RE: Rubio or Clinton?

 

http://media.cagle.com/17/2012/04/04/109375_600.jpg



I will start off this week's blog post with a disclaimer.  I do not consider or claim to be a political science expert nor do I typically publically discuss politics.  However, it is evident that decisions made by our current and future leaders impact higher education since colleges are dependent upon fiscal support.  As pointed out in Logan's blog post, Clinton, Rubio, and Sanders have proposed different higher education proposals which requires much thought into selecting the right approach.  I am not going to choose which candidate's approach I believe to be best because I am not prepared to do so at this time.  While the articles provided in Logan's post provide a brief overview of Clinton's and Rubio's plans, a more in depth evaluation must occur to truly understand how each plan would impact higher education students and institutions.  It is essential that college administrators understand their institution's philosophy, mission, strengths, and challenges in order to make effective decisions concerning budgetary dilemmas.
Upon my reflection of Clinton's and Rubio's plans, both candidates are attempting to resolve the budgetary dilemma of declining state fiscal support and rising educational costs.  Particularly tuition costs and student loan debts.  Community colleges are strongly influenced by the economic and political environments.  This is in part a result of their open access educational philosophy which commits to provide accessible and affordable higher education to anyone who has the desire to further their education.  The open access philosophy is based upon the fact that access to higher education is essential for job employment and workforce development.  While community college tuition rates remain considerably less than four year institutions, tuition costs are still concerning since community college students tend to come from lower-income families.  This becomes a significant challenge for the community college equity agenda.  Furthermore, funding is linked to enrollment and/or performance which also becomes challenging for the community college open access philosophy.  Typically, when the economy is good community college enrollment is down and when the economy is bad enrollment increases.
The aforementioned trends impact state fiscal support, tuition costs, and student loan debts.  What can be said about Clinton's and Rubio's higher education plans is that they are based upon different approaches to these fiscal trends.  According to Levin and Kater (2013) there are three possible explanations for declining state funds and rising educational costs.  The Ideological Explanation views postsecondary education as a private good in which funding should correct an imbalance between state fiscal support and tuition (Levin and Kater, 2013). The Structural Explanation views economic limits and its effects on state funding availability based upon sufficient tax revenues from which the funds would be withdrawn (Levin and Kater, 2013). Finally, The Socio-Political Explanation views public reluctance to increase educational funding is based upon accountability (Levin and Kater, 2013).  Should we increase federal funding for education or should we work to ensure that the costs represent the value of higher education? Different approaches to consider as we all make our Presidential candidate decision.

References:

Levin, J.S., & Kater, S.T. (Eds.). (2013). Understanding community colleges. New York, NY: Routledge.