I have been following this debate fairly closely, even though I kept silence for the most part. I also discuss this with my wife, who at one time used to be a college lecturer too. I continue to teach, but as an adjunct.

I think for the most part, I agree with Sean (despite himself Actually, the “himself” I mean is his extreme passion about this topic, with not enough credit to the side that says a 17-year old should be ble to figure out this inordinate confusion called students loand; a confusion that confounds even people old enough to be their grannies.

There are two issues that drive the argument on his opposite side. One, the student, who basically is still a learner might have made some learning errors in her writing, this I would chalk equally to her teachers and maybe her ability. Secondly, she might have got suckered into a profession that does not support the loans she was suckered into taking – by her school and society itself, that continues to make college education a do-or-die matter and also wants to democratize college education, both of which are untenable. First of, not everybody will be educated to every level. Some peak at sixth grade, some at high school, some at BS and some at advanced degree levels. Is this fact something a 16-year old can figure out? Quite unlikely. Some peak early, some much later and some never really peak. That is why society continues to push its members, especially, the young ones.

All I know is that way too many students go into life with a debt load they cannot carry and must be discouraged from carrying. How can a 21, 22-year old start life $100K in the hole? For many professions, they will not be able to pay this back, even if you gave them 100 years. What with other societal expectations getting in the way. I mean, society expects having a family, buying a car (to get to most jobs) and buying a home. All these cost money, and for a graduate starting out hs/her working life, a starting salary of under $50K may not even cover averages of these “essentials”.

Well, there is good news on the horizon.

Sean won Congress is looking into this student’s loan debacle. Even children of solidly middle class are in this. So, many of the ideas being passionately argued by Sean are being considered by Congress. I think Sean, being a one-man lobby was able to convince Congress that:

1. Most students’ loans will not be paid back at salaries of the average graduate of most majors (and I forgot to throw in the now obligatory i-pod, i-phone, i-….; and other newly minted “essentials” .

2. Many of these schools, especially the “colleges” who advertize at 2:00 a.m. Pacific are outright dishonest. In fact, Phoenix University was highlighted in one NPR report as one of those most guilty of such not so truthful advertisements, without disclosing that there might (heck, would) be no six-figure salaries for most of their graduates for decades to come, maybe never.

Then, whether due to the student’s fault, the “colleges’” fault or society’s, society pays. Society pays in terms of its members’ lost time, energy and most tangibly, the loans’ guarantees.

I rest my case – for now.

Rotimi Ogunsuyi

Please cite the source and reasoning of your claim that few student loans never get repaid. Please state how those numbers account for the fact that student loan on prolonged deferment or income based repayment will appear as being “current” despite the fact that the government has not actually recouped the cash flow from those loans. Please state clearly how your numbers account for loans that are simply forgiven or canceled for public service or because 25 years have gone by.

In conclusion, what is the source of the numbers you based your claim on, what are the exact numbers for 2009, 2008 and what is the amount of reservation for those loans on deferment and those on income based repayment, as well as public service. What is the actual cash flow to the government?

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Many student loans don’t get paid off on schedule, but very few never get paid. If you would like to resolve this issue, I could support modifying the loans to make it possible for those people to continue to make payments. I could also support penalties for nonpayment. Right now, too many people choose not to pay their student loans, and I could support forcing them to live up to their commitments. Perhaps the answer is to seize the assets of people who choose not to live up to their student loan commitments.

“You are again missing my point. Colleges and universities in the US rack Americans with student loan debt.”

I didn’t miss your point. I think it is obvious you have a SERIOUS “locus of control” problem. You write things that indicate you believe students have no control of choices that affect them. They do, and no matter how hard you try, you can’t make them do their due diligence before making important decisions, like a career path and whether to take student loans. There are plenty of resources (like career counseling), available to students.

The very premise of your position, that young adult students bear no responsibility for their college finance decisions, is laughable, and without that assumption, the rest of your argument falls flat on its face.

If you want to change regulations on how student loans are administered, I would be fine with that. If you want to change the rules to ensure students are presented with enough information to make informed decisions, I would be right behind you (even though we already do). If you wanted to reform the education system to address obvious shortcomings, you would get no argument from me. However, what you propose is so outlandishly radical, you would destroy important aspects of higher learning to resolve your personal grudge. You would throw out the baby with the bath water instead of targeting and fixing the true problem, that students are making decisions that may not in their best interests.

Colleges and universities do lose money on poorly educated graduates. If there are enough of them, employers won’t hire people from that college or university, and soon enrollment drops as a result.

There is no reason a college or university should lose money on an unemployed student. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES DON’T CONTROL THE ECONOMY. Colleges and Universities react to the economy just like everyone else. We don’t guarantee jobs to any student, no matter how accomplished, and we can’t make a student make the most of her/his college experience. We also can’t control a graduate’s social skills. Unemployment is a problem colleges and universities help resolve by offering retraining and certification programs. They don’t cause it in any way, so why should they bear any responsibility for problems they had no part in creating?

There are plenty of underachievers who graduate each year with GPAs lower than they could have achieved if they had worked harder. Who owes underachievers a job? What kind of job should they get? Should it be as good a job as someone with a 4.0 GPA?

College is where young people are supposed to mature into adults, taking responsibility for their choices and being given a chance to succeed or fail based on their efforts. College has never been, and will never be, a place to go if you want to be guaranteed a job, at least not in a country with a naturally-cyclical free market economy. In order to guarantee every graduate a job, we would have to send every student to a socialist or communist country. No person in a free market economy is ever guaranteed a job… E V E R !!! … regardless of credentials.

Let’s say we have a freshman studying Computer Science based on the amount of jobs currently available. Two years from now, Microsoft and Dell send 5,000 programming jobs to India, making it harder for that student to get a job after graduation. Is it the university’s job it didn’t know two years ahead of time Microsoft and Dell would send 5,000 programming jobs to India? Career counselors are not clairvoyant after all. How will you address this issue?

If you really believe the economy will make this change naturally, then why make such a case repeatedly? If that is truly the case, there is no need to argue, and time will prove you right. In the meantime, DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH!

Please allow me to use an analogy. I teach a friend of mine a useful skill, like how to change the oil in his car. My friend pays me for this service, but since he doesn’t have the money, he borrowed it from a bank. After the lesson, I introduce my friend to the manager of a Jiffy Lube, but the Jiffy Lube manager isn’t hiring because business is slow. I also introduce him to the service manager at a car dealership, but he isn’t hiring either. I help him apply for some jobs doing basic mechanical work, but there are more qualified unemployed ASE certified mechanics applying for the same jobs. I had no idea when I accepted his money that he had borrowed it. I also didn’t know whether I was simply teaching a useful skill for private use at home, or a skill he would try to use in the job market. Should I now be responsible to make my friend’s loan payments?

You are again missing my point. Colleges and universities in the US rack Americans with student loan debt. If they do not get Wall Street jobs, then much of that debt can never be repaid. You seem to be missing this point. I did not make education about money. Colleges and universities made it about money. As soon as the congress or a bank made 10K available in student loans, schools charged 10K plus whatever number they thought a person had on hand. When congress or a bank made 20K available in student loan debt, then colleges and universities charged 24k plus whatever they thought a person had on hand. Then it just kept going. You are missing the point that I am making. Therefore, I will try to make it one more time.

There aggregate outstanding student loan balance in the US will never actually be paid. Colleges and universities know this so they make the argument that the benefits are intangible and all this education has made society a better place. I am arguing that, while the benefits may be intangible, the cost are not. I am further arguing that the costs are extremely tangible and so large that they greatly outweigh the benefits that the academic community claims is derived from education. But here is more, the cost of education has turned out to be so expensive for America that unless a university believes it could get an American a job making more money than would be the case without the degree, it is nothing short of theft to take money from a student. The sad truth is that America has educated far too many people and having done so is going to result in a worse society, not a better one.

I will just ask you again, when all of the people with student loan debt begin having their loans canceled, where will the money come from to replenish the cash register? You don’t seem to understand the point. If borrowers cannot make enough money to replenish the student loan budged from which the loans and the guarantees are made, then there will be no money to send to the colleges and universities. You are ignoring a point that is very obvious to me but for some reason, you are refusing to see.

