In the article, a young man from Toronto (I'm assuming Canada) said something like, "I'm starting off my adulthood in debt. That's not fair."
Not fair. Not fair? Not. Fair.
Hmmm...
Now, I'm assuming this young man was referring to the fact that he was in debt with student loans, as the fact that student loans are one of the big problems some of the OWSs. As a person in massive debt with student loans, I can sympathize. The student loan system is insane, really. The government lends you money then sells your loan to a bank who charges you a nutso amount of interest and you wind up paying double what you borrowed in the first place. The very idea that the government makes money in order to saddle citizens with debt is brain-exploding, as is the fact that an state-provided education in our country costs so much money.
BUT. But.
Unfair? Unfair in what context? If OWS has gone global and we're now looking at it as a world issue, the fact that somebody has a college education is not a basis for any sort of "unfair" argument. "Fair" pretty much means "everybody has an equal amount," and as we're living in a world in which vast swaths of some countries' populations not only don't have access to primary education, they also don't have things like clean water or adequate health care, the "it's not fair that I have to pay for my education" argument falls flat.
Additionally, I deny the idea that education is some sort of right that human beings have. Maybe I'm wrong, but people don't get educated in a vacuum: somebody has to provide them with the knowledge. And while I understand that our education system is overpriced (student fees are RIDICULOUS and you often pay for things that you never partake of, like student parking if you don't have a car or sports facilities if you don't attend any games), the professors, police officers, janitors, cafeteria workers who provide knowledge, safety, cleanliness, and...you know...food have to be paid somehow. And, frankly, our states can't manage to maintain roads with our taxes, much less pay for every citizen to be educated.
And I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I know very well how a lot of those federal student aid funds get spent. I went to a BIG state school where a lot of students received aid. I don't know ANYBODY who spent those funds solely on educational purposes. Sure, we paid tuition and bought our books, but when we were through with that, it wasn't uncommon to throw a party or go on a trip. We spent that money eating out, buying beer, or decorating our roommate's bedroom door because it was her birthday. And this is the norm. It's considered a right that you get to spend your federal financial aid on ways that have nothing to do with your education and everything to do with a lifestyle that includes lots of laughing and yelling and having fun. Which is awesome, but a little priority-skewed.
THAT'S part of the problem: somehow, in America, we have come to believe that as citizens, we should be able to do what we want with money that ISN'T ours. If you can't afford a college education and you want one, you have to borrow money. It's the same as buying a house or a car and thank goodness (maybe) we have a system that allows us to borrow that money. But you have to pay it back. If you buy a shirt at the store, you have to pay for it. It's a product; and so is an education.
I SUPPOSE it could be argued that the system is set up so that only the wealthy can have an education without debt and while I understand the frustration there (it would be NICE not to have so much debt), what is the alternative? Force the wealthy not to be wealthy anymore? Make the state pay for everybody's education? (I can't even imagine what my state government would come up with and the federal government is ear-deep in debt, so let's get real.) If a free education won't work logically and you can't afford a college education, how do you propose to get one without going into debt?
Now, answer to me is fairly simple. First of all, you don't charge interest on student debt. Or, at the very least, you charge less. My interest means that I will be paying for the college education I don't use in my professional life until well after my kids are in college. That strikes me as insane, although I suppose I could look at the interest as the "beer penalty" I'm paying for making my fellow citizens fund my partying.
Second, you require those students who are borrowing money to WORK for it. A few shifts at the library or cafeteria or cleaning up after football games isn't going to kill anybody, nor will it take away from the studying any more than federally-funded fun will. (Not all students party like I did, but I literally didn't know anybody--and continue not to know anybody--who spent financial aid solely on education.) If there aren't enough paying jobs, that's okay. Volunteering in the community lessens the burden on the government, you know.
(Ironically, the same folks who argue against more taxes and being conservative with federal aid also rail against volunteerism in this model. It makes my brain hurt.)
It is at times like these that I really with the OWS folks would get some leadership and a central voice. Not because I want folks like the dude in Toronto silenced, but because bitching about having an education (debt-free or not) makes these guys look ridiculous to me. Yes, I understand: being in debt sucks. And even the most socially conservative among us should be able to agree that the interest charged by big banks on financial aid is wrong (given Jesus' hissy fit with the money lenders.) And it really stinks to have borrowed money for an education that isn't getting you a job, so you're saddled with this debt and interest without being able to pay for it.
BUT
OWSers need to be able to say more than "it isn't fair." Because it isn't that it isn't fair. It's that it's wrong. Or illogical. Or inefficient. OWSers need to be able to offer a solution to fix the problem in a way that IS fair to all involved, not just complain about the system.
