Abstract
This paper begins with a historical tracing of the rise of college tuition over time and points to the proliferation of neoliberalism in the 1980's as the main cause of skyrocketing of college tuition prices over the last thirty years and the subsequent student debt crisis in the United States. This paper builds upon seminal research from the Center for an Urban Future regarding the number of NYS Excelsior Scholarships awarded since the program's start and finds that the program is not racially equitable and vastly favors schools with a majority white student population. This paper then connects the Excelsior program to the racist legacy of programs such as the original iteration of the GI Bill. Research from the Center for Education and the Workforce is also incorporated into the discussion in order to illustrate the implications of tuition free college from an economic perspective. This paper ultimately concludes that tuition-free postsecondary education is vitally necessary in order to meet the needs of the current labor market and close income gaps across populations. The subject of racial justice in education is discussed again vis-á-vis a discussion of how the student debt crisis has disproportionately burdened Black students. This paper ultimately concludes with an analysis of prominent tuition-free college proposals at the federal level and calls for officials to consider the racist rollout of the Excelsior program when crafting future legislation concerning college affordability.
Introduction
It is by no means a novel claim to say that the cost of higher education in the United States has gotten out of control. Plenty of research has been conducted to show that tuition costs over the past three decades have risen at a rate far outpacing individual incomes. Thirty years ago, the cost of tuition and fees at a public, four year university was $3,360 per year in today's dollars.1 Today, the same degree at a public, four year institution costs on average $10,000 per year and rises to $21,000 yearly when factoring in room and board.2 Forty-five million Americans have student loan debt which collectively totals $1.6 trillion.3 The average borrower owes $32, 731.4 Federal aid also doesn't go as far as it used to either. Today, federal Pell grants only cover one-third of the cost of a degree at a public, four year, in-state college.5 In the 1980s, they covered about half of the total cost and about 70% in the 1970s.6
Many point to the rise in demand for college degrees as the reason for the skyrocketing of college tuition and national student debt crisis. This is a superficial explanation of this crisis and does not account for the many additional obstacles to higher education that marginalized groups have historically encountered in this country. College tuition did not skyrocket astronomically—far outpacing inflation and wages—simply because of "supply and demand."
Yes, increasingly more people have pursued education past high school in last thirty years, but while more people tried to buy in to the promise of social mobility and economic security that higher education credentials—particularly a bachelor's degree—could provide, both the state and federal government increasingly disinvested from or remained inert on the principle of making higher education financially attainable.
The 1980s were a time when the labor market began shifting rapidly to one that required more college educated workers. At the same time, national forces created seismic shifts in the way that both the federal and state level governments prioritized college funding and aid. In 1981, Ronald Reagan and a Congressional coalition pushed through a historic set of tax and budget cutting measures. One of the federal programs to be cut the deepest was federal student aid. Specifically, between 1980 and 1985, $594 million was cut from student assistance and $338 million was cut from Pell grants.7 Additionally, eligibility for low-cost, low-interest loans was narrowed. The Reagan administration did not prioritize higher education affordability whatsoever and even saw the American college student as "tax eaters...and a drain and drag on the American economy."8 This fits right into the Reagan legacy of disparaging the impoverished and is not unlike his rhetoric of the "undeserving" or "welfare queens". The precedent set by Reagan's tax and spending cuts and his small government revolution created a cycle of electoral punishment for officials who proposed tax increases for the purposes of funding education. Federal and state governments have been allowed to systematically disinvest from higher education because of the landscape cultivated by Reagan.
This disinvestment happened at precisely the time when the economy was rapidly shifting into one that required a college degree in order for people to have any chance at middle class security. Simultaneously, wages have remained largely stagnant over the last thirty years (which is another conversation entirely). So, college has not gotten more expensive simply because there is higher demand. The cost of higher education has become crippling for some and unattainable for others because of neoliberal policies which set precedent for the gradual divestment in higher education and student aid at the both the state and federal level.
Issue and Methods
It is paramount to note that the student debt crisis has not affected all Americans equally. The explosion of tuition costs and the need to take increasingly more and more out in loans has disproportionately burdened marginalized groups in the U.S.—particularly Black Americans. Black Americans have far less wealth on average than their white counterparts and, thus, often need to take out more money in loans to pursue higher education which puts them at a higher risk of defaulting on said loans. Additionally, having high levels of debt often restricts people from being eligible for mortgage lending. Home ownership is one of the most common ways that individuals and/or families grow their own wealth over time and high levels of student debt is one of several mechanisms which has kept many Black people from being able to grow their personal wealth this way. Therefore, the student debt crisis is contributing to the horrendously disparate racial wealth gap and is, thus, an arm of institutionalized racism.
This paper works to illuminate the necessity of federal action on the issue of college affordability and the student debt crisis. The methods through which this is done include: an analysis of data which shows the economy no longer supports a path to middle class security without some sort of postsecondary credential, an analysis of data which shows that college access and income inequality are linked, and an examination of the racist history of the GI Bill. Most importantly, this paper builds upon work done by the Center for an Urban Future which shows that there are disparities in the implementation of the relatively new New York State Excelsior Scholarship program. Through an analysis of demographic data combined with data collected by the Center for an Urban Future, this paper concludes that the NYS Excelsior scholarship has overwhelmingly prioritized predominantly white institutions despite these institutions making up a much smaller share of NYS public university system thus, making it an arm of institutionalized racism and part of the legacy of exclusion within the US higher education system. This paper ultimately concludes that the U.S. must make tuition free education a reality at public universities (including community colleges), historically Black colleges and universities, and minority serving institutions because of economic demands and as a means to creating racial equity. This paper’s analysis of the NYS Excelsior program informs a brief analysis of prominent proposals for expanding access to higher education put forth by notable individuals such as Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. Federal action for making postsecondary education free (or at least affordable) is absolutely necessary for solving income inequality and creating racial equity, but the NYS Excelsior Program serves as an example as to why any plan must consciously include anti-racist politics.
