Expansion of the US Community College System
Despite scholarships and financial aid, many students in the United States (US) are overwhelmed by the steep cost of domestic college tuition. Even with a multitude of federal-level (Free Application for Federal Student Aid, America’s College Promise Act of 2021, etc.) and state-level (California Promise Program, Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program, etc.) policies to help relieve the financial stress of college, the reality is that the cost of higher education continues to rise at an unaffordable rate (Denning 155). Since 2011, the cost of tuition has increased in all types of higher education institutions: public two-year (7%), public four-year (9%), and private four-year (14%) (College Board 13). This is particularly concerning when average income is not increasing at a proportional rate: in 2020, the median household income showed “a decrease of 2.9 percent” (United States Census Bureau). As one would expect, as college costs climb and incomes decrease, economic barriers deter people from attending universities. In our first world meritocracy — a system where societal advancement is earned through skill — less educated people are disadvantaged when competing for employment at every market scale: local, national, and international.
From the global scope, if economic barriers discourage Americans from pursuing higher education, they will be at a competitive disadvantage against more educated candidates. For instance, numerous European countries such as Greece, Norway, and Sweden offer free tuition (M. Lynch). Because of this financial accessibility to higher education, it is not uncommon to see Europeans return to school and pursue additional degrees — something much rarer in the US (Vandenberghe and Debande 428). Conversely, citizens from countries with less academic accessibility than the US are at a disadvantage against more educated Americans. Evidently, people born in countries with more educational opportunities are far more likely to succeed in the international market. This fact undermines a fundamental principle of a meritocracy: to eliminate any unjustified biases in society, especially in the economic aspect. Hence, achieving a truly equitable market would require making education financially accessible worldwide. It would be impractical to attempt to tackle such a complex issue like educational inequality from a global approach, when societal factors such as government and economic structure differentiate each nation. Thus, I suggest for US leaders to improve its domestic education system through any means appropriate based on its own national data. While some argue that increasing need-based financial aid is a practical method to make American higher education more affordable, a better solution is to expand the community college system. This would make college more accessible to a wider pool of aspiring American students, thereby allowing them fairer competition in the international marketplace.
Money is restricting Americans from pursuing higher education. A 2021 study conducted by the University Professional and Continuing Education Association reported that “42% of respondents cited financial reasons for stopping out of higher education.” This ranks money as the leading reason for college dropouts, above other top reasons like family commitments (32%) and health reasons (15%) (Giovanetti). Clearly, the hefty tuition price is dissuading ambitious students from earning degrees. In other words, these daunting statistics demonstrate a widespread need for more affordable college, in spite of student financial aid.
Admittedly, the federal government offers an impressive and commendable amount of financial assistance to students each year. The US Office of Financial Student Aid provides “more than $150 billion in financial aid every year” in grants, loans, and work-study which “makes college education possible for more than 10 million students each year.” This number equates to “83.8% of first-time, first-year undergraduate students receiv[ing] financial aid in some form” (Hanson). This incredible effort by the government has opened education to so many students and need-based financial aid should definitely be continued. It provides an academic gateway for economically marginalized groups such as African Americans, immigrants and student parents.
But as typical with impressive statistics like this one, the large numbers hide a few caveats which reveal that the system is not as efficient as the Office of Financial Aid presents. As many American students including myself have experienced, obtaining financial aid is not as simple as it seems. There are a plethora of criteria that students must meet to qualify for aid: demonstrating satisfactory academics, being a US citizen, having a social security number, having a high school diploma or some equivalent, etc. Qualification becomes even more complicated with additional eligibility requirements for “non-U.S. citizens, students with criminal convictions, and students with intellectual disabilities” (Federal Student Aid). Checking off these tricky requirements is only half the battle. After qualifying to receive aid, there is another list of criteria (parents’ marital status, number of dependents in household, cost of attendance at prospective institution etc.) which determine the amount of funding given. Frankly, with so many factors used to calculate a student’s aid, the outcome is unpredictable and the expected family contribution often comes out greater than expected. Essentially, getting financial aid is a difficult process and at times does not deliver adequate financial support.
My federal grants ultimately covered less than 6% of my university tuition. This was severely less than what my family anticipated based on our circumstances. Our appeal for increased aid was denied and we were forced to borrow massive student loans from the government. This segways into another flaw in financial aid.
