As more details of Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward higher education become public, they reinforce one concern: her ideas will drive up college costs.
Speaking in California, Clinton supported the state limiting the proportion of non-Californians in the University of California system, according to CNN.
“One of the things we are going to is get the cost of college down and I heard just today that the legislature in California is going to limit the number of foreign students,” Clinton said. “I have to say, I approve of that.”
The plan, approved by the California Assembly, will limit non-Californians to 10 percent of student enrollment.
The idea is to direct California funds to California students and avoid displacement.
“In a March 2016 audit of the University of California system, State Auditor Elaine Howle found that the number of non-Californian students in the college and university system jumped 82 percent between the 2010-11 and 2013-14 academic years,” Dan Merica wrote.
The dramatic increase comes from out-of-state students paying much more than in-state students to attend. Those students bring in more revenue to fund more spending by colleges.
“For the 2010–2011 academic year, the average tuition for an in-state student at a four year public school for an undergraduate student was $6,752. The average tuition for an out-of-state student at a four year public school for an undergraduate student was $15,742,” Hasani Isreal wrote for the Heath Resource Center at George Washington University.
That’s an extra $36,000, on average, per out-of-state student over four years.
Clinton’s embrace of a “California colleges for Californians” plan signals two things: she approves limiting opportunity and making colleges more reliant on tuition increases.
Students who attend college out of state attach a high value to those institutions. Prioritizing Californians because of their geographic luck limits colleges choosing their best students. That hurts students in states with lower-quality state college systems. It also hurts public colleges who want to prioritize student quality. The University of California systems requires out-of-state students to meet higher academic requirements, and it already prioritizes admission for in-state students.
This geographic affirmative action pretends that states, not students, benefit most from a college degree. Students who want to live in California will now have a more difficult time to bring their skills and value west.
California public colleges have lost independence in determining their student composition. Now, unconnected bureaucrats have more power to determine what they should look like.
As in-state students occupy more seats in California’s colleges, the system will need to cover that lost revenue somehow. As colleges can’t fathom cutting costs and limiting services, and government financial aid tends to increase costs, the practical response will be a tuition increase.
California might boost its in-state student proportion, but it does so by limiting opportunity for other Americans and making a college degree more expensive.
