A lunch free of charge means a lunch free of cost, right?
Here are a couple breaking news items for your Monday: The state of Arizona is broke. College is expensive. If you keep making an investment that doesn’t yield a solid return on that investment, you should probably reconsider whether it’s a good investment.
Alarming everyone with a Facebook this weekend was an article from the East Valley Tribune bearing the headline, “HB 2675 may up college costs by $2K for many in Arizona.” House Bill 2675 [pdf] is a piece of legislation introduced by Representative Kavanagh of Fountain Hills that, among other changes, proposes that each in-state student contributes at least $2,000 of non-university money to his or her education per year.
Though this site has been critical of Kavanagh before and there are obviously some tensions in his proposal, the Tribune headline is wildly misleading. This bill would not dictate that tuition go up $2,000 per year (though it nearly has before, and few were so indignant). This bill, if passed without amendment, would dictate that at least $2,000 per year of each student’s full tuition came from a source other than the state of Arizona. This excepts cases of academic and athletic scholarship.
Those especially incensed by this legislation argue that it robs students who qualify for financial aid but not academic scholarships the ability to get a completely debt-free degree. However, prudent voters ought to take a look at the assumptions that precede this argument. The Tribune article lists that nearly 50% of ASU undergraduates do not pay a dime in tuition. Pair this figure with the fact that only 28% of ASU undergraduates earn a degree in four years. Less than three-quarters earn a degree in six years, the last interval for which the school reports graduation rates.
The $2,000 stipulated in Kavanagh’s proposal could be covered by any non-university funding, so federal funding would apply here. Anyone who didn’t qualify for university academic aid that had genuine financial need would certainly qualify for Pell grants, other federal aid programs, or private scholarships. Kavanagh’s argument that at least $2,000 should come from somewhere other than a flailing, failing state is far from radical — indeed, when so few student supported by state money fail to ever graduate, it might even be a conversation in the direction of better, more effective higher education.
Even if a student somehow could not cover the $2,000 Kavanagh stipulates here with federal and other non-university aid, $8,000 is an absurdly low cost of a college degree. Detractors of this bill say it’s heinous to burden students with $8,000 “when the alternative is coming out with zero debt.” But let one fact be very clear here: just because the state provides degrees at zero cost to students does not mean the degrees actually cost nothing. Far, far from it. This bill would only increase a theoretical student’s tuition by $2,000 per year if he 1) did not qualify for academic scholarship, 2) did not qualify for any federal or private aid, and 3) is currently attending school absolutely free of charge.
The state can’t afford to keep giving out free degrees, especially not to a student populace of which only a third graduate in four years. Rep Kavanagh isn’t just unpopular today for proposing students contribute in a meaningful financial way to their degrees. He’s also unpopular for reminding the bright-eyed idealists in higher education that there ain’t no such thing as free college.
From HB2675 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2675p.pdf):
“A STUDENT MAY NOT USE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FUNDING, INCLUDING GRANTS, GIFTS, SCHOLARSHIPS OR TUITION BENEFITS OR OTHER TYPES OF FUNDING ADMINISTERED BY OR THROUGH A UNIVERSITY OR AN AFFILIATE OF A UNIVERSITY, TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THAT STUDENT’S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH.”
First, how can private funding be a burden on the state, and why shouldn’t it go to cover a student’s $2,000? Second, from the Pell Grant website (https://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/PellGrants.jsp?tab=funding):
“Your school can apply Pell Grant funds to your school costs, pay you directly (usually by check), or combine these methods. The school must tell you in writing how much your award will be and how and when you’ll be paid.”
From the phrasing of the bill, it can easily be interpreted that a Pell grant (for example, among others) is administered through a university, and therefore can’t work to cover the $2,000 contribution.
Also, what you say about academic scholarships seems to only be 5% the case:
“B. SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO STUDENTS WHO…
RECEIVE A GRANT, AWARD OR SCHOLARSHIP THAT IS BASED SOLELY ON ACADEMIC MERIT OR SOLELY ON A SPECIAL APTITUDE, TALENT OR ABILITY FROM A COMPETITIVE NATIONAL PROGRAM. THIS EXCEPTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN FIVE PER CENT OF THE STUDENTS WHO ENROLL FOR THE FIRST TIME AS UNDERGRADUATES AT EACH UNIVERSITY.”
