Winter 1998

Affording College

I worry that we are on the brink of a major social and educational crisis in America if we do not take the governmental and institutional steps necessary to ensure that able, but lower-income, students can continue to afford to go to college.
The goal of ensuring that able students from all family backgrounds can afford to attend college has been a focus of federal and state higher education policy for several decades now, and much progress has been made. On the other hand, the demand for college-educated people is growing significantly, the incomes of all but the highest paid in America have been declining in real terms, and compensating government student aid has not kept up.
A recent draft National Association of Independent Colleges and Universalities (NAICU) policy paper says that the “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that employment in professional specialty and managerial occupations, where college graduates comprise about two-thirds of the work force, will grow by 24% between 1994 and 2005 and account for 41% of the nation’s total job growth. Over the same period, occupations requiring the least education or training are expected to decline as a share of overall employment.” In the state of Minnesota, whose Private College Council and its research program are presided over by my good friend and St. Lawrence classmate David Laird ’65, projections indicate a growing and serious gap between the number of college graduates likely to be available and the number of jobs demanding them.
The good news for colleges is that the demand for what we do is growing. The bad news, however, is that federal and state student aid policies and dramatically shifting competitive environment for colleges have combined to place the financing of higher education for students – especially lower-income students – at risk. In a new book, Michael McPherson, president of Macalester College, and Morton Schapiro present some disturbing data. From 1986-87 to 1992-93, the net tuition cost (that is, the out-of-pocket tuition payment after all forms of student aid) in 1992-93 dollars increased 164% for students whose family incomes are in the bottom third of income distribution – over three times the percentage increases for student in the top third, and for tuition itself.
At St. Lawrence, I am the court of last appeal for students who, even with generous aid packages, are just not able to come up with the money they need. Their stories are heart wrenching, and too often my answer has to be “no” out of fairness to others in the same boat who struggle and, somehow, find a way to get by.
An even more disturbing McPherson/Schapiro finding is that, for every $150 increase in real tuition paid by the lowest income group of students, the rate of college-going declined by 1.6%. Just as college attendance is growing even more critical for our society and for them personally, college is moving out of reach financially for increasing numbers of lower-income students.
With more and more institutions joining us to exercise tight discipline on tuition increases, there are really only two potential sources of help for such students: institutional scholarship aid and government need-based aid – and the financial aid resources of institutions are stretched to the limit. At St. Lawrence, for example, institutional scholarship aid grew from $6.6 million in 1986-87 to $17.6 million in 1996-97 while the size of the student body was pretty stable. Roughly 75% of St. Lawrence students receive institutionally funded scholarship aid, and the average expected family contribution toward college expenses (calculated using the mandated federal methodology) of students receiving need-based aid here is just over $7,600! We insist that most of them stretch and pay much more.
Federal grant aid per student for lower-income students has been almost constant during that same period. New York State’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) has grown, but much of the increase has funded students attending public institutions. Without aggressive federal and state attention to the financial needs of lower-income students with ability who ought to attend college, we will not have the highly educated labor pool we need, and I believe we will have greatly heightened social class tensions and conflict, with their own significant public dollar costs.
Our ability at St. Lawrence in the coming years to assist lower-, middle- and even some higher-income students and their families with the cost of attending college will depend absolutely on the amount of new endowment for scholarships we are able to raise, and how rapidly gifts for expendable scholarships and gifts to the annual fund grow. Generous and significant support by individuals through Campaign St. Lawrence for this purpose is essential if we are to be able to continue to do our part.
But even that won’t be enough unless federal and state need-based student aid grows. Congress is about to begin the reauthorization process, with is must do every five years, for the legislation that provides federal student aid; significant gains or losses are possible for America’s students and their families. At the state level, too, student aid policy issues are under discussion as the governor’s budget request is debated. New York’s fairly positive financial picture raises the stakes in this year’s budget cycle.
In my roles with our independent sector associations at both the federal and state levels, I’ll be doing what I can to urge a strong and positive government response; I hope you will also. The too-large number or really fine students, at St. Lawrence and elsewhere – the students whose sad stories I hear too often – will be deeply grateful.