What happens when an empire’s army and navy go to the palace to take more money from the treasury but discover all the gold was spent on lavish social events? The army and navy do without and their is then either a coup or a military defeat and the empire disappears. What will happen when the colleges and universities no longer get cash money from the government when a student gets a student loan? What will happen when the Dep. of Ed begins to stop sending cash but instead sends vouchers for store credit? When that begins to happen, colleges and universities will stop accepting student loans. The end result will be that college and university education will go back to being something that is only available if you can pay for it outright or if the college or the university itself is willing to either give you a full scholarship or extend the loan themselves. When that happens, admissions offers will immediately decline. That is exactly what we need.

You can continue to argue your values on education but I will continue to argue reality. As a university employee, you have become trained to believe that your institution is supposed to be free from having to bear any of the risk in higher education. You get the money from the student loans and you’re done. The risk is then bore by the taxpayer, the lender and the student. That means three very large parties within the American population must bear the risk while academic institutions live the high life. While you may refuse to see the writing on the wall, I not only see it, I am reading it and writing some of it. Here are the new rules; Colleges and Universities must ensure that a graduate makes more money with a degree than would have been the case without the degree. Otherwise, colleges and universities must refund the entire cost of the education, including the opportunity cost. Colleges and universities will no longer get away with claiming that they are creating tomorrows leaders. If they make such claims but only a hand full of people actually become tomorrows leaders, the rest will have the cost of their educations refunded. The creation of this law will force colleges and universities to become better risk managers.

If such laws are not passed, the end result will be that large amounts of student loans begin to be canceled and written down. As that occurs, lenders, including the government, will simply refuse to lend. Then, colleges and universities will still end up having to downsize. As the economy’s down business cycle drags on without improving for a decade or two, the number of applications to college and university programs may increase but the number of people who can get student loans will decrease. Universities will then wither cut salaries and amenities or just downsize. I think they will choose to downsize.

We clearly need consumer law reform for higher education. There clearly needs to be a consumer bill of rights for higher education. The government alone cannot pay off the nation’s outstanding student loan balance, neither can an unemployed or underemployed nation. So the money must come from some other institution. That leaves allowing the FED to print education money, creating a voucher system that the Dept. of Ed. can use as a means of printing education money but that colleges and universities will be unable to spend on anything or colleges and universities can change their focus and begin ensuring that graduates make a lot of money.

The bottom line is that the colleges bear no risk and that needs to change. If all parties involved “have skin in the game”, better decisions will be made. Colleges have no economic “skin in the game”. They only stand to gain money for each individual that purchases their service. Students, lenders and taxpayers bear the risk of both the upside and the downside but colleges and universities only bear the risk of the upside. The never lose money on a poorly educated graduate or on an unemployed graduate. That needs to change and if the congress does not change this circumstance on purpose, the economy will make the change naturally. Either way, the changes that I am calling for are on their way.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Yet again, you are dead wrong. I once took an acting class at a community college. The first thing they mentioned on the first day of class was how competitive the industry is, and how unlikely it was each of us would achieve the level of success most of us desired. Do you think visual artists like painters and sculptors are told they will make money at their chosen profession? No, they aren’t. They know the odds are stacked against them, but they choose their professions based on a love of art.

“Where is my additional million? Where is my Wall Street Job?”

If you want a million dollars, or a Wall Street job, you have to earn them. Those things require more than just a degree. They require candidates who are qualified in every way. Academic credentials are just one of many qualifications. You also have to be driven, focused, and capable. You have to have the skills to network and work in teams. A degree doesn’t train you to be capable of networking and working in teams. Those are life skills (people skills) you have to learn outside of school. Some people have these skills without any effort, and some need to develop those skills to achieve success.

Academic success and real world success have never been the same thing, and your desire to treat them them as though they are synonymous is futile. It will never be that way. There will always be those who are book smart but socially inept, and society doesn’t owe people like that a job. Nor does society owe you your “additional million” or a “Wall Street job.” Those things have to be earned. Now go and earn them for yourself. Nobody is going to hand them to you if you don’t deserve them, and a college degree isn’t proof you deserve those things.

I still can’t believe you asked “Where is my additional million? Where is my Wall Street Job?” Here is some tough love for you. You are never going to get those things handed to you in the United States of America. If you want those things handed to you, you will need to find a country with less freedom, where you can be placed in a career simply by virtue of having earned a degree. I believe you would have more success in a place like Cuba or China.

People get liberal arts degrees because colleges and universities mislead them into believing that they will make the same additional million dollars per lifetime as will those who get an engineering or some other degree. It turns out that many people never make the additional million dollars per year and those with tech degrees make more money. Those with trade skills and no college at all have more disposable income than those with a college degree in liberal arts. Therefore, the liberal arts degree is a waste. It is only after the fact that people in academia are willing to take the hard-nosed stance that you are now taking with me. I bet you still do not take this hard-nosed stance with incoming freshmen and their families.

Academia promises a better quality of life before you pay the tuition but then denies accountability for providing it after you graduate. That must change. People told me I would get a good job as a result of getting an education and I want either that good job or I want to be reimbursed for my troubles involved in getting an education. If what you claim about society being a better place because I have an advanced education is true, then it is you, not I, who is benefiting from my education. So why shouldn’t you be the one to pay for it.

Where is my additional million? Where is my Wall Street Job? I was told that I was being trained to be the next generation of global leaders, where is my seat at the decision making table in the White House, at the UN or at some big corporate table? Education took from me but gave nothing back. Why aren’t governments and employers required to hire people with more degrees and fire people with fewer degrees simply because someone with more degrees is unemployed?

Bottom line, if a college or university does not get you a job making more money than would have been the case without the degree, then the educational institution must be required to refund the entire cost of the education, to include the opportunity cost. If that becomes law, then universities can begin drastically educing admissions and both college and university degrees will again be worth something to those who have them. Right now, their value declines with each additional graduating college class.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Liberal arts degrees are available because there is a demand for it. There is demand for it because people are free to choose their intended professions. Many of us are willing to fight for that right in ways other than picking up a gun. We fight for it by taking pride in our work and working hard for our students. You are free to not appreciate those efforts, but they will go on.

Those of you in academia are all missing the point. So here it is in a nut shell. There are many Americans like me who are smart enough to build the defenses necessary to protect you from North Korea, China, and countless other things, as well as grow the economy. However, instead of being steered only towards those things that deliver a high payoff for America, we were driven towards liberal arts. The end result is that we now rely on foreigners to do everything for us. They do our math, they do our brokerage, they do our investing, they do our inventing, they do everything that involves making money and keeping us strong. But we can we have the benefit of knowing that our education makes us better citizens and that makes up for all the financial losses, jobs we can’t get and any impending attacks that eventually come from all the foreigners we trained for free at our own universities. Compounding these impending attacks by foreign powers is the fact that our educational institutions, like our banks and real estate institutions, will begin feeling bankruptcy pressures in the coming decades.

This will happen because all those student loan funded liberal arts degrees will not have paid off financially for the student loan borrowers. While people like you will say; “Make them pay. Make them pay. Make them pay.”, those with student loan debt will likely lack the resources to pay. Thus, the loans will be canceled. As the loans tumble into cancelation, Sallie Mae will go the rout of Fannie and Freddie. There will be discussions about institutional risk management and the same people who now say; “We must stop emphasizing home ownership.” will begin saying; ” We must stop emphasizing education.” So here is the deal for academic institutions. You can either listen to what I am saying and restructure academic programs so that all degrees lead to making more money than would be the case without the degree or you can wait for the system to crash and force that decision upon you and your industry.

