Should Public Education Be Free? Or, Perhaps, What Should the Phrase “Free Public Education” Mean?

The thoughtful, estimable, and underpaid Aaron Bady gets one mostly wrong, I think:

Aaron Bady: Public universities should be free:

This should not be a controversial assertion. This should be common sense. But Americans have forgotten what the “public” in “public education” actually means…. Where there once was a public mission to educate the republic’s citizens, there is now the goal of satisfying the educational needs of the market, aided by PR departments that brand degrees as commodities and build consumer interest, always with an eye to the bottom line. And while public universities once sought to advance the industry of the state, as a whole, with an eye to the common good, shortfalls in public funding have led to universities treating their research capacity as a source of primary fund-raising, developing new technologies and products for the private sector, explicitly to raise the money they need to operate. Conflicts of interest are now commonplace….

In the early 1960s, California formulated a “master plan” for higher education–a single name for a set of interlocking policies developed by University of California President Clark Kerr. The idea was that any Californian who wanted a post-secondary education would have a place to go… for free…. New universities were swiftly planned and built to meet the dramatically increase in demand expected from the incoming Baby Boomer and the state’s population growth…. The master plan was not a blank check, but it was a commitment: any Californian who wanted a post-secondary education could get one. Today, that is simply not true….

For my parents… baby boomers and the first in their families to get college degrees, they went to public university because it was affordable, while private university was not. By that definition, are there any public universities left?… If the price tag is the same, if the product is the same, and if the experience is the same, what difference does a university’s tax status make?…

Let me tell you how economists like me look at it: To go to Amherst College requires $30,000 a year in tuition, plus you “spend” $30,000 more in the income do not make at the job you do not take because you’re going to Amherst College. Total cost: $240,000 over four years. To go to UC Berkeley requires $12,000 a year in tuition, plus you “spend” $30,000 more in the income do not make at the job you do not take because you’re going to Amherst College. Total cost: $240,000 over four years. Total cost: $168,000 over four years. To go to Aaron Bady’s hypothetical Free Berkeley requires $0 a year in tuition, plus you “spend” $30,000 more in the income do not make at the job you do not take because you’re going to Amherst College. Total cost: $120,000 over four years.

What would the argument for shifting from our current UC Berkeley to Free Berkeley be? It would be that a number of students who for their sakes and ours should go to Berkeley would go to Berkeley if it cost them $120,000 in forgone earnings will not go if it costs them $168,000 in foregone earnings plus tuition and fees. What are the arguments against our shifting from our current UC Berkeley to Free Berkeley? The first argument is that for every student who would not go to current Berkeley but would go to Free Berkeley, the taxpayers of California would have to pony up $48,000 that they would not be able to spend on what they want—and given that the average taxpayer of California is considerably poorer than the average Berkeley graduate, that upward transfer to the relatively rich leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The second argument is that for every student who would go to current Berkeley, the taxpayers of California would have to pony up $48,000 that they would not be able to spend on what they want—and given that the average taxpayer of California is considerably poorer than the average Berkeley graduate, that upward transfer to the relatively rich leaves a really really bad taste in the mouth.

In my view, these arguments against are overwhelming: there is no valid argument for transforming UC Berkeley as it currently exists into Free Berkeley.

There is, however, a powerful argument for allowing Berkeley students to pay for their education not now but later: those whose families are cash-strapped now ought to be able to pay for the education 30 years down the road. And there is an argument for offering future wage insurance: those whose future career paths do not lead them to high incomes 30 years down the road should not have to pay, and those whose future career paths lead them to riches should pay more. Thus the argument is not for Free Berkeley but rather for current Berkeley, plus a much expanded program of income-contingent grants to pay for college.

And perhaps there is a deeper, sociological and anthropological argument for changing the legal and cultural form of the current-Berkeley-plus-expanded-income-contingent-grant program. Rather than incur extra administrative costs, the repayment-by-the-rich part could be assigned to a progressive income and wealth tax. Or, alternatively, we could create a social norm and cultural expectation by which those who do very well in their careers financially are then expected to give lavish financial gifts to their alma mater. Gift-exchange relationships in which both sides feel that they have received surplus value do tend to build more social solidarity and social harmony been cash-nexus relationships in which both sides feel they have incurred equal costs.

Perhaps this is really the Free Berkeley that Aaron Bady is looking forward to: one in which tuition and fees are $0 but in which attendance at the university does come with a string attached; thus those alumni strike it rich in their careers contribute gifts to the university that more than cover the cost of educating their cohort, or feel like real losers if they do not do so.

But this is not a system in which higher education is free, not an argument for Free Berkeley. Or, perhaps, I should say this is not an argument for Free-as-in-Beer Berkeley. Perhaps people should pay cash-on-the-barrelhead upfront for their elite education. But this does not mean that the–poorer–general taxpayers should pay for elite educations, and that the elites should then live their lives free of obligations to those who, after all, paid for what they got. This is a system in which higher education comes with profound sociological and cultural obligations to repay–whether that repayment is enforced via the IRS or via celebrations and public display at the 25th and 50th reunions.

1150 words…