CAB-Report-2012 by fanzhongqing


									    Protecting America’s Future:
Student Solutions for Federal Issues

                 2012 Annual Report

 Compiled by members of the University of South Carolina
   Student Congressional Advisory Board, 2011-2012

           This report may be found online at
                          Table of Contents

Mission Statement                              2

Acknowledgements                               3

Message from the Director                      4
James M. Strickland
Secretary of Government–Community Relations

Restoring American Healthcare                  5
Eeshwar K. Chandrasekar

Spurring Economic Expansion                   10
C. Andrew Dorsey

Planning Nuclear Energy for the Future        14
George M. Helman

Relieving Students from Burdensome Taxation   20
Jessica V. Kaczmarek

Engendering American Leadership               25
Emory D. Roberts

Equalizing Access to College                  31
Samruddhi P. Somani

Preserving Educational Innovation             37
James M. Strickland

Controlling the Cost of College               45
Steven D. Vanderlip

Appendix                                      51

Author Biographies                            57

Endnotes                                      60

                                 Mission Statement
The Student Congressional Advisory Board serves as the voice of South Carolina students to
the U.S. Congress. The board gathers information about specific issues pertaining to students
and assists South Carolina’s Congressional Delegation in finding better solutions for these
concerns. We are tasked with:

      addressing federal lawmakers with academic, financial, and social issues relevant to
       student development and achievement;
      soliciting input from institutional constituents such as students, faculty,
       administrators, and staff;
      educating the campus community about federal higher education initiatives; and
      serving as an outlet through which students can realize their potential for active
       involvement in national politics.

As student advocates, we believe we can transform both the state and the University of South
Carolina by informing our elected leaders of issues that are relevant to our generation. By
doing this, we can enhance their future—benefiting our community and leaving a lasting
heritage for future students.

Without the gracious assistance of several members of both Student Government and the
Carolina community, this report simply would not exist. The entire Congressional Advisory
Board thanks the following:

Mrs. Theresa Sexton, coordinator for Student Government, greatly assisted the board in
reserving meeting venues, scheduling visits with administrators, and in planning the logistics
of its travels. Mr. Jerry Brewer, associate vice president for student affairs, arranged for
members’ lodging and accompanied them throughout their trip. Mr. Steven Beckham,
director of federal relations for the university, arranged the board’s meetings and interviews
in Washington, D.C. Mr. Joe Wright, student body president, provided valuable guidance in
choosing worthwhile topics for policy proposals. Ms. Emily Supil, student body treasurer,
greatly assisted with the board’s financial arrangements. Finally, a special debt of gratitude is
owed to Mrs. Melissa Gentry, director of parents programs, who proofread and edited this

Individual board members would like to thank the following:

Emory Roberts is grateful to Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Wessel of the Air Force and
Lieutenant Colonel John Wright of the Army, both of whom volunteered their time for

James Strickland appreciates the help of Senator Mike Fair, Professors Valinda Littlefield
and Dorothy Pratt of the University of South Carolina Department of History, and Mrs.
Theresa Younce, a retired school teacher.

                            Message from the Director
Dear Representative or Senator,

Over the past six months, members of the 2012 Student Congressional Advisory Board
(CAB) have vigorously researched issues pertinent to the University of South Carolina
student body. They administered an online poll, used social media, conducted interviews, and
hosted meetings to gauge the opinions of students. Their findings reflect the views of many,
and included in this report are eight policy proposals that address federal issues.

All members of the 2012 CAB were selected on academic merit. Applicants were subjected
to a rigorous interview process. Please note that many who wanted to join the board in this
endeavor were not able to. The university’s Student Government chose the best students for
the board, and I am confident that you will be impressed by their thoroughness, dedication,
and intellectual curiosity.

CAB members represent a variety of backgrounds. They hail from all six of South Carolina’s
current congressional districts and maintain exceptional grade point averages. They also
represent a variety of majors, from history, political science, and economics to chemistry,
astronomy and mathematics. In addition, the board represents the interests of graduate

It is with great honor and appreciation that the Board presents this report for informing you
of the issues that are most important to South Carolina students.

With sincerest gratitude,

James M. Strickland
Student Congressional Advisory Board Director

Secretary of Government–Community Relations
University of South Carolina Student Government

                  Restoring American Healthcare:
           The Medical Deficit of Primary Care Practitioners
                                  Eeshwar K. Chandrasekar

        The U.S. continues to serve as a model of hope and justice for the world. The liberties

and opportunities afforded to American citizens are marveled upon, and their standards of

living are among the best in the world.1

        Despite its position as a global leader, however, the U.S. is falling behind in

healthcare. While the nation has the fourth highest per capita healthcare expenditures in the

world (exceeding $7,000 per year), its healthcare system falls far behind many other

developed nations.2 The last health systems ranking by the World Health Organization put

the U.S. at an abysmal ranking of 37th in overall healthcare system performance and 72nd in

overall level of health.3 More recent studies show that Americans have only the 50th highest

overall life expectancy at birth—far behind other developed and many developing nations

(including Costa Rica).4 A large portion part of the problem is that primary care practitioners

are not available to the fullest extent possible.

        The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 made healthcare accessible

to many more American citizens.5 There are not enough doctors, however, to meet this

growing demand. The country’s biggest deficit in healthcare consists of a lack of primary

care physicians, specifically family care practitioners.6 Primary care physicians are health

specialists with a variety of functions. They provide preventive care and teach healthy

lifestyle choices. Additionally, they are trained to treat common medical conditions and

ailments. They also make recommendations to medical specialists whenever necessary. In

essence, these “generalists” are the first physicians patients visit.7

       Despite their importance, the U.S. significant lacks such essential physicians. It is

estimated that there will be a deficit of up to 44,000 adult family care practitioners by 2025. 8

Even today, family practitioners experience significant strain because of patient demand. Of

the total healthcare sector work force, only 209,000 are practicing primary care physicians.9

Consequentially, they are forced to consult many patients daily with the national average is

ranging between 22 and 25 (please see chart 1.1 on page 51). Individual health consultations

also are extremely short, with the majority of family practitioners spending fewer than 16

minutes with each patient (please see chart 1.2 on page 51).10 Indeed, upon expanding

medical care to thousands of individuals in Massachusetts, local doctors reported having to

spend less time with each patient.11

       Such a medical shortage puts significant strain on both physicians and patients.

Because of the lack of family practitioners, patients are often put on a waiting list to see such

doctors. This waiting time often exceeds four months. Unfortunately as well, doctors are

unable to fully assess patients’ conditions and make recommendations for healthy lifestyle

choices within 16-minute consultations. As a result, patients are hesitant to share personal

information with physicians whom they hardly know, making the job of the physician

significantly more difficult and limiting his ability to treat underlying causes. As chronic

diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular disease become more prevalent in the U.S., the

advice of physicians becomes more important in preventing such diseases.12 Such lifestyle-

associated ailments cannot be addressed in only a 20-minute discussion. These conversations

involve comprehensive lifestyle behavior changes, including exercise regimens and dietary

modifications. Patients are less likely to adhere to physicians’ advice, however, if they do not

have personal relationships with them.13

        Despite the importance of primary care physicians, the U.S. healthcare system has a

tremendous shortage of them. This problem is largely a result of financial scarcity. Becoming

a physician requires several years of dedicated work and sizeable amounts of money. Today,

the average American medical student graduates with a debt of $157,944.14 With such a

substantial debt, graduates must explore means of repayment. Many of them pursue medical

specialization, which often yields greater returns. In fact, the average annual income of

primary care physicians is about $135,000 lower than the average annual income of medical

specialists. Over the course of a career, this difference amounts to more than $6 million.15 As

a result, a large portion of family care practitioners feel that they are unjustly compensated

for their services.16

    Three methods could alleviate the primary care practitioner shortage:

    1) Improve the ease of acquiring a permanent visa for international medical graduates if
       they become family care practitioners.
    2) Reallocate Medicare reimbursement rates to more fairly reimburse family doctors for
       their services.
    3) Increase funding for the National Health Service Corps.

    The first solution to filling the void for family practice is completely budget-neutral.

Today, international medical graduates (IMGs) represent 24 percent of the total physician

workforce and 58 percent of primary care physicians in America.17 Moreover, family care is

the second most practiced specialty of medicine for IMGs, with more than 80 percent of them

providing direct patient care.18 International medical graduates are currently given J-1 visas,

which require returning to one’s home country after medical residency is completed.

Providing an opportunity for permanent residency is an ideal way to provide incentives for

more IMGs to complete U.S. family practice residencies and fill the family doctor void.

Therefore, these IMGs should be granted H1-B visas, which lead to permanent residential

status. These individuals have the potential to contribute to American tax revenue, generate

domestic wealth, and become functioning members of civil society. Because they have to

pass certification exams, IMGs can provide the same care as U.S. doctors. A pool of capable

medical professionals willing to will the nation’s void already exists.

   To shift America away from relying solely on IMGs, the second solution provides

incentives for domestic students to pursue careers in family practice. This second budget-

neutral measure involves reevaluating Medicare reimbursement rates for medical services.

American family practitioners often make less money than their foreign counterparts. In most

developed nations, such care represents 20 percent of all healthcare expenditures. In the U.S.,

this figure is between 12 and 15 percent.19 This discrepancy is caused largely by below-

average reimbursement rates for family physicians. The growing demand for family

practitioners, however, will go unfulfilled if Medicare does not fairly pay such doctors.

Funding for this initiative may be found in cutting other, often overly compensated, medical


   A third solution involves more funding for the National Health Service Corps (NHSC),

which operates under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NHSC is a

program that allows young doctors to repay their medical school debts by practicing in high-

demand areas. The program currently reimburses doctors up to $120,000 in six years, half of

which is paid over the course of two years with an additional $30,000 per year in potential

benefits. After this, doctors can apply to continue at a rate of $20,000 per year but are limited

to 16 years of service.20

   Although the NHSC now pays more than 10,000 medical graduates to serve more than 9

million patients, this program is still in high demand. In 2010, only 13 percent of applications

were awarded NHSC funding. Despite a plethora of capable medical professionals, such a

low acceptance rate is due to the program’s limited funding.21 Because of this, fewer than

five percent of medical graduates have the opportunity to serve in the NHSC.22 Nevertheless,

evidence suggests that receiving such scholarships encourages students to enter primary care

practice.23 Moreover, these individuals serve in low-income and rural areas where healthcare

is often high in demand yet scarcely supplied. Of all doctors, family care practitioners are the

most likely to work in rural areas and maximize access to professional healthcare for millions

of Americans and are associated with more cost-effective care, early disease detection, and

preventive care.24 Increasing funding for the NHSC will allow medical students to meet

critical healthcare demands.

       Despite valiant efforts to expand medical care to millions of Americans, the federal

government is not maximizing the efficiency of healthcare expenditures. Regardless of any

possibility of reforming or repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the need

for primary care practitioners will not diminish. Members of the U.S. Congress can act now,

however, if they are to avoid a serious public health catastrophe. No other doctors appear to

have the greatest impact on overall health as do family care practitioners. Fulfilling the three

steps above will substantially increase the efficiency of the American healthcare system and

improve the personal well-being of millions of U.S. citizens.

                   Spurring Economic Expansion:
       Innovative Research at the University of South Carolina
                                     C. Andrew Dorsey

       In 1801, the South Carolina General Assembly granted a charter for the creation of

what became the University of South Carolina (USC). From just a single building and eleven

students on the historic Horseshoe emerged one of the world’s premier research and teaching

institutions. The university’s 44,000 students and more than 255,000 living alumni are

actively improving the lives of millions of others around the world. When visiting USC in

1987, Pope John Paul II proclaimed, “It is wonderful to be young and be a student of the

University of South Carolina.” Indeed, even now it is a great time to be at student of this

great university. The Congressional Advisory Board deeply values the opportunity to both

share exciting information about USC and tell members of the U.S. Congress how they can

support the university.

