General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsForget Student Loans -- Make Higher Ed Free
Well, finally! Hard-right congressional leaders and the Obama White House have agreed that interest rates on student loans should not double to nearly 7 percent, as they let happen early in July. Instead, college students will be billed at a rate that will steadily rise higher than 8 percent.
This is progress?
Temporarily, yes, because the new law drops this year's rate to 3.8 percent. But, for the longer run, obviously not. Even capping the interest rate at 8.25 percent, as the White House demanded, is too high, for it still saddles students with a crushing debt of some $20,000 to $40,000 for a four-year degree, just as they're getting started on their economic path.
But worse, lawmakers are playing small ball again, avoiding the big issue they should be addressing. Bickering over interest-rate percentages shrivels the public debate to its most picayune and meanest point, which our so-called leaders seem to specialize in these days. They focus on the price of everything, without grasping the value of anything. And the value of a college education — not only to America's youth, but most significantly to our whole society's economic and democratic future — is clearly established.
So the big question to be asking is this: Why isn't higher education free? Les Leopold, director of the Labor Institute, notes in a July 2 Alternet piece, "For over 150 years, our nation has recognized that tuition-free primary and secondary schools were absolutely vital to the growth and functioning of our commonwealth."
Providing free education, from kindergarten through high school, paid off big for us. Today, though, that's not enough, for open access to a college degree or other advanced training is as vital to America as a high school diploma has been in our past.
Forget interest rates, young people should not be blocked by a massive debt-load from getting the education that they need to succeed — but also that all of America needs them to have for our mutual prosperity and democratic strength.
Let me frame the question in terms of a real-life choice: Is making higher education available to every American more important to our national interest than letting Wall Street profiteers make a few more billions of dollars each year?
Answer: Of course.
More at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/07-10
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)many going to college on the GI Bill?
branford
(4,462 posts)Although your point is understood.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)for grads, rather than the present-day crap shoot, the price wouldn't be so onerous; also would be more ability to self-finance the education in the first place. which doesn't mean i think the price isn't outrageous.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Much, much lower. High school graduation then was ridiculously low by today's standards. Our prosperity came from being the only industrialized country that hadn't just had the shit bombed out of it.
ceonupe
(597 posts)People don't realize how much of American industry is a direct result of the booty we won in war. Specificly pharmaceuticals.
Combine that with the only some what capitols it free market system in the world at the time with money that was not like you said almost destroyed. So much business came and grew here after our wars.
Also we owned world wide trade routes. Controlled the Far East for the most part and got control over lots of the oil trade Britain once controlled.
But yes gi bills helped retrain tons of solders post war. My grandfathers paid for him to get his radio/electronics licence. That business was the beginning of a business legacy that exists to this day.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)California and Pennsylvania, and I believe other states as well, provided tuition-free education to qualified state residents who attended state colleges and universities. Reagan put a stop to that when he was governor of California.
Link: http://boldprogressives.org/2013/03/college-used-to-be-virtually-free-in-california/
Didn't New York do this too at one time?
I know New Jersey didn't, except for those entering certain fields like education, but tuition at Rutgers U. for me was $200 a semester 1969-71.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It's an admirable goal, but you can't just wish it; you have to have a complex policy proposal to make it viable, and then you have to get such a proposal passed, either at the individual states or the federal level.
Can we raise taxes sufficiently to be able to pay for all the professors and staff (from janitors and lab technicians to secretaries and archivists) of every university? (I assume you mean only public universities? Or do you mean private ones as well?). To pay for maintenance, heating, electricity, and new facilities? To pay the retirement funds and health insurance of all employees? To pay for all the new equipment and library resources?
Perhaps we can. But I'd be interested to see what the total cost of running all the country's universities is and how much we would need to make them run.
