By: Julianne Culley Everybody would love to graduate college and say they didn’t have to pay a dime towards tuition. However, there are many tradeoffs to the general public, including enormous tax increases and potential for decreases in the overall quality of education that is being offered. To determine the right way to implement a solution for this civic issue, it is necessary to get down to the foundation of what problem this type of policy is trying to address. It seems the two main purposes of free tuition are: (1) to recruit top-tier talented minds from home and abroad to fill specialized careers that is or could be facing a shortage of workers and (2) to empower American students who are discouraged from continuing their education due to the high sticker price of attending college. With this in mind, I have! come to the conclusion that something must be done, although universal free tuition is not the answer.
There are two solutions that I think would work well in addressing the concerns that are coming from both sides. First, I think there needs to be economic incentive to enter fields that teach the skills for careers paths that are supposed to have shortages of workers. For example, geriatric care has been identified as a field that will have significant labor shortages in the coming years as the Baby Boomer generation ages. One way the government can ensure that there will be enough professionals providing care to the aging population is to subsidize students’s education bills after graduating with a degree that would properly train them for a career in geriatrics. This framework could be applied generally to many different fields. Additionally, the subsidized tuition would be a great incentive for students who are interested in the field, but don’t thi! nk they can afford the cost of attending school. It also could incentiv! ize bright students from other countries to study, and hopefully make a career, in the United States. The second solution I am proposing already exists to a certain extent. Federal student aid is not currently providing enough to meet financial need. At Penn State, I am likely to graduate with more debt than if I were graduating from an Ivy League school. This is hard to imagine when the sticker price at Penn State is nearly half that of most of the ivy schools. However, one thing that Ivy schools do differently then public schools is meet 100% of financial need. Since these schools have a more realistic interpretation then the government of how much of my education I can pay for, it can be less expensive for most Americans to go to the Ivy schools. If the government actually made an effort to meet students’ individual financial needs, students would be able to graduate with less debt. This would certainly cause an increase in taxes, but it would ! ;not cause nearly as drastic of an increase as universal free tuition. For that reason, I believe this is a viable compromise between the two sides of the debate on free tuition. Although free tuition is unfeasible, there are various other initiatives that can achieve the same goals, and require far fewer tax dollars. I am excited to see how this civic issue will affect the Presidential race in 2020.
0 Comments
By: Julianne Culley The issue of making college tuition-free has recently come to the fore in American politics. The major argument for free public college and university education is the same as for free public education in general: like the free public elementary and high schools already existing in the United States, free public higher education provides educational opportunity for all and strengthens the American workforce.
Actually,! until fairly recently, the United States had a free or virtually free ! system of public higher education. In 1862, to provide educational opportunity for the “sons of toil,” the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act, establishing land-grant public colleges and universities on a tuition-free basis. For roughly a century thereafter, many American public colleges and universities either charged no tuition or a nominal fee for attendance. The State University of New York (SUNY) system—the largest in the nation—remained tuition-free until 1963. The University of California system, established in 1868, had free tuition until the 1980s. In recent decades, however, the situation has changed dramatically, with tuition costs soaring to dizzying heights at both public and private colleges. Between 1978 and 2013, American college tuition reportedly rose by 1,120 percent. This enormous hike in tuition has had a devastating impact upon educational opportunity. Unable to afford college, many young people never attend it or drop out along the way. S! tudies have found that the primary reason young people cite for not attending college is its enormous cost. Many other young people can afford to attend college only by working simultaneously at paying jobs (which takes time away from their studies) and/or by running up enormous debt. As recently as the early 1990s, most college students did not take out loans to finance their education. Now, however, nearly three out of four college graduates have borrowed to cover their college costs, running up a debt averaging $30,000 each. As a result, American student loan debt now totals $1.3 trillion. Paying off this debt at high interest rates constitutes a heavy burden for young Americans, and all too many of them either default on it or, to repay it, give up on their dreams and settle for working at jobs they dislike. The tuition squeeze on young Americans results largely from severe reductions in state and local funding for public colleges and universities, usually initiated ! by conservative, budget-cutting governments. Since 2008 alone, state fu! nding for public universities has dropped 16 percent. Indeed, there is considerable question as to whether public colleges and universities are still public institutions, for most of their costs—once covered by government funding—are now met by student tuition. Anxious to maintain or expand operations despite declining levels of government funding, college and university administrators cut campus costs by replacing tenured and tenure-line faculty with low-paid part-timers and underpaid full-timers in temporary positions. In 1969, tenured and tenure-track faculty held three out of four teaching positions. By 2013, this “regular” faculty held one out of five. Faculty morale and the quality of education have plummeted. In addition, campus administrators, faced with declining income, are increasingly inclined to accept funding from wealthy individuals and corporations that are reshaping higher education to serve their interests. From 2005 to 2013, two rightwing billi! onaires, Charles and David Koch, spent $68 million funding the kinds of programs they wanted on 308 U.S. college and university campuses. In New York, when Governor Andrew Cuomo initiated Start-Up NY, a scheme to provide a tax-free haven