       Eight university campuses serve various communities throughout South Carolina.

With the main campus in Columbia, four-year campuses in Spartanburg, Aiken, and

Beaufort, and regional campuses in Salkehatchie, Union, Lancaster, and Sumter, students

from many backgrounds are able to obtain a quality education. In fact, USC campuses serve

students in all six of the state’s congressional districts. With more than 324 degree-granting

programs administered by 14 academic departments, prospective students are empowered to

pursue courses of study they find most appealing. The student body includes people from all

fifty states and 127 foreign nations.25 The university has experienced tremendous growth

over the past decade and now enrolls approximately 10,000 additional students.26 They all

recognize the financial and personal gain of obtaining a baccalaureate degree from USC.

       When taking into consideration the increased income of graduates, research clearly

indicates that USC contributes $4.1 billion in additional revenue to the state’s annual

economic output. This equates to sustaining more than 53,000 jobs.27 Over the past five

years, faculty have submitted 354 invention disclosures, filed 198 patent applications, and

licensed 58 technologies through academic research. The university has earned recognition

by the Carnegie Foundation as a top research and service institution.28 It has become a

tremendous economic powerhouse through its discoveries and innovations.

       In addition to its economic impact, USC is a leading service institution that promotes

and preserves major aspects of the culture and history of South Carolina. In 2011, more than

23,400 students, faculty, and staff donated approximately $7 million to local charities and

volunteered nearly 350,000 hours of community service.29 The university houses the state’s

only Poison Control Center and a number of other unparalleled institutions. The South

Carolina Political Collections maintains the historical documents of various elected leaders,

including current members of South Carolina’s Congressional Delegation. Moreover, the

South Caroliniana Library is a leading archive for antebellum documents. USC was once

called a “faithful index to the ambitions and fortunes of our State.” The Carolina Community

continues to live up to that standard through its leadership and service to the world.

       On the banks of the Congaree River in Columbia is one of the nation’s hottest spots

for business, technological advancement, and innovation. Innovista, a newly-constructed

500-acre research campus, promises to be a leading center for the research of hydrogen fuel

cells and public health initiatives. Researchers are currently developing fuel cells for such

diverse items as small Segways and large public transportation buses. In December 2011,

USC broke ground on the new Darla Moore School of Business. This building will sit at the

gateway to Innovista and provide businesses with the expertise to create thousands of local

jobs through newly discovered energy applications.

       Innovista is the foundation on which the University of South Carolina will build its

future. This project is critical for sustainable economic development and will be a driving

force for researching the future energy needs of the U.S. Unfortunately, federal funding for

energy research has fallen by more than 80 percent in the past 30 years.30 Such a significant

decline in research funding substantially weakens the ability of universities and research

programs to develop technologies that expand economies and improve lives.

       A recent report released by the non-partisan American Energy Innovation Council

argues for greater investment in energy hubs such as USC Innovista.             Energy hubs

concentrate capital assets and enhance investments in energy research. The report further

concludes that energy innovation is ultimately a matter of national and economic security.

Today’s research is focused on finding ways to enhance domestic energy production through

better hydrocarbon reservoir management, solar and wind resources, and future fuels.31

       While the University of South Carolina and other institutions are committed to energy

research, such organizations are often beholden to haphazard grant appropriations that are

annually subject to extreme change. Long-term, capital-intensive research can be done only if

researchers are confident in receiving sustained funding rather than the current micro-funding

model where grant appropriators review individual projects rather than a combination of

interrelated projects. In lieu of this current funding scheme, the U.S. federal government

must adopt a more stable model whereby a portion of the Royalty Trust Fund created by the

Energy Policy Act of 2005 is automatically allocated to research at energy hubs such as

Innovista. Such a sustainable and predictable funding mechanism will allow universities and

research programs to better plan for future projects and liabilities. It also will stimulate

additional capital investments and local economic development.

       While the Congressional Advisory Board recognizes that public revenue is limited

during troubled economic times, members of Congress should demonstrate compassion for

the university when voting on potential laws and administering the budgetary process. Over

the past 10 years, USC’s total support from the state of South Carolina has shrunk by more

than $100 million.32 While alumni and donors have been faithful in giving, the school’s

necessary expansion and fiscal shortfalls have overpowered its budgetary capacity due to

record-breaking increases in enrollment.33

       The University of South Carolina is committed to discovering technologies that

improve the lives of American citizens. The Congressional Advisory Board consists of

students who are proud Gamecocks and are thankful to Congress for supporting higher

education and research.

           Planning Nuclear Energy for the Future:
Nuclear Reprocessing and Fast Breeder Reactor Technologies for
              Long-Term Energy Advancement
                                     George M. Helman

       Nuclear energy is intrinsic to South Carolina’s economic prosperity. In fact, nuclear

reactors currently produce 49.9 percent of the state’s total electricity, surpassing coal’s

meager 36.4 percent.34 As such, South Carolina is a great location for conducting long-term

research in advanced fast neutron reactor technology and nuclear reprocessing. Due to their

technological complexity, if the U.S. ever wants to implement these technologies, even three

decades from now, research must commence immediately. Once implemented, these two

technologies promise to increase energy production and usher in a new era of economic

expansion. Specifically, they are capable of both extending the world’s nuclear energy

capacity by a factor of sixty and reducing risk of exposure to high-level radioactive waste.35

Having both fast neutron reactor technology and reprocessing would be a tremendous

impetus for the nuclear industry. The U.S. Congress is the only entity within the country that

is capable of making such a wise investment.

       Nuclear energy is promising for many reasons. First, it is “clean energy” that does not

emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides.36 Second, because the U.S. has the

fourth largest uranium resources in the world, nuclear energy relieves the country from

dependence on foreign resources.37 Switching from coal-fired power plants to nuclear

reactors also will significantly reduce radioactive discharges, as coal-fired power plants emit

much more radiation.38

       Most nuclear energy presently utilizes traditional, once-through light water reactors

(LWRs). This technology derives energy from a single variety of uranium isotopes, U-235

(with 235 being the number of protons and neutrons in a single uranium atom).39 Natural

uranium has so little U-235 that it is not suitable for use as fuel.40 A process called

enrichment is employed to increase the U-235 concentration in uranium.41 After enrichment,

only five percent of the uranium fuel consists of the sought-after U-235.42 The other 95

percent can only marginally be used by LWRs.

       In contrast, fast breeder reactors derive their energy from two varieties of uranium

isotopes, U-235 and U-238. By using U-238, breeder reactors catalyze a series of reactions

that form an isotope of plutonium (Pu-239).43 This plutonium then is extracted and

condensed during reprocessing. Breeder reactors essentially “breed” more fuel than is

consumed because they transform the unusable U-238 into Pu-239.44 Many breeder reactors

are also fast reactors that use highly-energized neutrons to catalyze nuclear reactions.45 While

highly-energized neutrons are less efficient at utilizing U-235, they catalyze U-238 much

more effectively.46 This leads to a huge technological advantage since U-238 represents more

than 99 percent of natural uranium.47 Adoption of fast breeder reactors would ensure that

current uranium supplies last 50 to 60 times longer than what currently is possible using

LWRs.48 Fast breeder reactors would require a significant time and money investment,

perhaps on the order of decades, but their benefits are truly game-changing. Another issue is

that fast breeder reactors must be used in conjunction with some sort of reprocessing—

informally, the process by which nuclear fuel is recycled.49

       U.S. Senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham personally have called for the

reprocessing of commercial nuclear waste in South Carolina.50 They also have suggested that

the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken County could serve as a national nuclear

reprocessing center.51 However, if Senators DeMint and Graham hope to reprocess fuel at

SRS in the very near term, there is only one process capable of meeting that need—

Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX).

        PUREX comes with many notable disadvantages. Economic studies have shown that

the industry-wide adoption of PUREX would increase the price of nuclear energy. 52 Another

issue of the PUREX process is that it completely separates plutonium from other radioactive

elements, allowing it to better be handled but more easily stolen. Although it is not practical

for a weapon of mass destruction, commercial-grade plutonium can be dangerous if allowed

to fall into the wrong hands.53

        Today’s form of nuclear reprocessing, PUREX, “should be seen as an interim phase

of nuclear power development, pending widespread use of fast neutron reactors.”54 This is

because PUREX will not be able to meet the needs of the nuclear industry. However,

alternate reprocessing technologies warrant further research. One example is pyroprocessing.

Pyroprocessing is technologically well understood and needs only to be developed for

commercial application. In fact, the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute wants to do

exactly that.55

        The potential advantages of pyroprocessing (as opposed to PUREX) are

overwhelming. Whereas PUREX produces high volumes of liquid waste that is usually

dumped into bodies of water,56 pyroprocessing does not use water and therefore does not

create liquid waste.57 Furthermore, pyroprocessing can reduce proliferation concerns because

it can be designed so as not to separate plutonium from other radioactive elements, making

the plutonium much more difficult to steal.58 Best of all is that pyroprocessing is compact and

is capable of being performed on-site.59 This gives pyroprocessing a versatility that is

unparalleled by PUREX technology. Having on-site reprocessing would reduce time,

expense, and safety concerns associated with transporting used nuclear fuel. Pyroprocessing

and fast breeder reactors are inherently cooperative due to the nature of the technologies,

greatly simplifying waste management if used in conjunction.60

        Because of a cooperation agreement between the two countries, the U.S. controls

research on nuclear reprocessing in South Korea.61 It would be in America’s best interests to

allow South Korea to conduct research on this technology as American power producers

could reap the benefits without needing to conduct the research. At the same time, the U.S.

should remain involved enough that the safety of the technology can be ensured.

        Also, promising new technologies akin to PUREX with drastic improvements exist

that may be able to compete with pyroprocessing. For example, the CoEx (co-extraction)

process, developed by Areva, does not separate plutonium from the rest of the spent nuclear

fuel.62 This is easily the largest criticism of PUREX reprocessing, and this improvement

alone makes CoEx a viable option. The Boston Consulting Group, which is one of the top

management consulting groups in the nation, recommended that the U.S. use CoEx to

manage its used fuel.63 Because the SRS already has experience in using aqueous

reprocessing for nuclear weapons, it could lead the way in development CoEx reprocessing

for the entire nation.

        Currently, nuclear reprocessing is not economically viable because uranium is cheap

and could remain so for a very long time.64 The Blue Ribbon Commission states that it does

not foresee any nuclear technology fundamentally changing U.S. nuclear strategy for the next

few decades. Therefore, the current U.S. nuclear strategy probably will remain the status quo

for the next few decades. However, these technologies still come with profound potential

advantages, and the U.S. should leave these options open for the future. Honing these

technologies to become economically competitive is a long-term project; it is not as simple as

beginning research only after they become marketable. If the U.S. wants to pursue these

technologies in the future, pursuit should begin as soon as possible.

       Therefore, the U.S. Congress should commit itself to a long-term agenda that

incorporates the following three actions. Doing so will greatly benefit both current and future


       1. No new PUREX reprocessing facilities should be built.

Every incentive points to storage as the best option for nuclear waste right now. Nuclear

reprocessing using PUREX technology is uneconomical, and nuclear waste can be stored

almost indefinitely on-site.

       2. The federal government should support research in South Carolina to
          develop fast breeder reactors.

Fast breeder reactors could lead to a revolution in nuclear energy, and South Carolina is a

perfect place to conduct this cutting-edge research. The state has trained technical expertise,

a strong nuclear infrastructure, and the University of South Carolina’s nuclear science

program that continuously will provide newly minted researchers who could continue work

on this long-term project. Federal grant money to the University South Carolina and its

newly established nuclear research center would stimulate this initiative. A pilot fast nuclear

reactor plant in South Carolina is strongly recommended.

