Pell Mell?

On my desk I have the White House Proposal for Educational Reform and our latest report, "Campus Commons? What Faculty, Financial Officers and Others Think About Controlling College Costs," and the two present some interesting contrasts and questions.

The Washington Post Monday described Obama's plan to expand the Pell Grant program as "an entitlement akin to Medicare and Social Security." As one of the partners in the Facing Up to the Nation's Finances initiative, entitlement reform tops our list of ways we can improve our nation's fiscal outlook. So when a new entitlement proposal comes along, it brings some anxiety with it. Especially considering that when Pell Grants started, they covered about 60 percent of the cost of college but now they are much less effective, covering only about a third of the bill. To put these grants on track with skyrocketing college costs is almost sure to increase our national debt at a time when it's the highest it has ever been.

Speaking to presidents and financial officers as we did in "The Iron Triangle," (pdf) and "Campus Commons?" we identified a few factors contributing to the pace of inflation of college costs, at least as higher ed professionals see it. They believe that rising costs and declining support from the state are being passed on to students. The greatest share of college costs are the human costs of paying for talented professors and administrative staff.

Considering that health care benefits are hurting almost all companies and combine that with reductions in state support and we can partially see why cost is rising. Health care is one reason why colleges like to rely on adjuncts whose part-time status prevents the schools from paying that benefit. I mention this only to point out that Washington efforts to reform one area such as health care may help alleviate costs in another, such as college costs. But while interviewing college financial officers for "Campus Commons?" I often asked if they thought college costs would ever go down or level off, and they seemed doubtful.

State officers and college presidents and financial officers all say that if we increase the number of college graduates, then the economy in an area will improve and more jobs will be available. Obama is betting on this, and that is why he is pushing for the U.S. to once again lead the world in college graduation rates. His support for increased Pell Grants is a big push in that direction. But "Campus Commons?" reveals an opposing voice already in the system that should not be ignored.

Many faculty members believe that too many students who come to college unprepared for its rigors are being pushed through. They also see students who don't pay for school as caring less about it. As one professor put it, "The idea that everybody should get into college, that it should be paid for by somebody else. One of the biggest problems I see is students who don't have to pay right now. You know what? They'd care a little bit more. I see students who really don't give a rip."

The public would agree with this instructor, as demonstrated in "Squeeze Play" when 93 percent agreed that "people who make sacrifices will appreciate college because they sacrifice to get it." On the other hand, most Americans also worry that many qualified, motivated students miss out on the chance for higher education because they lack money. In a sense, a lot of Americans recognize the complexity of the situation. Even congressional leaders critical of Obama's budget plans to let the government loan directly to students say that the lending status quo cannot be maintained, one wonders if it is the college budgeting status quo that we should be looking at.

It occurs to me that if the government becomes a direct lender then this may empower them to put more pressure on higher education to contain costs, but isn't this kind of reform more likely to succeed if it comes from within the system than outside it. Rather than making schools more affordable by providing more money, shouldn't we be reining in the costs?

Or maybe expanding access to higher ed and controlling its costs isn't enough. Perhaps we should revamp the system entirely and redefine how we approach positioning our country for economic success. The faculty in "Campus Commons?" began by telling us that too many of their students are unprepared. And when students are unprepared to go to college and pushed through the system to graduate, as faculty maintain that they are, then wouldn't an increase in funding of this formula amount to wasting money?
The Department of Education's budget plan includes a paragraph titled "Focuses on College Completion." It promises to help low-income students succeed and complete their college education. And it pledges that there will be a "rigorous evaluation component to ensure what works."

This is sadly vague. If by "what works," they mean what best prepares graduates for a competitive global economy, then this is something that we should get behind. But if by "what works" they mean what gets more students to graduate, I think a faculty member interviewed for "Campus Commons?" put it well, saying: "I could graduate a whole mess of students, I just have to, boom, lower my standards."