Flunking Affordability

How would you rank your state’s college affordability? Would you give Oregon an “F?” The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education’s “National Report Card on Higher Education” gave 49 out of 50 states an “F” in affordability—California got a coveted “C-.”

College isn’t cheap. But these rankings are way off, and meaningless—and seem only to reflect the (commendably well-intentioned) goals of the center. 

Affordability grades are ranked on the categories of 1) “Family Ability to Pay” (50 percent) [College expense after financial aid as a percentage of income], 2) “Reliance on Loans” (50 percent), and 3) the vague “Strategies for Affordability” (40 percent). 

But instead of comparing all states to the best state, like in the other categories graded (they also grade on things like preparation and completion of school) everybody gets compared to the third ranked state of 1999.

And instead of determining whether or not the “Strategies for Affordability” ever worked or not, it’s only about the raw numbers and the question comes down to: Is the state spending money?

Also, the cost of private institutions is also included in the “Family Ability to Pay” category—severely tilting scales. Or do you think it’s the state’s responsibility to keep private school tuition low?

I thought tuition was high so that if you didn’t have the credentials to get major scholarships there, you at least had to ante up something of value to attend. That’s the point of private school.

Illinois got an “A” for affordability in 2000—not because its schools cost any percentage of income less than other states, but because it spent 134 percent of what the federal government spent in Illinois on need-based financial aid.

So school didn’t get any cheaper—it costs more—and they spent more money as a state (meaning more taxes) and their schools didn’t cost even more as a percentage of family income than Alaska, which spent absolutely nothing on its own need-based financial aid! And yet they get an “A?”

States should not be graded on what they spend on need-based aid, especially if college doesn’t get any cheaper as a result. It’s absurd, and only shows what the NCPPHE wants states to do: spend more.

This is why they call what Oregon spends as a percentage of what the federal government spends on need-based aid in Oregon, 24 percent, “low.” Compared to what? Compared to California’s 54 percent, or Washington’s 108 percent? Too bad it’s not actually any easier to pay for school in one of those states than in Oregon.

But who wants to take the time to look at all this? Lord knows I was bored, nearing to bitter tears muddling through incoherent, hard-to-find statistics. Reminds of something about lies, damn lies and statistics.

Unfortunately, this is only half the crime—these ratings are accepted as authoritative evidence that Oregon and every other state needs to spend more on aid.

The Oregonian’s David Sarasohn notes that Oregon “getting F’s in college access” is because its “historic indifference to its higher education system,” and says that “Oregon’s universities have made up for both sudden and steady drops in state support by raising tuition.”

They’re all untrue—all of them. There has been no drop in state support, and this is not why tuition has increased.

And Oregon’s “F” in affordability is also chalked up in part to the fact that the lowest 40 percent in terms of income would have to pay about 44 percent of their annual income for the net yearly community college expenses.

While that’s unfortunate, the “F” grade doesn’t reflect 1) those who live at home for free or 2) the whopping 60 percent of Oregon families who only have to pay 24 percent or less of their annual income for a child’s room, board and tuition. That’s a lot of families who are doing quite well, and a good thing for our state.

At least U.S. News had the guts to question the result that California only got a “C minus,” when its community colleges are still incredibly cheap.

Apparently the high cost of its four-year public and private institutions outweigh this. How silly—there is no good reason to complain of prices when you can get a two-year transfer degree in your hometown much more cheaply.

Meanwhile, the President of the NCPPHE, Pat M. Callan, makes the agenda clear by saying the answer is, “to establish state policies for tuition and student aid that balance the financial burden for higher education among states, the institutions of higher education, and students and families.”

The mission statement sounds like more centralization of higher education in the hands of the federal government—who otherwise could equally “balance the financial burden?” This would remove discretion from institutions, and allow Washington, D.C., rather than regional governments, to control the higher education agenda. I’m not ready for this.

So these rankings have become politicized—backed by an agenda that says everyone must go to college and that it must be covered by the taxpayer. Against this standard, most are sure to fail. In other words, higher education is the most important thing a state participates in, to the NCPPHE.

You can hold these values—but don’t buy into the idea that states are somehow shirking their “responsibility” to keep prices low: rather, the more they’re involved, the more it costs.