Who determines which 5% are lucky enough to be exempt, and how are they chosen?
I think another quote from Kavanagh in the East Valley Tribune article is quite telling: “When students are paying nothing many don’t take the classes as seriously, and we have also created a perverse incentive for students who may not be academically prepared for universities.”
I hope he has research to back that up, but I suspect it’s just conjecture.
Thank you for reading and for the correction. The Tribune article states: “Students may still use outside scholarships, Pell Grants, student loans and other non-university related funding to make up that difference though.” That’s where that point in the argument comes from in the above, but you are keen to point out that I shouldn’t trust the statute interpretation of an entire staff of professional journalists.
If your interpretation is more correct, the $2k stipulated by Kavanagh would have to be covered either by personal money or private scholarships not given through the school (from private foundations, for example). It makes the proposed legislation somewhat more radical, but the point stands that only for students who go to school absolutely free would have to pay $2,000 more. Kavanagh’s point is to draw attention to how much state support is given to students who never graduate, a skepticism worth more than a cursory dismissal for his admittedly unclear legislative composition.
I would like to ask those whining about this bill, why did they not speak up each time that universities raised tuition over the past ten years? Especially given that, universities justified tuition increases to increase financial aid for needy students.
You will see me working often as a cashier at a local grocery store, paying my way through college. Why are 48% of my fellow students (almost all of adult age) at ASU unable to work even a few hours per week to pay something toward their education? Why do I have to work additional hours each year to fund their “entitlements”? Let’s be honest here, those who are whining believe that some segments of our adult population “deserve” a free ride, while others will just have to work harder to pay for the others (free loaders).
We are all adults; we all agree that a university education is valuable, so why do nearly half deserve something for nothing?
Perhaps it is no coincidence that there are 48% of ASU students paying no tuition, when 49% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. I happen to fall into the 51% who do, even though I am a student.
Thank you Rep Kavanagh for demanding some accountability from the 48%, it might mean that I won’t have to work more hours next year to pay for their, AND my education.
Alex you use occam’s razor like processing when you draw the conclusion that because someone cannot afford college, that must mean your extra hours at the grocery store are being used to supplement someone else’s tuition and fees. My husband is a full time welder, father of 2, coach & volunteer…and a full time student. I can assure you, his days are long…his nights even longer. His work is back breaking, he sustains burns to his hands, neck, and face regularly. Because he is independent with dependants, he qualifies for a pell grant. That makes it possible for him to return to school so that he can have an additional skill in this shaky economy where he was layed off a few times. He is a skilled tradesmen, but he chose to go back to school to enhance his economic marketability. Now, you assert that you work 20 or so hours a week in a grocery type establishment, yet you don’t qualify for or use financial aid? Then you must have family support or you must still be a dependant. And if what you say is true of your work place/hours, then there is no way you pay federal or state income taxes…to the contrary son, you most likely get a refund. And it is my husband’s tax payments to the state which probably offsets your refund. Because although he qualifies for a pell grant, he still owes state taxes. He makes enough to support a family of four, but not quite enough to pay for himself to be educated, while steadily setting aside for our kids’ education in a 529 plan. So I won’t have it! I won’t have some little pimply face grocery store clerk with no children to raise and mommy and daddy’s checkbook, PRETEND that their friggin measly minimum wage check is going to pay for my super hard working, multi-tasking husband’s education. Life just ain’t that simple johnny-boy, and you DON’T know everyone’s story! Imagine that, a grocery store clerk thinking he pays for other people’s education…what a nice thought to boost your own ego:-)
Furthermore, Mr. Alex the grocery store clerk, esq., that is exactly what the republicans (supreme destroyers of the U.S. economy) want you to believe. You are in the class of the “working poor”; my husband is just barely in the lower spectrum of the “middle class”, but the republicans, who represent NEITHER one of those classes, want us at each other’s throats so that the REAL holder of the suffix, esquire (maybe the owner of the entire chain of the grocery store you cashier at) can pay you LESS, dodge taxes, and vacation in Anguilla, while you man his cash register & mop his floors clean!
