I am not a big fan of Roland Martin - his style of commentary is a little to melodramatic for my taste - but this column is right on the money.
The recent spate of protests by students has highlighted a crisis in higher education. This is something that has been brewing for quite some time and has now reached the explosive point in its fermentation. Martin points to this as a crisis arising from the Banking industry - a favorite whipping boy of the Obama administration (not that I am defending them.) Banks, it seems, make a great deal of profit from fees for processing loans insured by the government. Since there is virtually no risk to the banks, these fees are viewed as exorbitant. The nine or so billion that could be saved by eliminating these middle men seems large, but amounts to less than .10% of the current budget deficit and would likely be grabbed by some greater need even if it were saved.
While I agree with him about fixing the banking windfall, what Martin as well as Obama and other people who defend the "free market" approach to higher education seem not to be getting is that the problems are inherent in the system. Complaining about it is like complaining that your broken leg hurts. Of course it does, that's what it means to be broken. Likewise, our broken education system is feeling pain because its basis - the "free market" myth - is broken.
It is not that I am suggesting that capitalism or its potential benefits are mythological - though clearly there is a wealth of mythology surrounding capitalism. What I am suggesting is that capitalism - the free market and the invisible hand - is also capricious and cruel and that the role of government - at least the government put into place by the US Constitution - is to "promote the general welfare." Which, to my mind, means that there is a role for government both in in supporting a system that takes advantage of the potentials of capitalism and ameliorating the impact of capitalism on the population.
There are some who argue that the primary reform of education should consist in eliminating government's involvement in it altogether. I take the opposite view. There is a such broad and beneficial effect of an educated populace that, not only should government be involved, one of its primary functions should be to assure the existence of an educated populace.
As it is, we place a premium on stupid and seem to revile those who use their brains for something other than soaking up Jerry Springer (sorry, I will not provide a link to Jerry Springer. I. Just. Can't. Do it!)
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama said "...tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training." Well Mr. President, going to school in the US takes a hell of a lot more than commitment. Since 1993 college tuition, in both public and private institutions, has trended up at a rate that is more than 45% above rate of increase for inflation. For most Americans - particularly that group caught in the middle class trap of making too much for aid but not enough to pay the bill - college costs have become prohibitive.
To me this is a simple thing: every citizen of the United States should have a free opportunity to gain the skills necessary to be competitive in their current labor market. Why? Well, one could go on about quality of life, etc. but the simple fact is that it would make America highly competitive. Don't believe me? Look at what happened in Ireland as a result of their totally free education system (including college.) This is the model for American success.
Unfortunately we are slaves to capitalism, which strikes me as not much different than being slaves to communism. If your ideology gets in your way - that is, it causes more problems than it solves - it is time to change the ideology. Sadly, as John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "When faced with the choice between changing and proving there is no need to do so, most people get busy with the proof."
Sounds like America to me.
The recent spate of protests by students has highlighted a crisis in higher education. This is something that has been brewing for quite some time and has now reached the explosive point in its fermentation. Martin points to this as a crisis arising from the Banking industry - a favorite whipping boy of the Obama administration (not that I am defending them.) Banks, it seems, make a great deal of profit from fees for processing loans insured by the government. Since there is virtually no risk to the banks, these fees are viewed as exorbitant. The nine or so billion that could be saved by eliminating these middle men seems large, but amounts to less than .10% of the current budget deficit and would likely be grabbed by some greater need even if it were saved.
While I agree with him about fixing the banking windfall, what Martin as well as Obama and other people who defend the "free market" approach to higher education seem not to be getting is that the problems are inherent in the system. Complaining about it is like complaining that your broken leg hurts. Of course it does, that's what it means to be broken. Likewise, our broken education system is feeling pain because its basis - the "free market" myth - is broken.
It is not that I am suggesting that capitalism or its potential benefits are mythological - though clearly there is a wealth of mythology surrounding capitalism. What I am suggesting is that capitalism - the free market and the invisible hand - is also capricious and cruel and that the role of government - at least the government put into place by the US Constitution - is to "promote the general welfare." Which, to my mind, means that there is a role for government both in in supporting a system that takes advantage of the potentials of capitalism and ameliorating the impact of capitalism on the population.
There are some who argue that the primary reform of education should consist in eliminating government's involvement in it altogether. I take the opposite view. There is a such broad and beneficial effect of an educated populace that, not only should government be involved, one of its primary functions should be to assure the existence of an educated populace.
As it is, we place a premium on stupid and seem to revile those who use their brains for something other than soaking up Jerry Springer (sorry, I will not provide a link to Jerry Springer. I. Just. Can't. Do it!)
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama said "...tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training." Well Mr. President, going to school in the US takes a hell of a lot more than commitment. Since 1993 college tuition, in both public and private institutions, has trended up at a rate that is more than 45% above rate of increase for inflation. For most Americans - particularly that group caught in the middle class trap of making too much for aid but not enough to pay the bill - college costs have become prohibitive.
To me this is a simple thing: every citizen of the United States should have a free opportunity to gain the skills necessary to be competitive in their current labor market. Why? Well, one could go on about quality of life, etc. but the simple fact is that it would make America highly competitive. Don't believe me? Look at what happened in Ireland as a result of their totally free education system (including college.) This is the model for American success.
Unfortunately we are slaves to capitalism, which strikes me as not much different than being slaves to communism. If your ideology gets in your way - that is, it causes more problems than it solves - it is time to change the ideology. Sadly, as John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "When faced with the choice between changing and proving there is no need to do so, most people get busy with the proof."
Sounds like America to me.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posts
The cost of higher education is ridiculous and another area of life and supporting citizens that this country is going to pay for in the near - and far - future.
ReplyDeleteIn some Scandinavian countries, not only is higher education provided, but students who are provided with a monthly stipend. YES - this comes out of very high taxes. But those taxes, along with education, also pay for universal health care, child care, and a myriad of other social supports that Americans seem to believe you can only have if you can pay for it - and, pay and pay and pay. Secondy, what about our ability to compete in the world in the areas of science, technology and the arts? With all due respect, winning the most olympic medals isn't going to cut in an increasingly complicated and challenging world!