Racist History of the GI Bill
Unequal access to higher education has existed for Black people for many generations and even manifested itself in the 1944 Serviceman's Readjustment Act—commonly known as the GI Bill. The GI Bill is widely heralded as one of the most significant expansions to higher education affordability in the history of the US, but was—in practice if not in principle—exclusionary towards Black people. This bill was created to expand benefits to cover the cost of higher education for veterans after World War II and is widely celebrated in American history due to the fact 7.8 million veterans were able to access higher education after World War II due to the GI Bill.9 Additionally, the added tax revenue collected from the increase in college educated workers meant that the government made back eight to ten times the amount that the program initially cost.10 The GI Bill foundationally changed the economy in the United States and made knowledge "the primary resource for individuals and for the economy overall".11 The GI Bill also solidified the rise and legacy of the white middle class. This bill pulled college education out of the Ivy League and the realm of the "gentlemen's classical education"12 and made it a real, usable tool for economic advancement...for white veterans that is.
In an article for The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education entitled "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill," Hilary Herbold lays out the racist history of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) including how the VA denied many Black veterans their right to unemployment benefits, segregated and unequal VA hospitals and housing, and how in 1947 only 7 of the 1,700 VA employees were Black despite a third of all southern veterans being Black at the time.13 Herbold also includes the fact that the American Legion and the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) which were two of largest interest groups for WWII veterans at the time were completely closed to Black people and only eventually granted membership to Black people on the condition that there be segregated charter posts. Herbold writes, "Staffed almost entirely by whites empowered to deny or grant the claims of Black GIs, the VA became a formidable foe to many Blacks in search of an education".14 The promise of the GI Bill was made largely unavailable to Black Americans due to a compounding of various forms of institutional racism. For example, Herbold writes, "The poverty of most black families in the South made it problematic for most blacks to pursue higher education as labor and income were needed back home".15 Additionally, even Black veterans who were able to claim their benefits faced obstacles in the way of admission due to vast overcrowding at HBCUs and racial quotas or outright exclusion at white institutions. Herbold writes, "Though Congress granted the same benefits to both blacks and whites theoretically, the segregationist principles of almost every institution of higher learning effectively disbarred a huge proportion of black veterans from earning a college degree".16 Additionally, Black students who did attend exclusive, white institutions were often pushed into tracks deemed more "practical" such as agricultural or technical careers as opposed to more "prestigious" liberal arts tracks. This was enforced by the VA and educational institutions with "threat of denials of benefits, and actual denials of benefits, to bring black applicants into line".17
It wasn't only individual veterans who could not rely on the federal government to afford them the same promise of social mobility that it had granted white veterans. HBCUs as institutions also suffered under the racism inherent to the roll out of the GI Bill and the "expansion" of access to higher education. Because of strict Jim Crow segregation in the South in the 1940s and because the majority of the population of Black Americans were located in the South at the time, HBCUs absorbed the largest share of Black GIs in search of a degree. Herbold writes, "According to one study, at white institutions the percentage of veterans enrolled grew by 29.4% in 1947; the increase at black colleges during that year was 50%".18 Unequal access to physical resources and endowment meant that HBCUs could not fully support the exponential increase in enrollment. Herbold includes figures from historians that show between 1946 and 1947 20,000 Black veterans were turned away from HBCUs due to overcrowding.19 HBCUs have also historically been neglected financially by the government. Herbold writes, "The southern states regarded HBCUs first and foremost as a way of keeping blacks out of white institutions, and as a requisite to getting federal money for white land-grant colleges".20 HBCUs were vastly under-resourced in comparison to white institutions. The GI Bill ultimately did expand higher educational opportunities to some Black Americans, but not at nearly the rate it did for white Americans. Herbold characterizes it as a "crack in the wall of racism that was the American university system".21 Herbold ultimately concludes that "The educational and economic benefits of GI Bill, to both blacks and whites, are considerable, but to not address the racism inherent to its rollout risks misrepresentation, not only of the past, but of the present as well".22
The racist rollout of the GI Bill and the historic obstacles to attaining a college degree for Black people is relevant to discussing contemporary issues of college affordability because it demonstrates that education is not always the "great equalizer" that it is often touted to be. Disparities in education access and quality are a significant arm of the US's systems of racism. Additionally, the issue of racism and the GI Bill is extremely relevant when one considers how the GI Bill helped to promote and solidify the white middle class. One of many reasons the Black middle class has not been able to keep pace and average white, familial wealth is exponentially larger than average, Black, familial wealth is the legacy of racist systems like the original iteration of the GI Bill. White veterans could take advantage of the litany of social and economic benefits of a college degree because they had significantly more access to the advantageous GI Bill benefits. This leads to generational differences.
White GI Bill assistance recipients could make more money, buy homes, and, thus, have more individual wealth to leave to their children or the means to pay for their children to go to college, so that they could continue to advance economically. Black veterans, on the other hand, had far less access to the GI Bill benefits due to the racist VA and had fewer opportunities for employment even if they did graduate from college. Therefore, they were less likely to be able to leave generational wealth to their children or be able to pay for their children to go to college later on. The GI Bill contributed, in some part, to a multi-pronged positive feedback loop of racism which generationally advantages some and disadvantages others.
This legacy is crucial to understanding why the rising level of college tuition and the college debt crisis is so much more devastating to Black Americans. Black Americans struggling more to pay down college debt is not a coincidence; it is part of a legacy within higher education and the labor force which has systematically neglected them. This is why free college tuition at public colleges and HBCUs (which have also historically been neglected by government aid) is so important to reckoning with the institutions of income inequality, racism, and racial capitalism in the US.
Lessons from the NYS Excelsior Scholarship Program
One approach to expanding access to college credentials to low and middle income individuals is the New York state funded Excelsior Scholarship which provides a tuition free degree pathway to City University of New York (CUNY) and State University of New York (SUNY) two and four year degree programs. This initiative began in the fall of 2017 and is open to New York families or individuals who make up to $125,000 per year, take 30 credits per calendar year (including January and summer sessions), and plan to live and work in New York following graduation for the length of time they participate in the scholarship program. This program is on the cutting edge nationally, but has not been implemented equally across demographics in the state.
