a debate about the President’s higher ed proposals

The National Journal’s Fawn Johnson writes, “President Obama landed on some sweet talking points in his recent, somewhat rehashed, proposals to make colleges more affordable and more targeted on graduation and employment. “Higher education should not be a luxury,” Obama said in Syracuse, N.Y. “If a higher education is still the best ticket to upward mobility in America–and it is–then we’ve got to make sure it’s within reach.”

Johnson asks, “What’s not to like?”

I begin my invited response:

We in higher education deserve criticism for high costs and low graduation rates. But I have grave doubts about the goals and the solutions that President Obama proposes.

Consider two colleges. The first, which I will call “Harvard” (because that’s its real name), places almost all of its graduates in jobs or graduate schools. … The second college, which I will call “Local State,” enrolls students who live at home or off campus.  …. Completing a degree typically takes many years, if one manages to graduate at all. … Local State is the college we should subsidize and support.

The rest is on the National Journal’s Education Insider’s blog.

This entry was posted in academia on by .

About Peter

Associate Dean for Research and the Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Tufts University's Tisch College of Civic Life. Concerned about civic education, civic engagement, and democratic reform in the United States and elsewhere.