mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Higher Education Watch
Bigger Subsidies, Higher Prices

In an bid to assuage her party’s restive left flank, Hillary Clinton borrowed part of a key policy initiative from her socialist primary rival: a massive expansion of federal subsidies to public colleges and universities. But even the New York Times is warning that the policy might not work quite as it is being advertised to starry-eyed millennial liberals:

Hillary Clinton’s plan to allow most Americans to attend public universities at no cost could have the perverse effect of driving tuition higher as the federal government chased a tuition target that universities would simply raise at taxpayers’ expense, some experts warn.

In recent decades, the federal government has significantly expanded tuition subsidies, only to watch the cost of college climb even faster. Some experts see evidence that colleges have responded to past increases in federal subsidies by raising prices.

A 2015 study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that colleges pocketed up to 60 cents from every $1 increase in subsidies, either by increasing tuition or by cutting their own aid packages. The government pumps in money, and the colleges soak it up.

In fact, according to the study in question, which we reported on here, federal subsidies for higher education have raised tuition so much that they have probably reduced the overall number of people who could access a college education. The free money seems to flow directly into the pockets of academic administrators, whose numbers have been multiplying over the last several decades.

Clinton doesn’t offer details about how she would pay for the new program, but unless her administration is prepared to micromanage college budgets, it is unlikely that the initial price tag will still obtain after colleges have raised their tuitions to account for the anticipated federal windfall. Congress will need to keep expanding the outlay to keep college “free”—or, more likely, the program will diminish as prices rise, and subsidized students will be expected to share the burden through loans, which do not have such a glorious track record either.

It’s hard to overstate the short-sightedness of the “subsidize more” public policy approach to the college tuition problem. Policymakers should be focusing on disciplining the higher education market—by breaking the federal monopoly on accreditation, forcing colleges to share the risk from student loans, and promoting vocational education and other alternatives to the four-year BA—rather than offering colleges no-strings-attached windfalls.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Beauceron

    I assume her university plan will work with the same silky smooth precision as Obama’s healthcare plan.

  • Jim__L

    This is about the class of politically correct philosopher-kings turning their college experiences into free-of-charge six-year luxury-resort drugged-out sex-party getaways.

    This is exactly how the Assassins used to recruit people to murder their leaders, families, and friends. No joke. “This is the paradise in store for you, if you just do as we say”.

    It’s being used to assassinate Western Civilization. Has been since the 60’s.

  • Nevis07

    sure, let’s add yet another entitlement program to the long term balance sheet that’s deep in the red. Nevermind that most degrees only marginally pay for themselves at this point.

    If we’re going to throw money at this, at least use that money to build new universities that have to compete for students, add to local infrastructure and economy, all while increasing seat space to keep prices down and increasing access to more young people’s education.

  • Boritz

    “It’s hard to overstate the short-sightedness”

    The election is now a short-term proposition. If this gives her enough marginal votes to win, the young voters who put her over the top will have plenty of time (most of their lives) to deal with the repercussions and anyway are more likely to associate the problems with George W. Bush than with Hillary or her policies.

  • Fat_Man

    “unless her administration is prepared to micromanage college budgets,”

    Well, why not. The American people are addicted to their subsidies, and the colleges are subsidy junkies too. Don’t expect market based reforms, Congress has to feed its Jones.

    The only way to keep the federal budget under control is to impose wage and price controls on colleges. Limit administrative salaries to the Federal GS scale. Limit teaching salaries to the scale of the nearest big school district. Limit the number of administrators to not more than one for every two teachers (then decrease it, to one to three). Increase student teacher ratios to at least ten to one. I could go on, but you get the idea. You want a free education kids? You are going to have 8:00 A.M. classes, 8:00 P.M. classes, and classes on Friday.

  • Josephbleau

    I plan to spend my future retirement years getting a PhD in math (differential geometry). So I am all in for slurping the maximum free from crooked Hillary. Give it all and I’ll vote your way. My social security check should only be used for greens fees. I had to pay for the masters myself and I am pissed.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service