Word E's Word of the Day: WWotD

Once again I saw an article about affording college:
5 Ways to Make College Much More Affordable for All Americans

Every time I read one of these stories talk about how to "save" higher education, I want to throw my computer out a window.

--> First I want to address the idea of education as the "magic-bullet" for ending poverty. Yes, there are plenty of studies about how higher education equals greater earning potential. But let me point out that correlation does not mean causation. Before you can prove causation you must first remove all independent variables. Thus far, I haven't seen a single study that can exclude two potential independent variables:

Parental Household Income. If your parents (and grandparents, etc) do well financially, you are more likely to do well. That, or they're more likely to take care of you.

Example #1: George "Dubya" Bush.
Example #2: Pete Campbell from Mad Men.

Motivation. Perhaps you don't have your family money to fall back on, but you have gumption. You have the need...the need to succeed. You don't need someone to hold your hand; if you want something you will work your tush off until you get what you want.

If you remove the leg up from your family or your own inherent will to succeed, how much better can a person expect to do with a college degree? All the social resources in the world can't change a person's pedigree or help someone who doesn't want to help him- or herself.

--> Second I want to address the idea that college only serves as a means to prepare for a career. The article link above says:

"On average, students who do complete their degrees are paying for more courses and credits than required for their diploma or certificate. That's a waste of resources for both students and the governments that subsidize their tuition -- a waste that makes higher-ed more expensive for everybody."

Did you just hear that? That was the sound of my head making contact with a wall (repeatedly). To put this into perspective for everyone: computer classes in the 80s were optional. If you were a marketing major in 2002, internet marketing classes were optional. And the course in ecology and preservation from the 90s...totally optional. Today's "non-essential" courses have the potential to be tomorrow's required learning. Furthermore, college is more than just preparing for a job. For many people, college is one of the few chances in their life to explore something totally outside of their realm of experience. People can be inspired by those "non-essential" courses and made career decisions based on a new-found respect for something outside of their norm.

--> Third, I take umbrage with the idea that college is the only educational resource to improve job market potential. There are many training and certification programs that give people the skills they need to excel in their careers. In fact, I think that instead of college being the key to improving America's global competitive edge, we should develop and improve our career training and certification programs and make them more desirable in the job market. Let's face it: traditional college is not for everyone. Many people need to get their hands dirty and see and feel what they're working on, or they need to see real-world applications and not read grandiose theories. America is smart enough to create and improve educational opportunities that meet their needs. We need to stop reinventing the wheel when it comes to college, and improve educational opportunities that are geared to career development.

--> And because I'm having so much fun...I'll completely demolish the idea that there are a bunch of little fixes that are needed to "fix" the efficiency of higher education. Let me clue you in on a dirty little secret about financial aid and the astronomic increases in college tuition: there's a clause in the Title IV federal funding legislation commonly called the "90/10 Rule". The clause (see link for full info):

"To participate in Title IV programs, in addition to other requirements, proprietary institutions must <...> derive at least 10% of school revenue from non-Title IV funds."

What's the problem with that? I'll let the Securities and Exchange Commission explain:

"Given that schools do not control, and generally may not limit, student lending, one of the more effective methods of reducing the 90/10 rule percentage is to increase tuition prices above the applicable maximums for Title IV student loans and grants, requiring other sources of funding to cover the remaining tuition balance, in order to reduce the percentage of revenue from Title IV sources."

In other words? it costs more money to go to college, creating a greater need for students to take out loans (meaning more students apply for federal financial aid), so the percentage of a college's money coming from Title IV funds goes up, so to maintain the balance schools increase tuition and students who don't qualify for federal funds contribute more overall money to keep them within the 90/10 percentages. Only everyone has an increased tuition, creating a greater need for students to take out loans (meaning more students apply for federal financial aid)....rinse and repeat.