Students at Florida State University and University of Florida may soon see some drastic tuition increases. A recent bill passed by the Florida legislature would allow the two public universities to raise their tuition beyond the current 15 percent statewide cap. It remains to be seen whether Gov. Rick Scott, who has said he opposes tuition increases, will veto the bill. Nevertheless, the tuition bill is linked to a $300 million budget cut for public Florida universities, which has forced universities to consider, in addition to raising tuition, increasing class sizes or even, in the case of Florida Atlantic University, closing a branch campus.
At the same time, the Florida Supreme Court is preparing to decide whether the legislature has the right to set tuition rates—like the 15 percent cap—at all. And striking down the cap on tuition increases would allow all universities—not just FSU and UF—to set tuition at what has been called “market rates.”
“Market rates.” That phrase says a lot. Indeed, one of the most troublesome aspects of budget cuts like the one Florida universities are facing is that such cuts force universities to act more like businesses. But education is not a business; it should not be in service of the market. Instead, education should be in service of democracy. In short, the purpose of education should be to facilitate an informed citizenry in society that can affect change when needed.
Instead, the constant inflation of tuition—a problem nationally, and not confined to public universities—explicitly serves corporate interests. The debt that middle- and working-class students must accumulate to earn a college degree makes many students beholden to big banks. Students are forced to go into debt at higher and higher rates before entering into the workforce full time. It’s pretty easy to see how this vicious cycle works: one goes into debt to accumulate the the educational capital required to get the job that could begin paying off the debt. And because of the increased monetary pressure on middle- and working-class students and their families, many of the extra-curricular aspects of education—such as internships—become more out of reach and reserved for higher class students, who can afford the lost income because of stronger monetary support. This is one way that a businesslike approach to higher education reproduces inequality in society rather than creating a “great equalizer” by which all classes of students can take equal advantage of higher education. More than half of American college students already require financial aid, according to the US Department of Education, and with increasing tuition, these students’ debts are sure to rise with it.
So, with the possibility of the Florida Supreme Court blowing up the 15 percent cap that’s helped keep Florida universities’ tuition relatively low compared to other states, I could come down on one side or the other (hint: I’m against removing the cap). But to go no further than that is a refusal to ask what I think are key questions: What is higher education for? And then, what does the current structure of debt-driven education do?
For reasons that I’ve already suggested, it’s clear that if higher education’s purpose is to create an equal playing field for student success, however a student defines “success,” then it fails miserably.
educational institutions need to grapple with the political reality of the students they serve. The fact is, education is always political: for one, because education is key to sustaining a practicing democracy. I would go so far as to suggest that the poor state of American democracy is directly linked to the poor state of American schooling.
And if we stay on the track of raising tuition and slashing state funding, the problem both of these important American institutions will only get worse. For instance, Central Florida News 13 reported earlier this month that the Florida Prepaid Program—an important way for parents to begin paying for their student’s college ahead of time—could be terminally affected by the Florida tuition hikes. Foreseeably, future students that would have taken advantage of the program will be forced to go further in debt. And such a scenario would demonstrate the importance of defining the purpose of education now. If you ask a debt-ridden college student if the structure of higher education is working, he or she will likely say that it’s not. But if you ask the bank that put the student in debt, the answer may the opposite.
Mikey Angelo Rumore can be reached at michealangelorumore@gmail.com.