Editor's note: The Daily Collegian's Board of Opinion chose not to endorse a presidential candidate for the primary election. However, because of the importance of Pennsylvania's vote in Tuesday's election, the Board decided to study each candidate's position on higher education and recommend a policy plan. There are many important issues your ballot may decide, but as students, we can all relate to how our federal government is serving our university and us.

Clinton gives voters the meat of her plan, instead of Obama's outlines

Depending on your viewpoint, America, this is either a win-win or lose-lose situation: You've been presented with two Democratic candidates that have virtually the same platform on higher education.

But as always in politics, the devil is in the details. Or in the case of Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., plan for the future of our universities, the lack thereof.

Keeping with his campaign's general tone, Obama has outlined wide swaths of improvement for the American higher education system. His plan advocates increased funding for Pell grants, simplification of financial aid applications and extra support for community colleges, listing each point succinctly on his campaign Web site.

But here's the catch. Opponent Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has the same plans -- and she's seen fit to actually explain them in detail to the voting public. For a student body looking to make an informed decision this Tuesday, Clinton's campaign offers the superior product.

According to his Web site, Obama's plan would give "most Americans" $4,000 in tax credits to "make college affordable." Clinton says she wants to give students between $1,650 and $3,500 a year by allowing taxpayers to claim 100 percent of their first $1,000 of college expenses and 50 percent of the next $5,000 as a tax credit, partially refunding the total for low-income individuals.

Obama wants to "simplify the financial aid process" by basing aid on previously recorded tax data. Clinton wants to include a checkbox on income tax returns authorizing release of information for financial aid purposes, prompting a letter from the Department of Education listing the applicable grants and loans, allowing colleges and universities to deal directly with the government in the disbursement of funds.

See the difference?

Clinton's plan also isn't afraid to address niche issues, including apprenticeships and workforce training, broadening the legislation's effect beyond college-bound voters.

Yes, the plans have many similarities. But as voters, we prefer suggestions that are backed by substance over ones that are backed by soundbytes. Sen. Clinton's plan looks promising -- and so does its candor.

McCain's platform, although unspecific, trumps Ron Paul's faulty logic

It's hard not to like the education plan proposed by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the presumptive loser in the Republican race for the presidential nomination.

After all, the diehard libertarian has said he wants to offer a full tax deduction to college students for all university expenses, including housing. Potentially, this rebate could cut the cost of a college education by thousands of dollars. As Penn State students paying at least $12,284 a year in tuition alone, that's music to our ears.

But look a little closer and you'll find that Paul's plan doesn't completely hold water -- and would actually leave poorer families at a disadvantage. Paul isn't completely refunding the cost of college: He's allowing taxpayers to deduct it from their earned income come April, which would translate into savings geometrically smaller than the face value. For a low-income family putting their children through community college, the deductions could amount to a paltry few hundred dollars.

Opponent Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., doesn't present a much better choice. His campaign Web site doesn't even mention higher education as an "Issue," and his statements regarding our nation's universities have been vague.

However, despite his neglect, McCain's platform at least addresses the issues facing higher education in a reasonable light. His talking points mirror those of his Democratic opponents and his published positions are light on specifics, but he's not shooting for the moon in some Adam Smith-inspired scheme -- and leaving college students in deep space.

Paul's plan looks good on paper, while McCain's currently holding little more than a blank sheet. But for what McCain lacks in specifics, he makes up in common sense -- and that's something higher education could use more of.