Linfield College
Pioneer Hall is the oldest building on the Linfield College campus in McMinnville, Oregon. The building opened in 1883 and once housed the entire college.
(Daniel Hurst/Linfield College)
Thomas L. Hellie
I grew up on a small Minnesota farm where everyone was expected to work hard. It was a place and time where few people considered college an option. So when I did eventually apply, I unknowingly fell into a category noted for a high-failure rate: first-generation students.
My mom took a job to help with tuition. I worked summers and weekends to save extra money. And we applied for financial aid. Intimidated by big universities, I wanted to go to a small college. Thanks to generous scholarships, student loans, summer wages and careful scrimping, I figured I could make it work.
I dramatically improved my odds by choosing a small, private school. Research shows first-generation students do best in these institutions. I sang in the concert choir, acted in plays, participated in student government, studied abroad and had five independent-study courses with my advisor.
But that was only after I had a series of personal crises and wanted to drop out as a freshman. It was then that a professor took me under his wing, convincing me I wasn't alone and that I could learn from my mistakes.
Increasing access to higher education is something we should all be talking about. But the growing chorus of public discussion in this election year about "free" college short-circuits a complex discussion in favor of a buzzword.
Worse, as might well turn out to be the case with the Oregon Promise program, it threatens to burden taxpayers with the costs of government-led programs that actually reduce the number of college graduates and lead to worse outcomes for many students.
Nationally, Bernie Sanders made so-called free public education a centerpiece of his presidential bid. If she wins, Hillary Clinton is promising to make in-state public universities tuition-free for Americans with household incomes below $125,000 a year.
Sanders estimated his plan would cost $75 billion annually, and Clinton estimates hers would cost $350 billion over 10 years. Whatever the price, we know two things: The plans would create large new entitlement programs and they would funnel an increasing number of students into a one-size-fits-all system that won't work for everyone.
As the president of Linfield College and board chair of a national organization representing independent colleges and universities, it sounds self-serving for me to argue that different sorts of students thrive in different environments. It also happens to be true.
Historically, independent colleges and universities have graduated a higher proportion of their students than public institutions have - and have done it more quickly. Linfield, for example, graduates more than half its students within four years, higher than any public university in Oregon.
Yet the average student debt at public and private institutions is almost identical. Graduates of small colleges, in fact, have the best loan-repayment rate in the country.
And, contrary to commonly held misperceptions, independent colleges and universities aren't elite institutions for the wealthy. The percentage of low-income students receiving Pell Grants at Linfield is higher than it is at University of Oregon. Linfield is one of the most ethnically diverse colleges in the Northwest and one-third of our new students this fall are first-generation students.
I came to Linfield because I wanted to help young people like I was -- not wealthy or worldly, but hungry to succeed.
I'm not trying to argue public colleges and universities are inferior. Only that some students mature and graduate precisely because of the personal attention they receive at small, private colleges. And, after financial aid, the cost of attending an independent institution is often lower than attending an in-state public university.
So creating government programs that presume to choose winners and losers and, in some cases, push students into community colleges - that historically produce lower educational outcomes - is not necessarily a strategy that will benefit students or the overall economy.
I certainly believe that increasing access to higher education is vital to our future. If state and federal governments want to prioritize the effort and put more money behind it, that's fantastic.
Share your opinion
Submit your essay of 700 words or less to commentary@oregonlive.com. Please include your email and phone number for verification.
But students should be able to take any additional aid and spend it how and where they will receive the best education. There's no cookie-cutter solution in higher education, and whatever comes out the other end of this national discussion needs to reflect that.
I have been able to lead a rich life because of the education I received at a small, independent college. I now head just such an institution because I want today's young people to have the same opportunities.
Our nation's future will depend, in part, on making sure those choices remain available.
Dr. Thomas L. Hellie is the president of Linfield College in McMinnville and chairman of The Council of Independent Colleges.