberately steering students away from CC's to get them into four year school because it looks better for the principal's HS.

It seems like it would be a better deal to give the CC's away for free (cheaper!), or hell, pay people to go, and, in essence, train for a four-year college; when they graduated, they would also only be going for two years (half the loans!). (Keeping in mind here that all the state schools around here have signed transfer agreements with the local CC's because the CC grads have a higher rate of graduation than the students who state at the state uni's.)

The new rule I have taken to keeping in mind is whether a given proposal would actually primarily benefit colleges (and thus the nice upper-middle class people who vote D) or students.

m, this looks like the former

Posted by max | May 15, 2007 1:36 PM

"I don't think Matt's opposed to expansion of universal college aid programs per se, but rather, he believes that such an expansion should take a back seat to more help in earlier years, like pre-school."

If memory serves, you are incorrect.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 1:40 PM

Have you noticed any correlation between the expansion of college aid programs so far and the inflation of college tuitions?

In Wisconsin, I've noticed the Republican state legislature constantly sniping at the UW and underfunding it, subsequent tuition hikes, then complaints from the legislative leadership that middle-class Wisconsin kids can't afford to go to UW. Meanwhile, those that can afford it are getting screwed by our inability to hire and retain quality faculty (and grad students, for that matter) to actually teach the kids. And every fall the cycle repeats.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | May 15, 2007 2:06 PM

Anyone out there want to talk about Ireland's success story? The one where college education runs rampant -- and the economy soars?

Posted by sheila | May 15, 2007 2:06 PM

Sheila:

"Anyone out there want to talk about Ireland's success story? The one where college education runs rampant -- and the economy soars?"

I thought their economic boom had something to do with their pro-growth economic policies including low corporate income tax rates.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 2:16 PM

So, look, a basic liberal arts college degree prepares you in precisely zero ways for the vast majority of all jobs out there. There are exceptions: an engineering degree may have a degree of practical application, a rare few people might have liberal arts degrees that are practical (journalists, teachers, for example). But for most people, a college degree has nothing directly to do with job skills.

But a lot of those jobs want you to have a college degree regardless. Why?

Back in the day, when only a small number of people went to college, having a college degree signified that you were upper class or could reasonable fake it, and also that you were academically fairly elite.

Nowadays, having a college degree is a signifier that you're probably in the upper 60th percentile for intelligence, are not a complete screw-up, probably are not prone to random violence, etc.

If you send 90% of everyone to college, it won't signify that any more. What it will do is thoroughly sink the chances of anyone who for whatever reason does not go to college (just hate school and would rather work/have to actively make money even if college doesn't cost anything/were irresponsible in their youth/complete fuckups) to ever get any job. It'll be, like, "This person didn't even go to COLLEGE. Why the hell would you trust them to run a cash register?"

Now, universal college would also doubtless improve some people's lives, make them better-rounded people, and qualify a bunch of people for the kind of jobs that do actually require college educations to get -- though how anyone will know that a given person is really qualified, and didn't just skate into college, is beyond me.

What it won't do is take all highschool seniors and turn them into the kind of people who graduate from college today. Some will make that change, yes. A majority of them? No.

Honestly, our colleges are pretty good. It's our pre-collegiate education that's failing us.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | May 15, 2007 2:37 PM

Back in the day, when only a small number of people went to college, having a college degree signified that you were upper class or could reasonable fake it, and also that you were academically fairly elite.

I disagree with the second half of that statement. For a very long time socio-economic status was the only important factor in college admission. Jerome Karabel's The Chosen documents that pretty meticulously.

Posted by Freddie | May 15, 2007 2:53 PM

You shouldve noted it as a terrible idea the minute you read the title.

This fetish for increasing college enrollment seems to derive purely from how much easier it is to sell an increase in quantity over increased quality. The quality of education is difficult to define and open to debate. An increase in the number of college graduates/enrollments however is concrete and can be easily splashed across a frontpage.

ALready underhand it becomes positively dispicable when you consider the way they acheive these so called 'improvements to the education system' is infact to do precisely the opposite. If you want to increase the number of enrollments and passes the easiest thing to do is simply lower the standards. On top of this the other phrase they like to trumpet such plans with, "a college degree increases your job prospects" , is similarly undermined by such schemes. Inflation of the supply of degree's is analogous to inflation of the money supply. The value of a degree, at least in job market terms, is the dependant on the demand for the skills it signals. An increase in the number of degree's with no corresponding increase in demand simply lowers their value(a fact compounded by the likelyhood that the increases in the number of college enrollemnts will come in subjects for which there is already comparitively low demand)

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 15, 2007 3:25 PM

Let's review some basic numbers. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, which is a harbinger of what 21st Century America will be like demographically, less than 50% of entering 9th graders will graduate from high school, and that's before the new mandatory graduation exam that appears to have driven down graduation rates even more. Only about 8% of LAUSD 9th graders will eventually score 1000 or higher on the SAT (890 on the pre-1995 scoring system).

Do these numbers suggest "College for Everyone" is such a great idea?

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 15, 2007 4:17 PM

Steve Sailer:

"Do these numbers suggest "College for Everyone" is such a great idea?"

Something similar to "college for everyone" was attempted in New York City in recent years when they made City College open admissions.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 4:55 PM

Matt, you only think this is a bad? unless Edwards plan includes Carpenter at college or garbageman college, the idea is beyond bad. It is facially absurd. And why stop at college for everyone? Why not Harvard for everyone? Oh, but there's only one Harvard. That's okay, we can just rename all the other schools Harvard. Then we can all have a Harvard degree.

Surely you realize that a not insignificant portion of the value of obtaining the degree is that it serves as a signaling mechanism to future employers regarding your fitness for a particular jobs. Sure, it's crude and imprecise, but when you're hiring for a selective job, you are casting a wide net and looking to only hire a small number. and here college and postgraduate degrees provide a lot of their value especially degrees from elite institutions. status is a zero sum game; the top 10 percent of our college students can't be comprised of a hundred percent of them.

Matthew, perhaps all your time at Harvard and hanging around so many smart people has made you forget just how many dumb people exist in this world. Take me for example, I'm practically retarded. I hung around stupid people all of my life; guaranteeing my friends access to college would entail almost no change in their life. Still get high allt he time and play PS2. Pick some cheeseball major that you can't flunk out of, like visual art. we'd end up with a million fucking art degrees being awarded every year.

Posted by Contributor X | May 15, 2007 5:04 PM

Fred,

I guess you're right -- there are a few reasons put together that can point to Ireland's boom.

But think about it: has anyone complained that the state paying for free college for all Irish kids has hindered their economic progress? You have a booming economy....and only dustbin emptiers...to work those jobs?

Posted by sheila | May 15, 2007 5:06 PM

God dammit, I see Steven Seiler made basically the same point a few minutes earlier but he decided to use facts and shit. So yeah, same basic point: there are too many stupid people to pay for them all to go to college. Now if there were a butler college on the other hand...

Posted by Contributor X | May 15, 2007 5:09 PM

I think the thing that people are forgetting is that the federal government doesn't do much with education before college in terms of money. The federal government only pays about 7% of total expenditures. So for a presidential candidate to talk about really helping people with education (not promoting farcical testing regimes) they're basically talking about funding college.

Second, why does everyone think that all of these people are going to go to four year colleges. I would think that a lot of the people would go to tech and get an associates degree that they could do something with.

Posted by Marshall | May 16, 2007 11:53 AM