Article 1: “Despite Rising Costs, College is Still a Good Investment” – Liberty Street Economics, a blog published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This post indicates that the research reports the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has produced in the last decade indicate that while the return on college investment is smaller than it has been in the past due to rising tuition costs, the return (14%) is still high and indicates that the cost of a Bachelor’s degree is still “worth it.”

Article 2: “How the Democrats Got Radicalized on Student Debt” – The Atlantic, an article describing the proposed policy changes to tackling student debt amongst Democratic candidates since the 2008 election cycle. In 2007 the conversation focused on marginal changes to pell grants – today, the policy proposals are much more drastic.

I think that these two articles play off each other – with a rising student debt issue, something that has been building over the last decade (demonstrated by the analysis in the Liberty Street Economics blog post), naturally the Democratic party is going to tackle this issue.

But are these Democratic candidates really addressing the problem wholeheartedly? In the Liberty Street Economics post, they point to reports that if a student spends more than 4 years in a Bachelor’s program, the financial benefit – the “value” or “worth” or “profit” of the degree – decreases. Students who attend state universities and community colleges are more likely to take more than 4 years to graduate as opposed to students who attend private institutions (or the UC’s, in California’s case). Most Democratic plans focus on making community and state colleges free of charge, but don’t necessarily tackle the costs of private colleges.

What is the plan to bring more support into the public systems? Or does it not matter as much if degrees are free, because students can take as long as they want to obtain them, as they do in other countries? (I am in favor of this actually – why not take more time to explore if you are sure, or if you want to take a semester off in the middle of your studies? Taking the pressure off of “graduating on time” isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as extra costs are not associated with the decision.) Is this what the general taxpayer wants?

Hillary Clinton’s plan, mentioned in The Atlantic article, to offer free college to students who’s families make less than $125,000, makes a lot of sense – a sliding scale makes a lot of sense. Offering the option to attend a smaller college and a larger college is ideal, because students will vary in their needs. Some want a larger university, want to be on their own, while others need faculty and administration to be more “high-touch.”

We need to remember that in countries where anyone can attend university at a much more affordable price, there are other options available – vocational school, for example. We need to also remember that these societies tend to be more “tracked,” meaning students don’t necessarily get to choose the route the take, but rather test into that option at young ages.

As the tension between offering liberal arts curriculum and trending towards career-focused schooling continues, we need to be mindful of what we value as a society, and not just from an economic or financial standpoint.

What is in our inherent mission as citizens of the United States, and what will serve that mission?

I certainly believe that providing an affordable option to pursue higher education, or any form of post-secondary education, will serve the United States and what is built into our constitution. But this needs to be provided thoughtfully, holistically. We don’t just need the act, we the need the structure and the messaging to support the act.

Higher education doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it exists in the greater realm of education, and education is impacted by, and impacts, everything else.

With trends in interdisciplinary approaches, perhaps this is something we need to begin to incorporate into our governmental structure, too.