<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Idea a Noble Failure

Enormous cost not only drawback to proposal for free community college

The Columbian
Published:

President Barack Obama’s vision in which “two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today” stands as ambitious, noble, and thought-provoking. Yes, it also seems unrealistic, unaffordable, and unattainable, but those qualifiers should not be enough to entirely dismiss the notion; many a great idea has appeared beyond reach prior to its conception. As Robert Kennedy once said, “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were and ask why not?”

So, why not? Why should the United States not make two years of college attainable and affordable for anybody who wishes to pursue them?

Well, one reason is the issue of cost and the fact that the plan asks states to contribute 25 percent of the expenses. If the federal government provided subsidies for millions of high school graduates to attend community college, the tax burden would be enormous; colleges would have to compensate for funding currently provided by tuition payments, causing further budget headaches for state governments; and colleges would be faced with untenable expenses for construction and hiring to accommodate vast enrollment increases.

Another drawback would involve how effectively students take advantage of their opportunities. As Michelle R. Weise writes for The Wall Street Journal: “Community college is great if it helps you get a bachelor’s degree, but only one in five students attending these institutions goes on to earn the degree within six years according to federal data. In addition, only 21 percent of first-time, full-time students earn an associate’s degree within three years, and tuition is not the main obstacle to the completion of a degree for low-income students.” And, presumably, students who already enroll in community college are more motivated and dedicated than many who would attend simply because tuition is paid for by the federal government.

While those drawbacks to Obama’s proposal have been pointed out by critics, there also is an important philosophical quandary that must be considered. The issue concerns the personal value of working toward a goal. Of earning an accomplishment. Of sacrificing in pursuit of an aspiration.

Certainly, having the government make community college more accessible would not automatically place an associate’s degree into a student’s hands; that student still would have to study and have to pass classes. But there also is much to be said in favor of people who identify college as a path for improving their lives and then make choices to help them chase that dream. There is much to be said for learning that true achievement requires true effort.

Obama’s proposal would require students to attend college at least half-time, maintain a grade-point average of at least 2.5, and be on schedule to complete their programs. It would require effort on the part of students, yet it would further entrench the notion that the government’s role is to provide handouts rather than simply offering a framework for people to improve themselves.

Undoubtedly, college can be an important linchpin for lifting the disadvantaged to the middle class. Certainly, community college, as Clark College frequently demonstrates, can play a vital role in that transformation. And yes, there is some value in the idea of making college as affordable and universal as high school. But as that notion generates thoughtful discussion, it is crucial to recognize that the drawbacks to the plan extend beyond simply the financial cost of it.

Loading...