           3. Federal public policy should endorse research studies on CoEx and
Fast breeder reactors must be used in conjunction with some sort of nuclear reprocessing. At

least two very promising reprocessing technologies exist, and it is not clear which will turn

out to be better. As such, it would be prudent to pursue both technologies to the best extent

possible. The U.S. should allow Korea to conduct research on pyroprocessing as well as

remain involved enough to ensure the safety of the technology. At the same time, the federal

government should strongly consider both developing CoEx and building a demonstration

facility at SRS.

           The fabled nuclear renaissance has yet to come to fruition—due in part to problems in

efficiency and waste disposal. However, these issues are easily surmounted by advancing

technological achievement. The Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear energy has stated that

improving the once-through nuclear fuel cycle should be prioritized for now, but even so it is

still important to look to the future and conduct research on advanced nuclear technology. 65

South Carolina would be a great place to conduct advanced nuclear technology research. This

would be a much wiser use of federal funds than building a reprocessing plant. There are no

feasible motivations for building new PUREX reprocessing plants. Long-term research of

new reprocessing technologies and fast breeder reactor technologies should be prioritized.

When these two technologies are in operation, the nuclear renaissance could finally become a


          Relieving Students from Burdensome Taxation:
     Service Sector Workers and The Tax Free Tips Act of 2011
                                     Jessica V. Kaczmarek

       When asked to rank a number of issues in order of importance, students at the

University of South Carolina chose the economic recession as their foremost concern.

Indeed, American college students discontinue their studies primarily because of financial

constraints. Nationwide, nearly 60 percent of students depend on loans to help pay for

college and half of these students report feeling anxiety when considering their personal debt.

Even though 60 percent of them also rely on their parents for financial help, parents now feel

the effects of the economic recession. It is because of such financial concerns that many

young citizens go to great lengths to pay for college. More than 65 percent of American

college students have at least one part-time job.66 Bartending and waitressing in the service

sector are currently the most popular and feasible jobs for students.67 Service-sector

legislation has the potential to benefit millions of college students.

       In light of current economic conditions, members of the U.S. Congress should

consider co-sponsoring and voting in favor of House Resolution 1139, the Tax Free Tips Act

of 2011. This beneficial act has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means,

where it currently rests. HR 1139 proposes needed changes to the Internal Revenue Code that

will ensure greater standardization of tax practices throughout the service sector. Because of

burdensome and often confusing legal standards for reporting tips, reform is needed to help

student workers cope with increasingly severe economic conditions and properly obey

federal law. HR 1139 has the potential to greatly benefit many American college students.

       According to current federal tax law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires

service workers to maintain records of all their tips, including those received in cash and by

credit, and those received from other employees out of a “tip sharing” arrangement.68 These

tips are reported to the employer within 10 days of the end of each month and are considered

part of the employee’s total income.69 From this total amount, an employee’s income and

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes are calculated and deducted.70

        The current IRS method for reporting tips, however, is vulnerable to corruption and

poor accounting. For any given month, employees who do not report tips are required to

calculate their own FICA taxes and pay them upon filing. 71 The IRS can charge a penalty for

suspected under-reporting of tips.72 Because both the establishment and its employees are

required to pay taxes on reported tips, a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding cash tips has

been adopted. In a popular restaurant worker forum, many workers recommend reporting “as

little as possible” or at least “half, so as not to look suspicious.”73 The opportunity for

incorrect reporting is extensive because cash transactions are more difficult to track than tips

given on credit cards, which come with an electronic paper trail.74

        “Food and beverage establishments where tipping is customary” are required to

complete IRS form 8027, the Employer’s Annual Information Return of Tip Income and

Allocated Tips.75 If the establishment’s reported tips are below eight percent of its total sales,

the employer is required to assign additional (and perhaps fictional) tips to its “under-

reporting” workers’ W-2 forms.76 This motivates restaurateurs to encourage their employees

to truthfully report all tips. The National Restaurant Association (NRA), however, finds that

reporting cash tips is burdensome, stating that employers cannot go so far as to force their

employees to report a certain level of tips but can only encourage truthful reporting


       Judicial dispute has arisen between restaurants and the IRS over the aggregate

estimation method. This model calculates the total tax burden of individual restaurants by

applying the tipping rate of credit-paying customers to all customers. Although the Supreme

Court has ruled that the aggregate estimation method is constitutionally valid, practical issues

remain that prevent fair tax assessment practices.78

       The IRS method ignores variations in cash tips. Customers who pay via cash may

leave a smaller tip than if they paid by credit, and some customers do not tip at all. Such

tipping fluctuation is evident in the variation seen in servers’ hourly wages. For example, “in

May 2008, median hourly wages (including tips) of waiters and waitresses was $8.01. The

middle 50 percent earned between $7.32 and $10.35. The lowest 10 percent earned less than

$6.73, and the highest earned more than $14.26 an hour.”79 The federal minimum wage in

May 2008 was $5.85 per hour.80 In addition, “national surveys indicate that about one-third

of the adult population in [the U.S.] is unaware that they are expected to tip 15 to 20 percent

of the bill in restaurants.”81 This creates problems when customers who are unaware of the

standard tipping rates tip less than customers who are knowledgeable about the rates.82 It is

also problematic that the IRS assumes that cash tips are equal to credit tips. Customers

paying by credit tend to leave greater tips than customers who tip by cash. 83 Present

consumer behavior research indicates that the greater association of credit cards with

spending causes credit tips to be significantly higher than cash tips. A credit tip averaged

16.95 percent of the check in one example study, while the cash tip averaged only 14.95


       Furthermore, the IRS has never explicitly stated that employers “have a

recordkeeping duty for cash tips.”85 Even though “the employer may have knowledge or

suspicion that tips are underreported… the employer has no obligation to keep records of, or

pay taxes on, anything other than reported tips.”86 In general, cash tips are completely private

transactions that are impossible to accurately track. The Internal Revenue Code should be

amended to allow for tax-free cash transactions.

       Issues related to service industry taxes are of great importance. A substantial number

of American students have part-time jobs. Nationwide, “the labor force participation rate (the

proportion of the population working or looking for work) for [2010] high school graduates

enrolled in college was 40 percent.”87 In fact, 21 percent of workers nationwide in the food

and service industry are between 16 and 19 years old.88 Young people typically enter the

service sector because of financial concerns.89 Also, the restaurant industry is the second-

largest provider of jobs in the U.S., employing nearly 10 percent of all working Americans.90

More than 13 million Americans serve in the restaurant industry.91

       Granting these employees a tax break will stimulate the economy by allowing more

dollars to circulate in the private sector.92 According to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at

the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, tax breaks for lower-income earners make sense

because these people typically “spend more of every dollar coming in,” pumping money back

into the private sector economy.93 In addition, consumer spending currently makes up nearly

70 percent of current gross domestic product, and this percentage has been increasing in

recent years (see Figure 4.1 on page 52).94

       Economic growth is contingent upon the amount of disposable income of those in the

lower- and middle-class income brackets. However, wealth disparities within the private

sector only have grown in recent decades. Since 1980, the national share of income earned by

the bottom half of Americans has declined by 33 percent.95 Had wealth disparities remained

stable, today’s average American family would be earning an additional $13,000 per year. 96

Moreover, lower-income workers are disproportionately affected by consumer price

inflation. While in 2011, total inflation was three percent (according to the Consumer Price

Index for Urban Wage Earners), this rate was more than 50 percent higher for both food and

energy. Poor and middle-class Americans spend a greater proportion of disposable income on

food and energy than their wealthier counterparts.97 Granting a tax break to lower-income

workers in the service industry would allow for more consumer confidence among hard-

working Americans.98

       In conclusion, if members of the U.S. Congress co-sponsor House Resolution 1139,

the Tax Free Tips Act of 2011, both service industry workers and the entire nation will

benefit. Because cash tips would be excluded from income and FICA taxes, service sector

workers would greatly benefit. In fact, this particular piece of legislation will greatly benefit

American college students. HR 1139, if passed, would allow more money to cycle within the

private sector, thereby spurring economic growth. Moreover, accurately taxing cash tips is

incredibly difficult and entrepreneurs are often the ones confronted with such hardship.

Taxing tips made only by credit cards would eliminate meaningless paperwork and obstacles

to private enterprise. Members of Congress must consider this vital piece of legislation.

              Engendering American Leadership:
      Augmenting Military Participation in American Colleges
                                     Emory D. Roberts

       Since her inception, the U.S. has been fertile ground for growing great leaders.

Leaders like George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and George Patton all

were commanders on the field of battle, leading their nation to victory time after time. These

outstanding leaders were tempered by the rigors of armed conflict. In order to meet future

challenges, however, the U.S. needs many of her brightest young citizens to serve as military

officers. Three programs currently produce outstanding American military officers: service

academies, officer training schools, and Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC).99

       With nearly 30 percent of active duty officers being products of an ROTC class, the

program has been a valuable asset to national security. Yet in recent years, several American

universities have become unfriendly and even hostile towards ROTC. They have begun

refusing to grant academic credit for completion of the program. In fact, only three of the

eight Ivy League schools offer academic credit for the completion of ROTC.100 In order to

reaffirm the program’s benefit to young Americans, Representative Jeff Miller (R-FL)

introduced House Resolution 2628, the Eliminating Disincentives to ROTC Participation

Act. This act has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and

is deserving of support from South Carolina’s Congressional Delegation.101

       With ROTC being such a vital part of national security interests, America’s most

capable men and women must not be discouraged from participating. By examining the

history and current successes of ROTC, policymakers gain a greater understanding of how

removing barriers to participation will not only benefit young cadets but also contribute to

university culture and enhance America’s strategic competitiveness.

       In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act, establishing the land-grant college system.

In return for federal support, the new colleges were required to teach military tactics to all

students.102 While all of them fulfilled this requirement, Norwich University in Vermont

pioneered the early development of what became contemporary ROTC. The university’s

founder, Captain Alden Partridge, led the charge for establishing a comprehensive program

designed to produce citizen-soldiers of the highest caliber. Capt. Partridge believed that

education must include the traditional liberal arts and prepare youth to excel in both peace

and war. His fundamental guiding principle was to prepare youth “to discharge, in the best

possible manner, the duties they owe to themselves, to their fellow men, and to their

country.”103 Because his country’s constitution designated defense for civilian command,

Partridge believed that the teaching of military tactics produced the ideal American

citizen.104 Norwich became the first college in the U.S. to offer ROTC.

       ROTC currently is offered at more than 1,000 American colleges and universities and

offers cadets a great variety of benefits.105 In exchange for committing themselves to terms of

military service, cadets receive both a college education and guaranteed career opportunities.

They also receive essential experience in leadership. To meet the demands of the Armed

Forces, ROTC provides comprehensive and regimented training in practical management and

interpersonal skills. For example, Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Wessel, commander of the

University of South Carolina’s Air Force ROTC Detachment, claims that his program

“provide[s] a hands-on, structured environment… where [cadets] get to succeed and fail and

learn from [their mistakes].” Cadets are put into leadership positions, given standards or

goals to reach, and allowed to gain first-hand experience in the challenges of leadership.106

With more than 40 percent of private employers identifying leadership as a skill of great

importance, college students are discovering the importance of leadership potential.107 Lt.

Col. Wessel attests that by producing quality leaders among the student body, the

environment and culture of the university is enriched.108 This sentiment is echoed by research

that indicates that students with extensive leadership experience tend to demonstrate greater

self-efficacy, civic engagement, personal character, and academic achievement.109 Many

colleges, including the University of South Carolina, are developing comprehensive

leadership programs for their students.110 ROTC is a major mode of providing students with a

fundamental skill as well as giving them the career opportunities to develop those skills.

Some colleges, however, do not offer academic credit for the completion of ROTC, thereby

echoing a time of hostility towards the U.S. military.