Grants — government financial aid that is not expected to be repaid — usually only cover a portion of a student’s tuition, not the full cost. The remainder of the tuition is typically covered through student loans — money that is expected to be repaid. Even with a reduced interest rate which applies specifically to student loans, many graduates experience student debt which trails them into the first decade of their career or more (Crew). The loan return payment schedule does not sync up with the usual employment schedule well: for most types of federal student loans there is a “six-month grace period” after graduation or leaving school before the government demands installment payments (Federal Student Aid). Although some students succeed in finding lucrative employment right after graduation, other students job hunt for a few months before they land any position. It may even take a few years before they find employment that pays a satisfactory salary. As a result of this conflicting scheduling, some students are faced with payments that they are unable to cover at that point in their career. Postponing payments is also not a good option because interest would cause the debt to continuously increase. An unfortunate, but not unheard of case, is newly graduates not being able to pay installments just yet, consequently postponing their payments and perpetuating their student debt. Undoubtedly, this long term financial stress that American students endure may hinder their ability to pursue other goals which demand financial investments. In other words, they will most likely prioritize paying off their student debt over other expenditures. In this way, expensive US post-secondary institutions indirectly and unfairly set their students at a disadvantage against foreign students. Students from other tuition-free nations saved financial resources which they can now use to further develop their careers or follow alternative aspirations.
As I have stated before, federal student financial aid has proven to benefit many people and ought to continue. But by and large, it is unfeasible for US society to solely rely on financial aid to overcome educational inaccessibility because the volume of funding the government directs towards higher education fluctuates so much. In 2021, the College Board reported that “Total federal grant aid decreased by 32% in inflation-adjusted dollars between 2010–11 and 2020–21. Pell Grants declined by 39% ($16.4 billion) and veterans’ benefits declined by 3% ($405 million).” Tuition cost is on the rise and the amount of financial aid to each student is not keeping pace. Rather than going through a complicated process of checking eligibility, calculating unique amounts for each applicant, managing installments for years, and so on, why not just make more low-cost colleges available?
The community college model solves some of financial aid’s shortfalls: the difficulty to qualify, the unpredictability of the amount granted, and the mistiming of the loan payback schedule in student career paths. Community colleges have a 100% acceptance rate and a rolling admissions system (applications are evaluated as they are submitted, there is no hard deadline) which allow all aspiring students a low-cost route. Additionally, all students pay the same baseline low-cost tuition. In stark contrast, relying on financial aid brings about much more uncertainty in terms of whether students will qualify, and if so, how much their family contribution would be. The third problem which community colleges resolve is reducing, or sometimes completely eliminating the need for students to pull out loans, helping them avoid accumulating student debt. If students do not have to borrow funds from the government, they will not have to worry about repaying installments later on. This preventative measure that community colleges offer is simpler and more practical than the reactionary solution that financial aid attempts to provide.
Not only would increasing the number of community colleges in the US help mitigate the painstaking financial aid process and its implications, but would also open up more seats in college admissions — a problem that providing financial support does not resolve. Many aspiring students recognize their financial inability to attend pricier institutions and thus, apply to community colleges where tuition is much more affordable: usually a few hundred or thousand US dollars each term, compared with the tens of thousands dollars at other institutions. However, the 100% acceptance rate at such institutions often results in class capacities being reached: this is due to “tendency of democratic societies to produce more ambition than opportunity” (Nielsen, Kelly). More and more Americans want to pursue higher education through the community college route, but sometimes there is not enough space in community classes to accommodate all the students. Inevitably, students at community colleges are forced to compete against each other for class openings, and are sometimes unable to enroll in their desired courses. A simple solution is to open more community colleges. In the US — the supposed richest country in the world — there is no reason that the nation cannot open more low-cost higher education options (Crew). This solution would help many current students avoid crippling debt and provide an outlet for so many others who want an education at an affordable cost.
How can we make this change happen and what exactly would the solution look like realistically? At an individual level, people can lobby politicians or sign petitions to urge the government to open more community colleges. The government has not established significantly more community colleges recently because they have not felt enough public demand for an increase in low-cost institutions, and of course, believe that financial aid is a sufficient solution. As Dr. Lynch, a USC Education Professor explains, another deterrent for the expansion of community colleges are their economic implications. “In this country,” Lynch explains, “there isn’t the appetite for society paying for college.” The government has reserves of money to spend, but does not want to direct them towards higher education. However if the public mobilizes public speech and voting power to demand more community colleges, then the government will eventually implement these changes. Overall, mass public support for any cause pressures the government to impose federal amendments. One of these amendments should include opening a proportional number of community colleges to the aspiring student population in each state. This would ensure that people who want to pursue higher education are guaranteed the opportunity to do so. Expanding the community college system is necessary as “overall in the country even access to community college is a privilege” (D. Lynch). Because there is a strong demand for low-cost higher education opportunities, increasing financial accessibility to college will promote enrollment.
