It’s not academic

The skyrocketing cost of college looks like a racket

Presidential candidates are calling for free college education and students are drowning in loan debt, but the cost of tuition locally and nationwide keeps going up. Public sentiment against spiraling tuition is likely to grow, so the national and state governments and the universities themselves together must reexamine how higher education is funded.

The University of Pittsburgh and the State System of Higher Education both announced tuition increases recently. At Pitt’s main campus tuition will jump 2.3 percent for Pennsylvania residents and 2.75 percent for out-of-state students. Students at satellite campuses will see increases of 1.9 percent. For an undergraduate arts and science student at the main campus, the increase brings a year’s tuition to $17,688, up $396 from last year. The State System increased tuition 2.5 percent for 2016-17, bringing the base cost to $7,238 for the academic year — a decision that affects more than 100,000 students at 14 universities.

The institutions cast the increases in the best possible light. Pitt called its hike the smallest percentage-wise in 41 years. The State System described its jump as the lowest percentage-wise in more than a decade and cited $300 million in cost-cutting during that period. Still, the increases come against a backdrop of growing concern about college affordability.

While Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders fell short in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, he succeeded in rallying many Americans, including large numbers of young Americans, around a socially liberal agenda that called for free college tuition at public institutions. Hillary Clinton, who hopes to pick up Mr. Sanders’ supporters, is proposing free education at community colleges and a free ride at fouryear public universities for children of households earning less than $125,000 annually. Her website says the policy will require major new federal investment, while “states will have to step up and meet their obligations as well.” Republican nominee Donald Trump has said little about college costs.

While not every job requires a college degree, many do, and education long has been regarded as the key to advancement, individual and generational, in this country. With tuition far outstripping wage increases, however, a college education is falling out of reach for some and has proved to be a long-term financial millstone for others.

A recent story in the Post-Gazette noted that a majority of students now plan to bunk at home instead of college dorms to save on the room and board expenses that go on top of tuition bills. But that only helps so much. The Federal Reserve has estimated student loan debt at $1.8 trillion, with data indicating 7 million borrowers are in default and about 3 million more behind in their payments.

Another recent PG story outlined local colleges’ efforts to help low-income, first-generation students make it to graduation. While grants and other aid may be available for the neediest students, ever-higher tuition can’t help retention rates. Higher tuition confounds scholarship programs, such as the Pittsburgh Promise, which seek to help low- and middle-income students.

Barring the kinds of free-tuition programs Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton have mentioned, more students should be encouraged to do their initial coursework at lower-costing community colleges. Universities should more often offer menu-style tuition plans, so students can choose packages affordable for them. Universities also must keep careful watch on their bottom lines, limiting the high-profile construction projects that can consume tuition dollars for maintenance down the road.

Other ideas floated during the presidential campaign — such as cutting interest rates on student loans, tying repayment schedules to borrowers’ incomes and permitting community service or other in-kind loan repayments — should be considered by whoever wins the presidential election. Clearly, the current system is unsustainable.