There are probably 10,000 more policy questions to ask about this proposal: I pose only one small portion of one of them (funding the initiative) here.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I'm sure they can lose a few pork projects that the Military doesn't even want for a better quality of pork via education.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and the state did just fine. Not sure why they can't do it anymore. Probably has a lot to do with Prop 13.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)in the 1980s when the system changed, and a very different economy. And I remember very vividly that University of California faculty were lagging behind their peers in other parts of the country in salary in a major way. You can't keep up a top-rate faculty at a, say, Berkeley, if you're paying them a lot less than professors make elsewhere. The system changed because it was racking up huge deficits. Of course, raising taxes could have helped it.
One thing that I wonder about with this proposal is that many states do not have a strong public university system, or don't have one that could accommodate everyone who wants to go to college. The big Midwest Land Grant universities and California and New York State perhaps could, with some upgrading. But then upgrading costs money.
I agree that something has to change. We went into long-term debt to send our two kids to good undergraduate universities (our second just completed his Ph.D., for which we did not have to pay anything: the university paid him). Our lives, just as we should be enjoying them, are hindered greatly by the amount we have to pay off each month. On the other hand, it is not a sacrifice I regret.
In the end this is a state by state issue. There is no federal role that I see for all these state university systems. But again, I need people to point me toward the detailed policy papers produced by experts that could make a viable case for free public higher education.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)HB 3472, a bill that proposes a pay it forward, pay it back college program, passed the Oregon State Senate on Monday. The Oregon Working Families Party relayed how by 2015, students would attend college without tuition or debt. Upon graduation, a percentage of their income would then go into an education fund.
PsychoBunny
(86 posts)before higher education. Fix those, then we can talk.
Education may be an investment in the future, but there is no future if you have starved, died of exposure, or otherwise dead.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)First, I get back the 40k I've already paid back and don't have to pay off the 50k I still have. Second, as this is to benefit society, society gets to have a say in what majors are favoured or how many slots we have in any given area. I mean, we probably only need so many Ph.D.s in Medieval Literature, so the slots should be limited and the entrants admitted on a competitive basis. Third, if you flunk out, there is a penalty of some sort. I am not sure if it's paying back some of the resources used, can't get more free education in a different major (I know people that took seven years of full time undergrad due to swapping majors several times) or something of the like. If society does not place value on what's being given, i.e. free higher education, it will not be treated valuably.
PsychoBunny
(86 posts)But that could be discriminatory. We have to make some provision for under-representation in various majors. We don't want all engineers white, or all Jazz music majors black (or some other crazy stereotyping.) I don't think a straight meritocracy would ever fly in a Federal program.
branford
(4,462 posts)I admit to being somewhat facetious, but any "selective" system would be rife with problems and conflicts, not to mention the affirmative action implications and complexities.
I certainly would not envy the bureaucrat (or worse, the politician) who determines the quota of appropriate majors or the selection criteria, no less the attorney who actually has to defend them in court.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)so I guess let's keep the current system then.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)So there are no "conditions", the "conditions" are the mistake, the "conditions" are the error we are making.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)So someone unable to do basic algebra should be accepted into programs that require knowledge of Calc 3? If someone wants to take 10 years to do an undergrad in Creative Writing the taxypayers should support this?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Lots of people can't do the math (I know, I have a degree in Math).
bemildred
(90,061 posts)So yeah, no conditions.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)fully public, fully free pre-school through University or trade school. THAT would take down a glass ceiling and dramatically reduce poverty.
Universal National Health Care, free at point of service, paid for by taxes. THAT would dramatically reduce poverty even more.
A living wage.
Abolishing "free" trade, turning to fair trade based on environmental and labor standards.
Returning manufacturing to the U.S..
Un-privatizing ALL social services and infrastructure creation and maintenance.
Beefing up and extending SS.
I've been a strong supporter of all of these for a very long time. It's hard to find a politician who will work for them, and when I do, they are marginalized by the mainstream.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)we need election reform:
1. 100% publically funded elections, with each candidate receiving and spending the same funds.
