Clinton’s college plan will fuel affordability crisis

Hillary Clinton was back in New Hampshire last week, this time to address one of the most important issues facing America: the runaway cost of higher education. She spoke about her “New College Compact,” a plan for addressing ongoing growth in college tuition and other education expenses.

Unfortunately for my generation, Clinton’s plan will only exacerbate the college affordability crisis.

That’s because her plan heavily relies on the types of subsidies and government programs that made education so costly to begin with. Clinton wants states and the federal government to “step up and help pay the cost” of financing higher education. The total price tag? Around $350 billion in just the first 10 years.

Clinton is pulling solutions from the same old playbook, and we shouldn’t expect them to work any better than when they were tried before. Throwing more money at a broken system won’t do anything to fix it — and it’s highly likely that things will get worse.

State and federal spending on education has been growing since the 1960s, rising from $11.1 billion then to a record $86.6 billion in 2009. Over that same time, tuition costs have grown too. In the first-in-the-nation primary state, for example, the average tuition bill has increased nearly $10,000 over the last 20 years. Massachusetts public universities saw an increase of around $7,000 for tuition and other expenses over a similar period.

But here’s the thing: Government’s growing role in higher education has actually caused most of these tuition increases. A new study from the Federal Reserve found every dollar in federal tuition subsidies increases the cost of tuition by 65 cents.

In other words, using the government to “make college affordable” has the exact opposite effect.

These rising tuition prices are leaving graduates with staggering amounts of student debt. This is especially true for New England, where students have some of the highest debt in the country. Average student debt is $32,795 in New Hampshire, more than anywhere else in the nation. Massachusetts doesn’t fare much better, with an average debt load of $28,565. Nationwide, student debt has reached a staggering $1.2 trillion — more than all credit card debt combined.

This doesn’t make sense. Rather than continue failed policies from the past, we should focus on reforms that broaden the education market and make it more accessible.

What does that look like in practice? The first step is to reform the college accreditation process. Under the current system, government-sanctioned agencies stand in the way of innovative and more affordable colleges and universities. The accreditation process is also costly and onerous, which prevents new schools from opening their doors.

Clinton’s plan briefly touches on this issue, but her proposal doesn’t go nearly far enough. Federal legislation such as the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act is a better option, reforming accreditation and cutting costs. It would give states more flexibility in establishing their accreditation standards, allowing a greater variety of schools — think specialized trade schools and online programs — to open.

Expanding programs such as the College Level Examination Program, which allows students to test out of courses they’ve mastered independently, would also help students avoid unnecessary and costly coursework while they pursue their degree.

Other policies Clinton proposes have better alternatives. She promotes President Obama’s plan for “free” community colleges, but the better option is to support truly free education alternatives, such as online programs available without cost. Even Harvard University, one of the nation’s most expensive schools, makes valuable course materials available for free online.

These are just some reforms that can introduce more choice into higher education, lower the cost of tuition, and ease the staggering student debt burden. Clinton’s plan to throw more money at the problem will only make it worse. Patrice Lee is the national spokeswoman for Generation Opportunity, a conservative millennial advocacy organization.