As I see it, home ownership and individual economic wealth is much more the American way and much more so represents what we are as Americans, than does making sure everyone gets an education. We are much better off with a nation of people where most people have only a high school education but own their own home and even family business or farm, than we are with a nation where everyone has a college or graduate degree but rents and lives in an economy built on Alan Greenspan’s Europeanesque “inter-temporal consumption” or “smoothing consumption across time”. We need to do the following; (1) Exclude all those not born in America from welfare, primary education and access to scholarships and fellowships in the US. (2) Exclude all those born in American but to illegal immigrants. Stop treating such individuals as citizens. (3) Use gi bills and stafford loans for home ownership and business ownership, not education. (4) Set standardized testing thresholds for entering colleges and universities, at least for any university that receives tax breaks for being a non-profits and accepts any form of government money. (5) We must train our own with the explicit intention of defeating foreigners and foreign powers.

College is not about being well rounded or becoming the right kind of person. This is covered under basic citizenship and does not require an education. Colleges and universities are about improving the economic quality of life of the graduates and defeating a country’s current and future enemies. Education must never become something that is done for the sake of education itself. If it does, then the eduction institutions will take over the government and an elitist group of individuals with royal entitlements will make the spending decisions of a nation. Yet, such individuals would likely never be elected by the general public. The role of colleges and universities is to serve the consumer public, not guide it.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

As far as me living a “cushy life with great amenities”, that is laughable. My salary is anything but “cushy”! I don’t mean to complain since I chose this job for the tuition reimbursement, but this is yet another example of something Sean thinks he knows that is dead wrong.

I wish your college or university could take your degree back. More seriously, I hope you find the happiness you are seeking. Maybe you will then lose some of your misplaced anger.

- Also, you are wrong about no one having life long jobs. Professors have life long jobs in the form of tenure and I am unwilling to pay tax dollars for it.

- As far as thinking that colleges just have money lying around. No. That is not what I think. What I think is that despite the incessant complaining by colleges and universities that they need money if society expects them to continue providing their service, they still turn around and waste money on social event, speakers and other such crap.

- I don’t want colleges an universities to continue providing what they consider to be their service. I want them to start committing to ensuring that Americans get first access before anyone else, regardless of the qualifications of foreigners. I want them to charge all foreigners a highly priced foreigner’s tuition for all Ph.D., professional and graduate programs. No foreigner gets funding at all. I want colleges and universities to teach specific skills that amount to training people in the specific tasks they will do all day long and stop wasting peoples’ time with discussions that they will never be a part of in the real world. I want colleges and universities to guarantee that an American gets a job making more money than would have been the case without the degree and if the degree adds no monetary value, then I want the colleges and universities to be forced to refund the full cost of attendance.

-If these things happen, colleges and universities in the US will greatly downsize liberal arts programs and other such crap like psychology and teaching certificates. There will be fewer people admitted and American Universities can get back to making America’s weapons, space ships and the like. Currently, much of what is taught in all degree programs amounts to nothing more than conversations that would have been better had in a barbershop. Instead, we turn such things into degrees and the rest of the world laughs at our educations.

- I am unwilling to allow government money to back any degree or academic program that will not guarantee Americans jobs making more money than was the case without the degree. I want very tight restrictions to be placed on govt. student loans and university officials to risk jail time if they allow student loans to be used for liberal arts and the like. Further, I want student loans to be restricted to situations where the college or university already has a commitment of employment by a company for each specific student borrower. Make the universities bear the risk of the degree not being profitable and either guarantee jobs or pay up. Do that and you will both recover the taxpayer’s dollar, create a new focus at colleges and universities, improve the human condition and get people jobs.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Money is always fungible and is so in the same way that objects of larger mass exact a gravitational pull on objects of smaller mass.

Are the lights on during these events? Are the staff employed during these events? Etc….. The fixed costs are still being paid by the general budget and those costs are funded by student loans and government grants.

Here is the point that you are missing. Education is too expensive and cuts need to be made. In fact, education is so expensive that the NPV of any degree is negative for most Americans but very positive for minorities and foreigners who don’t get racked with student loans. These losses are compounded by universities and colleges who have come to believe that it isn’t their mission to get people jobs and ensure that people are making more money than they would have without the degree. Any school that has that mentality is one that should be purely privately funded, receive no government grants and pay local, state and federal taxes. Currently it it the other way around. I want that to be changed.

I don’t want government money to continue providing a backstop to university and college losses. Instead, I want colleges and universities to have to cut social events, clubs, speaker events, cocktail parties and the like. I want colleges and universities to have to cut salaries and expanse accounts. I want colleges and universities to pay taxes, especially for the presence of foreigners. I want the resources to intentionally flow into the development and advancement of born Americans and I want that to occur with legal, conscious and intentional bias in favor of our own people.

For every compounded student loan dollar, including interest and fees, that is canceled by the government or paid by the government, I want the college and university that originally approved that loan to be charged the same amount as the canceled or paid accrued balance. I want to put the bulk of the risk involved in pursuing an education on the shoulders of the colleges and universities. If these institutions truly believe that the intangible social benefits of education are worth the cost of the education, then the employees of these institutions won’t mind giving up salaries, benefits and social entertainment in the form of speakers, exclusive dinners and cocktail parties. Institutions of higher education and their employees will gladly give up these luxuries because their compensation comes in the form of living in a better society. That striking point is what congress must force all American colleges and universities to consciously acknowledge.

You and those like you claim that education is so important that it is invaluable. If this is so, then university educators need to work in a regular job to get their salary and do their research and teaching during their off hours. The truth is, you live a cushy life with great amenities and the same is true of university and college employees throughout America. This must stop. Government money needs to go towards ensuring that all Americans make more money with a degree than they would without one, otherwise, colleges and universities must be forced to refund the present value of the cost of the educations. Currently, colleges and universities are getting all of the upside of those who do benefit economically from their educations but they are not being made to bear the downside.

Colleges and universities get the upside by increasing the cost of education to reflect an increasingly greater portion of the positive NPV of education from students that are projected to derive a positive Future Value from their educations. But those same institutions are not incurring any portion of the NPV from those students who end up deriving a negative Future Value from their degrees. Why should universities and colleges be so privileged that they get to broker millions of student loan trades, clip huge fees for themselves, build marble and stone buildings but then bear none of the downside risk? What is so otherworldly about college and university employees that you deserve so much economic security in life? The rest of us don’t have that. The British have the royal families who are entitled at birth to tax revenue. America has colleges and universities that have attained that same status and have begun to squander the money on lavish and unnecessary expenditures. Any activity, lecture, class, degree program, etc… that does not result in an individual making more money than would have been the case without the degree is lavish. Forcing universities and colleges to refund the costs of these degrees will cause universities and colleges to persistently ensure that that education = job making more money than would have been possible without the degree. That’s education!

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

The idea about monies being fungible is another fact that just isn’t so, at least at public institutions in the state of Florida. In Florida, there are strict laws restricting and regulating the transfer of monies between and among charitable accounts and taxpayer-funded accounts. There are tight restrictions on what taxpayer monies can be spent on, so simply borrowing from Peter to pay Paul would be illegal and would be caught in a routine audit.

It is clear you haven’t bothered to research these issues at all. If you did, you would know the foundation of your beliefs is built on faulty assumptions.

The fact that you don’t appreciate the educational value of colloquia and symposia tells me more about you than it does institutions of higher learning.

(2). Given that you are a university employee, you are always going to consider the school to be understaffed. They are not understaffed. None of them are. What is true is that they expend resources doing things that they should cut. Examples are social events, public speaking events, clubs, activities etc… All of that cost money.

Why should these programs be cut? Are you saying that students don’t get anything from public speaking events, clubs, and activities. Most of these programs do not cost money aside from a staff member. Students learn leadership skills from these opportunities, learn about new things of interest, learn to work with other people as a team, gain public speaking skills, meet people to add to their network.

3). Education that does not lead to graduates making more money than would have been the case without the degree represents cost, not investment. The mission of a college and university is to ensure that a graduate makes more money with the education than would have been the case without it. That is the purpose of education.

You are incorrect. Gaining employment is an indirect result of learning and the attainment of new skills. The mission you note is not the mission of any college or university, aside from a school that teaches a trade. How can you say that ensuring a graduate makes more money is the mission? What does that mean for Bill Gates who doesn’t have a college degree? Should we be telling all college grads that they will make more than people with a high school diploma, including Bill Gates?

