President Obama & Education: Part Three March 15, 2009
Posted by thinkphd in : Education , trackbackI have been reading about President Obama’s Blueprint for Change plans for education, found here. He outlines three main points: (1) greater investment in pre-school programs, (2) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will be reformed, and (3) higher education will become affordable to all Americans. This post is the last of three exploring these initiatives and commenting on same.
How would we reduce the cost of education? Force colleges to reduce tuition? Give more taxpayer dollars to students in the form of grants? Make higher education free and pay the school out of government coffers? Force students to “attend now, pay later?” (oh my think of the credit card debt!)? Assess the average cost per year of attendance and reduce student’s taxes by that much? Make college free or close to free? The President has already discussed his desire to increase spending on Pell Grants by 75% over the next 10 years and discard private loans for education. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course.
Higher education can be made more affordable but care must be taken to retain integrity in coursework. We must be careful that we do not reduce standards so that everyone can go to college and obtain a degree. A degree should be difficult to obtain, making it all the more desirable. A society needs all levels of training and education. Even though I am an advocate for learning, I cannot support the idea of universal higher education. There are many people who do not have the skill set to succeed academically. There are many wonderful programs in technical schools and other training programs. What would happen if everyone had a bachelor’s degree and no one a techical certification? No plumbers, no electricians, no paramedics…..I believe that each person must assess his skill set and pursue a path that makes sense for him.
Colleges and universities are businesses even if they are “non-profit.” A business is in competition with other businesses. Budgets, cash flow, payroll…these are all concerns that businesses and universities must tackle. A business should succeed or fail based on its output and profit. Making college affordable should not mean that the government will subsidize everyone’s education. This will only keep substandard institutions open that would fail otherwise. No, a university is a business and if it has a poor business model or unsuccessful graduates it should fail. Keeping it afloat with government subsidies from students is a poor excuse. Competition in higher education is a good thing. Keeping government money at bay is also a good thing.
Higher education has not failed in its mission, so why would it need intervention? College is tough and rightly so; not everyone can handle academic rigor. College is not for everyone now and never should be. Those who are willing to sacrifice money, time, and effort know the value of an education. Giving away education will simply cheapen it in our society. Money means control and our government knows so little about education. Education is not listed as an unalienable right according to the Constitution. We need to think about what government’s role should be…but it should not cross the line into controlling who goes to college.
Education is already accessible to citizens in the United States. Does making it affordable make it better? I don’t think so. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for bringing awareness to education reform. Making college affordable is a political volley, not a serious one. Let the market determine the value of a degree - if tuition is too high, colleges will not have customers (students). If a college churns out poor workers, then it should fail. Making college affordable is not the answer to making the USA academically competitive with other nations. We need tougher degree standards and more relevant coursework to make that happen.
This post is the conclusion in the series, “President Obama & Education.”
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?