Editorial: Politicians can’t resolve student debt crisis without addressing tuition

Thanks to the increasingly outspoken Occupy movements, the student debt crisis is more… Thanks to the increasingly outspoken Occupy movements, the student debt crisis is more well-publicized than ever before. But political efforts to address the problem all too often ignore its underlying cause: out-of-control tuition rates.

This past Wednesday, President Barack Obama unveiled renovations to the Income-Based Repayment program for federal student loans. Beginning this January, borrowers with loans in 2012 and at least one of the previous four years will be allowed to limit monthly payments to 10 percent of their discretionary income. They will also gain the option of consolidating debts owed to multiple federal loans, which, according to White House officials, will decrease their interest rates by as much as half a percentage point.

Most of these changes were set to take effect in 2014, but Obama, likely eager to win over young voters before the 2012 elections, used his executive authority to accelerate their implementation. There are several commendable aspects of Obama’s plan, not the least of which is its commitment to decreasing the amount of loan defaults. But because the minimum percentage of discretionary income has decreased, students will ultimately spend more money in a longer repayment process.

In any case, although we applaud measures aimed at alleviating increasingly exorbitant student debt, we think this program neglects the real problem: high tuition rates.

According to College Board, public four-year universities charge an annual average of $7,605 for in-state tuition and fees (Pitt’s in-state tuition is much more severe: $15,272 for undergraduates in most colleges). If these costs remained static (which they never do — the average increase this year was 8.3 percent) average, in-state, public-university-attending students would have to take out roughly $30,420 in loans for four years, excluding room and board, meals and other accompanying expenditures. The costs of higher education, which have long outpaced national inflation rates, are simply too excessive to ignore.

Of course, reining in university spending has proven difficult; most colleges seem unwilling to use state aid as a counterbalance to rising tuition. If Pitt’s recent request for more funding is approved, for example, our tuition will still rise by a maximum of 4 percent. Nonetheless, legislators could, for example, warn fully public universities that if their tuition increases aren’t stabilized, their funding will be cut. Conversely, they could increase funding for universities that have managed to keep their costs in check with the consumer price index. Politicans on college boards of trustees can push for similarly moderate spending.

The government’s ability to regulate private schools is naturally more limited. But public schools, which politicians hold accountable in a variety of ways, should be subject to more intensive financial scrutiny, particularly with regards to tuition. Otherwise, student loan difficulties will persist, despite federal aid.

The debt crisis that so galvanized young activists cannot be resolved without our recognizing its catalyst. In addition to establishing more lenient loan relief programs, the government should make a concerted effort to subdue rising university costs — a much more difficult, but ultimately much more rewarding initiative.