A seminal study that critically examines the implementation of the state funded Excelsior free tuition program for under resourced individuals was published in 2020 by Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney for the Center for an Urban Future. The study, entitled "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", examines data collected from the first two years of New York State's Excelsior Scholarship and contributes a vital analysis of enrollment data from the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation23 which shows that certain demographics—namely CUNY and community college students across the state—are underserved by the program. The authors highlight that while CUNY students make up 39% of the state university system's total enrolled undergraduate students; only 16% (4,073 of 25,100) of total scholarships awarded in 2018 went to CUNY enrolled students.24 They point to the fact that while CUNY and SUNY community college enrollees make up almost half of all students they received just 19% (4,797) of the scholarships awarded in 2018 which is down from 24% in 2017.25 Notably, Dvorkin and Viney found that 6 of 7 CUNY community colleges received fewer than 100 scholarships (except for Borough of Manhattan which received 123) while four SUNY state colleges (University at Buffalo, Albany, Binghamton, and Stony Brook) all received more than 1,000 student scholarships respectively.26
There are many other noteworthy analyses from the study. Firstly, Dvorkin and Viney write that, "The 25 colleges with the highest share of enrolled students receiving scholarships were all SUNY state colleges."27 Contrastingly, 19 of the 25 schools with the smallest share of students receiving scholarships were community colleges and all of CUNY's community college campuses except Guttman were among the 25 colleges with the lowest rates of enrolled students with Excelsior Scholarships.28 Perhaps most notably, every CUNY college except for Hunter received a percentage of the total number of awarded scholarships that was smaller than their percentage of total enrollments in the state while 27 of 58 SUNY colleges received a percentage of the total Excelsior Scholarships that was higher than their percentage of the total state enrollment in 2018.29 Some salient examples are Albany receiving 6% of all scholarships despite having only 2.2% of all enrolled students; Buffalo receiving 7.2% of scholarships while having only 3.5% of all students; additionally Binghamton received 5.7% of scholarships with 2.2% of all enrolled students in the state.30
Dvorkin and Viney also point to the high rate of application rejections to the Excelsior program issued by the state as an area of concern. They write that in 2018 the state received 63,599 applications for Excelsior Scholarships, but denied 43,513: a denial rate of 68%.31 The authors also discuss the stringent requirements created by the state in order to qualify for Excelsior. One of these requirements is that students take at least 30 credits per academic year.32
This excludes students who must attend college part-time due to work, family, or other responsibilities. Dvorkin and Viney write that "not enough credits" was by far the most commonly cited reason for denial accounting for 83% of all rejections.33 They also rightfully note that students who must attend part-time are possibly the students "whose lives would be most transformed by a college credential...".34
This study provides an essential analysis of a groundbreaking state initiative. Dvorkin and Viney describe the program as "well intentioned"35 but that it "falls short of the scale of the challenge and underserves the students most in need of support".36 Indeed, an analysis of the data clearly shows that the program disproportionately favors students attending SUNY schools and four year senior colleges over community colleges. The Center for an Urban Future published another data analysis in 2018 after the first year of the program and found similar results as the 2020 study but addressed just how under-resourced CUNY students are, especially CUNY community college students. The study states, "A disproportionate share of the state’s low-income college students attend schools in the five boroughs. Indeed, 60 percent of CUNY students report household income below $30,000, including 71 percent of community college students".37
These two studies deftly uncover how the states most under-resourced students are going underserved by a program meant to make college accessible to low and middle-income individuals. This kind of examination and critique is paramount when imagining a society that has equitable access to education. One limitation of both studies is that there is little demographic breakdown regarding those who are receiving scholarships. There is some breakdown of income but not of race or gender. It would be relevant to examine the student populations of the schools/regions that are receiving the highest share of Excelsior Scholarships. Particularly, a data analysis of the racial make-up of Excelsior recipients would help to reveal whether or not the program was acting as an agent of systemic racism rather than as an agent of equity.
Without Excelsior data disaggregated by race, it is especially pertinent to examine the demographic makeup of CUNY versus SUNY. Institutional data from both institutions provides enrollment data broken down by race from as recently as fall 2019. CUNY data shows total enrollment in all community colleges is as follows: 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native, 17.0% Asian/Pacific Islander, 29.2% Black, 38.1% Hispanic, and 15.3% White.38 The racial breakdown of CUNY enrollment at senior colleges is as follows: 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native, 23.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 23.1% Black, 26.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% White. By contrast, the demographic makeup of SUNY is much different. SUNY total community college enrollment (Fall 2019) broken down by race/ethnicity is as follows: 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.5% Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 11.7% Black, 16.3% Hispanic, and 56.5% White.39 40 SUNY data did have an additional ethnic category that CUNY did not: "Two or More Races" which made up 2.7% of total enrollees in SUNY community colleges in fall 2019.41
CUNY enrollment by race/ethnicity in senior colleges in fall 2019 was as follows: 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native, 23.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 23.1% Black, 26.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% White.42 By contrast, enrollment percentages by race/ethnicity in fall 2019 at SUNY senior colleges was as follows: 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native, 2.8% Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 12.2% Black, 13.9% Hispanic, 61.9% White, and 2.7% Two or More Races.43
These numbers are incredibly relevant because they show that both SUNY community and especially SUNY senior colleges have overwhelmingly white student populations. These are the types of schools that received the vast majority of Excelsior Scholarships despite making up a much smaller proportion of total public undergraduate enrollment than majority minority CUNY schools. SUNY senior college enrollment in fall 2019 was 61.9% white. This type of school was the type of school that received the vast majority of Excelsior awards specifically. Both SUNY community and senior college enrollment in fall 2019 were more than half white. This is worth noting because it means the current rollout of the New York State Excelsior Program is not unlike the original rollout of the GI Bill. While both these programs were landmark expansions to college access, they were or are currently being rolled out inequitably. Both of these programs have failed or are currently failing students of color in a major way. It is clear that, historically, both state and federal programs have not accounted for the systemic racism inherent in many if not all of the existing systems of governance. Systemic racism must actively be accounted for in public programs.