You completely leave the individual out of the equation. It is not about a piece of paper, a diploma, that is received upon completion. It is about what that individual does with the knowledge he or she has gained while enrolled in college that matters. If it were only a matter of the diploma, we could forget learning and hand out pieces of paper to any Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants one. And, it would be a heck of a lot of easier.

Should a person who graduated from college but can’t go to work regularly, isn’t accountable, is an awful employee still be ensured to make more money given that they have the piece of paper?

(4). Educational institutions never take the hardline stance about economic risk that you are taking here. Give this speech to the prospective students before they apply and then again after they get in. Why should they get degrees just so they can vote, not commit crimes and give blood?

I am not speaking for an educational institution in this regard. I am speaking from the perspective of someone who was the first in their family to graduate from college, from personal experience, and from the perspective of someone who studies higher education. It is a choice to attend a college, which college, and what to study. Individuals make those decisions every day. And, in those decisions is a certain amount of risk. For every person who graduates from college and who makes a good salary, we all know others who graduate and can’t hold jobs. That’s a signal to students that it is not a guarantee. No two people have the same experiences, knowledge, capacity to learn skills, or hold a job. It cannot be guaranteed. What you are suggesting is that the individual doesn’t matter. If you want to live in a country where a person graduates from college and is given a job, no matter their ability to perform in that job, then you need to go to a different country where all people are taken care of equally. That is not America.

What do you think of liberal arts colleges? For what job are those schools training graduates? Are you saying that because students study things like history, languages, communications, etc., they aren’t worthwhile because they don’t lead to a specific job? If so, that’s ridiculous. Look back at the history of higher education. People who learn to “think” in college at liberal arts institutions become thinkers who can learn on the job, are adaptable, have critical thinking skills and analytical skills, etc. In your view, these colleges shouldn’t even exist because they don’t lead to a specific job. I’m sorry you are missing out because there is a world of knowledge that you haven’t even opened your mind to given that it doesn’t lead to a job.

(7). You keep presenting education as if it is some sort of privileged gift that colleges or universities graciously bestow onto their graduates. It isn’t. Education is a consumer product and service. A client pays for a service/ or product. If the service fails to deliver, the institution that sold the service needs to be held financially accountable.

No, I don’t. I feel that I am lucky that I was able to attend given that no one else in my family attended, and I came from a low-income family from a town where very few people attended college. But, I don’t see it at all as a priveleged gift that colleges or universities bestow on graduates. I see it more from a personal view than from that of the college or university. However, I think students and graduates need to work for what they want. No one handed me anything. When I graduated, I had to make things happen for myself. Granted, our students today have a more difficult time given the job market. However, I attended a liberal arts institution where I was not trained for a job. Education is not the same as a product or service. You see the benefits of a product or service immediately upon purchase. With higher education, you don’t always see the benefits until years down the line. It’s a lifetime investment.

(9). If a school leads me to believe that getting their degree will lead to me getting a specific job or specific kind of job, then I expect that to materialize and I expect my economic quality of life to be better than it would have been without the degree. Otherwise, I expect to hold the university or college financially accountable. I don’t mean trade school. I mean regular traditional colleges and universities. You all claim that you are training the next generation of world leaders. I never got that job. I’m not a world leader. So why did they waste my time, money and GI Bill for a job they they haven’t ben and don’t seem to be intent on ensuring I get? I wasn’t willing to get that education just to be educated. I never expressed those values. I expressed expectations. Once degree claimed not only that it was training me to be global leader but also to be a Wall Street leader. Yet, they never got me those jobs either. So why did they waste my time and money teaching me to do that? Further, why should colleges and universities be allowed to make such bold claims? If the overwhelming majority of graduates are not world leaders, then the colleges and universities should focus on training the next generation of followers. That’s their real mission and by focusing on “leadership”, they are failing at their mission by simply ignoring it.

Maybe your college should have told you that you wouldn’t find the job you were looking for with that attitude. Maybe they should have told you right then and there that it wasn’t worth it to go to college. What is it that you want to do anyway? What was your major? What type of school did you attend? I would ask you why you wasted your time attending because it is your choice to attend. Did you try to get jobs as a “global leader” or a “Wall Street Leader?” Did you think someone was just going to hand you the job upon graduation? That’s a pretty high expectation to think a college or university is just going to slip you in the corner office upon graduating. Do you have financial skills to be a “Wall Street leader?” How many people get to be Wall Street leaders?” Shouldn’t that also be a signal as to how competitive it would be to get a job in that field? How do you define leadership anyway? Does a leader have to be the CEO making a million dollars a year? I know a lot of leaders who work for me, for example, and are not making a million dollars a year and are not “leading” an organization. Maybe they will be one day. No matter what, they are still leaders.

(10). The mission of colleges and universities is to get a graduate a lifelong job making more money than would have been the case without the degree.

There is no such thing as a lifelong job today. Who do you know who has had the same job for a lifetime? It doesn’t happen anymore. That’s why it’s even more important that students learn and not train for a specific job. People get laid off today and have to change gears and try something new. How could they do that if they were only trained for one specific job? They need transferable skills that allow them to perform in a variety of setting, using a variety of skills, and the ability to learn new skills.

(12). If all that crap you said about education being about making better citizens is what universities and colleges are going to claim, then they need to provide educations for free. After all, its not about money. The joy if knowing that they made better citizens is enough. I didn’t need college to make me a better citizen. I needed it to get ma much better economic quality of life than I could have had without an education. I did my part by graduating and taking out the loans but they got their money and thats all they care about. This is the problem with colleges and universities through out the country. The easiest way to cure this problem is to make the institutions accountable for refunding the entire cost of education to those who don’t get good jobs. Do that and schools will ensure that people get good jobs and stop taking money from people who they have no intention of getting a good job.

I would love to have students attend college for free. However, money has to come from somewhere to pay for the expenses associated with college. Where would that money come from? It sounds like you think we have money lying all around. That is not the case. Most people who work in education are underpaid compared to private industry. We work in the field because we care about the future of our students. I don’t know anyone who works in higher education who doesn’t care about that. Unfortunately, you have some pretty negative views of your experience which you then generalize to the entire industry. If you were misled, I’m sorry because it has ruined the perception that you have about many of the colleges and universities out there. We want our students and graduates to learn and to achieve their goals. We want to help them in any way we can. However, they also need to put in the time, effort, and dedication.

The expenditures you are defending are all a bunch of wasteful crap that amount to nothing more than entertainment. Because money is fungible, any university or college that expends money on that crap is expending taxpayer backed loans and taxpayer funded grants. The fact that you wrote the check from a private fund is irrelevant. If you are going to waste my money and everyone else’s money on that kind of crap, then I don’t want your institution getting local, state and federal tax exemption. Further, I don’t want your institution receiving any federal funding. I want all federal money to be restricted only to those schools that can prove that all of their graduates make more money than would have been the case without the degree. For every graduate who does not make such money and for every student who withdraws because the school doesn’t seem to be committed to getting that person a job making more money with the education than would have been the case without the education, then that institution must refund the total cost of the education. Every time a student loan is canceled, the college or university must refund the balance of that loan to the government for a public loan and to the private lender for the private student loans.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

That is dead wrong where I go to school. Foreign students pay out-of-sate tuition. Many earn scholarships and assistantships, but those have funding sources that are usually private. Regardless of the funding sources, the scholarships and assistantships are usually merit-based, so if they are awarded to foreign students, it is because either no Americans applied, or no Americans qualified.

“Examples are social events, public speaking events, clubs, activities etc… All of that cost money.”

Yes, they all cost money, but these events are never publically funded. Social events are sponsored by private companies, charitable contributions, and student dues for the organizations to which they belong. Clubs are also funded by member dues and charitable contributions. Many of the visiting speakers that come to my institution do so free of charge. The only expenses that get paid come from an account that is sustained by charitable contributions.

(1). Go to any leading university and randomly spot check enrollment in any graduate program in math, science and engineering. You will find more foreigners then Americans and they are all getting full funding, with occurs at the expense of the American public. If universities had to pay tax, they wouldn’t have all this money to train foreigners.