Again to be clear, I am not suggesting that increasing the number of community colleges is a panacea to global student financial stress. Distinct societal aspects, namely government and economic structure, would determine whether expanding community colleges would be effective in that community. For instance, in third world countries where securing necessities like food and medicine take precedence over education, it may be unwise to direct federal funds towards opening more schools.
Optimistically, within the next century the entire planet can be at a developed enough stage where higher education is accessible from every corner of the globe. At that point, one subsequent step would be to standardize the quality of education; academic caliber should not vary much across community colleges. This means setting baseline standards for student-teacher ratios, qualifications of professors, minimum number of units for graduation, variety of majors and types of degrees offered, etc. Another step would be to make community college completely free rather than just low-cost — at least the first two years. This would further remove financial stress from students and foster even more education in the US. In essence, unless affordable quality higher education is made ubiquitous, the global economy will overall favor people from more educated regions. Thus, expanding the community college system will help maintain fairness in the worldwide meritocracy — rightfully giving all people an equal playing field to succeed in the global market.
Works Cited
Cooper, Preston. “A New Study Investigates Why College Tuition is so Expensive.” Forbes, 31
Aug. 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2020/08/31/a-new-study-investigates-why-college-tuition-is-so-expensive/?sh=57481f9217a0. Accessed 12 Apr. 2022.
Crew, Rudolph F. Personal interview. 20 April 2022.
Denning, Jeffrey T. College on the Cheap: Consequences of Community College Tuition
Reductions. American economic journal Economic policy. 2017, pp. 155–188. doi:10.1257/pol.20150374. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
Hanson, Melany. “Financial Aid Statistics.” Education Data Initiative, 15 Feb. 2021. https://edu
cationdata.org/financial-aid-statistics#:~:text=Student%20Financial%20Aid%20Statistics,-Schools%2C%20government%20agencies&text=83.8%25%20of%20first%2Dtime%2C,year%20to%20pay%20for%20school. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
“How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty.” United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
“Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020.” United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60–273.html. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
“Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2020.” United States
Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/income-poverty-health-insurance-coverage.html#:~:text=consecutive%20annual%20declines.-,In%202020%2C%20there%20were%2037.2%20million%20people%20in%20poverty%2C%20approximately,million%20more%20than%20in%202019. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
Library of Congress. Congress, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2861. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
Lynch, Douglas E. “Re: Questions for My Research Paper.” Received by Jacqueline Pham, 20 Apr. 2022.
Lynch, Mathew. “Which Countries Provide Free Education at a University Level.” The Edvocate, 26 Mar. 2020. https://www.theedadvocate.org/which-countries-provide-free-education-at-a-university-level/. Accessed 20 Apr. 2022.
“New Research Answers Question Every College Wants to Know: Why Do Students Leave and
How Do We Get Them Back?” University Professional and Continuing Education
Association, 1 Dec. 2021, https://upcea.edu/new-research-answers-question-every-college-wants-to-know-why-do-students-leave-and-how-do-we-get-them-back/. Accessed 21 Apr. 2022.
Nielsen, Kelly. “‘Fake It ’Til You Make It’: Why Community College Students’ Aspirations ‘Hold Steady.’” Sociology of Education, vol. 88, no. 4, Oct. 2015, pp. 265–283, doi:10.1177/0038040715601889.
Ratcliff, James L. “Community Colleges.” Education Encyclopedia, https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1873/Community-Colleges.html#:~:text=In%20the%201960s%20and%201970s,of%20the%20institution%20was%20promoted. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
“Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2021.” College Board, 2021. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-pricing-student-aid-2021.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
“Trends in Higher Education Series: Trends in College Pricing 2019.” College Board, 2019. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-college-pricing-2019-full-report.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.
United States Government. Federal Student Aid an Office of the Department of Education, 2022, https://studentaid.gov/resources/types-infographic-accessible. Accessed 20 Apr. 2020.
Vandenberghe, V. and O. Debande. “Deferred and Income-Contingent Tuition Fees: An Empirical Assessment Using Belgian, German and UK Data.” Education Economics, vol. 15, no. 4, 2007, p. 421–220. doi: 10.1080/09645290701409889. Accessed 12 Apr. 2022.
