The cost of higher education in the United States has surged over the last generation. In 1995 the average cost of out of state tuition at a public university was $7000 and today the average is $25000. That is an increase of 226% which outpaces the rise of inflation four times over (CollegeBoard). The advantages of a college diploma versus a high school diploma are a 65% increase in pay on average (NCSL). This increase in economic advantage causes an increase in the number of applicants, requiring universities to expand the number of students they can house and teach. If the higher education system in the United States isn't systematically overhauled, the number of students able to attend schools will continue to decrease turning college into an elite only system. Proposed plans, to change the way our education system is run, have major flaws that are the result of enforcing pricing on a pre-existing infrastructure. The downside to providing higher education in a European model is the entire education system would have to be reworked to the point where college would much more closely resemble a high school atmosphere. The reason colleges in America are so excellent is because they attract the best talent for staff and faculty and by stripping away the ability to attract talent, you are stripping away the benefits of higher education. The most effective way of providing higher education at a low cost to the most people is through bringing back programs which allowed it to remain inexpensive in the past and through putting in place cost effective alternatives to four year public universities. The issue is how we view higher education, is it a public good or a personal one, or in other words, who benefits most, society in general or the individual. This matters as if it is more of a public good, then it would be more effective to have it be publicly funded, if it is a private good than there is little to no benefit to society for paying for higher education. 

Most people understand that the system currently in place is not functioning at peak efficiency. Where the real argument comes in is whether one believes the government should do something about it. This harkens back to the base argument, is a college level education a public or private good. This is crucial to understand as those who believe it is a public good, or in other words is a good provided for the benefit of society as a whole, tend to believe that the best way to provide that public good is through the government. This is because education level is inversely related to likelihood of arrest (Lochner, Moretti) and so it would be most effective and safer to provide as high a level education as possible in order to bring down crime. The opposing side believes that a college degree is not a right but a privilege and that privilege serves the individual on a much more significant level than it does society, which means it would be better to have the individual pay for it as they are the main benefactor. This is exemplified through Laura W. Perna's paper in the Association for the Study of Higher Education as she found a correlation between education attainment level and job satisfaction. Either way, in a nation which spends the most overall and as a percentage of GDP on education in the world but ranks third in overall bachelor's attainment (Hauptman, Making Opportunity Affordable), something must be done to create  a more efficient and effective educational system than the one in place.

The system in place is broken and needs to be fixed, where the debate rages is over the best way to fix it. One model, proposed by socialist senator from Vermont, is the european model in which all public education is funded through taxes, the taxes would be 6% on businesses and 2% on individuals (Lane, Washington Post). One of The main downsides of the current system is over 50% of the class of 2011 either unemployed or drastically underemployed (Dept. of Edu.), that combined with an average student debt of $28,400 creates a cycle in which students pay for an education which has a 50-50 shot of ever paying off. This is not only a major downside for those individuals who are in debt but it adds stress to the college experience. This stress effects most kids as they select their school as last year became the first year that students didn't go to their top school, not because they couldn't get in but instead it was the cost (CollegeBoard). This causes students to flock towards the programs in which they think they can earn the most money. This is exacerbated by college tuition which has increased over 200% over the last 20 years (CollegeBoard). Thirty years ago, a college student could pay for a year's tuition with a summer job, today it would take 54 weeks of working 40 hours at minimum wage to earn enough for tuition (Snyder, US News). Another reason students are troubled with long term decisions as they choose their college major is a lack of viable opportunities without a college education, limiting competition and allowing college prices to skyrocket without any downside for Universities. These factors and many more all put pressure on students to not only perform but make the right selection financially as the wrong decision could have disastrous effects on their lives. This puts more of the focus of schooling on money when in fact the job of schooling is to learn and not to make money.

The major issue with the european model is that the main goal is to increase access to an education, so that those with low income but who have the ability can receive a degree. This only becomes a downside when one realizes the european model requires a reduction in the number of students who attend public universities each year. Which in and of itself seems like an oxymoron, as an attempt to expand the availability of a higher education should not reduce the number of students receiving one. This is by definition the opposite of the objective and therefore is a very poor way of achieving it. We can see the decrease in the number of students when looking at Germany which has a tax system very similar to ours and a rate only slightly higher but yet has a significantly reduced number of students earning a degree each year. Germany also has a track system which decides whether the student has earned a spot in college as early as third grade creates a system in which students are selected out of a crowd based on their performance 8 or 10 years before they attend university (Jackson, Business Insider). The downside to the track system is that a decision is made whether you, or your child or anyone is deserving of a spot in one of a few Universities which isn't all that different from the U.S. except this decision occurs in grade school instead of high school. This has the huge negative effect of forcing some children into a career path they do not want. It is impossible to provide an education to the same or more students than the educational system we have now does, while lowering costs, maintaining quality and preventing further government intervention. These are the downsides to the european model and by bringing that model to america, we will just be adopting their issues.

