Brains or Bombs?

Acknowledging government as necessary to some degree, in the public interest, the next practical step is to decide what the public interest is. I'm not concerned here with approaching the question of who gets to decide that, and all the complications involved in answering that dilemma. Let's just assume that we have agreed that 1) government is necessary to some degree to act in the public interest; 2) we must pay taxes to insure that the government carries out those actions in the public interest; and 3) the public is interested in an educated citizenry aka workforce. (We can make this assumption at some level because we have a postsecondary education system in place and business and government sectors that strongly support a skilled and educated workforce that can compete in a global economy- at least both voice this notion.)

Therein lies the problem. Neither the government (let's talk federal level, and venture into state level, too), nor the profit sector walks the talk.

(For the purpose of this exercise, Dave, you need not even put aside your request to have your tax dollars returned to you in their entirety; we will address both public and private education, briefly.)

According to the American Council on Education (ACE), since the early 1990s, the percentage of students who borrow money to finance their college educations has increased because of changes in eligibility requirements. In the decade between 1993 and 2003, the number of student loans doubled to 10.8 million per year. Volume increased dramatically as well, from $19.8 billion to $50.5 billion. This amount is far less than the budget appropriated for the war in Iraq, yet individuals who borrow a certain sum of money in the thousands of dollars to cover their postsecondary educations must pay that amount back with interest in monthly payments that are felt coming from their paychecks.

ACE reported that in the aforementioned decade, the median amount borrowed by those seeking Associates degrees rose by 70%, to almost $5,900; over 60% of Bachelors degree candidates graduated with federal student loan debt the median amount of which was $14,671 in 2003; and Masters degree recipients saw the largest increase in median amount of debt, by 41% in a 4 year span to $26,119 in 2003-2004; all in PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS of higher education.

Of course, the amounts for those who chose to pursue their education at private schools were significantly higher. And that may be OK; if one has the money and inclination to study at such an institution, then one can expect to pay more. In a "public" college or university, though?

So, should federal student loan debt be forgiven for all? Maybe. I still have to consider this question. It's an awful lot of money if we go all out; certainly there is a place for programs like those that relieve people working with the disadvantaged of debt over time.

I would support a policy that saw postsecondary education much more accessible to all willing to pursue their studies at a public institution of higher learning. What about a program similar to the Hathaway Scholarship recently instituted in Wyoming? Students could enter college on a scholarship or grant, and providing they maintained a certain respectable standing, would be eligible for renewal each semester or year. If the government and industry, purportedly the people of this nation themselves, want an educated, economically competitive global workforce, then isn't this a reasonable way to support building that? And if we have to resort to student loans, why should banks that make so much profit from the interest paid by borrowers profit so heavily from students who simply want to engage in the system these enterprises say they encourage? Beats me.

That's all I have to say right now, except who wants to bring up the stupid 1998 Higher Education Act ban on student loans for those who have criminal records? Let's not encourage people to do better. (Like Rob to FISA, shakes fist at sky, not for the first time.)

Time for someone else to speak.