to businesses that moved onto or near public (and some private) college campuses, there was never any question about how SUNY’s chancellor and other administrators would respond. Instead of resisting this business takeover of university facilities and mission, they became leading cheerleaders for it. In these circumstances, free tuition would, at the least, restore educational opportunity to millions of Americans and lift the terrible burden of debt from the shoulders of young people. In addition, by bringing large numbers of new students and their funding to public colleges and universities, it would reduce the incentive for administrators to turn the faculty into less than sub-par. Furthermore, although private colleges might resent ! this enhanced funding of their public competitors, the resulting compet! ition for students might encourage them to decrease their astronomical tuition, thus providing them with a more economically diverse student body. By: Julianne Culley On March 2, 2017 I attended a deliberation regarding the topic of race. Given our current political climate this discussion intrigued me as race relations are intense and changing. We were presented with three approaches of where race relations take place those being education, community and safe spaces. In regards to the education approach the deliberator leaders brought up the idea of implementing classes that talk about race relations, racial sensitivity and racial recognition. An attendee in my small disc! ussion group had shared that her school has already implemented a class like this and initially the class was full of arguments but by the end of the year resulted in better ties between the different ethnic groups. However the main focus of our education and race discussion revolved around how schools teach history. Many shared that the only times they learned about black history was slavery and civil rights and black people are much more than that. Our history books seem to be surrounded by white success whether in America or Europe. So many inventions were created, places were found, barriers were broken and pieces of art were created by black people that we are not aware of because we are not taught it in schools. One of the attendees had mentioned the Harlem Renaissance is being skipped in public school history classes which is a shame and its influence and intellect should not be robbed from students. The second approa! ch presented was race relations in our community. We discussed the impo! rtance of ethnic and cultural clubs and events and how it is crucial that one exposes themselves to other ethnic groups so they gain respect and appreciation for it. My small discussion group agreed that Penn State flourishes with many ethnic groups and that the ethnic groups are able to share their culture successfully even on a campus that is a majority of white. The third approach was safe spaces and the possibility of integrating a racial safe space on campus. Safe spaces are a controversial topic and there are proponents and opponents who stand very strongly where they stand. My small discussion group was pretty split on the idea of safe spaces. Some thought that safe spaces hinder creating ties with others and stop conflict from being solved. While other believe that safe spaces are crucial to have as they are a place where one can freely go and talk without the fear of confrontation. Another attendee had brought up that college can be one's safe space if you are apar! t of the majority. Penn State may be a safe space for white people because white is the dominate race here while HBCU schools are safe spaces for black people because they are predominately black. My discussion group for the most part was open to implementing a racial safe space on campus especially given our current times and how politically active Penn State's student body is. Overall the deliberation shed light on many racial issues that I had never thought of and informed me on ways to strengthen racial relations here at Penn State.
Julianne Culley I attended a deliberation at Webster's Café in downtown State College to converse and discuss sexual assault on Penn State's campus and how to combat it. Three approaches were presented to us by the discussion leaders those being alcohol, help available and bystander intervention. The role alcohol plays in sexual assault is major and creates haziness to the truth of the story. We were presented with a question along the lines of "If the school banned alcohol do you think sexual assault numbers would go down?". My discussion group all agreed that banning alcohol on a college campus is just not going to happen and students will obtain it in other ways. Alcohol is an innate part of c! ollege culture and at a school like Penn State that embodies t! he cliché of a "party school" any action of banning alcohol will be met with rebellion from the students. It is unfortunate that many have to abuse alcohol to the point where they use it to prey on victims. A student should be able to go out and have fun at a party without the concern of being targeted because they are drinking. We then moved on to deliberate on the factor of help available. Our group acknowledged that Penn State has programs like SafeWalk and the Blue Lights but also believe that those programs have flaws but fixes can be made so they better cater to a campus of 45,000 students. In regards to the SafeWalk, the biggest flaw in the program is the wait time. One attendee had stated that when she previously used the app it said the wait time would be 20 minutes meaning she was going to have to stand on a corner late at night for 20 minutes. A solution the wait time ! was suggested of using gold carts. Golf carts would allow the auxiliary police to reach students quicker and in larger numbers. Our deliberation group also thought of the idea of having a person who sole purpose at fraternity parties is to be a guardian and a source of help for anyone who feels unsafe. The third approach presented to us was bystander invention. So many people see situations happening and do nothing about it because they either don't want to get involved or don't think the situation needs intervention. However, our group all came to the consensus that you should intervene if the situation seems odd at all because its better to intervene and be wrong than to do nothing and the situation become something much more for the victim. Also, it just discussed that bystander intervention has a double standard. When a girl interrupts a situation to help a friend its seen as sisterhood-ly but if a male where t! o interrupt a situation it could be met with remarks like "dude, s! top cockblocking me". This double standard is unfortunate because any nonconsensual situation is never "cool" and should be stopped immediately. Overall, the deliberation shed light on many topics surrounding sexual assault and gave me and the other attendees the resources and knowledge to help combat it on our campus.
