Reform, in theory anyway, has dominated the political sphere for the past year — financial reform, health care reform, energy reform, the list goes on. Yet for all the talk on Capitol Hill, there’s been little action thus far. In spite of these shortcomings, another reform bill is up for debate in the Senate: student loan reform. Given the state of our broken political system and ideologically divided country, we as students must ensure that expanded access to higher education transcends party lines, corporate interest, bank executives and tea party politics. With tuition hikes taking place nationwide — coupled with the recession and credit shortages — Americans cannot afford not to reform student aid. An educated populous is central to American prosperity and ultimately the most sustainable solution to our economic troubles. To achieve such reform, however, will require much more than feel-good rhetoric and top-down initiatives. It is ultimately up to the beneficiaries of this bill — American students — to ensure that substantial change is realized. 

On Sept. 17, 2009 the House passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) — the largest investment in aid to help students and families pay for college in history. If passed in the Senate, this legislation would eliminate wasteful subsidies to private student loan companies by shifting to a direct loan program, saving a projected $87 billion over the next 10 years. The billions saved from this cost-cutting measure would put taxpayer dollars directly in the hands of students as opposed to for-profit bankers and lenders, making college more affordable and accessible for students.

American students receive financial support for higher education through the federally-funded Pell Grant program. Since it was first established in 1965, millions of Americans have been able to earn a college degree despite their inability to finance their education. While Pell Grants still aid millions of American families each year, the value of Pell Grants relative to tuition has decreased steadily over the past two decades. 20 years ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered 50 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at four-year public institutions. In 2007-2008, the maximum Pell Grant covered only 32 percent of these costs, and only a small fraction of the cost of private college and university tuition. 

If passed in the Senate, SAFRA would help Pell Grants keep up with rising college costs by indexing them for inflation plus one percent — increasing the maximum grant from $5,350 in 2009 to $6,900 in 2019. Although Cornell already uses a direct loan program, increasing the size and number of grants given could help alleviate some of the financial crunch many Cornell students are feeling. Currently, there are 1,753 Pell Grant recipients at Cornell — more than Princeton, Yale and Harvard combined. Despite these improvements though, Pell Grants would still pale in comparison to the exorbitant costs of institutions like Cornell, particularly in the endowed colleges.

Though SAFRA is a step in the right direction, it is not a cure-all solution to the ever-increasing cost of higher education. Pell Grants are a drop in the bucket towards education costs. Ultimately, a more significant higher education overhaul is needed. Students must be at the forefront of these reform efforts. Some possible solutions:

1) Lower higher education costs. While it is difficult to discern what exactly my $37,000-a-year in tuition pays for, the harsh reality is that this large sum of money only covers a portion of the actual cost of my education. In fact, the cost of education per student is approximately double the price of tuition. Thus, all students’ tuition is subsidized by the University regardless of whether students qualify for financial aid. To make matters worse, University costs are rising faster than revenue. Therefore, if lowering tuition is a long-lost cause, isn’t cutting costs the next best solution? The problem arises when universities make drastic cuts while increasing tuition at the same time — best illustrated by the student uproar at the University of California. Rightfully so, U.C. students are outraged; why should they be paying more (32 percent more), for less? The same thing is happening at Cornell, though on a smaller scale. Cornell’s “Reimagining” campaign aims to do more with less — improve the quality of education while cutting costs. It is too soon to tell how effective this will be.  

2) Devote a greater proportion of university endowments towards financial aid. The endowment debate is fairly controversial among students. Many wonder why universities have billions of dollars sitting in the bank, gaining interest to be used at a later date, when that money could be used to support students at this time. Principally, universities do use their endowments to support students. In fact, in light of the recession, Cornell drew an additional $35 million for undergraduate financial aid for the ’09-10 academic year. While it is true that $35 million isn’t particularly substantial relative to Cornell’s $3.9 billion endowment, the unfortunate reality is that university rankings do reflect the size of their endowment. As much as we hate the game, we play the game like everyone else. Cornell already has the lowest per-student endowment in the Ivy League, and thus, is compelled to conserve its endowment when possible in order to stay competitive and preserve the value of Cornell degrees. While I commend the Board of Trustees for their commitment to financial aid during these difficult economic times, relying on endowments as the sole source for student aid is not sustainable.  

3) Raise taxes. While these two little words seem to be political suicide these days, raising taxes may be necessary to keep students in school. A higher education tax could allow for larger grants for more students. Furthermore, setting a higher threshold for students’ expected family contribution (EFC) — the chief determinant for Pell Grants — would qualify more middle-income families for federal grants. 

4) Expand loan forgiveness programs. Under certain circumstances, the federal government will cancel all or part of an educational loan. Currently, to qualify for such programs, students must perform volunteer work, military service, teach or practice medicine in under-served communities upon graduation. The Obama administration should expand these programs to include private sector jobs essential to national interests. For example, students who pursue careers developing alternative energy sources or cleantech could qualify for some form of loan forgiveness. In addition to reducing student debt, such initiatives would encourage more students to pursue scientific and environmental-related degrees — crucial to developing green industries. 

Thus, there is not one, clear solution to combat the costs of higher education. Unfortunately, as universities become more advanced and technology continues to develop, the cost of education will only increase. While SAFRA is necessary to strengthen the outdated Pell Grant Program, a more holistic reform effort is needed. University administrators have a responsibility to keep costs down and minimize bureaucratic inefficiencies, yet students have a responsibility as well. If students want substantial and quality higher education reform, they must lead the way.

Carolyn Witte is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She may be reached at cwitte@cornellsun.com. Wit’s End appears alternate Tuesdays this semester.