Anybody who thinks that a student presently attending the UA or ASU is someehow graduating from college ‘debt free’ obviously has not attended university in some time…
No one gets their tuition even nearly ‘free’; unless you are independently wealthy every student is graduating with a crapload of debt…but hey what’s a few dollars more for the banks to eat up…
Here’s something else wildly misleading: http://now.msn.com/now/0223-arizona-tuition-increase.aspx
Not that msn.com was ever an exemplar of quality reporting, but, you know, anything that paints Arizona as the land of philistine wackos is sure to garner a fair amount of web traffic.
First off, that 48% of students receiving free college educations is TWO YEARS old and not accurate. It is currently closer to 25% and free only means tuition, which is definitely not the only cost of going to college.
No one gets a degree for free! My family is in the lowest income bracket possible, meaning I receive the most from the Pell and University grants. I also have an academic scholarship and work 20 hours a week. And you know what? I still HAVE to take out loans to survive. Having most of your tuition paid by financial aid does NOT mean you are riding for free. There are books, food, parking, gas, rent, utilities, health care costs, and more associated with going to school and no matter how good your grades or how low your income, you have to work hard to go to school. My parents cant help me out at all and not because they didn’t go to school, they did, but because the economy is a tough, tough place. My younger sister may never be able to attend college with this new hike and that is extremely unfair.
Why is it so bad that tax payer’s money is helping to educate the next generation? Instead the tax money that goes into private pockets or funds decorative highway art or other needless expenses should be taken to task, NOT education.
What I think is that the gap between the rich and the poor is being widened even more. The students who don’t take school seriously? The ones who have parents pay for their cars and schooling and credit cards. Spend a few hours on campus and listen to the conversations around you. Its not the financial aid students who often don’t graduate or take it seriously, its the wealthy ones who are not yet immature enough to go to school. And you know what? They will still have their parents pay for this and it will be the students who are on financial aid, who care about school, that don’t go. Want to see graduate rates drop even more? What to watch as the state dumbs down the poor? Well this bill is giving us front row seats.
“What I think is that the gap between the rich and the poor is being widened even more. The students who don’t take school seriously? The ones who have parents pay for their cars and schooling and credit cards. Spend a few hours on campus and listen to the conversations around you. Its not the financial aid students who often don’t graduate or take it seriously, its the wealthy ones who are not yet immature enough to go to school. And you know what? They will still have their parents pay for this and it will be the students who are on financial aid, who care about school, that don’t go. Want to see graduate rates drop even more? What to watch as the state dumbs down the poor? Well this bill is giving us front row seats.”
All I have to say is this….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk4CiwIDOpI
And those rich kids are a waste of their parent’s money, but guess what, that money is helping fund the same institution that you are working your butt off at even if they are not. Maybe the problem is that since our pre-college education in this nation sucks, employers don’t trust hiring anyone without a college degree, so now the point of college is to get accredited approval to join the workforce instead of offering a quality education to those who really that for its own sake. So these kids that blow off school on their parent’s dime are not there because they desire and education, but because employers have lost trust in our pre-college education as a nation and demand accredited proof of people’s education before they start giving people jobs. This makes business profitable for colleges and they can then charge whatever they want for tuition and tell you to go get a loan or scholarship to afford their tuition or go have fun working at McDonald’s the rest of your life. Scholarships only enable this artificially high price rather than challenge it…the only way to change the system is an outright en mass boycott in protest, but no one will do that because we are taught in schools that we depend on college as the only source for an adequate education that will grant us access to a decent job.
Another thing is opposition to paying at least 2k towards one’s education is implicitly saying it isn’t even worth a personal sacrifice of 2k…whether it even is, is disputable, but if one is willing to sacrifice 4 years of their life and hours of hard work, how then is it not also worth at least 2k out of their own pocket? If you are only willing to do something if it comes out of any pocket but your own, then it really isn’t as worthwhile to you as you think it is.