FOR BREAKING NEWS VISIT WWW.QNS.COM MARCH 23, 2017 • THE COURIER SUN 17 A LOOK BACK letters & comments oped This 1937 photo shows construction in progress along Fairview Avenue near Madison Street in Ridgewood. Note the elevated M train tracks in the background; that’s the Forest Avenue train station. Send us your historic pictures of Queens by email to editorial@qns.com or mail printed pictures to A Look Back, c/o The Queens Courier, 38-15 Bell Blvd., Bayside, NY 11361. All mailed pictures will be carefully returned to you. “Proposals for ‘Free College’: The Merits and Demerits of the Case” BY ROBERT A. SCOTT, PRESIDENT EMERITUS AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR EMERITUS, ADELPHI UNIVERSITY During the Presidential campaign of 2016, both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders proposed plans for free public college tuition. Since then, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and others have announced plans for making colleges free of tuition and fees. This is not a new idea. Units of The City University of New York were started as tuition free in the 1840s and remained largely tuition-free until 1976. Until the early 1970s, California colleges and universities charged virtually no tuition since their founding in the 19th century. The idea is to make college education accessible and affordable to qualified students from all sectors of society in order for our democracy to be guided by an educated citizenry. This view considers the pursuit of higher learning as a public good, not just a private gain. After all, college graduates face lower unemployment, better health outcomes, and more active civic engagement. Therefore, it makes sense to make higher education available to all who qualify. Also, it is thought that making college free would reduce the reliance on what is considered to be “out of control” student debt. Those in favor of making tuition free argue that it is affordable to the government because the added costs would be a small percentage of current higher education support. This is thought to be so because (1) the new program would be the “last dollar” of financial aid provided to those eligible after current state, federal, and private scholarship programs were applied; (2) the support would be limited to full-time students, with an emphasis on community colleges; and (3) eligibility would be limited to those from families below a certain income level. Most proposals do not address the additional costs of room, books, food, travel, etc. Some of those opposed to the idea believe that too many people go to college as it is. Others argue that the costs to the public would be excessive. Still others worry about the effect on private colleges that already serve a public purpose. According to Moody’s, the bond-rating agency, a successful program of free tuition would have negative consequences for regionally oriented private as well as public colleges because students would flock to tuition free comprehensive state universities. Indeed, Tennessee experienced a 40% increase in students applying for aid when a free tuition program was announced. A major question is how these students can be accommodated at institutions that already have suffered from reductions in state support? Who would pay for the additional faculty, classrooms, and counselors needed? We already can see the effects of state-subsidized tuition levels at state universities. In New York, the demographic profile of students at SUNY campuses shows higher family incomes on average than at New York’s 110 private colleges. With free tuition at SUNY, the disparity would grow even greater, yet we can see that many of these parents can afford the subsidized tuition. Community colleges, which are central to most proposals for free tuition, already are under-resourced and suffer from inadequate staffing and low graduation rates. These institutions enroll primarily older, non-traditional students who study part-time, not full-time. Instead of providing free college for those who can afford to pay tuition, it would be better to provide both increased need-based financial aid grants to facilitate student choice and college affordability as well as improved funding for academic programs and faculty to community and other public colleges so as to enable them to improve services and increase their graduation rates. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY, EVEN IN A NON-BLIZZARD Regarding the suspension of above-ground trains during last week’s blizzard: A great inconvenience to all MTA straphangers, but better be safe than sorry: Our safety matters more than our own revenue at this time. QNS reader Pedro Valdez Rivera Jr. THIS COULD’VE BEEN A GODFATHER PLOT TWIST About the open-roll tolls at the Cross Bay Bridge: Perhaps Sonny Corleone would be alive today if our tolls were equipped with “Cashless Tolling.” QNS reader Robert Ingenito HAPPY TO SEE RENOVATIONS AT SUPERMARKET Regarding renovations to the Village Barn in Middle Village: This is actually great and the neighborhood desperately needs it. The owner has the right mindset, so he will do well. Met Food on Eliot Avenue also needs a little help. The neighborhood is changing and so should the stores, supermarkets and (non-existent) restaurants. QNS reader Andry Dallago TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT DEVOS... Apparently stung by protesters who briefly prevented her from entering a D.C. public school, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos complained that critics want to make her life a living hell. Actually she would have been better off not going into the building, because she promptly made a fool out of herself by saying the teachers she observed there were in “receive mode.” It is not necessary to hasten Ms. DeVos’ descent to the netherworld by obstructing her path. All it requires is to tell the truth about her, as Harry Truman famously said, and she will think it is hell. She is an unqualified dilettante whose ideological blinders jeopardize the delivery of knowledge to all public school students. Robert Berger, Bellerose MORE MUST BE DONE TO PROTECT BICYCLISTS I am not in favor of bike lanes on busy thoroughfares in New York City and the outer boroughs. I believe that bicyclists can get to where they are going riding on side streets which are safer. I would like legislation that would require that all bicyclists must wear helmets. As of this writing they do not have to wear helmets, but that is ridiculous. It only makes sense because if a bicyclist is hit by a car, the first thing that hits the pavement is the person’s head. Also, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but by law children over of the age of 13 must ride their bikes in the street and not on the sidewalk. So you are giving permission for 13-year-olds to ride their bikes in these lanes also. I would like enact legislation that would stop teenagers from driving in these bike lanes. Kathleen Schatz, Rego Park Editor’s note: This letter requires clarification. New York City law requires that all bicyclists 13 years of age or under must wear a helmet; cyclists above that age are not required to wear helmets, but obviously, it is strongly advised that they do so.
SC03232017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above