2. Media fairness: equal time, equal print, equal neutrality for each candidate from journalists of all kinds.
3. Authentic debates: same questions, same # of questions, equal talk time for each candidate.
4. Some version of IRV.
5. Possibly some type of proportional representation.
6. Get rid of Citizens United.
This would allow the election of people who would actually represent us.
This kind of reform is also problematic, of course; the catch-22 is that we have to elect enough people who would make this an issue to make true election reform a reality.
The only real way to achieve ANYTHING is to stop participating in forced "lesser evil" voting.
What would happen if voters simply refused to vote for any candidates chosen for them by the status quo, and voted instead for the supposed "unelectable?" Enough voters willing to leave the fear and bullying and propaganda behind and work for, and vote for, those not owned by tptb and authentic hope and change can become real.
branford
(4,462 posts)My first reaction, however, would be to question the constitutionality of some of your proposals, at least with respect to federal elections. Instant runoff voting, proportional representation and media fairness without a doubt being the most legally controversial and possibly requiring major amendments to the Constitution, including the First Amendment.
You appear to want a more European, parliamentary, public-funded, system of elections and governance. You additionally seem to have a more constrained view of free speech and the press, at least with respect to elections, again similar to many of our European brethren. In order to achieve such a pervasive and wholesale modification of our electoral (and governmental) system would require significant cultural, economic, geographic and political shifts, besides the obvious legal complications. Most importantly, I do not know if your suggestions would necessarily achieve your goals. Elections in Europe are often a mess, coalitions are often short-lived and ungovernable, and right-wing parties triumphant. Elites without a doubt also still ignore their electorates and rule for their own benefit.
As to what would happen if voters simply refused to cast the ballots for any candidates chosen for them by the status quo, the candidate with the most votes would still win. Under such a scenario, I fear it would often be a Republican.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and you are correct about some first amendment issues.
I have thought since it went away that we need some sort of modern fairness doctrine.
Free press? I'm all for it: free to report, with integrity. Not to manipulate. There's a difference.
Free speech? Yes. I think every individual has the right to free speech. I don't know that the same right should spread out to encompass groups, at least, not to the same extent. That allows audience, time, and volume to be bought by the highest bidders. That's not the kind of free I want to see.
And yes...I think we NEED a pervasive and wholesale modification of our system. When corruption sets in, the system needs to be shaken up.
My dentist talked to me on Monday about my pristine teeth and problematic gums. My pristine teeth won't make it through the rest of my life while my gums are so susceptible to disease. So, to keep the gums healthy, I have to persistently "stir up" (his words) and clean out the bacteria that want to colonize them. It didn't occur to me until just now what an apt metaphor that is for our political system.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would just note that you thinking about free speech for groups might be very problematic. The First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of speech and the press, but also of assembly (and religion and petitioning the government for redress). This forms part of the underlying basis for the Citizens United reasoning. If citizens have free speech individually, why should that speech become more restricted simply because they joined together for purposes of political speech, particularly when political speech enjoys the greatest level of protection under the Constitution?
It's not black and white. I wouldn't stop "assembly." I would stop an assembly from preventing me from entering an abortion clinic.
It's one thing to assemble in a group to freely speak.
It's another to pay $$$ to "outspeak" others. That, again, isn't "free."
PsychoBunny
(86 posts)would do it easy. All it takes is some political will, and the 99% voting.
hunter
(38,301 posts)Better a peaceful one.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Or do you think we got those as gifts from our betters in government?
branford
(4,462 posts)As an earlier poster correctly observed, free simply means that someone else pays for it. People do not work for free, energy and commodities do not produce and transport themselves, etc.
Now, that certainly does not mean that fully subsidized higher education is not a laudable goal that should be vigorously pursued.
However, we cannot even formulate and implement a true universal health care system under our current political realities. I'm not optimistic that higher education, while very important, should divert resources from real matters of life or death. I also do not think limited federal and state resources should encourage career and study paths like more medieval studies and similar majors that are basically unemployable. (I also apologize to any medieval studies majors on DU!)
