Issues: Education
For years now I’ve been reading Philip Baruth’s commentary on the local (and national) political scene over at Vermont Daily Briefing. Few people write as well or as entertainingly and I highly recommend him to anyone who isn’t already a reader. Even if you don’t have roots in Vermont, like I do, you’ll find he writes about issues we all relate to. Today, he brings us something unusual, a deeply personal story.
Five years ago, my older brother died very suddenly, at age 42. His fourteen-year-old son, my nephew Craig, was devastated. But his bond with his mother was exceptionally strong, and with a lot of love from the extended family, Craig made it through the crisis.
Financially things were very tight, though: Craig’s mother was disabled by an extreme form of Lupus, and she couldn’t work. So their entire family income came from Social Security, of one form or another.
Still, Craig managed good grades in high school, and when it was time to look at colleges, I helped him navigate the university admissions system.
…
On the drive to Craig’s new campus in New York, I told him I was sure he’d be offered complete funding for his four-year education. No one could demonstrate greater need, I thought, and surely need would be the imperative.
And when we’d finished our session with the financial aid counselor, she smiled and told us the good news: Craig would receive the maximum the University offered in terms of financial aid.
Then came the bad news: the maximum aid package each year would leave Craig a gap of some $30,000 at the end of four years. This gap would take the form of mandatory loans that even the most impoverished kids must sign.
Philip’s nephew is in a situation all too many young people find themselves in. He is struggling to pay for his college costs despite receiving the maximum amount of financial aid. He is obviously bright and capable and the sort of student that really deserves all the help in the world.
The college diploma has become the entry level degree for most decent jobs. It’s becoming as necessary as a high school diploma was not so long ago. We have a societal understanding that because of the need for a basic understanding, we all pitch in with our taxes to make sure we properly fund elementary and high schools. We have done much the opposite in terms of higher education, however.
In 1976 the average total cost of tuition, room, board and fees to attend college in the US was $2,275. That’s $8,464 in 2008 dollars. Today the average cost of attending college has risen to $15,484. The numbers are even more startling when you look at the cost of publicly funded institutions. In 1976 the average cost of attending a public college was $1,789 or $6,655.87 in 2008 dollars. Today the average cost is $11,034, nearly twice the cost. Private institutions also have grown much more expensive with an average cost of $3,906 in 1976, which is the worth $14,532.04 today. That average has swelled to $28,384.
Education is an investment, perhaps the single best investment you can make. It is an investment that pays off for the individual who receives the education as well as an investment that pays off for society as the workforce becomes more skilled and better able to innovate. Unfortunately, the rising cost of education prevents children of lower income families from having the same opportunities that wealthier children have.
Just as wealth is passed from parents to their children, so is poverty. It is time to address this issue and move towards a more egalitarian solution. We already agree that it makes sense to pool our resources to provide a basic education. That is why we have public elementary and high schools. Now that a college diploma is a standard requirement for most jobs, we need to play catch up. It’s time to make a college education free. Otherwise we will only ensure a continued cycle of poverty where our children are held back from their potential by being forced to choose between $30,000 in debt and an education.
5 Responses to “Issues: Education”
As you have pointed out, it has become increasingly difficult, due to rising costs and increased competition, for lower income families to provide the same educational opportunities as their wealthier counterparts. One tangible correlation of educational success to income level has been demonstrated through an analysis of SAT scores. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1995-SAT-Income2.png)
Some analysts have suggested that, because wealthier students can afford better (costlier) test preparation, this data is unfairly skewed. However, students from upper income families do enjoy alternative benefits, outside of fee-based tutoring, that affect their educational growth (i.e. living in a healthier, safer social environment; access to more resources, such as libraries and the internet; well-educated parents who encourage studious behavior). As such, these better-prepared students generally achieve higher across the board (GPA, Honors, etc.) than their poorer peers.
Moreover, these high-income students are far more likely to pursue the increasingly-necessary university degree. At Harvard, where they enjoy crowing about the ‘diversity’ of their student body, 77% of undergraduates come from families with incomes of $80K+. (Diversity, in Harvard’s mind, does not extend to class. Here’s an interesting, short piece by WB Michaels on the smokescreen of racial diversity at Harvard: http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/psych489/Diversity’s%20False%20Solace.html)
Unfortunately, the cycle then continues: well-educated students from wealthy families receive elite education and, therefore, best qualify for the most well-paid jobs. They, in turn, provide the best possible education for their children. Those without means, without proper facilities, are forced to struggle against a loaded deck.
If Ali ibn Abi Talib’s maxim, “There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance,” remains true today, then the upper-classes are consolidating their fortune, both monetarily and epistemologically, while increasing the chasm between themselves and those less fortunate. Is an aristocracy far behind? Or are we living in it already?
Comment made on April 4th, 2008 at 12:45 pmGuess Craig’s Dad didn’t believe in life insurance, which could have solved this problem. If everybody would take take of their own, there would be less need to “pool resources”.
Comment made on April 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pmI would be much more accepting of that argument were we talking about being able to buy a HDTV instead of an education. Unfortunately, I have a very hard time with the notion that the sins of the father should be passed on to his children.
Lets say, for instance, that life insurance was too expensive for Craig’s father to afford. Should that reality cause his son to be denied an education? I would also note that even with health insurance, after long bouts with a disease, often whatever money life insurance may bring goes towards covering medical and funeral expenses.
I suppose I would argue that taking care of your own means taking care of the community you live in. We have chosen to politically unite in a very large community, granted, but that doesn’t remove the onus to take care of our own. I suppose we just would have a different opinion of who “our own” are and how best to take care of them.
Comment made on April 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pmI would argue first and foremost, that taking care of your own means taking care of your family. After that is taken care of, then thoughts can turn to taking care of your community.
As far as life insurance, it is actually very economical for normal healthy adults. A 30 year old male could obtain $1,000,000 of coverage for about $60/month. That would include a provision that if he were to become disabled due to illness or injury, the premiums would be waived for the duration of the disability and the coverage would remain in force.
Now if you want to argue that some people can’t afford the $60/month, then I would argue that they shouldn’t have children. If you can’t afford children, then it is irresponsible on your part to bring them into this world. And affording them means food, clothing, shelter, and yes, life insurance, since none of us is guaranteed tomorrow.
Comment made on April 6th, 2008 at 10:19 amDo children own the decisions of irresponsible parents for their lives? Should their grandchildren still be caught in a cycle of poverty because of their grandfather’s poor choices?
I agree that family is extremely important. Blood is a bond that I would never denigrate, one that transcends political beliefs, sports allegiances and most other social bonds. Our bond as the mass we call humanity is also extremely important though. I do believe we’re all in the same boat and that you can judge a society by how it treats its worst off.
I think that there should be significant efforts put into education, birth control availability (especially better options for men) and the providing good accessible jobs so as to make the decision to have a child one that can be based on your readiness to love and emotionally care for the child. Otherwise childbirth becomes a luxury for the rich.
I just feel like anything but providing for our children until they are ready to join us as adults, not just as families but also as a society is the only way to make sure that we don’t become a nation where you are bound by your parents shortcomings rather than your own.
What do we do with the children that will be born despite the parent’s economic condition? Swift could give us a few modest proposals for how to solve that problem.
Comment made on April 8th, 2008 at 5:28 pmLeave a Comment