In America, throughout the 1940' and into the 50's, people could receive a free education for service in the military. During this time, more people attended college than had ever before. In our nation we have a monetary based system in which the most common measure of success is the objects we own. This encourages people to go into the private sector, but if there was a financial benefit to working for the government there would be more talent in the government and we would have a better functioning democracy. The financial benefit could be provided through putting in place a version of the G.I. bill in which students could earn free tuition by working for the government for a certain number of years after graduation. There are scholarships in place now that are similar but they are extremely limited and therefore extremely competitive. President Obama has put in place a rating system for universities which allows the government to allocate taxpayers money more effectively while encouraging lower spending and better outcomes for students. This is a minor step towards holding universities more accountable for the outcomes of their students whilst limiting exorbitant expenditures on new buildings that are in many cases unneeded(Lapovsky ,Forbes). Without a rating system schools have been focused on expansion of both facilities and faculty all on the students dime, because there is no downside to charging more. If a university increases their price so that a portion of students who would go there cannot afford to, they just accept more kids to replace them. Another way is to make community college free, this would be more effective as it is already set up in a similar fashion to high school. The median distance from a student's home to the two year community college they are attending is only 8 miles (Staying at Home) this is similar to highschool in which a student attends the one closest to them in the majority of cases.  Community college is relatively inexpensive, but making it free would offer an attractive alternative for fulfilling general education requirements at a 4 year university.

The National Council for State Legislatures has released a number of options which they believe would help lower, or stabilize the cost of providing and paying for a higher education. The first is to limit the amount that tuition can increase each year, this method only allows tuition to increase at the same rate as the consume price index (a measure of inflation). This is meant to slow down the increasing cost of tuition as it prevents the cost from increasing faster than salaries. This is a great option as it would prevent any major increases that tend to come with recessions and would allow universities to have enough funding to maintain facilities and staff. Another option would be the negotiation of tuition freezes, this is when a university stops the increase in tuition and in return the legislature gives that school an increase in funding. This is usually most effective after a recession when the states have recovered and are now willing to increase that spending to pre recession levels. The issue with these proposals are that they do little to lower the overall cost of providing the education to a student, but instead shifts the cost from the individual to taxes. The best we can do as a nation is to try and expand the accessibility of higher education but without viable alternatives, there is no way to do so without increasing price. This is why increasing the number of students who attend trade school will reduce how many students that go through the college system and therefore reducing the number of students without jobs. Trades are occupations that are always in demand and usually very high paying. 

The most effective way of monitoring the cost of higher education in the United States is by looking at the cost per student of providing the education in comparison to the price that students pay. This is because the cost of providing an education to one student is more expensive than the cost of tuition and for years this difference was made up through subsidies by the federal and state governments. But in recent years, as the government has cut back on spending as a result of the recession, one of the heaviest hit areas was higher education subsidies. Higher education is considered discretionary funding (The amount of funding to be given out is not a legally mandated number) in most states and therefore as a result of cutbacks during recessions, 

it is most often the first to be defunded (National Conference of State Legislatures). This forces universities to place more of the cost directly on tuition prices and therefore the student instead of relying upon government money. If the trends of today stay the same, the subsidies that universities receive are only going to shrink further, which means schools should focus on limiting the cost per student in order to bring down tuition prices. Some ways of lowering university's cost per student without risking the accessibility and effectiveness of our system include, expanding accepted degrees to include online open courses and expand the number of students per class. Increasing the acceptability of online courses would allow thousands of people to take a class at very low cost for the student and also at an extremely low cost for the provider. This would allow the advantages that technology has brought to so many other sectors to transfer easily to higher education. This is not possible at the moment because of the extremely high talent needed to be a college professor and a relative resistance to innovation and innovation is what has driven costs down in other industries but has yet to do so in education. Another way to lower costs is to expand the number of students in classes which can hold them such as general education classes. Many schools brag about a low number of students in their classes but if a class which currently has 10 students is upped to 20, the cost of providing it will drop by half (Forbes). This would be an extremely effective way of expanding the number of students who can afford a higher education and wouldn't have a major effect on quality of classes.

There are downsides to every proposed action, but the bigger downsides come with inaction. Today families can get by, they can scrape up enough money to get their degree, and yes they graduate with mountains of debt but most pay it back, most make it worthwhile. If trends continue, fewer and fewer people each year will be able to get by, fewer people will make the decision to invest in themselves as to not risk their family's financial security. When it comes time for the students of today to pay for their children to attend school, they shouldn't have to say they can't afford it. Some increase in price is to be expected but when that increase is 200% more than inflation, it must be slowed otherwise it will outgrow consumers ability or willingness to pay it. Students shouldn't have to pick their school based on the cost but instead on the benefit it will have for their future. It is imperative that we as a nation restructure our education system to make the most of our talent rich population, but we must remember that government action sounds good but there are severe downsides to government overreach. Our capitalist economy relies on a system in which government interference only occurs when there is a market failure. If in some way, a particular market such as the education system, allows one party (the schools) more power over the transaction then there are some cases in which that should be remedied. As the land of opportunity it would behoove us to increase and not limit the opportunities for our citizens.
