On competing tuition proposals: Pawlenty clearly has never been an educator

Or: Pawlenty taketh away and now he wants to giveth back... to some, anyway

The argument is not if today's students are paying significantly more tuition than those of yesterday. They are and the facts are clear:

• U of M Duluth — Tuition and fees in 2000-01: $4,463; for 2006-07: $8,932, an increase of 100% (Duluth News Tribune)
• MSU Mankato — Tuition in 2002-03: $3,981; for 2006-07: $5,840, an increase of 47% (Mankato Free Press)
• Minnesota state contribution per student tuition dollar in 1997: $1.89; in 2005, $1.09, a decrease of 42% (Mankato Free Press)

The question is: What to do about it?

Pawlenty says to give all students finishing in the upper quarter of their high school class free tuition for two years.

Hatch says to decrease tuition to 2002 levels for all higher education students by closing an offshore corporate tax loophole.

Pawlenty's approach is clearly the least appealing of the two. Here's why:

1. Not all high schools are created equal. Some are more demanding than others and attract more motivated students. Under Pawlenty's plan, those that fall in the lower 3/4ths of their class would receive no benefit, yet if they were at a less competitive high school they would probably qualify for the free tuition. Would this then make magnet schools less attractive and other high schools more competitive? Likely.
2. Not all students are created equal. Many have family, financial, language or development problems to deal with, all of which downwardly impact grades. Should we punish those while rewarding the more fortunate? Especially when they often don't begin to excel till after high school?
3. Creating an arbitrary cut-off point is like setting up an academic lottery of big winners and big losers. For example, a student with a 3.32 GPA might qualify for the upper quarter of her class, thus "winning" the lottery, while a student with a 3.31 GPA might fall into the bottom three-quarters, "losing" the lottery and thus being lumped with all the 1.75 GPA students.
4. Such a system would also put a greater burden on teachers who have to give out grades. As a teacher myself I am well aware of the difficult decision one makes when a student sits on the cusp, for example, between an "A" or a "B". Under the Pawlenty system that might mean that a single grade in a single class might mean the difference between a student receiving the equivalent of an $11,680 scholarship to MSU Mankato and receiving nothing.

While the Pawlenty system makes good talking points and appeals to those who extol the virtues of a competitive society, it will in the long run be anti-productive. There are too many examples ranging from nurses to teachers to engineers to CEOs (in fact, I know of one) who have done well because Minnesota offered low-cost higher education to all rather than rewarding an elite few.

It is for this reason that the simple plan that Hatch proposes is far the superior choice.