       In the 1960s, the Vietnam War was the subject of much controversy, especially

among young people. American college campuses experienced protests against both the

military and authority figures. ROTC was subsequently removed from several colleges by

either administrative coercion or extortion.111 In 1996, Congress passed the Solomon

Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 983, which allowed the secretary of defense to deny federal grants

(including research grants) to institutions which actively engage in prohibiting or preventing

ROTC and military recruiters from visiting their campuses.112 Although Ivy League schools

are all private institutions, the withdrawal of research grants convinced many to offer ROTC

once again. While ROTC may be offered on campuses, colleges still create barriers to


       Of the eight Ivy League schools, only the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell

University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offer academic credit for the

successful completion of ROTC courses.113 Officials at Yale University, for example, claim

erroneously that ROTC courses do not meet rigorous academic standards. Introductory level

ROTC courses that pertain mostly to military culture and career opportunities are required

for entry into advanced ROTC courses. Such introductory courses are rarely granted

academic credit. Advanced courses are also infrequently granted credit and include Air Force

Leadership Studies and National Security Affairs. Because lower-level courses cannot be

considered part of one’s academic transcript, however, an unusually low number of Ivy

League students successfully complete an ROTC track. Andrew Hendricks, a student at Yale

University who travels to the University of Connecticut once every week as the only Air

Force ROTC cadet at Yale, says that more students would likely join an ROTC program at

Yale if the university granted academic credit for such courses.114 Such intellectually gifted

students should not be precluded from military service.

       One possible cause for the lack of acceptance and cooperation with ROTC, albeit a

more ambiguous one, could be the tradition of animosity towards the nation’s military. As

stated previously, several anti-military protests during the Vietnam War led many colleges to

remove ROTC from their campuses. This particular issue has been corrected but an anti-

establishment culture still resonates today. For example, in early 2011, Columbia University

held an open forum on campus to discuss the possibility of ROTC returning to campus. At

the forum, Army Staff Sergeant Anthony Maschek, a retired Iraq War veteran, recipient of

the Purple Heart, and recent enrollee, took the stage in defense of the program. While

speaking, the wheelchair-ridden veteran was subjected to a variety of heckling and jeering,

even being inexplicably called “racist” by a group of students. The groups who opposed

ROTC cited certain policies that they found discriminatory, such as the (now repealed)

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.115 While their concerns are duly noted, Congress and

president govern and direct the U.S. military. Just as Capt. Alden Partridge envisioned,

respect for authority and governance (as represented by the Armed Forces) must be

reestablished if one is to receive a truly liberal education.

        The Eliminating Disincentives to ROTC Participation Act would prohibit the

awarding of all federal funding, grants, and contracts to any 4-year college that does not

award academic credit for the successful completion of senior Reserve Officer’s Training

Corps. If the law is implemented, all four-year institutions that receive any type of federal

funds shall be required to certify that they offer no fewer than six credit hours for the

successful completion of ROTC courses. If they fail to provide proper certification, all

funding and contracts will be denied. This will provide an effective incentive to institutions

of higher learning to begin offering academic credit. The bill offers to help put an end to

discrimination against the U.S. Armed Forces. Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended

centuries of lawful discrimination against people of color, HR 2628 will end an era of

discrimination against the nation’s military.

        Although colleges that once adamantly opposed all military-related establishments

have now begun accepting recruiters, they often exploit a major loophole of the law. As

written, current federal law mandates that all public higher learning institutions that receive

federal funds accept ROTC. But the law also allows colleges to effectively hinder

participation by disallowing early involvement. As stated, only three Ivy League institutions

provide academic credit for successful completion of ROTC. This issue, however, can be

easily resolved. Members of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation must consider

supporting HR 2628, the Eliminating Disincentives to ROTC Participation Act.

                  Equalizing Access to College:
   Eradicating Financial Barriers through Increased Grant Aid
                                   Samruddhi P. Somani

       A college education is one of the best investments a person can make. A variety of

lifelong advantages come with having a college degree. There are also many social and

economic benefits for society. For many young Americans, however, acquiring an education

is a costly endeavor that is prohibitively expensive. For them, education is made possible

only by federal financial aid. As college tuition continues to increase steadily, unmet

financial need also increases. In order to ensure that these students are able to study in

American colleges and universities, members of the U.S. Congress must extend federal

financial aid using fiscally responsible means.

       College degrees confer individual benefits upon their recipients. The most obvious

benefit is a higher, more stable income. The median yearly earnings of recipients of

baccalaureate degrees are $21,900 higher than those of high school-only graduates. Over a

lifetime, college graduates earn about 66 percent more than high school graduates. Median

hourly earnings are almost twice as high for college graduates. In fact, a bachelor’s degree

earned in four years and fully financed by student loans typically pays for itself within 10

years. While these numbers represent averages, students at the margin—those most benefited

by federal aid—tend to realize even greater financial gains.116

       While the economic benefits of a college education often are touted as reason to

invest in one, the social benefits are just as impressive. College graduates and even those

with just some college education tend to be more satisfied with their jobs than high school-

only graduates. They also are more likely to hold jobs they find personally meaningful.

College graduates exhibit better health than high school graduates. They are less likely to

smoke, less likely to be obese and have obese children, and are more likely to exercise.

Additionally, the children of college graduates tend to be better prepared for school and

participate in more educational activities, such as attending plays and concerts and visiting

museums and historical sites. Moreover, college graduates are more likely to vote and

volunteer (both by percentage of people involved and by time spent). While the figures

presented here are correlations, strong evidence shows that higher education causes some of

these gains.117

       Investment in higher education also is beneficial for local, state, and national

governments. High school-only graduates face tougher employment prospects, suffer a

doubled unemployment rate, and are three times more likely to be impoverished. Inversely, a

college-educated citizen typically depends less on government aid programs such as

Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. On average, college graduates

generate nearly $6,000 more in tax revenue each year. Additionally, college graduates are

significantly more likely to be offered pension plans and to have health insurance, thus

requiring less government aid in the form of social support services. People with a college

degree will save tax payers up to $108,700 on social support programs and increase tax

receipts by up to $141,500 over a lifetime.118

       The cost of a college education is among the most important considerations in the

decision to pursue a degree, especially among lower income families.119 This cost has

recently skyrocketed. In 2007, average tuition was 87 percent higher than it was in 1995.120

From 1992 to 2008, the price of college (minus grant aid) as a percentage of total family

income also has increased—from 41 percent to 48 percent for low-income families and from

22 percent to 26 percent for moderate-income families.121 The percentage of students who

demonstrate financial need—students for whom the price of attending college exceeds their

expected family contributions—has increased from 56.4 percent to 69.7 percent in the same

years.122 Initial enrollment and baccalaureate attainment of these students also have fallen due

to financial concerns.123 Furthermore, the average amount of need has increased from $6,900

to $11,400, an increase of 65 percent. While the percentage of students who have remaining

need—“the price of attendance minus expected family contribution minus all types of

financial aid except federal education tax benefits”—has increased slightly, the average

amount of remaining need has increased drastically, from $4,100 to $6,800, an increase of 65

percent. Students from lower-income households are the ones most likely to have remaining

need. Eighty percent of dependent students from the lowest income quartile and 85.4 percent

of independent students from the lowest income quartile have remaining need.124 As

mentioned earlier, these students benefit the most from attending college.

       Financial barriers continue to hinder students’ pursuit of college degrees. Rather than

increasing access for low-income students, changes in perspectives on financial aid in the

1990s have led to increased affordability for middle-income students. Instead of allowing

low-income students to attend college at all, these policies allow middle-income students to

do so at lower costs. The inflation-adjusted costs of attending college as a percentage of

family income has increased from 42 percent to 62 percent for low-income families between

1972 and 1999, while remaining relatively steady for middle-income and high-income

families.125 Between 2000 and 2010, financial barriers prevented between 1.4 million and 2.4

million qualified students from attaining an undergraduate degree. Educating these students

would add $250 billion to the gross domestic product and add $85 billion in tax revenue.126

These estimates, however, are cautiously moderate. They do not account for lower high

school graduation rates, lower academic preparedness, or net price of college on attainment

of a bachelor’s degree. Because students anticipate high net prices stopping them from

attaining a college education, they are less likely to take courses to prepare themselves for

college. Financial barriers also undermine the effectiveness of early intervention programs

and Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) simplification initiatives.127

       Grants are the most successful form of federal financing in terms of increasing

attainment of college degrees. The most pressing obstacle to earning a baccalaureate degree

is unmet need. Thus, instead of attending a four-year college as a full-time student and living

on campus, the pattern with the highest success rate, these students may attend a two-year

college part-time and work long hours to reduce cost. These behaviors, intended to be cost-

saving measures, reduce persistence and degree completion by as much as 75 percent.128

Starting at a four-year college instead of a significantly less expensive two-year college

significantly improves a low-income student’s chances of graduating with a bachelor’s

degree. Highly qualified low-income students (those who have taken at least trigonometry)

are almost twice as likely to complete a bachelor’s degree if they begin at a four-year college.

Because grant aid reduces unmet need, grant aid allows these students to make the decisions

most conducive to completion of a bachelor’s degree.129

       Federal aid programs continue to serve as a key component of financing higher

education in the U.S. The federal government provided 75 percent of all total undergraduate

aid (including grants, loans, work-study, and tax credits and deductions) in 2010. State grants

accounted for only five percent of total undergraduate aid, and institutional grants accounted

for only 17 percent of total undergraduate aid. Total federal aid accounted for approximately

$169 million for the 2010-2011 school year. Federal grants, such as Pell Grants and grants to

veterans, have grown by 249 percent while federal loans, such as Stafford Loans and PLUS

Loans, have grown by 139 percent.130 However, these increases do not nearly cover the

increase in need. As better academic preparation, better financial aid information, and a

simpler federal aid application process have increased the number of students (especially

low-income students) capable of succeeding in college, demographic changes mean that

increasing aid is the only way to ensure these students can enjoy the benefits of a college

education.131 Federal programs are indeed a crucial component of financing higher education.

Cutting federal programs such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans will have a strongly

negative impact on the ability of American students, especially those from low-income

backgrounds, to receive a college education, which will in turn reduce their ability, and

American society’s ability, to enjoy the benefits described above.

       The University of South Carolina’s Columbia campus (USC) enrolled 19,874 degree-

seeking undergraduates for the 2010 school year. A significant number of these

undergraduates depend on federal financial aid to fund their educations. Eighty-three percent

of them received some sort of federal aid in the form of grants, federal work-study funds, or

student and parent loans. Only 21.6 percent of all students in financial need, however, have

their need fully met.132 In fact, only 74 percent of the average full-time undergraduate

student’s total need is met. Although a significant percentage of USC students receive state

and institutional aid, federal aid programs still contribute more than twice as many dollars to

undergraduate education as these programs.133 Further cutting federal funds dedicated to

higher education will inevitably harm USC students, just as it will harm college students

across the U.S.

       A college education is one of the best investments an individual can make. Funding

such an education is one of the best investments society can make. College graduates

contribute a higher amount of money to the private sector and are less likely to need public

assistance. Financial barriers, however, prevent thousands of otherwise qualified high school

graduates from attending college. Federal aid is a key component to funding college

education for many students. While state aid and institutional aid do cover some financial

need, these programs are much smaller than federal programs. Most of the students who

choose not to attend—those already at the margin—are the students who would realize the

greatest gains from a college education. Cutting federal funds for education would hurt both

society and the 47 percent of undergraduates who fund their education at least partially

through federal programs. Federal spending on education is among the best investments the

U.S. Congress can make.

             Preserving Educational Innovation:
    The Common Core Standards and Classroom Independence
                                   James M. Strickland

       On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB). This law served as both an eighth reauthorization and major revision of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and was the single-most

progressive expansion of the federal government into the affairs of public school

classrooms.134 Despite being passed overwhelmingly amid bi-partisan agreement in both

houses of Congress, NCLB has become a political lightning rod that divides Republicans and


       In light of Congressional inaction and mounting criticism from educators, the Obama

Administration has nullified NCLB by offering waivers in exchange for alternative reforms.

Among these reforms, however, is the implementation of national learning standards that

threaten the independence of teachers, the creative development of students, and the ability

of states to develop their own educational priorities. Because NCLB is an impractical law,

and because the administration has unilaterally changed national education policy, Congress

has an opportunity to both reassert its constitutional prerogative and liberate public schools

from burdensome mandates. If the U.S. federal government is to maintain a competitive

workforce and an engaged body politic, then it must reform unwise laws and policies that

hinder educational progress and cultural development.

       One of the primary goals of NCLB is the elimination of a massive achievement gap

between white and minority students.135 Since its passage, all public schools have been

required to measure their students’ progress through the use of state-developed standardized

tests administered every year between the third and eighth grades (and at least once after the

10th grade).136 NCLB divides pupils into racial and socioeconomic subgroups. Schools that

receive federal funding are subject to severe sanctions if any one of their subgroups fails to

demonstrate yearly improvement.137 By 2014, all student subgroups are expected to be

performing at grade level in both reading and mathematics.138 Because of NCLB, statewide

learning standards and standardized tests have become a means for diagnosing poor

performance in key student demographics.

       The implications of NCLB are extensive. In 2003, 54.4 percent of America’s 90,000

public schools accepted Title I grants under ESEA, the federal government’s “largest

program supporting elementary and secondary education.”139 These schools are especially

impacted by NCLB. They are required to achieve “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) by

improving the test performance of all student subgroups by a desired yearly increase.140

Subgroups are delineated by race and economic background but also include children with

learning disabilities and those who are learning English as a second language.141 Most

schools in South Carolina have either 17 or 21 subgroups, although a few have 37. 142 The

U.S. Department of Education (ED) has allowed states to establish desired yearly increases in

reading and mathematics proficiency, but all states must obtain complete proficiency in all

subgroups by 2014.143 This requirement has ensured that it becomes increasingly difficult for

schools to obtain AYP status and avoid severe repercussions (please see table 7.1 on page 53

for a complete list of sanctions).144 Indeed, in 2011 a record 48 percent of America’s public

schools did not make AYP.145 In South Carolina, this number increased to 76 percent.146

       In recent months, due to a lack of Congressional action and increasingly vocal

complaints from educators and state authorities, the Obama Administration has overridden

Congress in administering national education reform. On September 23, 2011, the President

said “…we’ll be giving states more flexibility to meet high standards… Congress hasn’t been

able to do it, so I will.”147 Earlier that summer, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced

that new waivers shall be granted to individual states.148 The waivers eliminate the most

strenuous provisions of NCLB—obtaining AYP status and complete proficiency in reading

and math by 2014—and instead require states to adopt “college- and career-ready standards”

and redistribute effective teachers “equitably among schools.”149 States also must agree to

host “education reforms the White House favors—from tougher evaluation systems for

teachers… to programs tackling the achievement gap.”150 In February 2012, the South

Carolina Department of Education submitted a waiver request. 151 The waiver allows the state

to use an older, pre-NCLB evaluation system for schools while still holding them

accountable for student test performance.152 As of December 2011, 39 states, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico each had submitted either a waiver request or plans for

developing one.153

       In lieu of developing “college- and career-ready standards,” 45 states and the District

of Columbia have adopted the Common Core Standards (CCS), a 150-page document that

establishes grade-specific objectives in mathematics and language arts for K-12 students.154

The document originally was developed by the National Governors Association (NGA) and

the Council of Chief State School Officers and released on June 2, 2010.155 States that

adopted the CCS by August 2, 2010, were awarded additional points for competing in the

Obama Administration’s Race to the Top (RttT) grant program, funded by the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act.156 Although the ED was not directly involved in the

creation of the standards, it has awarded more than $330 million in RttT funding to two

consortia that will develop CCS testing assessments.157 Education Secretary Duncan highly

favors the new nationalized standards and claims that implementation will “save the country

billions of dollars.”158 The standards include such minutiae as recommended readings and

dictate what skills pupils are expected to master in each grade.159

       These new standards, however, are not in the best interest of teachers or students and

represent a substantial departure from current state-based content guidelines. Despite a

number of claims from various education groups that the standards are only slightly more

rigorous than state curricula, many of these same groups have financial ties to the Standards’

creators.160 These groups include Achieve, Inc. and WestEd.161 Independent researchers have

found that the CCS represent a very dramatic shift from already-established state guidelines

and that implementation will be difficult for most states, many of which are currently

suffering public education budget cuts.162 Moreover, the CCS differ significantly from the

standards of high-achieving countries, such as Finland and Japan, and from what U.S.

teachers currently claim to teach.163 The new standards differ even from what is found on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress exams, which are administered by the Institute

of Education Statistics within the ED.164

       The development and adoption of the CCS are cause for concern. Despite being

developed by the NGA, not all states participated in the formulation of the standards.165 Of

the 65 authors, only one has experience in public school teaching.166 The other authors all are

college professors or “representatives of private educational companies” (mostly Achieve,

Inc.).167 The CCS were developed in less than one year and subject-matter experts and

practitioners were excluded from the process.168 Indeed, the standards’ “Feedback Group”

also consisted largely of test company practitioners.169 The CCS were developed,

unfortunately, largely by individuals who have no direct teaching experience. While the CCS

do not instruct teachers how to teach, private companies have begun marketing curricula and

lesson plans that are purposefully designed to meet the demands of the standards.170 The state

of South Carolina has presently suspended the purchasing of new textbooks, which is putting

teachers into the unfortunate role of having to teach more with fewer resources.171

Implementing the CCS would exacerbate this problem. As of this writing, Department

officials at the South Carolina Department of Education were still trying to calculate the full

cost of implementation.172 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation played a pivotal role in

funding the development of the CCS and now supports pro-standards advocacy groups and


       State budget cuts encouraged state agencies to both compete for RttT grants and

hastily adopt the CCS, thereby avoiding the costs of attempting to develop “college- and

career-ready standards” that may not have been otherwise authorized by the ED.174 The

White House threatened to withdraw Title I funding if such standards were not adopted.175

State agencies had only two months to consider adopting the CCS, and many administrators

and teachers were ignorant of the standards’ implications.176 Amidst a divided State Board of

Education and Education Oversight Committee (EOC), South Carolina adopted the standards

in July 2010 and is currently preparing for implementation.177 This involves recalibrating the

state’s 31 teacher training programs at colleges and universities, including one at the

University of South Carolina in Columbia.178

       Despite Washington D.C.’s push for national control of education, individual states

are fully capable of developing rigorous standards and accountability measures. By adopting

the new CCS for mathematics, for example, California, Massachusetts, Indiana, and

Minnesota will diminish already-established state benchmarks.179 The new standards also

may adversely impact South Carolina, as in 2009 “seven independent national studies cited”

the state’s academic standards “as among the most rigorous in the nation.”180

       Two years prior to the passage of NCLB, 39 states held their schools accountable for

student performance.181 With passage of the federal law came conflicting signals from both

state departments and federal authorities.182 In Kentucky, for example, a sizable number of

schools often achieved AYP status but failed to achieve state quality objectives.183 In light of

applying for a waiver from federal mandates, South Carolina has reverted back to its pre-

NCLB accountability system, which measures how children perform.184 With adoption of the

CCS, however, South Carolina’s elected lawmakers, who represent their constituents, will no

longer have the ability to easily amend what students are taught. Adoption of the CCS

substantially diminishes the authority of the state EOC. In this aspect, adoption of the

standards will lead to less accountability by state officials.185 While the exact impact of

adoption varies from state to state, Virginia, Texas, and several others have opted to keep

their own benchmarks.186

       Moreover, there does not appear to be a significant correlation between national

benchmarks, standardized testing, and student achievement. Every three years, the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development surveys 15-year-old students in

industrialized nations. The survey, known as the Programme for International Student

Assessment, has consistently indicated that Finnish schools produce the best-performing

students in the world (in mathematics and reading comprehension). Despite ranking highly,

however, Finnish students are subject to only one standardized exam throughout their entire

careers.187 Finnish teachers are allowed great leeway in choosing how to best instruct

children with diverse learning needs, and school administrators are also directly responsible

for the actions of individual teachers.188 Because the demographics of Finland are highly

comparable to those of 18 states in America, such management models may prove applicable

to American schools.189 While finding a direct link or correlation between national standards

and student achievement is tenuous, the Finnish school model is contrary to the purposes of

the CCS.

       In mandating that states conform to specific education initiatives in exchange for

waivers, the Obama Administration may be in violation of federal law. Despite Education

Secretary Duncan’s expansive interpretation of section 9401 of NCLB, the Congressional

Research Service (CRS) has asserted that the ED does not have the legal authority to

substitute White House education initiatives for NCLB.190 While the CRS acknowledged that

the ED is able to grant waivers and that section 9401 allows for “very broad” discretion, it

also asserted that “if the Secretary did, as a condition of granting a waiver, require a grantee

to take another action not currently required under the ESEA, the likelihood of a successful

legal challenge might increase.”191 Therefore both the U.S. Congress and state education

authorities must understand that any new mandates appear to be voluntary. This is unclear,

however, as there has been no major litigation prior to this report’s publication.

       The errors of federal education policy still can be corrected. The House Committee on

Education and the Workforce has produced a number of bills that eliminate undue burdens on

public school teachers. Members must consider supporting similar legislation that allows

state governments to maintain their Constitutional and academic sovereignty. Members also

must be weary of bills that enshrine deleterious public policy in federal law. One such

example is the recent 860-page reform of NCLB co-sponsored by Senators Tom Harkin (D-

IA) and Mike Enzi (R-WY). This bill, known as the “Elementary and Secondary Education

Reauthorization Act of 2011,” makes permanent many of the reforms of the Obama

Administration, including the implementation of “college- and career-ready standards.”192

While the Harkin-Enzi proposal does much to reform NCLB, it simply replaces one set of

burdensome mandates with another. Members of Congress must reject such “one-size-fits-

all” proposals and instead allow local education authorities to make decisions that work best

for local learning needs. The Harkin-Enzi proposal was approved by its respective Senate

committee despite no hearings being held on the matter.193

       Providing for the intellectual nourishment of America’s youth is indeed critical to the

continued viability of American political institutions. Because American citizens elect their

leaders, they must be properly educated so as to make informed judgments. While there is

tremendous economic benefit to merely having a college degree, lawmakers must not

underestimate the civic value of learning. American school districts must no longer strive to

equip children only with instrumentalist skills of economic application but instead must

strive to instill values of participatory citizenship and civic virtue. The CCS, however, do

very little to instill such values and, in fact, prevent individual states from doing so.

       Members of the University of South Carolina Congressional Advisory Board

sincerely hope that members of the U.S. Congress will understand the importance of

education and agree that little room for error exists. The CCS are not in the best interests of

teachers or students, and members of Congress must act now to help save the future of

American representative government.

                Controlling the Cost of College:
  How Federal Student Loans Contribute to Education Inflation
                                     Steven D. Vanderlip

       The soaring cost of higher education has become a topic of conversation at American

dinner tables. In fact, the net cost of college now consumes the largest-ever portion of a

typical family’s income. This is due mostly to public institution tuition hikes that averaged

8.3 percent in 2011 alone.194 While the federal government justifiably has recognized that

soaring tuition excludes many young Americans from obtaining baccalaureate degrees,

federal student loans have inadvertently contributed to education inflation. Although such

loans often are touted as a solution to growing educational disparities, they encourage

colleges to increase fees. The federal student loan program, as it is currently administered, is

deleterious to educational achievement. Correcting this issue, however, can be a painless

process that does not jeopardize current achievement.

       Escalating tuition costs at public institutions historically coincide with diminishing

support from state governments. In 2010, colleges and universities in South Carolina

experienced the second-largest state funding cut in the country. While prioritizing Medicare

and K-12 education funding, the state legislature cut funding for public higher education

institutions by 19 percent in that year alone.195 This decrease reflects a recent trend. Over the

past five years, tuition at South Carolina colleges and universities has increased between 18

and 36 percent.196 The largest universities in the state, Clemson and the University of South

Carolina, experienced the smallest increases: 19 and 18 percent, respectively.197 At 36

percent, the College of Charleston saw the largest increase.198

        While there is certainly a correlation between rising tuition costs and declining state

funds, this is only a recent phenomenon. The supposed relationship between the two does not

explain why tuition rates have been increasing faster than inflation since the mid-1980s.199 At

all of the universities listed above, rapid tuition inflation existed long before state

appropriations began to diminish. What has consistently risen in tandem with tuition

increases, however, has been federal student aid disbursement. This is much more than a

mere correlation as “student loans are more of a cause than a consequence of rising college


        There is a tremendous detachment between the intention of federal programs and the

reality of rising tuition. Originally authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of

1965 (HEA), federal student aid sought to increase access and affordability to college while

promoting equality of opportunity.201 Such federal aid policies were designed to lower the

cost of attending college. Unfortunately, however, college tuition has not remained

affordable and continues to increase. Over the past 30 years, “tuition has increased by twice

the rate of inflation,” far outpacing price increases in other areas of the economy (see Figure

8.1 on page 55). Moreover, “annual loan volume has increased tenfold in [inflation-adjusted]

dollars” (see Figure 8.2 on page 55).202 In brief, despite an abundance of federal loans,

average tuition has only increased. Indeed, student loans spur tuition hikes.

        Federal student loans allow colleges to safely increase tuition. Former Education

Secretary William Bennett said, “Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled

colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that federal loan subsidies

would help cushion the increase.”203 Thus, in the “Bennett Hypothesis,” colleges tend to

absorb most federal aid by increasing their tuition.204 This is because in order to attract

additional students (who each pay tuition), schools require additional capital. As professor of

labor economics at Cornell University Ronald Ehrenberg has written:

         Administrators of colleges and universities also want to maximize the value of their
         institutions… To these administrators, this means making their institutions the very best
         that they can be in almost every area of their activities so as to attract more students.
         These administrators are like cookie monsters... They seek out all the resources that
         they can get their hands on and then devour them.205

Thus, as financial aid increases, colleges act to maximize their incomes. This is accomplished

by increasing tuition.

         As financial aid increases the number of students who can pay tuition, colleges will

react in order to maximize financial opportunity. For the influx of students whose ability and

willingness to pay is in excess of current costs because of the added padding of student loans,

colleges engage in price discrimination by setting tuition artificially high. As student loans

allow for more students to apply, colleges take advantage of increasing demand by further

raising tuition. In general, an increase of one application per enrollee is associated with a

$126 increase in public institution tuition (see Figure 8.3 page 56).18 For every dollar

disbursed in federal student loans, net tuition increases 93 cents (see Figure 8.5 on page

57).206 With such readily available student credit, colleges increase tuition to artificially high


         Just as one couldn’t imagine house prices being as high as they [were in 2006] if
         mortgage financing were not available, it is difficult to believe that colleges and
         universities could have increased their charges so rapidly over time without the ready
         availability of students’ ability to borrow.207
Thus the cycle restarts as schools seek to attract more capital, tuition increases because of

student loans, and an increasing number of people attend college. Ironically, for some

students who are unable to pay the increased nominal cost, universities offer tuition discounts

termed “institutional grants” so as to fulfill the requirements of HEA.208 Moreover, due to a

variety of legal and funding obstacles, many colleges cannot quickly accommodate increased

demand. Student loans provide even more incentive for colleges to increase tuition.209 The

availability of student loans has flooded a fairly static higher education market.

       College tuition has increased nationwide because of increased borrowing and student

credit. The three biggest federal student loan programs are Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans,

and PLUS Loans. Among all American lenders, public and private, Stafford Loans provide

the most money for students.210 In 2011, more than $55 billion were disbursed through the

Stafford program.211 Within a decade, the number of annual recipients of Stafford Loans has

increased a dramatic 75 percent, going from 4.15 million in 2001 to nearly 7.3 million

students in 2011. Students are relying more and more on federal loan programs to pay for

college (see Figure 8.4 on page 56).212 It is clear that the trajectory of college tuition parallels

the trajectory of Stafford Loan disbursement.

       Unfortunately, the ubiquity of student loans is responsible for education inflation.

Students of any merit or income bracket are able to receive some form of federal student aid.

Although those with financial hardship qualify for lower interest rates (subsidized loans),

absolutely any student is capable of being awarded a loan through the Stafford program.

Currently, students from middle-class backgrounds have the greatest number of loans while

those from the lowest income bracket have the fewest (see Figure 8.6 on page 57).213 From

1992 to 2006, the share of the average American family’s income that went to pay college

tuition increased by five percent, whereas the share of families in the lowest income bracket

rose 16 percent.214 Federal student loans have not fulfilled the mission of helping those most

in financial need to attend college but rather have accelerated growth in college tuition by

providing more money to those who could already afford it.

        Moreover, federal student loans have adversely impacted educational policy. As

Caroline Hoxby, professor of economics at Harvard University and Fellow at the National

Bureau of Economic Research, has written, “All too often, higher education initiatives (such

as student loans) focus too narrowly on increasing enrollment in higher education…

Enrolling in college does not necessarily correspond to successful investment in college.”215

In truth, the quality of a college education has decreased.

        Recent studies have highlighted the uneven quality and poor graduation rates of

American colleges. Sadly, reading comprehension is declining among college graduates.216

The loose standards of federal student loans have insured that both qualified and unqualified

students can enroll in college. Meanwhile, students are taking more time to finish college. In

an analysis of the largest institutions of higher education in South Carolina, two-thirds of

students graduated in six years while less than 25 percent of students graduated within four

years.217 In 2003, only 34 percent of all American graduating students had earned their

degree in four or fewer years.218 Students now are paying exorbitant tuition for more than

four years. Furthermore, schools use the influx of money to cover additional administrative

costs as opposed to financing instructional education. It is too often the case that universities

become dependent on large bureaucracies for maintaining their relationships with federal


         Abolishing all federal student aid, however, would be foolish. Such aid has grown in

importance. American students borrowed more than $86 billion in 2007 alone.219 Because

education transforms young people into engaged citizens, the opportunity to attend college is

invaluable. This training, however, occurs only with students who appreciate learning. The

current administration of federal student aid places non-appreciative students into university

classrooms. This problem is easily fixed, though.

       Although the path to economic recovery is certainly a multi-faceted one, reformation

can best be accomplished by changing the current practice of providing loans to any student.

Instead, the federal government should award loans exclusively according to need and

academic merit. As an example, Pell Grants do not cause education inflation because they are

awarded only to those with demonstrated financial need. Reauthorization of the HEA is

scheduled for debate in 2013. Members of South Carolina’s Congressional Delegation have

ample time to consider the long-term damage student loans inflict on the American higher

education establishment.

       Higher education inflation is pertinent to American civic dialogue. As countless

families face issues of affordability, it is obvious that federal student loans are a hindrance to

making college more affordable. Obtaining a baccalaureate is an admirable goal but, as

tuition continues increasing, the federal government must establish means-testing or merit

qualifications so as to truly fulfill the original purpose of the HEA. Doing so will make

college affordable once again.


Figure 1.1: Percentage of American Doctors Serving Patients Per Week, 2011

Figure 1.2: Average Time with Patients Among American Doctors in 2011

Figure 4.1: Personal Consumption and Total Gross Domestic Product


                    A school is identified for school improvement after it has not
                    made AYP for two consecutive school years. A school moves to
                    the next "step" or "year" in this chart if it continues to not make

     School         In general, schools identified for improvement must receive
  Improvement       technical assistance that enables them to specifically address the
   (Year One)       academic achievement problem that caused the school to be
                    identified for improvement. The local educational agency (LEA) is
                    required to provide technical assistance as the school develops and
                    implements the plan, including specific assistance in analyzing
                    assessment data, improving professional development, and
                    improving resource allocation. In addition, the following must
                    take place:

                       1. All students are offered public school choice.
                       2. Each school identified for improvement must develop or
                          revise a two-year school improvement plan, in consultation
                          with parents, school staff, the local educational agency,
                          and other experts, for approval by the LEA. The plan must
                          incorporate research-based strategies, a 10 percent set-
                          aside of Title I funds for professional development,
                          extended learning time as appropriate (including school
                          day or year), strategies to promote effective parental
                          involvement and mentoring for new teachers.

     School            1. Make available supplemental educational services to
  Improvement,            students from low-income families.
   (Year Two)
                    In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance to
                    implement the new plan, and offer public school choice.

Corrective Action   Corrective Action requires an LEA to take actions likely to bring
  (Year Three)      about meaningful change at the school. To accomplish this goal,
                    LEAs are required to take at least one of the following corrective
                    actions, depending on the needs of the individual school:

Continued on page      1. Replace school staff responsible for the continued failure
       54.                to make AYP;

                       2. Implement a new curriculum based on scientifically based
                          research (including professional development);
                       3. Significantly decrease management authority at the school
                       4. Extend the school day or school year;
                       5. Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its
                          progress toward making AYP in accordance with its school
                          plan; OR
                       6. Reorganize the school internally.

                    In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance, public
                    school choice and supplemental educational services.

  Restructuring     During the first year of restructuring, the LEA is required to
   (Year Four)      prepare a plan and make necessary arrangements to carry out one
                    of the following options:

                       1. Reopen school as charter school.
                       2. Replace principal and staff.
                       3. Contract for private management company                    of
                          demonstrated effectiveness.
                       4. State takeover.
                       5. Any other major restructuring of school governance.

                    In addition, the LEA continues to offer public school choice and
                    supplemental educational services.

Implementation of
                    Implement alternative governance plan no later than first day of
                    school year following year four described above.
   (Year Five)

Figure 8.1: Percent Growth Rate of College Prices Compared to Other Sectors

Figure 8.2: Financial Aid and Tuition Inflation Rates, 1986-2007

Figure 8.3: Tuition versus Enrollment Applications at Public Schools

Figure 8.4

Figure 8.5: Clear Correlation between Student Borrowing and Tuition Inflation.

Figure 8.6: Net College Costs as Percent of Family Income

                                                         2005           % pts
                                                       (MU 2006)      increases

   Lowest 20% income families             57%               73%          16%

   Middle 20%                             17%               23%           5%

                                Author Biographies

Eeshwar K. Chandrasekar is an interdisciplinary studies major from Greenville. A junior in
the South Carolina Honors College, Eeshwar focuses on international health and economic
policy with a particular interest in healthcare and development policy. One of two returning
members from last year’s Congressional Advisory Board, Eeshwar is involved in several
organizations on campus. These include the Honors Pre-Medical Community (for which he
serves as the upper-classman advisor), the Roosevelt Institute public policy think tank (for
which he serves as vice-president), and Student Government (for which he is a former
president pro tempore). Eeshwar has served as an intern for the World Health Organization in
Geneva, Switzerland, a researcher at the Advanced Centre for the Treatment Research and
Education in Cancer in Mumbai, India, and as a grant writer for the Young Men’s Christian
Association (YMCA). He may be reached at

C. Andrew Dorsey is president of the University of South Carolina Graduate Student
Association, serving on behalf of more than 6,000 graduate students. A native of Chester,
Andrew has an Associate of Science degree from USC Lancaster and a baccalaureate in
political science, summa cum laude, from USC Columbia. He is a member of Phi Beta
Kappa. In May 2011, Andrew was awarded a Master Degree in Public Administration from
USC and authored the state Attorney General’s Freedom of Information Act Manual.
Andrew has been involved with the Congressional Advisory Board, the Carolina Judicial
Council, and has served as president of the MPA Student Association. In 2011, he was
awarded the USC Samuel Carter Fellowship. Andrew is currently a student in the Master of
Human Resources program in the Darla Moore School of Business and is a consultant for
Dana Petroleum, a subsidiary of the Korean National Oil Corporation. Andrew has accepted
a summer offer with Halliburton in Houston, Texas. He may be reached at

George M. Helman was born in West Columbia. A graduate of Brookland-Cayce High
School, George is a junior mathematics major in the University of South Carolina Honors
College. George has worked on numerous research projects, including researching new
biotechnology for diabetes treatment, testing new experimental features for electric car
batteries, and researching media perception of Alzheimer’s disease. One of George’s primary
non-academic interests is environmentalism. He is a board member of Students Advocating a
Greener Environment, a student advocacy organization, and won a 2010 international clean
energy competition involving more than 1,000 universities, as part of a four-member team.
After graduation, George intends to perform statistical analysis for the federal government.
He may be reached at

Jessica V. Kaczmarek is a sophomore chemistry major in the University of South Carolina
Honors College. Originally from North Augusta, Jessica is involved in many campus
activities. As Student Government’s secretary of academics, she works closely with
university administrators to address academic issues, particularly those related to student
advisement. Jessica serves as sophomore representative of the Carolina Scholar Association
and helps recruit top students to the university. She also serves as volunteer chair in the Pre-
Medical Community, where she provides members with medical-related volunteer
opportunities. During the summer of 2011, she interned at Georgia Health Sciences
University in Augusta, Ga, where she researched Type II diabetes treatment. Jessica hopes to
become a pediatrician and eventually pursue her interests in business and healthcare through
hospital administration. She enjoys reading the news, shag and salsa dancing, gymnastics,
group exercise classes, shopping, and spending time with friends. She may be reached at
Emory D. Roberts is a junior political science and economics major from West Columbia.
He has an Associate’s Degree from the Marion Military Institute in Marion, Alabama, where
he served as vice president for education and defense in the Honor Council, as well as
founder and chairman of the institute’s chapter of College Republicans. Emory has served as
an intern for U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and is working to establish the Student Tea Party at
the University of South Carolina. He has been affiliated with multiple facets of each branch
of the Armed Forces and is currently a member of the South Carolina Air National Guard.
Emory has a special interest in defense- and space-related matters and intends to earn a law
degree after receiving his baccalaureate. He may be reached at

Samruddhi P. Somani is a sophomore in the South Carolina Honors College, from
Summerville. She is majoring in economics and minoring in both political science and
mathematics. Samruddhi is a recipient of the prestigious Carolina Scholars Award, the
Palmetto Fellows Scholarship, and the Lieber Scholarship. She enjoys cooking and is a
member of Cocky’s Culinary Club. Samruddhi is a regular contributor to The Daily
Gamecock newspaper and also is involved in the Carolina Debate Union. Away from
campus, she has interned at the Old Exchange Building, a historic customs house in
downtown Charleston, Sc. After earning her baccalaureate in May 2014, Samruddhi will
complete graduate studies in economics. She may be reached at

James M. Strickland serves as secretary of government-community relations in the
University of South Carolina Student Government and directs the Congressional Advisory
Board. Majoring in history and politics, James is a student in the South Carolina Honors
College and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. After graduating in May 2012, he intends to
conduct graduate research on the historical transformation of American political institutions.
Originally from Lake City, James has a keen interest in education policy and other public
interest issues, and has been awarded two university research grants for examining British
education reform and American political economy. He has completed internships at The
Heritage Foundation, the South Carolina Senate, and the South Carolina Political Collections.
James is a 2011 graduate of the Engalitcheff Institute on Comparative Political and
Economic Systems at Georgetown University. He may be reached at

Steven D. Vanderlip is a sophomore in the University of South Carolina Honors College
majoring in both political science and English. A native of Clover, Steven graduated with
honors from Westminster Catawba Christian School before enrolling at USC. He is the
recipient of the York County Chamber of Commerce Student of the Year Award and placed
first in the Philo S. Bennet Essay Competition hosted by the USC Department of Political
Science. Steven has served as an ambassador to the Hugh O’Brian Youth Leadership
Program, a delegate to the American Legion-sponsored Palmetto Boys State, and a
representative of South Carolina in the U.S. Senate Youth Program. He currently serves as a
senator in the university’s Student Government and is involved in Reformed University
Fellowship and the Euphradian Society, a prestigious literary society established in 1806. He
may be reached at


  “Human Development Index and its Components,” United Nations Development
Programme, 2011, (accessed
February 8, 2012).
  “World Health Statistics,” World Health Organization, 2011, (accessed February 6, 2012).
  Ajay Tandon et al., “Measuring Overall Health Systems Performance for 191 Countries,”
World Health Organization, 2010, (accessed
February 6, 2012).
  “Country Comparison: Life Expectancy at Birth,” Central intelligence Agency, 2011,
(accessed February 6, 2012).
  “Review of U.S. Health Care Law from a Human Rights Perspective,” Doctors for Global
Health, 2011, (accessed February 6,
  Ruchika Tulshyan, “Primary-Care Doctors: Saying No to $191,000 a Year,” Time, August
22, 2010,,8599,2012443,00.html (accessed
February 6, 2012).
  “Choosing a Primary Care Provider”, Medline Plus, August 12, 2011, (accessed February 8, 2012).
  “Workforce Reform,” American Academy of Family Physicians, 2011, (accessed February 4,
  “Data Illustrate Geographical Dispersal of Family Physicians, Other Primary Care
Professionals,” American Academy of Family Physicians, February 3, 2012,
issues/20120203ahrqgeodata.html (accessed February 6, 2012).
   “Medscape Family Medicine Compensation Report 2011,” Medscape, 2011, (accessed
February 6, 2012).
   Karen Brown, “Massachusetts Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage,” National
Public Radio, November 30, 2008, (accessed January 5, 2012).
   “The Growing Crisis of Chronic Disease in the United States” 2008,
theUSfactsheet_81009.pdf (accessed February 6, 2012).
   Ngaire Kerse et al. “Physician-Patient Relationship and Medication Compliance: A
Primary Care Investigation” September 1, 2004, (accessed February 6, 2012).
   “Medical Student Debt,” American Medical Association, 2011, http://www.ama-
section/advocacy-policy/medical-student-debt/ (accessed February 6,

   “Income Disparities Shape Medical Student Specialty Choice”, September, 2010,
income-disparities.html (accessed February 7, 2012).
   Medscape Family Compensation Report 2011
   “2011 State Physician Workforce Data Book,” American Association of Medical Colleges,
2011, (accessed February 6, 2012).
   “International Medical Graduates in American Medicine: Contemporary Challenges and
Opportunities,” American Medical Association, January 2010, http://www.ama- (accessed February 6, 2012).
   Ankit Agarwal, “Increasing Family Practice in America,” Roosevelt Institute, 2010, (accessed
February 6, 2012).
   “Loan Repayment,” National Health Service Corps, 2012, (accessed February 6, 2012).
   “National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program,” National Health Service Corps,
April, 2011, (accessed February 6,
   Nancy Walsh, “Primary Care More Appealing but Debt Keeps Docs Out,” Medpage
Today, April 27, 2011, (accessed on
February 6, 2012).
   “Primary Care Physicians Are the Most Likely Health Care Professionals to Practice in
Rural and Underserved Areas”, Primary Care Coalition, 2011, (accessed February 6,
2012); Wong Yin, “No. 5 at 42,” Singapore Medical Association, August, 2007, (accessed February 6, 2012).
   University of South Carolina, “About the University,” (accessed
December 9, 2011).
   “4.1 Billion Reasons to Crow,”
(accessed January 3, 2012).
   Office of the University of South Carolina President, (accessed
December 11, 2011).
   “Snapshot: University of South Carolina,”
(accessed December 13, 2011).
   American Energy Innovation Council, “America’s Energy Future: Executive Summary,” (accessed December 13, 2011).
   University of South Carolina, “2009-10 Budget Fact Sheet,” (accessed December 17, 2011).

   Nuclear Energy Institute, "Nuclear Energy in South Carolina," August 2011,
statefactssouthcarolina (accessed November 29, 2011).
   World Nuclear Association, "Fast Neutron Reactors," August 2011, (accessed November 29, 2011).
   EPA, "Nuclear Energy," last modified March 08, 2010, (accessed January 20,
   Warren Finch, "Uranium - Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002," U.S. Geological Survey, (accessed January 20, 2012)
   Mara Hvistendahn, "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste," Scientific
American, December 13, 2007,
is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2 (accessed January 20, 2012)
   Andrew Karam, "How do fast breeder reactors differ from regular nuclear power plants?"
Scientific American, July 2006,
fast-breeder-react, (accessed November 29, 2011).
   United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Uranium Enrichment," (accessed January 14, 2012)
   Rod Nave, "Fast Breeder Reactors," Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy- (accessed January 14, 2012).
   United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
   Magdi Ragheb, "Fast Breeder Reactors," University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
October 9, 2007, 402 ME 405 Nuclear Power
Engineering/Fast Breeder Reactors.pdf. (accessed January 18, 2012).
   World Nuclear Association
   Sammy Fretwell, "The State: Graham, DeMint: Recycle nation’s nuke waste in
SC," Lindsey Graham: U.S. Senate, January 08, 2011,
nation%E2%80%99s-nuke-waste-in-sc/ (accessed November 29, 2011).
   Boston Consulting Group, "Economic Assessment in the United States Management of
Used Nuclear Fuel," July 2006, (accessed January 31,
   William Hannum, National Center, "Purex and Pyro Are Not the Same," (accessed February 5, 2012).
   World Nuclear Association, "Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel," last modified November
07, 2011, (accessed November 29, 2011).

   Seong Won Park, "The Bulletin," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 26, 2009,
(accessed January 18, 2012).
   GreenPeace, "Cogema Discharge Pipe Exposed," June 26, 2000, (accessed January
20, 2012).
   Tadashi Inoue, "Development of Pyroprocessing and its Future Direction," Nuclear
Engineering and Technology.
   World Nuclear Association, “Fast Neutron Reactors”
   Mark Holt, “U.S. and South Korean Cooperation in the World Nuclear Energy Market:
Major Policy Considerations,” (accessed
February 5, 2012).
   Boston Consulting Group
   Matthew Bunn, Steve Fetter, and John Holdren, "The Economics of Reprocessing vs.
Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel," Belfer Center, December 3, 2003,
isposal_of_spent_nuclear_fuel.html (accessed November 30, 2011).
   Blue Ribbon Commission, “Report to the Secretary of Energy, 99-108,” (accessed February
5, 2012).
   Connie Cass, “Poll: College students get hard lessons in finance,” USA Today, April 21,
(accessed November 24, 2011).
   “20 Most Common Jobs for College Students,” Online Certificate Programs,
(accessed December 30, 2011).
   Summit Accounting Group, Inc., “Waiters & Waitresses: Tax Deductions,”
(accessed November 29, 2011).
   John Nessel, “What Employers Need to Know About Tip Reporting,” (accessed November 25, 2011).
   Summit Accounting Group, Inc.
   “Hourly Pay Question,” (blog),
   John Dimsdale, “IRS Keeping Tabs on Restaurant, Bar Tips,” American Public Media
Marketplace, June 9, 2010.
restaurant-bar-tips (accessed November 26, 2011).

