One problem I had with a ballot issue last month — the proposal to raise severance taxes on natural gas and use some of the money for tuition assistance to Colorado college students — was the feeling that if more money were available to students for tuition, our colleges would just raise their rates by that amount, and students would still have to pay the same amount of money as before.
In other words, if tuition were $1,500 a semester, and the state came up with $1,000 for tuition assistance from the increased severance tax, this would not lead to a direct cost of $500 for the student. Instead, the college would just increase tuition to $2,500 per semester, and the student would still have to come up with $1,500.
To some degree, this feeling was confirmed by a report released last week by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. According to that report, college tuition and fees, even after adjusting for inflation, rose by 439 percent from 1982 to 2007. Median family income rose by only 147 percent in the same period.
You’d think that in a market economy, as the cost rose, the demand would drop. Colleges would either close or reduce their prices in order to stay in business.
But we’ve built a system that increases the demand irrespective of cost or quality. If you want any kind of decent job, you’ve got to get a college degree, and thus you’re forced to pay whatever the college charges — often by borrowing thousands of dollars.
Is there a way around this?
Here’s a modest proposal. Over the years, we have passed civil- rights laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. But we still allow discrimination based on educational credentials, and that’s basically a benefit to those who can afford college.
So let’s move toward a more just society by outlawing discrimination based on educational credentials.
This is not to say that employers would be compelled to hire illiterates or incompetents. Employers, public and private, would be encouraged to test job applicants for their knowledge and skills. But employers would not be allowed to ask about formal schooling, any more than they can ask what church you attend.
For example, anyone who can pass the bar exam should be able to practice as a lawyer, rather than the current system that requires a college degree followed by law school. Clarence Darrow and Abraham Lincoln were both pretty good lawyers, and neither went to college, let alone law school.
Most newspapers require college degrees for reporters, but the main value of college in this regard is that it accustoms you to sitting through long, boring sessions while taking notes; H.L. Mencken, the patron saint of American journalism, never went past high school.
Most computer programmers I’ve known picked up their skills on their own, and they’ve built a major industry. Thomas Edison managed to invent the industrial research laboratory, the light bulb, the phonograph and a host of other wonders without ever attending college.
As for the colleges, wouldn’t they be better institutions if their students were genuinely interested in their fields of study, rather than getting their tickets punched so they can find jobs?
As long as colleges are able to serve as gate-keepers, rather than as educational institutions, they’ll be able to raise rates to whatever this rigged market will bear. If we’re serious about making college affordable, we need to quit allowing it to be a requirement.
Ed Quillen (ed@cozine.com) is a freelance writer, history buff, publisher of Colorado Central Magazine in Salida and frequent contributor to The Post.
