The cost of college?
I think that one reason middle-class parents stay silent about their finances is that they feel vulnerable
Date: 6/10/2020 2:56:44 AM ( 6 mon ) ... viewed 268 times
** The cost of college
The story of the rising cost of college in America is often told through numbers, with references to runaway tuition prices and the ever-growing pile of outstanding student debt.
The personal toll these trends have taken is hard to convey, but the anthropologist Caitlin Zaloom does so in her new book, Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost, which documents how the price of a college education has forced many middle-class families to rearrange their priorities, finances, and lives.
In Indebted, Zaloom, a professor at New York University, draws on some 160 interviews she did with families who are taking on debt to pay for college, mixing in history of education policy and analysis of the financial morass students and their loved ones must navigate—including a a close reading of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, form, and the concept of the family it promotes.
Read: Why dorms are so nice now
I recently spoke with Zaloom about what this system of paying for college is doing to families—as well as what might make higher education less financially fraught. The conversation that follows has been edited and condensed.
Joe Pinsker: In the past few decades, what’s changed in how families pay for college?
Caitlin Zaloom: College used to be a lot cheaper for families because there was more funding from the government. If you think about the biggest educational systems, like the University of California system or the City University of New York system, these universities were free or practically free for decades. That was in part because of a belief that higher education was essential for the national project of upward mobility, and for having an educated citizenry.
So middle-class families didn’t always have to pay for college with debt. The shift began in the 1980s, in terms of a changing political philosophy. President Ronald Reagan’s budget director, (Then the wave came) *** David Stockman, said in 1981,
“If people want to go to college bad enough, then there is opportunity and responsibility on their part to finance their way through the best way they can.” When those who argued that college is a private benefit framed it like that, it became logical to say that education should be paid for by the people that it benefits. And so in the 1990s, the vast expansion of loans for higher education began.
Pinsker: Many of the parents and children, you interviewed about their college-related debt feared that they were being financially burdensome to their family members. Given the shift you just described, do you think that this represents people internalizing system-level problems as personal ones?
Zaloom: The families that I spoke with really feared the possibility that they would be a weight on each other. And that is very much a fear of falling under the terms of the current college financing system—people understand themselves as failing, but we give them unreasonable terms. The fear is a really visceral feeling for parents. What they want is for their children to be able to go off into the world and become adults without the weight of their history—that of the parents—bringing them down.
Across all of my interviews, it was so important for parents to enable their kids to move into open futures, not limited by the parents’ economic background. The idea of limiting the horizon of their children are almost inconceivable to the parents that I spoke with. Parents understand something profound about living in a powerfully unequal society. They recognize that having a kid who can take their shots—who can really make the most of themselves—is essential to the possibility of reaching this far-off tier where people are living lives of stability and wealth. And if young adults are unable to take that shot, they face the possibility that they will be in either that constrained, eroding the middle class that their parents belong to—or, worse, that they will fall, and fall far.
Pinsker: The middle-class parents in your book generally didn’t talk with their kids about the financial strain of paying for college. You note that this isn’t confined just to the subject of paying for college, but is the case with other financial matters too. Why do you think parents so often avoid conversations about money with their kids?
Zaloom: I think that one reason middle-class parents stay silent about their finances is that they feel vulnerable, in terms of their social standing. When families face financial difficulties, that makes them feel like they may fall out of the middle class and like they won’t be able to do what people like them are supposed to do—for instance, to be able to send their kid to a college that’s a good fit or to be able to retire securely. So that silence about money is a kind of last resort for shoring up a faltering middle-class identity.
Pinsker: What is the single change that you think would be most effective in making paying for college less fraught for families?
Zaloom: I think that it is essential to make public universities tuition-free or low-cost. That would do wonders for helping families understand that education is for them, and for opening up the imaginations of young people who don’t otherwise see college as a possibility. That is important in and of itself, but it’s also important because free tuition would take the pressure off families to reorganize their lives around trying to achieve this unmanageable financial goal, which is what we ask them to do now. And then ultimately, it would also benefit young adults, because they would be graduating without the kind of debt that would inhibit them from trying to figure out what kind of contribution they want to make to the world and what kind of job they want to have.
Pinsker: What would you say to people who would read what you just said and argue in response that money can’t just be given out to everyone like that?
Zaloom: Most of the economic arguments against free tuition are based on the notion that education is a private good—that a college education is like a house, in that it’s something you are buying and then hold the responsibility to pay back. I don’t dispute the calculations of those who support that argument. And I do understand that funding free or low college tuition would also benefit a lot of wealthier families. But, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, I see higher education as being a fundamental public good that we have somehow defined as a private one.
Even considering that economic objection on its own terms, I would argue that higher education is now necessary for a stable life and a good job, in the way that K–12 education and a high-school degree was necessary 40 years ago. We now have a system that requires K–16 education for financial stability, so it’s important to fund that—we wouldn’t ask people to pay for 5th grade, so we shouldn't also ask people to be paying for the sophomore year.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page