It’s difficult to gauge whether Barack Obama has made any positive impacts on higher education in California during his presidency. To Californians, his recent statement at the Democratic National Convention that “millions of students are paying less for college today” seems laughably false. In this state, tuition has skyrocketed within the last four years, while our public universities suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts.
So why listen to the president now? Because the problems facing public education are intertwined with the nation’s economic challenges — both of which are key points in Obama’s campaign for re-election. It is critical for college students to make an informed decision at the polls on Nov. 6, since the impact of this election can affect the way our government approaches aid and accessibility to higher education.
In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination last Thursday, Obama mentioned two specific goals: giving 2 million workers the “chance to learn skills at their community college that will lead directly to a job” and working with higher education institutions “to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next 10 years.” But there is only so much he can do as president — much of the responsibility for maintaining public universities falls on the states’ shoulders.
Still, Obama rightfully acknowledged the important place higher education holds in our economy and society as a whole. The remarks follow a series of related actions he took this year, including outlining a plan that would shift federal aid away from universities that don’t keep tuition affordable and pushing for a congressional vote that prevented interest rates on student loans from doubling.
The dangerous state of public higher education is of course a symptom of the ailing economy, and universities will likely continue to struggle until the nation’s financial health improves. Obama recognizes that — but he won’t increase the burden on students to fix the situation, either.
Obama showed he understands where the federal government’s help can make a huge difference: financial aid. States must keep fees low, but the Obama administration can ensure that when students are seeking degrees, they have the monetary resources necessary to complete their education.
He also seems to recognize the realities and challenges of being a student in the United States today, even if he cannot address every issue. Republican candidate Mitt Romney, on the other hand, offered little substance in his convention address, aside from a vague comment that he wants to create “an America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads to a good job and a bright horizon.”
At the very least, Obama’s speech solidified where his priorities are when it comes to education. He believes in investing in the future as opposed to gutting resources — because “no family should have to set aside a college acceptance letter because they don’t have the money.” Californians should understand that message all too well.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
hi
If you think you’re paying a lot now, just wait till Romney-World comes your way. Want a Pell Grant? LoL. Want a student loan? Sure … at a 20% vig per year. Don’t like it? The Mittster’s answer is “borrow the money for school from your parents”.
The problems in California are not of Obama’s doing, they stem from the Republican years under Bush. Giving that crowd another shot at running things again is like giving the keys for your new car to the drunk who crashed your old one … BEFORE you insure it.
Delve a bit deeper into history and you will find that California education change long before either Bush, and it wasn’t the federal government that actually affected our state’s education the most. Anyone should be able to notice that there are states in our union with great public education systems. They did it no matter who was the president.
I gather your firsthand knowledge of education before Bush consists of your mom parking you in front of the tube to watch Sesame Street, but the fact of the matter is that California schools were in decline as early as the 1970′s, and for a number of reasons. To blame Bush (who never had anything do with California to begin with) is pure silliness.
[It’s difficult to gauge whether Barack Obama has made any positive
impacts on higher education in California during his presidency.]
Weasel words for “he hasn’t done anything, but we’re reluctant to criticize him because we still believe in the hope and change BS”, right?
More telling than a speech is what he has actually done for education during the previous few years. Before you vote you should research this and ask some questions. Has government spending during the last few years changed in a way that will help fund education? Have his education policy statements and changes helped to make education more affordable? Has he done anything to try to influence state legislatures to increase funding for education? Has he done anything with unions and school systems to make sure schools have the best teachers, classes, and equipment to give students the education they need? Is the economy improving so that tax revenues increase and states have more money?
California has been the worst state for education over the last few decades. We went from being the top in the country to being at just about the bottom. Has Obama helped to change this or has he helped to ensure that we will be at the bottom for a long time to come?
Get a clue – our failure of a president is in deep kimchee and pandering for votes. He’ll say anything that resonates with his constituency.
Obama has an incomplete picture of higher education. He thinks he can uplift all Americans and illegal aliens just by putting them in college and handing them money confiscated from productive Americans. However, many people give up their true calling to take grueling college classes in arcane fields only to end up with no job and $70,000 in debt. Even worse, unprepared students who drop out of college basically waste all the grants and scholarships handed to them by the state, which deprives much-needed money for more serious students. We need a President who will stop pandering to the lowest common denominator and make federal grants conditional on satisfying entry-level English and math prerequisites before college (including community college). Someone who will put pressure on high schools to do their jobs. I have no idea if Romney is the right choice but Obama has failed in his 4 years. To his credit Obama is defying the teacher’s unions by supporting Race to the Top, but the Democratic party is facing pressure to exempt all low-performing schools and even states, which once again shifts the financial burden unfairly to underfunded colleges.
Because of how federalism works, there’s nothing the federal government can do to prevent states from wrecking their public education system.
A president has a few ways to influence states. I bet if Obama came to California and started just talking to the legislature, they would be inclined to adjust their actions some, and that is without even bringing up federal funds.