Why I call it the Angry-Making Box
The radio in the kitchen is on NPR. I put it on while washing dishes. On came Tom Ashbrook interviewing two college newspaper editors about their choice for president, a woman from Virginia for Romney and a man from Ohio for Obama. The Romney supporter was super on-message, saying that four year degrees may not be a realistic choice for some poor students who don't qualify for merit-based aid, that the federal college loan program should be targeted to having students get degrees that will help them be employable, and, though she danced around this exact wording, that liberal arts degrees are harming today's college students. And that college tuition is rising due to federal loans. Oh, and she's working 30 hours a week and putting herself through college, so it can be done.
I was *screaming* at the radio. In case you don't see why every single goddamn point this woman made is utter crap, let me break it down.
"Four year degrees are unrealistic choice for poor students." Translation: poor kids should just get an associate's degree and become a permanent underclass. The belief that poor students should just get practical, fast, less intensive degrees sounds to me exactly like saying they shouldn't rise above their station. Poor people, no getting uppity and studying sociology with those entitled rich kids! Know your place: electrical engineering.
"Merit-based aid" and "rising tuition due to federal money." You know what pays for part of that merit-based aid? The rising tuition you're screaming about. I agree there are more complex factors feeding in to rising tuition, and admit that part of it may indeed be the increase in demand due to federal loans. But merit-based aid can only cherry pick a very small percentage of deserving students, and is often given without regard for need, so then it reaches fewer poor students who otherwise would have to go to community college.
"Target federal loans to degrees that make students employable." Someone please explain to me how in holy hell an advocate of small government rationalizes having government dictate what degrees a person should pursue? How is that not on the slippery slope to manufacturing quotas and Communism? Because it sounds to me like Central Planning. And I haven't even gotten into the main problem with central planning, which is, who does the planning and how good is their metric? How does whatever government bureau that gives out loans know what degrees will make people employable 2, 4, or 8 years out? And what kind of employable are we talking? Are we talking "lab tech with no prospects of advancement ever," or are we talking "mailroom start with the skills and abilities to move up the ladder?" An associates degree in chem may well mean you have excellent odds of getting a job right out of college, but is it a job that you will then never advance out of? I have totally made up this example, so the details may be off, but I think the general idea is at least worth worrying about.
"Liberal Arts degrees are not worth the money." I know others before me have written on the value of a degree that teaches you how to think critically rather than being skill-based, if you haven't read any of them, go google.
"I'm working 30 hours a week and putting myself through college, so it can be done." The ability to juggle 30 hours of work and a full courseload is not exactly common, I'd venture to say it's quite rare, and not having it is no character flaw that people should be punished for. And how'd you get that job? Connections? The ability to present yourself in a way consistent with what your employer likes, say by being born white and middle class? I bet you think it was all your hard work, but I call bullshit. The ability to get a decent paying job while still in college is absolutely subject to the privileges that you received growing up. This insane idea that if people just "want it enough" they'll find a way to work a billion hours a week and still have brain left for college is crap. People have mental and physical limitations, not all of us can get by on 4 hours of sleep a night.
In summary, Romney wants to create a permanent underclass and I hate the angry-making box.
I was *screaming* at the radio. In case you don't see why every single goddamn point this woman made is utter crap, let me break it down.
"Four year degrees are unrealistic choice for poor students." Translation: poor kids should just get an associate's degree and become a permanent underclass. The belief that poor students should just get practical, fast, less intensive degrees sounds to me exactly like saying they shouldn't rise above their station. Poor people, no getting uppity and studying sociology with those entitled rich kids! Know your place: electrical engineering.
"Merit-based aid" and "rising tuition due to federal money." You know what pays for part of that merit-based aid? The rising tuition you're screaming about. I agree there are more complex factors feeding in to rising tuition, and admit that part of it may indeed be the increase in demand due to federal loans. But merit-based aid can only cherry pick a very small percentage of deserving students, and is often given without regard for need, so then it reaches fewer poor students who otherwise would have to go to community college.
"Target federal loans to degrees that make students employable." Someone please explain to me how in holy hell an advocate of small government rationalizes having government dictate what degrees a person should pursue? How is that not on the slippery slope to manufacturing quotas and Communism? Because it sounds to me like Central Planning. And I haven't even gotten into the main problem with central planning, which is, who does the planning and how good is their metric? How does whatever government bureau that gives out loans know what degrees will make people employable 2, 4, or 8 years out? And what kind of employable are we talking? Are we talking "lab tech with no prospects of advancement ever," or are we talking "mailroom start with the skills and abilities to move up the ladder?" An associates degree in chem may well mean you have excellent odds of getting a job right out of college, but is it a job that you will then never advance out of? I have totally made up this example, so the details may be off, but I think the general idea is at least worth worrying about.
"Liberal Arts degrees are not worth the money." I know others before me have written on the value of a degree that teaches you how to think critically rather than being skill-based, if you haven't read any of them, go google.
"I'm working 30 hours a week and putting myself through college, so it can be done." The ability to juggle 30 hours of work and a full courseload is not exactly common, I'd venture to say it's quite rare, and not having it is no character flaw that people should be punished for. And how'd you get that job? Connections? The ability to present yourself in a way consistent with what your employer likes, say by being born white and middle class? I bet you think it was all your hard work, but I call bullshit. The ability to get a decent paying job while still in college is absolutely subject to the privileges that you received growing up. This insane idea that if people just "want it enough" they'll find a way to work a billion hours a week and still have brain left for college is crap. People have mental and physical limitations, not all of us can get by on 4 hours of sleep a night.
In summary, Romney wants to create a permanent underclass and I hate the angry-making box.