A Counterpoint to Senator Sanders on College Access
While Senator Sanders's desire to expand government into educational access may reflect genuine concern for students' futures, several aspects of this argument deserve closer examination.
On International Rankings
The focus on degree attainment percentages overlooks important nuances. Many countries with higher college completion rates have tracked educational systems that channel students into vocational paths earlier, making direct comparisons misleading. Additionally, the U.S. remains home to the world's most prestigious universities and continues to attract international students precisely because of educational quality, not despite it. The question isn't simply whether we produce the highest percentage of college graduates, but whether our educational system effectively prepares people for diverse career paths and economic contribution.
On Affordability Concerns
The characterization of college costs as universally "outrageous" doesn't account for the significant financial aid already available - nor how increasing financial aid increases tuition. According to the College Board, roughly two-thirds of full-time undergraduates receive grants that don't need to be repaid. Many students at public universities already pay substantially reduced tuition through existing aid programs. Additionally, pathways like ROTC scholarships and National Guard service already provide full tuition coverage to students willing to serve their country—options that combine educational access with valuable leadership training and public service. The real challenge may be better communicating these options rather than assuming cost is an insurmountable barrier for "hundreds of thousands" of qualified students.
On Tuition-Free College Proposals
While programs like UVM Promise are well-intentioned, universal free tuition raises questions about resource allocation. Such programs benefit families at all income levels up to the threshold, including those who could afford to contribute. This approach may divert resources from students with greater need or from improving K-12 education, where interventions might have more significant impact on social mobility.
Moreover, UVM Promise's practical impact may be limited if, as some reports suggest, the university maintains an enrollment target of approximately 15% or fewer in-state students. If accurate, this would mean that UVM's primary mission serves out-of-state students who pay significantly higher tuition rates—a revenue model that subsidizes the institution but limits access for the very Vermont students the Promise program claims to serve. Expanding free tuition eligibility to families earning up to $100,000 matters little if admission slots for Vermonters remain constrained. Senator Sanders praises UVM for "moving in exactly the right direction," but the question remains whether the university is genuinely expanding opportunity for Vermont students or primarily engaged in public relations while maintaining a business model dependent on out-of-state enrollment.
This raises a fundamental challenge for scaling such programs nationally, as Mr. Sanders proposes: if the UVM model relies on out-of-state students paying premium tuition to subsidize in-state students, how would this work at a national level where every state's public universities are expected to provide free tuition to their residents? The financial model that makes UVM Promise feasible may not be replicable across the country.
On the Necessity of College Degrees
Mr. Sanders briefly acknowledges non-college career paths but doesn't fully engage with the concern that emphasizing free college inadvertently devalues vocational and technical education. Many middle-class careers facing worker shortages—healthcare technicians, skilled trades, advanced manufacturing—require credentials other than four-year degrees. Directing public resources predominantly toward traditional college may shortchange these alternatives and reinforce the problematic cultural message that four-year college is the only path to success and dignity in work.
On Long-Term Sustainability
Free tuition programs shift costs to taxpayers and state budgets without addressing underlying factors driving college cost increases—administrative growth, facility expansion, and reduced state funding over decades. Without addressing these structural issues, free tuition may simply transfer the burden rather than solve the affordability problem sustainably. We might ask why college costs have risen so dramatically faster than inflation, and whether making tuition "free" removes the market pressure that might otherwise force institutions to control costs.
Conclusion
Senator Sanders's advocacy hopefully stems from a sincere desire to help students and strengthen America's economic future. However, a more comprehensive approach might include strengthening
aid that targets those most in need, supporting diverse post-secondary pathways including vocational and technical education, incentivizing colleges to control costs rather than simply shifting them to taxpayers, and ensuring K-12 education prepares all students for success—whether they pursue college or other valuable career paths. The goal should be genuine opportunity and economic mobility, not simply maximizing college enrollment for its own sake
Comments
Post a Comment