"The school," Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize." While Americans for the most part loathe high taxes and "big" government - more so, at least, than our industrialized peers - they are surprising advocates of public - and by inference, affordable - education. It is this education, most Americans believe, that is a vehicle for social mobility, the driving force behind the "land of opportunity." Sadly, this basic tenet of the American ethos is slowly disintegrating. As members of a University community, you no doubt all understand the painful phenomenon that is the rising cost of college. The rise in the price of tuition has fast outpaced the rise in inflation over the past few years. One way the federal government has alleviated this problem in the past is through federal Pell Grants. The government gives this money to low-income students to help them cover the cost of college. The program started in 1972 when Congress established Basic Educational Opportunity Grant. It's a grant, that, unlike a loan, does not need to be repaid and is based solely on need. About one third of all undergraduate students receive these grants.
The real value of Pell Grants, however, has been diminishing for quite a while. In 1976, a Pell Grant would have covered about 84 percent of the cost of a public university. Today, the grant only covers about 40 percent of the cost of a public university and 16 percent of a private institution. This value will further decrease as the price of education continues to explode.
President George W. Bush doesn't seem to mind, as thousands are priced out of college. He broke his own campaign promise to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. In his fiscal year 2005 budget, Bush has frozen this amount at $4,050 - over a thousand dollars less than his 2000 pledge and about $3,000 less than the amount needed to attain parity between 1976 and 2004. Bush's actions are a tacit admission he is underfunding one of the main sources of funding for low-income students.
This is bad not only because it flouts the American belief in affordable education but also because the increasing American standards of employment demand higher education. Much of this election will be spent focused on reversing the loss of manufacturing jobs - 2 million since 1998 - but try as the politicians may, these jobs are not returning to America. Even if a protectionist like John Edwards were elected, he would not be able to stop the inevitable flow of these jobs overseas. As these jobs leave the American economy, it becomes increasingly difficult to get a job with only a high school diploma. The president too recognizes the increasing need for a college diploma in the labor market. In fact, a central theme of the his stump speech is "making sure we educate people for the jobs that are being generated in the 21st century." (Yes, I realize that some white-collar jobs are being outsourced as well, but the amounts of jobs lost in these industries are much smaller - "barely noticeable," according to The Economist.)
Furthermore, when more citizens can attend institutions of higher education, the intellectual capital and the technical and innovative dominance of America increases. Affordable University initiatives were introduced in response, partially, to the construction of a space ship by the Soviet Union, which raised fears that the Soviets had greater technical skills than the West. Congress introduced college loans and grants to allow more students to receive higher education, thus raising the technical and scientific abilities of our country, outsmarting the "Red Menace." Now is no time for America to rest on its intellectual laurels in the face of rising powers.
The Democratic candidates recognize the education affordability crisis America is facing - to be fair, so do many Republicans - and they have pledged to increase funding. In the continuing spirit of fairness, so did Bush. John Kerry, in particular, advocates "super Pell Grants" to outstanding students, in addition to increasing the caps on regular Pell Grants.
This seems, to me, a step in the right direction. American students need and deserve affordable college tuition. While universities should also try to stem the rise of tuition, the government needs to assume its historic role as guarantors of education. Pell Grants, once instrumental in allowing countless low-income students to attend college, have withered in value. While it is true nonfederal scholarships and grants have increased, they have not compensated for the explosion in tuition fees or college enrollment. Pell Grants have been neglected for far too long. If we wait much longer, college education -and the social mobility that accompanies it - will be "economized" out of the hands of millions.
Ed Herbst is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in political science. His column, "Politics Schmolitics," appears on alternating Thursdays. He welcomes comments at eherbst@eden.rutgers.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!