Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Paying for College through Public Service?
Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters write on NRO that Kerry's proposal to have the government pay the tuition of college students that are willing to "do[] things like teaching in urban public schools or working on homeland security" doesn't make sense because K-12 education in the United States is malfunctioning. They even say it's "elementary". In their conclusion they write
I must admit that my interest was piqued by this article because I'm in college right now racking up a sizable amount of debt, so working for two years doing something worthwhile (which would also make my resume look fantastic) which also gets rid of my debt seems to be quite an appealing plan.
In fact, there is really no down-side to the plan at all (what's bad about helping students pay for college, debt that is acquired for this practically required commodity for success isn't that great), except for the fact that, assuming there isn't an unlimited supply of the two key quantities in question, money and political will, it is draining.
What the authors of this article, Mr. Greene and Mr. Winters, seem to be doing is arguing that attention should instead be given to the sorry state of primary education and the low percentage of graduating seniors (if the student graduates, always another key issue) are not prepared for college. They also argue that the plan isn't needed right now because more students aren't ready for college; what they're saying is that students who are going to college right now are finding a way to pay, even if it involves years of debt burdening them, so that assistance isn't necessary.
The problem with this piece, though, is that it does not state the first argument, and dances around the silliness of the second argument while not stating it directly either. The authors never write that the money that would go into Kerry's plan would be better spent elsewhere, if anywhere (I'm sure they want less taxes, they're writing on NRO after all); they contend that primary education already has enough money, so that's not the issue. If they don't think it's worth it to spend taxpayer money on the Kerry plan, they should say it, instead of simply implying it. They write, "[w]hat is clear is that improving K-12 education requires not more funds, but a fundamental change in how public schools operate."
Okay, so for the authors money really isn't the issue, political will is. But as I just said, they don't say that. They just explain that Kerry's plan is silly because primary education is broken, so we shouldn't worry about college education. That and college students right now can already afford college, "[p]erhaps there will come a day when there are significantly more students qualified to attend college than actually have the financial resources to do so." What the authors are saying, even though they don't come out and state it plainly, is that Kerry's plan would waste political will and money on students that can get by, no matter how hard it may be, paying for college now.
They also don't say that this plan would be a great or horrible way for students to offset the spiraling cost of tuition; in fact, I contend that they don't think such a problem exists, because if a students in college, financing it must not be a problem. Also,they don't propose a modification of the plan that would limit its usage to poorer students so the son of a doctor can't spend two years helping secure a nuclear power plant so the $160,000+ that his father spent on college for him is returned.
They really don't say much of anything; they don't provide a real critique of Kerry's plan or a clear, strong explanation of why Kerry's plan is innapropriate right. The fact that their arguments are so weak, absent, or assumed to be understood indicates that the authors are simply motivated by a partisan need to oppose all that Kerry says. They're posting the article up to say Kerry's plan is bad, but they don't prove why it's bad.
Maybe NRO will post another article on this issue with more depth and rigour than this piece; it deserves more of a discussion than this attempt to avoid serious discussion through misdirection and specious arguments.
Perhaps there will come a day when there are significantly more students qualified to attend college than actually have the financial resources to do so. If that day comes, a plan like Kerry's "Service for College" initiative might make sense. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near that point, nor are we likely to be until we significantly improve the performance of our K-12 public schools.
I must admit that my interest was piqued by this article because I'm in college right now racking up a sizable amount of debt, so working for two years doing something worthwhile (which would also make my resume look fantastic) which also gets rid of my debt seems to be quite an appealing plan.
In fact, there is really no down-side to the plan at all (what's bad about helping students pay for college, debt that is acquired for this practically required commodity for success isn't that great), except for the fact that, assuming there isn't an unlimited supply of the two key quantities in question, money and political will, it is draining.
What the authors of this article, Mr. Greene and Mr. Winters, seem to be doing is arguing that attention should instead be given to the sorry state of primary education and the low percentage of graduating seniors (if the student graduates, always another key issue) are not prepared for college. They also argue that the plan isn't needed right now because more students aren't ready for college; what they're saying is that students who are going to college right now are finding a way to pay, even if it involves years of debt burdening them, so that assistance isn't necessary.
The problem with this piece, though, is that it does not state the first argument, and dances around the silliness of the second argument while not stating it directly either. The authors never write that the money that would go into Kerry's plan would be better spent elsewhere, if anywhere (I'm sure they want less taxes, they're writing on NRO after all); they contend that primary education already has enough money, so that's not the issue. If they don't think it's worth it to spend taxpayer money on the Kerry plan, they should say it, instead of simply implying it. They write, "[w]hat is clear is that improving K-12 education requires not more funds, but a fundamental change in how public schools operate."
Okay, so for the authors money really isn't the issue, political will is. But as I just said, they don't say that. They just explain that Kerry's plan is silly because primary education is broken, so we shouldn't worry about college education. That and college students right now can already afford college, "[p]erhaps there will come a day when there are significantly more students qualified to attend college than actually have the financial resources to do so." What the authors are saying, even though they don't come out and state it plainly, is that Kerry's plan would waste political will and money on students that can get by, no matter how hard it may be, paying for college now.
They also don't say that this plan would be a great or horrible way for students to offset the spiraling cost of tuition; in fact, I contend that they don't think such a problem exists, because if a students in college, financing it must not be a problem. Also,they don't propose a modification of the plan that would limit its usage to poorer students so the son of a doctor can't spend two years helping secure a nuclear power plant so the $160,000+ that his father spent on college for him is returned.
They really don't say much of anything; they don't provide a real critique of Kerry's plan or a clear, strong explanation of why Kerry's plan is innapropriate right. The fact that their arguments are so weak, absent, or assumed to be understood indicates that the authors are simply motivated by a partisan need to oppose all that Kerry says. They're posting the article up to say Kerry's plan is bad, but they don't prove why it's bad.
Maybe NRO will post another article on this issue with more depth and rigour than this piece; it deserves more of a discussion than this attempt to avoid serious discussion through misdirection and specious arguments.
Comments:
Post a Comment
