EDITORIAL: Just Because College Is Expensive, It Doesn’t Mean That You Shouldn’t Have To Pay For It.
As I was listening to The Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday, I heard a sound byte of Senator Obama and a young college student who was a little disgruntled about the cost of her education. Obama agreed that what she was experiencing wasn’t fair, and of course, went on to give his typical encouragement blurb about change, hope, or what have you. Limbaugh came back to rant about how Obama doesn’t think that people should have to pay for higher education because he is a socialist. Thoughts of my own mountain of student loan debt soon drowned out the radio, and I found myself sincerely contemplating the issue.Was Obama right? How much should I have to pay for higher education?
Just to be sure Rush’s argument wasn’t unfairly slanted, I checked Obama’s position on his website, www.barackobama.com. His official stance on higher education costs read as follows:
...Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service...
Low to middle income families would surely welcome such policies, and for good reason. According to the U.S. Census bureau, the cost of postsecondary education has more than doubled since 1990. Faced with today’s gloomy economic climate and grim future, parents and students are crying for relief. Obama promises to educate high school graduates for 1/3 of the cost of tuition.
But is that his job?
While the tax credit sounds great to those who qualify for it, it should worry Americans who do not, because they will be the ones paying the bill. With Obama appeasing the American middle class by promising to increase the tax burdens only on Americans making more than $250,000 a year, this wealth redistribution system essentially boils down to the “rich” and the government taking care of the “poor”.
Is that really fair?
Others argue that the cost of a student’s college education should only be negotiated by two parties - the college and the student. This could be viewed as a free-market approach to education. While some insist that private institutions not backed by the government only serve the rich, the opposite is true. Harvard University has plans to increase student aid this year in a grand effort to subsidize tuition so that more deserving students can afford to attend. This is a good example of a private institution compromising with students to accommodate the changing economic climate.
Whether you like Obama’s plan or not, the truth is that the U.S. government already offers generous student loan programs that empower millions of Americans to pursue higher education while contributing to the American economy. While we hate to pay back the student loans that seem to multiply exponentially as soon as you sign on the dotted line, we enjoy the professional positions that we are able to pursue as a result of our advanced education. Furthermore, the interest goes to help fund the government that provided the initial loan. This allows students to pay their own way through college without having to offer collateral or pay out-of-pocket. Is that not more than fair?
Just because college is expensive, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have to pay for it.
My parents knew that they would not be able to afford to pay all of our college tuition, so they told us to study hard and apply for as many scholarships as we could. They took out loans to cover some of the difference, and so did we. That’s life. Otherwise, we would have either had to put off going to college until we could acquire the necessary savings and credit or pursue other options. This approach to funding higher education wasn’t pleasant, but it was most certainly fair. It’s fair because the return on the investment has the potential to be exponentially higher than the investment itself. If I owe $100,000 in student loans but I make $150,000 per year, the investment pays off substantially. Unfortunately, since great jobs are not guaranteed, college education is a risky investment. That doesn’t mean, however, that if you come up short that it wasn’t fair because the cost of the education was too high. You might then be able to requisition the government to bail you out because you lost money pursuing gain that did not pan out for you.
Wow; that sounds eerily familiar…
Labels: I_C_Jackson, Obama, student_loan_debt, student_loan_justice, tuition
|
--> CLICK HERE TO VOTE IN THE STUDENT LOAN POLL <--
|
posted by I.C. Jackson | Thursday, October 16, 2008
11 Comments:
That's an extraordinary position to take. At a time when the world is crying out for more engineers etc, we need more people to attend college. It should be a major priority, as these people are the creators of future economic growth.
No one is talking about "not paying". The idea is to reduce the burden so it is not prohibitive or a barrier.
Speaking as a person who paid her way through college, I am of the opinion that besides helping my own children, I shouldn't have to pay for others to go.
There are plenty of scholarships, grants, and loans out there for anyone who needs them.
I say, tell NObama the socialist to stay out of my finances.
India and China are graduating talented engineers at a very fast clip these days. How is America to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized world? Not like this (from this website's FAQ):
--> Back in the early 1970's, grants -- education-related financial assistance that doesn't have to be paid back -- made up about 80% of the typical student's financial aid portfolio, with 20% coming from student loans. Vice-versa for 2002-2003: according to a recent study by Nellie Mae, the reverse is now true.
--> About 40% of college graduates who want to go on to graduate school but end up not going claim that student loan debt was a major factor that influenced their decision not to go.
I believe that Americans aren't competitive in today's globalized world because public primary and secondary education is not preparing students for college or the real world.
If students were better prepared for college, more scholarships could be given to needy students. Students who are paying their way through school wouldn't be flunking out and giving up because freshman and sophomore level college course work is too hard. If American students were simply better students, they would understand that postsecondary education is designed to help them progress in careers and become leaders, not just to give them access to "good jobs".
Drastically reducing the cost of college tuition would only further defile American students' warped ideas and attitudes concerning the importance and purpose of college education. They aren't globally competitive because they simply don't take it seriously enough.
Wow, really, just wow. I sure hope the impending depression caused by American greed hurts enough selfish people for them to realize that we can't make it as a nation without helping each other.
Obviously, college isn't helping even with the available loans. There certainly are a lot of people out there with university degrees who are dumb as all f...
This site recommends something called Income Contingent Repayment, I wonder if this is for real? I owe 37k. is there an age limit to income contingency?
http://livesafely.org/financial-freedom/get-rid-of-student-debt-once-and-for-all/
I.C. Jackson and others who resort to calling Obama a Socialist may feel great about sharing a viewpoint, but they show very little understanding of both Obama and Socialism.
In 2006 Pres. Bush signed the "Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill--H.R. 4939" which fixed interest rates for student loan borrowers at 6.8% for most loans. Borrowers no longer have a choice and the free market no longer sets the rate. That action is both Socialistic and Fascist.
If you out there are really advocating that the government not help in any way with your finances (like paying for college), then put your money where your mouth is. You can do that by voluntarily NOT taking the mortgage interest deduction on your federal taxes. You may be taking the deduction now because this lowers your taxes. However, taking the deduction makes you complicit in a Socialist endeavor - to encourage the market place in favor home ownership, therefore allowing the government's big hand in the market for homes.
Just because this deduction corresponds to your belief in lower taxes overall, doesn't justify cooperation with this Socialist act. They are separate issues. To be honest, you must not take the deduction and then lobby for a lower tax rate for everybody.
Generations before had the fall back, or safety net, that if education did not pan out there was always bankruptcy. What is required is that we once again allow the option to include student loans in bankruptcy.
If someone qualifies for bankruptcy, then he or she should qualify to place ALL loans in that bankruptcy to be made whole and get a fresh start on life.
Think of it thi sway, if I went to school in the 70's when a college degree actually meant something and college cost were much less as a percentage of income, I could file bankruptcy and start life anew.
However, if I go to college today, when financial aid has been severely cut, a college degree is basically the equivalent of what a high school degree use to be, and the costs are much higher, I am stuck with that debt. This does not seem fair to me.
Let's restore consumer protections in the bankruptcy process. It will make student loan lender more cautious of how they market loans and it will protect the individual.
No, not everyone should be able to file BK wily nily, but if you qualify for bankruptcy the you should be able to include ALL debts.
I personally would never tell anyone to go to college on student loans. It is simply not worth it. Chances are you will be no better off financially. If we want to encourage people to go to school we, as a society, need to make education a noble goal, not a RISK.
> What is required is that we
> once again allow the option
> to include student loans in
> bankruptcy...
Back when student loan debt was dischargeable via bankruptcy, a significant percentage of students were going to school, ringing up all kinds of credit card and student loan debt, then declaring bankruptcy upon graduation. We are all paying for their gaming of the system.
Attending college seems to be a profitable and affordable investment in the US. Nevertheless, a number of academically talented young people still hesitate to attend college.
It has been stated somewhere that education is now a product in the same sense as a car in that it can be bought sold and traded in the same way!
It has become increasingly clear as institutions of higher learning and even some state and private schools at the primary and secondary levels spend significant portions of their budgets on marketing and recruiting new students rather than on educating them.
In many countries, schools at all levels have also begun to compete for support at the multinational level. This is most true of state run schools in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States, where lower levels of state funding and increasing costs related to teachers salaries, and technology have led to serious deficits in school budgets.
Evidence indicates that investing in a four-year college education is indeed risky!
The problem is that if you have less college educated people in the population, there is less innovation and creation, and more service oriented jobs. This turns the economy into a strictly service oriented system. This will not bode well in the future, because a country that leads, is one who can hire for these new technologies.
We need more people in college, not less, and if people are poor and can't get in because of that, they will remain poor. And it will wind up costing the country more in social programs than it would of in paying for their college.
Perhaps though the answer is not for the government to pay for college, but to find ways to lower tuition in colleges that are far overvalued to begin with.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home