The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising, I recognize this as a societal problem, but I want entitlement today and have my children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren pay for it in the future.
This is a fallacious argument. There exists a spectrum of expenditure options which can, on a publicly revenue-neutral basis, provide some financial offset for the costs of post-secondary education for those who need it most.
Sadly, political pressure to avoid even
evaluating such options fosters continued, unnecessary poverty for a segment of the population that--under well-designed programs-- would cost the public NOTHING on net to remediate.
Please elaborate, providing links and resources.
Here are two accessible papers that provide an overview of the basics of the public economics debate around subsidized higher education. The works cited contain some good background reading on the public policy and evaluation frameworks used to evaluate the financial and non-financial benefits to needs-based partially or fully subsidized post-secondary education.
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.3.288https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=studentThis is a good evaluation on the efficacy of various forms of financial aid, and of the barriers (short- and long-term) to accessing a post-secondary education.
http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/i/a/document/6963_LongFinAid.pdfNote, particularly, the quote below from the last document (pp.37). This is the reason why I'm hesitant to approach post-secondary access solely through the lens of affordability at point of tuition payment. The issue of affordability and access is better addressed--and more comprehensively so--by tackling the larger challenge of creating a social ecosystem, from birth, that allows children from impoverished families to prosper. Pricing of post-secondary tuition remains a challenge to address, but one which is then secondary.
To what degree is the problem of college access due to short-term credit constraints versus the long-term influence of coming from a disadvantaged background? There is growing debate on this issue as some question whether financial aid is an effective policy for increasing access. For example, Carneiro and Heckman (2002) conclude that the long-term influence of family income and background is more to blame than short-term credit constraints in explaining differences in attainment. Additional long-run factors that might be important include primary and secondary schooling inputs. If so, then financial aid at the last minute is unlikely to completely address concerns about inequality.
On the other side of the debate, researchers point to successful financial aid programs. When critics point to programs that have not been successful, supporters of financial aid emphasize the important role of information. If few students are aware of the availability of such resources, then this could help to explain why financial aid has not always had much of an effect, and short-term resources could be important. Much more research is needed to contribute to the debate about the role of financial aid versus other factors in addressing inequality.
This approach requires us to consider the needs of the child within a struggling family system as paramount. Ideologically, this means being able to step away from a purist view that requires all adults to be self-sufficient, and to accept responsibility (as taxpayers) for supporting the development of children where their families cannot sustain that burden, in part or in whole.
Rawls had it right when he sought to address the welfare of the worst-off in society. Much of life is a lottery. Ex ante, behind the veil of ignorance, any one of us could have been subject to starting conditions which could have substantially hindered our development. Why accept that for our fellow humans, most especially for children, if we wouldn't want it for ourselves or our own families?