The Excelsior Scholarship—in its current iteration—is a part of the legacy of exclusion that has historically haunted (and continues to haunt) the system of higher education in this country including the racist rollout of the GI Bill, underfunding of majority BIPOC institutions such as HBCUs, and the fact that the college debt crisis is disproportionately hurting Black people. While "well-intentioned" (and not without benefits to some), the disparities of awards granted through Excelsior must be addressed so that the program can be more effective and anti-racist. Part of this reform must include the acceptance of part-time students, so that students who have responsibilities outside of school such as familial or work commitments can have the same opportunity to pursue a debt free education.
Labor Market Shifts Demand Postsecondary Attainment
It is nearly common sense at this point that possessing college credentials of some kind affords workers increased opportunities for earning higher wages than does not possessing some sort of postsecondary credential (especially a bachelor's degree or higher) and this divide has only increased with time. Despite this being adopted as fact, the U.S. has not done enough to improve access to college as higher education has (and steadily continues to) become prohibitively expensive nationally and as the student debt crisis hits a fever pitch. Workers with a college degree or more credentials not only make higher wages than those with only a high school diploma or less, but their wages have also kept up with inflation better over the last twenty years. Individuals 25 years of age and older who possessed a bachelor's degree (no advanced degree) earned a median usual weekly wage of $825 in Quarter 1 of the year 2000.44 This increased to a median usual weekly earning of $1, 281 in Q3 of 2019: a percent increase of just over 55%.45 46 Comparatively, the percent increase of median usual weekly earnings of individuals 25 years of age or older who are high school graduates with no college credential from Q1 of 2000 to Q3 of 2019 was just under 49% ($503 in Q1 of 2000 to $749 in Q3 of 2019).47 Conversely, workers over the age of 25 who had some college or an associate's degree saw a 48.1% increase in median usual weekly earnings from Q1 of 2000 to Q3 of 2019 ($590 to $874), but workers 25 years or older who possessed an advanced degree saw an increase of just over 56% during this period ($997 to $1,559).48 In summation, workers with a bachelor's degree or higher have seen their wages increase by a larger margin than have workers without a bachelor's degree over this nearly twenty year period.
Issues of disparity in employment/earning opportunities between college educated and non-college educated workers are particularly pertinent when examining what jobs were added to the U.S. economy during the period of recovery following the 2008 global financial crisis and the Great Recession. The trend is articulated in the study "America's Divided Recovery" conducted by Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce. This 2016 study found that the gains made in the job market during the recovery from the recession were stratified "along a fault line demarcated by college education".49 According to the study, the overwhelming majority of jobs created during the post-Recession recovery period (which this study places between January 2010 and January 2016)50 went to workers with at least some college education. Specifically, workers with a bachelor's degree added 8.4 million jobs during the recovery while workers who possess only a high school diploma or less only saw 80,000 jobs added back to the economy.51 This is particularly notable considering workers with only a high school diploma or less lost 5.6 million jobs during the Great Recession.52 Essentially, while the U.S. was able to make a significant recovery following the job losses of the Great Recession, said recovery was stratified and largely excluded those without education past high school. So, not only have high school diploma-holding workers seen wages stagnate—as evidenced by analyses of the Current Population Survey and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data—but they have also seen availability of employment plummet. Another notable piece of data that this study uncovered was that workers with a bachelor's degree or higher credential now make up a somewhat larger percentage of the workforce—36%—than do workers with a high school diploma or less—34%.53 This is a manifestation of a trend that has been progressing for several generations. It represents a fundamental shift within the U.S. economy away from the types of industries that used to employ high school graduates towards an economy that disproportionately values industries and positions that require a college credential of some sort like an associate's degree and particularly a bachelor's degree or higher.
The disparities in job creation following the Great Recession are part of a historical shift in the economy and the type of labor that it values. An analysis conducted by the Center for Education and the Workforce of Current Population Survey data from 1947 to 2016 found that industries that require postsecondary attainment (such as healthcare services, consulting and business services, financial services, education services, and government services) made up 28% of the workforce in 1947 and 46% of the workforce in 2016.54 The U.S. economy has also seen a significant drop in availability of jobs in industries such as manufacturing, construction, and natural resources—which traditionally may not require higher education credentials for employment—over the same period. The Center for Education and the Workforce found that jobs in these industries made up nearly half the workforce in 1947, but just 19% in 2016.55 The Great Recession, as recessions do, accelerated a course that the U.S. economy was already on. So-called "low-skill" and "middle-skill" jobs in industries like manufacturing, construction, and office and administrative support which once served as a means of making a livable wage for those who did not attend college are on the decline and have been for generations while so-called "high-skill" jobs in industries such as business management, healthcare professions, and technology have been on the rise. This type of social and economic stratification is what the authors of "America's Divided Recovery" call the "college haves" and "college have-nots".56 Whether one has access to college credentialing has become a major contributing factor to massively deepening levels of income inequality in the U.S.