(2). Given that you are a university employee, you are always going to consider the school to be understaffed. They are not understaffed. None of them are. What is true is that they expend resources doing things that they should cut. Examples are social events, public speaking events, clubs, activities etc… All of that cost money.

(3). Education that does not lead to graduates making more money than would have been the case without the degree represents cost, not investment. The mission of a college and university is to ensure that a graduate makes more money with the education than would have been the case without it. That is the purpose of education.

(4). Educational institutions never take the hardline stance about economic risk that you are taking here. Give this speech to the prospective students before they apply and then again after they get in. Why should they get degrees just so they can vote, not commit crimes and give blood?

(5). Government student loans are now canceled after 10 years if you work for the government and 25 years and don’t. After 2014, they will soon be canceled at 10 and 20. When they are canceled, the universities need to receive a bill from the government for the education not having gotten the person a job.

(6). Any university or college that takes a persons money for a degree in a subject is agreeing to get that person a job in that specific field. If the student clearly stated what job he or she wanted to get out of the education, then the college or university is bound to that specific job materializing. The institution had the option of saying; We can’t promise that. If they they went so far as claiming that they are “perfect” for that job, then the should have to refund the total cost of the education, not just the student loans.

(7). You keep presenting education as if it is some sort of privileged gift that colleges or universities graciously bestow onto their graduates. It isn’t. Education is a consumer product and service. A client pays for a service/ or product. If the service fails to deliver, the institution that sold the service needs to be held financially accountable.

(8). There is no such thing as a true private student loan, nor a true state student loan. State loans are just federal loans processed by the state and they are backed by the federal government. Private loans are also believed by the banking industry to be backed by the federal GSE, Sallie Mae. Private loans are also given the same protections that government loans get but they do not extend the same benefits to the borrowers that borrowers get from government loans. This needs to change.

(9). If a school leads me to believe that getting their degree will lead to me getting a specific job or specific kind of job, then I expect that to materialize and I expect my economic quality of life to be better than it would have been without the degree. Otherwise, I expect to hold the university or college financially accountable. I don’t mean trade school. I mean regular traditional colleges and universities. You all claim that you are training the next generation of world leaders. I never got that job. I’m not a world leader. So why did they waste my time, money and GI Bill for a job they they haven’t ben and don’t seem to be intent on ensuring I get? I wasn’t willing to get that education just to be educated. I never expressed those values. I expressed expectations. Once degree claimed not only that it was training me to be global leader but also to be a Wall Street leader. Yet, they never got me those jobs either. So why did they waste my time and money teaching me to do that? Further, why should colleges and universities be allowed to make such bold claims? If the overwhelming majority of graduates are not world leaders, then the colleges and universities should focus on training the next generation of followers. That’s their real mission and by focusing on “leadership”, they are failing at their mission by simply ignoring it.

(10). The mission of colleges and universities is to get a graduate a lifelong job making more money than would have been the case without the degree.

(11). I have already explained that colleges and universities have used Americans for their student loan availability. They take your benefits and then don’t live up to their obligations to get you good job living a much better quality of life than would have been the case without the eduction. The result is an aggregate outstanding student loan balance that can never be repaid by the post boomer population of Americans. My personal situation is irrelevant. This is the national situation. The balances are too large. The cost of education is too high because colleges and universities are inventing degrees so that they can get to every portion of the market of Americans, all of whom are born with a voucher to borrow student loans. Schools exploit this and they never tell you that you are taking on a high risk. No. They tell you that education is the best investment that you can make and that your career and life will advance from education. They claim that you will get to be a global leader but they are knowingly lying to people. Back before the existence of student loans, when colleges and universities had to extend the credit, which can be discharged through bankruptcy, they were much more honest and much better managers of risk. Today, anyone gets into college and the reason they get in is because of student loans. Regardless, in 9 years public loans will start being canceled and the government needs to go back to the colleges and universities and make them pay the cost of the present value of the remaining balance. Even if the loans are canceled because a person works for the government, the college or university must be made to refund the remaining balance.

(12). If all that crap you said about education being about making better citizens is what universities and colleges are going to claim, then they need to provide educations for free. After all, its not about money. The joy if knowing that they made better citizens is enough. I didn’t need college to make me a better citizen. I needed it to get ma much better economic quality of life than I could have had without an education. I did my part by graduating and taking out the loans but they got their money and thats all they care about. This is the problem with colleges and universities through out the country. The easiest way to cure this problem is to make the institutions accountable for refunding the entire cost of education to those who don’t get good jobs. Do that and schools will ensure that people get good jobs and stop taking money from people who they have no intention of getting a good job.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Where do you get your statistics? I see a lot of claims with generalizations and so-called facts without anything to back them up.

Overall, I am not incorrect about the purpose of higher education, but it does depend on the type of education which the student is pursuing. If the student is going to a trade school, then yes, the student should be able to find a career using those specific skills. It should not be guaranteed, however, because it is up to the individual student to take those skills, apply them, selll themselves in interviews, perform well to maintain a job, etc. Apparently, the purpose for you is very materialistic, but finding a job is not the purpose of higher education.

There are other ways to become a better citizen besides pursuing higher education. I did not mean for that to be exclusive. Becoming a soldier is one of them. I think you misunderstood my point. Im’ not saying that people with high school degrees cannot be better citizens. Neither of my parents have a degree and both are great citizens. However, if you look at the research, people with college degrees commit fewer crimes and are less likely to be incarcerated, tend to vote and participate in democratic processes more often, receive less in welfare benefits, have better health and smoke less, and are more likley to volunteer and donate blood (Education Pays).

Where do you get the statistics to say that most people with advanced degrees in anything difficult aren’t US citizens? And, what is “difficult?” Wouldn’t that be a judgment call by you? What’s difficult to you might not be difficult to me and so on. Does that mean other higher degrees are of lesser value? Yes, you named a few examples of people who were trained in the US who used their knowledge and skills against us. What does that have to do with whether or not American higher education institutions should be required to find graduates’ jobs?

I realize some people think that higher education institutions spend money lavishly and have excess staff. I’d like to see the evidence because in the several institutions where I’ve worked, that’s certainly not been the case. In fact, we’ve always had a staff shortage with more work to be done and not enough people to do it. Again, as others have mentioned, it is a choice for a student to attend a variety of colleges, for them to take out student loans, and the careers to which they aspire.

I never expected any sort of guarantee as a result of the loans I took out. This was a risk I was taking and investment I was making in myself. I knew if I were taking out these loans, then I better find something to do with my life so that it was worth it. Is it a struggle to pay them? Yes. But, I am a better person because of the risk I took. (Again, that is not to say that I couldn’t have become this person through another path. Maybe I could have. But, for me, this was worth it and was the path I chose. And, no one found me a job. I did this on my own as others before me have.)

You still haven’t answered my question about whether or not you’ve ever worked a college or university. In an economy like the one we are in today, how do you suggest that colleges and universities find graduates jobs in “a timely manner?” Given the large number of people who want to attend college today, do you suggest that we only admit those for whom we can find jobs “in a timely manner?” What about those students who would not be admitted? Is it fair to not even give them a chance?

And, it’s the government who selects through their financial aid formula who receives federal and state financial aid and who does not. By the way, student loans are in the form of federal, state, and private. I’m not sure what you mean by public loans. In any case, why should our government bail out individuals who aren’t able to support themselves with all that they have learned after 25 years?

As someone else has said, I’m sorry your experience in higher education wasn’t a better one. Life isn’t a guarantee. It is what we make of it. That’s what makes our country so great.

You are incorrect about the purpose of education. The vast majority of WWI and WWII veterans did not have a college education and many argue that they were a much better generation of citizens than is the current and more educated American population. They same is true of the many Americans who served in other wars, including the ongoing wars.

The purpose of education is to make more money with the education than can be had without the education. If society is the beneficiary of my education because education for it’s own sake makes me a better citizen than I was when I was a soldier, then society should pay for the cost of my education.

You are making a very bold and false claim that the many people with degrees working at universities are better citizens than those with high school degrees. Most people at America’s universities who have advanced degrees in anything difficult aren’t even US citizens to begin with. Further, most of them harbor loyalty and duties to their own countries and they take technology and “know how” from the US all the time. Saddam Hussein’s number one nerve gas chemist taught at U-Kentucky. The Admiral who commanded the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor went to Harvard.

