Obama and College
President Obama wants more control over education, but he doesn't really understand education.
It's scary enough that Obama wants to further violate the Constitution by dictating (either with carrots or sticks) what kids should be learning, as if what Washington or Oregon schools teach -- or when they teach it -- is any of the federal government's business. (And I opposed Bush's "No Child Left Behind" so chill out.) And Obama has said all along that everyone should get some post-K-12 education for at least a year (for the "good of society" to get a "better workforce"), which again, is none of the federal government's business.
But what's really depressingly scary is that Obama either has no clue how higher ed works, or ... perhaps worse, he does, since that would mean he is intentionally manipulating the cost of college upward, probably with the intent of controlling it like he wants to control health care.
Under Obama's plan, students who get "loans" will only have to pay back a small portion of them. Not only does this create a disincentive to get a good job after college (since the more money you make, the more you have to pay back on your loan), but it dramatically increases the actual cost of education, which Obama says is the reason we need to cover the costs in the first place.
The reason why higher ed costs so much, why it's increased dramatically faster than the rate of inflation, is because of government aid, not in spite of it. Obviously, when students don't pay the costs directly, they are more likely to pay a higher price. (This well-known effect happens in health care all the time, too.) You get a government loan: why not pay whatever the school is asking? Especially since, thanks to Obama, you will only pay a fraction of the value of the loan and only over 20 years.
And the college therefore has every incentive to charge as much as they can get government to pay: it uses the extra money to build new buildings and add all sorts of programs that get even more students to want to attend at even higher prices, bringing in even more government dollars.
Many of Obama's allies say they want to end subsidies for large corporations, but that's precisely what our system of student loans is. Never mind the fact that the actual value of a college education has been steadily decreasing.
Washington State and "Ample Provision"
What is the value of a year of college? For my money, a lot less than the $30,000 it costs for many schools. It's a complete ripoff. You can learn as much -- more, really -- for a small fraction of that price, and end up a better (and wealthier) person for it.
Of course, education cannot be measured in dollars. That doesn't stop some people from trying, though: a recent ruling in a court in Washington State claimed that the state had to spend more money on education because it was not fulfilling its constitutional "paramount duty" to make "ample provision" for education.
It should be obvious to everyone who understands any math concepts more advanced than "two dimes and a nickel equal a quarter" that because education cannot be measured in dollars, therefore "ample provision" for that education also cannot be measured in dollars. In other words, you can increase the quality of education without increasing the dollars being spent.
There's no evidence that there is not enough money being spent on education: there's only evidence that the quality of education being provided is insufficient. It is an incredible leap of logic to then say "since the quality of education is bad, therefore we need to spend more money." It assumes something we know, for a fact, is false: that money and education are directly correlated; that more money equals better education, less money worse education, and same money same education. It's nonsense.
And even if more money needed to be spent, one thing that should be pointed out -- and therefore I point it out -- is that anyone who says that Washington State taxes need to be increased to pay for education is lying. Period.
For it to be true, the state must not be funding anything else. The state's "paramount duty" -- the thing it must do first, above all else -- is to make "ample provision" for education. As long as the government is spending money on other programs, it therefore must not need to raise taxes for education: it can (and constitutionally, must) take money from other programs if it needs more for education. It's the other stuff that might "need" more money justifying increased taxes.
Of course, if the voters were told that their taxes were being raised for the state's "Say WA?" ad campaign and art in new buildings, they'd never get the support they needed to raise taxes.
Which is why they lie.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 16, 2010 10:40 PM | Email ThisHow could we trust the government with the power to indoctrinate the people? It's the power of propaganda.
Power corrupts.
Privatize all schools.
Give a need-tested voucher to the poor only. Let the middle class and rich pay tuition. Why give the rich an education subsidy?
Let market competition improve schools.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 17, 2010 01:43 AM
I have had the experience of going to College, several of them, and there is no Question as to the time and cost advantages of having your education via the Internet. After all, a College is a business and will charge whatever the market will bear. They will also, extend as much as they can, the time it takes to receive your education as well. What a Rip-Off!
Don't think that it is a coincidence that our academic standards have slipped noticeably since the Dept. of Education was formed in the 1970's.
To give a window into the future for Seattle, the new mayor is also a former community organizer, just like BO.
This is exactly why the wife and I homeschool our kids.
Posted by: mulattoboy on February 17, 2010 10:02 AMIt pretty much is: our schools in WA are failing, as most other government schools are.
Before we homeschooled, we would help our kids with homework and we were simply stumped. I mean, I remember having to show my work as a kid when figuring out math or comprehension problems, but now the kids are asked to "explain their thinking". It just wasn't clear what they were asking for in the homework.
In my mind this is no more than an assessment of whether or not your child is willing to bend to the dominant orthodoxy. When children are penalized for not explaining their thought processes even when they arrive at the correct answer they are taught that being compliant is more important than being correct. This effectively marks them for marginalization by the teacher. Can't have a kid actually thinking for themselves now, can we?
There is also the added effect of making a parent feel inadequate in regard to teaching their child because we're not concerned with explaining how we thought about it, we're more concerned with whether or not they got the answer correct. The problem is, we're asking children who have marginal analytical skills to analyze their own thinking. It's a feedback loop that only leads to frustration.
We know that we were definitely on the school's s*** list when I challenged my youngest boy's teacher on a daily reading assignment. Her thought processes were definitely wanting when we debated the relative importance of clearly defining a requirement, especially when you're taking a voluntary assignment and making it a mandatory thing.
My kids are so much more relaxed now. They know what's expected. How they arrive at their answers (sort of cheating) is up to them. The wonderful thing about this is that it's a very natural approach to how a child learns to develop their analytical processes. They in effect, teach themselves how to learn. Once that happens, there is no stopping them.
This is why the Edumacation Industry works so hard to kill vouchers, homeschooling and Charter Schools.
Posted by: mulattoboy on February 17, 2010 12:46 PMThis is really the only important thing kids MUST be taught. Everything else is optional compared to this, because if you learn this, you can learn anything else on your own.
I remember being asked, in high school, to write an essay about which people should be thrown out of a lifeboat to die. Instead I wrote an essay about why the question was a philosophically invalid one, and I therefore would not even attempt to answer it. I got a D. I was proud of that D.
Kids who question things -- especially when they can win the argument -- are not welcome in most public schools.
I will have to think about that one (chew on it). You may have something to this point.
One comment: Having a daughter that will be heading to college next year, I am not sure where you get the $30K figure. Public Universities such as Western Washington University are now at $15-17K/year (total costs for tuition, room and board, books and other fees), while Private Universities (e.g. Whitworth, Gonzaga, etc.) are at $32-35K per year. Now one does often get private grants from the private universities that can bring the cost down to similar to Public Cost ranges, but even they count on government guaranteed loans and grants as part of the financial aid package. Thirty thousand seems like a deal to me. Thank goodness for Community Colleges that can offset at least the first two years of costs.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 09:41 AMWell, what I said is that it coss $30,000 "for many schools." Then you add, "Private Universities (e.g. Whitworth, Gonzaga, etc.) are at $32-35K per year."
So ... that's where I get it. :-)
even they count on government guaranteed loans and grants as part of the financial aid package
Yes, exactly my point: that is how it drives up the costs.
Thirty thousand seems like a deal to me.
If by "deal" you mean "ripoff," sure. I can get as good, or better, an education for far less money. Give me $120,000 for four years to do whatever I want to educate myself in my late teens / early 20s ... I mean, honestly, it's insane, and it's hard to see how people don't realize it.
Of course, it doesn't actually cost most people that much, even if they attend those schools, because of the loans that, as you say, the colleges count on. It allows students to pay much less and therefore care much less about the cost, and allows the colleges to charge much more than the students can actually pay.
To me, I do recognize there is an inherent value to companies to have an educated workforce. I would agree, though, that the level has become out-of-proportion. One solution I would have is to at least study companies job offerings and highlight all the jobs that they state need a college degree that really don't. If you stop making a BS or BA a mandatory requirement by businesses for jobs that don't require it, then maybe we can reduce some of the demand on college's. We (the Society) have gotten in this mindset now that BS/BA is mandatory. With teachers, due to pay issues, it has become almost a requirement for a Masters.
One still needs to address how to make college affordable to individuals who can't afford it, but even there through internships and other company based programs, this could be achievable. It takes a change of mindset.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 12:14 PMThe only sane way is to reduce the cost of college, which means cutting them off from the seemingly neverending government subsidies. Without this, there is no incentive to reduce costs.
Why does Community Colleges require Masters (or even PHD's) for their faculty? At least they do hire professionals who know the real world applications for their "STAFF" instructor positions.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 02:51 PMYou might be surprised that I agree on one issue ... our system does inflate costs of education.
But, I do not see your offering an answer.
Education is opportunity. Restricting education means diminishing opportunity. Restricting education creates classism .. as in 19th century England (or increasingly in Communist China).
There is another problem that needs to be answered. Here in WA state, only a tiny percentage of state funds go to med schools, law schools, etc.
What is very expensive? Basic studies ... language, foreign language, writing, history ... basics of math and science. 50% of these areas at UW are now supported by the state of the rest by tuition.
How do we provide equal opportunity for this sort of education?
You might be surprised with my ideas on this:
1. Much stricter and achievement based coursework in secondary school. This SHOULD include classical distribution requirements. EG to get into a state college or university, I would require ... proficiency in a second language, knowledge of American and world history, a common canon of literature including an updated set of classics .. from A Caged Bird Sings to the Iliad.
2. To make this competitive model of secondary school possible, we need to dump BOTH the current public and the current private school models. The central principle needs to be choice. BUT this can not be choice based on vouchers .. that is just a way to inflate costs.
Charter schools with open choice should be the norm. If folks in Mercer Island can and want to have great schools ... that is wonderful BUT these schools should be open to kids withing a reasonable distance who want to bus in. If you want to opt out and send your kids to some utterly private school, that is fine too .. as long as your kids meet certain standards and you do not get state support.
3. Where we would differ ... I would make college free for any kid who can pass these requirements. Free ... means in state schools. If you want to go to a private school, then you pay the way.
4. We need to explore ways of creating more efficient education using the web. As examples, there is no excuse anymore for the huge profits of academic publishers. Web based publishing should make most of the profit go to the faculty who write these books and the free market should determine which books get used.
5. Not all kids need college.
So is getting a job working for Justice Scalia.
Restricting education means diminishing opportunity.
Not getting a job working for Justice Scalia means diminishing opportunity.
I hope you see the obvious and glaring flaw in your "logic."
Restricting education creates classism
Reducing "classism" is not a legitimate aim of government. It's none of the government's business.
Here in WA state, only a tiny percentage of state funds go to med schools, law schools, etc.
Too much.
How do we provide equal opportunity for this sort of education?
If by "we" you mean "government" ... we don't. It's none of the government's business.
As the rest of your post is looking for answers to solve something that isn't a problem, I won't bother to read it.
The concept of a modern, interdependent civilization seems to elude him. Its likely Pudge has never lived in a "real" city before..or any urban environment for that matter.
Here's a clue Pudge..so you can see where most of us "average Americans" are coming from:
We're typically married, with kids.
We typically both work, full time.
Our kids typically go to public schools (because we can't afford the ~$20k/year for private school tuition).
If we live in a REAL city, we'd take public transit to work, otherwise we commute.
We rely extensively on government services to provide electricity, water, sewer, garbage, police, fire protection, and education for our kids.
Welcome to the real world.
Posted by: Proteus on February 22, 2010 06:20 PMShrug. Good arguments work with me, which is why you have such a hard time.
Pudge is a throwback to a previous century; a time when America was a rural nation, with a wild, untamed frontier, and where people were self-sufficient as they farmed their 40 acres, with their mule and log cabin.
Not remotely. That analysis makes no sense whatsoever. Which, coming from you, is expected.
The concept of a modern, interdependent civilization seems to elude him.
I've never said a single thing that could make anyone think that. Indeed, quite the opposite. What I do, however, is assert the fact that we do not have to give up our rights just because of modernity.
Its likely Pudge has never lived in a "real" city before..or any urban environment for that matter.
Los Angeles. Houston.
Here's a clue Pudge..so you can see where most of us "average Americans" are coming from
I've never said anything that could make anyone think I don't understand, or stereotype, "average Americans."
Welcome to the real world.
So ... you're saying I don't live in the real world? And you base this on ... what?
Funny how in your post criticizing me, you didn't actually criticize anything I've ever said or done.