Whereas the authors of "America's Divided Recovery" aptly identify college "access and success" as "defining factors in the growing economic divide in America since the early 1980s", this study is not concerned with the role that the surging costs of a college education have played into access.57 College tuition has seen a meteoric rise across the same time line that jobs not requiring college degrees have been steadily lost and/or devalued. The U.S. federal government has not sufficiently recognized and/or adapted to this trend. The economy has evolved into one that no longer values "low-skill" or "middle-skill" labor and/or labor that is commonly done by individuals who possess a high school diploma or less. In addition, neoliberal policies put in place in the 1980's have allowed for wage stagnation for the majority of Americans whilst college tuition has skyrocketed. This has resulted in lower availability of jobs that don't require a college degree while college has simultaneously become prohibitively expensive. The U.S. federal government has been inert in reacting to the economic effects of expensive costs for college which has happened in conjunction with the devaluing of non-college labor. In order to address this stratification, the U.S. government must rethink its approach to education and especially its concept of education as a great equalizer. A guaranteed free education through high school is no longer sufficient for earning a living wage—especially since the federal government refuses to set minimum wage at livable rate—and the U.S. must expand its public educational offerings to include free college at public universities, colleges, and HBCUs in order to provide equitable access to opportunities for higher wages in the current economy. The economy has fundamentally changed and the U.S.'s approach to preparing its workforce must change along with it. Jobs for individuals without a college degree or at least some sort of postsecondary attainment have largely left the economy and are not coming back. College must be made accessible through government intervention so that the populace can survive within the current and future labor market.
College Access and Income Inequality
Removing barriers to college education is vitally necessary in order to make it possible for workers to adapt to the changes in labor valuation that the U.S. has experienced over the previous few generations. The U.S. must provide its populace with the tools to succeed in the changed labor market when necessary credentials are not accessible to some or require individuals to undertake crippling debt. Consequently, not only is the U.S. federal government not meeting the needs of its populace, but it's also not meeting the needs of its labor market. A 2011 study by the Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce (CEW) found that demand for college graduates in the labor market has outpaced supply since 1990.58 As demonstrated in previous discussions, the U.S. has been on a steady path towards a labor market that is functionally dependent on college educated labor. These are the types of jobs that are experiencing growth and seeing wages rise. Jobs held by people who only hold a high school diploma or less have steadily been on the decline...especially since the Great Recession. Not only are jobs requiring individuals to possess a college degree or higher growing, but the demand outpaces the supply. The result of this trend is not only a loss in productivity on the side of American employers, but an exacerbation of income inequality. The high demand for workers particularly with a bachelor's degree59 has led to an over-valuation of this type of labor and a major disparity in wages between those holding only a high school diploma and those holding higher credentials. This disparity in wages is set to grow even wider if the U.S. does not add more college educated workers to the workforce. The CEW study (published in 2011) finds that in 1980 the difference in average earnings between high school graduates and bachelor's degree holders was a difference of 40%. In 2010, bachelor's degree holder's average earnings were 74% larger than high school graduates and—following the current supply trend—the study's authors project that bachelor's degree holders average earnings will be 96% larger than that of high school graduates by 2025.60 The result of the wage premium paid to workers with college degrees is a swelling of income inequality over time. The study's authors propose that in order to remedy the issues related to hyper-valuation of college educated labor and growing income inequality the U.S. must add 20 million post-secondary credentialed workers to the economy by 2025. Specifically, they propose adding 15 million workers holding bachelor's degrees, 1 million holding associate's degrees, and 4 million workers with some college education but no degree. This would provide gains for the efficiency of the U.S. economy, but also help to end income inequality. The addition of 20 million college educated workers to the American workforce would "reduce the wage premium paid to college-educated workers from 74 to 46 percent" and not only halt, but begin to reverse the multi-generational progression of income inequality. This proposal allows for the cessation of college-educated wages outpacing non-college educated wages.
Disparities in the opportunity for postsecondary attainment in the U.S. have been some of the many factors that have inflamed the state of income inequality over the past forty years. Dissolving the wage premium for college educated workers does not mean that those with college credentials will earn less money. All workers will see an increase in wages, but the dissolution of the educational attainment stratification will lead to more "equitable prosperity". The CEW study advocates for the addition of 20 million more college educated workers to the economy, but is lax in describing how this could actually be made possible. The two solutions that the authors point to are increasing the capacity for high schools to prepare students for college and by easing the worry of concerned parents and students of the costs of college. The study does not address the role the federal government could play in counteracting the effects of growing income inequality by socializing higher education and making college free for those who could not otherwise afford it. The data is clearly pointing to the fact that a greater amount of college educated workers in the workforce would stimulate the U.S. economy and help to end income inequality, so the fact that there are still so many barriers to attending college especially as tuitions rise so much faster than inflation year after year is nonsensical. The data is pointing towards the benefits of free higher education; not only for the U.S. economy but also for easing the strain of income inequality. The federal government must take substantive action to make public colleges, community colleges, HBCUs, and MSIs free to those who can not afford to attend so that individuals can pursue higher education if they so choose without fear of taking on crippling debt.
The College Debt Crisis and Institutionalized Racism
It is crucial when discussing college tuition to examine lack of college accessibility and student debt as an arm of institutionalized racism. Hindrances to college attainment are not present equally across population demographics. This is especially true when examining levels of debt, college attainment, and overall wealth across racial categories. For starters, the student loan debt crisis is disproportionately hurting Black Americans. The racial wealth gap is wider now than it was in the year 2000 which means Black households are more likely to have to borrow money (and borrow more of it) in order to pursue higher education attainment.61 An analysis of hourly wages from the Economic Policy Institute found that Blacks and Hispanics make a smaller percentage of what whites make hourly on average in 2019 than they did in 2000.62 In 2000, Black people in the 95th percentile income bracket made only 72% of the average hourly wages that whites did.63 For Hispanic people in 2000, it was 69% (95th percentile) of what whites made hourly on average.64 These numbers have gotten lower, highlighting the rise of income inequality as discussed earlier. In 2019, Blacks in the 95th percentile income bracket only made 65.3% of what whites made in average hourly wages and Hispanics only made 63.1%.65 This data further emphasizes how dire the wealth gap and income inequality have become in this country.
Due to the disparities in Black and Hispanic personal wealth compared to white wealth, Black and Hispanic individuals/families are more likely to have to take out more money in student loans in an effort to close the educational attainment and earning gaps. A report from the Brookings Institute finds that Black BA completers have a default rate of more than five times the rate of white graduates (Black: 21%; white: 4%).66 Shockingly, a Black BA graduate is more likely to default than a white college dropout (Black graduate: 21%, white dropout: 18%).67 Additionally, the disparity in student loan stress only increases with time. Judith Scott-Clayton of Brookings writes that levels of debt and rates of default among African Americans is at "crisis levels"68, and that a bachelor's degree is no guarantee of security for Black graduates because of the swollen levels of college tuition.
