Ask Auntie Pinko
April 11, 2002

Dear Auntie Pinko,

My kids attend our state university but I don't have the $$$ for the tuition. Don't you think that the state and/or federal government should pay for all public education?

Dave
York, PA

Dear Dave,

Yes and no.

The purpose of public education in a democratic republic is to produce an informed and productive citizenry capable of exercising their self-governing franchise with reasonable discretion and maintaining an economy that meets their needs. Obviously, we're batting something less than a dollar ninety-eight, here.

Our voter turnout numbers are shameful, and Auntie Pinko really has to question the discretion of the voters who elect some of our esteemed representatives. Our economy does an infinitely better job of meeting the needs of people who already have large amounts of wealth than those whose entire capital consists of the education and motivation they can bring to the workplace.

On the other hand, compared to large swathes of the rest of the world, we don't do too badly. It is possible for anyone really determined to get a decent basic education to do so one way or another. We still have a network of public schools that continues to limp along in spite of the contentious squabblings of ideologues, our network of public libraries is still treading water (although just barely, in many cases,) and a variety of media, (however questionable its content may be,) is widely available.

As an idealist (sounds much nicer than "ideologue," doesn't it?) Auntie Pinko would agree that one function of our collective well-being should be the availability of a free, good quality education to everyone, to a certain point. As a taxpayer, I have to admit that beyond that point I stop thinking in terms of "free" and turn to thinking in terms of "subsidized."

Post high-school education should offer our young people an array of choices suitable to their abilities, aspirations, and inclinations. The apprenticeship models that work so well in parts of Europe would be a wonderful option for many young people who are bright and motivated but not necessarily interested in an academic course of study. We are making strides in the area of "community colleges" and other post high-school options that steer young people into skilled occupations requiring more training than an on-the job experience can provide.

And it does the state nothing but good to ensure that the cost of a decent college education is not out of reach of any bright, motivated, hard-working young person who wants to pursue a discipline requiring academic study.

But would I support a free college education for all citizens on demand? I'm not sure we have the resources to provide that, Dave. I would prefer to see us do a much better job of continuing to subsidize our public colleges and universities, so that the cost of a quality education there need not be overwhelming. I would prefer to see us reinstitute tuition subsidies in the form of loans and grants on a means-tested basis, and scholarships (partial and/or full) on a means-tested-plus-aptitude-tested basis.

It does no student harm to come to terms with the reality that education costs money. Indeed, if they do not sufficiently value higher education to commit themselves to meeting a substantial share of a reasonable cost, then they probably should not choose college at all. It can be frightening to face graduation with a debt to work off, but millions of students (including Auntie Pinko) have done so and learned valuable lessons about responsibility in the process.

Higher education should never be out of reach of talented young people, regardless of their income circumstances. But free? Not in Auntie Pinko's humble opinion, Dave. But thanks for asking!