Skule Daze

Last week I had a column that was a discussion opener about the role of higher education in our state and nation particularly considering the present budget problems (“Dire Education,” 4-7-2011). Today I would like to move the issue along and examine some other factors surrounding education at our colleges and universities. In the earlier column I referred to a piece by Neal McCluskey that suggested that federal government in the form of the Higher Education Act was a major cause of higher education inflation. His premise was that the government’s willingness to lavishly spread taxpayer monies around contributed to colleges and universities failing to seriously attempt cost controls.

Charles Hugh Smith of  www.OfTwoMinds.com  has written an interesting article entitled, “Students: You Are Exploited Debt-Serfs.” He describes what he calls the “Education Cartel” wherein the banks reap immediate profits at the moment they issue a loan. In addition, the college or university can receive bundles of funds from the government and the designated banks every term. Roughly 10% of those who receive direct government school payments or bank generated guaranteed payments do not graduate. So, in a sense it’s a scam that uses taxpayer dollars. The banks and the schools benefit, and students either leave school or graduate with huge debts. Added to the loan scheme is the government grant shuffle.

If a student does graduate, then he or she may end up with a $100,000 debt that cannot be eliminated via a bankruptcy. In other words, the government, the banks and the “schools of higher learning” scheme together to place the young and hopeful people of America in a situation of inescapable debt . Meanwhile the smoke and mirrors public relations campaigns continue to browbeat young people into deciding for a college education when that may not be the best choice for certain individuals. Even if college is the proper path for someone who has aspirations, why not educate and encourage the students to pursue a fiscally responsible path? A serious student can begin with a community college, take nine (9) hours per term, and work at waiting tables, serving Happy Meals or any other menial starting position and perhaps complete a degree in six or seven years with little or no debt. Who is better off…the 25 year old with a freshly minted degree and no indebtedness, or the 25 year old who has struggled in the work force for three years and continues to have the $100,000 debt plus interest hanging over her or his head? Which one has the greater peace of mind? Which of the two has the most freedom for making life’s decisions? Plus, one of the two has the certain knowledge that she or he earned the degree.

Carrying the argument forward, I submit that government involvement in the subsidization of students (through banks and schools) is unconstitutional, immoral, fiscally irresponsible, discriminatory and stupid. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes NO allowance for subsidizing education—higher or otherwise. It is immoral for the government to be the prime impetus for inflationary educational costs and the subsequent result that students are saddled with massive personal debt. The fiscal irresponsible factor comes into play because government overreaches, over commits, over promises and overspends. Too many of our national obligations must be met with borrowed funds because of government irresponsibility. Underwriting college educations when students should be able to devise a method for obtaining a degree without government “help” and its ultimate debt is gross fiscal irresponsibility. Funding only those who choose to go to college is discriminatory. Providing varying plans for government involvement based upon demographic factors is discriminatory. By participating in the cabal to loan money to the young so they may attend college, government becomes a major contributor to the extension of adolescence in the United States. Government dollars and Nanny State intervention help to delay the maturation process for many of our youth. A politician may like the idea because uninformed and immature voters are either indifferent or “easy picking,” but as a national policy, it is stupid and potentially deadly.

The time has come to remove the government from underwriting or funding students who wish to go to college. The costs of schooling will go down as colleges compete for private dollars from parents and students. The costs for four-year schools will drop radically as they compete with one another and with community colleges for students. The students will not face the specter of massive debt as they don their caps and gowns for a final stroll down the 50 yard line on a beautiful June day. The federal government will take one tiny step back into its constitutional box. Oh yes, Miss future lawyer, I do want fries with that.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Dire Education

If you want to succeed, you must go to college. Since the end of World War II, that has been considered conventional wisdom in our society. We are constantly bombarded with facts and figures supporting the idea that without a college diploma, a person will not be capable of living a financially satisfying life. So, one would assume if all that were true, a college education would be as important as any staple such as bread or milk. Higher education, as a necessity, has been infused into our marrow, melded into our subconscious, and branded into our epidermis. In other words, the absolute requirement for one to matriculate from an institution of higher learning is sheer propaganda. Oh certainly, it may be helpful. Four or more years of learning to do one’s laundry, managing one’s pocket money, and attempting to avoid a drunk and disorderly citation are valuable learning experiences that can pay dividends for a lifetime.

When I was teaching, my favorite students were those who in mid-life decided to pursue higher education. There were a number of reasons that they had not done so earlier such as an unplanned pregnancy, flunking out, military service, tired of school and bevy of other personal circumstances. They truly appreciated the classroom. Because of their life experience, they would challenge anything I said that tripped their “b.s.” alarms. Their work was timely and well done. The adult students would engage in vigorous debate as we examined issues that impacted mass media. They were older, wiser and more mature than their fellow students, and ……….they paid their own bills. They wanted a 3 credit-hour course to contain 3-credit hours or more of content and value. The bottom line is that the value of a formal education is directly related to the effort of the student. Personally, I have more than seven (7) years of college and university education, but my greatest learning was acquired on my own by reading and studying outside my academic field.

You might ask why I am discussing this subject when we have budget showdown underway and military conflicts in a number of areas around the globe. The cost of higher education slides into our current environment because we are focused on the costs for government, healthcare, energy and food. Over the past two decades college costs have been at the top of escalating outlays. In other words, the cost for higher education has increased much faster than for many other sectors of the economy. Why? Why should students and their parents pay so much for something that may be of questionable intrinsic value? Why should parents and students pay so dearly for four or more years of steady leftist indoctrination from instructors and professors who are refugees from the turmoil of the 1960’s?

Because of the upward spiral of college costs, many students face years of student loan debt repayment after graduation. In a small way this is a good thing. They learn rather quickly how oppressive debt can be, and maybe can translate their personal situation into a basic understanding of how deadly debt for the country can be if it becomes too unmanageably huge. In addition after the graduates have been out of school for a few years, they’ll begin to understand what real learning is about. They’ll use the tools they developed in college to equip themselves for real life. Self discipline is something that many college students develop in their forays through the halls of academe. It is extremely difficult to sit through the political and philosophical garbage spewed by many college teachers without suffering from a massive gag reflex.

Neal McCluskey wrote in a February, 2008, article that the primary accelerant for the rising costs of college was the myriad government programs for loans and grants to allow our children to advance their educations. All the programs have done is to provide a huge pot of money for schools to tap and has allowed them to escape true fiscal responsibility. In defense of the colleges and universities of America, they really need those funds in order to provide a higher level of pay for their U.S.-hating, aging hippie faculty. Think of it as a welfare program because a large number of those faculty members could not survive in the real world. They must have the nest of the academy to nourish them and protect them because they cannot fly on their own.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/