Today’s American colleges and universities have become spoiled with the nectar of student loan funding. While intoxicated on this nectar, they invented all kinds of elitist garbage, cocktail party cultures and filled their support staffs and administrations with multitudes of unnecessary people. In short, they have become pork. Such lavish lives of luxury are fine for those who spend their own money on them but colleges and universities are living these lavish lives on a large lie of credit that falls on the shoulders of the general public and that needs to stop. Universities and colleges must be held accountable for fulfilling their obligations to get people the kinds of jobs they lead people to believe they care capable of getting people and also for doing so in a timely manner. The cure to the ongoing failure of colleges and universities to do this is to simply charge the colleges and universities to pay the present value of the remaining balance of all private and public student loans that are canceled or forgiven by the government at the 10 year, 20 year and 25 year expiration dates.

Sincerely,

Sean M. Donahue

What makes you think that people who work at a college or university don’t work? You think that people who work in higher education don’t work for a living? Have you ever worked in one? I’ve worked in the field for the past 10 years, and I have worked more than 70 hours a week, sometimes more, for the past 4 years. Even on “vacation”, I’m usually working. I don’t know anyone in the private sector who works more than I do. I’m sure there are some, but I don’t know any. However, those who work in the private sector are compensated more.

I don’t disagree with all of your points, however. The government’s issuing of financial aid has not kept up with the cost of education. I also agree that not everyone should go to college – not everyone wants to go and not everyone will benefit. And, that’s OK. Trade schools or other career options should be viewed as plausible career paths. Those pursuing them don’t need college degrees, however. These other paths are needed. I also agree that money should be available for other things, such as buying homes and starting businesses. However, they should not be the same types of loans used for education. I, too, have a lot of student loans for the accumulation of several degrees over the years. In fact, I could barely afford a home in a low-income neighborhood even with all of my degrees. Do I like sending on my enormous loan payments every month? No. But, I view these loans as an investment in myself, something that contributed to my ability to learn and grow, and something that without having borrowed, I wouldn’t be where I am today, professionally. You’re the missing the point of higher education – to educate our citizens so that we can be better citizens than we would have otherwise been.

All I said on this subject is that standard of living is more influenced by the economy than it is institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities don’t control the economy or the job market, yet you seem comfortable blaming higher education for macroeconomic problems rather than the policy makers who cause them, or the voters who elect the policy makers, or even the cyclical nature of all economies.

I agree that officials in higher education should choose their words carefully. If what you say is true (which is getting harder and harder to assume!), you were indeed misled, so take it out on the people who misled you instead of judging a group by the actions of a few (the very definition of prejudice).

“Further, your claims that individuals are held accountable for their bad and wrong decisions to go to college greatly contradicts your touting of higher education.”

Nobody said that either. We were talking about student loans, not the decision to go to college. There are other ways to pay for college, like working yourself through college. You seem to be making the assumption that student loans are the only way to go to college, and that our statements about financing apply to going to attending college in general. That is a logical fallacy.

Not all faculty members are equal. Likewise, not all institutions are equal. Yet you insist on treating them as though they are all the same. Don’t you see what’s wrong with that? Your judgments are based on your limited experiences, rather than an educated understanding of policy, assessment, and measured outcomes. Your definition of “success” is no narrow, it’s like you have blinders on.

Most of you repeatedly claim that college is a choice but then you add the propaganda that the person who gets a degree will live a more secure and a better economic quality of life. You follow through with the propaganda claiming that those without such a degree will liver an economically dismal life. Further, you are mixing degrees. I never said that technical training for a specific job with a specific predetermined outcome and income is a waster. It is not. The waste is in the traditional liberal arts education. The wast is also in all those clubs and symposiums. They are all funded by they are all funded by the universities but I don’t want such things being paid for with US government backed student loans, grants or GI Bills. Such expenditures should be prorated and voluntary. I am not willing to have our tax dollars pay for it.

Further, your claims that individuals are held accountable for their bad and wrong decisions to go to college greatly contradicts your touting of higher education. Why not be so negative towards the incoming classes? Why not give that hardline speech to applicants? Why not give that speech to parents and do so before they make a deposit? Why not put in very large bold print; It’s not our job to get you a job. That’s not what we do at this college or university and if you can’t make enough money to repay your student loans, that your problem!

None of you present the argument in this manner to prospective students. Yet, all of you have presented the argument in this manner to me.

You are free to decide that it is not your responsibility to focus higher education on jobs but I say that it is and I want US backed student loans to be restricted to only those schools that get people jobs making more money than they would without the degree or they refund the total cost of education. I feel that the US taxpayer would get much more for his or her money than is currently the case.

Under the current set of circumstances, there is so large an outstanding student loan balance in America, that it will never be repaid. Much of it will come out of the tax base in the year 2020 and then again in the years 2034 and 2035. Much more will inevitably be written down by the private sector. There is no way around it.

What must happen is that salaries on university and college campuses need to be reduced to 30,000 year. That is more than enough for an educator to make and certainly more than enough for a staffer to make. College degree programs must be indexed by the amount of money you get from completing them and the institutions of higher education must be held economically accountable, to include jailing university and college administrators for misleading and perpetuating a fraud on the American public.

I was explicitly told in numerous classrooms by college and university officials that I would make more money just by graduating. That did not materialize and I intend for the system to hold those individuals accountable to their words. I do not care how this sits with the academic community or its support staff. I am willing to see and want to see the US Congress enact a set of laws that will force the closure of liberal arts programs, end the finding of foreigners to attend American Ph.D. programs or any other program and restrict the use of resources to only those endeavors that get Americans jobs making more money than they ever could without the education. Otherwise, the education is worthless. Any and all training programs, any and all skill sets, as well as any and all knowledge that will lead to higher quality performance, higher quality technology, higher quality manufacturing, higher quality heath care and an over all higher quality of human condition must be prioritized to serve the needs and benefits of born Americans first.

We cannot make our country better and stronger and we cannot improve the material quality of life of our people if we keep wasting money on liberal arts, clubs, symposiums and all that other crap. College should be boot camp its responsibility should be to mass produce skilled individuals who can implement procedures in a uniformed and redundant manner that improved their quality of life first. Regardless, society has two choices; It can either force colleges and universities to get people with student loans job making more than enough money necessary to repay the loans and live a much better quality of life than could have been lived without the degrees or society can take the stance that you are taking and find itself refunding the cost of the education. One of you make the claim that this will never happen but you fail to see that it already has. The problem is that the refund comes from the tax base but the tax base does not have a recourse for then charging the cost of that refund to the college or university. Providing the US government with such a recourse is the next step that must be taken in the legislation.

Why should the government just cancel the remaining balances on student loans without making the colleges and universities then reimburse the government for its having extended that refund to the general public?

Lear you facts before you criticize me.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

I’ve tried to see your points, really.

> student loans aren’t forced on people is false.

I don’t see anyone putting a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to get a student loan. College education always has been and remains a choice.

> Anyone can get a degree in America. Most of the degrees are crap.

So in your thinking…colleges force people to take out student loans so they can get meaningless degrees.

> The bottom line is that an education does not result in s person making more money.

That is an untenable opinion. A person with a degree starting position out can expect a higher income than a person without a degree. Unfortunately, finding a job has gotten really difficult of late.

> college faculty and administrators will go back to making reasonable amounts of money

Again, an untenable opinion. I left the private sector and took a position at a university and lost income. I don’t whine/complain about it because I made the choice just as you did upon entering all of the under-graduate and post-graduate programs you listed in your 2 June post.

Thanks again for all of your opinions.

Um, yes, I do. Of course they do.

“Anyone can get a degree in America.”

If that’s the case, why do I see students flunk out? You are really showing your bias, and I think patently false statements like that are hurting your credibility.

“Also, your claim that student loans aren’t forced on people is false.”

