Plan B Forum

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., a grandmother, was first elected to the House in 2004, when she was 61. The chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training and a former president of a community college, she is proud that she worked her way through college without borrowing a dime. It took her seven years. She is under fire right now from President Barry and others for saying the following on a syndicated talk-radio program:

"I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt -- or even $80,000 of debt -- because there's no reason for that. We live in an opportunity society, and people are forgetting that. I remind folks all the time that the Declaration of Independence says 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.' You don't sit on your butt and have it dumped in your lap."

Like the good Congressperson, I have little tolerance for young folks who promiscuously run up a mountain of debt, securing a degree with little commercial value.

When the time came for me to go to college there was NO financial support available from my family. I went into the service so that I could avail myself of the GI bill. I worked full time while going to school full time, I took out one modest loan. I did my first two years at Community College because that's ALL I COULD AFFORD(!). I mainly lived at home (and paid nominal room & board to my dad). I got a couple of small grants from the state (a few hundred dollars). I got my employers to pick up some tuition costs. I graduated from law school with no school-related debt. I was 32 years old.

When I suggest some of these strategies to young people considering college, they look at me like I'm speaking Swahili. They feel like someone owes them four (or five) years living on campus at a private college, studying whatever they find interesting at the moment. The concept of FIFTY THOUSAND AFTER-TAX DOLLARS PER YEAR(!) is so far beyond their comprehension that it is meaningless.

I realize that tuition costs have far outstripped inflation, and the strategies I employed might not result in graduating debt-free today. But these kids feel picked upon when their parents even suggest going to a state school rather than a private school THAT IS NO BETTER than the available state school. They want to live on campus when commuting could save more than ten thousand dollars a year.

And the idea of doing a couple years in the military to take advantage of GI Bill tuition assistance is like asking them to commit hara kiri.

I did not - and I would not - impoverish myself to send a child to a private college unless they were academically superior, and working their ass off to pursue an M.D., or something comparable. One acquaintance is now preparing to send her daughter to Fordham U to study POETRY! With tuition assistance, it will exceed $50k/yr. This will not impoverish her, but she is an idiot.

It seems to me like no one participating in the public dialog on the subject of massive tuition debt is willing to say the obvious things that need to be said:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO A PRIVATE COLLEGE - COMMUNITY COLLEGE IS FINE

You don't have to go to college at all, and there are thousands of great careers that come out of trade school or an apprenticeship.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE ON CAMPUS

IT IS POSSIBLE TO WORK WHILE YOU ARE GOING TO SCHOOL, AND IF YOU HAVE TO SCALE BACK THE COURSE-LOAD AND GRADUATE IN 6 OR 8 YEARS, DEAL WITH IT!

EDUCATION IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT. YOU CAN GET THE BEST EDUCATION IN THE WORLD AT A "MEDIOCRE" COLLEGE.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE TO BE SUCCESSFUL OR HAPPY. AT LEAST HALF OF ALL SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURS (THE MAJORITY OF THE "RICH") WERE SUCCESSFUL IN SPITE OF THEIR EDUCATION, NOT BECAUSE OF IT.

I have spoken.

And if colleges were merely trade or vocational schools you would be 100% correct. But it is not, and should not, be merely a training ground for corprorate America. Society needs poets and artists, just as it needs physicians and scientists; and a responsible society "invests" in those as well.

Society doesn't need poets or artists, any more than I "need" a television or I-pod.

And no great poet or artist learns his craft in a classroom. Many great poets, artists, and musicians never attended any university, and may not have been as great if they had done so.

To equate the "need" for entertainment with the need for physicians and scientists is - don't take this the wrong way - idiotic. For a parent or student to waste a hundred thousand or more on such a degree is the epitome of stupidity. Artistic talent can he honed anywhere, for free.

My father demanded rent from the day I turned 18, and between that & the 1.5 hour commute to school, it was equal cost to live at school.

I worked full time through school except 1st year law; I still incurred $25k for four years at the STATE university.

You are not in touch with the reality of college/university costs at present, I suspect. Certainly anyone who went to school 30 years ago isn't; the costs increased 110% in the five years I was in college, and since I graduated Georgetown, tuition at the law school has increased $10k/yr.!!

Maybe it's time to regulate costs at the colleges/universities, especially the public ones; the students don't have that power.

eta: People with means should feel free to spend whatever they want to educate their kids however they want; young people from working class backgrounds should have equitable access to higher education.

You are not in touch with the reality of college/university costs at present, I suspect.

Yep

To equate the "need" for entertainment with the need for physicians and scientists is - don't take this the wrong way - idiotic. For a parent or student to waste a hundred thousand or more on such a degree is the epitome of stupidity. Artistic talent can he honed anywhere, for free.

One can learn a great many things, including science and medicine, without setting foot in a university classroom, but it is often the most efficient and expeditious way to be exposed to knowledge and ideas. And to label the arts as "entertainment" is fairly shortsighted. That you feel society doesn't "need" artists, musicians,poets, etc., however, speaks volumes.

There is no question in my mind that anyone who wants it should have access to higher education.

The issue here is whether it benefits society to support that access. I'm pretty sure the data demonstrates that people with a college degree generally make more money than people who do not. Money that is then taxed, spent, invested, and which supports our economy, and pays back the original investment. Make student loans accessible, keep the interest rates low, and make the interest deductible --- for graduate and undergraduate loans. Oh, and fix the cap in the current interest deduction that is available (currently it is phased out at 75K -- far too low).

To observe that people with a college degree generally make more money than people without a degree is pretty much meaningless, as it lumps together those with degrees in acounting & finance, engineering, medicine, law, Information Systems, etc., with people having degrees in history, philosophy, music, and sociology. Not to mention Black Studies, Wimmin's Studies, and other nonsense.

People with parents who were both college graduates make more money than people whose parents were HS grads or less, regardless of educational achievement level. So what?

People with IQ's over 115 (say, one standard deviation above the norm) make more than people with average or below average IQ, regardless of educational achievement level. So what?

With my limited, anecdotal knowledge on the subject, I think that Germany and some other Western Europeans have the right idea with respect to higher education. It is strictly and highly competitive, and basically free for those who qualify on merit. And they don't waste their attention and resources on sports.

If I understand it correctly, this is the way it should be.

And as for my being "out of touch" on the cost of higher education today, the numbers are available to anyone on line, and I have checked out tuition charges at many different schools. All of the strategies I employed - including military service - are still available today. It is possible to find good value in education, and to reasonably consider the economic value of a college education when choosing a school and choosing a major. While it is asking a bit much from an 18-year-old to look at it like this, that is the role of parents. It is not the parents' role to indulge their children's hopes and dreams, however silly, and to impoverish both themselves and the child in the process.

Which is basically my point.

Or, too look at it another way, that statistic you dislike so much demonstrates that higher education -- no matter what the field -- has a value and benefit which can be measured in dollars.

The German model tracks kids in FIRST GRADE -- and determines whether they have what it takes to make it to University. It is difficult enough to know what you're going to do and be and keep a level head on your shoulders at 18. The idea of determining the outcome of children's lives at 6 makes me nuts. No thanks.

85% of HS dropouts end up involved in the criminal justice system; only 5% of college graduates do.

The costs of incarcerating people far exceeds the costs of educating them; that this country should be investing more in education at all levels is a no-brainer to me.

As to your enthusiasm for the German-style tracking system in education, dgs - it misses a lot of quality folks.

My brother and I were both academically gifted students who suffered from a poor parental choice to move us from a top ten education state to one in the bottom five. We both ended up dropping out of school out of boredom, not intellectual difficulty. Coupled with family issues, this made late bloomers of both of us - but we both eventually excelled in higher education, with one of us going as far as acceptance at five of the top ten law schools in the country.

Merit should be considered at all stages of life. Pell grants and subsidized Stafford loans should be increased to meet the costs of education today. Interest rates on federal student loans should NOT be increased. Forgiveness and loan repayment assistance for low income public service employment should be widespread.

85% of HS dropouts end up involved in the criminal justice system; only 5% of college graduates do.

Yer not involved with criminal justice system?

Touché.

I've never felt the silver bracelets, however.

Someone who is 69 is basing her opinions on things which are no longer true. Back in the 1970s and somewhat into the 80's it was possible to work your way through college and emerge with little or no debt if you were smart and got into a public university. Now, for most people, that is not true (Cal State schools were still very inexpensive until 10 years ago).







And for an overview:



I still like the model proposed by the UC Riverside students; you pay no tuition and then pay back a few percent of your income for several decades (the percent and the duration can be adjusted until the numbers work out).


yrs,
rubato

A few observations:

The amount of money spent on public education has almost no correlation with outcomes. Most inner-city schools (e.g., Washington D.C.) spend MORE than enough on a per-pupil basis, but the educational outcomes are dreadful. Top suburban schools spend about the same and achieve superior results. From an academic achievement standpoint, there is NOTHING to show for the mountain of added expenditures over the past 40 years.

The greatest impediment to improvement in public schools is the presence of strong unions representing teachers. They have thwarted every meaningful attempt to evaluate performance, and fight every initiative that does not directly benefit teachers. The fact that it is essentially impossible to fire an incompetent teacher is theAchilles heel of the entire system.

The influx of Federal and state loans and grants for college tuition is the driving force behind the unconscionable increase in college tuitions over the past few decades. As with medical care, if people were financing college through conventional means, you can be damned certain that the schools would figure out a way to educate students for $10k/yr.

It is still possible for a motivated, mature, self-financing college student to graduate with minimal debt. He might not achieve it when when he's 21 and it may not be from the school of his dreams, but it can be done.

If teacher unions were the problem then charter schools would have been the answer. After 20 years they are not. Conclusively not. Nationwide their performance is only equal to public schools (actually very slightly worse) even though they have negated any effect from teacher unions and have 'gamed' the system by not admitting all comers as public schools must do.

So the situation is that we have, at considerable time and cost done this particular experiment and the results prove you to be empirically wrong. Proving that finding someone to blame and shake your finger at is not the same as solving the problem.




yrs,
rubato