Otherwise, it seems like a big waste of time to me. And I don't need a college education that I'm still paying for to see that.
Edited to add: Dear Blogger, please post my blogs when I write them. Mkay. Bye.
Edited to add: Dear Blogger, please post my blogs when I write them. Mkay. Bye.
9 comments:
That is how it works where I am from and it's called vocational training. Your employer pays for school which is part of the week and the rest of it you work for him. How do you know he won't lose money? You have a contract to work for when the time is up, and you have to maintain a certain GPA.
However, I can't say this very loud because unflattering names have come my way when talking like this.
Yes, Americans can't be too European, Alexandra. It makes us itch. (Sigh.)
Some of my friends call that The Heepies ;-)
I've noticed that these "poor" students manage to fill the downtown bars on the weekends. I've also heard them planning where they are going on the various school breaks. Education is extremely expensive but the eventual payoff, hopefully, is a well paying professional position. Maybe a mandatory class in financial mangement would help.
It's tough to get the media (liberal or corporate) to report responsibly that any one OWS protester is out there protesting about. When you are out there putting a face on your issue, it makes it look as though THIS ISSUE is the problem when it's a systemic problem that OWS is protesting against- not student loans or even Wall Street (which I know you know). And it's hard to put those messages in a media savvy way- they should be complaining that the interest rates on their student debt is too high and that their tuition is too damn high while their education continues to suffer (classes continue to get larger and the teachers are not getting paid more- so where is that money going?). But put that on a poster!
But the progressive media is somewhat suspect (as you rightly point out)- they would like to co-opt this movement and they can't. This is about a global protest with what the banks (at the governments behest) are doing from the smallest issue (robbing students with high interest rates) to big ones (entire communities being used to sustain our way of life). But let's focus on the message of one little guy who doesn't want to pay his high student loans and marginalize the message... that will make those OWSers look dumb. Let's face it: Progressive movements have a lot to lose if the current system breaks down. They are very strongly tied to raising money for this cause or that issue. They don't criticize the power structure- ever. And they are looking at OWS with a lot of caution. They want to tame the protesters not really join them.
Oh so that's what student loans are. As an Aussie I've heard about them on TV and whatnot but I figured they were the same as they are over here. Am I right to assume that students are given an amount per week or month and they use that for paying for courses, rent, food, and anything else?
Here, the government pays the money for the course directly to the school. We have to pay the government back when we start earning a certain amount—the gov takes it out of our income like tax and there is some interest on top but not a lot.
Along with paying the university/college/TAFE if you earn below $236 per fortnight and live at home you get $212.70 per fortnight. They payment goes down the more that you earn and goes up if you live away from home.
I agree with you on the student loan issue, mostly. Frankly, I'd like to live in a country that FUNDED at least BA tuition at a state school for everybody, but I know I don't live in that country (that country is called Canada). But debt for value isn't really hugely unfair... (yes, the terms... I think student loans should RETURN to no interest while in school, then nominal at about six months out--maybe prime... no more). But I went to college on life insurance money. You heard me. One dead parent equaled my college education. My 'not fair' trumps any monetary one.
I completely agree with the time for money principle. My master's degree was funded with Graduate student assistantships--a TA one quarter and a gig as a statistical consultant the rest (I know. I'm a geek--I helped grad students determine what analysis was appropriate for their questions).
I LOVE the model Alexandra gives, but for 'debt forgiveness'--teachers, nurses and doctors ALL have programs whereby federal student loans are FORGIVEN for X years work in an underserved area. Yes, it means you may need to live 5 years in Hubutzville, but to be debt free? And you know what? You might LEARN something living someplace like that. I ALSO love the idea of extending the GI bill to Peace Corp and Americorp--you commit to years of real service, you earn real years of education.
interesting, Heather, but we could say the same about health care, and I assure you that the docs most assuredly see it this way. I'm going to substitute a few words in a sentence you wrote, and you can tell me what you think.
-----------
If you can't afford health care and you want it, you have to borrow money. It's the same as buying a house or a car and thank goodness (maybe) we have a system that allows us to borrow that money. But you have to pay it back. If you buy a shirt at the store, you have to pay for it. It's a product; and so is health care.
-------------
A separate issue is that education is in a bubble right now with year over year price increases that far exceed inflation. We now have more college debt than credit card debt as a nation. Why are prices for college increasing like this? Perhaps this is the question we should be asking.
Thanks for this post. As what I know, this kind of system is almost the same as to other countries' study now pay later program. however, the students under these program are not obliged to do other stuffs like cleaning the football field and so on and so forth. I think, you got a very goo point in there.
choosing a college major
Post a Comment