Nevertheless, I would welcome and be interested in any proposals.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)The public K-12 school system is crumbling around our ears and doing a piss poor job of actually educating most kids. I am not a big fan of adding another 4 years into the mix until and unless we can fix the public education I'm already paying for as a property owner in Pennsylvania.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Let's cut out the public ed hating shit.
dman85
(14 posts)College Tuition has risen far faster than the rate of inflation.
Higher Ed needs to belt tighten, because this massive burden being carried by the students are not usually translating into a superior academic experience.
Such reform won't happen until the bubble bursts.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The school I did my undergrad at climbed roughly a third in tuition costs while I was there, and up to a total of about half from my starting point a few years after. There's been controls on rate hikes since, which mediated how out of control it was, but that's still a huge jump.
That said, the objective dollar figures are something a lot of Americans would consider a pittance for higher ed - it's about $6500 a year for tuition and fees there now (not including room and board), and that's considered an expensive university here.
I think of people who went to, e.g., Berkeley and my wallet jumps out of my pocket to try to murder me for even thinking about it. Gah.
branford
(4,462 posts)dman85
(14 posts)In some ways, our tax dollars are subsidizing administration, overhead, and in some cases bloated salaries at higher Ed institutions.
The students are not seeing the benefits of this unfortunately. Their borrowing costs drop, but their tuition costs rises.
Another example of good intentions undermined by unintended consequences....in this case higher Ed has the ear of enough politicians to continue these policies without major changes.
Some states have programs that cover college tuition in their state for all students who meet or exceed GPA and ACT requirements. Louisiana's TOPs program, which was intended to be an incentive to keep brighter students in the state, is one of those that is made available to students regardless of their economic status.
ceonupe
(597 posts)That had no jobs or those that loss theirs in 06-09 blowup of our economy went to grad school.
Not really just for advanced degrees or to change careers but because of the loan money. Many loans provide not just for tuition but u can also get housing expenses and pocket money out of the deals.
For many of them it was a way for them to live with no job. But they took out so much debt and the banks were willing to let them do it. These "education" loans paid for their apartments, credit card bills, car payments, bar tabs and vacations. Even at lower cost state schools people were getting mega sized loan packages. That's how people who got degrees that should cost 20-40k cost 100k+ . Plus many already had oversized undergrad loans based on the same principal.
I was lucky I got partial merit scholarships for my first 2 years and my mother paid all of my undergrad (granted I went to UNC and the cost was less than 2k a semester in 2000-2004 plus room and board) dad let me use one of his love nests/condos/investment properties for last 3 years (parents divorced))
But look at that 8 semesters at UNC for less than 18k including fees for 4 years of full time college. (Instate student) even now its more ($3900 per semester since the state allowed top their schools to charge more some thing that was not allowed back in 2000-2004) but still a relative bargain. NC has a great college/university and community college system let hope the rethugs don't destroy that as well.
dman85
(14 posts)I went to grad school in summer of 2009 because there were no longer jobs in my field. My employer and most of my clients went belly up. Neither my firm nor my coworkers benefited from a corporate or union bail out.
The subsidized loans were enough to cover tuition and and food. I drew down my retirement savings to cover rent and books. Graduated in 2011 completely broke and in debt....but luckily found a great job. I didn't blow loan money away on cars or vacations, but recognize the abuse that does occur.
The professors and administration at the school didn't even notice the recession. They provided a valuable service, but in some ways they do benefit as much or more from the availability if cheap student loans than the students did.
About your friends: most student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. It's a very serious debt to incur and must be used wisely. I would hate to see taxpayers have to bail out the people that used that money for vacations or other unnecessary expenses that were unrelated to improving themselves.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)and laid off thousands of employees. The idea that they didn't notice the recession is absurd.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Part of the problem here is that people don't immediately bear very much of the cost anyways, so there's less incentive to push for lower prices.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hence it will never come true, at least not in the two party system.
