To the Candidates: America Won't Settle for Sound Bites on Higher Education

Discusses higher education affordability and the need for candidates to talk realistically about the costs and benefits of all the options.

With the Associated Press reporting last week on a study from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education that paying for college has become increasingly difficult for most American families and that the cost of college, even with financial aid, represents a larger share of the income of most American families than it did ten years ago, you will surely be hearing about this issue in the upcoming Presidential debates.

Higher education affordability is a complex matter with no easy solutions, so it is a matter that demands more than just the claims and counter claims the candidates have traded on other topics. And the American public is paying close attention to this issue.

According to recent Public Agenda research, Americans are increasingly concerned about qualified students' access to college. Parents who have kids in high school and minorities are groups that are especially concerned about this issue, according to our study Public Attitudes on Higher Education.

This is also an issue at the top of the list of concerns of young potential voters ages 18 to 29, a group that is now larger in size than 50- to 65-year-olds, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. And since surveys this year show that interest in the election among the young is near the highest level it has reached at any time since 1972 and state election officials say registration of new young voters is coming in at levels they have not seen in years, higher education affordability is an issue the candidates need to spend some time on.

If either candidate is serious about addressing affordability issues in higher education, they need to talk realistically about the costs and benefits of all the options. As we see it, there are three basic objectives a new administration could pursue.

One is to invest in making sure all students can attend college by providing tax credits, increasing federal grants, and increasing overall spending on higher education. This is the most expensive way, but may have the most appeal to the middle class and the highly valued swing voter.

Second is to concentrate on the neediest by channeling grants to students based on their economic need and increasing funding to community colleges. It should be noted here that sometimes proposed solutions don't always have the intended effects. A recent report from the Lumina Foundation for Education found that federally subsidized college savings plans seldom aid low-income families and may even penalize these families.

Third is to attempt to bring down the cost of higher education by requiring public colleges to become more efficient or encouraging more students to pursue training programs that give a leg up to career opportunities but without a four-year degree.

Within each of the basic objectives Bush or Kerry - or, for that matter, any of the congressional or gubernatorial candidates since states play such a major role in this issue and such a high percentage of students are enrolled in state universities - might pursue, there are a host of strategies, each with their own set of arguments. The big question is: will either candidate actually address the pros and cons in a substantive way?

Whichever candidate cannot move beyond simplistic rhetoric to provide the American public with an adequate explanation of what they would do to address the costs of higher education should be called onto the carpet by the media. The public is keeping a close eye on this issue and so too must the media.

Ruth A. Wooden is president of the nonpartisan public opinion research organization Public Agenda, publisher of the First Choice 2004 voters guides on higher education affordability, terrorism, gay rights and six other key issues and the 2004 report Public Attitudes on Higher Education.