Disclaimer: This column may contain information unpalatable to Brunonians of all political affiliations, socioeconomic classes and other societal groupings. The most unpopular debate on Capitol Hill is always taxes. No matter how many times the Obama administration points to the deficit, Congress will not quietly agree to raise taxes on the wealthiest tax bracket of Americans — those with yearly household incomes greater than $250,000. Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that Obama will reverse his campaign promise and raise taxes on the middle class.
Putting aside that I do believe Obama should push for broader tax policy changes (yes, that is code for raising most people's taxes), I think that we at Brown University should push for the progressive change that isn't happening in Washington. Brown's endowment has lost value. There is a hiring freeze. Many de facto full-time employees at Brown don't receive full benefits. Departments' budgets are shrinking.
In national terms, this calls for a tax hike — at minimum, a reinstatement of tax brackets pre-Bush 2.0. In Brown terms, this calls for a radical tuition hike.
Our national tax system is based on the notion that each person pays according to his ability. Those who can afford to contribute more to society in financial terms through governmental institutions are obliged to do so. It is called a progressive tax system.
There has been a lot of squawking around campus about tuition hikes over the past few years in editorials, op-eds, protests and general conversation. No one seems to have considered that since the invention of financial aid, tuition at Brown and her peer institutions is similar to a progressive tax.
At Brown we assume that parents will pay for their children's educations. Tuition is set, but the full amount is only paid by part of the student body, i.e., the portion whose families can afford the hefty $50,000 bill.
Two years ago, parental contributions for families with incomes under $60,000 were eliminated, and loan burdens for families earning under $100,000 were significantly decreased. When this year's seniors were freshmen, only 143 students on financial aid had no loan burden; by the time we were sophomores, that number had increased to almost 1,500.
Financial aid is the only budget item currently growing at Brown. Now, over 61 percent of students on financial aid graduate without debt. I'm not indifferent to the argument that there are students whose families pay full tuition and are forced to take on heavier loan burdens, or to the fact that many students feel that their financial aid packages don't adequately help their families. Luckily, our national government provides by example an easily implemented solution.
Raise tuition. By a lot. Not by these wimpy thousand-a-year increases, but by tens of thousands. Increase tuition to $60,000 next year, or better yet, $75,000. I'd be thrilled about a hike to $100,000, but that seems unlikely.
If the Corporation drastically raised Brown's tuition, only people whose families can afford to pay full tuition now would be affected. Everyone on financial aid, whose family contributions are determined by the FAFSA, will pay exactly what they pay now.
Increased revenues could mean more money for financial aid, which could then be allocated to all the students currently paying full tuition who, with the increase, would no longer be able to pay fully. But there is a significant subset of the Brown population whose families can afford a drastic tuition increase. They might not like it, but when it comes to education, most parents will shell it out after their quota of kvetching has expired. Look at those fancy nursery schools in New York City.
The dollar number for tuition is a red herring. As we are continuously reminded, our Brown education is technically worth $120,000 or $200,000 a year, depending on whom you talk to. But even that varies by person. A biology student who benefits from the wonderful new science facilities is utilizing the more expensive resources, so her education dollar amount is probably higher than a humanities student, whose main burden on the University is the occasional inter-library loan.
This boils down to a disassociation between the exact number of dollars it takes to give a student a Brown education. I don't care if my biology friends take advantage of more University money to receive their education. We all benefit from the fact that resources exist for all departments, so that a humanities concentrator can have friends doing interesting work in the sciences, and each can expose the other to different methods of thinking.
The easiest way for Brown to continue facilitating our education is by budget increases so it can build shiny new buildings, hire more faculty and buy more books for us humanities concentrators. Until Brown makes it clear that the cost of tuition means nothing, and that tuition is tied to a family's income, many Americans will continue to believe private education is inaccessible and elitist.
Let's raise our taxes. Just like the rest of America, Brown students don't understand that the vast majority of us won't be affected, and those who will can afford it.
Susannah Kroeber '11 hopes that the U.S. will take a page from whatever book the Scandinavians are reading.