Free public college is more than a means of stimulating the economy. It is a tool for beginning to reckon with the effects of generations of discrimination, violence, and neglect. Tuition free public colleges and HBCUs would help to close the gap between white and Black wealth in this country by giving both white and Black Americans the opportunity to obtain a college degree without taking on debt. This means that individuals who previously could not own homes due to high levels of debt could own a home and be able to save more income. This would create a positive feedback loop that would not only stimulate the U.S. economy, but would also help mend the damage done by income inequality and systemic racism. While income inequality is not the only issue related to racism that must be reckoned with in the U.S., the possibility of free public higher education represents an opportunity to make major strides in racial justice in this country.
Analysis of Contemporary Approaches to College Affordability
College affordability and student debt has been addressed by numerous officials in recent campaigns both for Congressional seats and for the Presidency and is gaining more popularity with each passing year. President-elect Joe Biden has even reinforced the idea that a free education through high school is no longer sufficient to make a living wage in the current economy. The Biden campaign website includes the line, "In today’s increasingly globalized and technology-driven economy, 12 years of education is no longer enough for American workers to remain competitive and earn a middle class income."69 The Biden proposal for expanding access to higher education includes many progressive initiatives such as two years of debt free community college or other high quality training programs. Most notably, Biden has proposed that those attending school part-time and DREAMers (DACA recipients aka young adults who came to the US as children) be eligible for this program. This is particularly progressive because DREAMers (DACA and undocumented individuals) are currently not eligible for federal student aid assistance. Also, creating a program that allows individuals to pursue post-secondary credentials while attending school part-time would expand access to the benefits of post-secondary credentials to so many more people who previously were not eligible for aid because they could not attend full-time due family or work responsibilities.
Another initiative of the Biden proposal is, "Tackling the barriers that prevent students from completing their community college degree or training credential".70 Biden's plan is a "first-dollar" program which means students can use this kind of money to cover tuition and use other assistance such as Pell grants, state aid, and other forms of scholarships or aid to cover additional expenses such as housing, food, and anything needed beyond school tuition and fees. The "first dollar" versus "last dollar" distinction is an important one because last dollar programs—such as, for example, the NYS Excelsior Scholarship—only cover what is remaining of tuition after Pell grants and/or other forms of aid have been applied. This type of program is ineffective for students who do not have the income or means to cover all the various other expenses that come with being an undergraduate student such as housing, food, books, fees, etc. "First-dollar" programs—especially ones that are open to part-time students and undocumented individuals—are the much more effective in ensuring that higher education is an affordable reality for low and middle income individuals and families.
Biden has also proposed public colleges and universities be tuition-free for all families with incomes below $125,000.71 This is similar to the Excelsior Program which increased its maximum income level for families to be eligible to $125,000 for the 2019-2020 enrollment period, but, by contrast, the Biden proposal is a first-dollar program while Excelsior is a last dollar program. Additionally, Biden proposes to double the maximum value of Pell grants and continually adjust the value for inflation, so that Pell grants can cover more student expenses. Biden's proposal also opens up Pell eligibility to DREAMers and will restore formerly incarcerated individuals eligibility for Pell.
In regards to debt, Biden proposes that individuals making $25,000 and under annually will not owe any payments towards their undergraduate federal student loans and will not accrue interest on those loans. The plan states, "Everyone else will pay 5% of their discretionary income (income minus taxes and essential spending like housing and food) over $25,000 toward their loans."72 Additionally, after 20 years of making payments through the income-based repayment program, the remainder of loans will be completely forgiven. Biden proposes all new and existing loans be enrolled in this iteration of the income-based repayment program with an option to opt out.
Additionally, Biden has proposed making sufficient funding of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), and minority serving institutions (MSIs) a priority of reforming higher education. Specifically, Biden proposes investing $70 billion in HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs for the purposes of providing more individual student grants, keeping private, non-profit HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs from being undermined by tuition free public universities, building more high tech labs and research facilities at HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, helping HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs maximize enrollment, retention, completion and employment, and ensuring that the funding gap between HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs and similar non-HBCU, TCU, or MSI institutions is closed.
Other major proponents of expanding access to higher education have been Sen. Elizabeth Warren and, perhaps most prominently, Sen. Bernie Sanders. President-elect Joe Biden even makes mention of Sanders's College for All Act of 2017 as a source of inspiration for his own proposal. The proposals from Sanders and Warren are notably more progressive in that they include cancelation of all or almost all existing student debt and making public college at both two and four year institutions free to everyone regardless of income. Both Sanders and Warren propose funding this initiative through either tax increases on the ultra-wealthy or Wall Street. Both plans mention specific plans for increasing funding for HBCUs and MSIs and using universal college education as a tool for solving racial and ethnic wealth disparities.
Conclusion
All of these plans include some sort of expansion in access to higher education. The progressiveness and methodology of individual proposals varies from candidate to candidate, but they all include language that prioritizes funding for HBCUs and MSIs and proposes expanding or socializing higher education as a means to rectifying racial inequality. The prioritization of racial justice consciousness is of the utmost necessity when creating a plan for expanded access to higher education. History has proven that non-white, particularly Black, individuals have been excluded from the promise of social mobility that higher education has offered. Federal inaction, a changing economy, and racist policies have put the heft of raising tuition costs and an astronomical debt crisis largely on the shoulders of BIPOC individuals.
