Blog post by Julia Mongeau

In a presidential race full of debate and controversy, much of which has surrounded the candidates themselves, higher education has often taken a back seat when the two candidates go head to head.

Student loan debt continues to rise and in Massachusetts, where higher education faces repeated cuts in the state budget, November’s elections could have a significant impact here in the Bay State.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has made education a staple of her campaign platform, and has made new promises to appeal to younger voters, particularly those that supported her primary rival, Bernie Sanders. Sanders won 83 percent of young voters in the primary campaign, a demographic that has been reluctant to throw their support to Clinton.

According to Clinton’s campaign website, cost will not prevent a student from getting a college education. All community colleges would offer free tuition, and families who make up to $125,000 annually would pay no tuition at in-state four-year colleges and universities.

Her projected plan will depend on support from the states. Here in Massachusetts, significant cuts have been made to higher education in the state budget over the past few years, and tuition costs continue to rise.

The Mass Budget and Policy Center states that Massachusetts has cut higher education funding by 31 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2013; that’s more than the national average of 10 percent.

Dr. Esin Sile, Partner and CEO at MindBridge Partners, comments that Clinton’s plan embraces what Sanders promised during his primary run. The rising cost of tuition, and the increased burden on the government to fund higher education, is cause for scrutiny of her proposal, she says.

Clinton’s campaign does not explicitly explain how they will “find the money necessary to implement these plans,” Sile said.

Clinton’s proposals, however, do have the potential to address some issues facing higher education institutions today.

“Hillary’s approach is more comprehensive and inclusive,” Cuf Ferguson, Associate Professor of Human Services at UMass Boston said. Clinton’s proposal could potentially benefit those who have been historically disadvantaged in the education system, he added.

“There is a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups in terms of access and affordability,” Ferguson added.

In addition to making college more affordable, Clinton has promised to make significant investments in private, nonprofit historically black colleges and universities. The federal government would invest $25 billion in HBCU’s, and other minority-serving institutions.

Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump’s vision, on the other hand, includes working with Congress to ensure that universities do their part to reduce the cost of tuition. His campaign also promises to make two-year, four-year, or vocational schools easier to afford.

However, Trump offers no concrete plan for how he would go about reducing tuition costs and making college more affordable.

Ferguson, after review of Trump and Clinton’s proposal, suggested that Trump’s plan is more “slogan with no substance.” Further, Ferguson interprets Trump’s plan as a move towards privatizing schools.

“We’ve done that before, and it hasn’t worked,” Ferguson said, referring to privatization of higher education, claiming that historically, states do not adequately support students who need assistance under privatization.

Both Trump and Clinton’s plan would inevitably call on more financial support from the states. The question remains whether or not states can meet those demands.

Ferguson believes “budgets are representative of what states’ value.”

Ferguson thinks higher education should be looked at as an investment for the states, and an investment in the workforce. Universities should be held accountable in some respects, including student retention and graduation rates, but state support is crucial in meeting the college’s and university’s needs.

Sile, however, thinks Trump’s demand for more accountability on the part of the institution makes more sense. But the big question mark, as Sile puts it, is yet again how he would implement that idea.

Overall, neither candidate, Sile argues, have addressed any real issue that is causing these continued tuition increases.

“We need to go to the crux of the problem and ask why tuition is increasing,” Sile said.

Colleges and universities are increasingly concerned with rankings and therefore not always spending funds on academic needs.

“There is a very big problem here and both candidate are just scratching the surface,” Sile said.

When asked about what higher education would ultimately look like after November 8, Ferguson said under Trump, “it would probably flounder,” citing overall lack of direction and focus as impediments to a Trump administration.

“It’s clear in looking at [Hillary’s] proposal that there is a lot of depth to how she is viewing her vision for pre-K, through K-12, all the way through higher education,” Ferguson said. “There’s more of an integrated quality to it,” which is an overall healthier approach for higher education as a whole.

“If Clinton were to be elected, she won’t do it as extensively as she proposed,” Sile said, commenting on the plausibility of Clinton’s entire proposal. But once again, there are holes in both candidates’ proposals.

Weighing the benefits and potential pitfalls of both candidates’ intentions for higher education could offer some insight into how pathways to higher education will be cleared here in Massachusetts – and what the ramifications could be for the state, the colleges and universities, and the students.