A Generational Imperative

Forty years ago, when we were at Harvard and Yale, lofty ideals were affordable. Back in the ’70s, the average annual tuition and fees for a private college were around $7,000, inflation-adjusted to today’s dollars. Four-fifths of American households had annual incomes in excess of that. Beyond assistance with the direct cost of college, very few students counted on parents for help with housing or income. Student loans were small, seldom more than $2,000 total, and most of those who borrowed paid off their loans quickly.

As a result, regardless of family circumstances, we students of that era were free to buy into the Beatles’ credo, “I don’t care so much for money. Money can’t buy me love.” If we wanted to go into teaching, public service, or the arts, we did. Now however, so many young people—especially those whose families are not affluent—have no choice but to rivet their ambitions, their careers, and their very lives in pursuit of the highest monetary return.

In 2006, the average annual tuition and fees for a private college exceeded $22,000—a 200 percent rise over the last 30 years. Meanwhile, the real income of the median U.S. household has only risen 30 percent; today, only half of all households have incomes that exceed the average private college tuition. At the same time, entry-level pay in many fields (including public service) has declined since the early 1970s, while housing costs have escalated sharply, particularly in major cities, where many of the public service jobs are located.

In March, Harvard will announce its tuition and fee increases for the 2007-2008 academic year. If past practice holds, this year’s hike will again exceed inflation. There will be an official explanation pointing to rising costs, the improved quality of education, and increases in financial aid. Little controversy will ensue, for students and their families will figure that, in the long run, the price of a Harvard education will more than pay for itself.

For most, the price of a Harvard education will indeed do that. Most will find good jobs, pay off their student loans, purchase a house (in most places, anyway), and start families. But for those who want to pursue an unconventional or public service career, that price might prove to be a serious hindrance. The problem will be all the greater for your peers at less widely recognized colleges, many of whom will graduate with equally large debts and without a brand-name diploma to help boost their earnings potential. For them, the price of their higher education will be a lifelong burden.

What concerns us is that not enough of you, at Harvard and elsewhere, will spend your twenties and thirties doing the vibrant and vital work required of every rising generation to advance civilization—be it teaching, producing great works of art, challenging injustice, or defending our nation—simply because these jobs do not pay enough.

All across America, college graduates often leave school with $20,000 to $50,000 in debt. For graduates of business and public policy schools, add another $75,000 to $100,000; for law or medical school, make that $125,000 to $150,000. Compare that to the experience of people in our generation, the great majority of whom had no debt at all when they graduated from college.

Given the gravity of the situation, controlling the cost of higher education, and of student debt, has become a generational imperative—especially at Harvard and other well-endowed Ivy League schools, which can afford to absorb some of the costs of higher education. We have three suggestions for the Harvard leadership—and we encourage undergraduates to voice their support for them, before the University makes its tuition announcement in March.

First: Put an end to the 25-year-long above-inflation run-up in tuition by freezing tuition and fees at 2006 levels at all its schools. At the College, this means holding the line at $33,709, with total charges of $43,655. The current annual rate of inflation, according to the most recent CPI, is 3.17 percent. A University-wide freeze on tuition and fees would cost roughly $15 to $20 million, which translates into less than one-half of one percent of last year’s $3.7 billion growth in the endowment.

Second: Stop treating undergraduate loans as “financial aid.” If a college student and his family cannot afford tuition, then the difference should be covered by a reduction in tuition and fees, not by deferring payment until after graduation. Paying for this would be pocket change for a university as wealthy as Harvard.

Third: Re-target alumni gifts toward debt forgiveness for recent graduates who are currently in modestly compensated employment.

Harvard would not be the first to address this problem: Not long ago, Princeton eliminated undergraduate student loans, and in January, announced a tuition freeze, albeit with a rise in room and board charges that will result in an above-inflation total net increase in student costs. Harvard can and should do Princeton one better, by holding the line on both tuition and fees.

Make no mistake: as the most prestigious universities in the nation, Harvard and the other Ivies set the standard for the cost of higher education all across America. Were Harvard to take these steps, its great wealth would serve not only the millennial generation, but also the highest ideals of our society, culture and nation.


William Strauss ’69, JD/MPP ’73 and Neil Howe are co-authors of six books about American generations, including Generations and Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation.