The New High School Diploma
| By IVathan - Aug 2nd, 2005 at 1:54 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Summer Blogathon |
As a student on a full academic scholarship, I can't complain about my personal burden of snowballing college debt. Fortunately, my lack of loans has translated into the spare time to discover Campus Progress and blog about my not so immediate concerns. Having qualified my authority, I do believe that all progressive students, especially those not working 2 jobs and going to school, should consider making college debt relief a more salient part of the progressive agenda.
The idea fits naturally with progressive values. For one thing, it addresses the economic needs of the middle and lower classes. Additionally, making college attainable to those who want and deserve an education aligns with the progressive emphasis on meritocratic policy. As an added bonus, making college more accessible would also be a small step in undermining the knowledge hierarchy proposed by the Neoconservative "godfather" Irving Kristol and his influence Leo Strauss. And I guess on a final more Machiavellian note, more educated Americans will probably equal more progressive votes.
If Campus Progress wants to energize the left (and a few others?) on campuses, attacking skyrocketing tuition costs would be a good start. I'd like to see it used as a wedge issue on my more conservative university. I think the idea might resonate well with those who even stay tuned in to Fox News assuming the debate were approached thoughtfully and framed effectively.
Perhaps it is best to think of a bachelor's degree as the new high school diploma. The market place has changed, and the value of the former is now tantamount to the latter a few decades ago. And in those many years past, a person, with a debtless diploma, could enter a more stable work force free of the uncertainty common in today's dynamic economy without also having to count on it to make loan payments. Shouldn't today's ambitious young people be granted the same opportunity?
While the budget, complete with its own massive debt, is not condusive to diploma-pricing on bachelor's degrees at this time, progressives should work to relieve a burden from students stifling social mobility. Perhaps the goal should even be to make college education free for four years at public institutions. Granted such an end would have to be reached incrementally, this sort of progress would be an excellent addition to a Campus Progress agenda.
For more information on debt and students, check out Campus Progress National Conference panelist Anya Kamenetz's column Generation Debt and one of the earlier articles in the series, The Ambition Tax.
The idea fits naturally with progressive values. For one thing, it addresses the economic needs of the middle and lower classes. Additionally, making college attainable to those who want and deserve an education aligns with the progressive emphasis on meritocratic policy. As an added bonus, making college more accessible would also be a small step in undermining the knowledge hierarchy proposed by the Neoconservative "godfather" Irving Kristol and his influence Leo Strauss. And I guess on a final more Machiavellian note, more educated Americans will probably equal more progressive votes.
If Campus Progress wants to energize the left (and a few others?) on campuses, attacking skyrocketing tuition costs would be a good start. I'd like to see it used as a wedge issue on my more conservative university. I think the idea might resonate well with those who even stay tuned in to Fox News assuming the debate were approached thoughtfully and framed effectively.
Perhaps it is best to think of a bachelor's degree as the new high school diploma. The market place has changed, and the value of the former is now tantamount to the latter a few decades ago. And in those many years past, a person, with a debtless diploma, could enter a more stable work force free of the uncertainty common in today's dynamic economy without also having to count on it to make loan payments. Shouldn't today's ambitious young people be granted the same opportunity?
While the budget, complete with its own massive debt, is not condusive to diploma-pricing on bachelor's degrees at this time, progressives should work to relieve a burden from students stifling social mobility. Perhaps the goal should even be to make college education free for four years at public institutions. Granted such an end would have to be reached incrementally, this sort of progress would be an excellent addition to a Campus Progress agenda.
For more information on debt and students, check out Campus Progress National Conference panelist Anya Kamenetz's column Generation Debt and one of the earlier articles in the series, The Ambition Tax.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
1) What sort of proposal do you explicitly support for reform?
2) What moral hazards does such a plan create? How do you propose dealing with these moral hazards?
3) How does this square with our notions of basic economic freedom? Is it market failures that have created the current surge in tuitions? If so, where? Can we fairly label the university industry as an oligopoly, considering the thousands of competing institutions?
1) The (general) sort of policy I would support would be one aimed directly at reducing the cost of tuition at public universities for all students. This would be flanked with rhetoric from the progressive political community suggesting that this is the beginning of a movement to take the financial burden of higher education off students backs and transfer that burden increasingly to the state. Employing the high school diploma analogy would perhaps give the idea further gravitas for reflexive skeptics.
2) One of the initial concerns I can see with the plan is that it may be seen as too socialistic and anti-capitalist. I suppose to an extent this would be a fair criticism. To counter it, the policy could be promoted as a way to ensure equality of opportunity in the job market. Emphasizing the role of work ethic instead of inherited wealth in such a policy would, I believe, resonate with values many Americans hold. A second criticism could be that the funds would be wasted on students who would not take advantage of a college education. A possible remedy to this criticism would be minimum GPA requirements for continued funding. Kentucky has a program similar to this where good grades in high school guarantee funds for Kentucky colleges and universities provided a minimum GPA is maintained.
3) This question is probably most out of my league, as I know little about economic theory. I would suggest though, again using the high school analogy, that if public high schools can be free, then public higher education institutions could be placed in a similar category. They already receive quite a bit of government funding.
If you (or anyone else) has more complete answers or other ideas, please post them. I plan to read more on the subject as soon as possible. If anyone else is interested, here are the books I hope to check out in the coming semester:
Thinking for a Living by Thomas Davenport
Condemning Students to Debt by Mark Bateman
University Inc. by Jennifer Washburn
Taking on the issue not only shows that progressives are committed to giving everyone a leg up, but helps America develop a better informed country. That helps everyone.
1) Public school is, well, public. Universities are a more 'privatized', market-based system, for the most part -- There are more incentives for normal economic behavior.
2) Our public school systems are spectacular failures, in need of dramatic reform at its most fundamental core. Our university system, however, is the envy of the world.
Moving to get the state even more involved in the execution of higher education (as opposed to the market for the consumption of higher education) doesn't necessarily strike me as a smart move, given the above.