The Scandal We Don’t Talk About: Student Debt

The Education Center recently released a report titled Drowning in Debt: The Emerging Student Loan Crisis. The study found what students already know all too well: college costs are skyrocketing. With tuition rates soaring and financial aid funding not keeping pace, more students are having to take out loans to pay for college.

In fact, about half of all students at four-year public universities are borrowing money for school, even with many colleges receiving government subsidies to control tuition hikes. This at a time when students’ “unmet needs” (which is the difference between the total cost of college and the sum of the expected family contribution) has increased well beyond the maximum amount of money available from subsidized federal loan programs.

To fill this gap, multi-billion dollar private lenders have stepped in, offering high interest rate loans to students. Having little choice, students are taking the bait. During the 2003-04 school year, just 5% of undergraduates borrowed private loans; that number has since tripled to 14%.

Report Finds What Students Already Know- Loan Debt is Out of Control, July 9, 2009

Historically, there were two ways that most Americans moved into the middle class financially (culture is a differant if related issue). You got a good union job, say at a steel plant or an automotive factory, and worked hard. In the mid-twentieth century, too, lots of the children of these union workers took the second path through college and into professional life.

The first stage in the desrtuction of class moblity (the first to be complete) was the destruction of the unionized industries, and the huge shift of Capital overseas. We’ve gone from about 1/3rd or more unionized to 1/10th. (Most of that is in the public sector.) I can tell you from experience that the children of Wal-Mart associates struggle with the idea of college.

We’ve created an entire culture of people who are struggling just above the povery level. Millions of people without healthcare, millions of people underemployed or unemployed, the cost of food and housing continuously rising, and even if you have a job, it’s a dead-end and your wages rarely if ever go up.

It’s the sameenviroment that my father came out of in Mississippi in the 1930s and 40s. Not many people in his family even thought of college. He did, mostly becuase of the G.I. Bill; he pushed his kids to go to college too, and although he wasn’t completey successful, he had the help of grants and reasonbly cheap tuition. No more.

Now the second path into a middle class status is on the way out. As someone once said to me, tuitioin and fees are bascially a form of unregulated regressive taxation. If the legilature won’t fund your programs, you can always raise money by forcing students to pay more for their education. Every four or five years, you have fresh marks.

If you believe in the market, this isn’t a problem; student loans can take up the slack. That means another tax on wages paid out over the course of 20 or 30 years. It’s an worse deal if wages and salaries are stagnant or non-existent. It’s a horrible legacy. New programs might lesson debt, but we need a debt forgiveness program too.

Coporate America, We Dare You: Support a Public Option

Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America’s non-system of health care — private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers — have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.

Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won’t consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don’t want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That’s the whole point.

Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong, Robert Reich, Tuesday, June 23, 2009

In the early 1980s, in Austin, Texas, there was a punk band called the Dicks. The Dicks had this super song whose title, if I remember correctly, was “We Hate the Rich, They Bore Us.” (Was it really the Dicks? I’d love to hear if I am wrong.) Anyway, when it comes to health care, I think that truism has now been superseded: “We Hate the Rich, They’re Cowards.”

That’s not to say that the rich are any less boring. But I say that because if the rich and/or powerful had a coherent sense of self-interest (or just a time-frame longer than the next year) they would support not just a public option but a single payer plan. With certain exceptions, though, they seem locked into some sort of dysfunctional reasoning that they just can’t seem to escape.

If we had national health care, much of the automobile debacle could have been avoided. Nationals as well as multinationals could compete more effectively with other developed nations. Small businesses could make market ideology seem almost reasonable. The list of good reasons is endless. We’d all benefit, but as with everything, the rich would benefit most. Yet we are told to compromise.

It’s as if an entire class of people rejected anti-viral drugs in the middle of a flu epidemic that was killing thousands. If Wal-Mart and ATT and the like now accept the public option principle as necessary to reform, Obama should consider that the center-right position and negotiate accordingly. If we have to accept compromise, don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater.

The Bland Leading the Bland

The Chicago Tribune has reported that trustees and administrators at the University of Illinois are at the center of a scandal regarding the admission of politically-connected students who were less qualified than the general pool of applicants. After the newspaper ran an investigative piece several weeks ago that sparked outrage, Governor Pat Quinn created an independent Admissions Review Commission to investigate allegations of preferential treatment.

Examination is surely in order. As ACTA has long argued, trustees must be more than just fundraisers, boosters, or rubber stamps. Board service is an honor, and it is also a responsibility. As ACTA noted in its guidebook for governors, it is vital that governors “appoint thoughtful, active trustees” who have “a clear sense of their responsibilities to the public.” Trustees do not serve for the benefit of friends or special constituencies; they are stewards of the public interest — appointed to safeguard the academic and financial integrity of the university — for the benefit of the entire community.

ACTA’s Must Reads, Posted by Heather Lakemacher on July 02, 2009

I probably shouldn’t pick on the ACTA so much, but since I did wonder out loud recently how they would respond to the ongoing ‘class scandal’ here in Illinois I thought a comment was justified. Their acknowledgment of the problem is remarkably non-committal and perhaps inevitably bland. This neutrality is curious, given the ACTA’s promotion of high moral and political standards.

I’d think that they would decry this sort of corruption as another example of how the American system of meritocracy and a-political education has been undermined by special interests. They certainly never pull any punches when it comes to what they see as the abuses of diversity and the “special interests” of the professors. Affirmative action, is not so bad, I guess, if it’s for the powerful.

I think this timidity, too, represents what might be called the Obama-effect, a not-so-buried fear rippling through the culture of the powerful, an anxiety that “business as usual” might be a little more disrupted than they hoped. The trustee system is certainly a prime candidate for populist change, especially if it becomes more visible. How can they make this look good?

Is the ACTA, and other like minded folks, wondering if these hearings risk pulling on a thread that might unravel the assumptions that allowed business people (aka Capital) to take over the governance of public universities? It wasn’t always that way, of course, and it”s easy to imagine a more progressive trustees model rooted in community service and academic-self governance.