Skip to main content

Is Starbucks the answer to college costs?

By David Perry
updated 12:25 PM EDT, Fri June 20, 2014
Starbucks executives applaud the company's partnership with Arizona State University at the opening bell of the Nasdaq Stock Exchange on June 17.
Starbucks executives applaud the company's partnership with Arizona State University at the opening bell of the Nasdaq Stock Exchange on June 17.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • David Perry: Starbucks launches college program for its employees
  • He says the plan isn't the answer to the rising cost of college
  • Perry says we can't let college education become a job perk, as health care did
  • There are pluses to the Starbucks plan, but it's not a model for the nation, Perry says

Editor's note: David M. Perry is an associate professor of history at Dominican University in Illinois. He writes regularly at his blog: How Did We Get Into This Mess? Follow him on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Access to affordable and high quality higher education should be a universal right. A free and prosperous society needs an educated citizenry to innovate and thrive.

Today in America, we're a long way from that goal. Unfortunately, the highly touted plan from Starbucks to provide increased tuition assistance doesn't really help -- and might hurt.

On Monday, Starbucks announced that it would help cover much of the cost of two years of education at Arizona State University Online for its employees. The rhetoric, driven by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, has been lofty. On "The Daily Show," he said, "Today we will become the first U.S. company to provide free college tuition for all our employees." The crowd went wild.

David M. Perry
David M. Perry

On CNN, Schultz and Dr. Michael Crow, president of ASU, positioned it as a way to attack the national student debt crisis. Crow said, "Can it tackle these national issues? The answer is absolutely yes."

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan attended the announcement of the plan and said, "Think of the example you can set for the rest of the nation," Duncan said. "If you guys can do this well ... you're going to change the trajectory of the entire country." Schultz, Crow, and Duncan seem to believe they are on the cusp of a new education revolution, disrupting their way to a better American higher-ed landscape.

In fact, it would be a terrible thing for education to become another employer-dependent benefit. This new program may help some Starbucks employees by providing access to online classes, but it will do nothing to attack structural problems such as the national student debt crisis or skyrocketing tuition rates (1,200% in 30 years!). Rather, the need for such a benefit is a confirmation that the system is broken.

First of all, the Starbucks plan does not really "provide free college tuition" for every employee. What it does is offer reimbursement for a certain number of credits completed at ASU Online. Most large employers, in fact, offer various kinds of tuition reimbursement, but the scale and specific relationship between Starbucks and ASU is unusual, especially because ASU is absorbing considerable upfront costs by discounting its tuition.

Starbucks is, of course, a for-profit company. ASU Online, meanwhile, functions as a profitable educational institution nestled within a large public university. Therefore, the new policy needs to be viewed not as a public service, but as a deal struck between two companies interested in their image and profit margins.

Starbucks is gaining lots of great PR from the roll out of the policy. It also will likely improve employee morale and actually help some of them get educations. ASU, in the meantime, gets access to potentially thousands of new students it does not have to recruit, all of whom will eventually bring additional revenue to the university through student loans, federal grants and Starbucks.

So long as Starbucks employees get good advice both from within the benefits office and access to good college advising, I think it's a net positive for both institutions and the employees.

Wouldn't it be great if employees could just pay for college with their wages, rather than needing a special, highly restrictive, benefit?
David Perry

The margin, though, is slim. Sara Goldrick-Rab, professor of educational policy studies and sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that wholly online education is of questionable value for low-income students. This is especially a problem when such students are required to pay for those first 21 credits before they qualify for reimbursement.

Moreover, most of the money here is coming from the government and loans, not Starbucks. As Tressie McMillan Cottom, writer and sociologist, notes, the use of public funds to support online for-profit education has a long and shady history.

None of these concerns has stopped the Starbucks PR team from trumpeting their great accomplishment. In one telling moment, Schultz compared the tuition benefit to Starbucks' decision to give health care to its workers. That's a comparison worth exploring.

The development of health care as an employee benefit rather than a universal right has been a disaster for America, leading to high costs and poor results. Yes, the employees are much better off with health care than without, much as some workers will benefit from the new tuition policy. But if making college affordable becomes a job perk, rather than a societal goal, we're collectively worse off.

Instead, wouldn't it be great if employees could just pay for college with their wages, rather than needing a special, highly restrictive, benefit?

We can rescue higher education in America from its current cost spiral, and we should, by acting at the national level. We need to change the structure of how we pay for college, a process that will take hard work across party lines. Unfortunately, last week a bill that would have radically reduced student loan interest rates for everyone stalled in the Senate.

And so, while we wait for the government to act, we're stuck relying on Starbucks.

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 1:33 AM EST, Thu December 25, 2014
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
updated 6:12 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
updated 8:36 AM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
updated 2:14 PM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
updated 3:27 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
updated 10:35 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
updated 7:57 AM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
updated 11:29 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
updated 4:15 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
updated 1:11 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
updated 1:08 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
updated 1:53 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
updated 3:19 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
updated 5:39 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
updated 8:12 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
updated 12:09 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
updated 6:45 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
updated 4:34 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
updated 2:51 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
updated 4:13 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
updated 7:55 AM EST, Wed December 10, 2014
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
updated 12:34 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
updated 8:42 AM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
updated 12:40 PM EST, Tue December 16, 2014
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT