Both Democratic presidential candidates have appeared in Eugene during the last 2 1/2 weeks, but the demographics to which they appeal in this college town are markedly different.
Last month when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama rallied at McArthur Court, he filled the 10,000 seat arena to capacity. Many of the audience members were University students, despite the date being the last day of finals week.
In contrast, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton drew a much smaller crowd of nearly 2,500 at South Eugene High School on Saturday afternoon. The audience was composed mostly of adults and high school students, with not nearly as many college students in attendance.
Obama is the candidate who appeals more strongly to the college-aged demographic; students are at least more vocally excited about him than they are about Clinton. But in comparing the two senators’ comments on education from when they visited, Clinton far surpassed Obama in terms of substance.
Obama said “it’s about time we make sure every young person can afford to go to college,” and the federal government should close the achievement gap in K-12 education and overcome racial stereotypes. He also said students who perform community service should receive a $4,000 tuition coupon for each year they meet the service requirement.
And then he moved on. Ironically, the candidate who college students are so enthralled with had much less to say about higher education than did his opponent. Clinton spent about one seventh of her 40-minute speech suggesting ways in which she would improve affordability and accessibility to higher education in the United States.
Among her ideas were eliminating No Child Left Behind, increasing federal need-based aid via the Pell Grant and the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, creating a sliding scale based on taxable income for federal aid as opposed to the current system that cuts families off if their income is above the limit, and allowing students to borrow money directly from the federal government instead of from student lenders, significantly lowering loan interest rates. Clinton also wants to reward students who participate in national service with money for college, and those who go into public service with debt forgiveness.
The fact that Clinton is much more specific with her plans for higher education but apparently remains less attractive to college students is somewhat of a paradox. It indicates something else is missing from her campaign. Perhaps students are more invested in the governmental philosophy shift Obama promises than the college improvements Clinton promises, or perhaps they are taken by his youth and charisma.
Either way, if Clinton wants to raise her popularity among the college demographic, improving the education system won’t be enough.
[email protected]