Joe Biden's proposal is not the most progressive, but it is more progressive than any other plan that's been put in place. Since the Biden administration has yet to take office, it remains to be seen whether or not his plan for expanding access to college will be rolled out equitably. Lessons can and must be learned from the NYS Excelsior scholarship. While groundbreaking, the Excelsior program has not made racial equity in education a priority and the data reflects that. Overwhelmingly white institutions have been awarded the vast majority of Excelsior
scholarships. One reason for this is that the state government has not considered or prioritized the specific needs of non-white, urban students in the CUNY system—especially students in the CUNY community college system. Schools in the CUNY community college system receive very few Excelsior scholarships despite having the majority of state-wide, public undergraduates. These schools are 84.7% non-white.73 The current roll out of the Excelsior Scholarship fits well into the legacy left by the GI Bill. While it was not written to be explicitly racist, the de facto rollout was often racist to Black people due to denial of benefits from a racist VA, overcrowding/underfunding at HBCUs and MSIs, and/or lack of quality primary education to prepare for college.
The Excelsior Scholarship is a model for other programs—namely future federal programs—in two ways. In one way, it is a cutting-edge, "well-intentioned" model for making college education a reality for many low and middle income individuals and families. On the other hand, it has largely failed urban, non-white students by prioritizing the education of students at largely white, four year institutions. In some ways, it is a good thing that Excelsior has been rolled out the way it has because it can serve as an experimental example of what happens when racial equity and anti-racist politics are not made a conscious priority in government policy. The only way that future federal programs will actually create more societal equity and solve wealth inequality is if they learn from the mistakes of the Excelsior Program. Specifically, the types of reforms Excelsior or future programs need are acceptance of part-time students, a prioritization of institutions which serve predominantly BIPOC students, and be "first dollar" so that Pell grants and other forms of aid can cover additional fees and costs. Conversely, the total cost of public higher education (tuition and fees) could be subsidized for all as in the Sanders and Warren plans, but since the Biden administration is taking office in January, the previously mentioned reforms are more realistic.
The economy has completely changed over the last thirty years and the federal government has not kept up to make sure that its populace can make a living under the current, capitalist system. The total cost of an undergraduate degree has become crippling for many and insurmountable for some. This burden has landed disproportionately on the shoulders of people of color in this country. Previous plans to expand access to college—such as the GI Bill—have been rolled out in a racist way. Because of policies like this and this history of white supremacy in the country, a massive racial wealth gap has been created and exacerbated over generations. Families of color, particularly Black families, on average start with less and, thus, have higher hurdles to tackle as they try to seek out higher education as a means of reaching more economic security. The amount that Black individuals and/or families have to take out in loans, their loan default rate, and their overall wealth is completely disparate in comparison to their white counterparts. Higher education must be a part of the conversation of manifesting racial equity in the United States. Any plan to do this must recognize how BIPOC has been left out of the promise of higher education. Politicians can learn from programs like Excelsior and bring the voices of BIPOC to the forefront in designing an education system which actually works and is racially equitable.
Footnotes
1 College Board, "Trends in College Pricing: Highlights", (New York, NY: College Board, 2020)
2 College Board, "Trends in College Pricing: Highlights", (New York, NY: College Board, 2020)
3 Zach Friedman, "Student Loan Debt Statistics in 2020: A Record $1.6 Trillion", (Jersey City, NJ: Forbes, 2020)
4 Zach Friedman, "Student Loan Debt Statistics in 2020: A Record $1.6 Trillion", (Jersey City, NJ: Forbes, 2020)
5 All Things Considered, "Why Is College So Expensive?", (Washington, D.C.: NPR News, 2011)
6 All Things Considered, "Why Is College So Expensive?", (Washington, D.C.: NPR News, 2011)
7 Devin Fergus, "My Students Pay Too Much For College. Blame Reagan", (Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post, 2014)
8 Columbia Daily Spectator, "A Chat With Dave Stockman", (New York, NY: Columbia University Libraries, volume CV, number 146, 12 Oct. 1981)
9 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 104
10 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 104
11 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 106
12 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 106
13 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 105
14 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 106
15 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 104
16 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 107
17 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 107
18 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 108
19 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 108
20 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 108
21 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill" (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 108
22 Hilary Herbold, "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill", (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 6, winter, 1994-1995), 108
23 For more on the methodology of the study, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep25441
24 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
25 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
26 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
27 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney,"New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
28 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
29 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
30 Eli Dvorking and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 3
31 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 4
32 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short," (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 4
33 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 4
34 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 4
35 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 4
36 Eli Dvorkin and Brody Viney, "New York State's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020), 4
37 Tom Hilliard, "Excelsior Scholarship Serving Very Few New York Students", (New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2018)
38 CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, "Total Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity and College: Percentages, Fall 2019", (New York, NY: The City University of New York, 11 Apr. 2020.)
39 Data.NY.Gov,"State University of New York (SUNY) Trends in Enrollment of Students by Race/Ethnicity and by SUNY Sector: Beginning Fall 2002", (New York, NY: SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research, 13 Aug. 2020)
40 The SUNY data set did not include the number of students by race/ethnicity as a percentage of total student enrollment in each college sector, so the percentage calculations were done by the author.
41 Data.NY.Gov,"State University of New York (SUNY) Trends in Enrollment of Students by Race/Ethnicity and by SUNY Sector: Beginning Fall 2002", (New York, NY: SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research, 13 Aug. 2020)
42 CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, "Total Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity and College: Percentages, Fall 2019", (New York, NY: The City University of New York, 11 Apr. 2020.)
43 Data.NY.Gov,"State University of New York (SUNY) Trends in Enrollment of Students by Race/Ethnicity and by SUNY Sector: Beginning Fall 2002", (New York, NY: SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research, 13 Aug. 2020)
44 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings $606 for high school, $1,559 for advanced degree holders", (TED: The Economics Daily, 2019)
45 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings $606 for high school, $1,559 for advanced degree holders", (TED: The Economics Daily, 2019)
46 The data included in the chart "Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers age 25 years and older, by educational attainment, first quarter 2000-third quarter 2019, not seasonally adjusted" by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics did not include the percent increase of median wages over this period. These calculations were done by the author of this study.