   National Restaurant Association, “IRS aims to get more restaurants to file tip form,”
August 2, 2010,
restaurants-to-file-tip-form.cfm (accessed November 26, 2011).
   John Robertson, Tina Quinn, and Rebecca Carr, “Unreported Tip Income: A Taxing
Issue,” The CPA Journal Online, (accessed November 26,
   National Restaurant Association.
   Robertson, Quinn, and Carr.
   U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2010-11 Edition, Food and Beverage Serving and Related Workers, (accessed December 31, 2011).
   U.S. Department of Labor, “Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor.” (accessed November 27, 2011).
   Michael Lynn, “The Tipping Quiz Tool,” Center for Hospitality Research: Hospitality
Leadership Through Learning, Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, 2012.
ubs/tools/tooldetails-14043.html (accessed February 3, 2012).
   Richard Feinberg, “Credit Cards as Spending Facilitating Stimuli: A Conditioning
Interpretation,” in Consumer Behaviour Analysis: Marketing, a Behavioral Perspective, ed.
Gordon Foxall (New York: Routledge, 2002), 197.
   Robertson, Quinn, and Carr.
   U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “College Enrollment and Work
Activity of 2010 High School Graduates,” Economic News Release, April 8, 2011, (accessed January 1, 2012).
   U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook.
   “20 Most Common Jobs for College Students.”
   National Restaurant Association, (accessed
November 27, 2011).
   Nicholas Johnson and Erica Williams, “Some States Scaling Back Tax Credits for Low-
Income Families: Measures Would Increase Poverty, Slow Job Growth,” Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, May 3, 2010,
(accessed January 1, 2012).
   Amy Bingham, “Payroll Tax Breaks: Will Obama’s Plan Create Jobs?” ABC News,
September 8, 2011,
obamas-plan-create-jobs/ (accessed January 1, 2012).
   “The History of the GDP and Consumer Spending,” All Financial Matters (blog),
   Nick Hanauer, “Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators,”,
November 30, 2011,

commentary-by-nick hanauer.html (accessed February 5, 2012).
   U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “News Release,” January 19, 2012, (accessed February 2, 2012).
   Department of the Army. Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program: Organization,
Administration, and Training, Washington, DC, September 6, 2011.
    “Some ROTC courses to receive credit,” Yale Daily News, November 8, 2011,
(accessed November 26, 2011).
    H.R. 2628: Eliminating Disincentives to ROTC Participation Act. September 9, 2011, (accessed November 26, 2011).
    Library of Congress, Primary Documents in American History - Morill Act, July 30, 2010, (accessed January 6, 2012).
    Norwich University, History of Norwich University, 1995, (accessed November 30, 2011).
    “ROTC Program,” Today's Military, 2011.
serving-in-the-military/rotc-programs (accessed January 1, 2012).
     Timothy Wessel, interview by the author, January 24, 2012.
    Michigan State University, "Recruiting Trends: 2011-2012," Collegiate Employment
Research Institute,
2011-2012.pdf (accessed January 1, 2012).
    Peter Benson and Rebecca Saito, “The Scientific Foundations of Youth Development” in
Youth Development: Issues, Challenges and Directions (Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures, 2000), 125.
    University of South Carolina, Leadership - Office of the Provost, February 17, 2011, (accessed January 11, 2012).
    Alan Feuer, "Decades after Ban, Columbia Opens Door to R.O.T.C. Return" New York
Times, April 1, 2011, (accessed
November 30, 2011).
    "10 U.S.C. § 983 : US Code - Section 983,", (accessed November 30, 2011).
    “Some ROTC courses to receive credit.”
    "Blind Hatred of the ROTC Ban," The Washington Times, February 22, 2011, (accessed
November 30, 2011).
    Sandy Baum, Jennifer Ma, and Kathleen Payea, Education Pays 2010 (College Board,
2010),, 10-17.
    Ibid., 11-33.
    Ibid., 11-26

    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Mortgaging Our Future: How
Financial Barriers to College Undercut America’s Global Competitiveness (Washington,
DC: Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2006), 13.
    Vera Bersudskaya and Christina Chang Wei, Trends in Student Financing of
Undergraduate Education: Selected Years, 1995–96 to 2007–08 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2011),,
Table 1.1.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, The Rising Price of Inequality:
How Inadequate Grant Aid Limits College Access and Persistence (Washington, DC:
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2008), 4.
    Bersudskaya and Wei, Table 3.4.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, The Rising Price of Inequality, 15-
    Bersudskaya and Wei, Tables 3.4-3.5.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Access Denied: Restoring the
Nation’s Commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity, (Washington, DC: Advisory
Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2001), 7-9.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Access Denied, v.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Aid, Mortgaging Our Future, 35-44.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Access Denied, 10-11.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Aid, The Rising Price of Inequality, 29.
    Sandy Baum and Kathleen Payea, Trends in Student Aid 2011 (College Board, 2011),, 10-11.
    Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Access Denied, v-6.
    Institutional Assessment and Compliance, Common Data Set H: Financial Aid (2010-
2011), (accessed December 9, 2011).
    Student Financial Aid and Scholarships, 2010-2011 Total Awarding, Selected Aid
Programs, (University of South Carolina, 2010),
    Lindsey Burke, “Senate No Child Left Behind Proposal: More Big Government for
Schools,” The Foundry, October 17, 2011,
behind-proposal-more-big-government-for-schools; “Needed Fixes for No Child Left
Behind,” The New York Times, February 15, 2007.
    Sam Dillon, “School Law Spurs Efforts to End Minority Gap,” The New York Times, May
27, 2005.
    Jane Gordon, “Towns Are Rejecting No Child Left Behind,” The New York Times,
December 21, 2003; Thomas Dee and Brian Jacob, “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on
Student Achievement,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 15531,
2009, (accessed November 17, 2011).
    Diane Ravitch, “Get Congress Out of the Classroom,” The New York Times, October 3,
    Dee and Jacob; Gordon.

    Robert Linn, “Conflicting Demands of No Child Left Behind and State Systems: Mixed
Messages about School Performance,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 13, no. 33 (2005):
    Kristin Hussey, “More Schools Miss the Mark, Raising Pressure,” The New York Times,
October 12, 2008.
    “AYP and No Child Left Behind Goals Explained,”, February 10, 2011,
1448766/ (accessed November 16, 2011).
    Sam Dillon, “Under ‘No Child’ Law, Even Solid Schools Falter,” The New York Times,
October 13, 2008.
    Alexandra Usher, “AYP Results for 2010-2011,” Center for Education Policy, December
15, 2011,, 2.
    Ibid, 6.
    Sam Dillon, “Obama to Waive Parts of No Child Left Behind,” The New York Times,
September 22, 2011, (accessed
November 19, 2011).
    Dorie Turner, “Duncan: States Will Get School Testing Waivers,”,
August 8, 2011,
waivers_n_920713.html (accessed November 19, 2011).
    Seanna Adcox, “S.C. Releases Draft of No Child Left Behind Waiver,”,
December 16, 2011,
behind-waiver-ar-2881749/ (accessed December 17, 2011).
    “No Child Left Behind: Zais Will Ask Feds to Let SC Rely On Own System,”, September 26, 2011,
behind-zais-will-ask-feds-let-sc-rel-ar-2468014 (accessed December 17, 2011).
    U.S. Department of Education, “ESEA Flexibility,”
    Tamar Lewin, “Many States Adopt National Standards for Their Schools,”,
July 21, 2010, (accessed
December 18, 2011); Common Core State Standards Initiative, “States That Have Formally
Adopted the Common Core States Standards,”
    Brookings Institute, “Race to the Top Assessments: Common Core Standards and Their
Impact on Student Testing,” Events,
    Lewin; U.S. Department of Education, press release “President Obama, U.S. Secretary of
Education Duncan Announce National Competition to Advance School Reform,” July 24,
    Andrew Porter et al, “Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum,”
Educational Researcher 40, no. 3 (2011): 103.
    Sam Dillon, “States Receive a Reading List: New Standards for Education,”, June 2, 2010,

(accessed December 18, 2011).
    Porter et al, 114.
    Rick Hess, “How Big a Charge Are the Common Core Standards,” Education Week, June
1, 2011,
on_core_standards.html?qs=common+core (accessed December 19, 2011).
    William J. Mathis, “The ‘Common Core’ Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform
Tool?” Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (July 2010), (accessed
January 3, 2012).
    Joanne Yatvin, “Choking on the Common Core Standards,” Washington,
December 4, 2011, -
common-core-standards/2011/12/02/gIQAG6cpPO_blog.html (accessed December 26,
    Sean Cavanaugh, “Subject Matter Groups Want Voice in Standards,” Education, June 15, 2009,
nput (accessed January 4, 2012).
    Ze’ev Wurman and Sandra Stotsky, “Why Race to the Middle? First-Class State
Standards Are Better than Third-Class National Nationals,” A Pioneer Institute White Paper
52 (February 2010), 6.
    McGraw-Hill was among the first companies to offer CCS lesson plans.
    Robert Sloan, “Zais’ Team Explains Flexibility Waiver Proposal,”, January
4, 2012,
proposal-ar-2982400/ (accessed January 16, 2012).
    Michael Fair, interview by the author, February 1, 2012.
    Catherine Gewertz, “Allies Shift Focus Toward Promoting Standards Adoption,”
Education Week 29, no. 33 (2010).
    Bill Costello, “The Federal Takeover of Education,” American,
September 22, 2010, (accessed
December 26, 2011).
    Office of the Press Secretary, White House, “President Obama Calls for new Steps to
Prepare America’s Children for Success,” February 22, 2010,
america-s-children-success-college-and-care (accessed January 6, 2012).
    South Carolina State Department of Education, “South Carolina Common Core

    South Carolina State Department of Education, “ESEA Flexibility Request,”
    Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman, “Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the
Grade,” A Pioneer Institute White Paper 65 (July 2010), appendix B, 13.
    South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, Minds at Work, “What’s the Buzz?”
    Eric Hanushek and Margaret Raymond, “Does School Accountability Lead to
Improved Student Performance?” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
No. 10591, 2004, (accessed January 4, 2012).
    Robert Linn, “Conflicting Demands of No Child Left Behind and State Systems:
Mixed Messages about School Performance,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 13, no. 33
    “No Child Left Behind: Zais Will Ask Feds to Let SC Rely On Own System.”
    LynNell Hancock, “Why Are Finland’s Schools Successful?”,
September 2011,
Successful.html (accessed January 22, 2012).
    Joy Resmovits, “Arne Duncan’s Authority Over No Child Left Behind Questioned By
CRS Memo,”, July 5, 2011,
child-left-behind-proposal-questioned_n_890795.html (accessed December 19, 2011).
    Emily Barbour et al. to House Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 28,
2011, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700,
    The entire text of the bill may be found here:
    Kim Clark, “College Costs Climb, Yet Again,” CNN Money, October 29, 2011, (accessed
November 16, 2011).
    National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Funding for Higher Education in FY
2009 and FY 2010,” (accessed
November 18, 2011).
    Anne Neal, "Prepared in Mind and Resources? A Report on Public Higher Education in
South Carolina," South Carolina Policy Council, November 9, 2011, (accessed
December 5, 2011).

    Patrick Callan, "College Affordability: Colleges, States Increase Financial Burdens on
Students and Families," Measuring Up, The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
    Sandy Baum et al., "Rising College Costs: A Federal Role?" New York Times, February 3,
    U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee Study, College Affordability: Tuition Tax
Credits vs. Saving Incentives, 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1997,
grwth/college/college.htm (accessed December 8, 2011).
    Baum et al.
    "Study Backs View That Colleges Absorb Pell Grant Increases With Higher Tuition,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, March 7, 2007,
That-Colleges/38316 (accessed December 14, 2011).
    Andrew Gillen, "Financial Aid in Theory and Practice: Why It is Ineffective and What
Can Be Done about It," Center for College Affordability, April 2009,
f (accessed January 2, 2012).
    Baum et al.
    David Leonhardt, "Book Chat: Why Does College Cost So Much?" New York Times,
February 18, 2011,
much/ (accessed December 19, 2011).
    College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, Trends in Student Aid 2011,
    U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Annual Report 2009,
    John Immerwahr, “Public Concerns About the Price of College,” in Losing Ground: A
National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education (San Jose, CA:
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2002).
    Caroline Hoxby, “Tax Incentives for Higher Education,” in Tax Policy and the Economy,
ed. James Poterba (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1998), 12: 50.
    Eugene Hicock, "No Undergrad Left Behind," New York Times, October 11, 2006.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “2007 Survey of Consumer
Finances,” (accessed January
18, 2012).


To top