State funding cannot solve tuition problem

Just last month, 48 states released their 2015 budgets, revealing that a majority of states reported an increase in funding for state colleges and universities, according to an Illinois State University finding. While this may seem like good news, skyrocketing tuition begs the question of whether the increase can solve the problem that currently persists in public higher education. State funding alone does not indicate a sustainable source of support for these universities; the government should rather employ a number of different efforts to help defray the burden of tuition.

In 1969, a year’s worth of tuition at a public university in the United States was around $1,200, in current dollars, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. For the 2006-2007 school year, average tuition at a public university is just over $11,000. Since the 1970s, college tuition has been increasing steadily — almost 6 percent faster than the rate of inflation, according to professor Ray Franke at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Thus, it is clear that rising inflation does not justify the exorbitant tuition hikes.

Increased state funding could help our public universities but the efforts are not a permanent solution, primarily due to the way we view college. More and more students are choosing to go to college, even as these institutions are now seen as less of a “subsidized public good” and more of a “competitive market good,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Katharine C. Lyall, former president of the University of Wisconsin System, coined this phrase to explain the shift in financial responsibility from public to private, which assumes that most are willing to invest in the hefty cost of college for the market value that it possesses in the workforce. But since states do not have the resources to take that responsibility on themselves, the matter is left in the hands of students. Therefore, if some students want their share of the “competitive market good” but do not have the money to attend the school that would benefit them the most, they might end up settling for college options that are only financially sound — and not be able to take advantage of the resources that a college education provides.

So, the recent news about increases in state funding is not necessarily a cause for celebration. The increased spending is a reaction to the end of the recession, the same way the spending cuts were a reaction to the recession. Even though 39 states cite that they have increased funding for higher education continuously for the 2015-2016 year, nine states reported a decrease. The need for a better system is apparent in just this inequality; even as the nation’s economy improves, nearly 20 percent of its states are unable to increase funding for their secondary school systems.

Reactionary measures to double-digit inflation in our national economy were primary motivators for cutting state funding in the 1970s. While a recovering economy has boosted most of the public university systems in the United States, the volatility of the economy has not worked in the favor of our public schools, and letting this system control the majority of the funding that they receive is unfair to the citizens at large. Public education cannot rely on funding that is so susceptible to changes in government policy.

Rather than leaving it in the hands of the states, the issue of funding is probably better handled by a greater power — the federal government. As Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed in his presidential campaign, standardizing university tuition in each state would create a more balanced and steady flow of resources. Countries in Europe are already one step ahead, with the governments of Germany, Finland and Sweden, among others, already offering free education funded by taxpayers. But since the population of the United States is bigger, it is not feasible for taxpayers to be the source of funding for the nation’s college students. Instead, Sanders wants to place a tax on Wall Street to fund the $75 billion cost. A plan like this would alleviate the burden of college tuition on the general population. By creating a nation of free secondary education, this would establish a system where colleges would compete by increasing the quality of their education, rather than their costs.

While tuition at public universities would not directly affect private research institutions like USC, it would profoundly affect fellow students at the UC system. Moreover, if costs in the UC system decreased, along with costs of public school systems in different states, it would provide significant incentive for private schools to lower their tuition costs to make themselves competitive. Putting higher education’s finances in the hands of the federal government would alleviate the financial burden that colleges currently place on students.