Really? My father worked his way through college to become a civil engineer. I worked my way through college after he died. I haven’t taken out a single student loan in my pursuit of a degree. It took me longer to get a degree while working full time, but I would rather take longer to get my degree than CHOOSE to graduate with student loans weighing me down.

“Like I said, where is my additional million dollars and I want that additional million to be delivered in terms of NPV after the PV of the total cost of my education has been netted out of the equation.”

Good luck with that. It will never happen, not as long as this country remains free, and people are expected to face the repercussions of their choices. I know our litigious country seems to be trending towards an attitude that says, “I made bad choices, but I don’t want to suffer the consequences,” but I think your expectations exceed even that attitude.

Really, good luck with that. You are going to need help coping with defeat. I can tell.

You are wrong. There is a huge contradiction in America’s private student loan industry. It won’t be fixed without complaining and outrage. But you are are really assuming that colleges and universities do not play on peoples’ desires to make more money. That is a ridiculous viewpoint. Schools never tout the line about education being just for the sake of education until after they cash the check. You can’t really believe that all the emphasis on clubs, activities, symposiums and all the other crap that goes on in America’s institutes of higher learning truly add value. College and university degrees have become diluted. Anyone can get a degree in America. Most of the degrees are crap but then the people who get them meet govt. requirements to be teachers, servants and to take numerous licensing exams, even if they would have never been hired in previous generations.

Also, your claim that student loans aren’t forced on people is false. It is the only option for most people to attend college and university programs. Schools feed like predators on American student loans. Take away the loans and university & college faculty and administrators will go back to making reasonable amounts of money. I frankly have found that everything that anyone in a leadership position ever said to tout education was just something they said and also something that they too felt was untrue.

The bottom line is that an education does not result in s person making more money. The correlation between the two is not always backed by causation. Like I said, where is my additional million dollars and I want that additional million to be delivered in terms of NPV after the PV of the total cost of my education has been netted out of the equation.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

That is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are many philosophy majors tending bar, and many people like them who, despite the fact that they could have gotten their current jobs without their degree, value their experiences and their degrees.

The earning potential you attribute to a college degree is a value judgment you have made. You alone regard money as the only valid goal of a college degree. It isn’t. There are people majoring in theatre whose only goal is to volunteer in community theatre. There are people majoring in art who plan to create paintings and sculptures regardless of their monetary value, purely for the sake of creating art. Who are you to devalue the college degrees of people like this?

Employers decide who is worthy of a job, not a college. There are many employers who have standards higher than the school, so they only hire applicants with high GPAs.

Stop acting like student loans are something that has been inflicted upon you. If you chose to finance your college education that way, instead of paying as you go, live with the consequences of your decision. Man up. The fact that you chose to finance your education in such a way isn’t reason to blame colleges.

By the way, my previous comments were not slanderous. In order for it to be considered slander, something must be spoken. In writing, it’s considered libel.

Brian Williams, of NBC, is featuring excerpts of commencement speeches on his evening news broadcast. In one of them, some guy tells a graduating college class that “flipping burgers” is not beneath them. He said to the graduates; “Your grandparents called it opportunity.” The speaker was completely out of touch with the current circumstance of the graduates. Their grandparents didn’t have to make minimum student loan payments or have their credit ruined so that couldn’t buy a home, a car or have a credit card.

The academic community is completely out to lunch on the issue of “flipping burgers” despite having one or several degrees. I washed dishes and flipped burgers in high school but it sure did not pay enough to make minimum mandatory student loan payments. Further, “flipping burgers”‘ does not compensate one for the opportunity cost of their time and the opportunity cost of the taxpayers who are backing those student loans. What people do with their educations is not a matter of dignity, its a matter of NPV or ROI, whichever metric you prefer. The bottom line is this; If a degree does not lead a graduate to make more money than would have been the case without the degree, then the entire cost of the education was not worth the expenditure. If the best a university can come up with is “flipping burgers”, then the universities need to start refunding the full costs of the educations. GI Bills, Pell Grants, Veterans Grants, Scholarships, Student Loans and out of pocket payments all need to be refunded.

If a university or college makes the argument that the purpose of education is to make for better society, then knowing that they are making society better is tuition enough. Thus, they need to refund the total cost of education. Brian Williams’ tacit endorsing of the claim that “flipping burgers” is ok is an unacceptable waste of our tax dollars. If there are no better jobs available, then we should suspend student loans until the economy improves. We should also allow veterans to take the GI-Bill in a full cash payment. The current GI-Bill pays for a full 4 year degree at a state school. Since most state schools cost 25,000+ per year in tuition alone, why not let veterans just take the 100,000 cash after their first tour of duty? Why waste the money on a 4 year degree that leads to “flipping burgers”. Why waste our tax dollars by mandating that they flow towards universities and colleges? Why not let every American utilize the full amount of Stafford loans, Perkins Loans and any other government backed loans to buy a home, land, cars, boats, shares of stock or start a business? Why mandate that the only credit available to all Americans, regardless of financial status, must be used for education? If Stafford and Perkins loans could be used for buying shares of stock, land or a home and the same deferments were granted for unemployment or economic hardship and the very same IBR was available, Americans would be much better off using those loans for nice homes for their family. Then, at the end of 20 years, when the remaining balances are forgiven, American would have something tangible to show for their Stafford and Perkins loans.

Very few people truly benefit from their degrees anymore because so many people have them. If I could have used my student loans to make a cash purchase of gold, a home or land and qualified for unemployment deferment, I would be much better off when the 25 years runs out than I am now because I would have the gold, a home or land. That is much more American use of money than is education. We need to hold sales people and business accountable. Colleges and universities are no different. You buy their service because it is their job to make sure you get a job that is much better and pays much more money than you would ever make without an education. If they don’t deliver, then they need to be sued and the law should make doing so as easy as filling out an online form with the Department of Education. If congress mandates something like this, we will see unprecedented cooperation between colleges, universities, employers and clients (students). If college big shots risked being unemployed and working for a living, they would do anything necessary to ensure that each client got a job making lots of money. If they couldn’t deliver, they would quickly reduce their risk exposure by reducing admissions and by eliminating no performing academic programs and subjects that don’t make the client any money.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

“Your accusations regarding my academic background are slanderous and uncalled for. I did not ‘flunk out’ I was never ‘expelled’, nor has there ever been any disciplinary actions whatsoever.”

Are those really the only defining experiences you can think of that would explain your bias? It sounds like you “doth protest too much.”

Please don’t try to manufacture outrage by taking my comments out of context. I wrote, “I do not know if you flunked out, were expelled for cheating, or had some other defining experience that turned you against higher education, but it is quite obvious you have lost your objectivity.”

Like I said, your opinions are so far out of the mainstream, I don’t see the need to argue them.

There you go again, attempting to ignore my perspective as a student. Try all you want, but you can’t put labels on me that don’t fit.

I am surprised someone with all that education doesn’t know the difference between slander and libel. Slander is spoken. What you are accusing me of is libel.

Your accusations regarding my academic background are slanderous and uncalled for. I did not “flunk out” I was never “expelled”, nor has there ever been any disciplinary actions whatsoever. Why would you say such a thing? Your comment needs to be removed. Why did you even insinuate such things and why did they allow it to be posted?

I have a very different view of higher education than you do. I have made no attempt to conceal that. I also have an agenda and made no attempt to conceal that either.

The bottom line is universities do not get paid to do what you claim they are paid to do. They get paid to get graduates well paying jobs. Everything else is secondary. They are eating up too much of the wealth of the country and they are by no means responsible for the wealth of our country. Some are responsible for some of the wealth bus most academic programs in America have become degree mills.

Further, I am not opposed to Ph.D. level education and “knowledge” I respect economists, scientists and some social scientists but I do consider the vast majority of Ed.D and Phyco babble Ph.D.s to be bureaucrats and nothing more. Because they make their money from the bureaucracy, they promote any legislation that distributes more tax money their way. They also invent “bs” degree programs to keep the cash flowing. So, who is really wrong here? Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there is a huge student loan crisis in American and that crisis is derived from more than just a slow economy. The system of higher education should be merit based, not credit rating based.

