Depending on the November election, higher education policy will embrace a radical increase in funding or a stark divergence that focuses on accountability and limiting government influence.
For Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both have detailed their approaches to higher education policy, as the Boston Globe wrote. Short of an unprecedented scandal, though, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, so it’s more relevant to analyze Clinton’s plan against Donald Trump’s.
“Front-runner Hillary Clinton has proposed a detailed and nuanced plan befitting the theme of her candidacy. For current college students, Clinton says her $350-billion plan would provide grants to states to make tuition debt-free for four-year, public colleges and limit the cost of non-tuition costs, like room, board, and books. The plan would also provide tuition-free community college, as President Barack Obama has proposed,” Nik DeCosta-Lipa wrote.
States would pledge not to reducing funding for higher education, families would be responsible for an undetermined amount of college costs, and students would do some form of work-study. Clinton has also discussed refinancing student loan interest rates for current borrowers. That refinancing would have a very minor, and regressive, effect, but the deeper problems with her plan lies in her failure to understand what drives college costs.
Federal aid has driven up college costs, distancing students from tuition prices and colleges from cost constraints. When the federal government provides easy access to loans, more students borrow. About 40 percent of students, however, don’t complete a degree. Their job prospects are lower, and they have student loans to repay. Until colleges are responsible for student success, or enrollments drop, they have no reason to restrain costs. And, as students don’t grasp what accepting loans means for their future, they don’t change their behavior.
More government spending will feed the beast to gluttonous new heights.
Trump’s higher education policy could be a stark contrast to Clinton’s.
“The presumptive Republican nominee expressed concern about the price of college, though he did not offer much detail about how he would address the issue,” DeCosta-Lipa wrote.
Trump has been cagey at best in explaining his higher education approach. In debates and television appearances, he’s suggested the government should lower interest rates, eliminate the Department of Education, and pledged to create jobs when asked about higher education. It’s unclear what is rhetoric and what is actionable.
Were he to stick to ideas from Sam Clovis, his campaign’s policy director, he could benefit students. Even though Trump isn’t a beloved figure on college campuses. Requiring colleges to be accountable for higher debt loads and getting the government out of the student loan business would mark a drastic change for college students.
Enrollments could drop. As could debt loads. With any luck, tuition would fall because colleges lack a steady, reliable income source. They’d have to compete for students who are wary of price increases.
How, exactly, a Trump presidency would push those ideas is unclear. His aversion to explaining any plan in detail encourages skepticism for his lip service. For once, though, Trump’s goals are intriguing instead of perplexing.
With Clinton, state and federal funding will balloon. With Trump, it could also balloon. But Trump is offering ideas on higher education policy that are rarely heard. Whether he would follow through is anyone’s guess.