47 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings $606 for high school, $1,559 for advanced degree holders", (TED: The Economics Daily, 2019)
48 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings $606 for high school, $1,559 for advanced degree holders", (TED: The Economics Daily, 2019)
49 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 1.
50 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 1, footnote 1.
51 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 3.
52 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 2.
53 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 4.
54 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 4.
55 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 4.
56 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 5.
57 Anthony P. Carnevale, Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish, America's Divided Recovery: College Haves and Have-Nots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016), 5.
58 Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose, The Undereducated American (Executive Summary) (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce, 2011),
59 This high demand also applies to individuals who hold associate's degree or some sort of postsecondary non-college credential, but to a much lesser extent than those holding bachelor's degrees
60 The data regarding supply/demand of college educated labor as well as the projections of the growth of income inequality were created based on an economic growth model developed by labor economists David Autor, Lawrence Katz, Alan Krueger, and Melissa Kearney. For more information see: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/the-undereducated-american/#resources
61 Elise Gould, State of Working America Wages 2019, (Washington D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2019), 13
62 Elise Gould, State of Working America Wages 2019, (Washington D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2019), 13
63 Elise Gould, State of Working America Wages 2019, (Washington D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2019), 13
64 Elise Gould, State of Working America Wages 2019, (Washington D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2019), 13
65 Elise Gould, State of Working America Wages 2019, (Washington D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2019), 13
66 Judith Scott-Clayton, "The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis is Worse Than We Thought", (Washington, D.C.: Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 2, #34, Brookings Institute, 2018), 7
67 Judith Scott-Clayton, "The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis is Worse Than We Thought", (Washington, D.C.: Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 2, #34, Brookings Institute, 2018), 7
68 Judith Scott-Clayton, "The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis is Worse Than We Thought", (Washington, D.C.: Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 2, #34, Brookings Institute, 2018), 9
69 Joebiden.com, "The Biden Plan For Education Beyond High School", BidenHarris
70 Joebiden.com, "The Biden Plan For Education Beyond High School", BidenHarris
71 Joebiden.com, "The Biden Plan For Education Beyond High School", BidenHarris
72 Joebiden.com, "The Biden Plan For Education Beyond High School", BidenHarris
73 CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, "Total Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity and College: Percentages, Fall 2019", (New York, NY: The City University of New York, 11 Apr. 2020.)
Bibliography
All Things Considered. "Why is College So Expensive?". Washington, D.C.: NPR News, 2011. https://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141505658/why-is-college-so-expensive
Berniesanders.com. "College For All and Cancel All Student Debt". Bernie.https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-college-cancel-debt/
Carnevale, Anthony P., Tamara Jayasundera, and Artem Gulish. America's Divided Recovery:
College Haves and Have-Nots. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2016. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/americas-divided-recovery/#video
Carnevale, Anthony P., and Stephen J. Rose. The Undereducated American. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2011. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/the-undereducated-american/#resources
Carnevale, Anthony P., Jenna R. Sablan, and Artem Gulish, et. al. The Dollars and Sense of Free College. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2020. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/freecollegecost/
College Board. "Trends in College Pricing: Highlights". New York, NY: College Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing/highlights
Columbia Daily Spectator. "A Chat With Dave Stockman". New York, NY.: Columbia University Libraries, Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume CV, Number 146, 12 Oct. 1981. http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&d=cs19811012-01.2.5 &srpos=&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN.
CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. "Total Enrollment By Race/Ethnicity and College: Percentages, Fall 2019". New York, NY: The City University of New York, 11 Apr. 2020. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0015_RACE_TOT_PCT.rpt. pdf
Data.NY.Gov. "State University of New York (SUNY) Trends in Enrollment of Students by Race/Ethnicity and by SUNY Sector: Beginning Fall 2002". New York, NY: SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research, 13 Aug. 2020. https://data.ny.gov/Education/State-University-of-New-York-SUNY-Trends-in-Enroll/ms 8i-dzsk
Dvorkin, Eli, and Brody Viney. New York's Free Tuition Promise Falling Short. New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, 2020. Accessed November 14, 2020. doi:10.2307/resrep25441.
Elizabethwarren.com. "Affordable Higher Education for All". Warren Democrats. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/affordable-higher-education \
Fergus, Devin. "My Students Pay Too Much For College. Blame Reagan.". Washington. D.C.: The Washington Post, 2 Sept. 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/02/my-students-pay-too-m uch-for-college-blame-reagan/
Friedman, Zach. "Student Loan Debt Statistics in 2020: A Record $1.6 Trillion". Jersey City, NJ: Forbes, 3 Feb. 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/02/03/student-loan-debt-statistics/?sh=313cf78d281f
Gould, Elise. State of Working America Wages 2019. Economic Policy Institute, 2020. https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/#table-3
Herbold, Hilary. "Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill." The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 6 (1994): 104-08. Accessed December 3, 2020. doi:10.2307/2962479.
Hilliard, Tom. "Excelsior Scholarship Serving Very Few New York Students". New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future, August 2018.
Houle, Jason N., and Fenaba R. Addo. “Racial Disparities in Student Debt and the Reproduction of the Fragile Black Middle Class.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 5, no. 4 (October 2019): 562–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649218790989.
Joebiden.com. "The Biden Plan For Education Beyond High School". BidenHarris. https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/
Scott-Clayton, Judith. "The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis is Worse Than We Thought". Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 2, #34. Washington. D.C.: Economic Studies at Brookings, 2018.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily, "Median weekly earnings $606 for high school dropouts, $1,559 for advanced degree holders", 2019. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/median-weekly-earnings-606-for-high-school-dropou ts-1559-for-advanced-degree-holders.htm
Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without thecaring, astute, and expert guidance of Dr. Marnie Brady. She was a kind, understanding, and exceptional educator throughout the entire Senior Seminar process. I'd also like to thank my fellow students in seminar with me for their unique perspectives and fascinating research.
Rebecca Craig is senior at Marymount Manhattan College pursuing a
double major in Dance (with a concentration in Dance Studies) and
Politics & Human Rights.