Julianne Culley Millennials are a group that are much different than their baby-boomer predecessors. They don’t strive to create cookie cutter like households. They are widely educated, no matter their gender or race. They have normalized marijuana. They think innovatively and sustainably. And they have been the group hit the hardest by the tough realities of the cost of college. Millennials form a generation with more student loan debt than any other. Research shows that two-thirds of 2011 college graduates graduated with an average student loan debt of $26,600, or $27,500 when adjusted for inflation. Contrast that with 1993, when less than half of students graduated with debt, and those who did averaged $9,350, which is about $15,000 when adjusted for inflation. Racked up student loans have hindered the steps that one usually takes after acquiring their education like buying a house, raising a family, getting married, planning for the future, etc. forcing the millennials to take life routes different than those of their parent and grandparents.
With the added pressures that debt tolls and the already existing pressures of entering adulthood, what are millennials doing to deal? One common and ridiculed way that millennials are trying to stay afloat is by living with their parents. To relieve another added financial responsibility of being an adult, some millennials have opted out of renting or buying a home and are moving back in with their parents after college. This coping tendency has been proven to not be healthy for the family system. When a post-college student moves back in with their parents they are reversed back in time with less freedom than they enjoyed the past four years while at college leading them to grow frustrated with their parents. On the other side of the spectrum, parents are often led to moments of frustration too, as they believe their child who has just recently moved back in is lazy and wasting their education. Ultimately, the biggest problem with millennials not leaving home is that it causes major economic headaches. It’s about establishing your own home and family or, the lack of wherewithal to do so and the impact that has on the overall economy. Young adults who find themselves living at home are contributing to a decline in economic activity by not forming their own households.With so many millennials living at home, household formation has reached a 40 year low. Household formation helps fuel economic growth because of the goods and services that are bought to set up a new household. In addition, more people renting tends to make the rental market more competitive and fuel new construction. Another factor of adulthood that has become compromised by the tendency for millennials to have student loan debt is marriage. Marriages have been affected by student loan debt in two ways. One being people simply do not tie the knot because weddings are expensive . Sure, one could cheaply elope but with the growing trend of millennials believing a traditional ceremony to be “not necessary” and millennials having outstanding amounts of student debt, the days of extravagant marriage ceremonies are declining. Student loan debt also affects marriage as one who possesses the debt has been proven to be less attractive to prospective partners. The problems of your spouse become yours so, many millennials are often factoring in the other’s debt when contemplating marrying a significant other. Not only are the drowning debts of college hindering millennials from marrying but it’s also affected the amount of children they have or if they have any at all. Do you currently have over $245,000 in your bank account? Well most millennials don’t and that is how much the U.S. Department of Agriculture project it would cost a middle-income couple to raise a child to the age of 18 in 2013. For higher-income families, that cost ballooned to $455,000. Those numbers are officially sending many millennials to take their birth control pills. Many millennials feel it is irresponsible to have children while also being consumed by large amounts of student debt. Many make the argument that millennials are not having children because they are a selfish generation but really not having a child because you can’t afford it is an act of selflessness. The most detrimental effect of college debt on millennials has been the defocusing of the future. Many millennials have not planned for retirement not because they don’t want to or it doesn’t cross their mind but because they simply cannot.Young people today are actually saving less than their parents did at the same age. According to one analysis, couples with student loans from college will lose $134,000 in retirement savings over their lifetimes as a result of that debt. Millennials are ridiculed for being unprepared for the future and unconcerned about life’s responsibilities because of their often weak financial statuses, but that may just be because they were confronted with other financial hindrances that no other generation has before. |
Categories
All
|