You are assuming that America is actually benefitting from so many Americans having liberal arts degrees. I don’t think we are. Beyond that, people are beginning to believe that all degrees are created equal, when they are not and that all schools are created equal, when they are not. So lets be blunt. There are too many Americans walking around with college degrees and the watering down effect is hurting all of us who have a real education. But this does not relieve the colleges and universities of the responsibility of ensuring that their degrees lead to graduates making much more money than would the case without the degree. But you tell me, if the degrees do not lead to graduates making more money than would be the case without the money, then where will the future money come from to pay the mounting student loan balance in out country? If those loans are not paid, then where will the money to continue providing student loans come from? I see a system that is going to eventually come tumbling down, just like the mortgage backed security industry does and colleges and universities are doing nothing to address the matter. The only thing they can do is cut costs. To cut costs, they need to get rid of staff, reduce salaries and stop wasting money on campus life. Instead of putting the money in to fluffy and useless crap, the money needs to go into hard science labs, tech training and paying for Americans to learn such things.

This is my education;
Dickinson College, BA Major 1: International Studies, Major 2 East Asian Studies, 1997
(Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude)
Columbia University, MIA (Concentration International Finance and Business), SIPA 2001
Columbia University, MA Statistics 2005
Mandarin Chinese, Middlebury College Levels 3,4,5
Mandarin Chinese Indiana-U, CET Beijing Level 1
Study Abroad at Yonsei in Korea
Two semesters of physics and science courses at Penn State Hazleton
Additional coursework taken at ever military instillation where I was stationed.

I have reached my views as a result of getting this education. You aren’t right. You think you are because you work at a university and see that side of the industry. You need to keep yourself fed and the policies and laws we have now do that for you. But I see the need for the universities to lose the authority complexes and cease viewing themselves as little governments that make their own laws. There is a consumer revolution going on in our country and consumers are gaining more rights. There is no reason that those rights should not apply to consuming education. But the bigger problem is moral hazard by the universities and colleges that don’t bear any of the risk in a student loan defaulting due to inability to pay. That needs to change. It is fair and reasonable to make the colleges and universities bear the risk of their degrees causing their graduates to make more money than could be made without the degrees.

WE NEED PRIVATE STUDENT LOAN REFORM!

WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT STUDENT LOAN REFORM!

WE NEED TO HOLD COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE RISK OF EDUCATION!

If a company promised me at least $1million more in earning throughout my lifetime if I bought their product, I would be able to sue. So the same needs to be true of colleges and universities. People who work on staffs at universities and colleges, especially those with degrees in education itself for phyco babble, always believe that their program is useful and always refuse to be held accountable because if they were, they would be the first to go and the engineering programs would get the money. I agree with this. Engineers design ships, planes and machines and technicians build them. Accountants force MBA’s to cut costs and Lawyers ensure that the interests of all parties are addressed and that a striking point is met. They are the ones who keep the nation strong. So do the med doctors and soldiers. But the teachers in America, the professors in American and the university staffs and college staffs in America have become bureaucrats and greedy bureaucrats at that.

If the universities do not fix this problem, then in the next 20 years, when the congress gets tired of paying off student loans, when the banks begin to demand a congressional bailout for non-performing private student loans, when the public begins choosing not to go to college and when local communities begin to demand that colleges and universities pay both income and property tax, you will come around to see my side of the story. The system is economically unsustainable and if the players in the system do not fix it, a solution will be forced upon them from the outside. I have proposed that solution in my posts on this web blog.

LET THE AGENDA BE HEARD!

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Treating students as customers would effectively give them influence over curriculum and academic standards. Don’t you think that is a little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house? Academic standards would suffer to accommodate the many students who don’t want to do the work for a college education. Treating students as the product instead of the customer ensures high quality standards can be maintained, in spite of the protests of students who want a college diploma without the college education.

If we followed your advice, not only would we lose our position as a country that is one of the best at providing higher education, we would give the most influence to the people who pay only a relatively small portion of tuition expenses. Like I said, students only pay between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total cost of an in-state public college education. The rest is subsidized by the state. If students paid what a public college education is really worth, that would be a different story. All of your opinions seem to be based on the illusion that students pay the full cost of a public college education. You must be living in a bubble.

I noticed you conveniently concentrated as my status as a staff member, but conveniently ignored my status as a student. I have been a student longer, and my views are influenced by both experiences.

It is obvious you have an agenda, and that you do not value doctorate level knowledge. I am not going to fight you over your hair-brained opinions. You can keep them. Fortunately, your ideas are so wacky, and out of the mainstream, that I do not need to worry about them ever being enacted.

You do not do a very good job of hiding your bias in this issue. You obviously do have a wild hair up your ____ about higher education. I do not know if you flunked out, were expelled for cheating, or had some other defining experience that turned you against higher education, but it is quite obvious you have lost your objectivity.

I don’t disagree with you on the point that the views that you present are the views that colleges have of themselves and the client institutional relationship. I disagree with allowing them to go on maintaining these views. I disagree with those values being the values of most higher educational institutions. I do agree with the lofty nature of Yale and Harvard but I disagree with too much loftiness amongst too many colleges and universities. I greatly disagree with allowing government student loans, Gi Bills or grants for the purposes that you state. One reason I disagree is because I do not believe that the “colleges and universities” are even attempting to accomplish the missions that you claim they are, nor do I think they are capable of accomplishing that lofty mission. Instead, I believe that most of them use that lofty mission to evade being sued for not getting their graduates jobs.

But you are greatly downplaying the commercial relationship of higher education. It is ridiculous to state that the employers are the customers. Suppose the student wants to be self employed? The client is the one paying the bill and it is the students who are paying the bill. The laws governing both higher education institutions and student loans need to be changed so that if a client (the student) walks onto your campus, it is clear to you who is in charge and that is the person paying the bill, not you and not the school, unless you are paying the student to be there. This needs to be written into law as the defining characteristic of the relationship. Even the for profit schools that you speak of seem to harbor (hide behind) the philosophies that you are citing as the values of higher education in America. But we part way in that I believe that most of the institutions in the US, including the ones you cite, and their brethren, have also invented many cash cow programs that are explicitly marketed on the basis of promising commercial rewards for the graduates but then the schools hide behind the values you cite. Yet, those values aren’t part of the program. They are legalese to avoid being sued.

In short, the best way to solve the problem at hand it needs to be defined. I think the problem is this; Higher education costs a ridiculously high amount and at such high prices, universities and colleges must be held accountable for ensuring that graduates make much more money than would have been the case without the degree. I think the best way to solve this problem is to put it into law that universities and colleges must ensure well paying jobs or refund the total cost of the education. I believe that doing this will put many schools out of business (for that is all they are) and force many other schools to get rid of the cash cow programs that use and abuse both students and American student loan availability. There is a lot of administrative bureaucracy at colleges and universities because there is so much money available for them. But because the money must come from student loans, what happens is that every American is targeted for a degree or a certificate of some kind so that the schools can get more money. If they don’t want to suffer a loss in prestige, they invent programs for lesser minds and then march the people through. Then when employers ask what is the difference between all these programs, they say programs (1,2,3 and 4) all take the same classes but the students are arranged by order of quality, intellect and competitiveness. These schools never put this in the mission statements, nor in the puff pieces they send to the paying clients, the students.

You can fight me if you like but, our country, including and especially universities, is increasingly filled with people on staffs of organizations who have no real rigorous advanced educations, just degrees. What is more, there are so many of these people on staff at liberal arts colleges and especially at satellite campuses, that the Ed.Ds and phyco babble Ph.D. keep inventing distribution requirement after distribution requirement after distribution requirement. In the U.S., a person with a 2 year tech degree has to fill about 1 year worth of academic time with academic distribution requirements in liberal arts courses. This is unacceptable and a big waste of government student loans and a big waste of the property and income tax breaks that we grant to universities. Lets face it, if a university campus, especially a satellite campus wants money, it will invent a crappy 4 year degree to keep two year degree student on campus for 4 years and hire 5 to 10 more people for support positions to make put some cushioning in place so there is a long list of people who would need to be fired or let go before you ever get to the senior bureaucrats or administrators, or begin discussing closing or downsizing the campus.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue