« Quote of the Day | Main | Clinton on Iraq » Moderation in Defense of Moderation06 Sep 2007 07:40 pm Cato's Neal McClusky ponders student loan reform: "How can you love an auction because it supposedly uses market forces, while simultaneously supporting the gargantuan market distortion that is the overall federal student aid system?" I feel like the answer has something to do with being neither a communist markets in some things nor a libertarian. Or maybe there is no middle ground. Consider, after all, the totalitarian implications of the federal school lunch program. Comments (19)
"something to do with being neither a communist markets in some things nor a libertarian." Failure to parse. Am I being dense? 
Neal's point, which so frightened Matt, is that higher education is massively subsidized already, so why should kids get below-market loans? Is it possible--I think it's possible--that if kids had to pay the full costs of their education, they might spend less time partying and more time studying. We might very well improve higher ed by reducing the amount of subsidy. It's time for Matt to pass beyond his knee-jerk belief that the more money you spend on something, the better it is.
Kids should perhaps get below-market loans because even with massive subsidization, higher education has very large positive externalities. If kids had to pay the "full costs" of their education (i.e. costs - social benefit), they might actually pay far less than they do now (or we might even pay them).
The Direct Student Loan program, initiated by Clinton and gutted by Bush, was an excellent way to do things. It dropped the pretense of "markets" altogether, in favor of a self sustaining low-interest or interest-free government loan program. The program cut out private bankers altogether. This was the the key to the program's success but it really ticked off bankers, and by extension, Republicans.
think it's possible--that if kids had to pay the full costs of their education, they might spend less time partying and more time studying. In addition, those darn kids might get off my lawn. I love how opposition to support for higher education is more driven by the politics of spite and resentment than on any pragmatic or empirical considerations.
edit for coherence, please.
Is it possible--I think it's possible--that if kids had to pay the full costs of their education, they might spend less time partying and more time studying. For most schools it's impossible to pay your way through college any more. Tuition costs are too high for that. So college students would be taking out massive loans in any case. Now maybe they would party less if the interest rate on their student loans were higher, but I imagine that people don't normally consider that when gauging how much and how hard to party.
Is it possible--I think it's possible--that if kids had to pay the full costs of their education, they might spend less time partying and more time studying. For most schools it's impossible to pay your way through college any more. Tuition costs are too high for that. So college students would be taking out massive loans in any case. Now maybe they would party less if the interest rate on their student loans were higher, but I imagine that people don't normally consider that when gauging how much and how hard to party.
Why are we even still screwing around with student loans? Most other First World countries pay the full cost of education for qualified students. Heck, even some Latin American nations manage to do this. Once again, the United States lags behind just about every other civilized nation in terms of providing basic social services. More to the point, a bachelor's degree is essentially the basic required credential for entry into the middle class. It serves about the same function that a high school diploma did 30 to 50 years ago. The difference is that no one had to go $20,000 in debt to get a high school diploma. "Flat earthers" always say that education is key to U.S. competitiveness in a globalized market. But they're unwilling to put their money where their mouth is. This, like so many other things, marks them as nothing but craven apologists for the malefactors of great wealth.
Many of these comments seem to be motivated by ideology rather than empirical observation. (loan rates and student partying correlations, for example). Do these Atlantic blogs screen for some kind of persistent brain damage, and encourgae afflicted individuals to comment?
"Is it possible--I think it's possible--that if kids had to pay the full costs of their education, they might spend less time partying and more time studying." I knew a kid whose dad lost his job right after the deadline to file for student loans/aid, so the kid had to pay for college all out of his own pocket. He turned into a huge, drug-addicted party kid to deal with it. He also became a communist.
I agree with Alan here. Why are we subsidizing the education of these lazy, partying kids when our government could better spend that money making sure our contractors in Iraq are getting enough money to help support our occupation of that country to ensure the rights of the oil companies to have access to Iraqi oil? I can't believe that we would want to make it easier for people to get an education when we aren't doing enough to make sure that the oil companies have unfettered access to the precious oil resources in the Middle East. And don't even get me started about those lying bastards who tricked the banks into giving them loans on houses they couldn't afford! To think some people feel we should be helping those lazy, partying homeowners when our government should be dumping that money into the system to protect the banks and hedge funds!
Can anyone describe what a day-to-day life would be like in CatoWorld?
Can anyone describe what a day-to-day life would be like in CatoWorld? solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
Fifty-six percent of full-time students enrolled in public four-year colleges and universities attend institutions that charge published in-state tuition and fees between $3,000 and $6,000. If you're poor and have decent academic credentials, you can get a scholarship. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like an overwhelming burden. An education at a private school like Oberlin, my beloved alma mater, is a luxury. Talk to college professors and they'll tell you, too sourly, perhaps, how little college kids know about the real world. Perhaps that's because they don't live in it.
"Fifty-six percent of full-time students enrolled in public four-year colleges and universities attend institutions that charge published in-state tuition and fees between $3,000 and $6,000. If you're poor and have decent academic credentials, you can get a scholarship. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like an overwhelming burden." No, I'm sure that to someone with the means to attend Oberlin, the thought of a student racking up $12,000-$24,000 in unsecured private-sector debt just to pay tuition and fees (apparently room, board, and utilities are free, and assuming the bank is actually willing to give you a loan) doesn't sound like much of a burden. Full-ride scholarships also apparently grow on trees for anyone with "decent" academic credentials. Just as long as the riffraff are attending State U., rather than sullying the pleasant scenery at your luxurious alma mater, you're willing to tolerate their education. Bully for you. In reality, some good middle class students, myself included, were able to get scholarships to cover roughly half of our expenses, had some help from the family, worked part-time, and graduated from State U without having to take out any student loans at all. We were lucky. Almost anyone from a working class background, or with modest test scores, has to go into significant amounts of debt just to get that far. Of course, in most fields, an undergrad degree from State U doesn't get you very far and professional degrees are extremely expensive even at our "massively subsidized" public universities. And that's where the federal student loan program becomes immensely valuable to far more than just "poor" people with "decent academic credentials." It benefits a great number of Americans, who in turn become the brain surgeons and business executives of tomorrow. In the real world, the potential of massive debt is a huge deterrent to someone from a modest background. It might not keep a student from attending college at all, but it certainly limits how far you can climb up the economic ladder. And finally, if you had attended a state university, you might have noticed that most of the irresponsible partying takes place in the Greek system, which isn't exactly noted as a hotbed of Pell Grant recipients.
Why do the "free-marketeers" ignore the fact that the Federal Reserve essentially provides price supports for lenders, which is a major feature of our economy ?
An education at a private school like Oberlin, my beloved alma mater, is a luxury. Ah, so you majored in Ladder-Pulling? And let's cut to the chase and talk about the bait-and-switch: how many public-sector jobs require postgraduate degrees with even more inflated tuition fees, requiring loans that graduates are unlikely ever to pay back unless they jump ship to the private sector?
Comments closed September 20, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It there any special interest group that has a voice in popular debate more out of proportion to their electoral results than the Libertarians?
Shouldn't members of NAMBLA get more press than those sociopathic clowns?
Posted by alphie | September 6, 2007 9:22 PM