Our View: Plans to tackle college costs risk tripping up students
At the University of California at Los Angeles, tuition soared 43% this school year. At Arizona State University, tuition rose 39%. Across the USA, costs at four-year public colleges increased 14% on average, not counting hikes for room, board and fees.

The sharp spikes have caused students and parents to complain to just about anyone who will listen. And in Congress they're getting a particularly sympathetic ear. Republicans in the House of Representatives are pushing a plan to punish public and private colleges if their tuition increases outpace inflation. Democrats want to penalize flinty state legislatures that slacken their support of higher education.

Obviously, something needs to give. Between 2001 and 2003, the average tuition and fees for public colleges rose from $3,487 to $4,694. For private colleges, the hike was from $16,233 to $19,710.

These tuition jumps are unusual only because of their size. During the past 22 years, tuitions at four-year public colleges rose by 202% while the consumer price index rose by 80%. If recent trends continue, by 2010, tuition and fees alone will be $7,082 for a public four-year college and $28,182 for a private institution.

But the crude tools Congress wants to forge to control runaway tuition aren't right for the job. In fact, the federal government itself laid the foundation for many of today's college funding troubles because of the way it has chosen to finance higher education. By tampering with that system now, the government risks hurting the students that federal aid is designed to help.

Aid goes to students

For the past 30 years, federal support for higher education has been sent not to colleges, but directly to students. This year, it included $11.7 billion in Pell Grants for poor students, $47.7 billion in federally backed tuition loans and $5.4 billion in tax credits.

Democrats believed the system let them target needy students. Republicans saw it as a market approach that allowed students to attend the colleges of their choice.

But the federal spending decisions added to the college-funding crisis. Consider:

They do too little to lessen the financial burden for students who need help the most. During the past three years, as tuition spiked, the maximum value of Pell Grants that the federal government provides to poor students has risen only 1%. At public four-year colleges, the average Pell Grant of $2,421 covers less than 30% of the total cost, according to the College Board.

In the meantime, the higher education tax credits passed by Congress in 1997 helped middle-class families but did nothing to increase access to college for poor students. Poor families can't get refundable tax credits for tuition, and poor students can't use the credits to purchase textbooks.

As a result, college costs eat up 71% of earnings for low-income families but only 6% of the income of the top 25% of earners, according to the College Board.

They don't have a workable way to hold colleges accountable for profligate spending. By providing aid directly to students instead of colleges, the federal government has little say in how schools spend their money. Unless the federal government starts directly funding colleges, the responsibility for reining in tuition belongs to the states, not the federal government. In fact, trying to control tuition costs under existing federal financing mechanisms would backfire on students.

Republicans, for example, propose restricting federal work-study grants at colleges with high tuition hikes. But those grants go to lower-income students.

The Democrats' proposals present similar problems. They would reward schools that keep tuition low by enriching the value of Pell Grants for those colleges' students. But that would take money away from poor students at other schools.

Give parents powerful tools

Just because the federal government can't easily force cost controls on colleges doesn't mean it can't provide any help to families worried about rising tuitions. In fact, by collecting and distributing data — much of which is already available — the federal government could make parents better shoppers and state legislators better overseers of state colleges. Releasing the average price change for each college over the past decade, for example, could become part of a college's affordability rating.

That and other data could appear on college-by-college report cards providing information not found in most private college rankings — such as scores on graduate school exams and job-placement rates. Also important is knowing how many students graduate in four years.

The federal government has a role in the college affordability debate. But that role can't involve swinging a big stick that's most likely to hurt students.

Opposing View: Intervention is needed
By Howard McKeon
America's higher education system is in crisis. Explosive price increases are jeopardizing the dream of a college education for millions of students.
According to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, cost factors prevent 48% of all college-qualified, low-income high school graduates from attending a four-year college and 22% from attending any college at all.

This is unacceptable.

As chairman of the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, I have made college affordability a top priority:

In 1997, I created the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education to study tuition increases and rising administrative costs and to make policy recommendations on how to hold down these increases for students and their families.

Throughout my eight-year chairmanship, I have worked hard to increase the maximum Pell Grant from $2,000 to $4,050 and have fought to drive down interest rates to make student loans more affordable.

Despite my efforts to increase student aid and college affordability, tuition levels have continued to skyrocket beyond our most liberal projections. The time has come for federal intervention; without a response, this unchecked crisis threatens the very fabric of America's higher education system.

I took a stand in October by introducing the Affordability in Higher Education Act. The measure, among other things, places sanctions on colleges and universities that boldly increase tuition and fees at hyper-inflationary rates year after year.

Under my bill, beginning in 2008, institutions that increase tuition and fees more than twice the rate of inflation over a three-year interval could have a portion of their federal subsidy removed, excluding direct aid to students (Pell Grants, Stafford and Direct Loans). In other words, my bill will hold schools accountable for exorbitant tuition hikes without hurting students.

Many argue this is an issue for the states and the institutions themselves to address. Indeed, I am often told the federal government should do nothing but send more money. I disagree.

Its stake in this issue is tremendous: The federal government provided more than $70 billion in student aid last year alone.

The college cost crisis will not be resolved without federal intervention. Taxpayers should not be forced to provide endless federal subsidies to colleges without accountability for extraordinary price increases that prevent our nation's brightest from pursuing higher education.

The fact is, higher education in America is federally subsidized. We have a responsibility at the federal level to ensure our multi-billion-dollar investment reaches its full potential to help make the dream of college a reality for needy students and families who depend on us.

I will continue working with students, parents, state governments, lenders and institutions of higher education to bring the dream of a college education back in the hands of America' s students.

They deserve nothing less.

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairs the U.S. House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.